Understanding both sides of the Chiefs contract negotiations with Chris Jones

Conclusion

Fantastic, so what does this all this mean and why does it matter? First, I’ll re-clarify the main point. This contract negotiation is all about guaranteed money. Neither side cares very much about the total number, within reason.

When you see reports that Jones and the Chiefs are far away on their guaranteed money number, that’s just good negotiation. Some may disagree about minor details, but there are generally four things that parties enter into negotiations with.

The first, and most important because it will shape the three others, is your target. Smart negotiators understand that they’re unlikely to hit the target, but the main idea is to get close. On the flip side, the second piece is your reservation point. Simply put, at what level are you willing to walk away with the understanding that a deal will not get done. This is a very serious thing to consider for both parties. If both Jones and the Chiefs want to get a deal done, they actively have to consider the other party’s reservation point in order to avoid it. Even hinting at the reservation point for a party can cause serious problems in negotiations. This happens all the time.

The third is your range. This is the difference between your reservation point and the highest value that you believe you can achieve from the negotiation. It’s important to note that this is not the difference between your target and your reservation point. In fact, this is where the confusion for outsiders usually lies. Smart negotiators begin at a number they know they will likely not achieve. This may seem counterintuitive, but an important negotiating tactic is to ensure the other party believes you have given up something in the negotiation.

The highest value must be a reasonable distance from your target if you expect to achieve your target. Why? Because it’s human nature to expect compromise, but most people naturally won’t expect another party to give up too much. Seasoned negotiators usually have a great understanding of an effective range for their respective targets.

The final piece is your best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This is more applicable to negotiations where there’s some positivity to a deal not getting done. It doesn’t apply as well here because both sides want to get a deal done and there’s virtually no positivity to the alternative. However, it’s still existent in the process. Think about Le’Veon Bell. While I admit his negotiations did not turn out very well for him, his best alternative to a negotiated agreement was not playing for a season. This is an extreme one, and one that I doubt Jones’ advisors would endorse it given how poorly it turned out for Bell.

So what’s an example of an effective alternative in this situation? In Jones case, he knows a deal will get done so his best alternative to a negotiated agreement in the meantime is to skip offseason activities. Unfortunately for players in the current collective bargaining agreement, it’s the only measurable way they can create leverage. Coaches want their players in the building, and by not showing up, it puts pressure on the front office to acquiesce at least in part to the player’s demands. It’s also why the team requested he come to minicamp in order to continue negotiations. They are attempting to reduce his leverage.

Let’s recap. In negotiations, both parties begin with a target and a range, the range being based off of their desired target. The player’s target will likely always be slightly higher than the front office’s target, but it’s unlikely that they are worlds apart because the market is pre-determined. In most cases when you hear negotiations are far apart it’s because negotiators on both sides are slowly working from their best outcome to their target, attempting to build as much leverage as they possibly can along the way. This is just how things are done and why there’s no reason to be concerned about the Jones’ negotiations.