The cons of a Ridley trade
The availability of Calvin Ridley and his potential talent right in his prime should override most concerns, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any cons to this sort of situation.
Earlier we pointed to the lack of wear and tear in the 2021 season as part of what could keep him fresh, but the major variable for any team going forward is going to be measuring his desire to play professional football. The Indianapolis Colts saw Andrew Luck walk away from the game, and the Falcons certainly could not have been enthused to lose their top target, especially after trading Jones to the Titans.
That’s not to say Ridley shouldn’t have done what he did. The game is just a game when someone’s mental health is at risk, and a player should be applauded for putting things in their right order of priority. However, speaking from a team’s perspective, any franchise is going to want to gain a return on the investments they make and it’s only natural to ask questions about Ridley’s future and overall commitment after a season like this one.
That’s going to be especially true because any team dealing for Ridley is going to want to lock him up to a long-term extension. While it’s nice to have the year left on his current deal to evaluate things, the truth is that the Falcons are going to want some considerable investments back in order to trade Ridley in the first place. They invested a first-round pick and hit the jackpot, and it’s likely they will want that level of an asset in return.
What might help here is knowing the Chiefs are also guaranteed two third-round picks in the next two years from losing Ryan Poles to the Chicago Bears to be their next general manager. Those are tradable picks and/or could be used as a comfort when trading higher-quality assets in a deal like this.
The Chiefs really don’t seem to have a problem trading some of their top picks, but they also like to lock up those veterans when they do. Frank Clark got a new deal when the Chiefs traded for him from the Seattle Seahawks. Orlando Brown Jr. is also going to get a new deal from the Chiefs soon enough after coming over from the Baltimore Ravens. It won’t have to happen right away but that will undoubtedly be part of the conversation, which will require asking Ridley, “What do you think of signing with K.C. for the long term?”
The other thing that needs to be noted here is the aforementioned deal that Tyreek Hill is going to need. Hill is in the same age range, and it stands to reason whether or not the Chiefs might want to stagger things. Do they gamble and use a first-round pick to gain someone a few years younger than Hill who is also a lot cheaper at WR2? Do they take the safer route and pay two great wideouts in the same age range?
Nothing is cut and dry here. Perhaps Ridley wouldn’t cost a first-round pick, but given the level of likely competition for his services, it doesn’t feel wrong to assume someone would pay handsomely. We’re not sure it’s the Chiefs, but it’s worth the conversation.