The Kansas City Chiefs’ handling of cornerback L’Jarius Sneed might land the organization in trouble. The Chiefs intend to trade Sneed to the Tennessee Titans in exchange for a third-round and seventh-round pick.
The Chiefs made the transaction just a few weeks after applying the franchise tag to Sneed. The timing of the transaction was curious because the Chiefs did not receive the second-round pick they desired. They settled for a third-round pick and change in order to free up about $19.8 million in cap room to sign more free agents this summer.
The KC Chiefs made a questionable trade.
The Chiefs’ decision stunned Jeff Howe of The Athletic. He rated the Chiefs a “F” for the transaction since they lost a vital contributor for their three-peat and would not receive much more than if Sneed left Kansas City as a free agent:
If he had gone in free agency a year from now, he would have most likely helped the Chiefs land a 2026 third-round compensation draft pick. So the Chiefs gave up a season of Sneed for a superior third-round pick a year earlier. That rationale may hold true for certain teams, but it does not make sense for a consistent Super Bowl contender in the midst of a dynasty.
Granted, even if the Chiefs won a compensatory third, it would have been lower than the Titans’ third-round pick.
Did the Chiefs violate CBA regulations when they traded L’Jarius Sneed?
Mike Florio of NBC Sports was likewise perplexed by the Chiefs’ choice and believes the front administration may have flirted with violating Collective Bargaining Agreement guidelines on the subject. Florio believes the Chiefs did not intend to extend Sneed when they placed the franchise tag on him, which is not permitted under the NFLPA’s current rules.
“At some point, that approach may violate Article 4, Section 8(b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states that “[a] Club extending a Required Tender must, for as long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.”
It is not intended to be a means for exchanging the player. The squad is expected to want to keep the player for at least another season. In this situation, it might be argued (by Sneed or the NFL Players Association) that the Chiefs did not have a good faith intention to employ Sneed in 2024.”
The Chiefs’ choice to tag and sell Sneed for a little more than a compensatory pick raises serious concerns since it indicates that the team was not interested in keeping him for the 2024 season, when Sneed could have become a free agency in 2025.
There haven’t been many rumors of the Chiefs and Sneed actually negotiating a long-term contract. The most I’ve seen is Sneed expressing his desire to remain in Kansas City. According to Nate Taylor of The Athletic, the Chiefs believe they have enough skill in their secondary to be fine for the upcoming season, especially if they acquire help at cornerback in the draft.
The Chiefs’ willingness to deal Sneed stems from their success in discovering and selecting talented cornerbacks in the draft. Without Sneed, the Chiefs would still have three starting-caliber players: Trent McDuffie, Joshua Williams, and Jaylen Watson.
Sneed lost leverage during the tag and exchange.
The ugly aspect of this “business” decision is that it was a planned choice by the Chiefs front management to screw over Sneed during contract negotiations. This is why the move may not have been legal if the Chiefs did not intend to keep Sneed. According to Florio, Sneed will lose money by not entering free agency:
“That’s the problem, according to Sneed. Whatever contract he signs with the Titans, he may have made more if he had become an unrestricted free agency on the opening day of the 2024 signing period.”
Now it is up to the NFLPA to investigate whether the Chiefs were interested in keeping Sneed for the 2024 season or beyond.
Leave a Reply