The Kansas City Chiefs may face problems as a result of the manner they handled their dealings with cornerback L’Jarius Sneed. Sneed will be traded by the Chiefs to the Tennessee Titans in return for a third- and seventh-round pick.
A few weeks after Sneed was given the franchise tag by the Chiefs, the decision was made. The Chiefs didn’t receive the second-round pick they desired, thus the timing of the trade was peculiar. In an attempt to free up almost $19.8 million in cap space to sign more free agents this summer, they settled for a third-round pick and change.
The Athletic’s Jeff Howe was astounded by the Chiefs’ decision. Because the Chiefs lost a vital player for their three-peat and didn’t stand to gain significantly more than if Sneed had left Kansas City as a free agency, he assigned the Chiefs a “F” grade for the trade:
It’s also possible that if he had entered free agency a year earlier, he would have assisted the Chiefs in obtaining a 2026 third-round compensation pick. Thus, a year prior, the Chiefs forfeited Sneed’s season in exchange for a superior third-round selection. That reasoning might hold water for certain teams, but it is less logical for a dynasty-spanning Super Bowl favorite.
Granted, the Chiefs’ compensatory third would have been less than what the Titans were scheduled to select in the third even if they had gotten one.
The Chiefs’ choice also perplexed Mike Florio of NBC Sports, who believes the front management may have toyed with violating Collective Bargaining Agreement restrictions. Florio suggests that when the Chiefs applied the franchise tag to Sneed, they did not intend to extend him, which is under the current NFLPA rules:
That strategy might eventually violate Article 4, Section 8(b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states that Club extending a Required Tender must have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season, for as long as that Tender is extended.”
It’s not meant to be a tool for player trades. At the very least, the team should wish to retain the player for a further season. In this instance, one could argue—if Sneed or the NFL Players Association were motivated to do so—that the Chiefs had no genuine intention of hiring Sneed in 2024.
