PDA

View Full Version : Not signing Hartwell is unacceptable.


the Talking Can
03-04-2005, 08:53 PM
It is that simple.

Giving a $15 mill bonus to Rolle while letting a MLB walk out the door is what stupid teams do.

htismaqe
03-04-2005, 08:53 PM
Yep.

Hartwell should be the primary target.

TEX
03-04-2005, 08:56 PM
Yep.

Hartwell should be the primary target.

Absolutely. Sometimes the backwards- ass thinking is pathetic. :shake:

KCFalcon59
03-04-2005, 08:59 PM
I agree. Absolutely unacceptable. Hartwell should have been signed by now.

jspchief
03-04-2005, 09:00 PM
Yep.

Hartwell should be the primary target.
I don't know...

I've been pimping the need for LBs as much as anyone, but I shudder to think we could go into the season with the same secondary as last year. If I had to choose at gunpoint, and we only got one guy, I have to say that CB is top priority.

Chris Landry on Fox sports radio just said that We're very serious about both Rolle and Hartwell, but we have to get the Rolle deal done to know if we can get Hartwell. he said they are working hard to get Rolle done tonight.

Dave Lane
03-04-2005, 09:02 PM
We need a captain on this defense that knows how to play with a quality D. That person is Hartwell. If we only get Rolle or Hartwell i want Hartwell. No more excuses. Bell is the only other MLB out there that is worth more than Scanlon.

Dave

htismaqe
03-04-2005, 09:20 PM
I don't know...

I've been pimping the need for LBs as much as anyone, but I shudder to think we could go into the season with the same secondary as last year. If I had to choose at gunpoint, and we only got one guy, I have to say that CB is top priority.

Chris Landry on Fox sports radio just said that We're very serious about both Rolle and Hartwell, but we have to get the Rolle deal done to know if we can get Hartwell. he said they are working hard to get Rolle done tonight.

That's what I've heard as well. We need to finish the Rolle deal so that we can figure out how to fit Hartwell in.

I still feel confident we'll get both.

PastorMikH
03-04-2005, 09:30 PM
You know, I've been thinking here, if the $ is an issue, why aren't we talking to some of our high-priced offensive players about restructuring? I'll bet Trent would like his own Superbowl, Tony G and Will Shields would like to play in one too. If $ for D players is what is keeping them from it, maybe they'd be willing to restructure.

For that matter, why not talk to Woods, Hicks, and the others on D. Explain to them that they sucked last year and didn't earn their $ so the least they could do is restucture some deals to free up some cash for some signings.



Part of me just feels like if $ really is the issue, we'd find a way to free some up like about 16 other teams have done. Also, if $ were the issue, we'd have spent all of our cap $ the 2 previous years instead of sitting on it throughout the season.

siberian khatru
03-04-2005, 09:31 PM
You know, I've been thinking here, if the $ is an issue, why aren't we talking to some of our high-priced offensive players about restructuring?

I bet we are. That's why this is taking so long.

Edit: That's one reason this is taking so long.

Dayze
03-04-2005, 09:35 PM
let's ask our recently signed safeties to restructure. Tell them 'you'll get your cash back when you get your head out of your a** on the field".

I can't believe the dramatic drop off of those guys last year. I was a huge Wesley fan for a while.

Not anymore. That guys a tackling machine without the batteries.

jspchief
03-04-2005, 09:38 PM
You know, I've been thinking here, if the $ is an issue, why aren't we talking to some of our high-priced offensive players about restructuring? I'll bet Trent would like his own Superbowl, Tony G and Will Shields would like to play in one too. If $ for D players is what is keeping them from it, maybe they'd be willing to restructure.

For that matter, why not talk to Woods, Hicks, and the others on D. Explain to them that they sucked last year and didn't earn their $ so the least they could do is restucture some deals to free up some cash for some signings.



Part of me just feels like if $ really is the issue, we'd find a way to free some up like about 16 other teams have done. Also, if $ were the issue, we'd have spent all of our cap $ the 2 previous years instead of sitting on it throughout the season.

We are trying to restructure guys. That's another thing that Landry said, part of the hold-up is getting the money freed up.

BigRedChief
03-04-2005, 09:39 PM
The Hartwell we will never see :banghead:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/hellrazorradio/chiefs/hartwellasachief.jpg

Mr. Laz
03-04-2005, 10:26 PM
We are trying to restructure guys. That's another thing that Landry said, part of the hold-up is getting the money freed up.

how do we know that they are trying to restructure guys?

Bowser
03-04-2005, 10:42 PM
I like the idea of getting Woods, Wesley, Browning, and Bartee all to re-structure, as well. But the problem is those guys have the Chiefs by the short hairs. The Chiefs can't force them to restructure, and they can't release them all after they all signed six year deals. Cap hell would eat this team alive. This piss poor decision to keep all of our shitty FA's at the beginning of 2004 cost us then, and it is damn well costing us now. Because of that colossal **** up in judgement (and yes, hindsight is 20/20), we can't afford to get the players we need to turn this thing around. People can bitch about Lamar's unwillingness to dig into his pockets, and rightfully so, but Carl's unforgiveable faux pas in deciding to keep these lumps is as much too blame as to why we can't just bring in 3 or 4 FA's now.

As much as Carl is deserved credit for turning this team around, he should be just as villified for screwing this team into the ground IF the Chiefs fall flat on their faces this coming year. This is Carl's legacy year, the one he will be remembered for. So far, he's not exactly quick out of the gates.

milkman
03-04-2005, 10:51 PM
It is that simple.

Giving a $15 mill bonus to Rolle while letting a MLB walk out the door is what stupid teams do.

Abso****inLutely

jspchief
03-04-2005, 10:53 PM
how do we know that they are trying to restructure guys?

Well I don't know it for fact I guess, but Chris Landry reported on Fox radio that his source with the Chiefs said that's what they are doing. It's not directly out of the horses mouth, but I consider it a fairly credible source.

matts22
03-04-2005, 11:10 PM
I just posted in another thread.

Basically, CB's are way overpriced.

I agree, why not get Hartwell AND Bell, and a servicable CB instead?

SCTrojan
03-04-2005, 11:20 PM
I like the idea of getting Woods, Wesley, Browning, and Bartee all to re-structure, as well. But the problem is those guys have the Chiefs by the short hairs. The Chiefs can't force them to restructure, and they can't release them all after they all signed six year deals. Cap hell would eat this team alive. This piss poor decision to keep all of our shitty FA's at the beginning of 2004 cost us then, and it is damn well costing us now.



If signing bonuses and contracts work the way I think they work, then I agree with you. I think regretting Woods' signing is "20/20 hingsight" because he was an all-pro in 2003. The rest, arguably, were bad signings.

BTW, I think signing bonuses can be spread over the life of a contract. So, if you give 15 mil to Rolle and sign him to a 6-year, 30 mill contract, then (assuming you're paying him 5 mill a year salary) he is a 7.5 mill hit on your cap per year. If we let him go prior to the end of the contract, then what's left over from the 15 mill signing bonus hits our cap all at one time.

The Bad Guy
03-04-2005, 11:30 PM
I just posted in another thread.

Basically, CB's are way overpriced.

I agree, why not get Hartwell AND Bell, and a servicable CB instead?

Because Bell is injury prone at 25. Why tie up millions in a guy who can't stay on the field?

Logical
03-04-2005, 11:46 PM
I like the idea of getting Woods, Wesley, Browning, and Bartee all to re-structure, as well. But the problem is those guys have the Chiefs by the short hairs. The Chiefs can't force them to restructure, and they can't release them all after they all signed six year deals. Cap hell would eat this team alive. This piss poor decision to keep all of our shitty FA's at the beginning of 2004 cost us then, and it is damn well costing us now. Because of that colossal **** up in judgement (and yes, hindsight is 20/20), we can't afford to get the players we need to turn this thing around. People can bitch about Lamar's unwillingness to dig into his pockets, and rightfully so, but Carl's unforgiveable faux pas in deciding to keep these lumps is as much too blame as to why we can't just bring in 3 or 4 FA's now.

As much as Carl is deserved credit for turning this team around, he should be just as villified for screwing this team into the ground IF the Chiefs fall flat on their faces this coming year. This is Carl's legacy year, the one he will be remembered for. So far, he's not exactly quick out of the gates.

Actually I think on Woods and Bartee we would be somewhat cap positive on each if we cut them. I was trying to find the thread where the entire teams pro-rated bonuses and salaries fpr the upcoming year were listed but I gave up. But as I recall for those two the salary was higher than the bonus and since the salary does not get paid or count if released that would help.

Finally all those who know me will be amazed but I am pleased with Carl's efforts so far this free agent season, but it is early. If he fails to sign any of these key FAs that will change quickly.

mcan
03-04-2005, 11:47 PM
The 15 million would get pro-rated over the life of the contract. However, he wouldn't get 5 million a year on top of that. He would probably get the league minimum for the first 2 years, maybe a million the third, 1.5 mil the fourth, then the big years would be 5 and 6... They always back load deals to make them look sweet, and give the team options. Of course the player loves it too, because if they get kept, then they get huge paychecks. If they get cut then they're a free agent again, and get a signing bonus when they latch on with a new team...

|Zach|
03-04-2005, 11:48 PM
Finally all those who know me will be amazed
Hey wait...I know you...

You owe me $20.

SCTrojan
03-04-2005, 11:51 PM
The 15 million would get pro-rated over the life of the contract. However, he wouldn't get 5 million a year on top of that. He would probably get the league minimum for the first 2 years, maybe a million the third, 1.5 mil the fourth, then the big years would be 5 and 6... They always back load deals to make them look sweet, and give the team options. Of course the player loves it too, because if they get kept, then they get huge paychecks. If they get cut then they're a free agent again, and get a signing bonus when they latch on with a new team...

Thanks for clearing that up for me. :thumb:

mcan
03-04-2005, 11:57 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for me. :thumb:


Welcome...

Logical
03-05-2005, 12:00 AM
Hey wait...I know you...

You owe me $20.I will send it to you in Green stamps.

|Zach|
03-05-2005, 12:05 AM
I will send it to you in Green stamps.
Vlad is famous for luring young bulls into the ring....

And cutting them down.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2005, 12:25 AM
Vlad is famous for luring young bulls into the ring....

And cutting them down.

He IS a tease; then he fuggs you up. No doubt. :shake:

:p

Logical
03-05-2005, 12:32 AM
He IS a tease; then he fuggs you up. No doubt. :shake:

:p

Now that I know I am a liberal my views on everything seem different. :)

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2005, 12:37 AM
Now that I know I am a liberal my views on everything seem different. :)

You aren't "liberal" despite what Russ's son says; you are just "misguided" on a couple of social issues...you do live in CA, so we'll forgive you. Heh. :p

htismaqe
03-05-2005, 04:50 AM
how do we know that they are trying to restructure guys?

how do we know that they are NOT?

:D

Ultra Peanut
03-05-2005, 04:59 AM
I still feel confident we'll get both.Aww, well isn't that cute...

<img src="http://emc.elte.hu/~m/old/2sd/gif&jpg/Mrhcute.gif" style="width: 320px; height: 256px; border: 0" alt="" />

BUT IT'S WRONG!

<img src="http://emc.elte.hu/~m/old/2sd/gif&jpg/Snacks.gif" style="width: 320px; height: 256px; border: 0" alt="" />

patteeu
03-05-2005, 08:56 AM
let's ask our recently signed safeties to restructure. Tell them 'you'll get your cash back when you get your head out of your a** on the field".

I can't believe the dramatic drop off of those guys last year. I was a huge Wesley fan for a while.

Not anymore. That guys a tackling machine without the batteries.

Generally, restructuring the contract of a guy will make it even more painful to get rid of him in the future. For the sake of conversation, let's say that the Chiefs think Wesley is on his last legs and that, absent his bonus last season, he would have been cut. Restructuring him this season will put the Chiefs back in the same position next season, i.e. it will increase the pain of parting with him in the future. It's better to restructure the contract of a guy you think has a future with the team, like Tony Gonzales. I'm not sure how retirements affect the cap, but I'd guess that they aren't as painful, capwise, as releases, so restructuring Priest Holmes probably makes more sense than Wesley in this example too

The primary exception to this general rule is if you ask a guy to take a base salary pay cut without an up-front bonus for doing so. But that only works if you have the willingness to cut the guy if he refuses because otherwise there's very little incentive on the players part to agree to such a cut.

siberian khatru
03-05-2005, 09:02 AM
The 15 million would get pro-rated over the life of the contract. However, he wouldn't get 5 million a year on top of that. He would probably get the league minimum for the first 2 years, maybe a million the third, 1.5 mil the fourth, then the big years would be 5 and 6... They always back load deals to make them look sweet, and give the team options. Of course the player loves it too, because if they get kept, then they get huge paychecks. If they get cut then they're a free agent again, and get a signing bonus when they latch on with a new team...

Yep. In the NFL, where contracts aren't guaranteed, it's all about the signing bonus -- upfront money. That's different from baseball, where contracts ARE guaranteed, and the length of the deal is often the sticking point more than the yearly salary. Many deals fall apart because a team won't give the player an extra year. Players crave that security (who wouldn't?).

patteeu
03-05-2005, 09:06 AM
I like the idea of getting Woods, Wesley, Browning, and Bartee all to re-structure, as well. But the problem is those guys have the Chiefs by the short hairs. The Chiefs can't force them to restructure, and they can't release them all after they all signed six year deals. Cap hell would eat this team alive. This piss poor decision to keep all of our shitty FA's at the beginning of 2004 cost us then, and it is damn well costing us now. Because of that colossal **** up in judgement (and yes, hindsight is 20/20), we can't afford to get the players we need to turn this thing around. People can bitch about Lamar's unwillingness to dig into his pockets, and rightfully so, but Carl's unforgiveable faux pas in deciding to keep these lumps is as much too blame as to why we can't just bring in 3 or 4 FA's now.

As much as Carl is deserved credit for turning this team around, he should be just as villified for screwing this team into the ground IF the Chiefs fall flat on their faces this coming year. This is Carl's legacy year, the one he will be remembered for. So far, he's not exactly quick out of the gates.

Adding a disclaimer like "(and yes, hindsight is 20/20)" doesn't mean much when you go on to ignore your own words and suggest that Carl's decision to re-sign Chiefs FA's in 2004 (made without the benefit of that 20/20 hindsight, BTW) is an "unforgiveable faux pas" or "a piss poor decision" or a "colossal **** up in judgement." Woods was a pro bowler in 2004 and many thought Wesley outplayed him. Peterson should have a better handle on these guy's abilities than the average fan, but the weight of the evidence, IMO, is on the side of Carl Peterson making a reasonable decision that didn't work out very well in the case of these two guys.

Hydrae
03-05-2005, 10:40 AM
Why are we just now trying to restructure guys (assuming we are)? Isn't that something that should have happened BEFORE free agency started?

Bowser
03-05-2005, 10:48 AM
Adding a disclaimer like "(and yes, hindsight is 20/20)" doesn't mean much when you go on to ignore your own words and suggest that Carl's decision to re-sign Chiefs FA's in 2004 (made without the benefit of that 20/20 hindsight, BTW) is an "unforgiveable faux pas" or "a piss poor decision" or a "colossal **** up in judgement." Woods was a pro bowler in 2004 and many thought Wesley outplayed him. Peterson should have a better handle on these guy's abilities than the average fan, but the weight of the evidence, IMO, is on the side of Carl Peterson making a reasonable decision that didn't work out very well in the case of these two guys.

I'm willing to listen to the arguement that Woods was a Pro Bowler (in '03, mind you ;) ) and that Wesley was an up-and-comer. You can even say that these two played with and through various injuries through the '04 season. That being said, where was his "handle on those guys' abilities" when he made it a priority to re-up Browning, Bartee, and Hicks? They might be good guys and hellacious practice field performers, but none of them have earned the spot of being "priority" re-signs.

I'll give ground when it comes to Woods and Wesley, but I stand by my assertion for the others that it was "an unforgiveable faux pas", "piss poor desicion", and/or a "colossal **** up".

Cochise
03-05-2005, 10:49 AM
Why are we just now trying to restructure guys (assuming we are)? Isn't that something that should have happened BEFORE free agency started?

Very fair question.

crossbow
03-05-2005, 01:28 PM
Why are we just now trying to restructure guys (assuming we are)? Isn't that something that should have happened BEFORE free agency started?

It would have been nice to be PREPAIRED which implies skillful evaluation. At what point did they realize after three years of the worst defense in the NFL that there was a personel problem?

the Talking Can
03-05-2005, 01:31 PM
It would have been nice to be PREPAIRED which implies skillful evaluation. At what point did they realize after three years of the worst defense in the NFL that there was a personel problem?

tomorrow?