PDA

View Full Version : how many here want Ty Law a Chief?


RedThat
07-08-2005, 03:03 PM
just a simple yes or no

chief4life
07-08-2005, 03:06 PM
Lets say this with me HELL YES!!!!!!!!

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 03:09 PM
Now that we've signed an insurance policy (Ambrose) there's no reason not to sign Law.

keg in kc
07-08-2005, 03:55 PM
Why wouldn't anyone want him.

Scorp
07-08-2005, 03:57 PM
Why wouldn't anyone want him.


Exactly......... this is the year to make a run for the superbowl. Now or never. :banghead:

Thig Lyfe
07-08-2005, 03:58 PM
Yes I want Law. But will we actually get Law? I doubt it.

HemiEd
07-08-2005, 03:58 PM
Why wouldn't anyone want him.

Call me a skeptic that all of these new egos are going to melt together into a team. Damn, I hope they do, but I have no confidence that they would if Law was in the mix. :shrug:

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 03:59 PM
Yes I want Law. But will we actually get Law? I doubt it.

He's come down from wanting to be the highest-paid CB in the league to $6M to $4M in just a few weeks.

Pretty soon he'll realize what it's going to take to get a team to sign him...he could yet be a Chief.

redbrian
07-08-2005, 03:59 PM
Only at the right price, I don't want to see the Chiefs throw a bunch of money at him and then have him be a bust.

shakesthecat
07-08-2005, 04:03 PM
Of course

Rausch
07-08-2005, 04:04 PM
Being that we can't just summon a Probowl level CB with superbowl experience from rotten eggs and heavy metal albums played backwards I'd recomend spending the money.

Logical
07-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Because I do not believe we can get him for anywhere close to an affordable amount (not much above the league minimum) I voted no. Decimating other parts of the team to sign a risk (albeit slight) seems self defeating. It is not that I would not love to have a healthy Ty Law, just not at the expense of tearing apart some other part of our team (say like releasing Roaf or Shields) to find cap space.

piattrocks
07-08-2005, 04:05 PM
the guy might still be injured. If there's any cap room left, it'd be better spent on signing the draftees into longer contracts.

Rausch
07-08-2005, 04:06 PM
It is not that I would not love to have a healthy Ty Law, just not at the expense of tearing apart some other part of our team (say like releasing Roaf or Shields) to find cap space.

Do you really believe Peterson would release Shields or Roaf to sign Law?...

:spock:

TRing
07-08-2005, 04:11 PM
basically this is where most chief fans are right now... They want him if they can get him for cheap and he won't hurt team chemistry..

(i kindof threw that last part in there because that is something i think.)

Taco John
07-08-2005, 04:17 PM
Yes. I'm hoping that Ty Law takes the Ray Crockett option and camps out with da Chiefs...

PastorMikH
07-08-2005, 04:21 PM
I'd be all for him, provided the contract was right and had a provisional clause concerning the pre-existing injury to his foot. I'd hate to tie up 4-6 mil in him then the foot that is supposed to be healed isn't.

whoman69
07-08-2005, 04:23 PM
He's come down from wanting to be the highest-paid CB in the league to $6M to $4M in just a few weeks.

Pretty soon he'll realize what it's going to take to get a team to sign him...he could yet be a Chief.
Like Hugh Douglas, he'll take the best offer.

Ultra Peanut
07-08-2005, 04:30 PM
Sure, I'd like to have him in KC.

Of course, I'd also like to have Marvin Harrison in KC.

Count Zarth
07-08-2005, 04:32 PM
Yes. I'm hoping that Ty Law takes the Ray Crockett option and camps out with da Chiefs...

Ty Law is nowhere NEAR being that skill-diminished.

Reaper16
07-08-2005, 04:37 PM
Of course I want him. Everyone wants him. You'd be a fool not to want a player of his calibur.
getting him at the right price, though, is essential. We don't need to ruin future caps. I think he's playing into our hands as the weeks go by, but Jacksonville can give him more than we can.

Nightfyre
07-08-2005, 05:21 PM
Yes or No doesnt cover conditions that it requires to get him.

Dave Lane
07-08-2005, 05:23 PM
We have the cap space.

Dave

jspchief
07-08-2005, 05:25 PM
As long as it doesn't hurt us in the future it's an easy yes.

I just think with the age of our team, we can't afford to throw away future cap space.

Ne14a40
07-08-2005, 05:26 PM
I absolutly want him...if we can afford him...lets get him. I want to win the super bowl damn it!!!!

raypec85
07-08-2005, 05:58 PM
I do not want Ty Law on the Chiefs, and here's why:

I want the CHIEFS to win the superbowl, not the Chiefs plus a guy who plays for the team for one year, especially when that one guy is in a prominent, starting role. To me, someone who comes through for one year is not really a Chief. To get Law on the cheap he will only sign either for one year or a multi-year contract with a prohibitive bonus in year two. Here are the only three possible scenario's given that kind of contract:
1) He turns out less recovered than hoped and the Chiefs say goodbye after one year.
2) He plays up to his potential in one year and leaves or gets cut (I don't want this for the reason explained in the beginning of this post).
3) The Chiefs keep him for more than one year and the amount of cap space he consumes jeopardizes extending / re-signing other prominent players who have been drafted by or played multiple years for the Chiefs.

None of those scenario's appeal to me. Sign one more cornerback other than Law to make sure KC has plenty to choose from based on how they perform in training camp. Forget Law. Go to battle with a team of players who either have played multiple years for the Chiefs or have a realistic chance of doing so. For me, if KC were to win the SB it would be all the more satisfying.

Nightfyre
07-08-2005, 06:03 PM
Now that I think of it, shutting down the raiders "Great" new offense would be very satisfying.

TRR
07-08-2005, 06:06 PM
I would love to have him, but only at the right price.

Too much involved to just answer yes or no.

The Bad Guy
07-08-2005, 06:07 PM
I do not want Ty Law on the Chiefs, and here's why:

I want the CHIEFS to win the superbowl, not the Chiefs plus a guy who plays for the team for one year, especially when that one guy is in a prominent, starting role. To me, someone who comes through for one year is not really a Chief. To get Law on the cheap he will only sign either for one year or a multi-year contract with a prohibitive bonus in year two. Here are the only three possible scenario's given that kind of contract:
1) He turns out less recovered than hoped and the Chiefs say goodbye after one year.
2) He plays up to his potential in one year and leaves or gets cut (I don't want this for the reason explained in the beginning of this post).
3) The Chiefs keep him for more than one year and the amount of cap space he consumes jeopardizes extending / re-signing other prominent players who have been drafted by or played multiple years for the Chiefs.

None of those scenario's appeal to me. Sign one more cornerback other than Law to make sure KC has plenty to choose from based on how they perform in training camp. Forget Law. Go to battle with a team of players who either have played multiple years for the Chiefs or have a realistic chance of doing so. For me, if KC were to win the SB it would be all the more satisfying.

Are you serious?

The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game in 13 years and now we are going to nitpick like this?

The only thing that appeals to me is winning the Super Bowl, and as long as they don't have serial killers on the roster, I could care less who is on it. Making a claim that you don't want someone like Ty Law, someone who has SB experience and if the team determines he's healthy can REALLY help, is just plain silly.

Having Ty Law and Patrick Surtain as our corners would be like a damn wet dream.

Brock
07-08-2005, 06:11 PM
I would love to have him, but only at the right price.

Too much involved to just answer yes or no.

I'd like him here, and I don't care if it is for the right price or not.

Ain't my money.

RedThat
07-08-2005, 06:13 PM
Having Ty Law and Patrick Surtain as our corners would be like a damn wet dream.

That would be like Dale Carter and James Hasty all over again!
:drool:

RedThat
07-08-2005, 06:18 PM
Yes or No doesnt cover conditions that it requires to get him.

oh i know just having fun man...im curious to see how the numbers pan out.
it is also good to save some bandwidth:D

RedThat
07-08-2005, 06:21 PM
Now that I think of it, shutting down the raiders "Great" new offense would be very satisfying.

true...imagine if they got owens?

i'd love to see law here, if the raiders got owens, that would be a sunday night football classic. Owens and Moss vs. Surtain and Law

Logical
07-08-2005, 06:45 PM
Do you really believe Peterson would release Shields or Roaf to sign Law?...

:spock:

I believe those are the only two whose contact situations would free up enough room for Law to be signed. I believe it will take a minimum of 4 million to sign him.

Rausch
07-08-2005, 06:56 PM
I believe those are the only two whose contact situations would free up enough room for Law to be signed. I believe it will take a minimum of 4 million to sign him.

Apparently Carl is infamous for asking players to restructure after they start to age a bit. I wouldn't be at all shocked if Woods and a good number of our defensive players are asked to do just that.

Guys like Maz and Fujita could be cut if they don't beat out the other guys at their positions. Caver and Fox don't look to be going anywhere and we've got a lot of bodies (which is not meant to mean quality depth) at LB and Safety...

Logical
07-08-2005, 07:01 PM
true...imagine if they got owens?

i'd love to see law here, if the raiders got owens, that would be a sunday night football classic. Owens and Moss vs. Surtain and LawI think the only thing more unlikely than the Chiefs getting Law is the Raiders getting Owens. Unless they have truly found a way to cheat the cap they would have to decimate their team IMO to get Owens.

regald
07-08-2005, 07:18 PM
The truth of that matter is that alot of players are going to get cut, especially in the next year, two, or even three.

You're doing it for a Super Bowl. If you have the chance to get Law for one year and win it all and then cut him, it's a win-win situation.

If you don't get Law and you lose in the playoffs, you've accomplished nothing.

The name of the game is Super Bowl. If you think players who have short contracts and get subsequently cut aren't chiefs, look at Johnny Morton. He was cut, was he a chief?

I got news for ya, you just signed Surtain and Kendrell Bell to contracts you probably can't afford in the future. What does that mean? Take out the scissors, snippity snipp, cuts are going to take place. Add to that fact many of your star players will retire in the next few years, this isn't a game of wait and see.

It's do or die and Carl Peterson has made it that way thus far, and judgeing by last year, it's worth it to win it all.

It's not Patrick Surtain, Kendrell Bell, Sammy Knight, and then Mccleon, it's Ty Law.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:03 PM
Like Hugh Douglas, he'll take the best offer.

Unlike Hugh Douglas, Ty Law's best offer won't be anywhere NEAR what he thinks it will be.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:07 PM
I believe those are the only two whose contact situations would free up enough room for Law to be signed. I believe it will take a minimum of 4 million to sign him.

As was pointed out to me earlier, there is NO WAY we'll need $4M in base salary to give him what he wants because base salary isn't guaranteed.

He's going to want a signing bonus, which we CAN give him as long as Lamar wants to open up the checkbook.

TRR
07-08-2005, 08:11 PM
I'd like him here, and I don't care if it is for the right price or not.

Ain't my money.

I care because I don't want KC to give Law a large paycheck unless he is 100 percent healthy.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:14 PM
I care because I don't want KC to give Law a large paycheck unless he is 100 percent healthy.

Why?

We signed Ashley Ambrose, who can start in place of Warfield if it's absolutely necessary. Law could then step in halfway through the season and help us get over the hump in the playoffs.

TRR
07-08-2005, 08:15 PM
The truth of that matter is that alot of players are going to get cut, especially in the next year, two, or even three.

You're doing it for a Super Bowl. If you have the chance to get Law for one year and win it all and then cut him, it's a win-win situation.

If you don't get Law and you lose in the playoffs, you've accomplished nothing.

The name of the game is Super Bowl. If you think players who have short contracts and get subsequently cut aren't chiefs, look at Johnny Morton. He was cut, was he a chief?

I got news for ya, you just signed Surtain and Kendrell Bell to contracts you probably can't afford in the future. What does that mean? Take out the scissors, snippity snipp, cuts are going to take place. Add to that fact many of your star players will retire in the next few years, this isn't a game of wait and see.

It's do or die and Carl Peterson has made it that way thus far, and judgeing by last year, it's worth it to win it all.

It's not Patrick Surtain, Kendrell Bell, Sammy Knight, and then Mccleon, it's Ty Law.

I complete disagree with almost everything you said. Both Bell and Surtain were signed decently cap friendly deals. So was Sammy Knight. I don't think KC is morgaging the future at all for a 1 year run. Players contracts can always be restructured.

TRR
07-08-2005, 08:16 PM
Why?

We signed Ashley Ambrose, who can start in place of Warfield if it's absolutely necessary. Law could then step in halfway through the season and help us get over the hump in the playoffs.

Because I honestly don't think he will be what he once was after that type of injury. Only time will tell, but I just don't see him being as physical as he once was. I see Ty Law as an aging vet that may or may not make it back from a serious injury.

Again, at the right price...yes. At market value...hell no.

htismaqe
07-09-2005, 04:56 AM
Because I honestly don't think he will be what he once was after that type of injury. Only time will tell, but I just don't see him being as physical as he once was. I see Ty Law as an aging vet that may or may not make it back from a serious injury.

Again, at the right price...yes. At market value...hell no.

I don't think he'll be back to what he once was either. But at 80% of what he once was, he's STILL a top 15-20 CB in the league and easily the 2nd-best CB on the roster.

As for right price vs. market value, what do you think market value is? He's already said he'd take a $4M 1-year deal and by this time next week, when he still hasn't signed, it will go lower.

I think people are dramatically over-estimating what any team is going to pay Ty Law. If team's were willing to give him a big payday, he'd be signed already.

Logical
07-10-2005, 02:42 AM
As was pointed out to me earlier, there is NO WAY we'll need $4M in base salary to give him what he wants because base salary isn't guaranteed.

He's going to want a signing bonus, which we CAN give him as long as Lamar wants to open up the checkbook.No, I actually believe his pro-rated (if signed for more than one season, somewhat in doubt)signing bonus and base salary combined will be 4 million against the cap. Reportedly he was shooting for 6 to 8 million but just recently lowered his sights slightly.

htismaqe
07-10-2005, 05:50 AM
No, I actually believe his pro-rated (if signed for more than one season, somewhat in doubt)signing bonus and base salary combined will be 4 million against the cap. Reportedly he was shooting for 6 to 8 million but just recently lowered his sights slightly.

Why would Law be putting out numbers that equal a cap hit? Why would he even give a flying rat's ass about the cap?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that if he said he wants $4M, that means he wants a paycheck worth $4M, which doesn't have to count $4M against the cap.

KChiefs1
07-10-2005, 09:49 AM
HELL YES!!!!!!

Mr. Laz
07-10-2005, 12:26 PM
i don't know whether law's cap number would have to be 4 million ... maybe, prolly more like 2/3 in the 1st year.

we HAVE the cap room ... easily

plenty of contracts are available for restructure.


it's all about whether the team WANTS to do it or not.

if you disagree then you don't understand the salary cap and need to read up.

KCChiefsMan
07-10-2005, 01:18 PM
I think it would be great to have him on the roster, it's not going to happen for a small salary so it's not going to happen

Logical
07-10-2005, 06:30 PM
Why would Law be putting out numbers that equal a cap hit? Why would he even give a flying rat's ass about the cap?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that if he said he wants $4M, that means he wants a paycheck worth $4M, which doesn't have to count $4M against the cap.Perhaps because he said on NFL Network's Total Access that though he might accept a shorter term contract he would not accept anything less that his market value and that if nothing was offered he would work in TV this upcoming season rather than accept less. 4 million a season is the bottom end of his market value. He also clearly stated that no matter what the signing bonus was he was not accepting league minimum as a salary. Remember this was Law talking and not his agent.

JPBUSCH
07-10-2005, 06:35 PM
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Logical
07-10-2005, 06:36 PM
i don't know whether law's cap number would have to be 4 million ... maybe, prolly more like 2/3 in the 1st year.

we HAVE the cap room ... easily

plenty of contracts are available for restructure.


it's all about whether the team WANTS to do it or not.

if you disagree then you don't understand the salary cap and need to read up.

See I do understand the Salary Cap and I am betting Ty Law does as well. I am of the opinion that he means 4 million against the cap when he says it. That would indeed be the low end of his market value given his ability.

The way I see it he probably would accept a minimum of a 1 year deal for 4 million combined, two year deal with 6 million signing bonus and 1 million salary first year, 2 million second year (with first year guaranteed salary). Those are definitely numbers at the bottom end of his value range.

If a team wants to rent a player for a year or two Ty Law is no fool. He is going to make sure he gets his money.

htismaqe
07-10-2005, 07:00 PM
See I do understand the Salary Cap and I am betting Ty Law does as well. I am of the opinion that he means 4 million against the cap when he says it. That would indeed be the low end of his market value given his ability.

The way I see it he probably would accept a minimum of a 1 year deal for 4 million combined, two year deal with 6 million signing bonus and 1 million salary first year, 2 million second year (with first year guaranteed salary). Those are definitely numbers at the bottom end of his value range.

If a team wants to rent a player for a year or two Ty Law is no fool. He is going to make sure he gets his money.

And I have to ask again, why would Ty Law even care about the cap, or frame responses on his salary with the cap in mind?

There's no reason for him to.

When he says he wants $4M, he wants $4M. If you gave him a 2-year deal worth $5M with a $3M signing bonus and broke it up 2/3, he'd get $5M up front, but only count $3.5M against this year's cap.

You just can't tell me Ty Law gives one good fug about the cap.

BigMeatballDave
07-10-2005, 07:16 PM
Too close to call...

BigMeatballDave
07-10-2005, 07:32 PM
I'd like him here, and I don't care if it is for the right price or not.

Ain't my money.That is the best answer, thus far.

I don't care if it puts them in cap hell. If he's healthy, sign him. Our window is closing, and I want a damn championship!

Shag
07-10-2005, 07:35 PM
And I have to ask again, why would Ty Law even care about the cap, or frame responses on his salary with the cap in mind?

There's no reason for him to.

When he says he wants $4M, he wants $4M. If you gave him a 2-year deal worth $5M with a $3M signing bonus and broke it up 2/3, he'd get $5M up front, but only count $3.5M against this year's cap.

You just can't tell me Ty Law gives one good fug about the cap.

I don't think it's quite that easy, though. I imagine the Chiefs would want to sign him to something like the vet min this year, and load the rest into next year. Cut him in the offseason, and you're good to go. With the idiotic way that NFL contracts are viewed, a contract is hardly worth the paper it's printed on...

philfree
07-11-2005, 02:51 PM
I thought Law looked good on NFL Live. If he's 80% now and then he's 85% in two weeks and he keeps improving 5% every two weeks he'll be 100% by the time the season starts. :hmmm: Time for Carl & Co. to get busy again and work this thing out. I know, I know, put down the crack pipe and step back into reality :) I don't think anybody thought we've even do what we've done this offseason much less adding Law to the 2ndary along with Surtain. No need to stop now since we're on a row!


PhilFree:arrow:

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 03:06 PM
I don't think it's quite that easy, though. I imagine the Chiefs would want to sign him to something like the vet min this year, and load the rest into next year. Cut him in the offseason, and you're good to go. With the idiotic way that NFL contracts are viewed, a contract is hardly worth the paper it's printed on...

It IS that easy. What you just described is IDENTICAL to my scenario in every way except the specific dollar amounts.

Thig Lyfe
01-30-2009, 07:20 PM
OH HELL YEAH

EyePod
01-30-2009, 07:29 PM
I can't believe it was this overwhelming. And I just voted "no" now.... and yes still won by TONS!

EyePod
01-30-2009, 07:32 PM
I thought Law looked good on NFL Live. If he's 80% now and then he's 85% in two weeks and he keeps improving 5% every two weeks he'll be 100% by the time the season starts. :hmmm: Time for Carl & Co. to get busy again and work this thing out. I know, I know, put down the crack pipe and step back into reality :) I don't think anybody thought we've even do what we've done this offseason much less adding Law to the 2ndary along with Surtain. No need to stop now since we're on a row!


PhilFree:arrow:

BTW, this has to be the best reasoning ever. If we just wait 20 weeks, he'll be 100% better (5% better every week)! That'll be 160%! SWEET!!!!

OctoberFart
01-30-2009, 08:47 PM
Law was very average to garbage as a chief plain and simple.