PDA

View Full Version : All of these potential signees, but where's the $$$$$$????


arrowheadnation
02-09-2006, 11:20 PM
I'm just as guilty of it as the next guy, but with all these proposed trades/acquisitions, how the hell are we gonna come up with the money to pay all of them. I thought we were already over the cap for the 2006 season. Is that not true? I just don't see how we can feasibly (or financially) take on TO, Aberham, a DT, etc. Somebody show me the light.

Mecca
02-09-2006, 11:24 PM
I highly doubt we get TO and if the Jets are trading Abraham we won't be getting him either.......

Dunit35
02-09-2006, 11:25 PM
We are over the cap. WAY OVER. But theres still cuts to be made and players that will be asking to take a paycut.

greg63
02-10-2006, 12:09 AM
"SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

Anyong Bluth
02-10-2006, 03:28 AM
restructuring and cuts will mean we're fine. may not be able to go overboard on the market, but we could afford to make a deal happen should it present itself.

chiefqueen
02-10-2006, 04:41 AM
It's simple if there's no CBA by 3/9 we just restructure to put $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in 2007 when there's no cap.

Mecca
02-10-2006, 05:41 AM
It's simple if there's no CBA by 3/9 we just restructure to put $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in 2007 when there's no cap.

Of course if you do that then a CBA is agreed to, you just hosed yourself.

Brock
02-10-2006, 07:34 AM
I don't really worry about it. It's Lamar's money, not mine.

htismaqe
02-10-2006, 07:39 AM
We ARE NOT OVER THE CAP.

For one thing, the 2006 cap ISN'T EVEN IN EFFECT YET. It's still 2005 in the NFL.

phxchief
02-10-2006, 07:49 AM
I wouldn't worry about it just yet. The team we're chasing in the division (for now) has more money invested in current players than we do, meaning they're gonna have to make just as many, if not more cuts to key players, and/or [puts them in just as unlikely a position to sign expensive players.

The good thing is that we have a lot of players making $2million and upwards (in some cases, way upwards) that aren't worth a damn, like backup safeties, backup linebackers and craphole DEs. They should be easily cut. We don't have any bigtime guys to cut (like Tennessee did) to get in a reasonable shape. The only guy of REAL significance who may be cut (if not restructured), and even then it's a small possibility, is Priest, and with Larry running the rock, it's not as big a deal.

htismaqe
02-10-2006, 07:51 AM
I wouldn't worry about it just yet. The team we're chasing in the division (for now) has more money invested in current players than we do, meaning they're gonna have to make just as many, if not more cuts to key players, and/or [puts them in just as unlikely a position to sign expensive players.

The good thing is that we have a lot of players making $2million and upwards (in some cases, way upwards) that aren't worth a damn, like backup safeties, backup linebackers and craphole DEs. They should be easily cut. We don't have any bigtime guys to cut (like Tennessee did) to get in a reasonable shape. The only guy of REAL significance who may be cut (if not restructured), and even then it's a small possibility, is Priest, and with Larry running the rock, it's not as big a deal.

Those backup safeties and craphole DE's may SEEM easy to cut, but they won't be. For some reason, this front office thinks guys like that are the core of our team.

CoMoChief
02-10-2006, 07:54 AM
People who I see getting cut or restructuring...

Priest Holmes
Jerome Woods
William Bartee
Dexter McCleon
Shawn Barber
Kendrell Bell
Tony Gonzalez - I thought CP was gonna re-do his deal sometime soon.
Maybe Eric Warfield I dunno.


Personally I would like to see everyone on this list get cut with the exception of 4 people, Priest, Bell, TonyG, and Warfield.

58-4ever
02-10-2006, 07:55 AM
I really hope the cap doesn't go away. I like a competitive NFL. If the chiefs end up like the Royals of late...I WILL kill someone.

oldandslow
02-10-2006, 07:59 AM
It's simple if there's no CBA by 3/9 we just restructure to put $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in 2007 when there's no cap.

Exactly...

BTW - my guess is a strike during the next labor neg. Football players are going to want what bb players have.

My guess is they get it. There is too much money to be lost by the owners if a strike comes.

The Royals, imo, lose money because the Walmart model does not work in baseball. You put a quality product on the field and it will pay for itself.

Hell, even the Twins are managed better than the Royals.

phxchief
02-10-2006, 07:59 AM
Those backup safeties and craphole DE's may SEEM easy to cut, but they won't be. For some reason, this front office thinks guys like that are the core of our team.

Thanks in large part to Dick Vermeil and his loyalty.

Expect Herm to cut ties with the overpaid trash.

58-4ever
02-10-2006, 08:01 AM
Exactly...

BTW - my guess is a strike during the next labor neg. Football players are going to want what bb players have.

My guess is they get it. There is too much money to be lost by the owners if a strike comes.

The Royals, imo, lose money because the Walmart model does not work in baseball. You put a quality product on the field and it will pay for itself.

Hell, even the Twins are managed better than the Royals.

Yeah, but the competive balance is so different when one team (probably the Redskins) can/or will spend 100 million more than the other guys to get a ring.

oldandslow
02-10-2006, 08:12 AM
How many WS have Yanks won in the new millenium?

A certain dollar level keeps one competitive. After that it is up to managers, players, etc.

The Royals are not willing to match the dollar level.

htismaqe
02-10-2006, 08:12 AM
Thanks in large part to Dick Vermeil and his loyalty.

Expect Herm to cut ties with the overpaid trash.

Don't count on it.

These guys were here before Vermeil.

Carl Peterson is the reason they're still here.

jspchief
02-10-2006, 08:20 AM
Don't count on it.

These guys were here before Vermeil.

Carl Peterson is the reason they're still here.This an area where I think Carl (and Vermeil) play it too safe. In a down FA spending year ('04), we decided to pay a bunch of "we know what we have" guys, instead of taking some chances on either our own young guys, or some other lesser FAs. And I do think Vermeil is partially to blame. Sometimes he's got such a hard-on for veterans that it blinds his ability to evaluate talent.

I can understand retaining a few of those players in '04, simply for continuity reasons, but we kept entirely too many of them, and paid them too much in the process.

htismaqe
02-10-2006, 08:23 AM
This an area where I think Carl (and Vermeil) play it too safe. In a down FA spending year ('04), we decided to pay a bunch of "we know what we have" guys, instead of taking some chances on either our own young guys, or some other lesser FAs. And I do think Vermeil is partially to blame. Sometimes he's got such a hard-on for veterans that it blinds his ability to evaluate talent.

I can understand retaining a few of those players in '04, simply for continuity reasons, but we kept entirely too many of them, and paid them too much in the process.

Yeah, 2004 was the offseason we "stood pat". If we would have spent the money we tied up in Woods, Wesley, and Hicks on 3 free agents, 2004 would have been alot like 2003 and 2005. We paid those guys WAY too much.

jspchief
02-10-2006, 08:29 AM
Yeah, 2004 was the offseason we "stood pat". If we would have spent the money we tied up in Woods, Wesley, and Hicks on 3 free agents, 2004 would have been alot like 2003 and 2005. We paid those guys WAY too much.Don't forget Browning and Bartee.

The reality is, in our "stand pat" year, we signed a lot of players. They all just happened to be guys that were on the '03 team. In a way, I can understand the organization trying to keep together a 13-3 team. The problem is, in doing it they failed to address our weaknesses. Then they drafted a f*cking "project" DT and an H-back instead of players that could actually contribute.

htismaqe
02-10-2006, 08:31 AM
Don't forget Browning and Bartee.

The reality is, in our "stand pat" year, we signed a lot of players. They all just happened to be guys that were on the '03 team. In a way, I can understand the organization trying to keep together a 13-3 team. The problem is, in doing it they failed to address our weaknesses. Then they drafted a f*cking "project" DT and an H-back instead of players that could actually contribute.

Yep.

The big failure was not who the retained or who they drafted, though.

The BIG failure was the thought process that predicated all of those moves.

They actually thought that 13-3 team was CLOSE. They were wrong.

phxchief
02-10-2006, 08:33 AM
Don't count on it.

These guys were here before Vermeil.

Carl Peterson is the reason they're still here.

Not all.

That's why garbage like McCleon will get cut. He wouldn't have under Vermeil.

Gonzo
02-10-2006, 08:40 AM
I am in full support of cutting people whose last name starts with B.
Bartee
Battle
Bell
BMcleon :-)

BigChiefFan
02-10-2006, 08:41 AM
So far, Herm Edwards has done a damn good job at evaluating the organization from within and improved the coaching staff, IMO. I like who he has chosen to go to battle with, because of that, I believe he will take a realistic approach at the players on the team as well.

58-4ever
02-10-2006, 08:42 AM
So far, Herm Edwards has done a damn good job at evaluating the organization from within and improved the coaching staff, IMO. I like who he has chosen to go to battle with, because of that, I believe he will take a realistic approach at the players on the team as well.
I would like some of what's in your coffee.

Gonzo
02-10-2006, 08:48 AM
I would like some of what's in your coffee.

I think Edwards has done a great job so far. But....my standards are low. I used to date Minnie Pearl.

Gonzo
02-10-2006, 08:51 AM
:-{}

phxchief
02-10-2006, 09:09 AM
I am in full support of cutting people whose last name starts with B.
Bartee
Battle
Bell
BMcleon :-)

Barber.