PDA

View Full Version : Merrill: Chiefs won't need to make more cuts regardless of CBA


tk13
03-06-2006, 02:12 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/14026801.htm

Chiefs won’t need to make cuts

By ELIZABETH MERRILL
The Kansas City Star

After weeks of nervous cap watching, and fears of a bloody Sunday, the Chiefs’ bloated number was poised to disappear with nary a whimper.

Pro Bowl guard Will Shields was still on the roster. So was Priest Holmes. By late in the afternoon, Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson said there would be no cuts Sunday. That came hours before the NFL new year was scheduled to begin and teams had scurried to get under a salary cap that had been a moving target.

Then the target moved again. Labor negotiations in New York restarted, then stalled again, then late in the evening, the start of free-agency was postponed — again — for another 72 hours. It meant the Chiefs can wait to get below the $94.5 million cap that could rise by $10 million if a deal is worked out.

But the Chiefs are ready to get below the cap with the help of four to six players who agreed to restructure their contracts.

“I appreciate those who have been receptive to it,” Peterson said, “and obviously there have been some who have not been receptive. And then I’ve had to make a decision to say goodbye to them.”

Documents provided to The Star showed the Chiefs were more than $20 million over the cap last month. About $6 million was cleared Thursday with the cuts of veteran defensive players Eric Warfield, Dexter McCleon, Gary Stills and Shawn Barber. But without a labor extension, the Chiefs were still way over the cap.

It is believed that Holmes, a three-time Pro Bowl running back, was one of the players who restructured a deal that would have cost the Chiefs $5.33 million under his previous contract. Peterson would only say, “First of all, I really appreciate players that think about the team first and themselves second. Priest Holmes has always been that way.”

Holmes’ future has been iffy after a helmet-to-helmet collision in San Diego at midseason. He was put on injured reserve and said he wanted to return pending some tests to determine if he was neurologically sound. If Holmes does come back, he’ll find himself in the unusual position as the franchise’s all-time leading rusher playing backup to Larry Johnson.

But Peterson bristled when asked about the speculation that Holmes’ career may be over.

“Priest is still under contract with the Kansas City Chiefs, all right?” he said. “Specific to his future, it’s still an ongoing evaluation by our medical people. He’s made a lot of progress. We don’t have to make a decision today, and neither does he because we don’t start the season until August.

“I would not count this man out. You or anybody else can speculate, but I will not count him out. I know him. He could’ve said, ‘I retire, I’m finished,’ but he’s not doing that.”

Shields’ return has also been clouded with uncertainty, and late last week he seemed pessimistic about playing in 2006 in Kansas City. Peterson reiterated that Shields would not be a cap casualty Sunday and that he hasn’t been asked to restructure his contract, which would pay him a $5.1 million salary.

Peterson has said the Chiefs are still waiting for Shields, who’s battled arthritis, to tell them he’s definitively coming back. Shields’ agent, Joe Linta, said again Sunday that Shields has made it clear he wants to play.

“The bottom line is that the decisions are all theirs right now,” Linta said. “There’s no fork in the road for Will to take. They haven’t asked him to restructure or cut him. There’s no decision for Will to make.”

But as the waiver deadline initially approached Sunday night, there were plenty of questions for the league. Will there be an uncapped season in 2007? How will the lack of an extension affect the start of free-agency?

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue made a brief appearance on a teleconference Sunday to announce Kansas City’s bid for the 2015 Super Bowl. He was locked in New York with negotiations that were on again, off again all weekend.

“I can assure you I’d much rather be there than where I am today,” Tagliabue said.

Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt thanked him and told him to “get back to work.”
This week, the work gets more complicated. There may be a scarce amount of teams with big cap space to use on free agents. Peterson said he didn’t anticipate the Chiefs being active this spring.

“Last year we went out and spent a lot of money on four or five defensive players,” he said. “The year before we didn’t. Every year is a different year, and it’s almost impossible unless you have an unlimited amount of cash and cap dollars to go out every year and spend a lot of money on unrestricted free agents.

“So probably even if there is an extension, we’re not going to go out and spend a lot of money on our free agents in 2006.”

CHENZ A!
03-06-2006, 02:24 AM
Nobody better ****ing sleep on Priest, that man has proven himself to come back from injury several times. Bottom line, he needs to be on the Chiefs. God forbid something will happen to LJ, we would have the best RB(when healthy) in the NFL to back him up. good move CP

oaklandhater
03-06-2006, 02:25 AM
[url]““So probably even if there is an extension, we’re not going to go out and spend a lot of money on our free agents in 2006.”


Well at least we will have a high draft pick next year.

Dunit35
03-06-2006, 02:27 AM
I wonder who the 4-6 players are who agreed to restructure? Holmes and Bell did, but Shields hasn't been asked to. I wonder who they could be.

CoMoChief
03-06-2006, 02:28 AM
Screw that......Cut Bartee, sign Arrington, and trade Bell for a draft pick.

oaklandhater
03-06-2006, 02:31 AM
who wants a linebacker with a bad shoulder and no burst.

CoMoChief
03-06-2006, 02:35 AM
who wants a linebacker with a bad shoulder and no burst.


Maybe some team similar to one that was interested in a 30+ yr old corner coming off of a major foot injury.

royr17
03-06-2006, 02:50 AM
Im guessin that the guys that restructured there contract are Priest, Surtain, Bell, Green, Gonzo, and Roaf ..........

royr17
03-06-2006, 02:51 AM
Maybe Eric Hicks is one too ........... who knows, its behind doors so we will never know.

CHENZ A!
03-06-2006, 02:53 AM
Maybe Eric Hicks is one too ........... who knows, its behind doors so we will never know.

Hicks should give us money, not restructure. What a bum.

BigRock
03-06-2006, 04:08 AM
You can't believe anything that CP says to the media. Why dodge questions about Priest's contract? And the way he denies that Will Shields worked anything out, "nope, we didn't ask him to restructure and we're not going to cut him," just comes off like spin. He can try to soothe Will's feelings a bit after several days of cut talk, and he can boost himself back up with the people who were mad that he'd cut a HOF'er.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 07:29 AM
You can't believe anything that CP says to the media. Why dodge questions about Priest's contract? And the way he denies that Will Shields worked anything out, "nope, we didn't ask him to restructure and we're not going to cut him," just comes off like spin. He can try to soothe Will's feelings a bit after several days of cut talk, and he can boost himself back up with the people who were mad that he'd cut a HOF'er.What difference does it make what Peterson says? The media around KC just makes up the news anyway. You're accusing Peterson of trying to spin his way out of a bunch of news reports that were based in nothing but speculation. Carl may be a snake, but I don't see any reason to give more credence to the Nick Athans and Rhonda Mosses of the world.

A few weeks ago, all anyone could talk about was how much cap hell we were in. When it looked like the CBA wouldn't get done, we were told that massive cuts were coming, including some big names. Now here we are, with no CBA, and Peterson has worked the team under the cap, keeping the team largely intact minus some losers that needed to go anyway.

And now, if we do get a CBA done, the Chiefs will have all the extra money that was added to the cap to use in free agency.

We should be applauding what Peterson pulled off.

Bob Dole
03-06-2006, 07:55 AM
Funny the the NFL network was still reporting us $19 million over the low cap number last night around 8pm.

Bob Dole really hates this time of year...

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 08:27 AM
Well at least we will have a high draft pick next year.

ROFL

Like bringing in a few low-dollar free agents is gonna make one damn bit of difference.

VonneMarie
03-06-2006, 08:29 AM
Hicks should give us money, not restructure. What a bum.
ROFL

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 08:37 AM
What difference does it make what Peterson says? The media around KC just makes up the news anyway. You're accusing Peterson of trying to spin his way out of a bunch of news reports that were based in nothing but speculation. Carl may be a snake, but I don't see any reason to give more credence to the Nick Athans and Rhonda Mosses of the world.

A few weeks ago, all anyone could talk about was how much cap hell we were in. When it looked like the CBA wouldn't get done, we were told that massive cuts were coming, including some big names. Now here we are, with no CBA, and Peterson has worked the team under the cap, keeping the team largely intact minus some losers that needed to go anyway.

And now, if we do get a CBA done, the Chiefs will have all the extra money that was added to the cap to use in free agency.

We should be applauding what Peterson pulled off.

I wouldn't expect that to fly here.

Carl = Satan

I was listening to Rhonda Moss this morning and she played some clips from Peterson this morning. The reason he isn't talking is because the deals ARE NOT DONE YET.

The guys that have been cut (Barber, McCleon, Warfield, and Stills) are still cut, but they are the only ones that will be cut. There have been several contracts have been redone but they haven't yet sent them to the NFL office because the CBA deal affects whether or not they need to do what has been done in the new contracts.

cdcox
03-06-2006, 08:46 AM
There have been several contracts have been redone but they haven't yet sent them to the NFL office because the CBA deal affects whether or not they need to do what has been done in the new contracts.

So the between the lines facts are:

1) These deals will probably saddle us with significant dead cap $ in future years. The Chiefs aren't going to execute the deals unless there is a gun to their head.

2) The Chiefs won't be active in FA regardless of what happens with the CBA.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 08:52 AM
So the between the lines facts are:

1) These deals will probably saddle us with significant dead cap $ in future years. The Chiefs aren't going to execute the deals unless there is a gun to their head.

2) The Chiefs won't be active in FA regardless of what happens with the CBA.

1) That could very well be.

2) Absolutely. Carl told us that months ago.

Chiefnj
03-06-2006, 09:40 AM
Holmes' deal was sent to the league.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 09:44 AM
Holmes' deal was sent to the league.

Apparently is was done prior to the whole "black Thursday" mess.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 10:28 AM
so if the nfl gets an extension which is supposedly gonna raise the salary cap another 10-15 million the chiefs are going to just sit on that cap room?


UN-restructure all the contracts they just changed to raise their cap number back up to save bottomline profit?

jspchief
03-06-2006, 10:33 AM
so if the nfl gets an extension which is supposedly gonna raise the salary cap another 10-15 million the chiefs are going to just sit on that cap room?


UN-restructure all the contracts they just changed to raise their cap number back up to save bottomline profit?My guess is htismaqe is assuming that the players agreed to the renegotiation contingent on there not being a new CBA.

If the team went to players and said "look, due the CBA not getting done, this is the only way we can retain you", and then a CBA did get done, it would be pretty dirty to still expect the players to make concessions.

Now if the basis for restructure was simply "you make too much for your level of play", then I don't think the CBA matters. But I dobt that is the case for these guys.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 10:39 AM
My guess is htismaqe is assuming that the players agreed to the renegotiation contingent on there not being a new CBA.

If the team went to players and said "look, due the CBA not getting done, this is the only way we can retain you", and then a CBA did get done, it would be pretty dirty to still expect the players to make concessions.

Now if the basis for restructure was simply "you make too much for your level of play", then I don't think the CBA matters. But I dobt that is the case for these guys.
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 10:45 AM
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.You're assuming that they could get the players to renegotiate even with out the bargaining tool of no CBA/limited cap.

I think that's a big assumption.

It's one thing for players to look around the league and see that all the teams are being hampered this year, and be sympathetic to the situation the Chiefs are in. It's something entirely different for them to just flat out agree to take a pay cut.

The other side, if they are simply restructures without pay cuts, is that the team probably doesn't want to do it unless they have to. It may be a matter of mortgaging the future. I'm sure the FO doesn't want to do that unless it's absolutely neccessary.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 10:50 AM
You're assuming that they could get the players to renegotiate even with out the bargaining tool of no CBA/limited cap.

I think that's a big assumption.

It's one thing for players to look around the league and see that all the teams are being hampered this year, and be sympathetic to the situation the Chiefs are in. It's something entirely different for them to just flat out agree to take a pay cut.

The other side, if they are simply restructures without pay cuts, is that the team probably doesn't want to do it unless they have to. It may be a matter of mortgaging the future. I'm sure the FO doesn't want to do that unless it's absolutely neccessary.
that's it ... put the chiefs cap situation on the players :rolleyes:



most players will restructure ANY time the team wants them to. The players usually MAKE money on restructures because they get more money upfront.

all the team has to do is ask unless they are trying force a salary cut.


what matters is whether team is willing spend more money or not ...... Lamar hunt is not a free spender.

ct
03-06-2006, 10:53 AM
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

It's very likely that being forced to create this cap room now, costs us cap room in the future, should the CBA extend and reinstate a cap later.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 10:57 AM
that's it ... put the chiefs cap situation on the players :rolleyes:



most players will restructure ANY time the team wants them to. The players usually MAKE money on restructures because they get more money upfront.

all the team has to do is ask unless they are trying force a salary cut.


what matters is whether team is willing spend more money or not ...... Lamar hunt is not a free spender.How am I putting the cap situation on the players?

If you think the Chiefs are going to mortgage their future to fill your FA wish list, you're going to be disappointed. They've never done it in the past, and they aren't going to start in a year of uncertainty. Every player that they restructure is either going to burden the cap this year, or in future years. Either way, they are going to affect the cap. You act like it's just a matter of opening the checkbook, but it still hits the cap at some point.

They spent big last year. They've spent big retaining our veteran offense. The Chiefs are never going to be active in free agency year in and year out. It's not how the organization is run. I'd think after watching this team for the 13 years under the salary cap, you would have realized that by now.

brent102fire
03-06-2006, 10:59 AM
Why the hell is Bartee still on the roster? :banghead: :cuss: :mad: That guy hasn't done jack since he got to KC except collect a paycheck...now that's what I call stealing :shake:

jspchief
03-06-2006, 11:00 AM
It's very likely that being forced to create this cap room now, costs us cap room in the future, should the CBA extend and reinstate a cap later.The front office will never win in the eyes of some fans.

If they create cap room this year, the fans will be bitching about our cap situation two years from now.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:02 AM
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

ROFL

ct
03-06-2006, 11:03 AM
The front office will never win in the eyes of some fans.

If they create cap room this year, the fans will be bitching about our cap situation two years from now.

yep

Only time will tell what actually transpires with our roster by the cap deadline(whenever that might be...). But I'll go on record that if we can clear $18-21M, as the estimates have ranged around, to get under this less than anticipated cap, by releasing Warfield, McCleon, Barber, and Stills, I call that a tremendous success!!!

RedThat
03-06-2006, 11:13 AM
I'm baffled by all this.

Merrill is saying the Chiefs don't have to make any cuts thanks to the restructuring of 4-6 players.

Ok fine. Now Im thinking, great we are under the cap.

If the cap stays at 94.5 million, and we didn't have enough room to bring some new FAs in here, fine, then I could understand as to why we aren't active.

Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

WTF?! :cuss:

When he says "Our" I hope he means his own guys and not the guys that are on the market.

We clear all this room, and we have another 10 million, and we are going to sit back? F*cking bullsh*t!

I hate this organization. Im growing sick of them. They do this every other f*cking year. Their active 1 year, and lazy the next. what happens when we're lazy? we are rewarded with an 8-8 or 7-9 season. It's not like we are the Pittsburgh Steelers or the New England Patriots. We still have a ways to go, to even consider this team a SB contender.

You have the 26th ranked defense, and you're going to stand pat? F*cking lovely. GO OUT, GET PLAYERS, AND FIX THE GODDAMN F*CKING DEFENSE, SCHMUCK! You have the ability to do it Mr. Carl F*cking Peterson!

*Pardon me for venting boys, I had to let that out. Im just pissed to see this organization pull the same repetitive crap over and over and over again, with "zero" results to show for.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:16 AM
I'm baffled by all this.

Merrill is saying the Chiefs don't have to make any cuts thanks to the restructuring of 4-6 players.

Ok fine. Now Im thinking, great we are under the cap.

If the cap stays at 94.5 million, and we didn't have enough room to bring some new FAs in here, fine, then I could understand as to why we aren't active.

Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

WTF?! :cuss:

When he says "Our" I hope he means his own guys and not the guys that are on the market.

We clear all this room, and we have another 10 million, and we are going to sit back? F*cking bullsh*t!

I hate this organization. Im growing sick of them. They do this every other f*cking year. Their active 1 year, and lazy the next. what happens when we're lazy? we are rewarded with an 8-8 or 7-9 season. It's not like we are the Pittsburgh Steelers or the New England Patriots. We still have a ways to go, to even consider this team a SB contender.

You have the 26th ranked defense, and you're going to stand pat? F*cking lovely. GO OUT, GET PLAYERS, AND FIX THE GODDAMN F*CKING DEFENSE, SCHMUCK! You have the ability to do it Mr. Carl F*cking Peterson!

*Pardon me for venting boys, I had to let that out. Im just pissed to see this organization pull the same repetitive crap over and over and over again, with "zero" results to show for.

ROFL

Don't blame Carl Peterson. Start at the top.

It's been said THOUSANDS of times, yet people never listen.

The problem is not the cap, it's CASH.

Signing new players requires signing bonuses. Bonuses = CASH. Lamar doesn't want to pay signing bonuses because he paid them last year.

leviw
03-06-2006, 11:16 AM
Cheer for someone else then. Like whoever Vinaterri signs with, perhaps?

penguinz
03-06-2006, 11:22 AM
Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

Many of those restructures only happen if there is no CBA.

RedThat
03-06-2006, 11:34 AM
ROFL

Don't blame Carl Peterson. Start at the top.

It's been said THOUSANDS of times, yet people never listen.

The problem is not the cap, it's CASH.

Signing new players requires signing bonuses. Bonuses = CASH. Lamar doesn't want to pay signing bonuses because he paid them last year.

I hear ya. Part of it is Lamar too. He signs and dates the cheques. I guess I will consider Peterson his "puppet".

Lamar Hunt, SIGN some players. Please. You have money. I hate excuses. Excuses, excuses, I hate them. Excuses are for losers. I don't give a crap about last year, and who you signed. That's an excuse not to be active? That's a joke.

I got some advice for the Chiefs organization, pay attention to results, not the f*cking money, and who you signed?! Fix the defense, because it sucks, it showed on the field. We ain't gonna sniff the playoffs with this current D. God forbid, you have the 26th ranked defense. Do you even care to go to the playoffs, and compete for the SB?

*Btw, htis I read that article. It is both cap room, and cash. It's not only cash. It's both. We have the cap room. I think Lamar is being a bit too tight with his wallet. If he doesn't sign any players, I think I'm gonna buy him some elastic bands for Christmas.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:36 AM
I hear ya. Part of it is Lamar too. He signs and dates the cheques. I guess I will consider Peterson his "puppet".

Lamar Hunt, SIGN some players. Please. You have money. I hate excuses. Excuses, excuses, I hate them. Excuses are for losers. I don't give a crap about last year, and who you signed. That's an excuse not to be active? That's a joke.

I got some advice for the Chiefs organization, pay attention to results, not the f*cking money, and who you signed?! Fix the defense, because it sucks, it showed on the field. We ain't gonna sniff the playoffs with this current D. God forbid, you have the 26th ranked defense. Do you even care to go to the playoffs, and compete for the SB?

*Btw, htis I read that article. It is both cap room, and cash. It's not only cash. It's both. We have the cap room. I think Lamar is being a bit too tight with his wallet. If he doesn't sign any players, I think I'm gonna buy him some elastic bands for Christmas.

I would encourage you to look elsewhere for entertainment.

For us, the Chiefs is a hobby. For Lamar Hunt, it's a BUSINESS.

You know that Irsay had to liquidate assets from other NON-FOOTBALL business ventures to pay Manning's signing bonus?

This isn't Madden on the PS2.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 11:37 AM
You guys should be bitching at Lamar to spend money on our goddamned scouting department, not free agents.

The inability to draft good players and sign the right free agents is what's keeping this team down.

The Bad Guy
03-06-2006, 11:37 AM
I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

RedThat
03-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Many of those restructures only happen if there is no CBA.

Fine. But it just goes to show, they can get under and stay at that figure if they REALLY wanted to. Let's say if there is a CBA, they can still keep those contracts restructed to sign some FAs to help build this team, and make it more strong.

And even "IF" lets say, both Peterson, and Hunt said, guys, we are going to keep your contracts the same because we want to bring in more players to help build this team to keep it competitive, make a run at the playoffs, and a possible SB run. Im sure guys like Green, and Holmes would be cool with that.

That's not a hard thing to do. But for some reason, they have to sit back, relax. It's ok.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:43 AM
I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

Yep. That's why I always use the Irsay example. Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do.

From a business standpoint, selling assets from one business to fund another isn't very smart.

But obviously they want to win it all in Indy.

RedThat
03-06-2006, 11:47 AM
I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

Thank you. This is exactly where I was trying to get at. Competitiveness. Does Lamar have it?
:shrug:

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:47 AM
Let's say if there is a CBA, they can still keep those contracts restructed to sign some FAs to help build this team, and make it more strong.

You're assuming that the restructures they've done don't assume that there will be no cap. If these conditional restructures give out big sums of money, assuming that they'll be swallowed during the uncapped season, then your argument has a HUGE hole in it.

That's not a hard thing to do. But for some reason, they have to sit back, relax. It's ok.

I'm sure you know exactly what it takes to be an NFL GM. If only they were working instead of staring out the window...

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 11:49 AM
Yep. That's why I always use the Irsay example. Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do.

From a business standpoint, selling assets from one business to fund another isn't very smart.

But obviously they want to win it all in Indy.

so which is it?

"obviously they want to win it all in Indy"

or

"Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do"

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 11:53 AM
You're assuming that the restructures they've done don't assume that there will be no cap. If these conditional restructures give out big sums of money, assuming that they'll be swallowed during the uncapped season, then your argument has a HUGE hole in it.

I'm sure you know exactly what it takes to be an NFL GM. If only they were working instead of staring out the window...
always taking the smartass cheapshot at the nearest fan... aren't ya.


it's my understand that the team CAN'T make big commitments based on a no cap year.

bonuses can't be pro-rated past the end of the CBA so that doesn't save a team any money. The yearly increase can't be beyond 30% for next year either.

looks like someone's argument does have a HUGE hole it.

RedThat
03-06-2006, 11:53 AM
I would encourage you to look elsewhere for entertainment.

For us, the Chiefs is a hobby. For Lamar Hunt, it's a BUSINESS.

You know that Irsay had to liquidate assets from other NON-FOOTBALL business ventures to pay Manning's signing bonus?

This isn't Madden on the PS2.

I like the Chiefs. But this is the hard part about being a Chiefs fan. Seeing this team with a lot of holes to fill on defense, and them electing to stand pat, and not sign anybody. From a fans perspective, I'm just trying to express my concern for the team. That is all.

I know this is not PS2, madden. Im not saying they have to go out and sign every probowler on defense. I'm just saying, I'd like to see them sign some better players on defense to improve. Thats all. I'd like to see my team competitive, because I do care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be a fan.

The Bad Guy
03-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Thank you. This is exactly where I was trying to get at. Competitiveness. Does Lamar have it?
:shrug:

I really don't know anymore.

I mean, I can't imagine pumping billions of dollars into a product and watching another team hold your trophy every year.

If my name was on a trophy, and my health was failing, I would be doing everything possible to get to hold that trophy one last time.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:57 AM
so which is it?

"obviously they want to win it all in Indy"

or

"Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do"

They subscribe to the every-other-year model. Lots of teams do. You act like this is something they do because they feel like it. It's the reality of big business.

The difference is that, in a year where Indy wouldn't normally have doled out signing bonuses, they found a way to give Manning the largest bonus in the history of the game.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 11:57 AM
Cheer for someone else then. Like whoever Vinaterri signs with, perhaps?
DAM!!!!

so close ... if only you would of included "true fan" in there someplace.


"missed it by Thaat much!"

http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/8057/donadams7491432yo.jpg

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 11:59 AM
always taking the smartass cheapshot at the nearest fan... aren't ya.

it's my understand that the team CAN'T make big commitments based on a no cap year.

bonuses can't be pro-rated past the end of the CBA so that doesn't save a team any money. The yearly increase can't be beyond 30% for next year either.

looks like someone's argument does have a HUGE hole it.

There are an infinite number of ways that a contract could be structured, taking into account the lack of a CBA, that would not work if a cap was suddenly re-introduced.

You know that as well as I do, but since you're bitter, you feel inclined to argue anyway.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 12:00 PM
They subscribe to the every-other-year model. Lots of teams do. You act like this is something they do because they feel like it. It's the reality of big business.

The difference is that, in a year where Indy wouldn't normally have doled out signing bonuses, they found a way to give Manning the largest bonus in the history of the game.
so they subscribe to the same method we do "with exceptions"


kinda a traditional model (with extras)

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 12:00 PM
I like the Chiefs. But this is the hard part about being a Chiefs fan. Seeing this team with a lot of holes to fill on defense, and them electing to stand pat, and not sign anybody. From a fans perspective, I'm just trying to express my concern for the team. That is all.

I know this is not PS2, madden. Im not saying they have to go out and sign every probowler on defense. I'm just saying, I'd like to see them sign some better players on defense to improve. Thats all. I'd like to see my team competitive, because I do care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be a fan.

When did they stand pat?

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 12:02 PM
When did they stand pat?

keeping the same players(even re-signing the same players) is standing pat.



if those players weren't successful it's doubly frustrating

RedThat
03-06-2006, 12:02 PM
When did they stand pat?

Do you really have to ask that question? Is it necessary? If you're chiefs fan you should know. 2004 they stood pat. Gunthers first year here.

The Bad Guy
03-06-2006, 12:03 PM
When did they stand pat?

2004.

I don't know how you could stand pat with a new coach. He can't just give him Vermeil's guys and expect everything to work out.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 12:05 PM
They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 12:11 PM
They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

jerome woods
eric hicks
greg wesley
jason dunn

oooh ooh ... they did add 3rd string QB damon Huard and utility backup Chris Bober.

oh yea... they tried to sign Az Hazim too ... but he bolted before signing IIRC.



:clap:

RedThat
03-06-2006, 12:12 PM
You're assuming that the restructures they've done don't assume that there will be no cap. If these conditional restructures give out big sums of money, assuming that they'll be swallowed during the uncapped season, then your argument has a HUGE hole in it.



I'm sure you know exactly what it takes to be an NFL GM. If only they were working instead of staring out the window...

First off, Htis, Im not assuming that there will be no cap. All I'm saying is, the current contracts that have been restructured, in addition to that, the current contracts that have been terminated have put us under the current cap(94.5mill). I mean that is the impression I'm getting after reading Merrill's article. She did say, that there woulda been no cuts Sunday regardless. So this has to mean that the Chiefs are under the current cap? right? I can't think of anything else?
:shrug:

So what Im saying, is, if they're under the cap already. Why not keep those contracts the same? If you have a new CBA reached, the new cap number is projected to rise another 10+ million. So why not sign a defensive player or 2?
You have the cap room to work with....this is what Im trying to get at.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 12:16 PM
this is what Im trying to get at.

he knows exactly what you were getting at

The Bad Guy
03-06-2006, 12:17 PM
They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

They stood pat because they kept the same scabs around.

They signed Lional Dalton.

This interior defense needs a lot more than Lional Dalton.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 12:19 PM
jerome woods
eric hicks
greg wesley
jason dunn

oooh ooh ... they did add 3rd string QB damon Huard and utility backup Chris Bober.

oh yea... they tried to sign Az Hazim too ... but he bolted before signing IIRC.



:clap:
Wesley was signed in '03

They signed several starters. Woods coming off a Pro Bowl year. Hicks was a starter, and it's not like they signed him just because he was cheap, because he didn't come all that cheap. They traded for Welbourn, which considering the new contract, was the equivalent of a FA.


Was it a big spending year like '05? No. But it's not like they didn't sign anyone.

People just pretend those signings didn't happen because the players all ended up sucking.

TEX
03-06-2006, 12:19 PM
They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

It all depends on one's defination of "standing pat." Mine is whan you keep the same players, you stand pat. I know others, includong yourself, have a different oponion that I can respect, but do not agree with. :rolleyes:

beer bacon
03-06-2006, 12:20 PM
First off, Htis, Im not assuming that there will be no cap. All I'm saying is, the current contracts that have been restructured, in addition to that, the current contracts that have been terminated have put us under the current cap(94.5mill). I mean that is the impression I'm getting after reading Merrill's article. She did say, that there woulda been no cuts Sunday regardless. So this has to mean that the Chiefs are under the current cap? right? I can't think of anything else?
:shrug:

So what Im saying, is, if they're under the cap already. Why not keep those contracts the same? If you have a new CBA reached, the new cap number is projected to rise another 10+ million. So why not sign a defensive player or 2?
You have the cap room to work with....this is what Im trying to get at.

I am guessing because restructuring contracts for all these vets means more trouble down the road when they are no longer playing at a high level or maybe not even playing at all.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 12:23 PM
So what Im saying, is, if they're under the cap already. Why not keep those contracts the same?I think the assumption is that the restructures were done anticipating the CBA not getting done. If the CBA does get done, then either the team will choose to not keep the restructures due to future impact on the cap, or the players that agreed to them will no longer agree due to the team no longer having a "no CBA" leverage.

And remember, this is all speculation. We don't know that the team won't use extra cap space if the CBA gets done.

RedThat
03-06-2006, 12:25 PM
They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

I know what your saying, but still, it's frustrating to see this team reward the same players that were unsuccessful on porous defense.

Why give the same junks on defense "new" contracts? I know what you mean that they didn't stand pat. I understand you. If re-signing your own players is your definition of not standing pat, then I could accept that.

But, it still goes to show that this team was not susceptible to change. And it showed terribly. My definition of NOT standing pat is NOT keeping the same players that made your defense unsuccessful. My definition of NOT standing pat, is a different approach. Like going out and signing new players that are better than the current ones you had, and improving your team from there. We didn't do that in 2004. We kept this team the same, without failing to change direction, and the price was paid.

TEX
03-06-2006, 12:26 PM
Wesley was signed in '03

They signed several starters. Woods coming off a Pro Bowl year. Hicks was a starter, and it's not like they signed him just because he was cheap, because he didn't come all that cheap. They traded for Welbourn, which considering the new contract, was the equivalent of a FA.


Was it a big spending year like '05? No. But it's not like they didn't sign anyone.

People just pretend those signings didn't happen because the players all ended up sucking.

I view a trade as way different from signing your own free agents, especially when said trade cost you a first -day draft pick and then an other early-mid-rounder. But, if you mean that the Chiefs did make an attempt to upgrade the team by adding a player who was not on the roster the year before, then I see your point. But IMHO, Welbourn is not near as good as Tait was.

ct
03-06-2006, 12:27 PM
I think the assumption is that the restructures were done anticipating the CBA not getting done. If the CBA does get done, then either the team will choose to not keep the restructures due to future impact on the cap, or the players that agreed to them will no longer agree due to the team no longer having a "no CBA" leverage.

And remember, this is all speculation. We don't know that the team won't use extra cap space if the CBA gets done.

Nor do we know what the longer term impact is from these restructured contracts, or if it has any impact whatso-freaking-ever on our FA activity. This has just turned into yet another Laz vs. htis cock fight. again...

TEX
03-06-2006, 12:27 PM
I know what your saying, but still, it's frustrating to see this team reward the same players that were unsuccessful on porous defense.

Why give the same junks on defense "new" contracts? I know what you mean that they didn't stand pat. I understand you. If re-signing your own players is your definition of not standing pat, then I could accept that.

But, it still goes to show that this team was not susceptible to change. And it showed terribly. My definition of standing pat is NOT keeping the same players that made your defense unsuccessful. My definition of standing pat, is a different approach. Like going out and signing new players that are better than the current ones you had, and improving your team from there. We didn't do that in 2004. We kept this team the same, without failing to change direction, and the price was paid.

I definately agree with you here as I'v e been making this case for 2 years now, but I believe the "different approach" the team took was hiring Gun.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 12:30 PM
I view a trade as way different from signing your own free agents, especially when said trade cost you a first -day draft pick and then an other early-mid-rounder. But, if you mean that it added a player to the roster, who was not as good as the one we lost, then I see your point.So if we traded for TO tommorrow, it would fall under the category of "standing pat"?

Or were we supposed to make John Tait the highest paid left tackle in the game, while playing him on the right side?

We went out ond filled our need for a right tackle via trade, but that trade meant signing a player to a new contract, just like is he was a free agent.

It goes back to what I've said before about '04. It's not that the team "didn't sign anyone". It's that the team didn't sign the guys you wanted.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 12:32 PM
Nor do we know what the longer term impact is from these restructured contracts, or if it has any impact whatso-freaking-ever on our FA activity. This has just turned into yet another Laz vs. htis cock fight. again...Exactly. None of us know shit about this situation.

It's an argument based on what we speculate the team will do with the contracts that we're guessing we know the structure of.

Mecca
03-06-2006, 12:38 PM
No matter what the Chiefs are saying in the media...........they have to sign a corner. That might be the only thing they spend on but we're probably gonna end up with like Sam Madison seeing as he's probably not going to demand huge money and knows players on our team already.

ct
03-06-2006, 12:40 PM
No matter what the Chiefs are saying in the media...........they have to sign a corner. That might be the only thing they spend on but we're probably gonna end up with like Sam Madison seeing as he's probably not going to demand huge money and knows players on our team already.

I disagree with ya. I fully expect we'll pick up a CB on Day1 this year, and have Battle, Sapp, Hodge and rookie fight it out. All part of the youth movement.

Reaper16
03-06-2006, 12:40 PM
No matter what the Chiefs are saying in the media...........they have to sign a corner. That might be the only thing they spend on but we're probably gonna end up with like Sam Madison seeing as he's probably not going to demand huge money and knows players on our team already.
The Dolphins-ication of the Chiefs continues.

CoMoChief
03-06-2006, 12:41 PM
You guys should be bitching at Lamar to spend money on our goddamned scouting department, not free agents.

The inability to draft good players and sign the right free agents is what's keeping this team down.


Exactly. We havent had any good drafts for defensive players in quite some time. Jared Allen is the only late round gem. Thats why it was so huge that DJ fell to us. I would have ran out in 3 seconds after it was our pick to draft him. I dont know why Carl Peterson took the entire 15 minutes of clock time.

Eddie Freeman - 2nd round draft pick to practice squad
Ryan Sims - 6th overall pick - hasnt lived up to potential by any means and can never stay healthy.
Junior Siavii - Why in the bloody hell would ANYONE waste a 2nd round pick on a "project" DT?!?! We even traded down for that pick did we not?
Kawika Mitchell - I would use him as an example but he finally produced last season.

All of these shitty draft picks along with unproven veteran bum players, I can totally see how this defense sucks year in and year out. No wonder we cant have any Dline penetration. These guys along with Hicks and Dalton get as much penetration as a 3 inch penis. You build a team through the draft. This is something we have not been able to do in the last decade. Hopefully Herm being a former scout, we can start drafting some players that can actually play football.

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 12:43 PM
Exactly. None of us know shit about this situation.

It's an argument based on what we speculate the team will do with the contracts that we're guessing we know the structure of.
you sure don't mind telling everyone how wrong they are on such a speculative matter.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 12:43 PM
First off, Htis, Im not assuming that there will be no cap. All I'm saying is, the current contracts that have been restructured, in addition to that, the current contracts that have been terminated have put us under the current cap(94.5mill). I mean that is the impression I'm getting after reading Merrill's article. She did say, that there woulda been no cuts Sunday regardless. So this has to mean that the Chiefs are under the current cap? right? I can't think of anything else?
:shrug:

So what Im saying, is, if they're under the cap already. Why not keep those contracts the same? If you have a new CBA reached, the new cap number is projected to rise another 10+ million. So why not sign a defensive player or 2?
You have the cap room to work with....this is what Im trying to get at.

The Chiefs are under the current cap WITH those restructured contracts, which haven't yet been sent to the league.

They're awaiting the outcome of the latest round of negotiations.

Chiefnj
03-06-2006, 12:45 PM
The Chiefs are under the current cap WITH those restructured contracts, which haven't yet been sent to the league.

They're awaiting the outcome of the latest round of negotiations.

How do you know they haven't been sent to the league?

jspchief
03-06-2006, 12:45 PM
Exactly. We havent had any good drafts for defensive players in quite some time. Jared Allen is the only late round gem. Thats why it was so huge that DJ fell to us. I would have ran out in 3 seconds after it was our pick to draft him. I dont know why Carl Peterson took the entire 15 minutes of clock time.

Eddie Freeman - 2nd round draft pick to practice squad
Ryan Sims - 6th overall pick - hasnt lived up to potential by any means and can never stay healthy.
Junior Siavii - Why in the bloody hell would ANYONE waste a 2nd round pick on a "project" DT?!?! We even traded down for that pick did we not?
Kawika Mitchell - I would use him as an example but he finally produced last season.

All of these shitty draft picks along with unproven veteran bum players, I can totally see how this defense sucks year in and year out. No wonder we cant have any Dline penetration. These guys along with Hicks and Dalton get penetration as much as a 3 inch penis. You build a team through the draft. This is something we have not been able to do in the last decade. Hopefully Herm being a former scout, we can start drafting some players that can actually play football.It's not just that we can't find stars in the draft. We can barely find role players.

We have a roster full of guys like Siavii and Wilson, who can barely get on the field. And we draft guys like Hodge and Thorpe that can't even contribute on special teams.

At least during the Vermeil era, it's like we were content drafting projects and letting them stagnate on the bench. We can't afford to wait until year 3 of a 4 year rookie contract to get return on the investment.

TEX
03-06-2006, 12:45 PM
So if we traded for TO tommorrow, it would fall under the category of "standing pat"?

Or were we supposed to make John Tait the highest paid left tackle in the game, while playing him on the right side?

We went out ond filled our need for a right tackle via trade, but that trade meant signing a player to a new contract, just like is he was a free agent.

It goes back to what I've said before about '04. It's not that the team "didn't sign anyone". It's that the team didn't sign the guys you wanted.

No, it would not. I don't know where you got that T.O. analogy from. This is pretty straight forward. We went out and traded, meaning it cost us something other money which is all it takes to sign a free agent. A trade is a trade and acquiring a free agent is what it is. They are totally different ways of adding talent to the roster. That's all I'm saying.

Mecca
03-06-2006, 12:46 PM
I disagree with ya. I fully expect we'll pick up a CB on Day1 this year, and have Battle, Sapp, Hodge and rookie fight it out. All part of the youth movement.

I don't think any of the CB's on our current roster are capable of starting........Now if we draft Antonio Cromartie then that's fine.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 12:47 PM
I definately agree with you here as I'v e been making this case for 2 years now, but I believe the "different approach" the team took was hiring Gun.

And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 12:47 PM
How do you know they haven't been sent to the league?

Because Carl said they haven't been sent to the league.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 12:48 PM
Nor do we know what the longer term impact is from these restructured contracts, or if it has any impact whatso-freaking-ever on our FA activity.

I absolutely agree.

This has just turned into yet another Laz vs. htis cock fight. again...

Well, if he wasn't such an idiot...

:D

CoMoChief
03-06-2006, 12:50 PM
It's not just that we can't find stars in the draft. We can barely find role players.

We have a roster full of guys like Siavii and Wilson, who can barely get on the field. And we draft guys like Hodge and Thorpe that can't even contribute on special teams.

At least during the Vermeil era, it's like we were content drafting projects and letting them stagnate on the bench. We can't afford to wait until year 3 of a 4 year rookie contract to get return on the investment.


Very True. BTW Congrats on 11,000 posts. :)

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 01:22 PM
Well, if he wasn't such an idiot... :D
:harumph:

if HE wasn't such a stubborn bastige









:moon:

Mr. Laz
03-06-2006, 01:24 PM
And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

and who's fault is it that the organization was stupid enough to let Goonther make the decisions?

RedThat
03-06-2006, 01:24 PM
No matter what the Chiefs are saying in the media...........they have to sign a corner. That might be the only thing they spend on but we're probably gonna end up with like Sam Madison seeing as he's probably not going to demand huge money and knows players on our team already.

It is believed, according to Adam Schefter, that the New Giants are expected to be serious contenders in the Sam Madison sweepstakes. I do agree, CB is a priority.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 01:28 PM
and who's fault is it that the organization was stupid enough to let Goonther make the decisions?

Carl Delano Peterson.

Chiefnj
03-06-2006, 01:39 PM
Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

And all three of them are still around for the 2006 campaign.

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-

go bowe
03-06-2006, 01:40 PM
cb does seem to be a bit of a weakness on the defense right now, unless surtain can play both cb positions at the same time (then we could add an extra safety to help out wesley, or better yet another de to help hicks)...

go bowe
03-06-2006, 01:41 PM
Carl Delano Peterson.is carl related to franklin?

go bowe
03-06-2006, 01:43 PM
And all three of them are still around for the 2006 campaign.

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-and all three would look a lot better if we had an effective pass rush that forced the qb to get rid of the ball just a little sooner, say like 5 seconds sooner... :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

RedThat
03-06-2006, 01:48 PM
cb does seem to be a bit of a weakness on the defense right now, unless surtain can play both cb positions at the same time (then we could add an extra safety to help out wesley, or better yet another de to help hicks)...

Agree with all that. You could also add in there, another defensive tackle too. But all this doesn't matter anyway. According to both our GM and owner, we are not going to be active in FA as in years past. Glad to see you recognize all the holes on defense, but thats ok, this team will stand pat anyway. It's not as important to them because of all the signing bonuses they gave out in years past, plus the cap, they a bit tight there, and the fact they were active in free agency last year. They need to take a break.

BigRock
03-06-2006, 01:57 PM
What difference does it make what Peterson says? The media around KC just makes up the news anyway. You're accusing Peterson of trying to spin his way out of a bunch of news reports that were based in nothing but speculation. Carl may be a snake, but I don't see any reason to give more credence to the Nick Athans and Rhonda Mosses of the world.
The possibility of Shields getting cut was mentioned all over ESPN, and it was in every AP article that's come out the last few day about the CBA situation. Shields, Derrick Brooks, and Pennington were repeatedly listed as high-priced veterans who might get cut if no deal was reached. It was hardly just a fabrication from the local KC media.

jspchief
03-06-2006, 02:04 PM
The possibility of Shields getting cut was mentioned all over ESPN, and it was in every AP article that's come out the last few day about the CBA situation. Shields, Derrick Brooks, and Pennington were repeatedly listed as high-priced veterans who might get cut if no deal was reached. It was hardly just a fabrication from the local KC media.A bunch of media hacks took guesses at who was going to get cut. Carl Peterson told them that they were wrong in regards to Shields. How is that spin?

The Fox news report that Shields had been cut came from KC media. WPI was Jay Glazer's source.

All the reports about Shields and Holmes were speculation. Now Peterson sets the record straight and it's spin?

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 02:10 PM
And all three of them are still around for the 2006 campaign.

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-

They're all FOUR still around. Probably should have been expected when Carl hired yet another coach from his "network".

BigRock
03-06-2006, 03:27 PM
A bunch of media hacks took guesses at who was going to get cut. Carl Peterson told them that they were wrong in regards to Shields. How is that spin?It's spin because it's not true. Even if you want to discount ESPN, the Associated Press, the Kansas City Star, etc. etc. etc., Will Shields himself talked about it last week. He sounded, according to this same Star article, "pessimistic about playing in 2006 in Kansas City". I think Will Shields was close enough to the situation to know if the story was just BS from media hacks or not.

htismaqe
03-06-2006, 03:40 PM
It's spin because it's not true. Even if you want to discount ESPN, the Associated Press, the Kansas City Star, etc. etc. etc., Will Shields himself talked about it last week. He sounded, according to this same Star article, "pessimistic about playing in 2006 in Kansas City". I think Will Shields was close enough to the situation to know if the story was just BS from media hacks or not.

When did Shields say that?

His agent said that he would play next year even if it wasn't in KC. And all he said himself was that he hadn't been cut...

BigRock
03-06-2006, 05:20 PM
The quote about Shields being pessimistic was a quote from the KC Star article at the beginning of this thread, not a direct quote out of Will's mouth. But the Star did an article on him a few days ago where he seemed to openly question whether or not he'd be a Chief in '06, which is what the "pessimistic" quote was referring to.

jlscorpio
03-06-2006, 07:02 PM
Here's a fact I find hard to ignore. The Pats and Steelers built their championships through the draft, not free agency. I'm not a fan of signing every big-name free agent on the market. I think we have to draft better to win championships. I like the youth movement that's been talked about at different times. That's the direction this team needs to go in. Young always beats old in a foot race, and in this league, SPEED KILLS. One more thing...am I the only one that wishes we kept Fujita???