PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs have ~$4 million more cap room then last year at this time


B_Ambuehl
03-09-2006, 10:51 AM
Not that I'd expect them to do jack shit with it but interesting nonetheless. :)

Kclee
03-09-2006, 10:55 AM
Where did you hear this? Not that I doubt you.

jAZ
03-09-2006, 10:55 AM
My guess is that based upon the cautioning we've heard from Arrowhead not to expect activity in FA, I suspect that we are following the pattern we've seen in the last few years.

It seems that alternate years we have gone the FA route (last year). In the off years (this year and 2 years ago), we still have "cap money" to spend and fans get excited... but forget that there are both cap and cash implications. It seems like in the off years, we leave some of the cap money on the table due to cash flow issues related to signing bonuses.

58-4ever
03-09-2006, 10:56 AM
:rolleyes:

Dunit35
03-09-2006, 11:01 AM
We still need to re-sign T-Rich (cheaper I hope) or atleast I hope nobody wants him. Tynes needs to be re-signed, Dalton could be re-signed.

I could see Stills coming back for ST play and maybe even Warfield...unless he is going to get more than what he is worth...which is around 500,000.

Count Alex's Losses
03-09-2006, 11:11 AM
Warfield is history.

ct
03-09-2006, 11:18 AM
Somebody will pay Warfield much more than he's worth, and it won't be KC.

Iowanian
03-09-2006, 11:29 AM
If the Hunt's aren't forking over the CASH for signing bonus'....it doesn't matter if the Chiefs have $30 million in cap room.


I think Stills is gone because of the Vet min getting too high to justify for a ST player....Boomer and Scanlon are examples of more affordable guys to fill his roll in ST.

It wouldn't piss me off if Warfield was signed to a more reasonable contract, more in line with his performance.....but I agree that I think he's gone. I think he's one of the players that wouldn't restructure.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 11:37 AM
so the salary cap was just raised 10 million dollars by the new CBA and the chiefs are already down to 4 million in cap room.

:clap: Go Carl Go!!

you da man, babeee

jspchief
03-09-2006, 11:41 AM
so the salary cap was just raised 10 million dollars by the new CBA and the chiefs are already down to 4 million in cap room.

:clap: Go Carl Go!!

you da man, babeeeI don't think you understand.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 11:44 AM
I don't think you understand.

yes ... i do


the chiefs didn't make 6 million dollar worth of restructures/cuts because the salary cap went up ........... leaving us with 4 million in cap room.

Count Alex's Losses
03-09-2006, 11:46 AM
so the salary cap was just raised 10 million dollars by the new CBA and the chiefs are already down to 4 million in cap room.

:clap: Go Carl Go!!

you da man, babeee

4 million MORE than last year.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 11:46 AM
yes ... i do


the chiefs didn't make 6 million dollar worth of restructures/cuts because the salary cap went up ........... leaving us with 4 million in cap room.According to what?

I'm just curious where these numbers are coming from.

Phobia
03-09-2006, 11:49 AM
According to what?

I'm just curious where these numbers are coming from.

Numbers are coming out of people's asses at the moment. I study the cap closely and I have no idea where we are. There is a very confusing matter of a $3.5M cap credit we received - depending on the timing of that credit, we could be anywhere from $6M to $12M under. Those numbers are also out of my ass.

ChiefsGirl
03-09-2006, 11:52 AM
Those numbers are also out of my ass.

Now there's more room up there for the gerbils. :)

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 11:53 AM
According to what?

I'm just curious where these numbers are coming from.
if you disagree with the 4 million dollar cap figure you need to take it up with B_Ambuehl.

my point is that that they chiefs won't tweak the cap as much as they could ............... again.


they were under the cap at 95 million .......... so they should have 10 million in cap room because it went up to 105 million.

but the chiefs will CHOOSE not to do some restructures

You can bank on it.


every year we are tight against the cap because the chiefs choose to be tight against the cap.

jspchief
03-09-2006, 11:58 AM
if you disagree with the 4 million dollar cap figure you need to take it up with B_Ambuehl.

my point is that that they chiefs won't tweak the cap as much as they could ............... again.


they were under the cap at 95 million .......... so they should have 10 million in cap room because it went up to 105 million.

but the chiefs will CHOOSE not to do some restructures

You can bank on it.


every year we are tight against the cap because the chiefs choose to be tight against the cap.Oh, I agree with that they probably won't submit the restructured contracts. I also agree with their reasoning for not doing it. Better to take those cap hits now than to mortgage the future.

whoaskew
03-09-2006, 12:04 PM
..........it went up to 105 million...

Where did you get this figure from?

Everything I have seen says the cap is 102 million this year and 109 million next year.

Phobia
03-09-2006, 12:04 PM
Now there's more room up there for the gerbils. :)

More malicious rumors about me. I can't keep up with them all.... Though, I'm neither confirming nor denying it.

RedThat
03-09-2006, 12:05 PM
Here is something I pulled out of my ass. This should give us clear indication on what our estimated cap # is, and how much we are below the current salary cap with the new CBA extension:

http://seahawks.scout.com/2/506307.html

MOhillbilly
03-09-2006, 12:07 PM
cap schmap. spend it all or spend nothin,just give us die-hards something to brag about!

Phobia
03-09-2006, 12:07 PM
Yeah - I've read that RedBull. The timing of that $3.5M credit is what is in question. We have been under the cap all week. But was our cap credit from last year already taken into account? Have we been under a $94.5M number all week or have we been under a $98M number all week? Your guess is as good as mine.

Chiefs Pantalones
03-09-2006, 12:50 PM
I bet $20 that we re-sign TRich and Carl says in the papers that we are, because of the TRich re-signing, capped out. ROFL

Dave Lane
03-09-2006, 01:09 PM
Yeah - I've read that RedBull. The timing of that $3.5M credit is what is in question. We have been under the cap all week. But was our cap credit from last year already taken into account? Have we been under a $94.5M number all week or have we been under a $98M number all week? Your guess is as good as mine.

My guess is we were under the 98M number as we were so far above the cap that cutting 4 players and a few restructures could drop us $20M is hard to imagine...

Dave

the Talking Can
03-09-2006, 01:45 PM
things come out of my ass too...

B_Ambuehl
03-09-2006, 02:13 PM
Alright. Last year Carl Peterson came out and said the Chiefs were 3 or 4 million under prior to the start of free agency. There's an article on it over at KC Chiefs.com for you who don't believe me. It was posted probably around feb. of last year if you search for it.

This past week, there has been more then one journalist write an article talkin 'bout the chiefs being "right where they need to be" with "no further cuts needing to be made" etc. Ok. Now, they may have been lieing or pulling that clean out of their ass but i have a hard time believing it since nobody has been cut since warfield, stills, and barber.

So that means that as of yesterday the Chiefs were at least even with the cap. But what happened last night?? The CBA gave an additioanl 8 million dollars of cap space to everybody didn't they? So that means they (the chiefs) now have ~8 million in cap room. Now how much cap room did Carl Peterson say the Chiefs were working with at this time last year? 3 or 4 million. And this year they have 8 million? What's the difference? About ~ 4 million or so.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 02:43 PM
And this year they have 8 million? What's the difference? About ~ 4 million or so.

wanna bet?

the chiefs made several contract restructure to get under the 95 million dollar cap ... those restructures weren't official yet because everything got put on hold.

as soon as the CBA went through the chiefs elected to not send several of the contract restructures through.


you can pretty bank on us being exactly in the same cap situation this year as we were last year.... carl will make sure of it.

keg in kc
03-09-2006, 02:44 PM
things come out of my ass too...Are they rubber and cylindrical?

NTTAWWT

Mecca
03-09-2006, 02:46 PM
wanna bet?

the chiefs made several contract restructure to get under the 95 million dollar cap ... those restructures weren't official yet because everything got put on hold.

as soon as the CBA went through the chiefs elected to not send several of the contract restructures through.


you can pretty bank on us being exactly in the same cap situation this year as we were last year.... carl will make sure of it.

If they aren't going to sign anyone, they should atleast use some of the cap room to dump the overpriced underperforming players on the defense. That way we can get the money back on the cap for the year after and actually spend it on some contributors.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 02:48 PM
If they aren't going to sign anyone, they should atleast use some of the cap room to dump the overpriced underperforming players on the defense. That way we can get the money back on the cap for the year after and actually spend it on some contributors.
nice thoughts ... but they'll use that cap room to pay for the draft and to account for the general increase in players minimum salaries because of the new CBA.

Kclee
03-09-2006, 03:06 PM
as soon as the CBA went through the chiefs elected to not send several of the contract restructures through.





This is a fact? And by 'several', do you know whose contracts stayed restuctured? (Bell, and Priest maybe)

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 03:36 PM
This is a fact? And by 'several', do you know whose contracts stayed restuctured? (Bell, and Priest maybe)

fact ... nope

all this salary cap is smoke and mirrors ... it's so fluid you can't "know" unless you're allowed to see the paper work.

we just have to add the stuff up we know

1. chiefs made cuts and said they had done enough restructuring that they wouldn't have to make anymore cuts to get under the 95 million dollar salary cap(before the new CBA)

2. the NFL puts all moves on hold pending extension of discussions of CBA. all cuts made day before talk discussion extensions aren't official until they make waiver wire etc.

3. chiefs say even if the CBA agreement is reached they likely won't do much in FA.


now about #3, either they:

a. will have cap room, after restructures and the new CBA, but aren't going to use it.

b. are just lying about not being active in free agency

c. have used the NFL putting everything on hold to give themselves flexibility on all the restructures they did ..... some they will, some they won't do depending on CBA extension.



1+1+1=3


as for which contracts stayed restructured? :shrug:

i could only assume that they players that have a long term position with the chiefs would stay restructured. Players that might get cut in the near future would have their restructure dropped so that it wouldn't hurt the chief's cap as much IF/When they get cut.


i choose the C. option has being most likely ... but reach your own conclusions or add one of your own.

htismaqe
03-09-2006, 03:41 PM
wanna bet?

the chiefs made several contract restructure to get under the 95 million dollar cap ... those restructures weren't official yet because everything got put on hold.

as soon as the CBA went through the chiefs elected to not send several of the contract restructures through.

you can pretty bank on us being exactly in the same cap situation this year as we were last year.... carl will make sure of it.

How do you know, for a fact, that those players didn't agree to restructure with the EXPLICIT instruction that if the CBA got done, the contract would be null and void? Furthermore, the contracts themselves could have contained such language.

htismaqe
03-09-2006, 03:42 PM
This is a fact? And by 'several', do you know whose contracts stayed restuctured? (Bell, and Priest maybe)

We know Priest restructured outside of the CBA deal, because his base salaries at NFLPA.org have changed.

We know that Bell was restructured because he didn't get his roster bonus.

FAX
03-09-2006, 03:45 PM
This is marvelous news, Mr. B_Ambuehl. Thanks for posting. Perhaps I missed it, but what is the source of this information?

Thanks.

FAX

Phobia
03-09-2006, 05:41 PM
fact ... nope

all this salary cap is smoke and mirrors ... it's so fluid you can't "know" unless you're allowed to see the paper work.

Precisely. It's almost a waste of time to do otherwise. The Chiefs are REQUIRED to be under the cap. Everything else is just a bunch of talk.

Mr. Laz
03-09-2006, 06:25 PM
How do you know, for a fact, that those players didn't agree to restructure with the EXPLICIT instruction that if the CBA got done, the contract would be null and void? Furthermore, the contracts themselves could have contained such language.
bullchit... you're grasping a straws and you know it


restructures are about 1 thing and that's money ... a player isn't going to care about the CBA or anything else. If the team is gonna front him money to restructure the contract then 99% of the time the player is going to take it.... period.


it's only taking a cut in pay that's a problem ... and taking a cut in pay is only gonna happen IF there's a problem that pretty much forces the player to take one ... like an injury or something.

none of that is influenced by the CBA



what IS influenced by the CBA is how much the team wants/has to restructure and pay money up front. The chiefs will do as much as they have to .... rarely more.



you know all this .... so don't be such a argumentative little beyeotch. :moon: :p