PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Chiefs were one of the 5 suitors for Albert Haynesworth


Arrowhead Pride
02-27-2009, 09:21 AM
http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/real_scouts/entry/view/17541/bucs,_skins_battled_for_haynesworth

Michael Smith of ESPN reports that the two finalists for the services of defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth were the Redskins and the Buccaneers.

(In the event you're just waking up, the Redskins won.)

Smith reports that the Titans, Lions, Chiefs, Giants, and Falcons also were in the running.

It's currently unknown, however, whether any other team was willing to enter the same ballpark as the Redskins, who are paying Haynesworth $41 million guaranteed as part of a seven-year, $100 million base package.

The fact that the Chiefs got into the game is surprising, given that Haynesworth doesn't seem to fit the high-character template that the team surely is applying under G.M. Scott Pioli. Also, the Chiefs run at 3-4; Haynesworth presumably would have been used as a Richard Seymour-style defensive end in that system.

Then again, maybe the Chiefs got into the action simply to ensure that someone would overpay for Haynesworth.

keg in kc
02-27-2009, 09:24 AM
I must've missed the announcement that we're going 3-4.

Not surprised we were in the running, and glad we didn't win. Not at that price.

RUSH
02-27-2009, 09:24 AM
I'm wondering where everyone is getting this information that we switched to the 3-4. Did I miss something? Serious question

Jerm
02-27-2009, 09:25 AM
Then again, maybe the Chiefs got into the action simply to ensure that someone would overpay for Haynesworth.

Really doesn't make a lot of sense but ok lol.

Hell the Redskins had little cap room and signed Haynesworth...bidding to get teams to overpay didn't work if that's what the objective was.

soundmind
02-27-2009, 09:31 AM
If we were truly interested in signing Haynesworth, I can't believe it was money that kept us from getting that deal done. We have far too much to work with, so I can't believe that we got outbid.

I think what's more likely is that KC is going to have some trouble with the top-tier guys anyway, because we're asking them to come in and lose for a minute. My guess is that the Skins were willing to match any offer.

Jerm
02-27-2009, 09:33 AM
I doubt we were willing to give so much of the money up front like Washington did...IMO that's the deciding factor in why he signed there. Just an insane offer TBH.

kcchiefsus
02-27-2009, 09:34 AM
If we were truly interested in signing Haynesworth, I can't believe it was money that kept us from getting that deal done. We have far too much to work with, so I can't believe that we got outbid.

I think what's more likely is that KC is going to have some trouble with the top-tier guys anyway, because we're asking them to come in and lose for a minute. My guess is that the Skins were willing to match any offer.

The Rams had just as bad of a record yet they are bringing in guys left and right. I don't buy that for a second. Jason Brown is probably the best offensive player on the market and they seem to almost have him under contract.

We have trouble with the top guys because everybody knows we will not put out the money that alot of other teams will.

keg in kc
02-27-2009, 09:36 AM
We have trouble with the top guys because everybody knows we will not put out the money that alot of other teams will.With a new general manager and an owner just starting to make the franchise his own, we don't really have a reputation right now. Not yet. This isn't the days of Carl and Lamar.

DaWolf
02-27-2009, 09:37 AM
From what we've seen, the Chiefs certainly wouldn't have leaked this info, so it could have been the agent who floated the name out there to get the price to skyrocket...

Arrowhead Pride
02-27-2009, 09:42 AM
I'm wondering where everyone is getting this information that we switched to the 3-4. Did I miss something? Serious question

Adam Schefter said we were going to the 3-4 a couple of weeks ago. He's very reliable so I'm compelled to believe him.

But the catch is when would we make this switch. Could be a couple of years. Or it could never happen.

soundmind
02-27-2009, 09:44 AM
With a new general manager and an owner just starting to make the franchise his own, we don't really have a reputation right now. Not yet. This isn't the days of Carl and Lamar.

Well, in fairness, it is Lamar's boy - and he doesn't strike me as being much different, the guy's voice makes me think he's water-tight. The reason he was willing roll coin on Pioli is b/c Pioli protects the rest of the coin. But I'd add again, with this kind of cap room - are you waiting for stocks to drop? Foolish to think we'll be anything but barely over the spending hurdle. Guarantee we spend $101M if we have to spend $101M - not a penny more.

Molitoth
02-27-2009, 09:45 AM
Haynesworth is soooooo not worth that money.

JohnnyV13
02-27-2009, 09:45 AM
As much as some have trouble admitting it, this blurb shows the value of locking down information. No one really knows what defense the Chiefs are running; consequently, they don't understand what the Chiefs are doing. The 3-4 talk came from a national reporter speculating about the Chiefs. No one even knows our D coordinator.

Is is Gibbs? Is it Pendergast? Btw, Pendergast ran a hybrid 4-3, with Darnell Dockett as a penetrating tackle.

EyePod
02-27-2009, 10:12 AM
As much as some have trouble admitting it, this blurb shows the value of locking down information. No one really knows what defense the Chiefs are running; consequently, they don't understand what the Chiefs are doing. The 3-4 talk came from a national reporter speculating about the Chiefs. No one even knows our D coordinator.

Is is Gibbs? Is it Pendergast? Btw, Pendergast ran a hybrid 4-3, with Darnell Dockett as a penetrating tackle.

He ran the 4-3 when Denny Green was there. After one year of it with Whiz, Whiz made him switch to a hybrid. But yeah, Gibbs and Clancy are both 4-3 guys.

htismaqe
02-27-2009, 10:17 AM
He ran the 4-3 when Denny Green was there. After one year of it with Whiz, Whiz made him switch to a hybrid. But yeah, Gibbs and Clancy are both 4-3 guys.

Gibbs has extensive experience with the 3-4, IIRC.

sedated
02-27-2009, 10:22 AM
Also, the Chiefs run at 3-4; Haynesworth presumably would have been used as a Richard Seymour-style defensive end in that system.

a 6'6" 320 pound DE?

kcchiefsus
02-27-2009, 10:24 AM
a 6'6" 320 pound DE?

Ummm, that is the kind of player you look for in a 3-4 DE.

Dicky McElephant
02-27-2009, 10:28 AM
Adam Schefter said we were going to the 3-4 a couple of weeks ago. He's very reliable so I'm compelled to believe him.

But the catch is when would we make this switch. Could be a couple of years. Or it could never happen.

Schefter is reliable for all things Shanahan.......not all things Chiefs.

sedated
02-27-2009, 10:30 AM
Ummm, that is the kind of player you look for in a 3-4 DE.

I know the DE's in a 3-4 are bigger, but didn't think that big. I guess Seymour is 6'6" 310, but he played NT before they got Wilfork.

BigChiefFan
02-27-2009, 10:33 AM
Friggin' Redskins. Money is no object to them.

OnTheWarpath58
02-27-2009, 10:35 AM
And people laughed when I suggested that Haynesworth would get $30M guaranteed...I was told there was no way he'd get that much.

BigChiefFan
02-27-2009, 10:39 AM
And people laughed when I suggested that Haynesworth would get $30M guaranteed...I was told there was no way he'd get that much.I think Haynesworth is worth $10-12 mil per year, but anything over that is assinine to pay. The fuggin' Redskins have driven up the price of professional athletes with their careless approach of money. We don't stand a chance against those fuggin Yankee wannabes.

sedated
02-27-2009, 10:48 AM
The fuggin' Redskins have driven up the price of professional athletes with their careless approach of money.

last year another team gave the biggest contract in history to a defensive player, so its not just the redskins

crazycoffey
02-27-2009, 11:07 AM
I must've missed the announcement that we're going 3-4.

Not surprised we were in the running, and glad we didn't win. Not at that price.


concurring....

Amnorix
02-27-2009, 11:08 AM
If we were truly interested in signing Haynesworth, I can't believe it was money that kept us from getting that deal done. We have far too much to work with, so I can't believe that we got outbid.

You don't understand the BB/SP system. It's not about how much money you have to work with, it's about not overpaying relative to the value that you get.

RINGLEADER
02-27-2009, 11:13 AM
I must've missed the announcement that we're going 3-4.

Not surprised we were in the running, and glad we didn't win. Not at that price.

Amen.

I can't think of the last DT that put up monster numbers in a contract year, got paid, then didn't disappear on the field.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2009, 11:14 AM
And people laughed when I suggested that Haynesworth would get $30M guaranteed...I was told there was no way he'd get that much.

Remember that WPI post that suggested we could get Haynesworth and 3 other top tier FAs for 26 million guaranteed?

OnTheWarpath58
02-27-2009, 11:15 AM
You don't understand the BB/SP system. It's not about how much money you have to work with, it's about not overpaying relative to the value that you get.

Few around here understand the system, Amno.

It's going to be a HUGE adjustment for fans. Hell, we already have people whining about how Brian Waters was supposedly treated.

OnTheWarpath58
02-27-2009, 11:15 AM
Remember that WPI post that suggested we could get Haynesworth and 3 other top tier FAs for 26 million guaranteed?

Of course. First thing I thought of.

I'd love to find that thread, everyone agreed with that guy.

Idiots.

Rain Man
02-27-2009, 12:28 PM
I really don't enjoy watching 3-4 defenses, but if Scott wants it, I'll back him up.

So hear this, Scott. A fan in Denver who spends $50 a year on the Chiefs is supporting your decisions. I've got your back on this.

aturnis
02-27-2009, 10:42 PM
If we were truly interested in signing Haynesworth, I can't believe it was money that kept us from getting that deal done. We have far too much to work with, so I can't believe that we got outbid.

I think what's more likely is that KC is going to have some trouble with the top-tier guys anyway, because we're asking them to come in and lose for a minute. My guess is that the Skins were willing to match any offer.

I guess I don't understand your logic. We have a GM who doesn't believe in overpaying players, and you think he would pay one guy 100mil?

If we were really interested, then yes, we did get outbid. We weren't willing to go that high. We could...and all day long. Just not willing to. Same as the Bucs.

the Talking Can
02-28-2009, 05:47 AM
Haynesworth's 'real' deal likely four years, $48M (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/real_scouts/entry/view/17606/haynesworths_real_deal_likely_four_years,_$48m)

Friday, February 27, 2009
Posted By Mike Florio 10:20 PM
Like we've said time and again when it comes to these big-money contracts, the number that gets reported carries a lot of fluff aimed at making the deal look better, presumably to help the agent leverage the transaction into attracting further clients.

In the case of the contract signed on Friday by defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth with the Redskins, the headlines regarding a seven-year, $100 million deal with a maximum value of $115 million sound a lot better than something like, say, four years and $48 million.

But Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that, in reality, the contract is worth $48 million over four years.

In the fifth year of the deal, Haynesworth is due to receive a whopping $29 million in salary and bonuses. And since he'll be 32 when the 2013 season begins, the Redskins likely won't pay those amounts.

Still, $41 million of the $48 million is genuinely guaranteed, which is the true significance of the contract. Moving forward, look for a greater percentage of the actual base value of these contracts to represent guaranteed money.

speak24
02-28-2009, 08:55 AM
Yeah right that we pay that much.

kstater
02-28-2009, 08:58 AM
I really want to see a new CBA come through and keep the cap. In a couple years, the Redskins and Raiders among others will be looking to dump some good players really cheap to get them off the books.

Manila-Chief
02-28-2009, 09:20 AM
You don't understand the BB/SP system. It's not about how much money you have to work with, it's about not overpaying relative to the value that you get.

Let's look at the positive side of this info/rumor ... the Chiefs were active in FA during the first few hours. If the price was not right, I don't blame Pioli.

We all remember Carl sitting on the sideline (or being on vacation) until the good FA's were gone. And, remember had Carl signed a guy like this back while DV was here we might have won a playoff game??? And, Pioli is trying to build a team, thus, I think that is why he didn't over pay for him.

Well, every time I hear Haynesworth I'm reminded Carl chose "his good ole boy network Ryan Sims" instead of Haynesworth or Henderson.

I maybe wrong but I don't think Pioli makes those wrong decision!!!!

htismaqe
02-28-2009, 11:11 AM
Amen.

I can't think of the last DT that put up monster numbers in a contract year, got paid, then didn't disappear on the field.

That's because there aren't any.

I remember back in 2001-2002, before we drafted Sims, when people were clamoring for Free Agent DT flavor of the month. I said then that it was a complete waste of money.

Later that year I heard some guys talking on Mike and Mike and they said that something like 85% of free agent defensive tackles with the 2nd team never match, let alone exceed, their production with their first team.

htismaqe
02-28-2009, 11:13 AM
Let's look at the positive side of this info/rumor ... the Chiefs were active in FA during the first few hours. If the price was not right, I don't blame Pioli.

We all remember Carl sitting on the sideline (or being on vacation) until the good FA's were gone. And, remember had Carl signed a guy like this back while DV was here we might have won a playoff game??? And, Pioli is trying to build a team, thus, I think that is why he didn't over pay for him.

Well, every time I hear Haynesworth I'm reminded Carl chose "his good ole boy network Ryan Sims" instead of Haynesworth or Henderson.

I maybe wrong but I don't think Pioli makes those wrong decision!!!!

Pioli has a good ole boy network just like Carl did, don't kid yourself.

The difference is that Pioli's gang knows what they're doing.

Manila-Chief
02-28-2009, 01:07 PM
Yep!!!

I think one difference is that Pioli knows how to evaluate talent ... he doesn't depend upon the network to do the evaluating.

Example ... NFLN is reporting he traded for Cassel. I'm not so sure about Cassel, but I trust Pioli's talent evaluation. My "dreaming" is for us to draft either young Elway (Stafford) or young Montana (Sanchez) in the draft and he will be much better player for a longer period of time. If Pioli has indeed pulled the triger, I will accept his judgement. I think he believes Cassel has more upside. It's part of his network but that allowed him inside info for making a decision.