PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs $31M in cap space....


soundmind
07-03-2009, 12:35 PM
AP: Pioli Better....
(http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/6/1/895626/pioli-better-make-sure-he-gets)

My apologies if this is something that's been addressed to the point of nausea, but what in the world are they going to spend that on? Or will they simply look to the stands of a stadium filled to about 60% and say that they can't spend the money??? I think the economic struggle is going to show up in the stands this season, and that situation is going to be magnified in the cities that are full of working class/middle class people. Basically everyone except the "major markets". Maybe it won't be so grim, but I kind of wonder. When the Royals started out strong this year, there was a good presence with the renovated stadium, but seldom a sell-out, even with Grienke dominating the way he was.

As far as I can tell, there's not really anywhere to spend that kind of coin anyway. I know we only have to spend a portion of the $31M, but even at that, who's on the market that's worth $6-8M/year? They'd have made a genuine effort towards an OL or DL in free agency if they intended to spend the money...so what happens now?

chiefbowe82
07-03-2009, 12:41 PM
pioli will be sending me a check in the mail anyday now

Mr. Krab
07-03-2009, 12:41 PM
I think Pioli just decided not to spend money just for the sake of spending money. He wants to evaluate his current talent to see if they can work in the changed system, under the new coaching staff.

Why go out and sign a FA replacement if you don't know what you need replaced. I think he also didn't think we were going to win much during this transition year and spending a bunch of cash would of been a waste early on. Throw in the fact that this FA year was crazy high spending which brought less value for your buck.

And let's be honest, a GM/Coach gets 1 grace year and Pioli is gonna use that to get another year of high draft picks to restock the cupboard.

soundmind
07-03-2009, 12:45 PM
I think Pioli just decided not to spend money just for the sake of spending money. He wants to evaluate his current talent to see if they can work in the changed system, under the new coaching staff.

Why go out and sign a FA replacement if you don't know what you need replaced. I think he also didn't think we were going to win much during this transition year and spending a bunch of cash would of been a waste early on. Throw in the fact that this FA year was crazy high spending which brought less value for your buck.

And let's be honest, a GM/Coach gets 1 grace year and Pioli is gonna use that to get another year of high draft picks to restock the cupboard.

I completely agree with what you said, and I like that he's taking that way kind of....but don't they have a requirement in the CBA that says the team has to spend X amount of dollars on the players? That salary floor is what I'm thinking about....

Mr. Krab
07-03-2009, 12:48 PM
I completely agree with what you said, and I like that he's taking that way kind of....but don't they have a requirement in the CBA that says the team has to spend X amount of dollars on the players? That salary floor is what I'm thinking about....
They can work around that pretty easily when they sign this year's draft picks. They can structure the contracts so that more money is counted against this years cap number and less in the future. The same amount of total money will be paid but you can shift the cap number around alot.

JimNasium
07-03-2009, 12:49 PM
I'm relieved to see this kind of patience. If he would have gone out and broken the bank with big time trades and over-paying free agents it would have reeked of desperation.

JimNasium
07-03-2009, 12:49 PM
They can work around that pretty easily when they sign this year's draft picks. They can structure the contracts so that more money is counted against this years cap number and less in the future. The same amount of total money will be paid but you can shift the cap number around alot.

Isn't the rookie pool already calculated in?

soundmind
07-03-2009, 12:51 PM
Isn't the rookie pool already calculated in?

Yeah, technically we're something like 48-50M under the cap, after front-loaded rookie contracts we'll still be at about 30M under.....

Mr. Krab
07-03-2009, 12:55 PM
Isn't the rookie pool already calculated in?
There is a rookie salary cap but i imagine we have quite a bit allocated for the #3 pick. If they run out of room with the rookies they can always shift around some money for some veterans they have confidence in to be productive. Maybe Alberts and Bowe?

Mr. Arrowhead
07-03-2009, 01:18 PM
there really wasnt anyone to spend big money in the offseason except for maybe albert haynsworth, and supposedly we were one of the teams that offered him a contract, and maybe bart scott, but he was going no where but the jets.

jAZ
07-03-2009, 01:38 PM
Is that with the 1 year contract from Cassel?

Ultra Peanut
07-03-2009, 01:39 PM
SPEND SPEND SPEND

http://i43.tinypic.com/359baj9.gifhttp://i43.tinypic.com/359baj9.gifhttp://i43.tinypic.com/359baj9.gif

SPEND SPEND SPEND

bdeg
07-03-2009, 01:54 PM
Teams will cut better players as they cut their rosters down at the end of training camp. That's when we'll have a chance to spend some of it.

Are we at least over the salary floor?

RedThat
07-03-2009, 01:58 PM
Good news.

This should compliment the Chiefs in locking up some of their better players long term.

JD10367
07-03-2009, 03:11 PM
there really wasnt anyone to spend big money in the offseason except for maybe albert haynsworth, and supposedly we were one of the teams that offered him a contract, and maybe bart scott, but he was going no where but the jets.

Bingo.

Knowing Pioli, I would bet that the Chiefs have made quite a few inquiries about different players. He's probably, at this moment, still talking to Carolina about Peppers and calling Marving Harrison to chat and doing all sorts of stuff. Just because it isn't public knowledge doesn't mean Pioli's been in his office playing with his dusty Atari 2600. He learned subterfuge from the master (Belichick). If Pioli tells you shit is brown, go take a dump and double-check before believing him.

He also probably held out a large chunk thinking they might sign Cassel long-term. If it turns out that they can't work out a deal and, in this economic climate, decide it's now wiser to just let him play under the one-year deal and see if he's for real, then now that's money they don't need to spend this season. And, as pointed out, the pickings are slim.

LaChapelle
07-03-2009, 03:11 PM
You can't blame Pioli. The drafturbators inboxes are stuffed with unanswered PMs from Scott.

KCChiefsMan
07-03-2009, 04:58 PM
we don't want to be like the Redskins and the Cowboys this decade, hopes just die. The Steelers and Patriots dominated this decade and they didn't have many huge FA acquisitions, well the Patriots kind of did, but the majority of their team were players they built up from the draft.

Halfcan
07-03-2009, 05:13 PM
Yeah, technically we're something like 48-50M under the cap, after front-loaded rookie contracts we'll still be at about 30M under.....

Could it be that Hunt just wants the money to help offset what he spent on the stadium??

Sully
07-03-2009, 05:30 PM
Did we ever decide whether teams could accelerate bonuses against the cap to a particular year?

tk13
07-03-2009, 06:26 PM
we don't want to be like the Redskins and the Cowboys this decade, hopes just die. The Steelers and Patriots dominated this decade and they didn't have many huge FA acquisitions, well the Patriots kind of did, but the majority of their team were players they built up from the draft.
The Pats would make big acquisitions but a lot of times they'd be through trades. Like when they got Moss for practically nothing.

Raised On Riots
07-03-2009, 07:28 PM
Bingo.

Knowing Pioli, I would bet that the Chiefs have made quite a few inquiries about different players. He's probably, at this moment, still talking to Carolina about Peppers and calling Marving Harrison to chat and doing all sorts of stuff. Just because it isn't public knowledge doesn't mean Pioli's been in his office playing with his dusty Atari 2600. He learned subterfuge from the master (Belichick). If Pioli tells you shit is brown, go take a dump and double-check before believing him.

He also probably held out a large chunk thinking they might sign Cassel long-term. If it turns out that they can't work out a deal and, in this economic climate, decide it's now wiser to just let him play under the one-year deal and see if he's for real, then now that's money they don't need to spend this season. And, as pointed out, the pickings are slim.

I could Missile Command his ass right back to the 80's! :D

Mojo Jojo
07-03-2009, 07:32 PM
Let's be honest....
The stadium is going over budget...money out of Clark's wallet.
Buy out Carl and Herm...money out of Clark's wallet.
Hire Pioli...money out of Clark's wallet.
Hire Haley...money out of Clark's wallet.
Ticket sales way down...money not coming into Clark's wallet.

Why should he spend it just to spend it? Remember that signing players requires that upfront singing bonus, and Clark has been putting a lot of his money into making changes this season. It's just that the money hasn't all been put into players.

alanm
07-03-2009, 11:13 PM
Could it be that Hunt just wants the money to help offset what he spent on the stadium??Isn't this year that the CBA ends and 2010 is a year with no cap?

Could be the Chiefs will be a player after this season in FA. Holding on to some $$$ now doesn't hurt.

alanm
07-03-2009, 11:16 PM
Let's be honest....
The stadium is going over budget...money out of Clark's wallet.
Buy out Carl and Herm...money out of Clark's wallet.
Hire Pioli...money out of Clark's wallet.
Hire Haley...money out of Clark's wallet.
Ticket sales way down...money not coming into Clark's wallet.

Why should he spend it just to spend it? Remember that signing players requires that upfront singing bonus, and Clark has been putting a lot of his money into making changes this season. It's just that the money hasn't all been put into players. This also makes sense.

soundmind
07-04-2009, 12:56 AM
Let's be honest....
The stadium is going over budget...money out of Clark's wallet.
Buy out Carl and Herm...money out of Clark's wallet.
Hire Pioli...money out of Clark's wallet.
Hire Haley...money out of Clark's wallet.
Ticket sales way down...money not coming into Clark's wallet.

Why should he spend it just to spend it? Remember that signing players requires that upfront singing bonus, and Clark has been putting a lot of his money into making changes this season. It's just that the money hasn't all been put into players.

I see all those things too, and I understand it. If I were in his position, I wouldn't really feel any pressure to spend any more on players right away either. We've all pretty much agreed that there wasn't much value to be had this offseason.

But I'm not questioning whether or not Clark should be spending money, I'm questioning whether or not they have to. If the terms of the CBA state that there exists a salary floor - what kind of penalty is there for not meeting that floor?

Kyle DeLexus
07-04-2009, 01:23 AM
I believe we have to spend right around $112 million and change this year since the floor is 87.6% of the $128 cap. So, if my calculations are right we need to spend $15 million still.

I'm not sure what the penalty is if we don't spend the required amount. I'm guessing we will be signing a few more players to either 1 year deals or front loaded deals once teams start cutting for/during camp.

Raised On Riots
07-04-2009, 01:35 AM
I believe we have to spend right around $112 million and change this year since the floor is 87.6% of the $128 cap. So, if my calculations are right we need to spend $15 million still.

I'm not sure what the penalty is if we don't spend the required amount. I'm guessing we will be signing a few more players to either 1 year deals or front loaded deals once teams start cutting for/during camp.

I hear B Marsh is available on the cheap.:evil:

Rain Man
07-04-2009, 03:17 PM
I don't understand in this situation why you don't accelerate contracts for some ascending players, and move their salary cap hits from 2011 and 2012 to 2009, just to give yourself flexibility in the future.

Sully
07-04-2009, 06:30 PM
I don't understand in this situation why you don't accelerate contracts for some ascending players, and move their salary cap hits from 2011 and 2012 to 2009, just to give yourself flexibility in the future.

Earlier I asked if that was ppssible and got no answer.
I know it was a topic discussed last season, but I don't remember if we found out it was legal or not.

egami
07-04-2009, 06:51 PM
I don't understand in this situation why you don't accelerate contracts for some ascending players, and move their salary cap hits from 2011 and 2012 to 2009, just to give yourself flexibility in the future.

Earlier I asked if that was ppssible and got no answer.
I know it was a topic discussed last season, but I don't remember if we found out it was legal or not.

You can do this if you can get player/agent cooperation, but it's unlikely to happen without dealing with the player/agent asking for more money, so I think that's why teams avoid it.

Teams typically like having contracts deliberately back-loaded so it makes decisions about cutting/extending players easier. Especially rookies and aging veterans that will typically have a big incline or decline in play.

Right now KC is projected to be about $37MM under the cap which may seem low, but for a team in an obvious rebuilding situation I think you're in a good spot. Play slim this season and see where you are at and have the overhead to carry into next year to pursue some solid veteran additions if needed.

Most likely the CBA is going to get done and it won't be uncapped in 2010. The players union has the sacrificial lamb of a rookie cap and I think they'll use it. I think despite what is being stated by the players association that both sides want to see this come about.

milkman
07-04-2009, 08:13 PM
You can do this if you can get player/agent cooperation, but it's unlikely to happen without dealing with the player/agent asking for more money, so I think that's why teams avoid it.

Teams typically like having contracts deliberately back-loaded so it makes decisions about cutting/extending players easier. Especially rookies and aging veterans that will typically have a big incline or decline in play.

Right now KC is projected to be about $37MM under the cap which may seem low, but for a team in an obvious rebuilding situation I think you're in a good spot. Play slim this season and see where you are at and have the overhead to carry into next year to pursue some solid veteran additions if needed.

Most likely the CBA is going to get done and it won't be uncapped in 2010. The players union has the sacrificial lamb of a rookie cap and I think they'll use it. I think despite what is being stated by the players association that both sides want to see this come about.

Your name is familiar.

Coalition?

Mr. Krab
07-04-2009, 08:26 PM
Earlier I asked if that was ppssible and got no answer.
I know it was a topic discussed last season, but I don't remember if we found out it was legal or not.
Yes, you can and i expect they will. The problem is you have to be careful about who you do it with. Our roster is in flux and they don't really know who sucks and who is worth keeping. To give more money up front to a player you might wanna to cut a year later would really suck.

It might be another reason why Cassel hasn't gotten a long term deal as well. I don't know if they can pull it off but if they sign Cassel to a long term deal really late in the year it wouldn't reduce our cap and they still "get credit" from the player as the tag money being part of a big contract.

I could see them maybe front loading Branden Albert or one of our young cornerbacks maybe, like flowers.


Contrary to what Mr. origami said, just about any player will take more money up front, they would be a fool not to when that pay isn't guaranteed.

egami
07-04-2009, 11:29 PM
Contrary to what Mr. origami said, just about any player will take more money up front, they would be a fool not to when that pay isn't guaranteed.

Actually that's not what I said. I said teams are hesitant to ask players to renegotiate because the player will typically want more money. We've seen QB's renegotiate, Manning I believe did, and others, but they don't always get more money up front, they push the bulk of the money to the back.

Circumventing salary cap is all about back-loading contracts. There really isn't incentive for the Chiefs to pay some guys up front...that's not how it works, and contrary to Krusty Krab's, you aren't likely to see one Chief renegotiate to front-load money in 2009.

Kyle DeLexus
07-04-2009, 11:34 PM
Actually that's not what I said. I said teams are hesitant to ask players to renegotiate because the player will typically want more money. We've seen QB's renegotiate, Manning I believe did, and others, but they don't always get more money up front, they push the bulk of the money to the back.

Circumventing salary cap is all about back-loading contracts. There really isn't incentive for the Chiefs to pay some guys up front...that's not how it works, and contrary to Krusty Krab's, you aren't likely to see one Chief renegotiate to front-load money in 2009.

Well the reason the whole thing has been brought up is we haven't reached the salary floor and that would leave us with even more cap room in later years, so there is an incentive.

egami
07-04-2009, 11:43 PM
Well the reason the whole thing has been brought up is we haven't reached the salary floor and that would leave us with even more cap room in later years, so there is an incentive.

I understand that...but it's too early though to be real concerned, rookies need to be calculated after their signings because until they sign they are figured at the minimum number and who knows what veterans they plan on redoing deals for and those pro-rated signing bonuses will add up.

I am guessing Pioli will operate similarly to NE and keep a low cap number, but I don't see him having any problems reaching the floor.

Also, due to the "30% rule", and the fact that this is the last capped year in the current CBA, 2009 contracts will naturally be more front-loaded by default. So any rookie signings and veteran extensions will have naturally inflated year one cap numbers, $31M is going to be easy to achieve.

Look at Starks signing with Pittsburgh, for example. In the past, a $26M deal would have a year one cap hit of around $1.5M, but because of the circumstances it's coming probably more along the lines of $6M.

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 01:58 AM
Your name is familiar.

Coalition?


I don't know, but the powers that be could start a god damned Corn Coalition on this board.

BossChief
07-05-2009, 02:35 AM
We are staying with a low cap number because of a few reasons

upcoming contracts we want to renew
upcoming uncapped year
stadium renovations
Availability of free agents that were available the last two years, that would consider coming here.
Carl Peterson is a fool that should hve spent some of the cash lst year tying up Jimmy Wilkerson, Benny Sapp, Keyaron Fox, and maybe even Ryan Sims (Im gonna catch hell again for this, I can feel it) and a couple others that are slipping my memory, to at least competitive contracts to what they were offered elsewhere. Letting investments go at almost a total loss is inexcusable!

just my two cents!

JASONSAUTO
07-05-2009, 12:30 PM
I don't know, but the powers that be could start a god damned Corn Coalition on this board.

didnt those guys ban you ass over there?

chiefzilla1501
07-05-2009, 01:36 PM
we don't want to be like the Redskins and the Cowboys this decade, hopes just die. The Steelers and Patriots dominated this decade and they didn't have many huge FA acquisitions, well the Patriots kind of did, but the majority of their team were players they built up from the draft.

Yes and no.

But we also spent a 2nd round pick and are paying $15M for a guy we believe will be their franchise QB. And surrounding that potential QBOTF with shit for weapons is a dangerous strategy. If Cassel isn't lights out by mid-season, he might be pushed out the door especially by the fans and media before he has a real chance at becoming successful.

I hate spending for the sake of spending. But I think this year is an exception. They should have tried to surround Cassel with better players to help him become more comfortable. And they could have easily brought in a player like Stacey Andrews or even Houshmandzadeh as a 2-year fix. Instead, they are going to ask their potential franchise QB to throw to second rate receivers and to pass behind a patchwork offensive line.

chiefbowe82
08-07-2009, 12:25 AM
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Raised On Riots
08-07-2009, 12:57 AM
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Well by all means; let's spend that shit like a crack head at 3:00am!:rolleyes::D

Valiant
08-07-2009, 01:27 AM
If they do not bring in more FA's or pick up others after TC cuts then they need to spend the money by getting rid of players.. Too bad there is not a cash for player trades like in baseball..

Basileus777
08-07-2009, 01:33 AM
If this were the NBA we could buy a bunch of Phoenix's draft picks and trade for Zach Randolph.

The NFL sucks.

kcchiefsus
08-07-2009, 01:39 AM
Yes and no.

But we also spent a 2nd round pick and are paying $15M for a guy we believe will be their franchise QB. And surrounding that potential QBOTF with shit for weapons is a dangerous strategy. If Cassel isn't lights out by mid-season, he might be pushed out the door especially by the fans and media before he has a real chance at becoming successful.

I hate spending for the sake of spending. But I think this year is an exception. They should have tried to surround Cassel with better players to help him become more comfortable. And they could have easily brought in a player like Stacey Andrews or even Houshmandzadeh as a 2-year fix. Instead, they are going to ask their potential franchise QB to throw to second rate receivers and to pass behind a patchwork offensive line.

Not when you have a GM and a coach that really don't give a shit what the fans think. Neither is going to give in to pressure from the fans.

BossChief
08-07-2009, 02:23 AM
Yes and no.

But we also spent a 2nd round pick and are paying $15M for a guy we believe will be their franchise QB. And surrounding that potential QBOTF with shit for weapons is a dangerous strategy. If Cassel isn't lights out by mid-season, he might be pushed out the door especially by the fans and media before he has a real chance at becoming successful.

I hate spending for the sake of spending. But I think this year is an exception. They should have tried to surround Cassel with better players to help him become more comfortable. And they could have easily brought in a player like Stacey Andrews or even Houshmandzadeh as a 2-year fix. Instead, they are going to ask their potential franchise QB to throw to second rate receivers and to pass behind a patchwork offensive line.

You also have to consider the player we are interested in, not having an interest in coming to a 6-26 team if he can get similar coin from a better team. Money is motivation for the players we wont target.

One thing for sure, the Patriot way is to never overspend on one single player because it sends a bad message to current players and hinders managements ability to negotiate properly in future negotiations.

If the player doesnt really have it in his heart and is really only coming for the money its no addition.

It is a good sign that all the fossils we attained passed Haleys conditioning test and are practicing.

The Patriots have alot of cuts coming as they had a bunch of draft picks added to their veteran roster that Pioli had a big part in scouting and attaining in different ways. I would be shocked if we didnt add another two Patriot players before the Ravens game.

Rausch
08-07-2009, 05:44 AM
Yes and no.

But we also spent a 2nd round pick and are paying $15M for a guy we believe will be their franchise QB. And surrounding that potential QBOTF with shit for weapons is a dangerous strategy. If Cassel isn't lights out by mid-season, he might be pushed out the door especially by the fans and media before he has a real chance at becoming successful.

I hate spending for the sake of spending. But I think this year is an exception. They should have tried to surround Cassel with better players to help him become more comfortable. And they could have easily brought in a player like Stacey Andrews or even Houshmandzadeh as a 2-year fix. Instead, they are going to ask their potential franchise QB to throw to second rate receivers and to pass behind a patchwork offensive line.

Trent Green cost us a 1st, had DV's complete faith like a 1st born son, and was given absolutely no line and no WR's his 1st year.

It's not the smart strategy, but it can work out...

chiefzilla1501
08-07-2009, 06:32 AM
I think people are being a little too generous here.

I don't know if it was a choice by Pioli or if he is being forced to do it because Hunt has no money. Either way, it's a mistake to make a huge investment on a QB like Cassel and not give him any kind of supporting cast to work with. If you're worried about long-term cap consequences, you spend heavy upfront money on a guy like TJ Houshmandzadeh to give him some options to throw to. And there were linemen on the market like Stacey Andrews and Matt Birk that would have been key upgrades.

The point is, while there were less than a handful of great long-term options, there were a ton of real good stopgap veteran options that we could easily frontload a contract for. Instead, we are going to gamble on throwing Cassel out there with no one to protect to, and mostly no one to throw to.