PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Chiefs make it official-Franchise Tag Bowe


Pages : 1 [2]

tredadda
03-05-2012, 09:28 PM
Let's try this again...

What teams could CURRENTLY afford this...?

Why is that relevant as teams could again clear up space to get him?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-05-2012, 09:30 PM
Why is that relevant as teams could again clear up space to get him?

Was the question to difficult for you...?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-05-2012, 09:30 PM
What do you know...


Another Peyton thread. :)

tredadda
03-05-2012, 09:36 PM
Was the question to difficult for you...?

Nope, but since the ability to create room under the cap is relatively easy for teams to do, the question of who currently has the room to sign him is utterly irrelevant.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 10:14 PM
The cap isn't going to be a consideration for teams that want Manning. First thing is, the money isn't the most important thing for him. Secondly, no team has ever not signed a player they wanted because "that darn salary cap", that's just an excuse they use to mollify fans.

Lots of players don't get signed or get out right cut because of "that darned salary cap"

Good thing the Saints don't have to worry about that that darned thing. They'd lose one hell of Pro-Bowl guard if the cap wasn't such a farse.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 10:18 PM
Why is that relevant as teams could again clear up space to get him?

Teams CAN clear up space. Clearing up 13-15mil worth of space......is a little different.

There's only a few teams who will have enough space for Peyton.
No matter what the planet capologists, such as yourself, who have got this whole GM thing mastered, seem to think.

DA_T_84
03-05-2012, 10:19 PM
Teams CAN clear up space. Clearing up 13-15mil worth of space......is a little different.

There's only a few teams who will have enough space for Peyton.
No matter what the planet capologists, such as yourself, who have got this whole GM thing mastered, seem to think.

Who?

Just curious.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 10:20 PM
Who?

Just curious.

Honestly, I don't really know.
Wish I did, but I haven't looked at it hard enough.

Brock
03-05-2012, 10:20 PM
Lots of players don't get signed or get out right cut because of "that darned salary cap"

Good thing the Saints don't have to worry about that that darned thing. They'd lose one hell of Pro-Bowl guard if the cap wasn't such a farse.

They're choosing not to overpay a freaking guard. That isn't because of the cap, it's because they're smarter than that. They could make moves to keep him if they wanted to, but they've decided he isn't worth the asking price.

Does the cap force teams to make hard choices? Yeah, sometimes. But the idea that any team that wants Manning is going to view the salary cap as a reason not to is stupid.

There's a reason why teams like the Redskins and Cowboys can sign any player they want to, and teams like the Chiefs don't. And it isnt' the salary cap.

SPATCH
03-05-2012, 10:29 PM
They're choosing not to overpay a freaking guard. That isn't because of the cap, it's because they're smarter than that. They could make moves to keep him if they wanted to, but they've decided he isn't worth the asking price.

Does the cap force teams to make hard choices? Yeah, sometimes. But the idea that any team that wants Manning is going to view the salary cap as a reason not to is stupid.

There's a reason why teams like the Redskins and Cowboys can sign any player they want to, and teams like the Chiefs don't. And it isnt' the salary cap.

wait... do people really think this?

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 10:38 PM
They're choosing not to overpay a freaking guard. That isn't because of the cap, it's because they're smarter than that. They could make moves to keep him if they wanted to, but they've decided he isn't worth the asking price.

Does the cap force teams to make hard choices? Yeah, sometimes. But the idea that any team that wants Manning is going to view the salary cap as a reason not to is stupid.

There's a reason why teams like the Redskins and Cowboys can sign any player they want to, and teams like the Chiefs don't. And it isnt' the salary cap.

Yes they could make moves to keep him, Like cutting other players. Same with the Cowboys, and Redskins.
They are smart not to overpay a G. because other areas of the team would have to be trimmed in order to keep him, and it doesn't present the greatest value for them to do that.
That doesn't mean that the cap is some mythical owner conspiracy to keep themselves from looking cheap.(Although some teams are cheap).
Sacrifices will have to be made in other areas. Which is why the Cowboys and Redskins throw out big contracts, yet hardly ever field an overall solid team. (along with their shitty draft picks that they don't end up having to pay a 2nd contract to because they're hot garbage)
There's not always going to be players who are willing to renegotiate to accommodate the team

Mr. Laz
03-05-2012, 10:40 PM
Chiefs starting out with 31 million in cap space
rolled over another 20 million
shouldn't have much,if any, dead money because they have been 30 million under the cap for the last 3/4 years

9 million for Bowe + 7 million for Routt = 16 million (at the most)

They can afford multiple players, including Manning.

O.city
03-05-2012, 10:45 PM
Chiefs starting out with 31 million in cap space
rolled over another 20 million
shouldn't have much,if any, dead money because they have been 30 million under the cap for the last 3/4 years

9 million for Bowe + 7 million for Routt = 16 million (at the most)

They can afford multiple players, including Manning.

Gotta add another 5 mil or so for the rookies, taking it to 21 mil.


We only have at this point around 10 to 12 million if I'm doing the numbers right, which i'm probably not.

O.city
03-05-2012, 10:46 PM
I know it's here somewhere, but whats our official salary number?

Chocolate Hog
03-05-2012, 10:47 PM
I'd go for Wayne if that's what it took to get Manning.

O.city
03-05-2012, 10:52 PM
If it takes that fine. I'd rather spend that money elsewhere tho.

BIG K
03-05-2012, 10:59 PM
Teams CAN clear up space. Clearing up 13-15mil worth of space......is a little different.

There's only a few teams who will have enough space for Peyton.
No matter what the planet capologists, such as yourself, who have got this whole GM thing mastered, seem to think.

I would think, in my humble opinion, it would be up to Manning himself. Is he gunning for money, or is he gunning for an opportunity to outdo his little brother and get another ring or two? There are teams out there that can probably out bid the Chiefs but, of those teams, how many can promise a run? My bet is that he will go to the team most likely to have the tools, schedule, and existing firepower that will allow him to make a run for another ring...

O.city
03-05-2012, 11:00 PM
I wish we didn't have to wait months for all this to happen.


I know Manning gets released this week, but the draft and the season seems so far away. Plus if it were football season that would mean I'm done taking Boards. Hooray.

Guru
03-05-2012, 11:04 PM
He isnt a top 15 cb jfc.

You are right. He's a top 5 CB.

Brock
03-05-2012, 11:04 PM
wait... do people really think this?

Show me where a team has ever not kept a pivotal player or not signed one because of the cap. It's a myth. Of course, there are people who are going to say "what about Brandon Carr" like it's some kind of major point. But Brandon Carr isn't going to be re-signed by the Chiefs NOT because of the salary cap, but because they don't want to tie up 100 million dollars in the secondary. It's just that simple.

Brock
03-05-2012, 11:05 PM
Yes they could make moves to keep him, Like cutting other players. Same with the Cowboys, and Redskins.
They are smart not to overpay a G. because other areas of the team would have to be trimmed in order to keep him, and it doesn't present the greatest value for them to do that.
That doesn't mean that the cap is some mythical owner conspiracy to keep themselves from looking cheap.(Although some teams are cheap).
Sacrifices will have to be made in other areas. Which is why the Cowboys and Redskins throw out big contracts, yet hardly ever field an overall solid team. (along with their shitty draft picks that they don't end up having to pay a 2nd contract to because they're hot garbage)
There's not always going to be players who are willing to renegotiate to accommodate the team

You built a very nice looking straw man. Hi, straw man!

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:08 PM
Show me where a team has ever not kept a pivotal player or not signed one because of the cap. It's a myth. Of course, there are people who are going to say "what about Brandon Carr" like it's some kind of major point. But Brandon Carr isn't going to be re-signed by the Chiefs NOT because of the salary cap, but because they don't want to tie up 100 million dollars in the secondary. It's just that simple.

Neil Smith.

-King-
03-05-2012, 11:10 PM
Show me where a team has ever not kept a pivotal player or not signed one because of the cap. It's a myth. Of course, there are people who are going to say "what about Brandon Carr" like it's some kind of major point. But Brandon Carr isn't going to be re-signed by the Chiefs NOT because of the salary cap, but because they don't want to tie up 100 million dollars in the secondary. It's just that simple.

Mike Wallace this year.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:12 PM
You built a very nice looking straw man. Hi, straw man!
I know by your posts that you're smart enough to know what that means.
Can you please explain how I misrepresented your position?
I'm obviously not seeing what you were getting at....or maybe I am..

Brock
03-05-2012, 11:12 PM
Neil Smith.

Neil left because he wouldn't take a comparatively cheap deal compared to Derrick Thomas. Or do you not remember how little he was paid by Denver?

You actually bought that crap? LOL

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:14 PM
You built a very nice looking straw man. Hi, straw man!

Show me where a team has ever not kept a pivotal player or not signed one because of the cap. It's a myth. Of course, there are people who are going to say "what about Brandon Carr" like it's some kind of major point. But Brandon Carr isn't going to be re-signed by the Chiefs NOT because of the salary cap, but because they don't want to tie up 100 million dollars in the secondary. It's just that simple.

lol "straw man"

Brock
03-05-2012, 11:15 PM
I know by your posts that you're smart enough to know what that means.
Can you please explain how I misrepresented your position?
I'm obviously not seeing what you were getting at....or maybe I am..

You misrepresent my position entirely. When you bring up Nicks as some kind of proof that the salary cap inhibits teams from keeping players they want, you fail to realize that the Saints wouldn't pay his salary demands if there were no salary cap.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:16 PM
Neil left because he wouldn't take a comparatively cheap deal compared to Derrick Thomas. Or do you not remember how little he was paid by Denver?

You actually bought that crap? LOL

Are you saying we had the cap room to sign him?

Keep digging. The hole is getting pretty deep.

BIG K
03-05-2012, 11:17 PM
they don't want to tie up 100 million dollars in the secondary. It's just that simple.

I agree with this statement for the most part.. There is history of teams unable to sign multiple impact free agents because of the cap. In this case though, you are correct. The Chiefs chose not to sign Carr....

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:18 PM
You misrepresent my position entirely. When you bring up Nicks as some kind of proof that the salary cap inhibits teams from keeping players they want, you fail to realize that the Saints wouldn't pay his salary demands if there were no salary cap.

Next time you talk to the Saints GM, and Owner tell them that Brees is TOTALLY worth GREAT QB money.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:19 PM
I agree with this statement for the most part.. There is history of teams unable to sign multiple impact free agents because of the cap. In this case though, you are correct. The Chiefs chose not to sign Carr....

Correct.

SPATCH
03-05-2012, 11:20 PM
Show me where a team has ever not kept a pivotal player or not signed one because of the cap. It's a myth. Of course, there are people who are going to say "what about Brandon Carr" like it's some kind of major point. But Brandon Carr isn't going to be re-signed by the Chiefs NOT because of the salary cap, but because they don't want to tie up 100 million dollars in the secondary. It's just that simple.

Mike Wallace this year.

This dude said it for me.

Quit trying to act cool.

Brock
03-05-2012, 11:21 PM
Next time you talk to the Saints GM, and Owner tell them that Brees is TOTALLY worth GREAT QB money.

This apears to be a non sequitur.

Bewbies
03-05-2012, 11:23 PM
Mike Wallace was tendered at the 1st round level wasn't he?

O.city
03-05-2012, 11:23 PM
Yep

Brock
03-05-2012, 11:24 PM
Mike Wallace was tendered at the 1st round level wasn't he?

No kidding. The Steelers decided they'd rather have a first round pick and go forward with the other outstanding receivers they've pulled out of nowhere. But oh yeah, it's because of the salary cap. Some people around here just like the taste of the koolaid.

O.city
03-05-2012, 11:25 PM
Are you guys arguing in multiple threads right now?

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:25 PM
This apears to be a non sequitur.
This post, and the "straw man" post are the only ones that actually have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

BIG K
03-05-2012, 11:25 PM
Neil Smith.

I became a Chief's fan in part because of Neil. That being said, if I remember correctly, the Chiefs decided to part ways with him because they felt he gave up in 96'. Not my words, I remember reading it during that time. I could be wrong though.....I remember reading an article 'The players, and the pretenders...."
It (meaning the 96 season) led to an overhaul of the entire Chief's defense that was put on the field for the 97' season which included such new starters as Barndt, Tongue, Woods,Browning and Edwards......

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:26 PM
Are you guys arguing in multiple threads right now?

We go at it about every 6 months:D

I respect his opinions. He's FOS sometimes too though.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:32 PM
I became a Chief's fan in part because of Neil. That being said, if I remember correctly, the Chiefs decided to part ways with him because they felt he gave up in 96'. Not my words, I remember reading it during that time. I could be wrong though.....I remember reading an article 'The players, and the pretenders...."
It (meaning the 96 season) led to an overhaul of the entire Chief's defense that was put on the field for the 97' season which included such new starters as Barndt, Tongue, Woods,Browning and Edwards......

There is truth to what you say, but as the article states "bottom line, the Chiefs couldn't afford to pay Thomas his market value and Smith's, too"

No one's to blame for Smith's departure


Jason Whitlock, Kansas City Star - April 14, 1997.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - No one's to blame. Don't blame Derrick Thomas or Carl Peterson or Marty Schottenheimer or, most important, Neil Smith. The former Huskers' nine-year career as a Kansas City Chief is over, and no one's to blame for this unfortunate conclusion.

Soon, maybe at a 12:30 p.m. news conference today at the Adams Mark Hotel, Smith will announce his decision to join the Denver Broncos or some other team, ending his highly successful association with the Chiefs. And shortly after he makes that announcement, Smith's supporters, of which thore are many, will begin openly pointing fingers.

They will say one of four things:
Derrick Thomas, Smith's greedy best friend, didn't leave the Chiefs with enough money to offer Smith a decent contract.
Carl Peterson, swayed by emotion, stupidly gave Thomas - the Golden Child, Peterson's first Kansas City draft pick, Peterson's Thursday night drinking buddy - a $30 million contract instead of resigning Smith.
Marty Schottenheimer unfairly blamed Smith, who had a bad 1996 season, for the subpar performance of the Chiefs' defense.
And Neil Smith, distracted by a new restaurant and softened by celebrity, committed the unforgivable act of having a down season the same year his contract expired.

All four of these assertions are laced with a modicum of truth, but they in no way reveal the real reason Neil Smith is being forced from his home. The truth is that Smith's departure is standard operating procedure in the NFL now that there is free agency and a salary cap. Before there was a salary cap, a player with Smith's resume - five Pro Bowls, pillar of the community, never in any trouble - would be retained regardless of the cost. Smith would have been rewarded for his service and loyalty to the organization.

Now that there are finite dollars in the NFL, teams are forced to make tough decisions on aging-but not-over-the-hill superstars. Since the beginning of the 1996 season, the Chiefs pondered whether to retain Smith or Thomas, their two biggest and most expensive stars.

Before the kickoff of the first regular-season game of 1996, a high-ranking member of the Chiefs organization debated the pros and cons of retaining Smith or Thomas. At that time, the Chiefs seemed to be leaning toward keeping Smith. The thinking was that Smith, because of his size and diligence in the weight room, would age better than Thomas, who has been described as a "social weightlifter."

Smith's six-sack season changed the Chiefs' thinking.

No doubt the Chiefs still view Smith as an outstanding player. They certainly aren't excited about Smith joining the Broncos or the Raiders, teams the Chiefs face twice a season. But bottom line, the Chiefs couldn't afford to pay Thomas his market value and Smith's, too.

Football is business. And business is never personal anymore in the NFL.

-King-
03-05-2012, 11:36 PM
No kidding. The Steelers decided they'd rather have a first round pick and go forward with the other outstanding receivers they've pulled out of nowhere. But oh yeah, it's because of the salary cap. Some people around here just like the taste of the koolaid.

No. That is not at all what happened.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/05/mike-wallace-can-be-yours-for-a-first-round-pick/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/01/steelers-wont-use-franchise-tag-on-mike-wallace/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/01/steelers-boot-kemoeatu-too/

Before this week, they didn't even have enough money to afford a franchise tag. But yeah, lets pretend that the Steelers are comfortable letting Mike Wallace go to potentially the Patriots for just a 1st round pick. :rolleyes: Let's pretend like this isn't a money issue and that the Steelers aren't in a terrible cap situation right now.

And oh yeah, about those other outstanding receivers they pulled out of nowhere...


For the Steelers, matching a lucrative offer to Wallace would be tough. Although they’ve made several moves in the last week to free up salary cap space, they’re still not in great cap shape. And they’re in a tough spot because they know they’ll face the same situation again next year when receiver Antonio Brown (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5698/antonio-brown) becomes a restricted free agent. Brown was voted the Steelers’ MVP in 2011, and the Steelers would like to keep him beyond 2012, the final year of his current contract. If they tie up a lot of money and cap space in a new contract for Wallace this year, it may be harder to find the money and cap space to devote to Brown next year.
If Wallace ultimately just signs his one-year tender offer as a restricted free agent, he’ll come at a very affordable price of $2.7 million. But in that scenario, Wallace and Brown would both be free agents at this time next year. (Steelers receiver Emmanuel Sanders (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5885/emmanuel-sanders) becomes a restricted free agent next year, too.)


But yeah...it's not about the cap.

O.city
03-05-2012, 11:39 PM
Hated letting Neil go. Really like him. Had some of those nose bandaid things when I was a kid, wore them on Sundays.

BIG K
03-05-2012, 11:39 PM
Very nice quote, thank you for finding that! :)

I remember now it was between the two of them and they chose DT. Ironically, the Chiefs signed D. Williams from Denver to replace Smith and he had like 10 1/2 sacks in 97'. Ironically, Smith had less, but was with Denver and got himself a Ring.

Got your point though, thanks! :)

BIG K
03-05-2012, 11:42 PM
Hated letting Neil go. Really like him. Had some of those nose bandaid things when I was a kid, wore them on Sundays.

The guy was awesome to watch! Hurt letting him go...Still would love to find the video of him and DT doing a 1-800-collect commercial....PRICELESS!:)

O.city
03-05-2012, 11:43 PM
It's crazy how, as a kid, I viewed DT as a great player. I thought great player = great person. Turns out that's not always true.

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:48 PM
The guy was awesome to watch! Hurt letting him go...Still would love to find the video of him and DT doing a 1-800-collect commercial....PRICELESS!:)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Udw_mAqmCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BIG K
03-05-2012, 11:52 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Udw_mAqmCw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I am on my knees thanking you:wayne:

I have been searching for this for years! Thank you and Rep!

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:54 PM
Hey Brock,

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ReYfu5E-hOE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:55 PM
I am on my knees thanking you:wayne:

I have been searching for this for years! Thank you and Rep!
No prob dude.
Did you stick around for the Will Shields spot after it?

beach tribe
03-05-2012, 11:56 PM
Does anyone remember the commercial where the donks were hanging in the rafters trying to steal the Chiefs playbook?

htismaqe
03-06-2012, 08:58 AM
There is truth to what you say, but as the article states "bottom line, the Chiefs couldn't afford to pay Thomas his market value and Smith's, too"

Yep.

The Chiefs had to choose between keeping Smith and keeping Thomas. Bad situation to be in but they couldn't afford to lose DT.

HemiEd
03-06-2012, 09:28 AM
The cap isn't going to be a consideration for teams that want Manning. First thing is, the money isn't the most important thing for him. Secondly, no team has ever not signed a player they wanted because "that darn salary cap", that's just an excuse they use to mollify fans.

This apears to be a non sequitur.

Hamas? Did Hamas hijack Brocks account?

Coogs
03-06-2012, 10:20 AM
I have not read through any of this thread, and probably won't do more than skim it a best, so my apologies if this has been discussed before...

Pioli said this in the Star...

General manager Scott Pioli’s comment in a statement released by the Chiefs made it sound as though the sides were never close to reaching a long-term agreement.

“Today was the league’s deadline to designate a franchise player,” Pioli said, “and we felt it was in the best interest of the Kansas City Chiefs to place the tag on Dwayne.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/05/3470362/chiefs-designate-bowe-as-their.html#storylink=cpy

It really doesn't say this was about money. It could be Bowe is waiting for the QB situation to unfold before he decideds if he wants to remain here or not. And since he is free to negotiate with other teams, once the QB position is resolved, we will probably know what Bowe is thinking. And I know the price tag says two 1st rounders in return if he agrees somewhere else, and the Chiefs decline the offer, but IIRC the compensation of draft picks has been negotiated to different outcomes in the past.

Inmem58
03-06-2012, 10:24 AM
Bowe needs a quality QB. I can see him starting to get frustrated.

Dayze
03-06-2012, 10:29 AM
if I were Bowe, I'd sign a long term deal that pays me $x for every game Cassel starts.
Give me $150k per game that Cassel starts.

Fat Elvis
03-06-2012, 10:39 AM
if I were Bowe, I'd sign a long term deal that pays me $x for every game Cassel starts.
Give me $150k per game that Cassel starts.

That can only be $2.4M/year; he's making more that 3x that amount with the franchise tag.

mcaj22
03-06-2012, 10:49 AM
Bowe is certainly not signing that franchise tag offer until this team does something at QB

and if they dont, he just holds out the entire off season and then shows up week 1. And frankly, I do not blame him one bit.

Rain Man
03-06-2012, 11:07 AM
That can only be $2.4M/year; he's making more that 3x that amount with the franchise tag.


Maybe he's taking into account that Bowe's not very smart.

Rain Man
03-06-2012, 11:09 AM
Bowe needs a quality QB. I can see him starting to get frustrated.

I've gotta say, his stats are very impressive for a guy without a quality quarterback. I thought he was having a bad year last year, and he still ended up with 80+ catches for almost 1,200 yards. The guy is a major talent, and with a good QB he could be amazing.

HemiEd
03-06-2012, 11:11 AM
And I know the price tag says two 1st rounders in return if he agrees somewhere else, and the Chiefs decline the offer, but IIRC the compensation of draft picks has been negotiated to different outcomes in the past.

Didn't the Jared Allen deal get to that point, or something similar?