PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Findings of a Chiefs Fan Who #gotaclue


Micjones
09-28-2012, 03:00 PM
Well, Chiefs fans, for those of you who read my article last week, you should’ve walked away knowing a little bit more about salary cap management.

You may or may not have jumped to my rallying cry to show the player and team some love, and let the NFL world know that when they go up against the Chiefs they’re not just going up against the players and coaches, they’re going up against every Chiefs fan that bleeds red and gold.

Whether you did or not certainly depends on the individual. Some of you may be too disgusted by Clark Hunt and Scott Pioli’s management of your beloved Chiefs to look past your perception of them and root for the players. After all, Hunt and Pioli are cheapskates (to use the nicer term), right?

Well, according to Spotrac.com, it appears that, of the 32 NFL teams, the Kansas City Chiefs are spending the most cap dollars of any team on active player contracts in 2012.

I’ll wait for you to seek medical attention for your broken jaw; mine slammed pretty hard off of my desk, too…

That was not a misprint: the Kansas City Chiefs, owned by Clark Hunt and family, managed by Scott Pioli, appear to be paying the most of any team on active player contracts this season. Take a look for yourself:

1 KC 127,933,241
2 CHI 126,358,124
3 NYJ 125,227,294
4 SF 123,707,285
5 DEN 117,001,639
6 DET 116,158,991
7 NYG 111,211,940
8 PIT 111,016,166
9 JAC 110,538,183
10 TB 109,348,529
11 ATL 109,067,644
12 CAR 108,688,191
13 GB 107,837,787
14 MIA 106,579,214
15 SD 106,384,272
16 BUF 105,705,583
17 NO 105,287,029
18 HOU 103,155,468
19 MIN 102,975,537
20 PHI 102,821,893
21 DAL 102,014,104
22 WAS 100,947,807
23 TEN 99,407,782
24 ARI 99,013,354
25 BAL 98,095,030
26 CLE 96,861,684
27 STL 96,283,634
28 NE 95,961,861
29 SEA 95,477,975
30 CIN 92,477,712
31 OAK 84,747,000
32 IND 79,641,342

Source: Spotrac.com

Now, I want to be clear. Spending “the most cap dollars… on active player contracts” does not necessarily mean that the Kansas City Chiefs are using/accounting-for the most cap dollars overall, it means that they’re paying the most cap money towards players currently on the team.

What does that mean?

Though most news outlets will report cap space availability for teams, this is a new day and age, and comes with it a new CBA, wherein available cap space money can be rolled into the next year without the need for teams to exploit loopholes*. This will affect how much cap dollars a team can spend on its players in a given season. This can really alter each team’s cap room which, in turn, will make cap space availability numbers a little less useful without context.

*It used to be that NLTBEs were accounted into the cap during the season they were set, and were the only cap dollars that could be rolled over, provided the player the NLTBE was assigned to didn’t earn it. So to rollover remaining cap monies, teams could make a ridiculous NLTBE late in the season that had no way of happening, say setting an NLTBE in Week 15 that would have your 3rd string QB receiving all remaining cap dollars if he could throw 10 TDs by the end of the season. He, of course, wouldn’t, but since the NLTBE was accounted for, but not met, the money could be rolled over into the next season. The new CBA made adjustments to this by just letting teams rollover cap dollars without the need for trickery, and having NLTBEs count against the next season’s cap should they be met.

Ex: Let’s say Team A rolls over $1 million from last year’s season into this year’s season, and Team B rolls over $20 million. If after spending, both teams find themselves with a cap availability of $1 million, it won’t be because both teams spent the same amount of money. Rather, Team B would’ve spent more money as it spent both the league defined cap, plus $19 million of the $20 million it rolled over; whereas Team A would’ve only spent the league defined cap, and just didn’t touch its rollover.

But even that is only a portion of how people can confuse salary cap availability with money spent by the club on its active players’ contracts. In the NFL’s salary accounting policies and procedures, there is a certain thing that negatively impacts a team’s salary cap, that doesn’t seem to get a lot of media attention: dead money.

What is dead money? (you ask because you don’t use contractions)

Dead money is generated when a player leaves a team (usually by being cut, but sometimes through retirement or a trade*) and certain parts of their contracts were either guaranteed or solely within the club’s responsibility to pay (e.g. signing bonus). It gets its name because, even though the player is no longer with the team, and therefore doing the team no good, the money must be absorbed and paid for by the club, and it does cause a cap hit. So any dead money that exists keeps a club from spending that much more money on players who are (or can be) signed to the 53-man roster.

*For those left wondering, whether you thought to ask yourself or not, players willfully leaving, or willfully being allowed to leave, via FA don’t generate dead money, as their contract would’ve been fully satisfied, and there’d be no money left unpaid for a team to absorb.

Ex: Team A and Team B each have a salary cap of $100 million (for the purposes of this example there were no rollovers). Team A has dead money to the tune of $10 million. Team B has dead money to the tune of $2 million. After spending the money on this year’s team, it’s reported that Team A has $1 million in cap availability and Team B has $5 million in camp availability. At face value, and since availability gets reported much more heavily than dead money figures, it appears that Team A is spending more money on their current team than Team B. This is an incorrect assumption. After deducting each team’s dead money from their initial cap, Team A had $90 million to spend for the year, and Team B had $98 million. So though Team A appears on the surface to have spent more money on current player contracts (what with $1 million left compared to Team B’s $5 million left) doing the math shows that Team A has actually only spent $89 million on this year’s roster [$100 million (cap) - $10 million (dead money) - $1 million (available money)]; whereas Team B has actually spent the greater sum having devoted $93 million cap dollars on this year’s roster [$100 million - $2 million - $5 million].

Let’s take a look at each team’s dead money figures:

1 GB 462,449
2 DET 467,645
3 SF 519,336
4 CIN 1,240,266
5 NO 1,442,125
6 CHI 2,043,840
7 KC 2,117,187
8 TEN 2,320,218
9 TB 2,594,766
10 NYJ 2,724,951
11 NYG 3,024,749
12 ARI 3,276,475
13 ATL 3,526,774
14 PHI 4,921,269
15 CAR 5,296,573
16 WAS 5,357,521
17 DEN 5,359,943
18 CLE 6,254,856
19 STL 6,290,277
20 JAC 7,672,336
21 SEA 9,059,852
22 PIT 9,648,021
23 MIN 9,675,205
24 SD 9,873,578
25 BAL 10,215,625
26 BUF 11,634,582
27 DAL 12,635,743
28 MIA 15,197,987
29 HOU 16,382,685
30 NE 17,962,912
31 OAK 21,757,394
32 IND 37,896,499

Source: Spotrac.com

It should be noted that $460,000-520,000 in dead money is pretty well par for the course for any team in a given year, just due to cuts to fringe players. Here you’ll see the Chiefs have the 7th least amount of dead money affecting this season’s cap with $2,117,187. Interestingly enough, Demorrio Williams accounts for $1.6 million of this figure, with the remaining $517,187 being spread between 7 different (former) players with Gabe Miller accounting for the second highest figure ($148,875) and Brandon Bair, the least ($4,666).
Another pitfall in using cap availability in judging how much a team is spending on its players’ contracts is, as I touched on last week, that LTBE goals will, for accounting purposes, appear as cap hits on the current season’s salary cap, but whether or not players will earn this/these goal(s) is, of course, not a guarantee until it happens.

So to a common observer who a) doesn’t consider how rollovers affect the cap, b) doesn’t consider dead money and c) doesn’t consider how things such as LTBEs must be taken into account, it’s a quick and easy jump to assume that the more cap space a team has available, the less money that team is spending on its current team. This is the Kansas City Chiefs’ current plight. Fans see that $14.5 million in cap space is remaining, the third most in the league, and assume that Clark Hunt and Scott Pioli are cheap bastards (to use the less nice term). Many Chiefs fans are furious that they’re not spending more. However, as stated at the beginning, of all 32 teams, the Kansas City Chiefs appear to be spending the most cap money this season towards active player contracts.

But how can that be? Wasn’t it just reported back in February that the Chiefs had $63 million in cap space remaining?

At the time that that report was released a few things were taken into account that increased that figure, while several things were not taken into account that would lower that number. Basically, the reported figure was artificially larger than it actually was.

Namely, the $63 million figure included the $24 million (approx.) that the Chiefs rolled over from last season*, but it did not include contract escalators (which, by the way, tend to be non-negotiable devices built into contracts) which amounted to approximately $18 million. Nor did this figure include the money the team was required to pay out to players for NLTBEs offered to them and achieved during the 2011 season and estimated to be about $5 million. Nor did it include money for RFA Tenders (which really wound up just being Jovan Belcher’s for $1.9 million).

*The Chiefs announced through their official team site that they were rolling over $20 million; however sites such as NFL.com, ESPN & Spotrac reported the rollover as approximately $24 million. Given these sites reputability and independence from the organization, we’ll assume the higher number.

After deducting the values that were not deducted prior to the report’s release, the Chiefs’ so-called available funds dip to about $38 million (a much more believable figure). Now deduct for Routt’s signing, Dwayne Bowe’s franchise tag and Jovan Belcher’s RFA Tender and we’re down to about $22 million, which is what was reported just before free agency.

Now deduct for the signings of Winston, Boss, Hillis, Quinn, and the rookie class, deduct for the re-signing of Travis Daniels, add money that was freed up through the restructuring of Tyson Jackson’s contract, deduct for Abram Elam and Edgar Jones, and we’re down to $16.5 million. As suggested in last week’s article, it is likely that the $2 million differential between this $16.5 million and the current $14.5 million is due to LTBEs being set for this season.

Okay, so now I see how they went from $63 million to $14.5 million, but if how much the Chiefs are paying on active player contracts is correct, it only appears to be about $8 million over the league defined cap… Pioli just did an interview a week or so ago where he said the Chiefs were spending about $20 million cash over the cap this season.

You are correct in your observation that the contracts amount to about $8 million over the league’s defined base cap. That being said, Scott Pioli is correct that the team is spending about $20 million cash over this same cap.

Alright, now you’re just $*%#@!# with me.

There is a difference between how much cap dollars a team spends in a given season, and how much “committed cash” it spends in a given season. While some things, such as base salary, workout bonuses, roster bonuses, etc., count equally towards both cap dollars and committed cash [Ex: $1 million base salary accounts for $1 million towards the cap and $1 million towards the cash], other things, such as signing bonuses and option bonuses, are accounted for differently.

Ex: Eric Winston signed a 4 year deal that comes with an $8.4 million signing bonus. The entirety of this signing bonus was given to him right away; however, it’s prorated over the course of the 4 year deal so that it hits the cap equally each contract year. So this particular deal is hitting the cap by $2.1 million this year, but hits the committed cash by $8.4 million this year.
Obviously, Winston’s contract isn’t the only contract lending to the difference in cap dollars and committed cash, but at least you can see how the difference comes about.
__________

So, are Pioli and Hunt cheap bastards? Looking at cap availability alone one would think “yes”; however, everything else seems to indicate otherwise. When the Chiefs announced the rollover of last year’s cap space into this season, Clark Hunt stated that the rollover money would be put to use in continuing to re-sign the Chiefs free agents, as well as to go out and sign some free agents from other teams.

The FO lived up to Clark’s word.

Beginning the 2011 season, the Chiefs had 27 players set to hit FA this past offseason. By controlling the player budget enough that Pioli had some idea of how much money could be rolled over, he was able to re-sign Hali and Flowers to extensions early on in the season, and re-signed Succop to an extension in December (and look how huge that turned out being this past weekend). The team also brought back Brandon Siler, Cory Greenwood, Jake O’Connell, Travis Daniels and Amon Gordon (with only Gordon not working out… by the way, no dead money was generated by Gordon’s short-lived contract). Bowe received the Franchise Tag and Jovan Belcher an RFA Tender which, though not as good as extensions, were at least enough to assure their return to the team (and had some other team picked up Bowe at the cost of 2- 1st Round Picks, or Belcher for the cost of 1- 2nd Round Pick, something tells me us fans could’ve lived with it). Of the 17 players that hit FA but were not retained, Carr and Orton are likely the only two to complain about. Six were contemplating retirement, four were just terrible, one couldn’t stay healthy with the Chiefs, and four were still perceived as desirable enough to be picked up. The Chiefs, in turn, picked up Routt, Winston, Boss, Hillis, Quinn, Abram Elam, and Edgar Jones as far as players on roster and hitting the cap go. They also picked up Kyle McCarthy, Martin Rucker and Jacques Reeves who all find themselves on IR and don’t count against the cap.

That’s a pretty good offseason. To be where they’re currently at cap-wise, but to have retained Carr, likely would’ve meant no Routt, no Boss and no Winston. To use more of the cap than is currently available (say by re-signing Carr but still signing Routt, Boss & Winston) means making a tougher time of re-signing the Chiefs pick of next seasons 17 scheduled free agents, and not having much money available to take advantage of other teams’ cap casualty cuts (i.e. next year’s Routts, Boss’s & Winstons).

Some of you might not like to hear it, or even want to accept it (even after all the work I just put in showing how they’re spending money and spending it wisely), but it appears the money isn’t being pocketed, and the current regime isn’t likely to end anytime soon. In fact, it looks like things are getting in order (non-Pioli-negotiated contracts are on the way out) and Pioli & Co. are just hitting their stride. But it should be a positive to know that Clark Hunt does care about the team’s success more than he cares about pocketing the money. Now if only the coaches and players can maximize their talents and do it on a consistent basis, we might just have ourselves a team worthy of championships…

Well, Addicts, if nothing else you’ve come away from this knowing more about your favorite NFL team. Maybe you’ve already given up too much hope to reverse the lynch mob, but the management seems to be giving all they can to the team and the fans; looks like it’s time for the team and the fans to reciprocate. While the team leaves it all out on the field on Sunday, why don’t we be there to back their efforts, and give Philip “Cry Me A” River(s) another miserable Arrowhead experience. GO CHIEFS!!!

Link to the article. (http://arrowheadaddict.com/2012/09/27/findings-of-a-chiefs-fan-who-gotaclue/)

rad
09-28-2012, 03:15 PM
tfl;dfr

Pestilence
09-28-2012, 03:18 PM
$120 millions dollars = Matt Cassel and Tyson Jackson.

durtyrute
09-28-2012, 03:25 PM
That was a good read, Mic. I've kinda wondered about the whole money thing. When Clark first took over he went out and got the best GM money could buy. Then he got the best OC and DC. Now, that hasn't created the wins that people want but it seems like he was/is trying.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 03:35 PM
I cant wait to hear people try to blow this up.

I have said all along its not about the $ its who we spend it on.

Detoxing
09-28-2012, 03:37 PM
I cant wait to hear people try to blow this up.

.

I don't think anyone is coming.

L.A. Chieffan
09-28-2012, 03:37 PM
WAY TO BLOW MONEY CLARK AND SCOTT!

mcaj22
09-28-2012, 03:40 PM
I cant wait to hear people try to blow this up.

I have said all along its not about the $ its who we spend it on.

so it goes back to our crap ass evaluator of a GM paying excess money, bonuses and escalators into turds like Cassel and Tyson Jackson but he will be cheap with guys like Carr, Bowe, etc

it's a joke

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 03:41 PM
so it goes back to our crap ass evaluator of a GM paying excess money, bonuses and escalators into turds like Cassel and Tyson Jackson but he will be cheap with guys like Carr, Bowe, etc

it's a joke

So Clark isn't cheap? Thanks for clarifying.

mcaj22
09-28-2012, 03:46 PM
So Clark isn't cheap? Thanks for clarifying.

i never said Clark was cheap.

I am saying our GM sucks. which a lot of people for the last 4 years refuse to believe

jspchief
09-28-2012, 03:51 PM
Just keep in mind that this door swings both ways. A year with a high cash number and low cap number will be followed by several years of high cap numbers and low cash numbers.

DTLB58
09-28-2012, 03:51 PM
That was a good read, Mic. I've kinda wondered about the whole money thing. When Clark first took over he went out and got the best GM money could buy. Then he got the best OC and DC. Now, that hasn't created the wins that people want but it seems like he was/is trying.
He isn't trying hard enough if he hasn't told his GM to find a different QB!

DTLB58
09-28-2012, 03:55 PM
Guys, you can spin this any way you want, but the bottom line (no pun) is
0 playoff wins since '93. Fix it!

stonedstooge
09-28-2012, 04:30 PM
Dude that wrote the article must be a Pisoli mult. I can't find any Andrew C. Gilbert that lives in PA like the article states

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 04:38 PM
Just more proof that the cap doesn't exist and that Clark Hunt is cheap. Some of you guys just don't get it: It's about guaranteed signing bonus money, not the cap.

The cap can and always will be manipulated. It's all about the upfront money, which Clark was unwilling to spend during the 2012 off season.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 04:53 PM
Just more proof that the cap doesn't exist and that Clark Hunt is cheap. Some of you guys just don't get it: It's about guaranteed signing bonus money, not the cap.

The cap can and always will be manipulated. It's all about the upfront money, which Clark was unwilling to spend during the 2012 off season.

So what you are saying is you didn't read the article and went straight to your usual statement about the cap and $?

the Talking Can
09-28-2012, 04:55 PM
explain to me, one of you stats guys, how a single year data point proves something...

because if so....

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 04:56 PM
So what you are saying is you didn't read the article and went straight to your usual statement about the cap and $?

I don't give a fuck about an article that tries to justify why the Chiefs didn't spend any fucking money this offseason to upgrade the team.

Guys renegotiate contracts ALL THE TIME. If the Chiefs were danger of being over the cap, they go to player and say "Hey, we're going to convert your salary to a signing bonus and spread it out over the next two to four years". Player says "Okay".

The salary cap is a phantom salary cap. I don't give a shit about it and neither should you.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 04:57 PM
explain to me, one of you stats guys, how a single year data point proves something...

because if so....

Explain how many years you have to have a low payroll to be cheap? KC had huge payrolls in the upper part of the league in the mid to late 90's and early to mid 2000's.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 04:59 PM
Explain how many years you have to have a low payroll to be cheap? KC had huge payrolls in the upper part of the league in the mid to late 90's and early to mid 2000's.

Huge payroll in the late 90's? What years? Huge payroll from 2000-2005? Which years?

I don't think you understand how the salary cap works.

the Talking Can
09-28-2012, 05:02 PM
Explain how many years you have to have a low payroll to be cheap? KC had huge payrolls in the upper part of the league in the mid to late 90's and early to mid 2000's.

i assumed you had the data, as you're the one claiming he isn't....

could we see it?

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 05:04 PM
I don't give a **** about an article that tries to justify why the Chiefs didn't spend any ****ing money this offseason to upgrade the team.

Guys renegotiate contracts ALL THE TIME. If the Chiefs were danger of being over the cap, they go to player and say "Hey, we're going to convert your salary to a signing bonus and spread it out over the next two to four years". Player says "Okay".

The salary cap is a phantom salary cap. I don't give a shit about it and neither should you.

What does cap $ have to fucking do with it? You are the only person using cap $ as the reason to prove or disprove the article.

I have said all along cap $ means shit, jack and shit. Actual fucking $ spent which is the premise of the article that you didn't read is what its all about.

the Talking Can
09-28-2012, 05:04 PM
and the article confirms we could have signed Carr, as the cap numbers are phony and can be manipulated any number of ways...

could have signed bowe too...

but hey, we won the cash cap award for this year's confluence of previously signed contracts....so that should make you all feel better

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 05:05 PM
Huge payroll in the late 90's? What years? Huge payroll from 2000-2005? Which years?

I don't think you understand how the salary cap works.

JFC I don't think I am the one confused here. Don't read the article, I don't give a shit I really don't. Keep your opinion and keep telling everyone else they dont know what the fuck they are talking about.

I don't care. Go on with it.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 05:06 PM
What does cap $ have to fucking do with it? You are the only person using cap $ as the reason to prove or disprove the article.

I have said all along cap $ means shit, jack and shit. Actual fucking $ spent which is the premise of the article that you didn't read is what its all about.

LMAO

You're really missing the point, as usual.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 05:07 PM
and the article confirms we could have signed Carr, as the cap numbers are phony and can be manipulated any number of ways...

could have signed bowe too...

but hey, we won the cash cap award for this year's confluence of previously signed contracts....so that should make you all feel better

Exactly. But Marcellus will continue to beat the drum that Clark Hunt isn't cheap.

JFC.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 05:11 PM
LMAO

You're really missing the point, as usual.

Since you dont believe cap $ (which you shouldn't) and you don't believe actual committed $ and $ spent, exactly what do you actually believe?

If KC is spending the most actual $$$$$$$$ on players salary this season including the bonus $ paid out like Winston who got every $ of his signing bonus this year, then how are they being cheaper than other teams?

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 05:14 PM
Exactly. But Marcellus will continue to beat the drum that Clark Hunt isn't cheap.

JFC.

Where does it say this Dane? You didn't read the article, you taking TC's word for it?


Was it this part?

To be where they’re currently at cap-wise, but to have retained Carr, likely would’ve meant no Routt, no Boss and no Winston. To use more of the cap than is currently available (say by re-signing Carr but still signing Routt, Boss & Winston) means making a tougher time of re-signing the Chiefs pick of next seasons 17 scheduled free agents, and not having much money available to take advantage of other teams’ cap casualty cuts (i.e. next year’s Routts, Boss’s & Winstons).

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 05:16 PM
Since you dont believe cap $ (which you shouldn't) and you don't believe actual committed $ and $ spent, exactly what do you actually believe?

If KC is spending the most actual $$$$$$$$ on players salary this season including the bonus $ paid out like Winston who got every $ of his signing bonus this year, then how are they being cheaper than other teams?

You're joking, right?

Washington LOST $36 million in cap space, yet went out and spent $20 million on players AND selected the number two overall draft pick.

Seriously, you're missing the whole thing here. The Chiefs could have easily signed Carr & Bowe and Winston and Routt had they spent CASH UPFRONT. Signing those guys would have meant spending about $60 million upfront but it could have been done.

Then, other guys would convert their salaries to a signing bonus which would have been spread out over a number of years and the Chiefs would have a more complete team in 2012.

It's really that simple.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 05:17 PM
Where does it say this Dane? You didn't read the article, you taking TC's word for it?

I was talking about you, not the bogus article. And yes, I read it. It sounds like PR from the Chiefs.


To use more of the cap than is currently available (say by re-signing Carr but still signing Routt, Boss & Winston) means making a tougher time of re-signing the Chiefs pick of next seasons 17 scheduled free agents, and not having much money available to take advantage of other teams’ cap casualty cuts (i.e. next year’s Routts, Boss’s & Winstons).

And that is pure, unadulterated bullshit, for the reasons I listed above.

Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 05:19 PM
$120 millions dollars = Matt Cassel and Tyson Jackson.

Championship!

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 05:20 PM
Championship!

Salary Cap Champions!

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 05:23 PM
You're joking, right?

Washington LOST $36 million in cap space, yet went out and spent $20 million on players AND selected the number two overall draft pick.

Seriously, you're missing the whole thing here. The Chiefs could have easily signed Carr & Bowe and Winston and Routt had they spent CASH UPFRONT. Signing those guys would have meant spending about $60 million upfront but it could have been done.

Then, other guys would convert their salaries to a signing bonus which would have been spread out over a number of years and the Chiefs would have a more complete team in 2012.

It's really that simple.

So they needed to give Bowe and Carr about $40MM up front? They would have needed to spend ~$167MM this year? $40MM more than any other team to not be cheap?

Who does that dude? By your logic any team can sign pretty much every single player they want and just pay a huge amount up front.

That would be fucking stupid is why you don't do that.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 05:24 PM
Salary Cap Champions!

So you don't believe the cap is real but being under it is proof of being cheap?

Makes sense.

Let me make it easy for you.

As you say you can manipulate the cap and spend more $. This article says even though KC is under the cap they spent a ton of $ which is what you are saying is possible.

Then you say KC is cheap.

Sorry if that sounds off base.

BossChief
09-28-2012, 06:02 PM
The "salary cap" doesn't mean jack shit...it's all about cash spent and it seems KC has spent a lot.

How the fuck can you call a man cheap when he has spent more cash that anyone else?

whoman69
09-28-2012, 06:09 PM
The difference between cap numbers and money spent on this chart is bonuses. If Clark is giving high salaries but few signing bonuses, it would appear he is paying more but in reality paying less each year. He could still be cheap.

BossChief
09-28-2012, 06:16 PM
It also looks like Indy will get a big fat chunk of cap space next year when a bunch of manning dead money opens up.

I bet they make a big push to sign Bowe.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 06:37 PM
The difference between cap numbers and money spent on this chart is bonuses. If Clark is giving high salaries but few signing bonuses, it would appear he is paying more but in reality paying less each year. He could still be cheap.

Exactly. Why can't people see this?

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 06:43 PM
Exactly. Why can't people see this?

The article is about actual $ spent people, not cap $$.

Why cant people understand that? Explain.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 06:45 PM
The article is about actual $ spent people, not cap $$.

Why cant people understand that? Explain.

JFC. Because you and other steeple are using that bullshit to claim "See, Clark isn't cheap!".

It's nonsense.

New World Order
09-28-2012, 06:52 PM
I believe these statistics, Clark pays Scott and then Scott spends all of it on the buffet

BossChief
09-28-2012, 06:52 PM
Exactly. Why can't people see this?

Hali got like 35 million guaranteed.
Flowers got 23 million guaranteed
Charles got 10 million guaranteed
Johnson got 15 million guaranteed

All within the last two years.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 06:54 PM
JFC. Because you and other steeple are using that bullshit to claim "See, Clark isn't cheap!".

It's nonsense.

Your response is the nonsense.

Its simple.

KC is spending the most $ of any team in actual $ for players on their team. Its not a bad thing they aren't paying $10MM to players not on the team anymore.

It is a bad thing they are paying what they are to Cassel, Jackson, and Dorsey (who I like but is over paid).

Your constant harping about cap #'s is ridiculous because the discussion at hand doesn't fit anything you are arguing. You keep acting like nobody else understands the cap when that's wrong and that's not the point at hand anyway.

You don't want to admit the team is spending $. I don't care. I don't like Pioli and I think he is the issue. I suppose that puts the blame on Clark as well.

Either way $ isn't the issue, you have nothing to support your claim it is an issue and you are the one who fails to understand that.

You just hate to be wrong, that's it.

New World Order
09-28-2012, 06:55 PM
Your response is the nonsense.

Its simple.

KC is spending the most $ of any team in actual $ for players on their team. Its not a bad thing they aren't paying $10MM to players not on the team anymore.

It is a bad thing they are paying what they are to Cassel, Jackson, and Dorsey (who I like but is over paid).

Your constant harping about cap #'s is ridiculous because the discussion at hand doesn't fit anything you are arguing. You keep acting like nobody else understands the cap when that's wrong and that's not the point at hand anyway.

You don't want to admit the team is spending $. I don't care. I don't like Pioli and I think he is the issue. I suppose that puts the blame on Clark as well.

Either way $ isn't the issue, you have nothing to support your claim it is an issue and you are the one who fails to understand that.

You just hate to be wrong, that's it.



mmmmmmhm

BossChief
09-28-2012, 06:58 PM
JFC. Because you and other steeple are using that bullshit to claim "See, Clark isn't cheap!".

It's nonsense.
So, you are saying that Clark Hunt is cheap even though these figures show the exact opposite?... and on top of that he has the highest paid GM in football.

I guess I don't understand how that is supposed to make any sense.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 07:07 PM
So, you are saying that Clark Hunt is cheap even though these figures show the exact opposite?... and on top of that he has the highest paid GM in football.

I guess I don't understand how that is supposed to make any sense.

I will tell you this.

Whether people want to bitch and argue one way or another is fine I just know this.

What the article in the OP has presented has been stated before by other sources, not in as much detail though.

As you stated it has been said Pioli is the highest paid GM in the league.

Those 2 things lead me to believe Clark being cheap is not the issue. Bad decision making is.

Everyone that wants to claim otherwise has not shown even 1/10th if the information, data or facts to back up their claim that the article in the OP has. They just say "Clark is cheap" really loud a bunch of times and think that carries weight.

I haven't seen anything that supports Clark is cheap except the fact that KC is under the salary cap, which is explained in the article and a point that Dane and other make moot themselves by claiming the cap is a sham anyway.


Somehow the actual amount of $$ spent on players salary means less than a cap # that is a sham anyway.


So basically its information vs opinion.

If somebody can post some valid info that claims the OP is wrong I am all for reading it. I am open minded unlike others.

Also to add to this, could KC have spent more $? Yea probably but does not spending the absolute max amount you have available make you cheap?

New World Order
09-28-2012, 07:09 PM
I will tell you this.

Whether people want to bitch and argue one way or another is fine I just know this.

What the article in the OP has presented has been stated before by other sources, not in as much detail though.

As you stated it has been said Pioli is the highest paid GM in the league.

Those 2 things lead me to believe Clark being cheap is not the issue. Bad decision making is.

Everyone that wants to claim otherwise has not shown even 1/10th if the information, data or facts to back up their claim that the article in the OP has. They just say "Clark is cheap" really loud a bunch of times and think that carries weight.

I haven't seen anything that supports Clark is cheap except the fact that KC is under the salary cap, which is explained in the article and a point that Dane and other make moot themselves by claiming the cap is a sham anyway.


Somehow the actual amount of $$ spent on players salary means less than a cap # that is a sham anyway.


So basically its information vs opinion.

If somebody can post some valid info that claims the OP is wrong I am all for reading it. I am open minded unlike others.



I take it you believe in UFO's as well

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 07:11 PM
I take it you believe in UFO's as well

As I said you got nothing to back your argument. Nada, zip, zilch.

BossChief
09-28-2012, 07:12 PM
3 things:

1) it doesn't matter how much you spend when your quarterback is Matt Cassel. Might as well donate it to charity.

2) anybody that states that Clark "only cares about the bottom line" is joking themselves.

3) where can one find a breakdown of EXACTLY how the money is spent?

stonedstooge
09-28-2012, 07:13 PM
KC Cheaps

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 07:15 PM
2 things:

1) it doesn't matter how much you spend when your quarterback is Matt Cassel. Might as well donate it to charity.

2) anybody that states that Clark "only cares about the bottom line" is joking themselves.

The flip side to this is also pretty simple. Clark does care about the bottom line. It is a business to him, just like every other NFL owner, but not to one single poster on CP. Yet CP thinks $ is irrelevant. If you aren't winning you just aren't spending enough. Simple as that.

BossChief
09-28-2012, 07:21 PM
If the op stated the exact opposite with facts to back it up, this thread would probably have 200 posts by now.

New World Order
09-28-2012, 07:22 PM
As I said you got nothing to back your argument. Nada, zip, zilch.



What argument did I present?

BossChief
09-28-2012, 07:25 PM
What argument did I present?

You insinuated that the information posted in the op is fictional...even though it has been posted by many media outlets and has been confirmed.

New World Order
09-28-2012, 07:28 PM
You insinuated that the information posted in the op is fictional...even though it has been posted by many media outlets and has been confirmed.


I simply asked if he belived in aliens.

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 07:30 PM
If the op stated the exact opposite with facts to back it up, this thread would probably have 200 posts by now.

No shit, but instead there are a few responses that simply say "you and the article are wrong", with absolutely nothing to back their argument.

Then crickets.

I don't even like Pioli, he can spend or save or do whatever, but if he doesn't address QB then its a waste.

Hell if we aren't going to spend $ on a good QB we may as well save $, the fact is we are wasting good $ on other players because of a shit QB.

New World Order
09-28-2012, 07:31 PM
I am not denying Clark spends money, I am sure he does, just most of it goes to Scott's food bill

Marcellus
09-28-2012, 07:32 PM
I simply asked if he belived in aliens.

So you are saying you really are a fucking idiot and just asking dumbass irrelevant questions and you aren't actually trying to insinuate the OP is wrong.

Gotcha, that's much better.

jspchief
09-28-2012, 07:42 PM
So does anyone have the numbers for the last five years? 10 years?

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 07:47 PM
Hali got like 35 million guaranteed.
Flowers got 23 million guaranteed
Charles got 10 million guaranteed
Johnson got 15 million guaranteed

All within the last two years.

What happened in 2012?

New World Order
09-28-2012, 07:48 PM
So you are saying you really are a ****ing idiot and just asking dumbass irrelevant questions and you aren't actually trying to insinuate the OP is wrong.

Gotcha, that's much better.



Yes, do you know why? Because your argument for either side is irrelevant.

If the Chiefs won the super bowl how would that impact Marcellus' life? The point is stop getting so worked up over posts

BossChief
09-28-2012, 07:52 PM
What happened in 2012?

The Chiefs spent the most of any team in the league in player salaries of current players?

BossChief
09-28-2012, 07:58 PM
If you remove the emotion of losing Brandon Carr and look at the Chiefs RCB spot objectively...

The #25 ranked corner (Routt) AND 4 million saved AND a third round comp pick >>> The #27 ranked corner (Carr) at over 10 million per year.

This post was brought to you by one of Brandon Carrs biggest supporters since day one.

Dayze
09-28-2012, 08:05 PM
Yes, do you know why? Because your argument for either side is irrelevant.

If the Chiefs won the super bowl how would that impact Marcellus' life? The point is stop getting so worked up over posts

This post pisses me off so much

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 10:19 PM
So Pioli is posting online now. Thats cool to know.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 10:24 PM
The Chiefs spent the most of any team in the league in player salaries of current players?

But they didn't need to do that and could have improved the roster.

Again, all they needed to do was restructure a few guys to clear up cap room and shell out $50 million+ in guarantees.

Clearly, that wasn't something Clark Hunt was willing to do.

lcarus
09-28-2012, 10:33 PM
I actually don't give a shit about money. I just want our highly paid players to go win for the Kansas City Chiefs for fucking once.

DaneMcCloud
09-28-2012, 10:35 PM
I actually don't give a shit about money. I just want our highly paid players to go win for the Kansas City Chiefs for fucking once.

Personally, I want ALL of them to "go win", highly paid or not.

lcarus
09-28-2012, 10:39 PM
Personally, I want ALL of them to "go win", highly paid or not.

Well, yes. I think they all make good money. I just want at least a playoff win.

lcarus
09-28-2012, 10:40 PM
So I was referring to the whole team. Just to clarify.

aturnis
09-29-2012, 12:41 AM
But they didn't need to do that and could have improved the roster.

Again, all they needed to do was restructure a few guys to clear up cap room and shell out $50 million+ in guarantees.

Clearly, that wasn't something Clark Hunt was willing to do.

Why do you want to add to dead money so much?

aturnis
09-29-2012, 12:42 AM
But they didn't need to do that and could have improved the roster.

Again, all they needed to do was restructure a few guys to clear up cap room and shell out $50 million+ in guarantees.

Clearly, that wasn't something Clark Hunt was willing to do.

They didn't improve the roster? News to me...

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 12:43 AM
Why do you want to add to dead money so much?

To WIN a Super Bowl.

Duh.

aturnis
09-29-2012, 12:45 AM
You're joking, right?

Washington LOST $36 million in cap space, yet went out and spent $20 million on players AND selected the number two overall draft pick.

Seriously, you're missing the whole thing here. The Chiefs could have easily signed Carr & Bowe and Winston and Routt had they spent CASH UPFRONT. Signing those guys would have meant spending about $60 million upfront but it could have been done.

Then, other guys would convert their salaries to a signing bonus which would have been spread out over a number of years and the Chiefs would have a more complete team in 2012.

It's really that simple.

What does RGIII have to do with anything? How is selecting #2 relevant?

aturnis
09-29-2012, 12:47 AM
To WIN a Super Bowl.

Duh.

Please explain to me how on earth that would win a Super Bowl? Did all the Packers dead money help them win one?

DaneMcCloud
09-29-2012, 12:49 AM
Is there something in the Iowa water?

JFC. JSP must drink bottled water. It's the only explanation.

aturnis
09-29-2012, 12:54 AM
Yeah, I'm the one who looks silly in this thread. It's me. Totally. #getaclue

FAX
09-29-2012, 02:42 AM
Great job on the article, Mr. Micjones. Great job. I'm not sure I agree with the overall conclusions you present, but you organized the information in a reasonable, considered way. I should think you deserve a whole bucket of prop things ... whatever they are.

Here's (more or less) my take.

First off, the NFL's player compensation system is complicated enough that the average fan has very little grasp on how it functions. So it's natural for individual teams to convey their spending commitments in terms of the "Cap". It's simple shorthand that avoids the complexity associated with team accounting and provides an easy-to-grasp number that fans and the media can quickly use to compare one organization's financial commitment to winning with another's.

The problem is, when it comes to the correlation between the "cap" and winning, the cap is a bit of a mirage. Even so, other teams appear to have figured it all out and found a way to win while managing their money well by simply keeping their eye on three factors; contribution, term, and cash.

When you look around the league, it seems that the teams who show up most often in the playoffs manage their player compensation in 2- to 4-year window increments. In other words, they will evaluate the impact each individual player's compensation will have on the franchise over that short time frame ... but only in two ways; relative contribution to winning in present cash terms vs. future negative impact on the cap. (I don't know this for a fact, of course. But that's what it looks like from here.)

Each team seems to identify a small number of high-value players who function as the franchise's benchmark when comparing all other players' compensation. These are the guys around whom the team is built ... both competitively and financially.

Once these players have been identified, the balance of the roster (whether acquired via the draft or free agency) is evaluated and compensation is established with the focus on that 2- to 4-year window and each player's complimentary contribution to winning. And, if done properly, these contracts avoid long-term cap issues and future problems associated with the dreaded "dead money". (Maybe it's because the average NFL player's career is short and nobody knows the future. Nonetheless, that's how they seem to approach their deals.)

Once you're that far down the road in building the roster, there are any number of tools available that can allow you to keep your existing FAs, acquire new ones, sign your draft picks, and supplement the future potential of the 53-man roster using the developmental squad and the injury designations. Restructuring existing deals with existing players is one of those as is (since all football players really care about are the guaranteed dollars) spreading current cash outlays over the term of the deal in order to attract or keep FAs. But, ultimately, making it work within the cap all boils down to two things; cash and contract.

Pioli's current problem is that the Chiefs have invested both cash and leveraged future cap impact in some of the wrong places ... the best example is Cassel's contract. But they've also done it in a fragmented way in light of the 2- to 4-year success window and contract term (length of the individual deals). It's inexplicable. The only possible rationale is that A) Pioli had no idea what he had on the roster when he arrived and B) Pioli believed that Cassel would develop into a true franchise QB within 3 years or less.

Maybe it's just that simple. Maybe that's what happened. Maybe Pioli just didn't do his due diligence into the roster before he arrived.

Whatever the reason, when Pioli came on board, he was working with other peoples' prior contracts and was unfamiliar with the players involved and, therefore, their relative value or how quickly or slowly they could develop into true contributors. (I have a feeling that, when he first arrived, Pioli had the general sense that our entire roster was garbage from top to bottom. If so, he was wrong about that ... they were just misused and poorly coached.)

But giving him the benefit of the doubt, his unfamiliarity might explain how you wind up where we've found ourselves since he arrived ... behind the curve both in terms of player retention and building depth. Meanwhile, strictly from a contractual perspective, he seems to have identified his current core group which consists of Hali, Flowers, (and maybe DJ) and his own draft selections on the defensive side combined with Cassel, Charles and his own draft picks on the offensive side.

But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that he needs to start over (basically from scratch) next off-season with an entirely new 2- to 4-year plan because severe potential problems are looming. In fact, hints of those problems emerged last off-season. Because, if he doesn't recalculate both his player priorities and his spending, we are going to continue to lose key contributors to FA, find ourselves without the players Pioli himself has identified as "keepers", and with empty pockets when it comes to replacing those players. (Of course, it's arguable whether or not some of those "keepers" should even be on the roster at all.)

Essentially, it boils down to this; you don't plan more than 4 years out and you don't build your financial house around a core of players who are either too untalented, too injured, too old, or whose contracts are either at term or too expensive. Yet, so far, he seems to lean toward doing exactly that. Either that, or his judgment is suspect. It's one or the other.

FAX

Chief Roundup
09-29-2012, 05:09 AM
To WIN a Super Bowl.

Duh.

Yeah going out and trying to buy a SB has worked so well for???????
That is right NO ONE as it has not ever happened. Just look at Dan Snyder and the Redskins.

JoeyChuckles
09-29-2012, 11:13 AM
... with the remaining $517,187 being spread between 7 different (former) players with Gabe Miller accounting for the second highest figure ($148,875) and Brandon Bair, the least ($4,666).


I think we are all missing the big question this article poses..... What do you think Brandon Bair is doing with his $4,666.00?

BossChief
09-29-2012, 01:33 PM
To WIN a Super Bowl.

Duh.

What?

So, keeping Brandon Carr over signing Stanford Routt (who is actually ranked higher even though he faced better players) would make us a superbowl team?..I mean Dwayne Bowe is still here and we brought in a bunch of solid to great free agents.

The superbowl argument is the Matt Cassel argument...not the salary cap/guaranteed money one.

I guess I dont buy your argument here for a second.

The Chiefs have given out 80+ million in guarantees the last two years and you are arguing that Clark Hint is cheap because he didn't give out 50 in guarantees this year.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE in Iowa, Cali, Alaska or Bangladesh.

Micjones
09-30-2012, 09:45 PM
Great job on the article, Mr. Micjones. Great job. I'm not sure I agree with the overall conclusions you present, but you organized the information in a reasonable, considered way. I should think you deserve a whole bucket of prop things ... whatever they are.

Here's (more or less) my take.

First off, the NFL's player compensation system is complicated enough that the average fan has very little grasp on how it functions. So it's natural for individual teams to convey their spending commitments in terms of the "Cap". It's simple shorthand that avoids the complexity associated with team accounting and provides an easy-to-grasp number that fans and the media can quickly use to compare one organization's financial commitment to winning with another's.

The problem is, when it comes to the correlation between the "cap" and winning, the cap is a bit of a mirage. Even so, other teams appear to have figured it all out and found a way to win while managing their money well by simply keeping their eye on three factors; contribution, term, and cash.

When you look around the league, it seems that the teams who show up most often in the playoffs manage their player compensation in 2- to 4-year window increments. In other words, they will evaluate the impact each individual player's compensation will have on the franchise over that short time frame ... but only in two ways; relative contribution to winning in present cash terms vs. future negative impact on the cap. (I don't know this for a fact, of course. But that's what it looks like from here.)

Each team seems to identify a small number of high-value players who function as the franchise's benchmark when comparing all other players' compensation. These are the guys around whom the team is built ... both competitively and financially.

Once these players have been identified, the balance of the roster (whether acquired via the draft or free agency) is evaluated and compensation is established with the focus on that 2- to 4-year window and each player's complimentary contribution to winning. And, if done properly, these contracts avoid long-term cap issues and future problems associated with the dreaded "dead money". (Maybe it's because the average NFL player's career is short and nobody knows the future. Nonetheless, that's how they seem to approach their deals.)

Once you're that far down the road in building the roster, there are any number of tools available that can allow you to keep your existing FAs, acquire new ones, sign your draft picks, and supplement the future potential of the 53-man roster using the developmental squad and the injury designations. Restructuring existing deals with existing players is one of those as is (since all football players really care about are the guaranteed dollars) spreading current cash outlays over the term of the deal in order to attract or keep FAs. But, ultimately, making it work within the cap all boils down to two things; cash and contract.

Pioli's current problem is that the Chiefs have invested both cash and leveraged future cap impact in some of the wrong places ... the best example is Cassel's contract. But they've also done it in a fragmented way in light of the 2- to 4-year success window and contract term (length of the individual deals). It's inexplicable. The only possible rationale is that A) Pioli had no idea what he had on the roster when he arrived and B) Pioli believed that Cassel would develop into a true franchise QB within 3 years or less.

Maybe it's just that simple. Maybe that's what happened. Maybe Pioli just didn't do his due diligence into the roster before he arrived.

Whatever the reason, when Pioli came on board, he was working with other peoples' prior contracts and was unfamiliar with the players involved and, therefore, their relative value or how quickly or slowly they could develop into true contributors. (I have a feeling that, when he first arrived, Pioli had the general sense that our entire roster was garbage from top to bottom. If so, he was wrong about that ... they were just misused and poorly coached.)

But giving him the benefit of the doubt, his unfamiliarity might explain how you wind up where we've found ourselves since he arrived ... behind the curve both in terms of player retention and building depth. Meanwhile, strictly from a contractual perspective, he seems to have identified his current core group which consists of Hali, Flowers, (and maybe DJ) and his own draft selections on the defensive side combined with Cassel, Charles and his own draft picks on the offensive side.

But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that he needs to start over (basically from scratch) next off-season with an entirely new 2- to 4-year plan because severe potential problems are looming. In fact, hints of those problems emerged last off-season. Because, if he doesn't recalculate both his player priorities and his spending, we are going to continue to lose key contributors to FA, find ourselves without the players Pioli himself has identified as "keepers", and with empty pockets when it comes to replacing those players. (Of course, it's arguable whether or not some of those "keepers" should even be on the roster at all.)

Essentially, it boils down to this; you don't plan more than 4 years out and you don't build your financial house around a core of players who are either too untalented, too injured, too old, or whose contracts are either at term or too expensive. Yet, so far, he seems to lean toward doing exactly that. Either that, or his judgment is suspect. It's one or the other.

FAX

I didn't write it Mr. Fax. Just passing it along.

DaneMcCloud
09-30-2012, 09:57 PM
What?

So, keeping Brandon Carr over signing Stanford Routt (who is actually ranked higher even though he faced better players) would make us a superbowl team?..I mean Dwayne Bowe is still here and we brought in a bunch of solid to great free agents.

The superbowl argument is the Matt Cassel argument...not the salary cap/guaranteed money one.

I guess I dont buy your argument here for a second.

The Chiefs have given out 80+ million in guarantees the last two years and you are arguing that Clark Hint is cheap because he didn't give out 50 in guarantees this year.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE in Iowa, Cali, Alaska or Bangladesh.

Just keep defending Clark, okay?

He's done an amazing job with the Chiefs since he took over, so of course, you're right.

BossChief
09-30-2012, 10:19 PM
Just keep defending Clark, okay?

He's done an amazing job with the Chiefs since he took over, so of course, you're right.

What should he have done differently?

He made the tough decision to tear down an ancient team and build a new one through the draft when he took over in 2007. Exactly what we all wanted and recognized as the correct model.

He hired a premier guy to run his team and has opened the pocketbook for not only the team and it's GM, but also shelled out a pallet of cash to upgrade the stadium...even when the opportunity was there to move the team somewhere it would be more profitable.

TBH I don't even dislike the way Pioli has gone about building this team except for two spots.

QB
HC

I'll take it a step further and repeat something I've said multiple times:

Todd Haley could have been a playoff winning, superbowl contending coach IF HE HAD A QUARTERBACK...so, really...I see Cassel as a big enough mistake to have nullified all the positive decisions Clark Hunt has overseen.

This team is gonna explode on the NFL scene ONCE IT GETS A QUARTERBACK.

Just watch.