PDA

View Full Version : Leaving 6 mil in Lamar's pockets instead of using it on the field


BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 09:21 AM
The leaving 6 million under the cap is pissing me off more and more. I just can't let it go. :banghead:

If Carl and DV didn't see anyone out there that they wanted to sign as it has been argued, why not restructure exsisting contracts to use the cap room now and have more money next year to spend?

There is only one conclusion from this....They were and are beng cheap.

And as a fan and season ticket holder to not try your best to put the best team out on the field is inexcusable and a slap in the face to the loyal fans...

this is pissing me off to no end.. Dammit Carl! :cuss:

Thanks foe letting me vent. I feel much better now.:thumb:

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:32 AM
No, you can't let it go. This is like the fourth time you've posted it in the last few minutes, on multiple threads.

It makes you look like a crybaby.

King_Chief_Fan
09-16-2004, 09:33 AM
No, you can't let it go. This is like the fourth time you've posted it in the last few minutes, on multiple threads.

It makes you look like a crybaby.

ouch!

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:40 AM
I think you need to start a letter to Lamar

FloridaChief
09-16-2004, 09:42 AM
Give up your goddamned season tickets to send a message.

siberian khatru
09-16-2004, 09:43 AM
I think you need to start a letter to Lamar

I think an Internet petition would be much more effective.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:43 AM
I think an Internet petition would be much more effective.

Yeah, you're right, but I dont think Lamar knows how to get to the Internet. The letter about Romo, worked, so I was going back to the well on that one.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:45 AM
Put me in the crybaby club, too because I think it's BS, as well.

Mile High Mania
09-16-2004, 09:47 AM
Don't forget about the money spent on the #1 pick last year that still hasn't played a down. (just playfully poking with a stick)

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:49 AM
Don't forget about the money spent on the #1 pick last year that still hasn't played a down. (just playfully poking with a stick)

umm...he did play last year and we're only 1 week into this season, but I appreciate the attempt.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 09:50 AM
Put me in the crybaby club, too because I think it's BS, as well.

Nah. It really has nothign to do with how you feel on the subject. Lots of people are unhappy with the idea that we have room under the cap and aren't using it. MYSELF included.

You aren't posting the same bitch on EVERY currently-active thread.

Stinger
09-16-2004, 09:50 AM
Don't forget about the money spent on the #1 pick last year that still hasn't played a down. (just playfully poking with a stick)

Oh YEAH............. Well your First round pick last year............ well ............ er........ I got nothing............. Your a poopy-head yeah thats it :p :Poke: :)

Mile High Mania
09-16-2004, 09:51 AM
umm...he did play last year and we're only 1 week into this season, but I appreciate the attempt.

My bad... missed that play.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:52 AM
Nah. It really has nothign to do with how you feel on the subject. Lots of people are unhappy with the idea that we have room under the cap and aren't using it. MYSELF included.

You aren't posting the same bitch on EVERY currently-active thread.
Thanks for the kind words. :thumb:

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 09:53 AM
My bad... missed that play.
You missed the LJ TD and you call yourself a fan. :p

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 09:55 AM
My bad... missed that play.

or plays

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/396164

I'll pretend you care.

Mile High Mania
09-16-2004, 09:57 AM
Wow ... 20 carries. I must have tuned out during those "garbage periods". Ok ... f--- me, my smacketh fell flatteth on that one.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 10:16 AM
Wow ... 20 carries. I must have tuned out during those "garbage periods". Ok ... f--- me, my smacketh fell flatteth on that one.Admitting is the first step to recovery. :p


MHM is okay in my book.

shaneo69
09-16-2004, 10:21 AM
Are BigRedChief and BigChiefFan taking the same side on this "Lamar is cheap" topic, because if they're not, then I'm really gonna be confused.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 10:41 AM
It's pretty simple guys. Give up your season tickets, stop buying Chiefs merchandise, stop watching the games on TV, oragnize yourselves and start a campaign to boycott everything Chiefs.

Out of curiosity, where does this number come from? If you say anything other than Carl Peterson, Denny Thum, or Dick Vermiel, I call BS.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 10:51 AM
It's pretty simple guys. Give up your season tickets, stop buying Chiefs merchandise, stop watching the games on TV, oragnize yourselves and start a campaign to boycott everything Chiefs.

Out of curiosity, where does this number come from? If you say anything other than Carl Peterson, Denny Thum, or Dick Vermiel, I call BS.

And certainly don't vote yes on Bi-State 2 -- even though that money will likely be used to build luxury boxes, giving the Chiefs additional money to invest in signing bonuses.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 10:56 AM
And certainly don't vote yes on Bi-State 2 -- even though that money will likely be used to build luxury boxes, giving the Chiefs additional money to invest in signing bonuses.

We'd just waste our money on the wrong guys anyway.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:00 AM
It's pretty simple guys. Give up your season tickets, stop buying Chiefs merchandise, stop watching the games on TV, oragnize yourselves and start a campaign to boycott everything Chiefs.

Out of curiosity, where does this number come from? If you say anything other than Carl Peterson, Denny Thum, or Dick Vermiel, I call BS.
So in otherwords you can't be a fan of the Chiefs and not agree with everything they do? I didn't know being a lemming was a qualifying factor in being a fan.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:07 AM
So in otherwords you can't be a fan of the Chiefs and not agree with everything they do? I didn't know being a lemming was a qualifying factor in being a fan.

No one said you had to stop being a fan...you're overreacting and now pot shots...I thought you didnt appreciate that tactic.

If you believe profit is the only thing this franchise understands, you can only affect their decision making if you do one simple thing...affect their profits.

Good Lord, why do people have to go off the deep end on this stuff.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:08 AM
It's pretty simple guys. Give up your season tickets, stop buying Chiefs merchandise, stop watching the games on TV, oragnize yourselves and start a campaign to boycott everything Chiefs.

Out of curiosity, where does this number come from? If you say anything other than Carl Peterson, Denny Thum, or Dick Vermiel, I call BS.
So those are the only qualifying people on Earth that can determine how much we have in cap space?. I call bull butter on that. Here's some numbers I found on our cap, but sorry I don't know Carl personally. Your approach makes it virtually impossible to dispute by design to back your case. There's other people around the league that know what they are talking about besides the allmighty King Carl.

For the sake of this installment, we have designated teams that are less than $5M under the cap in RED. These are teams that have little money to sign free agents and may need to make cuts or restructure salaries in order to sign all of their draft picks. Note that teams that show NEGATIVE cap space are ALREADY OVER the cap, and will have to make cuts before the March 3 deadline. Teams in BLACK, which are between $5M and $10M under the cap, are teams that look to be in pretty good shape in terms of adding more veterans and signing all of their rookies without having to take drastic measures. Teams in GREEN are teams that are well under the cap and should have plenty of room to sign free agents and rookies.

For 2004, we are estimating the Salary Cap to be approximately $80.5 M.

Keep in mind, many teams are making numerous transactions each day which have a bearing on the salary cap values. These figures are approximate as of February 27, 2004.


Projected 2004 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team

Rank Team $ Under the Cap
1 Philadelphia Eagles $24.5 M
2 Minnesota Vikings $20.9 M
3 Arizona Cardinals $18.7 M
4 Baltimore Ravens $17.75 M
5 Dallas Cowboys $17.3 M
6 Detroit Lions $14.75 M
7 New Orleans Saints $14 M
8 Chicago Bears $12.45 M
9 Houston Texans $12.25 M
10 Washington Redskins $11 M
11 Carolina Panthers $10.3 M
12 Cincinnati Bengals $9.95 M
13 Buffalo Bills $9.9 M
14 St. Louis Rams $8.8 M
15 Jacksonville Jaguars $7 M
16 San Diego Chargers $6.25 M
17 NY Giants $5.76 M
18 Atlanta Falcons $5.7 M
19 Kansas City Chiefs $5.6 M
20 Seattle Seahawks $5.3 M
21 Cleveland Browns $4.6 M
22 Pittsburgh Steelers $4.1 M
23 NY Jets $3.1 M
24 Oakland Raiders $1.18 M
25 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $-1000000
26 New England Patriots $-2 M
27 Green Bay Packers $-2.3 M
28 Miami Dolphins $-2.58 M
29 Denver Broncos $-5.9 M
30 San Francisco 49ers $-6.632 M
31 Indianapolis Colts $-11.05 M
32 Tennessee Titans $-13.5 M

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:10 AM
So in otherwords you can't be a fan of the Chiefs and not agree with everything they do? I didn't know being a lemming was a qualifying factor in being a fan.

You can be a fan all you want but if you're going to accuse them of doing something, have some facts. You have no idea what's in Lamar's head or how much money we have under or over the cap or any of that stuff. I'll never pretend to know what's going on with the Chiefs solely by making assumptions or listening to the media.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:11 AM
A team cannot be 'over' the cap at any time or they are penalized...these projections are based on today's numbers of tomorrows contracts that have to be adjusted.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:16 AM
So those are the only qualifying people on Earth that can determine how much we have in cap space?. I call bull butter on that. Here's some numbers I found on our cap, but sorry I don't know Carl personally. Your approach makes it virtually impossible to dispute by design to back your case. There's other people around the league that know what they are talking about besides the allmighty King Carl.

For the sake of this installment, we have designated teams that are less than $5M under the cap in RED. These are teams that have little money to sign free agents and may need to make cuts or restructure salaries in order to sign all of their draft picks. Note that teams that show NEGATIVE cap space are ALREADY OVER the cap, and will have to make cuts before the March 3 deadline. Teams in BLACK, which are between $5M and $10M under the cap, are teams that look to be in pretty good shape in terms of adding more veterans and signing all of their rookies without having to take drastic measures. Teams in GREEN are teams that are well under the cap and should have plenty of room to sign free agents and rookies.

For 2004, we are estimating the Salary Cap to be approximately $80.5 M.

Keep in mind, many teams are making numerous transactions each day which have a bearing on the salary cap values. These figures are approximate as of February 27, 2004.


Projected 2004 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team

Rank Team $ Under the Cap
1 Philadelphia Eagles $24.5 M
2 Minnesota Vikings $20.9 M
3 Arizona Cardinals $18.7 M
4 Baltimore Ravens $17.75 M
5 Dallas Cowboys $17.3 M
6 Detroit Lions $14.75 M
7 New Orleans Saints $14 M
8 Chicago Bears $12.45 M
9 Houston Texans $12.25 M
10 Washington Redskins $11 M
11 Carolina Panthers $10.3 M
12 Cincinnati Bengals $9.95 M
13 Buffalo Bills $9.9 M
14 St. Louis Rams $8.8 M
15 Jacksonville Jaguars $7 M
16 San Diego Chargers $6.25 M
17 NY Giants $5.76 M
18 Atlanta Falcons $5.7 M
19 Kansas City Chiefs $5.6 M
20 Seattle Seahawks $5.3 M
21 Cleveland Browns $4.6 M
22 Pittsburgh Steelers $4.1 M
23 NY Jets $3.1 M
24 Oakland Raiders $1.18 M
25 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $-1000000
26 New England Patriots $-2 M
27 Green Bay Packers $-2.3 M
28 Miami Dolphins $-2.58 M
29 Denver Broncos $-5.9 M
30 San Francisco 49ers $-6.632 M
31 Indianapolis Colts $-11.05 M
32 Tennessee Titans $-13.5 M

Those numbers are "approximate". It says right there that they are "projected".

Were you aware that John Clayton went through the ENTIRE season last year with some teams OVER the cap, despite that fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE?

These numbers are good benchmarks. It still doesn't mean we ARE $6M under the cap. They merely believe that we are...

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:16 AM
So those are the only qualifying people on Earth that can determine how much we have in cap space?. I call bull butter on that. Here's some numbers I found on our cap, but sorry I don't know Carl personally. Your approach makes it virtually impossible to dispute by design to back your case. There's other people around the league that know what they are talking about besides the allmighty King Carl.

For the sake of this installment, we have designated teams that are less than $5M under the cap in RED. These are teams that have little money to sign free agents and may need to make cuts or restructure salaries in order to sign all of their draft picks. Note that teams that show NEGATIVE cap space are ALREADY OVER the cap, and will have to make cuts before the March 3 deadline. Teams in BLACK, which are between $5M and $10M under the cap, are teams that look to be in pretty good shape in terms of adding more veterans and signing all of their rookies without having to take drastic measures. Teams in GREEN are teams that are well under the cap and should have plenty of room to sign free agents and rookies.

For 2004, we are estimating the Salary Cap to be approximately $80.5 M.

Keep in mind, many teams are making numerous transactions each day which have a bearing on the salary cap values. These figures are approximate as of February 27, 2004.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. You can believe in seven month old approximations made by people who don't look at the Chiefs books if you want but I'm not going to. I guess until we both get a look at their books we'll never know.
I do know that I've heard Vermiel say we don't have the money to make any moves right now. Like I said in another thread, I'll believe that before I believe anything else.

PS: Don't know if you know this but htismaqe, KCTitus and I are all on the payroll. :D

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:16 AM
No one said you had to stop being a fan...you're overreacting and now pot shots...I thought you didnt appreciate that tactic.

If you believe profit is the only thing this franchise understands, you can only affect their decision making if you do one simple thing...affect their profits.

Good Lord, why do people have to go off the deep end on this stuff.I never said that was the only factor. Now did I? I said making money was the motivating factor. Being competitive was secondary. Meaning they do strive to be competitive, but I don't believe they are fully committed to going all the way, hence the ample amount of cap room to sign more FAs. Sure they want to win it all, as long as it doesn't take going the extra mile. If they are fully committed to going all the way, then why the ample cap room they aren't spending?

You say I'm going off the deep end, but I get sick of the "your not a true fan if you don't follow blindly" mantra. I was trying to prove a point since I was attacked on my take. I didn't draw first blood. I think some think that you can't be a true fan if you get out of line and I call bullbutter.

Chiefnj
09-16-2004, 11:18 AM
You can be a fan all you want but if you're going to accuse them of doing something, have some facts. You have no idea what's in Lamar's head or how much money we have under or over the cap or any of that stuff. I'll never pretend to know what's going on with the Chiefs solely by making assumptions or listening to the media.


Obviously nobody knows for sure, except the team, what the exact cap status is.

What we do know is that the team has never said they don't have any money under the cap to acquire a new player. I believe Vermeil at one time said that we don't have money to pay bonus money.

What we also know is that the Chiefs put the transition tag on Tait which was 6 million dollars. WHen he signed with the Bears that 6 million was available to the club. Personally, I'm not aware of any big moves made by the Chiefs after Tait left to use up the 6 million, are you?

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:20 AM
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. You can believe in seven month old approximations made by people who don't look at the Chiefs books if you want but I'm not going to. I guess until we both get a look at their books we'll never know.
I do know that I've heard Vermiel say we don't have the money to make any moves right now. Like I said in another thread, I'll believe that before I believe anything else.Thanks for being civil, but I believe Vermeil said we didn't have the money for signing bonuses. That's what comes out of Hunt's pocketbook.

Lzen
09-16-2004, 11:20 AM
I never said that was the only factor. Now did I? I said making money was the motivating factor. Being competitive was secondary. Meaning they do strive to be competitive, but I don't believe they are fully committed to going all the way, hence the ample amount of cap room to sign more FAs. Sure they want to win it all, as long as it doesn't take going the extra mile. If they are fully committed to going all the way, then why the ample cap room they aren't spending?

You say I'm going off the deep end, but I get sick of the "your not a true fan if you don't follow blindly" mantra. I was trying to prove a point since I was attacked on my take. I didn't draw first blood. I think some think that you can't be a true fan if you get out of line and I call bullbutter.

I don't think that's it at all. They are just debunking your argument with real facts. ;)

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:20 AM
I never said that was the only factor. Now did I? I said making money was the motivating factor. Being competitive was secondary. Meaning they do strive to be competitive, but I don't believe they are fully committed to going all the way, hence the ample amount of cap room to sign more FAs. Sure they want to win it all, as long as it doesn't take going the extra mile. If they are fully committed to going all the way, then why the ample cap room they aren't spending?

You mean they didnt do like they did last year? How'd that work out for the club?

You say I'm going off the deep end, but I get sick of the "your not a true fan if you don't follow blindly" mantra. I was trying to prove a point since I was attacked on my take. I didn't draw first blood. I think some think that you can't be a true fan if you get out of line and I call bullbutter.

Easy, there pal...I never said that to you and have NEVER said that before to anyone. Either sack up, produce a quote of me saying that or remove it from your post.

Now, you're just being stupid.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:21 AM
Obviously nobody knows for sure, except the team, what the exact cap status is.

What we do know is that the team has never said they don't have any money under the cap to acquire a new player. I believe Vermeil at one time said that we don't have money to pay bonus money.

What we also know is that the Chiefs put the transition tag on Tait which was 6 million dollars. WHen he signed with the Bears that 6 million was available to the club. Personally, I'm not aware of any big moves made by the Chiefs after Tait left to use up the 6 million, are you?
Exact-a-mundo.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:22 AM
Obviously nobody knows for sure, except the team, what the exact cap status is.

What we do know is that the team has never said they don't have any money under the cap to acquire a new player. I believe Vermeil at one time said that we don't have money to pay bonus money.

What we also know is that the Chiefs put the transition tag on Tait which was 6 million dollars. WHen he signed with the Bears that 6 million was available to the club. Personally, I'm not aware of any big moves made by the Chiefs after Tait left to use up the 6 million, are you?

I'm not aware of any big moves either but just because they put the tag on Tait doesn't mean they had $6 million free. They may have been planning on restructuring other players, cutting players, or spreading that $6 million over a number of years. We'll never know for sure.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:24 AM
You mean they didnt do like they did last year? How'd that work out for the club?



Easy, there pal...I never said that to you and have NEVER said that before to anyone. Either sack up, produce a quote of me saying that or remove it from your post.

Now, you're just being stupid.
You did say I was going off the deep-end and it was inferred that "your not a true fan if" by stating "I know what to do" meaning don't buy the merchandise,season tickets, ect...It wasn't necessarily you that said it. Don't get so bent out of shape because I wasn't referring to you.

BTW, the stupid comment was unnecessary.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:25 AM
I never said that was the only factor. Now did I? I said making money was the motivating factor. Being competitive was secondary. Meaning they do strive to be competitive, but I don't believe they are fully committed to going all the way, hence the ample amount of cap room to sign more FAs. Sure they want to win it all, as long as it doesn't take going the extra mile. If they are fully committed to going all the way, then why the ample cap room they aren't spending?

You say I'm going off the deep end, but I get sick of the "your not a true fan if you don't follow blindly" mantra. I was trying to prove a point since I was attacked on my take. I didn't draw first blood. I think some think that you can't be a true fan if you get out of line and I call bullbutter.

Nobody said anything even CLOSE to "you're not a true fan if you don't follow blindly".

If you can't handle people pointing out holes in your logic, don't post your opinions.

Chiefnj
09-16-2004, 11:26 AM
I'm not aware of any big moves either but just because they put the tag on Tait doesn't mean they had $6 million free. They may have been planning on restructuring other players, cutting players, or spreading that $6 million over a number of years. We'll never know for sure.

The Chiefs, and the rest of the NFL, had to comply with the cap on March 3, 2004. Tait signed with the Bears thereafter (4 days later). Thus, Tait's 6 mill was counting against the cap when the deadline was in place. To afford the 6 mil they would have to already restructure, cut, etc.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:27 AM
We'll never know for sure.

Exact-a-mundo.

Demonpenz
09-16-2004, 11:27 AM
whats he going to do, buy a six million dollar casket?

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:27 AM
You did say I was going off the deep-end and it was inferred that "your not a true fan if" by stating "I know what to do" meaning don't buy the merchandise,season tickets, ect...It wasn't necessarily you that said it. Don't get so bent out of shape because I wasn't referring to you.

BTW, the stupid comment was unnecessary.


Look, I dont infer sh*t...If I wanted to question your fandom, I would have done it straight to your face.

I'll repeat this for the 10th time now...and I cannot believe that you cannot follow this without getting your panties in a twist.

If profit is the only thing this organization understands and appreciates, then what is it that we, as fans, have to do to get them to change?

I'll let you answer the question so Im not inferring 'you're not a true fan'.

Damn, this is so simple...Im using your own frigging logic.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:30 AM
whats he going to do, buy a six million dollar casket?

dunno...maybe a bionic man, say, a pass rusher?

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:31 AM
I'm not aware of any big moves either but just because they put the tag on Tait doesn't mean they had $6 million free. They may have been planning on restructuring other players, cutting players, or spreading that $6 million over a number of years. We'll never know for sure.
That $6 mil couldn't be spread out over several years, because it was a one year contract. We used the transition tag on him. That would have been $6 mil for one year.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:32 AM
The Chiefs, and the rest of the NFL, had to comply with the cap on March 3, 2004. Tait signed with the Bears thereafter (4 days later). Thus, Tait's 6 mill was counting against the cap when the deadline was in place. To afford the 6 mil they would have to already restructure, cut, etc.

So there was $6 million available for Tait at that point, big woop. The point is that we have no clue exactly what cap room was available then or what cap room is available now. Only the Chiefs do.
In addition, even if the Chiefs have $30 million available right now, they obviously aren't going to do anything with it. I have trouble understanding why people are so offended by this even if it is true.

Lzen
09-16-2004, 11:32 AM
whats he going to do, buy a six million dollar casket?

You are an asshole.

Lzen
09-16-2004, 11:34 AM
Didn't they use some (or possibly most) of that 6 million to sign Welbourn and Bober? Or am I missing something here?

Lzen
09-16-2004, 11:36 AM
...In addition, even if the Chiefs have $30 million available right now, they obviously aren't going to do anything with it. I have trouble understanding why people are so offended by this even if it is true.

I WOULD have a problem if that were the case. I expect them to do everything in their power to produce the most competitive team on the field. When I have to pay $60 for a ticket (and that's just the nosebleeds), $6 for a beer, $20 for parking, etc. I expect to get my money's worth.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 11:39 AM
Look, I dont infer sh*t...If I wanted to question your fandom, I would have done it straight to your face.

I'll repeat this for the 10th time now...and I cannot believe that you cannot follow this without getting your panties in a twist.

If profit is the only thing this organization understands and appreciates, then what is it that we, as fans, have to do to get them to change?

I'll let you answer the question so Im not inferring 'you're not a true fan'.

Damn, this is so simple...Im using your own frigging logic.LOOK, I think you are the one who isn't following, for the umpteenth time I said IT WASN'T THE ONLY FACTOR. I said it was the motivating factor. Before attacking someone maybe you should actually take your own advice.
Also, what would you consider this statement to mean..."And if you're so pissed off about the team "pocketing" money at your expense, don't vote for Bi-State 2. While you're at it, don't buy tickets, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise, and don't watch the games on TV. That is their main sources of revenue.

If they're truly content with just "filling the seats" that's the ONLY way you'll ever get what you want."

I mistook HTIS's take for yours, sorry for the confusion, but you can now see that it was more than just inferred.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:40 AM
I WOULD have a problem if that were the case. I expect them to do everything in their power to produce the most competitive team on the field. When I have to pay $60 for a ticket (and that's just the nosebleeds), $6 for a beer, $20 for parking, etc. I expect to get my money's worth.

It's your right to expect such but it's also your right to decide not to go if you think they are not doing everything in their power to produce a superior product which is what I've been trying to point out to some others...and no, I don't think you're a true fan.:D

Demonpenz
09-16-2004, 11:44 AM
You are an asshole.
ROFL

Lzen
09-16-2004, 11:53 AM
It's your right to expect such but it's also your right to decide not to go if you think they are not doing everything in their power to produce a superior product which is what I've been trying to point out to some others...and no, I don't think you're a true fan.:D

Heh, I would boycott the games, etc. if that were the case. However, the league does have a salary cap minimum as well as a maximum. So, don't think it's possible for a team to be 30 mil under.

As for this year, I wonder how accurate those numbers are. For the past 15 years, the Chiefs have always spent right up to the cap limit as far as I can remember. Why would they decide all of a sudden to not do that?
:hmmm:

Lzen
09-16-2004, 11:54 AM
ROFL

I think it's safe to assume that you hear that a lot. :p

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:54 AM
LOOK, I think you are the one who isn't following, for the umpteenth time I said IT WASN'T THE ONLY FACTOR. I said it was the motivating factor. Before attacking someone maybe you should actually take your own advice.

You started it, Im merely reciprocating. Ok, we'll go with the squiggle, and ask the question, for the 11th time using your new word:

If the motiviating factor of this organization is profit, then what can we, as fans, do to motivate the franchise to change?

And again, I'll let you answer or squiggle so as to not infer that you're not a 'true fan'.

Also, what would you consider this statement to mean..."And if you're so pissed off about the team "pocketing" money at your expense, don't vote for Bi-State 2. While you're at it, don't buy tickets, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise, and don't watch the games on TV. That is their main sources of revenue.

If they're truly content with just "filling the seats" that's the ONLY way you'll ever get what you want."

I would take it to be the logical conclusion to your complaint. How you cant make the connection is baffling. Unless you just like whining about it.

I mistook HTIS's take for yours, sorry for the confusion, but you can now see that it was more than just inferred.

unintelligible...you want to try that again.

nmt1
09-16-2004, 11:56 AM
Heh, I would boycott the games, etc. if that were the case. However, the league does have a salary cap minimum as well as a maximum. So, don't think it's possible for a team to be 30 mil under.

As for this year, I wonder how accurate those numbers are. For the past 15 years, the Chiefs have always spent right up to the cap limit as far as I can remember. Why would they decide all of a sudden to not do that?
:hmmm:

You got me. I'll probably never work for the Chiefs either so I'll probably never know.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 11:57 AM
As for this year, I wonder how accurate those numbers are. For the past 15 years, the Chiefs have always spent right up to the cap limit as far as I can remember. Why would they decide all of a sudden to not do that?

The logic, as I understand it from this thread is 'because they got too close to winning it all' or something like that.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 11:59 AM
LOOK, I think you are the one who isn't following, for the umpteenth time I said IT WASN'T THE ONLY FACTOR. I said it was the motivating factor. Before attacking someone maybe you should actually take your own advice.
Also, what would you consider this statement to mean..."And if you're so pissed off about the team "pocketing" money at your expense, don't vote for Bi-State 2. While you're at it, don't buy tickets, don't go to games, don't buy merchandise, and don't watch the games on TV. That is their main sources of revenue.

If they're truly content with just "filling the seats" that's the ONLY way you'll ever get what you want."

I mistook HTIS's take for yours, sorry for the confusion, but you can now see that it was more than just inferred.

Ok, you're officially a moron.

What would I consider that statement to mean?

I consider it to mean that:

1) IF the team is primarily concerned with profit and secondarily concerned with winning and
2) you and others are fed up with it then

the logical course of action is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. You are the one that accused them of being primarily concerned with making money, not me.

NOWHERE did I, expressly or implicitly, "question your fandom".

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:06 PM
Ok, you're officially a moron.

What would I consider that statement to mean?

I consider it to mean that:

1) IF the team is primarily concerned with profit and secondarily concerned with winning and
2) you and others are fed up with it then

the logical course of action is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. You are the one that accused them of being primarily concerned with making money, not me.

NOWHERE did I, expressly or implicitly, "question your fandom".

Nothing like attacking someone when they ruffle your feathers. Sorry you can't be objective enough to see some of the valid points. I didn't know you were the only one entitled an opinion here. I stand by what I said and I won't stoop to your childish name-calling to get my point across. You seem to think that because I question some of the FO's motives that I should just give up on the team in the place that I live in. It's deeper than that, you can still pull for them and not believe in every move they make. Why can't you see that?

KC Kings
09-16-2004, 12:11 PM
Ok, you're officially a moron.

What would I consider that statement to mean?

I consider it to mean that:

1) IF the team is primarily concerned with profit and secondarily concerned with winning and
2) you and others are fed up with it then

the logical course of action is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. You are the one that accused them of being primarily concerned with making money, not me.

NOWHERE did I, expressly or implicitly, "question your fandom".

I did stop giving them my money and will never pay over $40 to go to another Chiefs game. I think every team should boycott McCardell, and all the other players who want to reneg on their contracts to get more cash from the owners.

I look at it 2 ways. 1, Lamar is rich, and knows how to handle his money. If he thought spending 6 mil extra would give them a shot at all the SB profit, he would spend it. 2, he spent a bunch of money on the Defense last year, and they still sucked. 3., look at the Redskins... look at the money they spent and still couldn't get anywhere.

Lamar is a business man, and knows what he is doing. If it were me, I would be broke in 3 years trading players and buying big contracts pretending that the NFL is just like my FFL teams.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:12 PM
You started it, Im merely reciprocating. Ok, we'll go with the squiggle, and ask the question, for the 11th time using your new word:

If the motiviating factor of this organization is profit, then what can we, as fans, do to motivate the franchise to change?

And again, I'll let you answer or squiggle so as to not infer that you're not a 'true fan'.



I would take it to be the logical conclusion to your complaint. How you cant make the connection is baffling. Unless you just like whining about it.



unintelligible...you want to try that again.

I can make the connection, I just don't agree that is the only way of getting your point across. I'll use an analogy to try and make it as clear as possible. If you have a child and you truly love that child and that kid gets involved in heavy drug use. You can still love that child heart and soul and still not agree with their actions, but you still don't give up on that child. We just need to agree to disagree because I still believe as a fan we all have the right to voice our opinions, right, wrong or indifferent. I thought thats what the whole basis of the message board was in the first place.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 12:16 PM
I can make the connection, I just don't agree that is the only way of getting your point across. I'll use an analogy to try and make it as clear as possible. If you have a child and you truly love that child and that kid gets involved in heavy drug use. You can still love that child heart and soul and still not agree with their actions, but you still don't give up on that child. We just need to agree to disagree because I still believe as a fan we all have the right to voice our opinions, right, wrong or indifferent. I thought thats what the whole basis of the message board was in the first place.

It may not be the only way of getting ones point across, but if you believe, that profit is the motivating factor, by definition of that word the only way to motivate the club is to affect profit...it's the logical conclusion of the premise.

Second, I reject the analogy. This is entertainment and a sport, it's not family and drug problems. -- lets try to keep this game in perspective.

I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I am entitled to diagree and question that opinion and challenge the conclusions one is making. It is the whole point of the message board, and why I am here. Im naturally a contrarian and love to point out BS when I see it.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:18 PM
It may not be the only way of getting ones point across, but if you believe, that profit is the motivating factor, by definition of that word the only way to motivate the club is to affect profit...it's the logical conclusion of the premise.

Second, I reject the analogy. This is entertainment and a sport, it's not family and drug problems.

I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I am entitled to diagree and question that opinion and challenge the conclusions one is making. It is the whole point of the message board, and why I am here. Im naturally a contrarian and love to point out BS when I see it.
You reject it? Still doesn't make it wrong.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 12:22 PM
Nothing like attacking someone when they ruffle your feathers. Sorry you can't be objective enough to see some of the valid points. I didn't know you were the only one entitled an opinion here. I stand by what I said and I won't stoop to your childish name-calling to get my point across. You seem to think that because I question some of the FO's motives that I should just give up on the team in the place that I live in. It's deeper than that, you can still pull for them and not believe in every move they make. Why can't you see that?

Cry me a river.

You're the one that started in with the "you said I'm not a true fan" stuff.

You're in no position to question my objectivity. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is subjective. In fact, I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing.

The fact is, I don't like the moves the front office made either. I want McCardell. I wanted Vincent. I didn't want Gunther.

Is was you that said the team was primarily interested in making money. I NEVER said I disagree with you. I merely said you can't prove that. And you can't.

Furthermore, I showed you the ONLY way that you can affect change on the organization IF they are what you say they are -- primarily concerned with making money. Why would you be naive enough to think that a team that cares more about money than winning or their fans would listen to a guy that continues to give them money even when he's completely unhappy with the product they give them on the the field?

If anything, you're REINFORCING their greed.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 12:23 PM
I can make the connection, I just don't agree that is the only way of getting your point across. I'll use an analogy to try and make it as clear as possible. If you have a child and you truly love that child and that kid gets involved in heavy drug use. You can still love that child heart and soul and still not agree with their actions, but you still don't give up on that child. We just need to agree to disagree because I still believe as a fan we all have the right to voice our opinions, right, wrong or indifferent. I thought thats what the whole basis of the message board was in the first place.

EXCELLENT analogy.

You can have a child and truly love that child.

When that kid gets involved in drugs, and it upsets you, do you CONTINUE TO GIVE THEM MONEY so they can buy more drugs?

We're getting somewhere now.

As for the moron comment, I was wrong.

Dartgod
09-16-2004, 12:25 PM
I can see an "I was insulted, I'm leaving the Planet forever" post evolving from this thread.

*Pulls up a lawn chair and cracks open a beer*

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 12:26 PM
And FYI, nowhere did anybody ask you or tell you not to express your opinions.

That's why we have a message board.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 12:26 PM
You reject it? Still doesn't make it wrong.

It's wrong because it's completely out of context...

If you want to insist on using that type of analogy, then here would be a more accurate one.

if you had a son/daughter that had a drug problem and kept borrowing money to get high, and his primary motivation to get high was the money he was receiving from you, what would be the primary way to get him to stop? stop giving him money...

this has nothing to do with 'love', 'support' or any of that horsesh!t...I dont understand why you cannot differentiate between logic and emotion. You're getting too wrapped up in the idea that 'not going to games = not supporting the club'

Got news for you, I havent been in KC since 1995, yet I still support the club...using your logic, how does this work?

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 12:27 PM
I can see an "I was insulted, I'm leaving the Planet forever" post evolving from this thread.

*Pulls up a lawn chair and cracks open a beer*

Can you pass me a beer, my throat is getting dry...

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 12:30 PM
A beer sounds ****ing good...I'd even drink one with BCF. :thumb:

BTW, Titus, it looks like we're thinking alike on the analogy thing...

nmt1
09-16-2004, 12:32 PM
A beer sounds ****ing good...I'd even drink one with BCF. :thumb:

BTW, Titus, it looks like we're thinking alike on the analogy thing...

I've been trying to ask Carl if he wants to go get a beer after work for the last couple of years but I can't get through Bob Moore. I'm starting to think this being on the payroll thing isn't worth it.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:38 PM
EXCELLENT analogy.

You can have a child and truly love that child.

When that kid gets involved in drugs, and it upsets you, do you CONTINUE TO GIVE THEM MONEY so they can buy more drugs?

We're getting somewhere now.

As for the moron comment, I was wrong.
I appreciate you saying you were wrong for that comment. I really do. It shows you can be fair and objective.

You make a good point with the analogy. No you shouldn't continue to give them money but you should remain supportive. I look at it this way with the Chiefs...I'm hooked. Plain and simple. I've been biten by the bug and I couldn't pry myself away from the Chiefs if I tried, however it disappoints me when I don't think they are giving their all. IF we do indeed have the $6 million in cap room and we had one of the worst defenses in the league and they only go after a back-up DT, then I have to draw the conclusion that they aren't giving it their all. It's give and take and I expect the absolute best product they can deliver. That includes doing everything in their power to put the team over the top, which includes going after premeir players and spending money. IF they spent up to the cap, then that's good enough for me, but I have the distinct feeling that isn't the case based on several reports to the contrary.

Some will read what I have said in previous posts on this thread and think that I'm anti-Chiefs. I'm not, I just want the best for the fans ,myself included and the best is delivering the Lombardi Trophy to one Arrowhead Drive.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:40 PM
I can see an "I was insulted, I'm leaving the Planet forever" post evolving from this thread.

*Pulls up a lawn chair and cracks open a beer*
I'm thicker-skinned than that. :p BCF may or may not be wrong, but getting into debates is what makes this place great. (Did I just refer to myself in the third person?)

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:46 PM
It's wrong because it's completely out of context...

If you want to insist on using that type of analogy, then here would be a more accurate one.

if you had a son/daughter that had a drug problem and kept borrowing money to get high, and his primary motivation to get high was the money he was receiving from you, what would be the primary way to get him to stop? stop giving him money...

this has nothing to do with 'love', 'support' or any of that horsesh!t...I dont understand why you cannot differentiate between logic and emotion. You're getting too wrapped up in the idea that 'not going to games = not supporting the club'

Got news for you, I havent been in KC since 1995, yet I still support the club...using your logic, how does this work?
The point I was trying to make is you support them through thick and thin. I'm not a bandwagon fan, I just want to win it all. If Several thousands of people stopped going to the games and there were several thousand empty seats it would hurt their bottomline, But I'm of the opinion that by being supportive(buying tickets, merchandise, ect) you help the team make more money thus allowing them to pursue the FAs we covet. It's kind of like not voting and then bitching about the president. You see when you do vote(or support the team) you have more of a leg to stand on when you are disappointed in the end results. Just my two cents.

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 12:53 PM
No one said you had to stop being a fan...you're overreacting and now pot shots...I thought you didnt appreciate that tactic.

If you believe profit is the only thing this franchise understands, you can only affect their decision making if you do one simple thing...affect their profits.

Good Lord, why do people have to go off the deep end on this stuff.
I have been of the opinion, that the NFL owners conspire secretly to determine which teams are in the top, middle, and lower tier. Each owner accepts their role dutifully knowing in advance that that tier is best suited for their fan base.

If you don't believe me, take baseball. If the Cubs won a world series it would shrink their fan base. :p

ROFL.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 12:54 PM
Can you pass me a beer, my throat is getting dry...After this discussion I think Jagr shots are more in order.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 12:55 PM
The point I was trying to make is you support them through thick and thin. I'm not a bandwagon fan, I just want to win it all. If Several thousands of people stopped going to the games and there were several thousand empty seats it would hurt their bottomline, But I'm of the opinion that by being supportive(buying tickets, merchandise, ect) you help the team make more money thus allowing them to pursue the FAs we covet. It's kind of like not voting and then bitching about the president. You see when you do vote(or support the team) you have more of a leg to stand on when you are disappointed in the end results. Just my two cents.

Of course, I agree...I support them through thick and thin, but I dont buy tickets or merchandise. I live 1000 miles from the stadium. Yet, I still support the club, hell Im a member of the kool aid crew or 'rah rah' or whatever and Im doing it from 1000 miles away.

Financial support <> Devotion to the team or following the team through good and bad times.

You stated the club was motivated by profit...if you want changes, then you motivate them by affecting profit, that's all I was trying to say. I didnt tell you to stop loving the club or whatever, I was merely showing you the logical conclusion to your original premise.

Now, as far as having money to sign FA's, the stadium needs more suites/corporate boxes to keep up with the bigger clubs. That money is not 'shared' with the other owners and allows Snyder to sign all those FA's every year that do nothing for him, but that's another whole thread.

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 12:56 PM
After this discussion I think Jagr shots are more in order.

Ok, pass it down...hold the red bull.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2004, 01:08 PM
Ok, pass it down...hold the red bull.
No blaster for you?(that's what we call the Jagr shots with Red Bull) One Jagr shot coming up. Anyway, good discussion, I appreciate everybodies input and being civil about it. Do I dare say Go Chiefs? :p

Dartgod
09-16-2004, 01:35 PM
I'm thicker-skinned than that. :p BCF may or may not be wrong, but getting into debates is what makes this place great. (Did I just refer to myself in the third person?)
Crap. I'm out of here then.

ptlyon
09-16-2004, 01:39 PM
Crap. I'm out of here then.

yup. the cooler is empty.

Lzen
09-16-2004, 02:12 PM
Hey, where'd the party go? :(

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 02:13 PM
Of course, I agree...I support them through thick and thin, but I dont buy tickets or merchandise. I live 1000 miles from the stadium. Yet, I still support the club, hell Im a member of the kool aid crew or 'rah rah' or whatever and Im doing it from 1000 miles away.

Financial support <> Devotion to the team or following the team through good and bad times.

You stated the club was motivated by profit...if you want changes, then you motivate them by affecting profit, that's all I was trying to say. I didnt tell you to stop loving the club or whatever, I was merely showing you the logical conclusion to your original premise.

Now, as far as having money to sign FA's, the stadium needs more suites/corporate boxes to keep up with the bigger clubs. That money is not 'shared' with the other owners and allows Snyder to sign all those FA's every year that do nothing for him, but that's another whole thread.
The owners should be required to put, as a condition of being an owner, $2 million each into a Pool, that the winner of the super Bowl would receive as a Bonus for winning. This money is for them personally, not to be used for salary cap or anything else. Then they wouldn't worry so fuggin much about the bottom line, just winning.

2 x 32= a 64 million dollar winner take all pot to the winning owner.

Think Lamar would be worried about a fuggin 6 million dollar scrape under the cap then?

KCTitus
09-16-2004, 02:34 PM
Think Lamar would be worried about a fuggin 6 million dollar scrape under the cap then?

I dont think one is related to the other...'under the cap' is merely under budget. If I have 300 bucks in my bank account, but Im 1,000 under my beer budget, it doesnt mean I have a grand to go spend on beer, it merely means Im under budget doesnt mean I have the cash to spend on beer.

An analogy, somewhat weak, but an analogy nonetheless...

when I heard them say no cash, what I thought they meant was they didnt have the liquid cash to for a bunch of large SB's after the last couple of offseasons. I take it Lamar's not all fired up about dipping into his own stash to sign more players.

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 02:48 PM
I dont think one is related to the other...'under the cap' is merely under budget. If I have 300 bucks in my bank account, but Im 1,000 under my beer budget, it doesnt mean I have a grand to go spend on beer, it merely means Im under budget doesnt mean I have the cash to spend on beer.

An analogy, somewhat weak, but an analogy nonetheless...

when I heard them say no cash, what I thought they meant was they didnt have the liquid cash to for a bunch of large SB's after the last couple of offseasons. I take it Lamar's not all fired up about dipping into his own stash to sign more players.
There is a verse in the Bible, "Where your treasure is, there your heart is also." I think it is safe to say, that by the way Lamar has handled his treasure, he could give a fug if the Chiefs win the Bowl. Question is, why should I?

Me, I am here for a good time not a long time.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 02:58 PM
I appreciate you saying you were wrong for that comment. I really do. It shows you can be fair and objective.

You make a good point with the analogy. No you shouldn't continue to give them money but you should remain supportive. I look at it this way with the Chiefs...I'm hooked. Plain and simple. I've been biten by the bug and I couldn't pry myself away from the Chiefs if I tried, however it disappoints me when I don't think they are giving their all. IF we do indeed have the $6 million in cap room and we had one of the worst defenses in the league and they only go after a back-up DT, then I have to draw the conclusion that they aren't giving it their all. It's give and take and I expect the absolute best product they can deliver. That includes doing everything in their power to put the team over the top, which includes going after premeir players and spending money. IF they spent up to the cap, then that's good enough for me, but I have the distinct feeling that isn't the case based on several reports to the contrary.

Some will read what I have said in previous posts on this thread and think that I'm anti-Chiefs. I'm not, I just want the best for the fans ,myself included and the best is delivering the Lombardi Trophy to one Arrowhead Drive.

I'm back!

This damn "work" thing is always getting in the way. :D

Anyways...

1) I don't think anybody here thinks you're anti-Chiefs, especially me. There's nothing wrong with wanting to win.

2) I ABSOLUTELY agree with you on the "doing everything in their power" idea. I also want them to do everything in their power to win it all.

My only point is that they MIGHT BE doing everything in their power. We simply don't know what they are and are not doing. Maybe they've already called McCardell's agent. Maybe he told them he won't play in KC unless they give him a 1-year, $6.2M contract. Or maybe they said, "Screw BigChiefFan and the rest of those idiots at the Planet. We're going to make them suffer."

Neither scenario is probable, but both scenarios are POSSIBLE.

Mark M
09-16-2004, 03:05 PM
As for the moron comment, I was wrong.

Actually, I think all of you are a bunch of morons.

Some of you just make more sense than others.

MM
~~:p

yakkyakk
09-16-2004, 03:15 PM
Hell yea Carl is about the money first no doubt! It comesv out of his own mouth. Ask him about his tenure with the CHIEFS the first thing he says is his greatest accomplishment is 90 or whatever straight sellouts at ARROWHEAD and what great fans in KC there are for emptying their pockets(TICKETS AND MERCANDISE.....KA CHING!) Then he might in passing mention how "DISAPPOINTED" he is they didnt get to the Superbowl! This Pimp gave Tony Gonzalez and friggin' Priest Holmes, his two biggest all-world all-pro superstars fits when they tried to get paid what they had coming. The Star been saying the last couple years, the Chiefs having been making net profits of $20 to $30 milion a year. Forget the cap talk these Pimps have been making plenty of excess cash dollars on overall revenue versus expenditures for years on an empty Superbowl promise to Chiefs fans! Thats why I love George Steinbrenner, a whole lot of the rest these owners are gaming on the fans..George says win at all cost or else!

Lzen
09-16-2004, 03:18 PM
Actually, I think all of you are a bunch of morons.

Some of you just make more sense than others.

MM
~~:p

Shutup, moron. :cuss:




:p

penguinz
09-16-2004, 03:32 PM
I would like to know why everyone here thinks they know how much cap room the Chiefs have. Even if the Chiefs have 10mil under the cap who the f*ck cares.

The dollars they spend is not the reason why they are in the position they are in. The teams that are successful develop their own talent instead trying to build a team from free agency.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 03:34 PM
Hell yea Carl is about the money first no doubt! It comesv out of his own mouth. Ask him about his tenure with the CHIEFS the first thing he says is his greatest accomplishment is 90 or whatever straight sellouts at ARROWHEAD and what great fans in KC there are for emptying their pockets(TICKETS AND MERCANDISE.....KA CHING!) Then he might in passing mention how "DISAPPOINTED" he is they didnt get to the Superbowl! This Pimp gave Tony Gonzalez and friggin' Priest Holmes, his two biggest all-world all-pro superstars fits when they tried to get paid what they had coming. The Star been saying the last couple years, the Chiefs having been making net profits of $20 to $30 milion a year. Forget the cap talk these Pimps have been making plenty of excess cash dollars on overall revenue versus expenditures for years on an empty Superbowl promise to Chiefs fans! Thats why I love George Steinbrenner, a whole lot of the rest these owners are gaming on the fans..George says win at all cost or else!

Speaking of morons...

DTLB58
09-16-2004, 03:45 PM
I would like to know why everyone here thinks they know how much cap room the Chiefs have. Even if the Chiefs have 10mil under the cap who the f*ck cares.

The dollars they spend is not the reason why they are in the position they are in. The teams that are successful develop their own talent instead trying to build a team from free agency.

Seems to me, Priest was a free agent that we signed to make this team better. :hmmm:

And you don't think it would make sense to sign a player on the defensive side of the ball if he could make a preist Holmes like contribution for the defense?

penguinz
09-16-2004, 03:49 PM
Was priest expected to be the back that he is? No. He was signed to do the same thing he was doing in Baltimore. He was to be a third down back.

Again. Most successful teams win with playeres they develop not thru free agency.

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 03:55 PM
Was priest expected to be the back that he is? No. He was signed to do the same thing he was doing in Baltimore. He was to be a third down back.

Again. Most successful teams win with playeres they develop not thru free agency.
Yep, like Denver and Washington.

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 04:07 PM
Was priest expected to be the back that he is? No. He was signed to do the same thing he was doing in Baltimore. He was to be a third down back.

Again. Most successful teams win with playeres they develop not thru free agency.

Yeah, Carolina built that Super Bowl team around players they drafted, like Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis.

tk13
09-16-2004, 04:16 PM
Ah, come on guys. He's got a point. Carolina drafted NINE of the eleven guys that are going to start against the Chiefs on defense on Sunday... Peppers, Jenkins, Rucker, Witherspoon, Morgan, Gamble, Manning, Minter, and Branch.... they built one of the best defenses in the league almost completely through the draft. Not to mention WR's in Steve Smith, Muhammad, and their RBotF, DeShaun Foster. Gotta make your draft picks work to build a successful team...

penguinz
09-16-2004, 04:20 PM
Oh my god! Someone with a brain! :P

the Talking Can
09-16-2004, 04:41 PM
There is a verse in the Bible, "Where your treasure is, there your heart is also." I think it is safe to say, that by the way Lamar has handled his treasure, he could give a fug if the Chiefs win the Bowl. Question is, why should I?

Me, I am here for a good time not a long time.

come on...I understand being peeved that they didn't sign _____ that you wanted them to sign...but saying Lamar, who has spent most of his life and countless millions of his own money in the NFL- saying he doesn't "give a fug" is just irresponsible and frankly...stupid

no one spends that much time and money on something they don't care about...Lamar wants a trophy in the worst way, why the hell wouldn't he? he's given his ****ing life to this sport...sorry, but it pisses me off when people reduce Lamar's life to this caraciture of a scrooge...the man deserves better...

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 05:36 PM
come on...I understand being peeved that they didn't sign _____ that you wanted them to sign...but saying Lamar, who has spent most of his life and countless millions of his own money in the NFL- saying he doesn't "give a fug" is just irresponsible and frankly...stupid

no one spends that much time and money on something they don't care about...Lamar wants a trophy in the worst way, why the hell wouldn't he? he's given his ****ing life to this sport...sorry, but it pisses me off when people reduce Lamar's life to this caraciture of a scrooge...the man deserves better...
To be honest, he has always been spoken of in high regard. The rest of the league always speaks highly of him. So what I am saying, it is about time somebody stuck up for him.

But my need for the Chiefs to win sometimes blinds me to reason, thanks for inserting a little perspective back on me. :)

htismaqe
09-16-2004, 06:12 PM
Ah, come on guys. He's got a point. Carolina drafted NINE of the eleven guys that are going to start against the Chiefs on defense on Sunday... Peppers, Jenkins, Rucker, Witherspoon, Morgan, Gamble, Manning, Minter, and Branch.... they built one of the best defenses in the league almost completely through the draft. Not to mention WR's in Steve Smith, Muhammad, and their RBotF, DeShaun Foster. Gotta make your draft picks work to build a successful team...

They went to the NFC Championship game with a bunch of free agent veterans in their 1st season.

He has a point, but it's wrong.

GREAT teams depend on neither the draft alone nor free agency alone. GREAT teams balance the two.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 06:27 PM
They went to the NFC Championship game with a bunch of free agent veterans in their 1st season.

He has a point, but it's wrong.

GREAT teams depend on neither the draft alone nor free agency alone. GREAT teams balance the two.

I agree. King Carl has not done that...IMHO.

the Talking Can
09-16-2004, 06:46 PM
To be honest, he has always been spoken of in high regard. The rest of the league always speaks highly of him. So what I am saying, it is about time somebody stuck up for him.

But my need for the Chiefs to win sometimes blinds me to reason, thanks for inserting a little perspective back on me. :)

yeah, I didn't mean that to come off so harsh...I just think the blame for lack of ultimate success lays with CP, our staff that evaluate the draft, and our coaches...plus, though I'm not sure exactly why, I want- more than anything as a fan- to see Lamar on national t.v. holding up the trophy...and for all the toilets in Denver to explode

Calcountry
09-16-2004, 06:51 PM
yeah, I didn't mean that to come off so harsh...I just think the blame for lack of ultimate success lays with CP, our staff that evaluate the draft, and our coaches...plus, though I'm not sure exactly why, I want- more than anything as a fan- to see Lamar on national t.v. holding up the trophy...and for all the toilets in Denver to explode
Sometimes wanting it isn't enough though. I mean, how many people here wrote of TO who went to Philly because he "isn't our kind of player".

I am not saying someone like Meshawn or TO would necessarily be good for the team, but we sometimes play it too safe, thats all.

:thumb:

tk13
09-16-2004, 06:52 PM
I agree. King Carl has not done that...IMHO.
Hey now...you started this thread complaining about the direction of the team, but what you just agreed that's exactly what they're trying to do... turn all these defensive draft picks we've had over the last 6-7 years into a good unit, exactly like Carolina, to compliment a top notch offense that was built through free agency and trades for veteran players.

I just see things differently I guess. If the DV era fails, everyone will probably look back on it and complain about free agents, that's how fans are I guess. I think it's these draft picks we have out there playing right now that are going to make or break this team over the next 2 years.

the Talking Can
09-16-2004, 06:57 PM
Sometimes wanting it isn't enough though. I mean, how many people here wrote of TO who went to Philly because he "isn't our kind of player".

I am not saying someone like Meshawn or TO would necessarily be good for the team, but we sometimes play it too safe, thats all.

:thumb:

yeah, I can agree with that...I was one of those "not sure if we want TO" people...in retrospect, it seems crazy

ENDelt260
09-16-2004, 06:59 PM
Leaving 6 mil in Lamar's pockets instead of using it on the field

Is the field really in such poor condition that it would take 6 Mil to repair it? Sheesh, Toma's price sure has gone up.

BigRedChief
09-16-2004, 07:05 PM
Hey now...you started this thread complaining about the direction of the team, but what you just agreed that's exactly what they're trying to do... turn all these defensive draft picks we've had over the last 6-7 years into a good unit, exactly like Carolina, to compliment a top notch offense that was built through free agency and trades for veteran players.

I just see things differently I guess. If the DV era fails, everyone will probably look back on it and complain about free agents, that's how fans are I guess. I think it's these draft picks we have out there playing right now that are going to make or break this team over the next 2 years.

Iwasn't complianing about the direction of the team. I was pissed off about not using 6 mil to make my team a better team.

tk13
09-16-2004, 07:12 PM
Iwasn't complianing about the direction of the team. I was pissed off about not using 6 mil to make my team a better team.
Maybe you can answer this for me then... I haven't read through every one of these threads today but where does that $6 million figure come from? Everybody says we're 6 million under the cap now, was there some article or interview I missed somewhere that divulged this information?

Mark M
09-17-2004, 07:00 AM
Iwasn't complianing about the direction of the team. I was pissed off about not using 6 mil to make my team a better team.
A few questions:

Please let us know exactly what player(s) are available for KC to sign that are the missing piece to the SuperBowl puzzle?

Keenan? No -- the guy is a glorified possession receiver, would be lost in this offense for at least 8 weeks (Morton has been here for 2 years, only missed TC and he and Green are still not in sync), and is nowhere near the price he's demanding. The Chiefs need a burner, not a 34-or-so year old possession guy.

McKenzie? Perhaps -- I wouldn't be against getting him, but what does that say to the other players on the team? And is CB really the position that the defense needs? I'd say MLB or DE, but there are no players at either of those positions.

Other than that, who the hell is there that is worth spending $6 million on (assuming that number is even correct)? Just spending it to spend it is, IMHO, totally stupid.

The fact is, there are no players out there worth bringing in this late in the season. Could KC have spent that money earlier in the year? Sure. I wanted them to get Ogly ... whatever the hell the DE from Miami (now Chicago) name is. But they didn't. IMHO, that is the dumbest thing they've done this offseason -- not get an impact DE for the used jock and late round pick that Chicago gave for him.

Again, spending money just to spend it is illogical, irrational, and just plain stupid IMHO. And there's not a goddamn thing any of us can do to change it.

Your only choices are:

1. To get over it;
2. Not give the Chiefs any more of your money, because that's the only real thing you can affect anything; or
3. Get hired as KC's GM and do something about it.

Otherwise, you're just full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.

MM
~~:arrow:

BigRedChief
09-17-2004, 07:19 AM
Maybe you can answer this for me then... I haven't read through every one of these threads today but where does that $6 million figure come from? Everybody says we're 6 million under the cap now, was there some article or interview I missed somewhere that divulged this information?

Clayton article off of espn.com in July after rookies and free agents were signed.

BigRedChief
09-17-2004, 07:21 AM
you're just full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.

MM
~~:arrow:

Thats my moto as a Chiefs fan in the Dammit Carl :cuss:era

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 08:45 AM
Clayton article off of espn.com in July after rookies and free agents were signed.

If that's your souce, you should try to be more accurate.

The number Clayton has reported is $5.6M, not $6M.

nmt1
09-17-2004, 09:10 AM
If that's your souce, you should try to be more accurate.

The number Clayton has reported is $5.6M, not $6M.

How does Clayton know anyway?

KCTitus
09-17-2004, 09:13 AM
Clayton knows everything...he's a genious (chiefsplanet spelling)

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 10:15 AM
Clayton doesn't know for sure. But I'm sure he's done some fairly educated guessing.

He's been reliable in the past to a certain extent. Then again, he's also listed teams OVER the cap for long periods of time during the season, which is impossible.

It just bugs me that everybody is saying "$6M" when even their source says it's $5.6M.

KCTitus
09-17-2004, 10:17 AM
It just bugs me that everybody is saying "$6M" when even their source says it's $5.6M.

Cmon Parker, even Im willing to give them the 400k rounding...

BigRedChief
09-17-2004, 10:23 AM
Rounding up is pretty common practice in America and even in Iowa. :p

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 10:24 AM
Cmon Parker, even Im willing to give them the 400k rounding...

$400K is ALOT of money when the two guys you're talking about signing are holding out for more money...

KCTitus
09-17-2004, 10:26 AM
$400K is ALOT of money when the two guys you're talking about signing are holding out for more money...

True, it's a lot of money, at least to me...but when discussing the difference between 5.6M and 6M, I see no big difference.

At any rate, you play it how you want...Carl said it didnt matter ;)

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 10:29 AM
True, it's a lot of money, at least to me...but when discussing the difference between 5.6M and 6M, I see no big difference.

At any rate, you play it how you want...Carl said it didnt matter ;)

Keenan McCardell is reportedly seeking a 2-year deal with a base of $4.4M per.

Let's assume he's also asking for a $3M signing bonus. Split over the life of the contract, that's $1.5M per.

The difference between $5.6M and $6M is the difference between being able to sign him or not. At $5.6M we can't afford his contract, which would have a cap number close to $5.9M.

KCTitus
09-17-2004, 10:38 AM
Keenan McCardell is reportedly seeking a 2-year deal with a base of $4.4M per.

Let's assume he's also asking for a $3M signing bonus. Split over the life of the contract, that's $1.5M per.

The difference between $5.6M and $6M is the difference between being able to sign him or not. At $5.6M we can't afford his contract, which would have a cap number close to $5.9M.

No way the base would be that high the first year...especially if he's getting 3M up front. 750k base maybe, then next year a base of 4M if you want, since it's not guaranteed, but no way is the first year base that high...that's unprecedented.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 10:41 AM
No way the base would be that high the first year...especially if he's getting 3M up front. 750k base maybe, then next year a base of 4M if you want, since it's not guaranteed, but no way is the first year base that high...that's unprecedented.

I'm not saying my scenario is particularly plausible...I was just trying to illustrate that the difference between $5.6M and $6M is a little more than no big deal.

KHinz57
09-17-2004, 10:55 AM
This is the money that we could've gathered together to sign Grant Wistrom and keep John Tait, or even Antwain Winfield, sheesh.

KCTitus
09-17-2004, 11:01 AM
This is the money that we could've gathered together to sign Grant Wistrom and keep John Tait, or even Antwain Winfield, sheesh.

No...not with 6M in cap money are you going to get those 3 signed. Besides, next year, Tait's cap hit would have been 12M.

nmt1
09-17-2004, 11:02 AM
This is the money that we could've gathered together to sign Grant Wistrom and keep John Tait, or even Antwain Winfield, sheesh.

Yeah and while we're at it we should trade all of next years draft picks for Ray Lewis as well as all of 2006's picks for Randy Moss. We'd be set then.

htismaqe
09-17-2004, 11:03 AM
This is the money that we could've gathered together to sign Grant Wistrom and keep John Tait, or even Antwain Winfield, sheesh.

You're bringing up an entirely new set of issues here, that have nothing to do with how much cap we have.

All 3 of those players got contracts that had outrageous signing bonuses. The team said early on that Lamar shelled out big bonuses to Green, Holmes, Holliday, and Barber and he didn't want to do it again this year. Wistrom and Winfield would have been nice additions, but $10-$14M signing bonuses?

I won't even go into Tait. He wasn't anywhere NEAR worth what he got from da Bears.

BigRedChief
11-11-2004, 09:18 PM
It's still sitting there under the cap.

sparkky
11-11-2004, 09:49 PM
And look where the team is setting!!!

BigRedChief
11-14-2004, 09:08 PM
It should have been out there on the field today. Even McKenzie would have been cool on our side instead of their sideline.

tk13
11-14-2004, 09:12 PM
I'm still unconvinced it'd make a lick of difference. Mike McKenzie ain't gonna do squat when the safeties behind him get split more than Jenna Jameson's crotch in a double feature at the drive-in....

htismaqe
11-15-2004, 05:40 AM
I'm still unconvinced it'd make a lick of difference. Mike McKenzie ain't gonna do squat when the safeties behind him get split more than Jenna Jameson's crotch in a double feature at the drive-in....

I agree. The biggest mistake this offseason was not the lack of free agent signings.

It was the decision to bring back bums like Hicks, Holliday, and Woods.

Thig Lyfe
11-15-2004, 05:42 AM
Woods kix azz!

But I did trade him and Quincy Carter (FA signing) for the 5th overall pick in Madden 2005.

BigRedChief
11-15-2004, 06:41 AM
I agree. The biggest mistake this offseason was not the lack of free agent signings.

It was the decision to bring back bums like Hicks, Holliday, and Woods.

Let's don't forget King Carl also signing Bartee and Wesley to big money contracts.

BigChiefFan
11-15-2004, 07:09 AM
I agree. The biggest mistake this offseason was not the lack of free agent signings.

It was the decision to bring back bums like Hicks, Holliday, and Woods.
If you don't re-sign your own players, than by common knowledge you would have to busy in FA, No? It's 6 one way, half a dozen the other.

htismaqe
11-15-2004, 10:08 AM
If you don't re-sign your own players, than by common knowledge you would have to busy in FA, No? It's 6 one way, half a dozen the other.

Yes, they go hand-in-hand, but they are 2 separate decisions.

This team decided to re-sign it's own players, thus accepting BY DEFAULT to not sign anyone.

IOW, they never made the decision not to sign free agents, they simply never had to.

Which, IMO, is a BIGGER travesty than just not adding free agents.

BigRedChief
11-18-2004, 06:35 AM
Mitch Holtis said on the DA show this morning that the Chiefs were $4 million under the cap this year.

The voice of the Chiefs says we have cap room and we didn't use it to at least try to improve the defense. We just left it in the bank account.

This just frigging ticks me off. I can understand draft picks or free agents not working out like you thought they would. But to not even try to improve your team or at the very least redo the exsisting players deals to use the cap money this year. No Excuse. A slap in the face to every Chiefs fan.

Dammit Carl! :cuss:

KCTitus
11-18-2004, 06:40 AM
It's been a few pages on ranting, I thought I would just point out once again that the money is not 'sitting in Lamar's pockets or a bank account'...it's a budget figure.

Rausch
11-18-2004, 06:44 AM
It's been a few pages on ranting, I thought I would just point out once again that the money is not 'sitting in Lamar's pockets or a bank account'...it's a budget figure.

And instead of questioning if we spent enough money we should be wondering who evaluates the talent we've already spent money on, and how we can improve that process.

Historically, we've been fairly poor at identifying and measuring talent on roster.

BigRedChief
11-18-2004, 06:46 AM
It's been a few pages on ranting, I thought I would just point out once again that the money is not 'sitting in Lamar's pockets or a bank account'...it's a budget figure.

BS. The bottom line is that under the NFL rules we could have spent according to Holtis #'s another $4 million against the cap and we didn't.

It's not a friggin budget figure. Its a possible player that maybe would have improved our team.If Lamar doesnt spend that $4 million this year his account is $4 million richer.WTF do you have to argue? If you don't spend $4 million guess what you still have $4 million.

KCTitus
11-18-2004, 06:53 AM
BS. The bottom line is that under the NFL rules we could have spent according to Holtis #'s another $4 million against the cap and we didn't.

It's not a friggin budget figure. Its a possible player that maybe would have improved our team.If Lamar doesnt spend that $4 million this year his account is $4 million richer.WTF do you have to argue? If you don't spend $4 million guess what you still have $4 million.

BS? Ok. Let's assume BRC makes 150k annually. Now if your wife said that she had budgeted 1 Million for Christmas purchases, yet only spends 10K, do you have a free 990K?

Please explain where the 990K is...

the Talking Can
11-18-2004, 07:01 AM
BS? Ok. Let's assume BRC makes 150k annually. Now if your wife said that she had budgeted 1 Million for Christmas purchases, yet only spends 10K, do you have a free 990K?

Please explain where the 990K is...

well, it isn't in the contract of a vet MLB where it should be...that cheap bitch....

BigRedChief
11-18-2004, 07:02 AM
BS? Ok. Let's assume BRC makes 150k annually. Now if your wife said that she had budgeted 1 Million for Christmas purchases, yet only spends 10K, do you have a free 990K?

Please explain where the 990K is...

I think you just like to argue. Prove you are right or whatever. I'm not wasting another second on this with you. My point is very clear. You can say my point's not valid. Okay. Get over it. :harumph:

KCTitus
11-18-2004, 07:30 AM
I think you just like to argue. Prove you are right or whatever. I'm not wasting another second on this with you. My point is very clear. You can say my point's not valid. Okay. Get over it. :harumph:

Im not exactly sure what your point is...but what I do know is no one is 'pocketing' any money because the Salary Cap figure wasnt reached. the front office said they had no cash to sign big FA's which would require actually more than the 4M cap figure.

For instance, Wistrom, which KC was interested in would have cost the club over 15M in cash...while that would have only been 2-4M towards the cap number, it required much more in the way of actual dollars.