Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
That's one structural weakness that I've never worried about. I didn't want to do the research to figure out which of my picks across the league walked in free agency versus being cut. So we can keep guys who were drafted on other teams regardless of what they do, whereas we've always cut Chiefs who walked. We had to cut the Chiefs early on when we were starting with their roster.
Now that the game is mature, I could see us stopping the rule for the Chiefs leaving. However, if we don't ever lose free agents, can we still pick them up when the Chiefs sign them? It seems like that's double-dipping, but then again my teams aren't really getting stronger over time from what I can tell.
So maybe we no longer lose free agents at all?
|
No, I'd disagree with that.
I think if you spend draft capital (via trade or selection) on a player, you should have the right to make the decision on whether or not to keep him or let him go regardless of what team he is on. We don't lose guys we pick that jump to other teams, it should be no different if they are Chiefs.
I would argue to balance this, changing the rule about Chiefs' cuts. If you did not spend draft capital to acquire a player the Chiefs cut, then you should lose that player. Historically that's been an allowed keep (such as with Justin Houston, etc) since the rules have revolved around free agents that are allowed to just walk.