Chiefs forced to spend $20 million to meet new salary floor?

[FloridaMan88]

So it appears from most reports that the agreed upon 2011 salary cap will be $120 million with the salary floor constituting AT LEAST (and this could be increased) 90% of the salary cap (about $108 million)

Most reports had the Chiefs payroll last season near $90 million.

This means that the Chiefs will be forced to spend about $20 million just to meet the salary floor.

Clark's Chiefs will be FORCED to pursue an aggressive approach in free agency.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by aturnis

I'm not trying to be the guy who condones huge spending, but with the new cap system, we have a LOT of money we need to spend. Almost 46 million. Even after we resign the guys we want to keep, and our rookies, we will still have a ****-load of cash we need to spend.

I suggest we then be proactive and sign guys we wish to keep who are nearing the end of their contracts to new ones and lock them up.

Guess what, still money to spend.


Our positions of NEED at starter are: Slot receiver, NT

Positions of WANT at starter are: ILB, RB, RT, LT, QB

Depth Needs are: ILB, safety, RB, QB, OL,

Who's to say with all the money that needs to be spent the Chiefs couldn't get one of the top slot receivers available, and a ILB to push Belcher to solid depth?

The money has to be spent. HAS to.

Amen to this. You say you want a starter at ILB do you think Belcher is a backup?

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't see Cassel throwing for more than 3,500 yards in any given season. You'd expect Bowe, Baldwin, and Moeaki to account for about 2,500 of those. The RBs to account for probably 500. How much is there really leftover for a slot?

Cassel threw for almost 3700 yds. coming off the bench as a backup for the Patriots. He threw for over 3,100 with only Bowe and Moeaki as targets. Throw in a few hundred for Charles. He also did that with the 17th most attempts. I think there is plenty of room for a slot receiver to come in and help elevate Cassel's numbers.

I'm not trying to get away from the running game, b/c I know how much you love traditional hard-nosed football. I would actually love to see the Chiefs ADD a RB in place of Jones to make the running game more potent.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Amen to this. You say you want a starter at ILB do you think Belcher is a backup?

I think Belcher is an adequate starter with room to grow, and would be one hell of a backup. Thing is though, he's about the caliber of Baltimore and Pittsburgh's backup's right now I'd say, but those guys always grow to be good/great starters, in a 3-4 scheme anyway.

[Titty Meat]

LETS OFFER MANNING 60 MIL

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Found this VERY tasty nugget from ESPN. Apparently, the Chiefs cap number for 2011 right now, for only players under contract(not including RFA, FA's, and Rookies) is only 74.4 MILLION!!! That means the need to spend close to 45.6 MILLION DOLLARS in order to be compliant with the 2011 salary cap floor.

Numbers per this link.

note - Not sure if this includes bonuses and escalators...

Well your numbers are off. The new cap is supposidly only 120 mil not 130 mil
With a floor around 108 mil. So you can figure the Chiefs not to spend more than around 110 mil by thier history. So then you are talking about 35 mil to spend not 45 mil to spend.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Well your numbers are off. The new cap is supposidly only 120 mil not 130 mil
With a floor around 108 mil. So you can figure the Chiefs not to spend more than around 110 mil by thier history. So then you are talking about 35 mil to spend not 45 mil to spend.

I thought teams had to spend 90% of the new 123 million dollar cap?

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by aturnis

The figure pulled a bit ago says without resignings and rookie signings, we're at 74.4 million. Also, I thought I read somewhere that dead money would no longer count against the cap...

If that figure is correct, that means that the extensions given the Charles, Studebaker and DJ and the signing bonuses given to them counted against last years figures and not this years.

If that figure is accurate, Pioli and company did an absolutely masterful job of getting those deals done...WHEN they got them done.

When I tallied up the cap figures a couple days ago, I came to 87 million...but that was including an educated guess as to how much of those plYersxsigning bonuses would count against us. I may have errored in running those numbers, hopefully I did.

I'm not sure that number is totally accurate though.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

I thought teams had to spend 90% of the new 123 million dollar cap?

Did you read the OP? It says 120. If you want to say 123 ok. Do a little math and you will find that you are left with 111 mil. So there might be 1 mil difference.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Well your numbers are off. The new cap is supposidly only 120 mil not 130 mil
With a floor around 108 mil. So you can figure the Chiefs not to spend more than around 110 mil by thier history. So then you are talking about 35 mil to spend not 45 mil to spend.

$7.5M goes to Cassel
If we lock up all the free agents we need to re-sign (Tamba, Carr, Gilberry, Shaun Smith, others...) with some front-loading, offer some back-end incentives to veterans, and sign all our rookies, that's a good chunk of the rest.

And I wouldn't hold back the idea that Brandon Flowers could hold out--getting paid $555,000 in the last year of his contract, given that he's had some injuries... hell yeah he's going to try to cash in this year. So rather than reach in the bottom of the well to overpay role players, why not get ahead and secure those guys to longer-term contracts today?

[BossChief]

I'd be almost willing to bet that GMs and agents are already talking about teams own free agents. They are gonna only be given 3 days to sign them and I bet negotiations hVe already begun.

If we end up losing Carr and Gilberry, that will be a huge step in the wrong direction.

I give losing Carr a 10% chance and losing Gilberry about a 50% chance.

...

Question:

Does this "first refusal" deal that got thrown out mean there will no longer be "restricted free agency"?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Our trailer is hitched to Cassel, like it or not.

I have said since before the trade that he is a guy that requires a great team around him to look good (like he had in NE) rather than being a guy that raises the level of Play of those around him...therefore, our best chance at winning on the biggest stages is to acquire the services of players around him that can win the individual matchups.

Like Breaston.

Also, like I said earlier, what happens if we dont sign a guy like him ( with experience as a starter and slot guy) and Bowe or Baldwin goes down for an extended period?

We would be right back to square one, if we have a guy like Breaston we could continue to run the offense at full speed.

Our trailer is hitched to Cassel. Which is why I'd rather the Chiefs use a formula similar to the Jets. The Jets are so dominant a running team and a defense that they don't ask Sanchez to do much.

The Chiefs CAN be dominant on defense. And they CAN be and already are terrific on run offense. The pass offense is always going to be limited by Cassel. So yeah... I'd rather spend toward being awesome on defense and passable on pass offense, then to be solid but not dominant on defense and good not great on pass offense.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini;775------2060

I thought teams had to spend 90% of the new 123 million dollar cap?

I believe the most recent numbers I've seen are 89% of 120 million. Guess I didn't do the math to realize the floor would be just shy of 107 million if those numbers were correct. Either way, we got lotz of DOUGH to spend. Especially considering most people thought our numbers were closer to last years $83 million.

Sorry guy, more like $33 million to reach the floor. Like I said, didn't do the math on the percentage the floor was of the cap. Hence the reason I said "close" to $46 milion. Didn't thing the difference would be that much, my bad.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by BossChief

I'm not sure that number is totally accurate though.

Not sure that it's correct either. That's why I included the link, so everyone could judge for themselves.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by DarthCarlSatan

"Chiefs forced to spend 60 million on pile of shit"

Oh, never mind.

You have quite an obsession sir.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Cassel threw for almost 3700 yds. coming off the bench as a backup for the Patriots. He threw for over 3,100 with only Bowe and Moeaki as targets. Throw in a few hundred for Charles. He also did that with the 17th most attempts. I think there is plenty of room for a slot receiver to come in and help elevate Cassel's numbers.

I'm not trying to get away from the running game, b/c I know how much you love traditional hard-nosed football. I would actually love to see the Chiefs ADD a RB in place of Jones to make the running game more potent.

I just don't see it. I think the Chiefs rely on a totally different kind of attack. They want to control the ball and keep the defense off the field. That's why you have a lot of big boys like Bowe and Baldwin who are threats to go deep, but much bigger threats in a possession type attack. The Chiefs don't mind dinking and dunking and running time off the clock. Different from the Pats, who didn't mind at all chucking the ball downfield.

As the Chiefs get better on defense, the Chiefs are going to run teh ball even more. That's not a knock on Cassel. Big Ben has had a lot of sub 3500 yard seasons too.