Chiefs Albert may not be done here ! - Page 7

Hog's Gone Fishin · 02-22-2014, 12:09 PM

Branden Albert, Chiefs hoping to work out contract0By Chris Wesseling
Around the League Writer

Published: Feb. 22, 2014 at 12:08 p.m.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Despite rampant speculation to the contrary, the Kansas City Chiefs have not decided to let left tackle Branden Albert walk in free agency.

General manager John Dorsey told NFL Media's Steve Wyche on Friday that the Chiefs are still hoping to work out a deal for Albert before free agency begins in March.

Dorsey declined to say if the franchise tag would be an option should the sides fail to reach an accord. Because he was tagged last year, Albert would merit a 120 percent raise on his $9.828 million contract from 2013.

More proof that Albert remains in the team's plans? Dorsey told reporters at the NFL Scouting Combine on Friday that 2013 No. 1 overall draft pick Eric Fisher is still penciled in as a right tackle, not a left tackle.

Albert is one of this year's top 10 free agents. If he's kept off the market, tackle-needy teams such as the Arizona Cardinals will be disappointed.

As for quarterback Alex Smith, Dorsey confirmed to Wyche that an extension is on the agenda, but there is no rush to complete a deal.

Neither Albert nor Smith can be blamed for the Chiefs' late-season collapse. This offense scored 35 points in five of their last seven games, including four games with more than 40 points.

planetdoc · 02-23-2014, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Laz's point is fair. If we know we can get a partner, a tag and trade wouldn't be a bad idea.
Posted via Mobile Device

its unrealistic. Under the franchise tag in 2013 Albert was guaranteed $9.8 million. Ultimately, no team was willing to trade for him. If Albert was franchised again, he would make $11.76 million in 2014. Under the CBA, he cant be franchised a 3rd time. Finally, it has been estimated that the 2014 salary cap will be ~$132 million, and the chiefs have $122 million in commitments (according to overthecap). Taylor Perez's Feb 20th kansas city star article is more specific. They say the chiefs have $125.76 million in commitments with $2.38 million cap carried over from last yr. Thus the chiefs have anywhere form $122-123 million in commitments and only $10 million in room.

The chiefs wouldnt have room as it now stands to even franchise Albert since that would cost $11.76 million. They would have to make room (cuts/restructures) just for that, and still wouldnt have any money for free agents or draft picks!!

All this to say signing and trading Albert is unrealistic. He has full control of the situation.

milkman · 02-23-2014, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Who cares what the exact dollar figure is. The point is that SNR believes he should be paid "solidly good" money. For Left Tackles, that's going to be probably 8-11M given the new cap. And it's undoubtedly going to cost a lot more to sign Albert than the contract we gave Fisher.

Given what SNR has posted in the past, it's pretty clear his support for Albert is pushing a much bigger agenda, which is to question the Fisher pick in a new way.

So, in other words, you're making an assumption, with nothing to back it up but some percieved agenda.

-King- · 02-23-2014, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by planetdoc

its unrealistic. Under the franchise tag in 2013 Albert was guaranteed $9.8 million. Ultimately, no team was willing to trade for him. If Albert was franchised again, he would make $11.76 million in 2014. Under the CBA, he cant be franchised a 3rd time. Finally, it has been estimated that the 2014 salary cap will be ~$132 million, and the chiefs have $122 million in commitments (according to overthecap). Taylor Perez's Feb 20th kansas city star article is more specific. They say the chiefs have $125.76 million in commitments with $2.38 million cap carried over from last yr. Thus the chiefs have anywhere form $122-123 million in commitments and only $10 million in room.

The chiefs wouldnt have room as it now stands to even franchise Albert since that would cost $11.76 million. They would have to make room (cuts/restructures) just for that, and still wouldnt have any money for free agents or draft picks!!

All this to say signing and trading Albert is unrealistic. He has full control of the situation.

They don't pay him as soon as he signs the franchise tag...
Posted via Mobile Device

O.city · 02-23-2014, 09:38 AM

Why would another team agree to a tag and trade when they can just wait and sign him as a fa and keep picks?

-King- · 02-23-2014, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Why would another team agree to a tag and trade when they can just wait and sign him as a fa and keep picks?

Because when he goes to FA, the chances of you signing him decrease given that you have to outbid other teams.
Posted via Mobile Device

planetdoc · 02-23-2014, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

They don't pay him as soon as he signs the franchise tag...

true, but that money becomes guaranteed. Once he signs a Franchise tag the chiefs cant rescind that offer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Because when he goes to FA, the chances of you signing him decrease given that you have to outbid other teams.

This is an exercise in stupidity. No team is going to trade for a LT on a 1yr $11.76 million contract in which it is known they wouldnt be able to franchise tag again. Any team with the space to sign Albert to such a contract would have the space for a longterm contract and a bidding war.

Once again, Albert's representatives were In Indy. They know full well what teams are willing to pay Albert.

O.city · 02-23-2014, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -King-

Because when he goes to FA, the chances of you signing him decrease given that you have to outbid other teams.
Posted via Mobile Device

What picks would they have to give up though? Can that be negotiated? I can't remember.

Plus wouldn't they have to have a contract negotiated already? Would probably be for less than what he's tagged for.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-23-2014, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

So, in other words, you're making an assumption, with nothing to back it up but some percieved agenda.

SNR is pretty directly saying that he should be paid "solidly good" Left Tackle money. With a new salary cap, that means he deserves $8-11M per year.

SNR has also been one of the most vocal critics of taking a Left Tackle at 1.1.

So he is basically saying our starting Left Tackle is worth sinking $8-11M on, but isn't worth a 1.1. That's pretty clear as day. It's up to you if you think that's driving an agenda.

-King- · 02-23-2014, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by planetdoc

true, but that money becomes guaranteed. Once he signs a Franchise tag the chiefs cant rescind that offer.

This is an exercise in stupidity. No team is going to trade for a LT on a 1yr $11.76 million contract in which it is known they wouldnt be able to franchise tag again. Any team with the space to sign Albert to such a contract would have the space for a longterm contract and a bidding war.

Once again, Albert's representatives were In Indy. They know full well what teams are willing to pay Albert.

What? You realize that the team that trades for him can then sign him to a long term deal right?
Posted via Mobile Device

-King- · 02-23-2014, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

What picks would they have to give up though? Can that be negotiated? I can't remember.

Plus wouldn't they have to have a contract negotiated already? Would probably be for less than what he's tagged for.

Yes it can be negotiated.

And yeah the chiefs would give them permission to talk to Albert about an extension.
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman · 02-23-2014, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by planetdoc

true, but that money becomes guaranteed. Once he signs a Franchise tag the chiefs cant rescind that offer.

This is an exercise in stupidity. No team is going to trade for a LT on a 1yr $11.76 million contract in which it is known they wouldnt be able to franchise tag again. Any team with the space to sign Albert to such a contract w tould have the space for a longterm contract and a bidding war.

Once again, Albert's representatives were In Indy. They know full well what teams are willing to pay Albert.

The Chiefs can tag him and rescind the offer at any time prior to signing.

They can test the market for trade value in that time.

If they don't feel that the value is there, they can let him walk.

milkman · 02-23-2014, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

SNR is pretty directly saying that he should be paid "solidly good" Left Tackle money. With a new salary cap, that means he deserves $8-11M per year.

SNR has also been one of the most vocal critics of taking a Left Tackle at 1.1.

So he is basically saying our starting Left Tackle is worth sinking $8-11M on, but isn't worth a 1.1. That's pretty clear as day. It's up to you if you think that's driving an agenda.

Is he wrong that Albert is worth a contract for a "solidly good" LT?

chiefzilla1501 · 02-23-2014, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Is he wrong that Albert is worth a contract for a "solidly good" LT?

He is wrong in the statement that "if the team can keep him, they absolutely should." Or that the only reason we wouldn't sign him is to justify the Fisher pick.

I personally don't want to pay Albert that kind of money. That's regardless of whether Fisher plays LT or RT, or anywhere.

milkman · 02-23-2014, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

He is wrong in the statement that "if the team can keep him, they absolutely should." Or that the only reason we wouldn't sign him is to justify the Fisher pick.

I personally don't want to pay Albert that kind of money. That's regardless of whether Fisher plays LT or RT, or anywhere.

You didn't answer my question.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-23-2014, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

You didn't answer my question.

No, he's not wrong on the value. I don't have a problem with Branden Albert. I think he's a solidly good Left Tackle.

02-22-2014, 12:09 PM
Hog's Gone Fishin Fish are scared of me Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1730477	Albert may not be done here ! Branden Albert, Chiefs hoping to work out contract0By Chris Wesseling Around the League Writer Published: Feb. 22, 2014 at 12:08 p.m. INDIANAPOLIS -- Despite rampant speculation to the contrary, the Kansas City Chiefs have not decided to let left tackle Branden Albert walk in free agency. General manager John Dorsey told NFL Media's Steve Wyche on Friday that the Chiefs are still hoping to work out a deal for Albert before free agency begins in March. Dorsey declined to say if the franchise tag would be an option should the sides fail to reach an accord. Because he was tagged last year, Albert would merit a 120 percent raise on his $9.828 million contract from 2013. More proof that Albert remains in the team's plans? Dorsey told reporters at the NFL Scouting Combine on Friday that 2013 No. 1 overall draft pick Eric Fisher is still penciled in as a right tackle, not a left tackle. Albert is one of this year's top 10 free agents. If he's kept off the market, tackle-needy teams such as the Arizona Cardinals will be disappointed. As for quarterback Alex Smith, Dorsey confirmed to Wyche that an extension is on the agenda, but there is no rush to complete a deal. Neither Albert nor Smith can be blamed for the Chiefs' late-season collapse. This offense scored 35 points in five of their last seven games, including four games with more than 40 points.
Posts: 40,331

02-23-2014, 09:38 AM	#94
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2774064	Why would another team agree to a tag and trade when they can just wait and sign him as a fa and keep picks?
Posts: 81,219