Hartwell a FALCON

[BigChiefFan]

LAS VEGAN HITS JACKPOT: Hartwell goes to Falcons


Linebacker says he signs $26 million guaranteed pact

By MARK ANDERSON
REVIEW-JOURNAL



Ed Hartwell, shown sacking Bengals quarterback Jon Kitna in a 2002 game when he was with the Ravens, has joined the Falcons, who played in last year's NFC Championship Game.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS






Linebacker Ed Hartwell did not panic when seemingly every other NFL free agent had signed.

"I think I wanted to wait, and patience is a virtue," he said. "I wanted the right situation and the right team."

Hartwell, who went to Cheyenne High School and lives in Las Vegas in the offseason, said he found that fit Sunday. He said he has signed a six-year, $26.24 million guaranteed contract with the Atlanta Falcons that includes an $8 million signing bonus.

Guaranteed NFL contracts are virtually unheard of anymore because of the risk of injuries.

"It's a great agent," Hartwell said of Harold Lewis. "Other than the money, I'm excited to go to Atlanta. It's a great organization. Arthur Blank, the owner, is a great guy, and the head coach (Jim Mora) and defensive coordinator (Ed Donatell) on down. It's a great team on the verge of a Super Bowl run."

The Falcons went to the NFC Championship Game last season before losing to the Philadelphia Eagles.

They are most noted for an offense led by quarterback Michael Vick and running back Warrick Dunn. Atlanta's defense ranked in about the middle of the league.

"We never had the offense in Baltimore like they've had in Atlanta," said Hartwell, who spent all four of his NFL seasons with the Ravens. "They definitely have a lot of great players. If you put together that great offense with a great defense and play together as a team, it could be an unbelievably good future."

Hartwell signed to be an integral part of that future, and the Falcons obviously were interested in one of the NFL's most-noted free agents. ESPN ranked Hartwell (6 feet 1 inch, 250 pounds) as the league's No. 5 free agent.

He is coming off a season in which he made 96 tackles while playing in Ray Lewis' shadow. Hartwell's career high was 142 tackles in 2002.

Hartwell said 17 clubs expressed interest when the free-agent period began and told Lewis to organize the effort to pick the best one. Lewis previously said he set high contract standards to weed out the teams that weren't serious.

Though Lewis did not talks specifics, the asking price reportedly was $4 million annually. Hartwell made $1.348 million last season.

In the end, Hartwell said he chose Atlanta over Arizona, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City and Seattle. He said the offers were about $3.5 million to $5 million annually.

"I told my agent I didn't just want the highest payday," Hartwell said. "If one team offers $5 million and another $4.8 million, I wasn't going to automatically sign for $5 million because it wasn't just the money. I definitely wanted to go somewhere I would be happy. Atlanta is now my second home because Vegas is my first home."

[|Zach|]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-21-Mon-2005/sports/26121496.html

[Lzen]

Good, I'm glad. If the guy expected guaranteed money like that, the Chiefs didn't need him. We've had enough FA failures.

[Gaz]

Oh NO!

What are we going to talk about now?

xoxo~
Gaz
Adrift.

[|Zach|]

Weird source to break that...I dont see it anywhere else.

[alpha_omega]

Guess that settles that!

[King_Chief_Fan]

Good, I'm glad. If the guy expected guaranteed money like that, the Chiefs didn't need him. We've had enough FA failures.

come on.......that is so typical. When ever we lose out on a good signing, someone says good.....and then sites their reason.

Give me one reason why you think this guy would have been an FA failure.

[HC_Chief]

About damned time.

[Hammock Parties]

NO! :(

[mlyonsd]

Oh NO!

What are we going to talk about now?

xoxo~
Gaz
Adrift.


Why the front office sucks and we didn't address all of our problems on defense in FA and BTW, our front office sucks.

Duh.

[Frankie]

Goodbye Mr Douglas,.. I meam... Hartwell. I hope you have a career like Hugh's too.

[Bwana]

Sweet! I didn't think old "48 hour Ed" knew how to use a fricken pen. :)

[RNR]

"I told my agent I didn't just want the highest payday," Hartwell said. "If one team offers $5 million and another $4.8 million, I wasn't going to automatically sign for $5 million because it wasn't just the money. I definitely wanted to go somewhere I would be happy. Atlanta is now my second home because Vegas is my first home."
I wonder if Atlanta just happened to offer the most :hmmm:

[Gaz]

Why the front office sucks and we didn't address all of our problems on defense in FA and BTW, our front office sucks.

Duh.

Good points.

You forgot to add that Gretz is a brown-nosing shill and that Dawes does not use his real name.

xoxo~
Gaz
Willing to hope that the Planet does not become a graveyard.

[Eleazar]

Dear lord... what are the moonbats going to bitch about around here now?

Looks like we're back into "CARL IS A CHEAPASS!" territory again.

[Bootlegged]

Good. Now Patrick Surtain, get yo arse in here.

[mlyonsd]

Good points.

You forgot to add that Gretz is a brown-nosing shill and that Dawes does not use his real name.

xoxo~
Gaz
Willing to hope that the Planet does not become a graveyard.


That's the spirit. We have plenty of things to bitch about. And, with the draft coming up we can all turn our attention to which RB/WR to draft int he first round. There's no end to the possibilities.

[Lzen]

come on.......that is so typical. When ever we lose out on a good signing, someone says good.....and then sites their reason.

Give me one reason why you think this guy would have been an FA failure.


Oh no, I didn't necessarily think that he'd be a failure. I just would rather not take that chance if the guy only wanted guaranteed money. That, to me, is bad news. Make no mistake, I wanted this guy. But I did have my reservations. I mean, he played with Ray Lewis and, naturally, you gotta wonder if he benefitted from that. Similar to Ryan Sims benefitting from playing next to Julius Peppers in college. Plus, with that attitude, one might wonder if he's "satisfied" getting a payday. And will that affect his play on the field.

[Baby Lee]

My memory is getting fuzzy, but wasn't there a time, nearly lost in the mists, when the Chiefs had a single player on defense that was worth a sh!t?

[Gaz]

That's the spirit. We have plenty of things to bitch about. And, with the draft coming up we can all turn our attention to which RB/WR to draft int he first round. There's no end to the possibilities.

FB all the way, man. Richardson is not getting any younger…

xoxo~
Gaz
Bad. Just bad.

[Gaz]

My memory is getting fuzzy, but wasn't there a time, nearly lost in the mists, when the Chiefs had a single player on defense that was worth a sh!t?

The Chiefs appear to be a “guns or butter” team, don't they?

The last time we had a good Defense, we had a crappy Offense.

Balance is for sissies!

xoxo~
Gaz
Lurching from one extreme to another.

[Eleazar]

OMG. this just proves again that carl only cares about filling the seats.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

he wanted out from under Ray Lewis's shadow...

[alanm]

FWIW I'll say it again, We signed the better LB in Bell. :thumb:

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

Oh NO!

What are we going to talk about now?

xoxo~
Gaz
Adrift.

Surtain

[the Talking Can]

Chiefs haven't had any interest in him since we signed Bell, according to the illiterate retard Nick Athan.

Score 1 for the illiterate retard.

[beavis]

FWIW I'll say it again, We signed the better LB in Bell. :thumb:
...who is constantly injured, for more money.

"genious"

[Hammock Parties]

The Chiefs appear to be a “guns or butter” team, don't they?

The last time we had a good Defense, we had a crappy Offense.

Balance is for sissies!

xoxo~
Gaz
Lurching from one extreme to another.


That "crappy offense" was in the top 10 in points scored quite a few times.

But yeah, it was crappy in the playoffs.

[Baby Lee]

...who is constantly injured, for more money.

"genious"
When the Chiefs themselves targeted Hartwell [and Rolle] as the top tier guys.

Total failure. ||<-- this close to no longer giving a sh!t.

[Baby Lee]

That "crappy offense" was in the top 10 in points scored quite a few times.

But yeah, it was crappy in the playoffs.
What are these. . . 'playoffs' of which you speak?

[the Talking Can]

When the Chiefs themselves targeted Hartwell [and Rolle] as the top tier guys.

Total failure. ||<-- this close to no longer giving a sh!t.

come on, CP isn't responsible for his inability to sign what he described as his priority free agents...we are.....

[beavis]

When the Chiefs themselves targeted Hartwell [and Rolle] as the top tier guys.

Total failure. ||<-- this close to no longer giving a sh!t.
Yep. The homerism around this place flat out amazes me.

[Dartgod]

I love it. The same people bitching about not getting Hartwell would have been bitching even louder had we signed him to a guaranteed contract.

I'm satisfied that Carl did all he could to sign him. But then again, there's no pleasing some people.

It should be an interesting day on As The Planet Turns...

[beavis]

come on, CP isn't responsible for his inability to sign what he described as his priority free agents...we are.....
I for one am going to give tem $40 to park my rig at the stadium this year. Maybe then we could afford an upper tier free agent.

[Chiefnj]

...who is constantly injured, for more money.

"genious"

They didn't really sign him for more money. He has a three tiered signing bonus, which means if he gets hurt this season the Chiefs are free and clear of him, if they so desire.

Bell is a bigger impact player when healthy. It was a good move.

[beavis]

I love it. The same people bitching about not getting Hartwell would have been bitching even louder had we signed him to a guarenteed contract.

I'm satisfied that Carl did all he could to sign him. But then again, there's no pleasing some people.

It should be an interesting day on As The Planet Turns...
Wrong.

If Carl had done everything he could to sign him, he'd be wearing red right now.

[Hoover]

Way to much Money for my tastes

[The Bad Guy]

"I told my agent I didn't just want the highest payday," Hartwell said. "If one team offers $5 million and another $4.8 million, I wasn't going to automatically sign for $5 million because it wasn't just the money. I definitely wanted to go somewhere I would be happy. Atlanta is now my second home because Vegas is my first home."

What a jackass.

So it's not about the money if you sacrifice 200,000?

What a saint you are, Ed.

Also, guaranteeing NFL contracts is dumb as hell. I hope this agent doesn't set a trend with this because the cap will really be screwed.

[Dartgod]

Wrong.

IMO, If Carl had done everything he could to sign him, he'd be wearing red right now.
Fixed your post.

[Baby Lee]

I love it. The same people bitching about not getting Hartwell would have been bitching even louder had we signed him to a guarenteed contract.

I'm satisfied that Carl did all he could to sign him. But then again, there's no pleasing some people.

It should be an interesting day on As The Planet Turns...
GFY
Carl did all he could. So F*CKING WHAT???
And Hicks does all he can to sack a QB
And Bartee does all he can to intercept a pass, or turn his fugging head.

Sound more like 'all he could' isn't enough and he needs to be replaced.

It's about results, not effort.

[Dartgod]

GFY
Carl did all he could. So F*CKING WHAT???
And Hicks does all he can to sack a QB
And Bartee does all he can to intercept a pass, or turn his fugging head.

Sound more like 'all he could' isn't enough and he needs to be replaced.

It's about results, not effort.
GFY?

Lighten up, Francis.

[Baby Lee]

Way to much Money for my tastes
Might I suggest NFLE or Arena FB?

[the Talking Can]

It's about results, not effort.

if only that were true with the Chiefs....

[siberian khatru]

A GUARANTEED contract? NFW.

[Bowser]

Well, thank God this little drah-mah is at an end.

NEXT!!!

[Dartgod]

A GUARANTEED contract? NFW.
Yeah. A lot of people (actually, only two at the moment) seem to be overlooking that fact.

[Bowser]

A GUARANTEED contract? NFW.

You watch. In week three, he blow an ACL or an achilles. I hope not for his sake, but karma is funny like that.

[Bowser]

You watch. In week three, he blow an ACL or an achilles. I hope not for his sake, but karma is funny like that.

I should say, for the Falcon's sake. But not really, so **** 'em.

[|Zach|]

GFY

ROFL

I can't find that midol picture just when I need it is needed the most.

[Chiefnj]

If the article is accurate and Atlanta somehow guaranteed the 26 million then there is no way the Chiefs could have matched it, nor should they have.

[Baby Lee]

Yeah. A lot of people (actually, only two at the moment) seem to be overlooking that fact.
Here are the facts that matter in evaluating this offseason.

CP and DV finally admitted the problem on D.
They identified the best personnel to the problem.
They completely failed on two of their IDed personnel [Hartwell and Rolle], and Law is still a long way from being anywhere.

Complete failure, with the added bonus of making sure the sh!tty players we already have know the coaches and FO think they're sh!tty too.

[|Zach|]

Here are the facts that matter in evaluating this offseason.

CP and DV finally admitted the problem on D.
They identified the best personnel to the problem.
They completely failed on two of their IDed personnel [Hartwell and Rolle], and Law is still a long way from being anywhere.

Complete failure, with the added bonus of making sure the sh!tty players we already have know the coaches and FO think they're sh!tty too.
I would think someone listing facts about this offseason would have mentioned the signing of Bell and Knight.

Just the facts ma'm.

[dirk digler]

Here are the facts that matter in evaluating this offseason.

CP and DV finally admitted the problem on D.
They identified the best personnel to the problem.
They completely failed on two of their IDed personnel [Hartwell and Rolle], and Law is still a long way from being anywhere.

Complete failure, with the added bonus of making sure the sh!tty players we already have know the coaches and FO think they're sh!tty too.

That pretty much sums it up so far. If we get Law or Surtain that will change this but for right now I would give them a C at best.

[Gaz]

Can someone explain the cap impact of a “guaranteed” contract, please?

xoxo~
Gaz
Ignorant and unafraid to admit it.

[dirk digler]

Can someone explain the cap impact of a “guaranteed” contract, please?

xoxo~
Gaz
Ignorant and unafraid to admit it.


I would suppose that all of the money is guaranteed so they will take a cap hit in every year of his contract with no out.

[Baby Lee]

I would think someone doing facts about this offseason would have mentioned the signing of Bell and Knight.

Yes the facts ma'm.
Ah yes, the vaunted backup plan the Chiefs seem to always take.

Sorry, but this offseason, I'm gonna judge CP on his ability to execute his plans, not how he scrambles to come up with something credible when his plans go to sh!t.

Like Chris Rock said at the Oscars, "you want Denzel and all you can get is me? . . . . WAIT!!!"

[Mr. Kotter]

Oh well....

:shrug:

[Chiefnj]

Can someone explain the cap impact of a “guaranteed” contract, please?

xoxo~
Gaz
Ignorant and unafraid to admit it.


If true, it would mean that if Hartwell blows out his knee in mini-camp and has to retire (Percy Snow) he still gets all $26 million and the Falcons have to pay it and have it hit against the cap.

[Gaz]

I would suppose that all of the money is guaranteed so they will take a cap hit in every year of his contract with no out.

Is that correct, capologists?

xoxo~
Gaz
Sees lots of badness under those conditions.

[|Zach|]

Ah yes, the vaunted backup plan the Chiefs seem to always take.

Like Chris Rock said at the Oscars, "you want Denzel and all you can get is me? . . . . WAIT!!!"
I dont know what to tell you...just explaining that your fact listing of the Chiefs offseason was inadequate.

[Dartgod]

I would suppose that all of the money is guaranteed so they will take a cap hit in every year of his contract with no out.
And if he has a career ending injury, you're paying out dead money for the duration of the contract, which I suppose would limit your ability to sign FAs in the future.

[dirk digler]

Ah yes, the vaunted backup plan the Chiefs seem to always take.

Like Chris Rock said at the Oscars, "you want Denzel and all you can get is me? . . . . WAIT!!!"

I am starting to warm up to the Bell signing and I do like the Knight signing already because it has already pissed Wesley off.

If we get Law or Surtain I will say this offseason was a success.

[dirk digler]

And if he has a career ending injury, you're paying out dead money for the duration of the contract, which I suppose would limit your ability to sign FAs in the future.

Yep. The Falcons are stupid IMO for doing this kind of contract.

[Baby Lee]

I am starting to warm up to the Bell signing and I do like the Knight signing already because it has already pissed Wesley off.

If we get Law or Surtain I will say this offseason was a success.
If we have a top 5 D in 2006, the offseason was a success.

[alanm]

...who is constantly injured, for more money.

"genious"Last season was the only time he's missed siggy PT due to injury. He's fine now. I don't know why people think he's constantly injured. Hell Priest FWIW has missed more playing time in the last few years.
:(

[siberian khatru]

Here are the facts that matter in evaluating this offseason.

CP and DV finally admitted the problem on D.
They identified the best personnel to the problem.
They completely failed on two of their IDed personnel [Hartwell and Rolle], and Law is still a long way from being anywhere.

Complete failure, with the added bonus of making sure the sh!tty players we already have know the coaches and FO think they're sh!tty too.

They completely fugged up on Rolle. They whiffed on the guy they clearly wanted, and now that mistake will likely cost them a 2nd-round pick.

I'm not so sure they whiffed on Hartwell. I like him, I wanted him. I also like Bell if he can stay healthy. I get the impression that they were always looking at both Hartwell and Bell, and that Bell isn't the runner-up choice. It's more of a 1A and 1B situation. As it shook out, no way were they gonna sign Hartwell if he was seeking guaranteed money -- and got it. In fact, I'm glad they didn't up their offer either to humongous $$ to offset the guaranteed part, or to guarantee it at all. Let Atlanta assume all those risks.

Still too early to grade the offseason, but I'm OK with the Bell and Knight signings. I'm pissed at the Rolle situation, not because he's the one indispensible guy on the market, but because of how it played out -- they wanted him, they all but had him, and they let him get away.

[Baby Lee]

Yep. The Falcons are stupid IMO for doing this kind of contract.
A Chiefs fan calling the Falcons stupid might have flown in the 90s. It's kind of sad, nowadays.

[Gaz]

Bell made me nervous with his injury history. The explanations are all reasonable and logical, but it was still worrisome.

However, the contract appears structured to minimize the negative impact should Bell be injured. We would still be hurt because Mitchell would be our starter, but the cap hit would not be crippling.

I prefer a healthy Bell over a healthy Hartwell. I am still a bit concerned that a healthy Bell might be an oxymoron.
xoxo~
Gaz
Nervous, but tentatively hopefull.

[dirk digler]

If we have a top 5 D in 2006, the offseason was a success.

If that happens we are Super Bowl bound.

[BoroChief]

I'll believe it when it hits NFL.com or Espn. Come on guaranteed contract of $26 mil. Pretty hard for me to swallow that. Yeah it came from a Las Vegas paper where Hartwell lives in the off-season but consider the source. I personally need something a little bit more reliable than that. Supposedly this comes from the guy who agents has been telling us that Ed would sign with someone in the next 48 hours 2 weeks ago.

[Bowser]

I am starting to warm up to the Bell signing and I do like the Knight signing already because it has already pissed Wesley off.

If we get Law or Surtain I will say this offseason was a success.


I'm betting Surtain ends up a Chief. What other choice do we have? Ty Law? And I bet we have some other signings before it's all said and done. Gaz will get his wish with a new fullback when we sign Robert Holcombe, we'll land a new OLB in Keith Adams, and I wouldn't be suprised to see Kevin Johnson end up here to take the soon to be departed Johnny Morton's place.

That's a big mouthfull to be sure, but I can see it happening IF we get a third round pick for losing Tait.

Or, I'm just wishing a little too hard. You decide.

[Mark M]

DAMMIT, CARL!! :cuss:

Actually, unless we find out how much KC offered, I'll hold off being upset about this.

If they low-balled him, then it's Carl's fault.

If they offered him something similar, then there's not much more the KC FO could've done. Although, I doubt they offered him anything guaranteed ... nor should they have.

I just hope they can get Surtain, trade down in the 1st to pick up a 2nd rounder, and draft Marlin Jackson.

MM
~~:grovel:

[dirk digler]

A Chiefs fan calling the Falcons stupid might have flown in the 90s. It's kind of sad, nowadays.

I just think it is a horrible idea to sign a guy a guaranteed contract playing football. I would venture to guess that the Falcons were the only team to offer such a contract.

[Eleazar]

I prefer a healthy Bell over a healthy Hartwell. I am still a bit concerned that a healthy Bell might be an oxymoron.

That about sums it up for me.

BTW I think the difference between the guaranteed money is that you take the cap charge whether they are healthy or not. Normally you can release a player who is under contract and suffer a cap penalty rather than the whole charge, but not in this case.

[dirk digler]

I'm betting Surtain ends up a Chief. What other choice do we have? Ty Law? And I bet we have some other signings before it's all said and done. Gaz will get his wish with a new fullback when we sign Robert Holcombe, we'll land a new OLB in Keith Adams, and I wouldn't be suprised to see Kevin Johnson end up here to take the soon to be departed Johnny Morton's place.

That's a big mouthfull to be sure, but I can see it happening IF we get a third round pick for losing Tait.

Or, I'm just wishing a little too hard. You decide.

Keith Adams already resigned with the Eagles and I think they like Bannister from Seattle better than Johnson because he plays ST.

[Chiefnj]

I'm betting Surtain ends up a Chief. What other choice do we have? Ty Law? And I bet we have some other signings before it's all said and done. Gaz will get his wish with a new fullback when we sign Robert Holcombe, we'll land a new OLB in Keith Adams, and I wouldn't be suprised to see Kevin Johnson end up here to take the soon to be departed Johnny Morton's place.

That's a big mouthfull to be sure, but I can see it happening IF we get a third round pick for losing Tait.

Or, I'm just wishing a little too hard. You decide.

Adams signed with the Eagles last week.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Ah yes, the vaunted backup plan the Chiefs seem to always take.

Sorry, but this offseason, I'm gonna judge CP on his ability to execute his plans, not how he scrambles to come up with something credible when his plans go to sh!t.

Like Chris Rock said at the Oscars, "you want Denzel and all you can get is me? . . . . WAIT!!!"

Oscar quotes

[dirk digler]

I'll believe it when it hits NFL.com or Espn. Come on guaranteed contract of $26 mil. Pretty hard for me to swallow that. Yeah it came from a Las Vegas paper where Hartwell lives in the off-season but consider the source. I personally need something a little bit more reliable than that. Supposedly this comes from the guy who agents has been telling us that Ed would sign with someone in the next 48 hours 2 weeks ago.

I totally agree. :thumb:

[BigChiefFan]

I'll believe it when it hits NFL.com or Espn. Come on guaranteed contract of $26 mil. Pretty hard for me to swallow that. Yeah it came from a Las Vegas paper where Hartwell lives in the off-season but consider the source. I personally need something a little bit more reliable than that. Supposedly this comes from the guy who agents has been telling us that Ed would sign with someone in the next 48 hours 2 weeks ago.
Here's the link. It looks legit to me. BTW, I wouldn't post some fake shit at the planet. I come here for the sports talk and believe in being credible.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-21-Mon-2005/sports/26121496.html

[Bowser]

Adams signed with the Eagles last week.

:doh!:

I'll shut up now.........

[Mark M]

By the way, grading offseason aquisitions is damn near impossible until the season starts to play out, IMHO.

Sure, a signing may look good on paper, but last I checked they played the games on grass (insert pot joke here).

Oh, and saying Bell is often injured is true. But so is Priest Holmes. Should KC not have signed him?

MM
~~:shrug:

[Baby Lee]

I dont know what to tell you...just explaining that your fact listing of the Chiefs offseason was inadequate.
Making sure you didn't miss my edit
Sorry, but this offseason, I'm gonna judge CP on his ability to execute his plans, not how he scrambles to come up with something credible when his plans go to sh!t.

[dirk digler]

Here's the link. It looks legit to me. BTW, I wouldn't post some fake shit at the planet. I come here for the sports talk and believe in being credible.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-21-Mon-2005/sports/26121496.html

No one is saying that your not credible but there is nothing being reported anywhere about this yet. I am not doubting he signed with Atlanta I am just questioning the guaranteed contract.

[morphius]

Here's the link. It looks legit to me. BTW, I wouldn't post some fake shit at the planet. I come here for the sports talk and believe in being credible.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-21-Mon-2005/sports/26121496.html
I don't think people think you are making it up, just most people like to get at least a couple sources on something like this.

[Baby Lee]

Oh, and saying Bell is often injured is true. But so is Priest Holmes. Should KC not have signed him?
Must have missed where Priest got Bell's contract when he first came here.
Must have also missed where Edgerrin James was all but signed by us when we went with Priest.

[|Zach|]

By the way, grading offseason aquisitions is damn near impossible until the season starts to play out, IMHO.

Sure, a signing may look good on paper, but last I checked they played the games on grass (insert pot joke here).

Oh, and saying Bell is often injured is true. But so is Priest Holmes. Should KC not have signed him?

MM
~~:shrug:
Trent Green, Willie Roaf.

[Hammock Parties]

Trent Green, Willie Roaf.

I believe both players had only had one injury. Bell is a greater risk than either Green or Roaf when KC signed them.

[BigChiefFan]

I don't think people think you are making it up, just most people like to get at least a couple sources on something like this.Cool. I would like to see it on the ESPN ticker as well, but it does seem legit and it was the first news source that actually said Hartwell signed so I wanted to share. We'll know soon enough if Hartwell is a Falcon.

[|Zach|]

Must have missed where Priest got Bell's contract when he first came here.

I imagine if we needed a RB right now and Holmes was on the market even as an unproved back we would be paying out the ass for him. Just seems like thats how the FA market is these days...even more over the top than when we signed Holmes even though it has not eben that long.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Goodbye Mr Douglas,.. I meam... Hartwell. I hope you have a career like Hugh's too.


Couldn't have said that any better myself :toast: good riddence

[carlos3652]

Yep. The Falcons are stupid IMO for doing this kind of contract.

Well, they have over 11 mill in space money freeing up next year so they have the cap to do it, but there is no way we could have matched that offer, here are the reasons:

1. Cap hit if he got hurt - too risky
2. Law and Surtani and any other FA we are interested is a non factor now and we would have to wait for the draft to pick up a CB to replace thos clowns, once again Warfield would be the only CB on the field.

So, at least we still have a chance to pick up a cb at this point, the clowns that we have as fans that are complaining because we let him get away, would be the same clowns complaining if we got him and now couldnt afford a #1 CB and if he gets hurts we have all this money...

So FWIW, I think if we can pick up 2 or 3 more FA's this offseason (LB, #1CB, DE or CB) I think this offseason has been A OK.

[PastorMikH]

I'm OK with this news.

I don't like the entire contract guaranteed

I'm not sure why we need 2 MLB in a 4-3 D

From the looks of the numbers, we didn't lowball, but were in the same ballpark as everyone else (Hartwell's own words - He said the offers were about $3.5 million to $5 million annually - he signed for 4 mil annually.)

I've pretty much gotten tired of Hartwell's indicisiveness and I feel like he played us just like Hugh and Vincent did
.
We have a bit more of a gamble but a higher upside in Bell.


I do wish that Carl would have given up a bit sooner and been a bit more motivated in signing some OLBs - if we keep Fuji, we're still looking at Mitchell, Caver, Fox, Beisel, or one of the other young backups as a starter. Not sure I'm real anxious about that.

[Mark M]

Must have missed where Priest got Bell's contract when he first came here.
Huh? I honestly have no idea what you're getting at, but my point was:

Priest was injured early in his pro career, missing an entire season when with Baltimore.

Bell was injured early in his pro career, missing almost an entire season when with Pittsburgh.

Seems to me that injuries happen, and labeling someone as "injury prone" early in a career is a bit premature. Priest has been nothing sort of remarkable. Bell may very well also turn out to be remarkable. No one knows.

Besides, Bell's contract covers KC's ass in case something happens.

Must have also missed where Edgerrin James was all but signed by us when we went with Priest.Um ... WTF are you typing about?

MM
~~:spock:

[dirk digler]

Well, they have over 11 mill in space money freeing up next year so they have the cap to do it, but there is no way we could have matched that offer, here are the reasons:

1. Cap hit if he got hurt - too risky
2. Law and Surtani and any other FA we are interested is a non factor now and we would have to wait for the draft to pick up a CB to replace thos clowns, once again Warfield would be the only CB on the field.

So, at least we still have a chance to pick up a cb at this point, the clowns that we have as fans that are complaining because we let him get away, would be the same clowns complaining if we got him and now couldnt afford a #1 CB and if he gets hurts we have all this money...

So FWIW, I think if we can pick up 2 or 3 more FA's this offseason (LB, #1CB, DE or CB) I think this offseason has been A OK.

I agree and yes this year they may have money but this contract will come back to haunt them you watch.

[Dartgod]

Um ... WTF are you typing about?

MM
~~:spock:
I think it has something to do with the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

[BoroChief]

Originally Posted By BIGChiefFan

[QUOTE= I wouldn't post some fake shit at the planet. I come here for the sports talk and believe in being credible.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-21-Mon-2005/sports/26121496.html[/QUOTE]

I apologize if I offended you. It does seem like a reliable source. I am just going on his agent's tactics during this whole situation. Disinformation can be a powerful negotiation tool. It's just not out in the mainstream media yet, (I.E. Falcons website, NFL.com, Espn, Etc.) Which is making it hard for me to believe. Like you I've come here to talk about the Chiefs and not to start talking shit. So don't take it personally I wasn't attacking you, just Hartwell and his agent has put out alot of disinformation and it wouldn't surprise me if this was the next round of it.

[beavis]

Besides, Bell's contract covers KC's ass in case something happens.

I think Carl has succeeded in brainwashing the fanbase when they are more concerned about the cap ramifications of signing a player than whether a player is worthy of being on the field.

[Mark M]

I think it has something to do with the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

Or the salmons of Capistrano ...

MM
~~ROFL

[Baby Lee]

Um ... WTF are you typing about?
It's pretty clear. You're comparing the Bell signing to Priest's signing. They aren't comparable because;
we signed Priest cheap to be a utility back and he panned out great, whereas we signed Bell at top dollar to be a savior for the sh!ttiest defense in the history of the league.
when we signed Priest, it didn't cost us a shot at the top guy at his position.

[Dartgod]

Or the salmons of Capistrano ...

MM
~~ROFL
Dammit, Carl!! :cuss:

[Mark M]

I think Carl has succeeded in brainwashing the fanbase when they are more concerned about the cap ramifications of signing a player than whether a player is worthy of being on the field.

IMHO, Bell is more than worthy of being on the field.

As far as the cap goes, today's NFL demands that cap ramifications be taken into consideration. To just ignore them is foolish, again, IMHO.

MM
~~:arrow:

[Baby Lee]

I think Carl has succeeded in brainwashing the fanbase when they are more concerned about the cap ramifications of signing a player than whether a player is worthy of being on the field.
That is PRECISELY on point. I thought by this point, Chiefs fans were wary of the 'FA on the cheap' tendencies of CP. But he just 'gave it that little ting' and now it's all different.

[Dartgod]

IMHO, Bell is more than worthy of being on the field.

As far as the cap goes, today's NFL demands that cap ramifications be taken into consideration. To just ignore them is foolish, again, IMHO.

MM
~~:arrow:
Once again you are letting facts and common sense get in the way of a good rant.

[the Talking Can]

any time a team spends money to sign a healthy talented player at market value Chiefs fans freak out about how bad the contract is etc...CP has trained us well....Lucas/Smoot/Baxter/Rolle/Hartwell....the only good CP contract is a backloaded one given to a player with a injury history....and you still think we're going to sign Surtain, who isn't going to accept a penny less than Rolle....wow

[Baby Lee]

IMHO, Bell is more than worthy of being on the field.

As far as the cap goes, today's NFL demands that cap ramifications be taken into consideration. To just ignore them is foolish, again, IMHO.

MM
~~:arrow:
Yeah, them stupid 2 time SB Champ Broncos.

[Gaz]

Bell is the top guy, IMO. A healthy Bell > a healthy Hartwell. I do not see how Bell’s signing cost us a shot at the top guy at his position.

With the contract he signed, we addressed Bell’s injury issue, so I am content that Hartwell and his amazing contract go to Atlanta.

xoxo~
Gaz
Stunned, just STUNNED at a $26 million guarantee.

[Chiefnj]

Are any current Chief players represented by the Poston brothers?

[Mark M]

It's pretty clear. You're comparing the Bell signing to Priest's signing. They aren't comparable because;
we signed Priest cheap to be a utility back and he panned out great, whereas we signed Bell at top dollar to be a savior for the sh!ttiest defense in the history of the league.
when we signed Priest, it didn't cost us a shot at the top guy at his position.

Actually, the details of Bell's contract prove that it's hardly "top dollar." A $3 millionish signing bonus, plus roster bonuses of $3 mill for the next two years is quite good, IMHO.

I look at it like this:

They could've just spent all of their money on Hartwell, and not had enough to sign any other defensive help, or at the most 2nd and 3rd tier players. Plus, with Hartwell wanting guaranteed money, should anything happen they'd be fooked in the future,

OR

They could sign a damn fine player (Bell) at a position of great need to a contract that covers their ass. Plus, they'd have enough $$ to upgrade at least two other positions (safety and CB).

Which would you prefer?

MM
~~:hmmm:

[Scaga]

(without reading this whole thread)

Isn't it always funny how the "right situation, the right place" always seems to be the same place that offers the most $$$$$$$$$$$$. :hmmm:

Glad he's off the market.

[beavis]

They could've just spent all of their money on Hartwell, and not had enough to sign any other defensive help, or at the most 2nd and 3rd tier players. Plus, with Hartwell wanting guaranteed money, should anything happen they'd be fooked in the future,

Yep, there it is.

Did anyone see the Manchurian Candidate? That's what this is starting to remind me of.

[Dartgod]

Actually, the details of Bell's contract prove that it's hardly "top dollar." A $3 millionish signing bonus, plus roster bonuses of $3 mill for the next two years is quite good, IMHO.

I look at it like this:

They could've just spent all of their money on Hartwell, and not had enough to sign any other defensive help, or at the most 2nd and 3rd tier players. Plus, with Hartwell wanting guaranteed money, should anything happen they'd be fooked in the future,

OR

They could sign a damn fine player (Bell) at a position of great need to a contract that covers their ass. Plus, they'd have enough $$ to upgrade at least two other positions (safety and CB).

Which would you prefer?

MM
~~:hmmm:
STOP making sense!

[fingers in ears]LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!![/fingers in ears]

[Mark M]

Yeah, them stupid 2 time SB Champ Broncos.

Ahhh ... so you wouldn't mind your team cheating as long as they win?

Interesting ...

MM
~~:shake:

[Mark M]

Yep, there it is.

Did anyone see the Manchurian Candidate? That's what this is starting to remind me of.

Really?

So you're saying the Cheifs don't have to follow the salary cap?

Or would you prefer them to cheat it, like Baby Lee does?

I'm not talking about signing bonuses -- I'm talking about salary cap space. There is a difference.

And, again, to act as if it doesn't existence is ignorance of how the NFL works.

MM
~~:shrug:

[dirk digler]

Actually, the details of Bell's contract prove that it's hardly "top dollar." A $3 millionish signing bonus, plus roster bonuses of $3 mill for the next two years is quite good, IMHO.

I look at it like this:

They could've just spent all of their money on Hartwell, and not had enough to sign any other defensive help, or at the most 2nd and 3rd tier players. Plus, with Hartwell wanting guaranteed money, should anything happen they'd be fooked in the future,

OR

They could sign a damn fine player (Bell) at a position of great need to a contract that covers their ass. Plus, they'd have enough $$ to upgrade at least two other positions (safety and CB).

Which would you prefer?

MM
~~:hmmm:

The Bell contract is a great contract by CP no doubt about it. But we are really in a bind now signing a top notch #1 CB. It is either gamble with Law or trade Surtain at this point.

[buddha]

That is a ridiculous sum for Ed Hartwell if those amounts are true. KC was wise not to overspend on this guy because, while he's good, he's not GREAT. Guys who are in his ballpark talent/production wise can be had for far less in trade.

[beavis]

STOP making sense!

[fingers in ears]LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!![/fingers in ears]
I've often wondered, is this what homers do all the time?

[carlos3652]

Yep, there it is.

Did anyone see the Manchurian Candidate? That's what this is starting to remind me of.

Mother is on the phone... its for you....

[Mark M]

The Bell contract is a great contract by CP no doubt about it. But we are really in a bind now signing a top notch #1 CB. It is either gamble with Law or trade Surtain at this point.

The trade for Surtain makes perfect sense, IMHO. Then, trade down in the first for a lower 1st rounder and a 2nd.

Sign Surtain to a good bonus (say, inthe $10 mill range) but backload the base salary.

MM
~~:shrug:

[dirk digler]

Really?

So you're saying the Chiefs don't have to follow the salary cap?

Or would you prefer them to cheat it, like Baby Lee does?

I'm not talking about signing bonuses -- I'm talking about salary cap space. There is a difference.

And, again, to act as if it doesn't existence is ignorance of how the NFL works.

MM
~~:shrug:

There is a salary cap but there is no cash cap which is the most important.

[Mark M]

I've often wondered, is this what homers do all the time?

There it is.

The "I'll call you a homer because KC didn't get the guy I wanted and I disagree with you" post.

Nicely done.

MM
~~:clap:

[dirk digler]

The trade for Surtain makes perfect sense, IMHO. Then, trade down in the first for a lower 1st rounder and a 2nd.

Sign Surtain to a good bonus (say, inthe $10 mill range) but backload the base salary.

MM
~~:shrug:

I agree about trading for Surtain but if the right player is there at 15 then they should take him. Our history of 2nd rd picks suck.

[Eleazar]

ROFL this is pretty funny. See you moonbats at opening day.

[beavis]

Really?

So you're saying the Chiefs don't have to follow the salary cap?

Or would you prefer them to cheat it, like Baby Lee does?

I'm not talking about signing bonuses -- I'm talking about salary cap space. There is a difference.

And, again, to act as if it doesn't existence is ignorance of how the NFL works.

MM
~~:shrug:
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. Signing bonuses are a part of the salary cap.

My point is Carl's ability to get people to swallow his crap over and over again. You really think they don't have enough "cash" to sign these players? In case you haven't noticed, the cap can be manipulated in a variety of ways. Unless the Redskins have some special exception that I'm not aware of.

[Dartgod]

Guaranteed NFL contracts are virtually unheard of anymore because of the risk of injuries.
I'd like to see this point addressed by Baby Lee, The Can and others who are so upset right now. Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to sign Hartwell to a guaranteed contract? If so, why?

[beavis]

There it is.

The "I'll call you a homer because KC didn't get the guy I wanted and I disagree with you" post.

Nicely done.

MM
~~:clap:
You're the one embracing mediocrity, not me.

[jarjar]

$26mil in guaranteed money? Holy s%%t.

People, that isn't market value, that's free agency hysteria value. It's the thing everybody in the industry talks about happening every year that causes teams to get screwed. We have a far better value in our contract with Bell.

[beavis]

ROFL this is pretty funny. See you moonbats at opening day.
I'm sure you'll be lining up to fork over Carl's salary with the rest of these suckers.

[carlos3652]

The Bell contract is a great contract by CP no doubt about it. But we are really in a bind now signing a top notch #1 CB. It is either gamble with Law or trade Surtain at this point.

Either one will be a gamble, so was Rolle, we will not know until draft day.... if we are getting Surtain, and we will not know until Law passes a physical, that said they will be expensive, and Carl will get this done. If we would have signed Hartwell... goodbye Law/Surtain any other help...

[Rain Man]

It's probably been said already, but I think Hartwell was just afraid of coming to KC and having to compete with Kawika Mitchell for a starting job.

[dirk digler]

I'd like to see this point addressed by Baby Lee, The Can and others who are so upset right now. Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to sign Hartwell to a guaranteed contract? If so, why?

I am not upset but I will answer. HELL NO!

[Mark M]

There is a salary cap but there is no cash cap which is the most important.

I agree 100%.

But, again, IMHO, I don't think the bonus was the issue with KC not getting him. I think the "guaranteed contract" was.

Of couse, not knowing what KC offered makes this all moot. Unless those numbers come out, who knows? If KC lowballed, then I'll get upset about it. But until then, it's kinda pointless, don't you think?

Besides, with Bell signed, I'd much rather KC give a large bonus to Surtain. But that's just me.

Anyway, I gotta get to work. I'll check back in later.

MM
~~:arrow:

[Chiefnj]

I'm really surprised that people think the Chiefs have a legitimate shot at either Law or Surtain.

[Mark M]

You're the one embracing mediocrity, not me.

ROFL

Classic!!!

You have learned the lexicon well, young grasshoppa!

MM
~~ROFL

[Baby Lee]

Ahhh ... so you wouldn't mind your team cheating as long as they win?

Interesting ...

MM
~~:shake:
Are you another in the long line of Chiefs fans who are unaware of the fact, evident to the broader world, that the Broncos are [or at least were] winners, and the Chiefs are LOSERS?

[dirk digler]

Either one will be a gamble, so was Rolle, we will not know until draft day.... if we are getting Surtain, and we will not know until Law passes a physical, that said they will be expensive, and Carl will get this done. If we would have signed Hartwell... goodbye Law/Surtain any other help...

I agree but the same thing applies to Law. Do you think he is going to be cheap? I am thinking his bonus is going to be around $15 million and the Potsons are not easy to negoitate with.

[Mark M]

Are you another in the long line of Chiefs fans who are unaware of the fact, evident to the broader world, that the Broncos are [or at least were] winners, and the Chiefs are LOSERS?

Oh, I'm aware of it alright. Have been since about 1981.

But I'm not willing to cheat in order to win. If having that kind of character makes me a loser, then so be it.

MM
~~:shrug:

[carlos3652]

Are you another in the long line of Chiefs fans who are unaware of the fact, evident to the broader world, that the Broncos are [or at least were] winners, and the Chiefs are LOSERS?


I can see Milehigh or Taco john saying this... but Baby Lee... NOOOOOOOO

[Gaz]

The Broncos cheated. Those trophies are tainted and the records are asterisked.

Call me old-fashioned and naïve, but I would rather lose honestly than win by cheating.

The Broncos are not a role-model I want to emulate.

YMMV.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would be ashamed to win by cheating.

[Kyle401]

I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. Signing bonuses are a part of the salary cap.

My point is Carl's ability to get people to swallow his crap over and over again. You really think they don't have enough "cash" to sign these players? In case you haven't noticed, the cap can be manipulated in a variety of ways. Unless the Redskins have some special exception that I'm not aware of.

The Redskins spend a lot of money every year in FA but, they don't have much wrapped up in their complementary players. They have made a splash for the last couple of years by signing the biggest names to big contracts but (at the risk of sounding like Dawes/Gretz) it hasn't done much for them in terms of wins.

[Baby Lee]

I'd like to see this point addressed by Baby Lee, The Can and others who are so upset right now. Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to sign Hartwell to a guaranteed contract? If so, why?
Yes, because this defense is so sh!tty, that it cannot be fixed by half measures or an assemblage of make-do question marks.

Now that Bell is here and Hartwell's gone, there's a lot of historical revision of the relative merits of the two players.

Hartwell is steeped in Raven's D lore, where anything less than beating people DOWN was unacceptable No one around here on D knows anything more than prance around and collect a paycheck.

[Chiefnj]

The Broncos cheated. Those trophies are tainted and the records are asterisked.

Call me old-fashioned and naïve, but I would rather lose honestly than win by cheating.

The Broncos are not a role-model I want to emulate.

YMMV.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would be ashamed to win by cheating.


How did the Broncos cheat??

[jarjar]

Are you another in the long line of Chiefs fans who are unaware of the fact, evident to the broader world, that the Broncos are [or at least were] winners, and the Chiefs are LOSERS?


Why do you even bring that up? I don't think anyone here wants to have that crap rubbed in their face.

[jarjar]

How did the Broncos cheat??

He's talking about their Salary Cap cheating that they were busted for.

[Baby Lee]

The Broncos cheated. Those trophies are tainted and the records are asterisked.

Call me old-fashioned and naïve, but I would rather lose honestly than win by cheating.

The Broncos are not a role-model I want to emulate.

YMMV.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would be ashamed to win by cheating.

But will never be ashamed of having the sh!ttiest defense in the history of organized football.

[jarjar]

Yes, because this defense is so sh!tty, that it cannot be fixed by half measures or an assemblage of make-do question marks.

Now that Bell is here and Hartwell's gone, there's a lot of historical revision of the relative merits of the two players.

Hartwell is steeped in Raven's D lore, where anything less than beating people DOWN was unacceptable No one around here on D knows anything more than prance around and collect a paycheck.



Yeah, and the Steelers by contrast has a terrible D and has no legacy of incredible Defense....
oh.. wait...

[Gaz]

How did the Broncos cheat??

Google Broncos and salary cap violations. You will get a plenty of hits.

xoxo~
Gaz
Placing the black mark squarely on the Predominantly Orange.

[ct]

I watched our tape of last year's KC@BAL game, week4 on MNF. I saw absolutely NOTHIN from Hartwell. I'll be glad if this story is true, I officially jumped off the Hartwell bandwagon after watching that game.

[Gaz]

But will never be ashamed of having the sh!ttiest defense in the history of organized football.

Given the choice, I will take the bad Defense.

For me, integrity trumps Win/Loss record every time. As I said, YMMV.

xoxo~
Gaz
Considers that a no-brainer.

[Baby Lee]

Why do you even bring that up? I don't think anyone here wants to have that crap rubbed in their face.
Because I'm tired of the fanbase continuing to live in the illusion world that the Chiefs are a respected organization that's just had a couple of bad breaks. Former perennial jokes such as the Rams, Bucs, Bengals and Cards now have reason to look at us and laugh.

[the Talking Can]

I'd like to see this point addressed by Baby Lee, The Can and others who are so upset right now. Do you honestly think it would have been a good idea to sign Hartwell to a guaranteed contract? If so, why?

I'm not upset, I'm amused at watching the same old routine of Chiefs pretending that it was a bad idea to sign a young healthy talented player at market price (we do this every time a FA sign with another team), while in the same breath saying "but we're still going to sign Surtain."

Everything CP has done has made it clear he isn't going to pay a $12 mill signing bonus for a #1 CB. And yet we all act like this isn't obvious.

[Manila-Chief]

Who was it that promised us that Hartwell would be a Chief by the end of the week-end ... which was several week-ends ago????

I'd like to have had Hartwell. I was kinda hoping that I was wrong and we could land him, but knew it was a long shot after we signed Bell.

I think there is a better chance of him helping a D than Bell because of health issues. But, if Bell is healthy I believe he is the better MLB....

[Brock]

Former perennial jokes such as the Rams, Bucs, Bengals and Cards now have reason to look at us and laugh.

Rams and Bucs, maybe. The rest of your statement reeks of drama queen.

[Phobia]

Who was it that promised us that Hartwell would be a Chief by the end of the week-end ... which was several week-ends ago????

That was probably me. Though, it wasn't so much as a promise - it was a reading of the winds, if you will.

I'm pathetic, though. I'm here to take my shit about it. I'm sorry. I suck.

[Baby Lee]

Rams and Bucs, maybe. The rest of your statement reeks of drama queen.
The Bengals beat the f*ck out of us the last time we met them. SO much so that we've never been over .500 measured from that game forward.
The Cards are on the rise, and have a MUCH better D than we do.

[Dartgod]

I'm not upset, I'm amused at watching the same old routine of Chiefs pretending that it was a bad idea to sign a young healthy talented player at market price (we do this every time a FA sign with another team), while in the same breath saying "but we're still going to sign Surtain."

Everything CP has done has made it clear he isn't going to pay a $12 mill signing bonus for a #1 CB. And yet we all act like this isn't obvious.
If the Chiefs sign Surtain to a guaranteed contract, then you and the others have a valid point.

[Brock]

The Bengals beat the f*ck out of us the last time we met them. SO much so that we've never been over .500 measured from that game forward.
The Cards are on the rise, and have a MUCH better D than we do.

The cards are on the rise. Yeah, right. Based on what? It's also good to know that a loss to the Bengals a couple of years ago is a major moment in Chiefs history for you. :rolleyes:

Pure hyperbole.

[Chiefnj]

Google Broncos and salary cap violations. You will get a plenty of hits.

xoxo~
Gaz
Placing the black mark squarely on the Predominantly Orange.


You are referring to the fact that the league assessed the Broncos a forfeiture of a 3rd round draft pick for salary cap violations? Similar to the Chiefs having to forfiet a 2nd round draft pick for Vermeil for stealing him from under contract with the Rams?

[Manila-Chief]

That was probably me. Though, it wasn't so much as a promise - it was a reading of the winds, if you will.

I'm pathetic, though. I'm here to take my shit about it. I'm sorry. I suck.

I lived in K.C. area long enough to know the wind is kinda shifty around those parts....

For penance just go and do 3 nice things for Pink!!! ROFL

[Dartgod]

Because I'm tired of the fanbase continuing to live in the illusion world that the Chiefs are a respected organization that's just had a couple of bad breaks. Former perennial jokes such as the Rams, Bucs, Bengals and Cards now have reason to look at us and laugh.
That's the esscence of your problem. You give a shit what others think. I don't. Football is a form of entertainment for me. I would love dearly for them to win a championship, but even if they finish with a sub-.500 record, I'm still a fan. Call me a blind homer if you want, but it just isn't that important to me.

My MIL is still in ICU because she hasn't regained total conciousness from a complicated back surgery last week. That's important to me. Not whether or not Carl Peterson has/has not failed as President/GM/CEO of the Chiefs. No one has pulled the wool over my eyes, brainwashed me, nor am I disillusioned because of my blind homerism. And I take offense to those who claim to know what I do or do not think.

[Manila-Chief]

If the Chiefs sign Surtain to a guaranteed contract, then you and the others have a valid point.

Just get this guy's John Henry on a contract.

[Baby Lee]

And I take offense to those who claim to know what I
do or do not think.
Oh!! So you understand completely the reason for the GFY I hurled your way earlier?
I love it. The same people bitching about not getting Hartwell would have been bitching even louder had we signed him to a guaranteed contract.

[Dartgod]

BTW, it's on ESPN.com now. And from the article it looks like only $13.25 million is guaranteed

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2018331&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233

[Dartgod]

Oh!! So you understand completely the reason for the GFY I hurled your way earlier?
Not really. I'm not sure what I said warranted a personal atack, but to each his own.

[vailpass]

Google Broncos and salary cap violations. You will get a plenty of hits.

xoxo~
Gaz
Placing the black mark squarely on the Predominantly Orange.



From the outside looking in it looks like you are rationalizing losing by wrapping the Chiefs in a blanket of false piety. Teams are assessed draft pick penalties every year for any number of minor league rule violations. If I recall correctly KC was penalized a pick for the manner in which they pursued DV. Does that taint every playoff game Vermeil wins with KC (assuming he ever sniffs the post-season again)? Or is that violation somehow different/better/more acceptable to you?

[The Bad Guy]

BTW, it's on ESPN.com now. And from the article it looks like only $13.25 million is guaranteed

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2018331&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233

Awesome. He chose the Falcons over the Chiefs because of a small amount of money.

I don't have a problem with athletes taking more coin, but don't come out and say it's not about money.

But it would have been nice to have him.

[KCTitus]

Im not reading through 11 pages even though Phobia will probably jump on me for saying so, but anytime a player says it's not about the money, it's about the money...

[Baby Lee]

Not really. I'm not sure what I said warranted a personal atack, but to each his own.
GFY is not a personal attack. It's a suggestion. :thumb:

[Lzen]

I agree 100%.

But, again, IMHO, I don't think the bonus was the issue with KC not getting him. I think the "guaranteed contract" was.

Of couse, not knowing what KC offered makes this all moot. Unless those numbers come out, who knows? If KC lowballed, then I'll get upset about it. But until then, it's kinda pointless, don't you think?

Besides, with Bell signed, I'd much rather KC give a large bonus to Surtain. But that's just me.

Anyway, I gotta get to work. I'll check back in later.

MM
~~:arrow:

Great post. I agree.
:thumb:

[Kyle401]

Because I'm tired of the fanbase continuing to live in the illusion world that the Chiefs are a respected organization that's just had a couple of bad breaks. Former perennial jokes such as the Rams, Bucs, Bengals and Cards now have reason to look at us and laugh.

Rams, 2004 8-8, 2003 12-4, 2002 7-9, 2001 14-2, Total 41-23
Bucs, 2004 5-11, 2003 7-9, 2002 12-4, 2001 9-7, Total 33-31
Bengals, 2004 8-8, 2003 8-8, 2002 2-14, 2001 6-10, Total 24-40
Cards, 2004 6-10, 2003 4-12, 2002 5-11, 2001 7-9, Total 22-42
Chiefs, 2004 7-9, 2003 13-3, 2002 8-8, 2001 6-10, Total 34-30

So why are they "looking at us and laughing?"

[Chiefnj]

The first three years work out to the same amount (roughly) that Bell got (assuming the Chiefs pay Bell past this year).

[Mark M]

Just get this guy's John Henry on a contract.

Um ...

ROFL


On another note (and not directed at Manila), signing DV when he was a consultant for the Rams is far, far different than cheating the salary cap to win two Super Bowls. The Chiefs didn't break NFL rules, they broke the rules of the contract (which were murky at best).

That's like saying speeding is the same as stabbing someone. Sure, they both may be a crime, but there is a HUGE difference between the two.

Quite frankly, I think it was a crock then, and wish KC would've gone in a different direction.

MM
~~:shrug:

[Sure-Oz]

This really doesn't bother me too much, it wouldve like 4 weeks ago, but since he took years to decide i pictured him never coming here. Go all out for Surtain now!

[dirk digler]

The guaranteed contract reported was incorrect. No way a NFL team will guarantee the full contract. The numbers are alot like Bell's.

[beavis]

Rams, 2004 8-8, 2003 12-4, 2002 7-9, 2001 14-2, Total 41-23
Bucs, 2004 5-11, 2003 7-9, 2002 12-4, 2001 9-7, Total 33-31
Bengals, 2004 8-8, 2003 8-8, 2002 2-14, 2001 6-10, Total 24-40
Cards, 2004 6-10, 2003 4-12, 2002 5-11, 2001 7-9, Total 22-42
Chiefs, 2004 7-9, 2003 13-3, 2002 8-8, 2001 6-10, Total 34-30

So why are they "looking at us and laughing?"
Well, 3 Superbowl appearances and 2 wins for one thing. The Bengals have kicked our asses since then. The only one I can't really think of a reason for is the Cards.

We've been a doormat since Marty's last year. Before that, we were mediocre at best. I guess I might have higher expectations than most. But average doesn't meet my standards.

[morphius]

This really doesn't bother me too much, it wouldve like 4 weeks ago, but since he took years to decide i pictured him never coming here. Go all out for Surtain now!
Yup, the fact that he spent weeks looking for other offers pretty much said to me that he wasn't coming here.

[Chiefnj]

Rams, 2004 8-8, 2003 12-4, 2002 7-9, 2001 14-2, Total 41-23
Bucs, 2004 5-11, 2003 7-9, 2002 12-4, 2001 9-7, Total 33-31
Bengals, 2004 8-8, 2003 8-8, 2002 2-14, 2001 6-10, Total 24-40
Cards, 2004 6-10, 2003 4-12, 2002 5-11, 2001 7-9, Total 22-42
Chiefs, 2004 7-9, 2003 13-3, 2002 8-8, 2001 6-10, Total 34-30

So why are they "looking at us and laughing?"

Why are you lobbing a meatball over the plate?

Why in the world would you comare the Bucs and Rams to the Chiefs in the last 4 years? They've won playoff games, won a Super Bowl and made a trip to the big game. Even the Cards won a playoff game in 98.

[Logical]

Is that correct, capologists?

xoxo~
Gaz
Sees lots of badness under those conditions.


Depends, if you will remember the headlines had Bell receiving 10 mil in guaranteed bonus money.

How it finally worked out when revealed was

3.5 Signing Bonus guaranteed for cap hit
3 million guaranteed roster bonus in I think 06 if the Chiefs release him he does not get the money no cap it.
3.5 mil guaranteed roster bonus in 08 same as 06 bonus in cap effect.

If Hartwell's is structured similarly then only the 8 mil will definitely affect their cap.

[Nzoner]

"It's a great agent," Hartwell said of Harold Lewis.

[carlos3652]

It wasnt about the money... but when they upped their offer I was like get er done... and he did...

[Gaz]

Hartwell's six-year contract totals $24.25 million and includes an $8 million signing bonus. There are additional base salary guarantees in the first three seasons of the contract. The deal will pay Hartwell $10 million in its first two years and $13.25 million over the first three seasons.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2018331&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233

Does that mean $8 million [signing bonus] and $13.25 million [guaranteed salary] is guaranteed, cap-kicking money?

xoxo~
Gaz
Must have that wrong.

[BigChiefFan]

Updated: Mar. 21, 2005, 11:36 AM ET
Hartwell is fourth defensive free agent inked by Atlanta
By Len Pasquarelli, ESPN.com


Standout inside linebacker Ed Hartwell, arguably the premier player remaining in the unrestricted free agent pool, has reached a contract agreement with the Atlanta Falcons, ESPN.com has learned.

Edgerton Hartwell
Linebacker
Baltimore Ravens
Profile


2004 SEASON STATISTICS
Tot Ast Solo FF Sack Int
97 58 39 1 0 0



The deal, which came after days of intense negotiations, fits nicely with Atlanta's often-stated offseason priority of further upgrading a defense that statistically ranked 14th in the NFL in 2004. A four-year veteran who had played his entire career with the Baltimore Ravens, Hartwell is the fourth defensive free agent signed by the Falcons, joining safeties Rich Coady and Ronnie Heard and linebacker Ike Reese.

Certainly the aggressive Hartwell is the Falcons' highest-profile offseason addition and, by far, the highest paid. Despite its need to upgrade at linebacker and safety, and to add more speed to both positions, Atlanta had spent modestly in the opening three weeks of the free agent period.

Hartwell's six-year contract totals $24.25 million and includes an $8 million signing bonus. There are additional base salary guarantees in the first three seasons of the contract. The deal will pay Hartwell $10 million in its first two years and $13.25 million over the first three seasons.

In the end, Hartwell chose the Falcons over the Kansas City Chiefs. Seattle had been in the chase for him as well but, over the past few days, dropped out of the bidding. Agent Harold Lewis negotiated extensively with officials from Atlanta and Kansas City over the weekend and the deal came together when the Falcons raised their offer from $4 million per year, a number on which they had been stuck for days.

A number of Atlanta officials -- including owner Arthur Blank and head coach Jim Mora and defensive coordinator Ed Donatell -- lobbied Hartwell hard the past few days.

"They made me feel wanted and I just think it's a great organization, a great city, and a great chance to win a Super Bowl," Hartwell said on Monday. "There are a lot of really good players there already and I hope I can add that something special, having come from a winning program, that helps get them over the hump. The more they called, the more it all came together and, on Sunday, I told my agent, 'Get a deal done with them. It's where I want to be.' And he took care of business."

Hartwell, 26, has started at inside linebacker in Baltimore's 3-4 front the past three years, but considers himself a pure 4-3 middle 'backer. His addition means that the Falcons will likely have two new starters in 2005. Keith Brooking, a perennial Pro Bowl performer, will likely remain on the weak side. Second-year pro Demorrio Williams, mostly used as a "nickel" linebacker in 2004, is projected as the strongside starter. Hartwell will bump Chris Draft from the middle spot.

The result should be a much quicker and significantly deeper unit, which is exactly what Mora and Donatell were seeking going into the offseason.

Continued...


The good news is according to the article we were still negotiaiting to get him signed over the weekend, so there is some hope we aren't done in FA.

The bad news is IF we really were negotiating to get him, we lost another FA, that we wanted.

[Chiefnj]

Does that mean $8 million [signing bonus] and $13.25 million [guaranteed salary] is guaranteed, cap-kicking money?

xoxo~
Gaz
Must have that wrong.
[/size][/font]

The 13.25 includes the 8 mil signing bonus.

[Joe Seahawk]

Hartwell's six-year contract totals $24.25 million and includes an $8 million signing bonus. There are additional base salary guarantees in the first three seasons of the contract. The deal will pay Hartwell $10 million in its first two years and $13.25 million over the first three seasons.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2018331&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233

Does that mean $8 million [signing bonus] and $13.25 million [guaranteed salary] is guaranteed, cap-kicking money?

xoxo~
Gaz
Must have that wrong.


Yep, 24 million guaranteed... Crazy.. :shake:

He better stay healthy.

[dirk digler]

It all depends if there is a roster bonus after the first 2 years then it is just a 2 yr contract worth 10 million.

[Joe Seahawk]

Hartwell, who went to Cheyenne High School and lives in Las Vegas in the offseason, said he found that fit Sunday. He said he has signed a six-year, $26.24 million guaranteed contract with the Atlanta Falcons that includes an $8 million signing bonus.

Guaranteed NFL contracts are virtually unheard of anymore because of the risk of injuries.
"It's a great agent," Hartwell said of Harold Lewis. "Other than the money, I'm excited to go to Atlanta. It's a great organization. Arthur Blank, the owner, is a great guy, and the head coach (Jim Mora) and defensive coordinator (Ed Donatell) on down. It's a great team on the verge of a Super Bowl run."

[dirk digler]

I think that is wrong and what ESPN has reported is correct. There is no way an NFL team will guarantee a full contract I just can't see it. I could be wrong though, I have been before.

[chiefs4me]

Screw him......I hope he breaks his big fat toe on his first play of the season....

[TRR]

The salary cap is almost non-existent anymore. Oakland was ridiculously over the cap the season before, they cut a couple of players, and they were under by a couple of million. Now they are signing players like Randy Moss and Lamont Jordan, as well as re-signing players like Charles Woodson.

There is no cap hell. There are ways to add any player or players as long as the Owner is willing to shell out the money.

FWIW, I would rather have Keith Adams from Philly at OLB.

[Gaz]

The salary cap is almost non-existent anymore...

I hope you are wrong.

As much as I curse it sometimes, the salary cap is what keeps the NFL from going down the MLB path.

xoxo~
Gaz
Likes the idea of a level playing field.

[beavis]

I hope you are wrong.

As much as I curse it sometimes, the salary cap is what keeps the NFL from going down the MLB path.

xoxo~
Gaz
Likes the idea of a level playing field.

Revenue sharing does it's part too.

[TRR]

I hope you are wrong.

As much as I curse it sometimes, the salary cap is what keeps the NFL from going down the MLB path.

xoxo~
Gaz
Likes the idea of a level playing field.


Within reason. The salary cap does prevent a team from becoming the "NY Yankees" of football. However, when a team like Oakland is almost $100 million over the salary cap one season, let's go of a couple of players, restructures a couple of players, and then is back to signing Kerry Collins, Warren Sapp, Charles Woodson, LaMont Jordan, and Randy Moss, you can see my point.

There is stock in signing a player for too much money. However, with restructuring, cuts, June 1st cuts, etc...Any player(s) can be signed.

Saying, "WOW, that team payed way too much for that player." Holds no merrit. Translation for that quote is, "we didn't get that player, so let's knock the player and the team he signed with."

[Gaz]

...Saying, "WOW, that team payed way too much for that player." Holds no merrit. Translation for that quote is, "we didn't get that player, so let's knock the player and the team he signed with."

I realize you are exaggerating to make a point, but that is WAY too broad a brush. It destroys any credibility in the point you are trying to make.

xoxo~
Gaz
Throwing the overzealous hyperbole flag.

[TRR]

I realize you are exaggerating to make a point, but that is WAY too broad a brush. It destroys any credibility in the point you are trying to make.

xoxo~
Gaz
Throwing the overzealous hyperbole flag.


That is no exaggeration at all. The players we don't get, we knock. We can't knock Hartwell's abilities (he is a good LB) so we knock the contract ATL gave him. That trend has been set for years...

[Pants]

I just read the whole thread and was amazed that people were still hoping for Hartwell. I stopped considering him after we signed Sammy. Besides, Bell > Hartwell, and why would we sign two MLBs for such an incredible sum?

Also, how does a guy who gets hernia from lifting too much automatically become injury prone. As far as I know, he only had a real injury once, which he re-aggravated after playing too soon. Given, nobody is safe from an injury in the NFL, I don't think it's fair to call Bell injury prone.

[BigChiefFan]

I just read the whole thread and was amazed that people were still hoping for Hartwell. I stopped considering him after we signed Sammy. Besides, Bell > Hartwell, and why would we sign two MLBs for such an incredible sum?

Also, how does a guy who gets hernia from lifting too much automatically become injury prone. As far as I know, he only had a real injury once, which he re-aggravated after playing too soon. Given, nobody is safe from an injury in the NFL, I don't think it's fair to call Bell injury prone.
The ESPN article makes it sound like we were still in the hunt for Hartwell over this past weekend.

[Gaz]

That is no exaggeration at all. The players we don't get, we knock. We can't knock Hartwell's abilities (he is a good LB) so we knock the contract ATL gave him. That trend has been set for years...

I think that is nonsense.

Certainly, there are some “sour grapes” folks on the Planet. But I know that I am not one of your “we,” and I would be willing to go so far as to suggest that most folks here are not.

There was plenty of Bell Vs Hartwell discussion before the signing. You make it sound as if everyone wanted Hartwell and all those folks happy with Bell are backfilling after the fact.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would like to see a bit more discretion when mud is slung.

[Pants]

The ESPN article makes it sound like we were still in the hunt for Hartwell over this past weekend.

A lot of articles also said Trotter and Rolle were Chiefs. I think we were always in the hunt because Carl's offer was always there for Hartwell to fall back onto. At that point, to me, if Hartwell picked us - great, and if not - cool, we already got Bell and no need to overpay for Hartwell.

I wish the search function was on, I'd prove to people like BL that I'm not talking out of spite here.

[BigChiefFan]

Within reason. The salary cap does prevent a team from becoming the "NY Yankees" of football. However, when a team like Oakland is almost $100 million over the salary cap one season, let's go of a couple of players, restructures a couple of players, and then is back to signing Kerry Collins, Warren Sapp, Charles Woodson, LaMont Jordan, and Randy Moss, you can see my point.

There is stock in signing a player for too much money. However, with restructuring, cuts, June 1st cuts, etc...Any player(s) can be signed.

Saying, "WOW, that team payed way too much for that player." Holds no merrit. Translation for that quote is, "we didn't get that player, so let's knock the player and the team he signed with."
Exactly. If you spend money, you can land any player you want. The Raiders don't even sell-out their games and went to the Super Bowl a few years ago and already re-loading, meanwhile some are still in denial that the franchise is giving their absolute best at delivering a championship team.

[Tribal Warfare]

Now if I'm hoping for a miracle that Derrick Johnson will slip. We have to wait for the June 1st cuts now and Carl will sign a mediocre LB that say will revitalize the defense :banghead:

[Pants]

Now if I'm hoping for a miracle that Derrick Johnson will slip. We have to wait for the June 1st cuts now and Carl will sign a mediocre LB that say will revitalize the defense :banghead:

Bell is a top tier MLB and he'll be the one to revitilize. A mid range LB will be there to assisst.

[Tribal Warfare]

Bell is a top tier MLB and he'll be the one to revitilize. A mid range LB will be there to assisst.


Exactly, KC needs more than one premeire LB on the squad

[Archie Bunker]

I havent read every post but there are plenty of potential low cost options at LB that would be upgrades for the defense. Losing Hartwell sucks but all hope is not lost.

FA MLB canidates if the Chiefs want Bell on the outside
Ronald McKinnon UFA
Rob Morris UFA
Rocky Calmus RFA
Jay Foreman UFA

FA OLB canidates if the Chiefs want Bell inside
Tommy Polley UFA
Warrick Holdman UFA
Hannibal Navies UFA
Anthony Simmons UFA
Jamie Sharper (trade)

They may not be a flash group but upgrades are still out there to be had at LB.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Now that Hartwell is out of the picture, anyone agree with me that Anthony Simmons at the right price is worth the "risk"?

[Tribal Warfare]

Now that Hartwell is out of the picture, anyone agree with me that Anthony Simmons at the right price is worth the "risk"?


I concur

[Tribal Warfare]

Another issue why are people so resigned to signing a "mid-range" LB all of LBs KC has are mid-range. The Chiefs need top quality, and not gutter trash.

[huskerdooz]

Ah yes, the vaunted backup plan the Chiefs seem to always take.

I guess it's better to have a backup plan then no plan at all.

[Gaz]

Another issue why are people so resigned to signing a "mid-range" LB all of LBs KC has are mid-range. The Chiefs need top quality, and not gutter trash.

Because they are saving money for Surtain?

xoxo~
Gaz
Thinks that is the reason.

[huskerdooz]

If we have a top 5 D in 2006, the offseason was a success.


I'm guessing that moving from #32 or whatever we were last season to say the 10-15 range wouldn't be enough improvement for you.

[Logical]

Another issue why are people so resigned to signing a "mid-range" LB all of LBs KC has are mid-range. The Chiefs need top quality, and not gutter trash.

I think you misjudge our linebackers, I don't think we have any mid-range linebackers they are all poor with only Fujita bordering on mid-range.

[Archie Bunker]

Another issue why are people so resigned to signing a "mid-range" LB all of LBs KC has are mid-range. The Chiefs need top quality, and not gutter trash.

Because IMO the Chiefs LBs right now are well below mid-range. Not one of the Chiefs LBs outside of Bell would start on any good defense in the league. Barber and Fujita are the only 2 possible exceptions. Barber has done nothing for 2 yrs and now is recovering from a devastating knee injury. As far as Fujita is concerned I think he is a decent LB nothing more, nothing less. I would not shed too many tears if he was not resigned.

[Tribal Warfare]

Because they are saving money for Surtain?

xoxo~
Gaz
Thinks that is the reason.



I'm not even thinking about Surtain , because Carl will find a way to blow the deal with his "shrude negotiating" tactics.

[Cannibal]

Well, 3 Superbowl appearances and 2 wins for one thing. The Bengals have kicked our asses since then. The only one I can't really think of a reason for is the Cards.

We've been a doormat since Marty's last year. Before that, we were mediocre at best. I guess I might have higher expectations than most. But average doesn't meet my standards.

Didn't Cards win a playoff game in 98? I know they went.

[Cannibal]

I am not sure, but I believe the Chiefs are one of only 4 teams to have not won a playoff game in the last 11 years.

[Tribal Warfare]

Because IMO the Chiefs LBs right now are well below mid-range. Not one of the Chiefs LBs outside of Bell would start on any good defense in the league. Barber and Fujita are the only 2 possible exceptions. Barber has done nothing for 2 yrs and now is recovering from a devastating knee injury. As far as Fujita is concerned I think he is a decent LB nothing more, nothing less. I would not shed too many tears if he was not resigned.


first of all mid-range in NFL terms means below average. Barber,Beisel,Mitchell are all mid-range. Their all thought of as mid-range also by other teams. mid-range isn't starting quality in the NFL if a team wants to go to the playoffs and beyond to the Superbowl. KC needs to aim for excellence, and not mediocrity.

[Logical]

first of all mid-range in NFL terms means below average. Barber,Beisel,Mitchell are all mid-range. Their all thought of as mid-range also by other teams. mid-range isn't starting quality in the NFL if a team wants to go to the playoffs and beyond to the Superbowl. KC needs to aim for excellence, and not mediocrity.

Mid-range implies average, so that would make them average NFL starters. Your definition seems skewed.

[Archie Bunker]

first of all mid-range in NFL terms means below average. Barber,Beisel,Mitchell are all mid-range. Their all thought of as mid-range also by other teams. mid-range isn't starting quality in the NFL if a team wants to go to the playoffs and beyond to the Superbowl. KC needs to aim for excellence, and not mediocrity.

Pardon my ignorance on NFL terms. I just figured mid-range was average by bad. :thumb:

I agree the Chiefs need to aim for excellence. I just do not see how they can achieve it this offseason. If they would have kept building the defense and not stopping after the McCleon, Holliday, and Barber offseason they would be a lot closer to excellence.

Right now IMO the best thing the Chiefs can do is lock up either Surtain or Law and then start getting low cost upgrades at LB, DE, CB, and WR.

[Dartgod]

Mid-range implies average, so that would make them average NFL starters. Your definition seems skewed.
You mean "skued", don't you?

[huskerdooz]

I agree 100%.

But, again, IMHO, I don't think the bonus was the issue with KC not getting him. I think the "guaranteed contract" was.

Of couse, not knowing what KC offered makes this all moot. Unless those numbers come out, who knows? If KC lowballed, then I'll get upset about it. But until then, it's kinda pointless, don't you think?

Besides, with Bell signed, I'd much rather KC give a large bonus to Surtain. But that's just me.

Anyway, I gotta get to work. I'll check back in later.

MM
~~:arrow:


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2018331

"In the end, Hartwell chose the Falcons over the Kansas City Chiefs. Seattle had been in the chase for him as well but, over the past few days, dropped out of the bidding. Agent Harold Lewis negotiated extensively with officials from Atlanta and Kansas City over the weekend and the deal came together when the Falcons raised their offer from $4 million per year, a number on which they had been stuck for days."

Looks to me like the offers were pretty comparable untill ATL raised their offer.

[Bowser]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2018331

"In the end, Hartwell chose the Falcons over the Kansas City Chiefs. Seattle had been in the chase for him as well but, over the past few days, dropped out of the bidding. Agent Harold Lewis negotiated extensively with officials from Atlanta and Kansas City over the weekend and the deal came together when the Falcons raised their offer from $4 million per year, a number on which they had been stuck for days."

Looks to me like the offers were pretty comparable untill ATL raised their offer.

They can have him AND that guaranteed contract.

[Pants]

first of all mid-range in NFL terms means below average. Barber,Beisel,Mitchell are all mid-range. Their all thought of as mid-range also by other teams. mid-range isn't starting quality in the NFL if a team wants to go to the playoffs and beyond to the Superbowl. KC needs to aim for excellence, and not mediocrity.

So you are saying the only players who get to start are above mid-range? Somehow, I don't see that. Mitchell anb Beisel are not mid-range, not by any means. Fujita will evolve into a pro-bowl type LB if he stays healthy - he wasn't last season. I would be more than happy with Fujita-Bell-Simmons.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

So you are saying the only players who get to start are above mid-range? Somehow, I don't see that. Mitchell anb Beisel are not mid-range, not by any means. Fujita will evolve into a pro-bowl type LB if he stays healthy - he wasn't last season. I would be more than happy with Fujita-Bell-Simmons.


Fujita Bell and Simmons sounds pretty damn good to me too :toast: here's to it happening

[CosmicPal]

Fartwell is gone- he wanted too much money. His play on the field doesn't command that much money and he would have robbed us of furthering more upgrades.

Surtain is still available, and can be had with a 2nd round draft pick or even trading Woods and a draft pick or Morton and a draft pick or some other combination.

Simmons and Sharper are both still available- they won't cost as much, yet either would be an upgrade to our existing LB corps.

Law is also still available and can still be picked up even with a Surtain trade. We need DB's, not another linebacker demanding too much money.

[huskerdooz]

After reading nearly this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that there are some people who are entirely too bitter for their own good. Having that much anger and frustration simmering inside can't be healthy.

[Tribal Warfare]

So you are saying the only players who get to start are above mid-range? Somehow, I don't see that. Mitchell anb Beisel are not mid-range, not by any means. .

Yes they are they are very very average at best

[easymobee]

You are referring to the fact that the league assessed the Broncos a forfeiture of a 3rd round draft pick for salary cap violations? Similar to the Chiefs having to forfiet a 2nd round draft pick for Vermeil for stealing him from under contract with the Rams?



From the outside looking in it looks like you are rationalizing losing by wrapping the Chiefs in a blanket of false piety. Teams are assessed draft pick penalties every year for any number of minor league rule violations. If I recall correctly KC was penalized a pick for the manner in which they pursued DV. Does that taint every playoff game Vermeil wins with KC (assuming he ever sniffs the post-season again)? Or is that violation somehow different/better/more acceptable to you?


Just in case these 2 posts got missed the 1st time around.

These were in response to Gaz and a few others bringing up the "Cheating" card again and generally disregarded afterwards.

[Pants]

Yes they are they are very very average at best

No, they are below average. They are f*cking shitty. Maz and Patton were average at best. Simmons and Sharper are average. Bell and Hartwell are far above average.

[Mark M]

Just in case these 2 posts got missed the 1st time around.

These were in response to Gaz and a few others bringing up the "Cheating" card again and generally disregarded afterwards.Except the fact that the Chiefs did not get penalized for cheating anything.

They paid a price to the Rams for getting Vermeil out of his contract. The amount (a 2nd and 3rd, plus part of his salary) was agreed compensation, not a penalty handed out for any rules infraction.

There is quite a bit of a difference, actually.

MM
~~:)

[go bo]

I havent read every post but there are plenty of potential low cost options at LB that would be upgrades for the defense. Losing Hartwell sucks but all hope is not lost.
* * *
FA OLB canidates if the Chiefs want Bell inside
Tommy Polley UFA
Warrick Holdman UFA
Hannibal Navies UFA
Anthony Simmons UFA
Jamie Sharper (trade)

They may not be a flash group but upgrades are still out there to be had at LB.although he has played weak side in his career, navies played strong-side last year for green bay, which looks like it was his breakout year, if i'm not mistaken...

he sure looks like he might be an upgrade over biesel, caver or fox...

and didn't we try to sign holdman awhile back?

[go bo]

Except the fact that the Chiefs did not get penalized for cheating anything.

They paid a price to the Rams for getting Vermeil out of his contract. The amount (a 2nd and 3rd, plus part of his salary) was agreed compensation, not a penalty handed out for any rules infraction.

There is quite a bit of a difference, actually.

MM
~~:):thumb:

it's the little details that get 'em every time...

no penalty, no cheating?

what's a broncofan to do?

[Logical]

You mean "skued", don't you?

Not according to Websters

Skew:
2: to distort especially from a true value or symmetrical form <skewed statistical data>

[Logical]

Except the fact that the Chiefs did not get penalized for cheating anything.

They paid a price to the Rams for getting Vermeil out of his contract. The amount (a 2nd and 3rd, plus part of his salary) was agreed compensation, not a penalty handed out for any rules infraction.

There is quite a bit of a difference, actually.

MM
~~:)

ROFL yea Taglibue said the Chiefs had to give up a 2nd and a third and the Chiefs complied. Yup agreed compensation.:rolleyes:

[Dartgod]

Not according to Websters

Skew:
2: to distort especially from a true value or symmetrical form <skewed statistical data>
I know. I was just being a smartass....as usual.
I'm not even thinking about Surtain , because Carl will find a way to blow the deal with his "shrude negotiating" tactics.

[Mark M]

ROFL yea Taglibue said the Chiefs had to give up a 2nd and a third and the Chiefs complied. Yup agreed compensation.:rolleyes:

Let me try to explain this as simply as possible:

The Chiefs had two choices:

1. Give up the picks and keep DV.
2. Give up DV and keep the picks.

Breaking an employment contract is a bit different then getting busted trying to push payroll payments back a few years without the leagues knowledge.

MM
~~:shrug:

[ZootedGranny]

Well, it looks like I was right, despite being told "He's not going to Atlanta" and that he wouldn't replace Chris Draft.

[Wallcrawler]

When a guy wont sign without that much guaranteed cash, that kinda worries me.


Take Kendrell Bell. Question marks all around, but is an awesome player when healthy.

He doesnt get a whole lot of money up front, he has to play well every year to earn those roster bonuses, and he was fine with signing off on the deal.

That makes me think that Bell was the safer of the two picks. A guy who signs for a little bit up front, and gets a lot more if he plays well, is a lot better than a guy who wont sign without a guaranteed huge chunk of money.

Hope Atlanta is happy with him, because they just handed over 26 million whether he plays well or not.


Im a lot happier throwing out 3.5 million for a shot at Bell playing well than 26 million on Hartwell.

[keg in kc]

Noting that the details of the contract certainly aren't clear yet, I don't have a problem with not dishing out $26 million guaranteed. If those numbers are accurate, getting Bell locked down first and leaving Hartwell to chance (or leaving Hartwell altogether, whatever the case was) was clearly the right move in my book.

We have to do something at cornerback now. Law or Surtain is imperative.

[Stinger]

That was probably me. Though, it wasn't so much as a promise - it was a reading of the winds, if you will.

I'm pathetic, though. I'm here to take my shit about it. I'm sorry. I suck.

Hehe ... Phobstradamus

[digi2fish]

Oh NO!

What are we going to talk about now?

xoxo~
Gaz
Adrift.


Ty Law eating breakfast ?

[tommykat]

Ty Law eating breakfast ?

ROFL His lose not the Chiefs.........Law??? Depends if you are an attorney. :hmmm:

[htismaqe]

God damn...

I leave for a couple of days and this board gets even more pathetic.

I can't believe anyone would be pissed because we refused to give Hartwell nearly $30M guaranteed...

[Mr. Kotter]

God damn...

I leave for a couple of days and this board gets even more pathetic.

I can't believe anyone would be pissed because we refused to give Hartwell nearly $30M guaranteed...

I'm with you, even as a fan of Hartwell....

there's some parsing of the "guaranteed" language in his contact though.

[Tribal Warfare]

No, they are below average. They are f*cking shitty. Maz and Patton were average at best. Simmons and Sharper are average. Bell and Hartwell are far above average.


Maz was solid and Patton was a good player our current LB corps is average at best

[Tribal Warfare]

Mid-range implies average, so that would make them average NFL starters. Your definition seems skewed.


implies middle of road or lost players who are backup material, and not Superbowl quality players that know their role in the defense

[beer bacon]

implies middle of road or lost players who are backup material, and not Superbowl quality players that know their role in the defense

I am pretty sure mid-range implies average. Not average on the Chiefs, but average on a real NFL defense.

[Pants]

Maz was solid and Patton was a good player our current LB corps is average at best

So WTF is below average then? I believe you have this concept ALL WRONG.

[The Bad Guy]

Metro,

Jamie Sharper is hardly average.

[Pants]

Metro,

Jamie Sharper is hardly average.

Yeah, I just checked the stats and you're right. I thought he started playing worse recently - in his old age. My bad. Plus, I don't remeber him making an impression on me when we played them. Of course, neither did Ray-Ray. The point is, Mitchell is not average.

[Tribal Warfare]

I am pretty sure mid-range implies average. Not average on the Chiefs, but average on a real NFL defense.


average means backup plain and simple

[Tribal Warfare]

So WTF is below average then? I believe you have this concept ALL WRONG.


No I don't average doesn't get into the playoffs and were have a bunch of average players playing the LB position. apparently you accept mediocrity I don't.

[Pants]

No I don't average doesn't get into the playoffs and were have a bunch of average players playing the LB position. apparently you accept mediocrity I don't.

WTF are you saying? Have you been reading my posts? I'm saying our current OLB's are BELOW average and I don't want them. Bell is above average.