ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Merrill: Chiefs won't need to make more cuts regardless of CBA (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=136806)

htismaqe 03-06-2006 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief
What difference does it make what Peterson says? The media around KC just makes up the news anyway. You're accusing Peterson of trying to spin his way out of a bunch of news reports that were based in nothing but speculation. Carl may be a snake, but I don't see any reason to give more credence to the Nick Athans and Rhonda Mosses of the world.

A few weeks ago, all anyone could talk about was how much cap hell we were in. When it looked like the CBA wouldn't get done, we were told that massive cuts were coming, including some big names. Now here we are, with no CBA, and Peterson has worked the team under the cap, keeping the team largely intact minus some losers that needed to go anyway.

And now, if we do get a CBA done, the Chiefs will have all the extra money that was added to the cap to use in free agency.

We should be applauding what Peterson pulled off.
I wouldn't expect that to fly here.

Carl = Satan

I was listening to Rhonda Moss this morning and she played some clips from Peterson this morning. The reason he isn't talking is because the deals ARE NOT DONE YET.

The guys that have been cut (Barber, McCleon, Warfield, and Stills) are still cut, but they are the only ones that will be cut. There have been several contracts have been redone but they haven't yet sent them to the NFL office because the CBA deal affects whether or not they need to do what has been done in the new contracts.

cdcox 03-06-2006 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
There have been several contracts have been redone but they haven't yet sent them to the NFL office because the CBA deal affects whether or not they need to do what has been done in the new contracts.
So the between the lines facts are:

1) These deals will probably saddle us with significant dead cap $ in future years. The Chiefs aren't going to execute the deals unless there is a gun to their head.

2) The Chiefs won't be active in FA regardless of what happens with the CBA.

htismaqe 03-06-2006 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox
So the between the lines facts are:

1) These deals will probably saddle us with significant dead cap $ in future years. The Chiefs aren't going to execute the deals unless there is a gun to their head.

2) The Chiefs won't be active in FA regardless of what happens with the CBA.
1) That could very well be.

2) Absolutely. Carl told us that months ago.

Chiefnj 03-06-2006 09:40 AM
Holmes' deal was sent to the league.

htismaqe 03-06-2006 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefnj
Holmes' deal was sent to the league.
Apparently is was done prior to the whole "black Thursday" mess.

Mr. Laz 03-06-2006 10:28 AM
so if the nfl gets an extension which is supposedly gonna raise the salary cap another 10-15 million the chiefs are going to just sit on that cap room?


UN-restructure all the contracts they just changed to raise their cap number back up to save bottomline profit?

jspchief 03-06-2006 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz
so if the nfl gets an extension which is supposedly gonna raise the salary cap another 10-15 million the chiefs are going to just sit on that cap room?


UN-restructure all the contracts they just changed to raise their cap number back up to save bottomline profit?
My guess is htismaqe is assuming that the players agreed to the renegotiation contingent on there not being a new CBA.

If the team went to players and said "look, due the CBA not getting done, this is the only way we can retain you", and then a CBA did get done, it would be pretty dirty to still expect the players to make concessions.

Now if the basis for restructure was simply "you make too much for your level of play", then I don't think the CBA matters. But I dobt that is the case for these guys.

Mr. Laz 03-06-2006 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief
My guess is htismaqe is assuming that the players agreed to the renegotiation contingent on there not being a new CBA.

If the team went to players and said "look, due the CBA not getting done, this is the only way we can retain you", and then a CBA did get done, it would be pretty dirty to still expect the players to make concessions.

Now if the basis for restructure was simply "you make too much for your level of play", then I don't think the CBA matters. But I dobt that is the case for these guys.
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

jspchief 03-06-2006 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.
You're assuming that they could get the players to renegotiate even with out the bargaining tool of no CBA/limited cap.

I think that's a big assumption.

It's one thing for players to look around the league and see that all the teams are being hampered this year, and be sympathetic to the situation the Chiefs are in. It's something entirely different for them to just flat out agree to take a pay cut.

The other side, if they are simply restructures without pay cuts, is that the team probably doesn't want to do it unless they have to. It may be a matter of mortgaging the future. I'm sure the FO doesn't want to do that unless it's absolutely neccessary.

Mr. Laz 03-06-2006 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief
You're assuming that they could get the players to renegotiate even with out the bargaining tool of no CBA/limited cap.

I think that's a big assumption.

It's one thing for players to look around the league and see that all the teams are being hampered this year, and be sympathetic to the situation the Chiefs are in. It's something entirely different for them to just flat out agree to take a pay cut.

The other side, if they are simply restructures without pay cuts, is that the team probably doesn't want to do it unless they have to. It may be a matter of mortgaging the future. I'm sure the FO doesn't want to do that unless it's absolutely neccessary.
that's it ... put the chiefs cap situation on the players :rolleyes:



most players will restructure ANY time the team wants them to. The players usually MAKE money on restructures because they get more money upfront.

all the team has to do is ask unless they are trying force a salary cut.


what matters is whether team is willing spend more money or not ...... Lamar hunt is not a free spender.

ct 03-06-2006 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.
It's very likely that being forced to create this cap room now, costs us cap room in the future, should the CBA extend and reinstate a cap later.

jspchief 03-06-2006 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz
that's it ... put the chiefs cap situation on the players :rolleyes:



most players will restructure ANY time the team wants them to. The players usually MAKE money on restructures because they get more money upfront.

all the team has to do is ask unless they are trying force a salary cut.


what matters is whether team is willing spend more money or not ...... Lamar hunt is not a free spender.
How am I putting the cap situation on the players?

If you think the Chiefs are going to mortgage their future to fill your FA wish list, you're going to be disappointed. They've never done it in the past, and they aren't going to start in a year of uncertainty. Every player that they restructure is either going to burden the cap this year, or in future years. Either way, they are going to affect the cap. You act like it's just a matter of opening the checkbook, but it still hits the cap at some point.

They spent big last year. They've spent big retaining our veteran offense. The Chiefs are never going to be active in free agency year in and year out. It's not how the organization is run. I'd think after watching this team for the 13 years under the salary cap, you would have realized that by now.

brent102fire 03-06-2006 10:59 AM
Why the hell is Bartee still on the roster? :banghead: :cuss: :mad: That guy hasn't done jack since he got to KC except collect a paycheck...now that's what I call stealing :shake:

jspchief 03-06-2006 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coryt
It's very likely that being forced to create this cap room now, costs us cap room in the future, should the CBA extend and reinstate a cap later.
The front office will never win in the eyes of some fans.

If they create cap room this year, the fans will be bitching about our cap situation two years from now.

htismaqe 03-06-2006 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laz
that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.
ROFL


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 PM.
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.