yep

Only time will tell what actually transpires with our roster by the cap deadline(whenever that might be...). But I'll go on record that if we can clear $18-21M, as the estimates have ranged around, to get under this less than anticipated cap, by releasing Warfield, McCleon, Barber, and Stills, I call that a tremendous success!!!

I'm baffled by all this.

Merrill is saying the Chiefs don't have to make any cuts thanks to the restructuring of 4-6 players.

Ok fine. Now Im thinking, great we are under the cap.

If the cap stays at 94.5 million, and we didn't have enough room to bring some new FAs in here, fine, then I could understand as to why we aren't active.

Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

WTF?! :cuss:

When he says "Our" I hope he means his own guys and not the guys that are on the market.

We clear all this room, and we have another 10 million, and we are going to sit back? fucking bullsh*t!

I hate this organization. Im growing sick of them. They do this every other fucking year. Their active 1 year, and lazy the next. what happens when we're lazy? we are rewarded with an 8-8 or 7-9 season. It's not like we are the Pittsburgh Steelers or the New England Patriots. We still have a ways to go, to even consider this team a SB contender.

You have the 26th ranked defense, and you're going to stand pat? fucking lovely. GO OUT, GET PLAYERS, AND FIX THE GODDAMN fuckING DEFENSE, SCHMUCK! You have the ability to do it Mr. Carl fucking Peterson!

*Pardon me for venting boys, I had to let that out. Im just pissed to see this organization pull the same repetitive crap over and over and over again, with "zero" results to show for.

ROFL

Don't blame Carl Peterson. Start at the top.

It's been said THOUSANDS of times, yet people never listen.

The problem is not the cap, it's CASH.

Signing new players requires signing bonuses. Bonuses = CASH. Lamar doesn't want to pay signing bonuses because he paid them last year.

Cheer for someone else then. Like whoever Vinaterri signs with, perhaps?

Many of those restructures only happen if there is no CBA.

I hear ya. Part of it is Lamar too. He signs and dates the cheques. I guess I will consider Peterson his "puppet".

Lamar Hunt, SIGN some players. Please. You have money. I hate excuses. Excuses, excuses, I hate them. Excuses are for losers. I don't give a crap about last year, and who you signed. That's an excuse not to be active? That's a joke.

I got some advice for the Chiefs organization, pay attention to results, not the fucking money, and who you signed?! Fix the defense, because it sucks, it showed on the field. We ain't gonna sniff the playoffs with this current D. God forbid, you have the 26th ranked defense. Do you even care to go to the playoffs, and compete for the SB?

*Btw, htis I read that article. It is both cap room, and cash. It's not only cash. It's both. We have the cap room. I think Lamar is being a bit too tight with his wallet. If he doesn't sign any players, I think I'm gonna buy him some elastic bands for Christmas.

I would encourage you to look elsewhere for entertainment.

For us, the Chiefs is a hobby. For Lamar Hunt, it's a BUSINESS.

You know that Irsay had to liquidate assets from other NON-FOOTBALL business ventures to pay Manning's signing bonus?

This isn't Madden on the PS2.

You guys should be bitching at Lamar to spend money on our goddamned scouting department, not free agents.

The inability to draft good players and sign the right free agents is what's keeping this team down.

I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

Fine. But it just goes to show, they can get under and stay at that figure if they REALLY wanted to. Let's say if there is a CBA, they can still keep those contracts restructed to sign some FAs to help build this team, and make it more strong.

And even "IF" lets say, both Peterson, and Hunt said, guys, we are going to keep your contracts the same because we want to bring in more players to help build this team to keep it competitive, make a run at the playoffs, and a possible SB run. Im sure guys like Green, and Holmes would be cool with that.

That's not a hard thing to do. But for some reason, they have to sit back, relax. It's ok.

Yep. That's why I always use the Irsay example. Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do.

From a business standpoint, selling assets from one business to fund another isn't very smart.

But obviously they want to win it all in Indy.

Thank you. This is exactly where I was trying to get at. Competitiveness. Does Lamar have it?
:shrug:

You're assuming that the restructures they've done don't assume that there will be no cap. If these conditional restructures give out big sums of money, assuming that they'll be swallowed during the uncapped season, then your argument has a HUGE hole in it.

I'm sure you know exactly what it takes to be an NFL GM. If only they were working instead of staring out the window...

so which is it?

"obviously they want to win it all in Indy"

or

"Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do"

always taking the smartass cheapshot at the nearest fan... aren't ya.


it's my understand that the team CAN'T make big commitments based on a no cap year.

bonuses can't be pro-rated past the end of the CBA so that doesn't save a team any money. The yearly increase can't be beyond 30% for next year either.

looks like someone's argument does have a HUGE hole it.