What MAGIC vacuum exists for this "FREE" MonEY??!!!!??

And what you are talking about is a CAP MANAGEMENT decision. It does not make the Chiefs cheap if they don't want to do it.

Signing bonuses come out of the team's cash. Not wanting to pay out signing bonuses is the definition of cheap.

What is the difference between spending $100,000 for 3 years for a total of $300,000. Versus spending $175,000 today, $75,000 in year 2, and $50,000 in year 3 for a total of $300,000? Would you call one of those approaches being cheap, and the other not?

Sitting on your hands is one way to define "management," I suppose. In contrast, the team could have been proactive, spread out some dollars and restructured some contracts and, oh...I don't know, signed a young, high-impact WR to complement the team's (soon-to-be) 30-year-old QB.

NFL contacts, by and large, are not guaranteed. Therefore, only year 1 is particularly relevant. There's a HUGE DIFFERENCE between 100K and 175K.

Every single dollar of a signing bonus counts against the salary cap. Name me a single dollar that doesn't.

The only true definition of whether a team is cheap or not is how far below the salary cap they end up. As of right now, the Dorsey era is probably going to spend back-to-back-to-back years right up against the salary cap max. So again, this isn't about being cheap. Argue all you want that they spent way too much on ineffective players. I'll agree with you. Argue all you want that you think the Chiefs should spent a shitload upfront today on "credit" versus waiting until money naturally becomes available to spend. I would disagree with you, but think you have an interesting point.

But arguing that a team that bumps up against the salary cap max isn't spending money on players is flat out inaccruate.

Yes, if you believe that the right cap management philosophy is to go all-in on a 3-year run. That's fine if you think that's what they should do. I don't agree, but it's a legit philosophy. But that has NOTHING to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with whether you want to absorb the cap hit today or if you want to take the hit later.

Not all at once it doesn't. You're failing to acknowledge the nuance of spending money now against the future cap. Being up against the cap is an indication of PAST spending as much as it is present spending.

Creative teams can create cap space in the present by planning for the future. The one key is the willingness to expend immediate cash, something the Chiefs have not generally been willing to do.

They gave Bowe 15m a yr ago.

That doesn't seem cheap.

They also gave him 2.5 years of guarantees base salary.

I'm not inclined to think the Chiefs are "cheap". Clark just doesn't like to spend cash. That's a business decision.

I don't think the team is cheap. Hunt has spent money.

But last year's moves dictated a more aggressive philosophy to capitalize upon the talent--let me correct that: the aging talent--the team currently has.

If Indy Smith becomes regular Smith, we're really missing a great opportunity here, assuming Dorsey doesn't prove himself a draft god and pull about five rabbits out of the hat this May.

If the Chiefs extend Smith, Houston, and Berry (and it sounds like it's something they really want to do), then for the first 3 years of the Dorsey era we are probably going to have a very healthy 3-year spending level.

And you are completely assuming that the Chiefs won't spend future money when their cap situation looks more promising. I've seen nothing that hints that the Chiefs' long-term strategy is that for future years, they want to stay way below the cap.

Handing out a big signing bonus almost always leads to more guaranteed money (and increases the team's "true cash" payroll for that year).

Yes, the signing bonus still counts against the cap... but adding more money to the bonus allows you to be more creative as a team to create cap space in years you need it while still speading the cost out over the rest of the contract.

It just costs a little bit more up front. And when you cut a player (or negotiate a new contract) in the last few years of that deal (which is general practice), you save less actual money (though the cap savings are the same) because you gave more of it in a signing bonus on the front end.

Contract A: 5 years, $50 million ($15 million signing bonus)
1: $5 million (cap hit $8 million)
2: $6 million (cap hit $9 million)
3: $6 million (cap hit $9 million)
4: $8 million (cap hit $11 million)
5: $10 million (cap hit $13 million)

Contract B: 5 years, $50 million ($5 million bonus)
1: $7 million ($8 million)
2: $8 million ($9 million)
3: $8 million ($9 million)
4: $10 million ($11 million)
5: $12 million ($13 million)

In these cases the contract value and dollars and cap hits work out the exact same way. In both cases, you've got a player who is a good candidate for a cut after year 3. In Contract A, you will have paid said player $32 million. In Contract B, you will have paid said player $28 million ( saving $4 million in cash).

The bigger the bonuses, the more that difference grows. For example, if you bumped Contract A's signing bonus out to $20 million (and subtracted $1 million from each year's actual salary to balance the extra $5 million bonus out while leaving the cap hit the same), you would have paid the player $34 million by the time you hit year 4, the obvious cut/renegotiate year.

:thumb: