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:

This is actually a very important point and has nothing to do with the cap.

A signing bonus is just that, a bonus. It's paid. If you give a player a big bonus and then cut him 2 years later, that is cash you will never get back, regardless of the cap ramifications.

Think of it as an investment. The more guaranteed money, the bigger the risk. It's not that Clark is cheap. He's risk averse. He doesn't want to invest in an uncertain future. Just look at the money he's given to front office staff. Regardless of how those moves turned out, none of the guys he's hired have been overly risky.

Negotiating a high signing bonus gives you less flexibility to tinker in future years. Restructuring contracts prematurely (I'm assuming you are talking about Hali and Flowers) means pushing today's guaranteed money and spreading that over a few years, making them more difficult to cut when they're 33 without racking up a good chunk of dead money.

I'm glad we're having this conversation because I don't disagree with anything you're saying (even if I called you out earlier). But people have to stop saying that it's because we're being cheap. It has nothing to do with that. Some people are okay taking more of an "all in now" approach even if that means racking up some debt in future years. That's what you're basically implying. That's fine. But that isn't an argument about how much the Chiefs spend in total. That is an argument about whether you spend more of that upfront or if you'd rather free up money for future spending.

Good post.
At the same time, let's keep in mind that they outbid other teams for Reid and I'm assuming Dorsey. They even let them hire in consultants beyond a normal coaching staff like Childress. It's hard to say the Chiefs are cheap. Conservative, yes. Cheap? No.

In my example, the team IS saving $4 million (in the first example) or $6 million (in the second example, with the bigger bonus) over the course of the non-cut contract in guaranteed money, because of the bigger bonus.

That's a not-insignificant amount (12-18 percent).

It's a cap management issue, yes. But there's also (as htismaque pointed out) a risk aversion factor. And a savings in ultimate cash outlay.

In the example you listed above, if you are spreading $15M over 5 years, you are essentially guaranteeing the contract for 4 years. It isn't until year 4 that the dead money becomes remotely reasonable and even then, to cut the guy you'd be paying $6M in dead money. In the second example, you have the flexibility to cut the guy loose. Restructuring a contract prematurely is the same deal (Berry is different, because his contract is actually in prime position for a restructure). You are creating a little more guarantee in future years of the contract. It's why a lot of teams don't rely on free agency as their primary offseason strategy.

Cap hit to cut in Year 4 would be $3 million, with $3 million hitting the following year.

Not ideal, but not an insurmountable obstacle (and still a significant savings over what the cap hit otherwise would be).

Cap hit to cut in year 4 is $6M. It's a $15M signing bonus prorated by $3M over 5 years. $15M to cut in year 1, $12M in year 2, $9M in year 3, $6M in year 4.

If you cut after June 1, they are charged the regular prorated cap amount for that year, and the remainder for the following year.

Isn't is pursue?

Psycho planet

They weren't cheap last year.

This year, gotta make up for it.

I don't know the nuances of that, admittedly. Maybe you're right. But it's still $6M in dead money. And it still locks you in to contracts that are very difficult to get out of. Flowers is grossly overpaid right now and there's not much we can do about it. That's the kind of thing that happens. These kinds of contracts "guarantee" a lot more money on the back end than they do the front end.

Well, shit. Thank you.

Just looked it up. Learned something interesting today. :thumb:

Here's the thing that REALLY bothers me about this offseason...in 2-3 years, the cap will be well above 150 million and by that time we will be past the usefulness of some of our key players that have showed loyalty to this organization.

Flowers
Charles
Hali
Bowe

This offseason was a HUGE missed opportunity for the organization to move forward and bolster the current roster to make a legit run at a title.

I don't want to hear a peep about how moves now (restructures, signings, etc) would hurt us in 2-3 years because its simply not true. Just those 4 are almost 40 million worth of cap space that will fall off during the same timeframe that the cap increases another 25 million.

IMO we should have converted Bowe, Berry and Hali's base salaries to signing bonuses to clear enough space to sign

Evan Deitrich Smith
Jarius Byrd (or TJ Ward)
Desean Jackson

That's not even 20 million worth of cap space needed to take on all 3 of those deals and with those 3, we could probably compete with almost any team in the NFL.

Forget about it BossChief. Whatever KC does this year is house money.

I just hope there's a consistent plan to win 4-5 years down the line with whatever guys they can get in the next few drafts.

Maybe Bray will be be the next Tom Brady or something.

Exactly this.

TJ Ward and Berry are basically the same guys.

And while Byrd would have been a nice addition, there is no way in hell that they were going to carry the two highest paid safeties in the NFL on one team. As Milk stated, they don't need the best free safety in the league back there, they just need someone better than Lewis was last year. Perhaps Abdullah is that guy. Perhaps Commings is that guy. But I know that it can't possibly get worse.

With Jackson, they really didn't seem too overly interested. And considering Reid's work with him in the past, if he didn't want him there had to have been a reason.

And it seems that they weren't interested in paying a guard 4 million per.

Either they have someone on roster who they feel is competent and ready for the jump to starting (most likely) or they have a plan in place with the upcoming draft (they'll draft a couple of OL guys regardless). Either way, I don't think that it's that big of a deal.

(Rokevious Watkins was recently (2012) a First Team All-SEC level player. Perhaps he's finally decided to put the work in. The guy has talent.)

I mean, we can all sit here and play GM, but these guys do this for a living and it looks like Reid and Dorsey kind of take this shit seriously.

We get all worked up over this free agency bullshit, but I'm not ready to go back to the Peterson/Vermeil years when they tried to piece the defense together with these type of guys. (Kendrick Bell anyone?)

I think that the team is going to be okay going forward.

The current roster isn't nearly as good as you are making them out to be. If we're serious about a Super Bowl run, then we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking 2 or 3 guys suddenly puts us in the same conversation as a seriously re-stacked Denver and New England team, let alone Seattle and San Fran. So to me, for as much as people talk about empty wins, if we spent on those 3 guys and we still aren't Super Bowl winners, then those were empty wins where we incurred a lot of back-end debt to subsidize it.

Our best chance at a run is 2015. And we can actually be on the same playing field as Denver or New England with two excellent drafts, by extending Houston, Berry, and Smith. So if our best shot at a run in 2015, then I'd rather spend the big free agent dollars when the money is actually available versus doing a bunch of gymnastics in 2014 mostly to free up money for a year 1 run where we are still big long shots to win it all.

:facepalm: Hopeless...How about the Chiefs signing key free agents AND drafting well???? That way they don't have to hit home runs on EVERY pick...Just amazes me how you refuse to see that...But thats the thing about beng a BB GM - there are no consequences for being as wrong as you are.

Just amazes me how much you are banking on making a run in 2014.

We don't have to hit a home run with every pick. I am talking about waiting for money to naturally become available, and then spending money smartly once we have it. That will happen in 2015 and 2016. It's the same thing as asking if you want to buy something on loan where you pay the consequences later versus waiting until money becomes available before you start spending it. I don't think we should be so desperate to make that run this year that we start giving up picks and hurting our future cap value.

Reid wanted Dorsey. Clark's hire was getting Reid, a guy who had been a head coach for over a decade and been to the playoffs several times. The definition of "low risk".

Most of us are amazed that you are banking on making a run in 2015 or 2016. People have only been doing that since this board started (and even before).

I've always been a little lukewarm about getting Reid. But again, safe? Yes. Cheap? Absolutely not. Owners are required to spend against a salary cap. They have no obligation to overpay coaches or front office. The Chiefs spared no expense to bring these guys in.

He (and his dad) have always spent in the front office. Pioli was the highest-paid GM in the league at one point. And Dick Vermeil had the largest coaching staff in the league at one point, too.

Again, that's more manageable. You have much more control over how much money you pay (and lose) with a coach because none of their contract is guaranteed. They don't get signing bonuses.

People have also been banking on 2 or 3 free agents magically fixing a team. That hasn't worked either.

Now, in terms of Pioli, I think he convinced Hunt to be cheap. So I get the argument there. Hunt has a tendency to buy in way too much into what the GM is selling. But I've seen nothing from the Dorsey era that suggests they're cheap. They seem to be spending a lot on Marketing, on front office, and will probably have back-to-back-to-back seasons against the salary cap. Again, I agree with you that they haven't spent it wisely and spend it pretty conservatively, but that's a different claim that calling the team cheap.

Dude, when a team trades two first-round picks for a 28-year old QB, they set an expectation.

When they go 11-5 and come within minutes of winning their first playoff game in 20 years, those expectations get reinforced 10-fold.

The Chiefs put themselves in this situation.

Funny that the league a few short years ago had to initiate a Salary Floor because 2 named teams, the Cheaps and the Bucs, were not spending NFL provided monies at a minimal rate, but now CHunt's not cheap? Amazing turnaround

And now that the NFL has a floor and has strict rules about how money counts against the cap, it doesn't make sense to blame any current problems on being cheap.

This is the same group that made it known repeatedly that this team went 2-5 down the final stretch of the season and wasn't in the same league as Denver.

Also the same group that claims that if we trade for Alex Smith, then go idle for a season, then we basically admit that in 2013 we were trying to put butts in seats.

If we are spending money in 2014 on things that probably don't make us Super Bowl competitive, then I feel the same way about this strategy. It's a strategy that might help us win a playoff game and maybe that's a win it itself, but it's ultimately to put butts in seats. That is as safe a strategy as you're going to find, if we're on the subject of "safe."

If spending on high-dollar free agents never works, as you're suggesting, then it isn't safe at all.

Basically what happened is whether Dorsey or Reid felt the Chiefs were a rebuilding team or not. Hunt wasn't going to allow them to win 2 games again, his ass was on the line and people were talking about him.

He needed them to win some games to take his ass off the fire. Problem is now they made moves to become respectable and proceeded to make the playoffs and set the expectations much higher than I think Dorsey and Reid would like them to be.

Personally I think they thought they'd be competitive and win 5-8 games, it explains that round stip in the Smith trade. Then all of the sudden they went out and play better than that and set expectations. So now the plan they had to rebuild while looking competent and not being a bottom feeder has been derailed.

People have expectations now and they're still approaching this like a team that won 6 games because that was the plan all along.

Very well said. Glad others can read it so its not wasted on chiefszillatard...

If you are going all in on to bring in a few free agents on a team that has more problems to address, that is the definition of playing it safe. It is applying a band aid when what you really need is a little minor surgery. And for what? Probably to appease the fan base.

Good post. That's the way I see it too.

What you're suggesting is letting the disease run its course and hoping there is still living tissue left when it's over.

Shame on Clark then...

No, what I'm saying is if we don't truly believe that this team is 2 or 3 players away from being seriously competitive for a Super Bowl beyond being some wild long shot, then don't waste money on guys just to cover up a mistake. We can wait a year. If we draft well the next 2 seasons, I don't see why we wouldn't be on track to win by 2015 with a 2-3 year window while also building the infrastructure to transition to a new core.

The strategy other people are suggesting (restructure/load up today/etc…), in my opinion, will lead to a few more empty wins while ignoring the main problem.

I can't defend the moves they did. I hated the Fisher pick (I wanted Geno, even if I don't bitch about it today). I actually took a little shit for saying last year that Dorsey looked raw when trying to trade Albert and in overpaying for Dwayne Bowe.

I don't really blame their reason for doing it. I don't know how you could sell in another rebuild after what the fans went through. I don't care about appeasing the true fans. But Arrowhead needed it. Reid needed to feel good about winning again. Players had to start to enjoying going to work again.

Again, if they don't draft well and that 2013 strategy comes back to bite him, you're right… shame on Clark. But if Dorsey does his job, it won't.

I think they should do some changing in theory after the year they had but I just don't see it.

The Chiefs have never ever been a huge cash team. He threw up a bunch of cash last year so people would stop talking about him and typically the next year is nothing.

Get ready they are approaching this like a team that just won 5 games, most likely Hali and Flowers are gone after this year. They'll most likely try to keep Houston but I wouldn't be surprised if Berry and Bowe are gone in the next 2 years either.

The cap is accounting. In a given year, a team can be carrying tons of money against their cap that doesn't actually translate to dollars they're paying out. And a team can spend lots of cash specifically to avoid running up their cap for a specific year. So being under the cap doesn't mean that money isn't being spent anymore than being up against it means a team is spending money. Cap space and spending don't have to correlate at all.

For half of Pioli's tenure, the Chiefs had tons of available cap space and were among the highest spending teams in the league. They were top 10 in spending in 2011, top 5 in 2012, and I believe top 5 again last year with Reid/Dorsey. And that doesn't count still paying Pioli and Romeo while Reid became one of the highest paid coaches in the league.

Clark Hunt practically had an ATM up his ass the last few years and people are still echoing the same tired "CLARK NO LIKEY SPEND" shit. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I really don't see that happening. The Hunts have a long history of keeping their own. Of course there are a few exceptions. But for the most part, they are loyal to their own. Ted Thompson also comes from that school. I would be stunned if we don't keep Houston, Hali, Flowers, Berry, and Alex Smith. What I don't want is to be the usual Chiefs and over promise stuff to these guys to the point where we overpay them when they're past their prime.

You'll have to forgive people if they don't have faith that pinning all of the team's fortunes on the draft will work.

This team has NEVER drafted well with any consistency. Expecting them to hit on an uncommonly high number of draft picks also seems like a "wild long shot".

So you think that Hali, Flowers and Berry are going to willingly take serious pay cuts to stay because that's what you're saying.

You'll have to forgive me, then, if I don't have any faith that the Carl Peterson school of band aids is going to work either. It's lose lose, if you're talking about our team's history.

He's not past his prime, but the contract they gave Bowe is the definition of over-promise/under-deliver.

Also the Packers get rid of guys all the time, they've kept a handful of guys.

They paid Rodgers and Matthews and uh yea nobody else.

Yeah, it is.

Which is why it's so astounding that people think being negative is something people have to TRY to be.

This team's history puts it in the same discussion with the Lions, Browns, Bengals, and Jets.

People being "down" on the team's chances shouldn't be a big ****ing shock.

I don't expect Berry to take a serious pay cut.

I would hope that with Hali and Flowers that we wouldn't even think to negotiate a 3rd contract the same way we would their second contract. But no, I don't expect the Chiefs to be cheapskates about it. Given Hunt's history of loyalty and the way that Dorsey has overpaid for a lot of his players so far.

I expect the Houston deal to have similar ramifications as the Derrick Thomas deal.

Don't forget, they gave Thomas a near-record contract, allowing Neal Smith to make it to free agency, where he ultimately signed with the Broncos and won a ring.

They're not going to keep them all.

Ok well then we're always going to be starting from behind then. Flowers has always had injury issues they're only going to get worse as he ages. Hali is showing signs of his age also. I don't think they're terrible or anything like that but they are both highly paid for their ages and where their production is likely to go.

Eric Berry for as good as he is, doesn't deserve to be the highest paid safety in the NFL. A guy who spends most of his time as a 4th LB is frankly a waste to be paid that much. You can find guys for a quarter of the price who can do that.

If you overpay those guys to keep them you're doing nothing but keeping them out of sentimental reasons than what is best for the team.

I don't blame people for knocking on the draft strategy. As I've always said, our history and the 2013 draft shouldn't inspire a ton of confidence. But let me ask you this… why is it then okay for people to say that the band aid approach is any more likely to work than a draft first strategy, given that both approaches have been used by the Chiefs and failed miserably?

Oh and I even forgot to mention if the team is doing what it's suppose to, Charles and Derrick Johnson are about done here too.

More likely to work?

Or more consistent with what they did last year?

I've said all along, I'm fine with building through the draft. I'm fine with using primarily free agency.

What I'm not fine with is not having a consistent plan.

Trust me, I've been banging that drum loud when it comes to Hali and Flowers. Which is why it bothers me when people keep throwing out the "we should restructure their contracts" nonsense. Restructuring contracts prematurely means loading a ton of signing bonus on aging players. That's the shit people aren't accounting for. They act like if we just move cap dollars around, we suffer no future consequence. The big consequence is it's stuff like this that gets you locked into bad contracts with players where you can't cut a player when they start to decline.

I've heard that argument many times. I get why they did it and personally think we can adjust our strategy, but understand why some people don't like it. I've also never heard you exaggerate how good you think this team is, as if 1 or 2 players magically fixes most of our problems. And I don't think I've heard you suggest that we can magically move dollars around without suffering the consequence later. Those are the parts I have a problem with. If anyone is going to support the all-in approach, let's not exaggerate how good we actually are and let's not act like we can magically move dollars around without paying for it later.

Well if they're not good enough to compete this year they probably won't be good enough the next season.

Tear it down John. Trade anything not bolted down and stockpile draft picks. Let's go all in for 2017.

You really can't do that. Salary floor?

Trading someone like Bowl would accelerate his hit if I'm not mistaken.

How do you figure? We can get comp picks that will probably bring us to 16 or 17 picks in 2 years. If we extend Houston, Alex Smith, and Berry this season, we won't have anybody to worry about losing. And Hali and Flowers are two guys we can probably restructure.

From there, we will have a lot more flexibility to actually make a free agent run in 2015. 2 good drafts and some quality free agents next year would easily make us a legit team.

Houston is the only one worth paying for, and I have a feeling he won't do something Jared Allen-esque to **** up his value so he should be able to get stupid money in FA.

Wiser to let him walk.

Good. Pay stupid money to true playmakers like Houston. And pay good coin to someone like Berry. If our strategy changes from overpaying Guards and 5-techniques and more toward these kinds of players, that's a great thing.

What if Houston wants Mario Williams money?

Paying top coin for a 25 year old stud pass rusher? Of course I would.

Also, he won't get Mario Williams money. 3-4 OLBs have surprisingly more reasonable contracts.

Once Sutton is gone KC might not run a 3-4 though..