Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
The Clyde issue is guaranteed money.
If you cut Clyde, you still take his $2 million or so in guarantees on your cap but then someone replaces him that costs in the $700K range on the top 51. So cutting Clyde is cap negative.
With as tight as we are on the cap, it just may not be something they're willing to do for a nominal upgrade on the 3rd or even 4th RB.
If they can't get him traded for a ham sandwich, I think they'll keep him. If they had maybe $5 million in cap space I could see MEH and Watson getting cut. But as it stands, if they have to pay those guys, they also need to have them as a couple of placeholders on the top 51. Otherwise it's just dead money hits AND the 2 salaries for the guys that shell game into the top 51 in their absence.
|
I agree with you. Chiefs being close to the bottom of the NFL in salary cap room has to affect how they handle CEH. Money is going to be tight.
I think the Chiefs would love to trade Clyde. With a trade, they would have only $1,357,559 of dead money. A cut gives them $2,577,503 of dead money for Clyde.
They hoped he would look good in the preseason games to either give them hope that keeping him one more year would pay off or another team would want him in a trade. He has been terrible.
He has been so bad that the Chiefs might actually be considering eating the extra $1.2 million and cutting him.