Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves

[DaneMcCloud]

Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves
May 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11743195

Five boldest moves

Kansas City hiring Scott Pioli

Some people automatically put this one in the win column. Not me. Not after Charlie Weis fizzled at Notre Dame and Romeo Crennel bombed out in Cleveland. OK, so they were former New England coaches, and Pioli was a decorated GM. They still fall from the same tree. The question I have is this: How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

The good news is that Thomas Dimitroff had New England ties, too, and he circled the bases in his first turn as a GM in Atlanta. The bad news: Pioli's first draft with Kansas City: There are reaches everywhere. He also reversed the team's Get Young Now policy by adding 30-something discards like Bobby Engram, Zach Thomas, Monty Beisel and Mike Vrabel. You can do that when you're at or near the top, like New England. But this is a team that lost 23 of its last 25, for crying out loud.

Five biggest gambles

Kansas City acquiring Matt Cassel

I know what he did with New England. But that was the Patriots, and tell me where you find Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Richard Seymour and Bill Belichick in the 816 area code. Cassel was surrounded by a raft of talent on the field and on the sidelines in New England, and I'm still looking for that support group here. So he produced a couple of 400-yard passing games and won 10 of 15 starts. That was nice. But I want to see him reproduce it here. OK, I know what you're thinking: What do the Chiefs have to lose -- especially when all they surrendered for Cassel and Vrabel was a second-round draft pick? Try this: They're paying Cassel $14.65 million in guaranteed salary. If he turns out to be the next Scott Mitchell I know some bean counters in red suits who will demand explanations.

[the Talking Can]

um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

[Mojo Jojo]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

[Mr. Krab]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

[Quesadilla Joe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab's

If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

What if he plays well but refuses to sign longerterm with KC and comes do Denver as a free agent because he wants to play for McDaniels

I don't want Cassel, but that would be a funny situation.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

As long as we have room under the cap, who cares how much we're paying him?

Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.

I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.

I'm sure he has that expectation. But the guy doesn't have a contract, and that's telling, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

[Mr. Krab]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.

Because it was only a 2nd round draft pick for two players. Think what Carl has done with 2nd round draft picks the last 10 year. Maybe Pioli didn't like the QB's in this year's draft enough to make them the 3rd pick of the draft.

[T-post Tom]

"Five smartest moves ... Washington adding Albert Haynesworth"

Essentially a four-year, $48 million deal with $41 million in guarantees for a guy with less tackles (last year) than Tamba Hali and a guy that has averaged 3.4 sacks per year over his career? Okay, Haynesworth did get 8.5 sacks last year, but that was an anomaly. He's still a stud at DT, but the 'skins overpaid. He got MORE THAN rushing DE money. Jared Allen, with 14.5 sacks last year (11.5 per year career avg.), got $31M guaranteed. And JMHO, but Haynesworth seems to be the type to pull a Chester McGlockton. But what do I know? You be the clark...er...judge.

[Mojo Jojo]

Originally Posted by THISmaqe

As long as we have room under the cap, who cares how much we're paying him?

Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.

Here is the problem...we can offer what ever the key is what will he accept mid season? If he is playing like a $20 million dollar QB week 5 does it take $23/$25 million to sign at that point. If I'm the agent after week five or six and things are going well go the FA route. Worst thing to happen is that you are tagged for an uncapped year. Best case is that someone is willing to break the bank. I just don't get all the posters who say sign him mid season. It is a two way street fools.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

Here is the problem...we can offer what ever the key is what will he accept mid season? If he is playing like a $20 million dollar QB week 5 does it take $23/$25 million to sign at that point. If I'm the agent after week five or six and things are going well go the FA route. Worst thing to happen is that you are tagged for an uncapped year. Best case is that someone is willing to break the bank. I just don't get all the posters who say sign him mid season. It is a two way street fools.

It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Mojo Jojo

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

Not really, he would have gotten the money one way or another from the Pats or another team..

It is WORTH it to try it out for a year.. If we/he fail with the experiment we are only on the hook for the year..

And maybe they were not enamored with Sanchez or Stafford?? Pay more money to those two or less to Cassell for one year to see if it works??

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

I'd rep ya if it was possible via mobile device. You summed up exactly what I was thinking while reading is rationale... or lack thereof . The team is hardly hamstrung by any of these moves, minus if they don't pan out, one added year to correct it and the money they dumped for one year, but I feel fairly certain the club will still turn a profit either way...
Posted via Mobile Device

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

This. Ditto. Yep.