Chiefs Chiefs are 63m under the cap - Page 15

ShowtimeSBMVP · 02-10-2012, 01:43 PM

nick wright@getnickwrightReply
Always KC. RT @MattPomPom Teams with most salary cap room(in millions): KC $63, TB $60, CIN $60, DEN $51, WAS $48, JAC $45.

**cabletech94** · 02-11-2012, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneKrusher

so are we gonna use most of this 64 million to get Manning?

old reliable manning-abso-effing-lutely!

unsure of the noodle armed wobbly launcher manning-big gamble (duh).

now, if he is damaged goods, he's still got the brain to win a few games. i don't know if i'd take the risk.
plus we still have a couple holes to fill/upgrade.

BoneKrusher · 02-11-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabletech94

now, if he is damaged goods, he's still got the brain to win a few games. i don't know if i'd take the risk.
plus we still have a couple holes to fill/upgrade.

well Pioli could sign Orton, fill the holes and still have lots of money saved.

prolly not too much saved after he resigns Bowe and Carr.

milkman · 02-11-2012, 08:30 AM

I've seen the 30% rule cited as a reason that the Chiefs can't negotiate with Carr at this point.

I don't fully understand this rule.

Can someone explain this to me?

**cabletech94** · 02-11-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneKrusher

well Pioli could sign Orton, fill the holes and still have lots of money saved.

yeah. i think orton is serviceable. a helluva lot more than cassle. i still think that orton was just picked up for the potential draft pick.
i agree with your statement. that'd make the most sense. but we are talking about the chiefs here my friend!

**cabletech94** · 02-11-2012, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I've seen the 30% rule cited as a reason that the Chiefs can't negotiate with Carr at this point.

I don't fully understand this rule.

Can someone explain this to me?

far as i've understood, it's a calendar issue. something with the new collective bargaining i believe. stupid.

but i'm sure there's negotiations going onbehind closed doors. gotta be. right?

Coogs · 02-11-2012, 08:41 AM

I don't keep up with the Redskins much, but I find it a little hard to believe they are high on this list with all of the deals they have thrown out there over the past several years.

milkman · 02-11-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

I don't keep up with the Redskins much, but I find it a little hard to believe they are high on this list with all of the deals they have thrown out there over the past several years.

They haven't really been spending money since the Haynesworth deal, and all of those bad contracts are off the books now for them.

Coogs · 02-11-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

They haven't really been spending money since the Haynesworth deal, and all of those bad contracts are off the books now for them.

Apparently. Guess I haven't paid that much attention the past few years to them. Figured since the owner was pretty free to toss his cash around, that he was probably still doing that.

milkman · 02-11-2012, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabletech94

far as i've understood, it's a calendar issue. something with the new collective bargaining i believe. stupid.

but i'm sure there's negotiations going onbehind closed doors. gotta be. right?

I had never heard of the 30% rule until Parker mentioned it a few days ago.

After researching, as I understand it, a team can not extend a player's contract with more than a 30% increase.

So, in order for the Chiefs to pay Carr what he's worth, they have to let his contract expire.

Someone correct me if I have that wrong.

BoneKrusher · 02-11-2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I had never heard of the 30% rule until Parker mentioned it a few days ago.

After researching, as I understand it, a team can not extend a player's contract with more than a 30% increase.

So, in order for the Chiefs to pay Carr what he's worth, they have to let his contract expire.

Someone correct me if I have that wrong.

that's ^^^ the way i understand it.

mrbiggz · 02-11-2012, 10:04 AM

Ok, we have to spend some money. Here is my proposal
Sign or tag Bowe
Sign or tag Carr
Sign Orton or trade up in the draft if possible for RG3. Even though it doesn't effect the cap we can still spend some cash to move up. Maybe 20 mil will do it.
Sign the best RT and a LG that money can buy and fits our system
Sign a NT that can clog up the middle
Sign a passrusher to go with Hali
Sign someone to play backup at safety
CUT MATT ****ING CASSEL

milkman · 02-11-2012, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbiggz

Ok, we have to spend some money. Here is my proposal
Sign or tag Bowe
Sign or tag Carr
Sign Orton or trade up in the draft if possible for RG3. Even though it doesn't effect the cap we can still spend some cash to move up. Maybe 20 mil will do it.
Sign the best RT and a LG that money can buy and fits our system
Sign a NT that can clog up the middle
Sign a passrusher to go with Hali
Sign someone to play backup at safety
CUT MATT ****ING CASSEL

Are you suggesting paying 20 mil to the Rams, along with other considerations, to move up to their spot?

O.city · 02-11-2012, 10:09 AM

Could that actually work?

ShowtimeSBMVP · 02-11-2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I had never heard of the 30% rule until Parker mentioned it a few days ago.

After researching, as I understand it, a team can not extend a player's contract with more than a 30% increase.

So, in order for the Chiefs to pay Carr what he's worth, they have to let his contract expire.

Someone correct me if I have that wrong.

I said this like a month ago but i might be wrong the 30% rule only applies to a player after his rookie deal is up and for carr that was last year.So the chiefs can sign him whenever they want to now.

Carr was drafted by the Kansas City Chiefs in the fifth round (140th overall) of the 2008 ... The Chiefs agreed to a three-year contract with Carr on June 11, 2008..Once carr signed that 1y 2m deal last offseason the 30% rule went bye-bye.

**cabletech94** · 02-11-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I had never heard of the 30% rule until Parker mentioned it a few days ago.

After researching, as I understand it, a team can not extend a player's contract with more than a 30% increase.

So, in order for the Chiefs to pay Carr what he's worth, they have to let his contract expire.

Someone correct me if I have that wrong.

that's the way i read into it also. but after reading ^^^ i'm even more confused.

02-10-2012, 01:43 PM
ShowtimeSBMVP Chiefs Join Date: Feb 2009 Casino cash: $1176009	Chiefs are 63m under the cap nick wright@getnickwrightReply Always KC. RT @MattPomPom Teams with most salary cap room(in millions): KC $63, TB $60, CIN $60, DEN $51, WAS $48, JAC $45.
Posts: 23,832

02-11-2012, 08:30 AM	#213
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	I've seen the 30% rule cited as a reason that the Chiefs can't negotiate with Carr at this point. I don't fully understand this rule. Can someone explain this to me? __________________
Posts: 70,769

02-11-2012, 08:41 AM	#216
Coogs In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Northern Kansas Casino cash: $-2275651	I don't keep up with the Redskins much, but I find it a little hard to believe they are high on this list with all of the deals they have thrown out there over the past several years.
Posts: 21,910

02-11-2012, 10:04 AM	#221
mrbiggz Starter Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: i travel Casino cash: $-201667	Ok, we have to spend some money. Here is my proposal Sign or tag Bowe Sign or tag Carr Sign Orton or trade up in the draft if possible for RG3. Even though it doesn't effect the cap we can still spend some cash to move up. Maybe 20 mil will do it. Sign the best RT and a LG that money can buy and fits our system Sign a NT that can clog up the middle Sign a passrusher to go with Hali Sign someone to play backup at safety CUT MATT ****ING CASSEL
Posts: 194

02-11-2012, 10:09 AM	#223
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-735936	Could that actually work?
Posts: 84,240