Chiefs have key free agent decisions to make soon

[Mr. Laz]

Chiefs Have Some Work To Do To Keep Young Stars In Kansas City

by Joel Thorman on Oct 29, 2010 8:05 AM PDT in 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Season

More photos » Ed Zurga - AP

There aren't a lot of downsides to winning games and becoming a good football team. Sundays are more fun, the season goes into January (and February?) and you get to see hometown players doing well.
There's a lot to like.

Of course, the downside is that the players on your team are likely to draw interest from other teams because, as a winning team, they're clearly doing something right. That competition for a player makes it more expensive to keep them when contract time comes around. That's an issue the Chiefs could be facing in the next year (and two).

The Chiefs have a few key critical pieces to their success with contracts coming up.

Free agent after 2010: LB Derrick Johnson, LB Tamba Hali, RB Jamaal Charles, CB Brandon Carr

Free agent after 2011: WR Dwayne Bowe, CB Brandon Flowers

The current labor situation in the NFL makes these things hard to predict but we'll assume they keep the threshold for free agency at four years. That means the Chiefs could keep Charles and Carr in-house as restricted free agents. DJ? Tamba? The Chiefs can offer them a long-term deal, franchise/transition tag them or let them walk.

If you look at the Patriots over the last decade they've had to make some very difficult personnel decisions. At some point, a player we view as critical -- such as Asante Samuel was with the New England Patriots -- will be traded or will walk because the Chiefs can't sign everyone. The key is knowing who to sign and who to let walk. In addition to that, do you let them walk for free (with a compensatory pick coming back)? Do you trade them? There are a lot of decisions to make and how you make those decisions are critical.

This is a high-class problem for the Chiefs to have and one of the reasons Clark Hunt continually pointed to GM Scott Pioli's drafting abilities. The plan is that, for some of these guys as their contracts come up, the Chiefs have someone in their place ready to replace them.

As they say, it's a process.

[Fritz88]

If we could trade DJ for a second, I'd shit pink tufu from happiness.

He's wildly inconsistent (He's doing fine this year) but I don't think he will continue producing.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I don't think that will happen for more than a few reasons. First off, we didn't see any outrageous spending this offseason. Now granted, part of that is because the most desirable free agents were restricted another year, from five years to six years of service. But we didn't really see teams blowing money on their existing players, either. Chris Johnson got an extension but it wasn't much money at all.

Good point, and teams didn't let a lot of really good free agents hit the market. Mostly Kendrell Bells out there.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Secondly, the main difference between MLB and the NFL is the TV contract. The Yankees have their own network, which generates hundreds of millions of dollars for the Yankees only. They're not required to share their TV revenue with any other team. In the NFL, the it's a collective television contract that's share equally by all NFL teams.

That and the excise tax, is just a tax, not a penalty like draft picks or such, and there is no limit.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And to further that notion, buying high priced free agents have never been the solution to a Super Bowl title. Building through the draft has been the key this past decade.

I agree, and think it is because owners have not allowed many really good players to hit free agency, they get traded instead, if they can't keep them.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I doubt the other owners will agree to those demands but IMO, Jerry & Daniel already believe they're the most important owners in the league. But their organizations this year resemble the Royals and Blue Jays more than the Yankees and Red Sox.

Good point, funny isn't it? But now the Redskins look like they may be headed in the right direction. If those two smell blood, and there is no salary cap, don't you think they could entice players to leave teams that can't pay them as much? (Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran etc. )

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yes, there is currently no cap in the provision, so it will continue until a new CBA is in place and even then, it may not return. I don't think it's as dire a situation as it would have been a decade ago, due to the escalating salaries that have pretty much driven the sport to it's brink.

So you think the owners are being truthful about their situation? I kind of do also, but have a tendency to lean towards ownership.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Fritz88

If we could trade DJ for a second, I'd shit pink tufu from happiness.

He's wildly inconsistent (He's doing fine this year) but I don't think he will continue producing.

See, I totally disagree, and wouldn't want to trade him for a late 1st.

I think he has had shit for Coaching, from HC, Coordinators, and assistants.

I also think he has a lot of experience, that is starting to pay off.

You just can't buy experience, and he will be signing his second contract. IMO, that is what this team has really lacked, skilled players on their second contract.
They have either been rookies under bad coaching, or has beens like Kendrell Bell and Mike Vrabel.
It would be nice to have a bunch of talented players, that still have speed on this team.

Now, if you can do like Pitt and New England, and trade a guy going into his third contract, for a high pick, that makes more sense to me.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'd be wary with DJ.

I think he's playing for a paycheck.

I don't. You could be right, but I just don't think so. I think he's figuring out how to be a team player instead of the naturally gifted superstar he always had been before going pro.

I'd be wary of Charles since he's a running back.

[googlegoogle]

D.bowe.

You can't replace a decent wr in free agency. Most teams hold on to their best players. (i know - Lilja)

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Plus, there isn't a salary cap in place and I've heard rumblings that there won't be a salary cap in the next CBA. Obviously, I don't know if that's true or not but it seems like the focus of the next CBA will be retired players, a rookie pay scale similar to the NBA's and no salary cap. The Union wants veterans to receive more compensation and the rookies less compensation.

The owners are claiming that salaries are through the roof and they can't afford to pay the current 64% of current revenues, yet they won't open the books to the union. Furthermore, there are owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder that want marketing revenues (jerseys, hats, etc.) to stay with the teams and not be a part of the total revenue pool, which will clearly hurt smaller market teams.

Since there are so many issues that the owners need to resolve amongst themselves before even solving issues with the players, I think it's a safe bet the NFL will continue to play under the current CBA rules for years to come.

With NFL football notching 12 out of the top 15 highest broadcasts this past week, the owners won't be foolish enough to lockout the players and anger the networks. I expect things to roll along as they have since the CBA expired after the 2009 season. So in short, let's not get worked up over something like salaries and losing players.

IF Clark Hunt's Chiefs evolve into a championship team the next year or two, I seriously doubt he'll let superstar players like Flowers (and presumably, Bowe, Hali, Charles, etc.) just walk away.

That's great to hear, especially on the rookie contract front. I also agree with what you say later that not having a salary cap shouldn't be a huge issue because of revenue sharing. Also, I hate when owners act like they're not making enough money. What a crock of shit. I know a lot of people disagree with me here, but I buy tickets, merchandise and parking because I want to see Eric Berry, not because I want to see Scott Pioli and Clark Hunt.

The only thing that concerns me is the way bullshit spenders could make the market. We saw that the CB market got blown to all hell and the Jets got screwed on Revis (and quite possibly, the Chiefs could get screwed with Flowers) because some dumbass team, the Raiders, decided to way overspend for their guy, Asomugha. I could see the Redskins being that team, but don't think that will make them a winner. You still build your team through the draft, not loading your team with highly paid superstars.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

If those two smell blood, and there is no salary cap, don't you think they could entice players to leave teams that can't pay them as much? (Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran etc. )

That might happen from time to time but for the most part, the market prices are set for "superstar" players and they'll likely go to the highest bidder, anyway.

And the for the record, I think you'll agree that this strategy hasn't been particularly successful for either team. Albert Haynesworth has been nothing short of a disaster and trading #1, #3, #6 & #7 for Roy Williams, then giving him a huge contract, has been folly as well.

Originally Posted by HemiEd

So you think the owners are being truthful about their situation? I kind of do also, but have a tendency to lean towards ownership.

IF they're being truthful, they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain (taking back a percentage point or two that's paid to the players), so their reluctance makes me very suspicious.

My guts tells me that the owners are NOT being truthful with the union or the players. Otherwise, they'd open up the books for the NFLPA to examine.

[BossChief]

Hey Dane, you heard anything new about how they are gonna try and limit playoff teams to only a certain amount of free agent signings and only if they lose somebody? Also only being able to resign a certain amount of their own free agents?

I read something about it and it was pretty vague, maybe you know a little more about it...

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This is dumb article.

First off, the current free agency "threshold" isn't four years, it's SIX years.

The only "key" free agent this offseason is Derrick Johnson.

Bowe won't be eligible until after the 2013 season and Flowers that 2014 season.

It's stupid to speculate if that will change because most likely, teams will decertify the union and the NFL will play under current rules until a new CBA can be ratified.

The last time this happened, it took nearly five years to put a new CBA in place and I wouldn't be shocked if it's years before a new CBA is in place.

Either way, this article is as baseless as it is pointless. Four years was the threshold for RESTRICTED free agency, meaning the team could match or be compensated with draft picks if an RFA was signed.

Cool. Thanks for the info, Dane.

[Pioli Zombie]

They need to save all that money and give it to Cassel.

[veist]

The fact that we're even having a discussion about "key free agents" that we'd not like to see leave is an improvement over the last few years.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That might happen from time to time but for the most part, the market prices are set for "superstar" players and they'll likely go to the highest bidder, anyway.

And the for the record, I think you'll agree that this strategy hasn't been particularly successful for either team. Albert Haynesworth has been nothing short of a disaster and trading #1, #3, #6 & #7 for Roy Williams, then giving him a huge contract, has been folly as well.



IF they're being truthful, they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain (taking back a percentage point or two that's paid to the players), so their reluctance makes me very suspicious.

My guts tells me that the owners are NOT being truthful with the union or the players. Otherwise, they'd open up the books for the NFLPA to examine.

I suspect the real problems are only with a few franchises. I think the biggest problem is many of the mid level owners aren't happy that they aren't making any more than some of the top players on an annual basis.

Which, btw, is bs, b/c owners have huge amounts of profit tied up in equity. Those teams always sell for more than their revenue streams would suggest in normal business, b/c there's huge cachet in being an NFL owner. Hell, most of these guys have other (much larger) business interests; and controlling the high roller parties that surround an NFL team has to have hidden economic value that shows up in other ventures.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'd be wary with DJ.

I think he's playing for a paycheck.

No, he's not. He's just in a happy place and having fun.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Laz

Chiefs Have Some Work To Do To Keep Young Stars In Kansas City

by Joel Thorman on Oct 29, 2010 8:05 AM PDT in 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Season

More photos » Ed Zurga - AP

There aren't a lot of downsides to winning games and becoming a good football team. Sundays are more fun, the season goes into January (and February?) and you get to see hometown players doing well.
There's a lot to like.

Of course, the downside is that the players on your team are likely to draw interest from other teams because, as a winning team, they're clearly doing something right. That competition for a player makes it more expensive to keep them when contract time comes around. That's an issue the Chiefs could be facing in the next year (and two).

The Chiefs have a few key critical pieces to their success with contracts coming up.

Free agent after 2010: LB Derrick Johnson, LB Tamba Hali, RB Jamaal Charles, CB Brandon Carr

Free agent after 2011: WR Dwayne Bowe, CB Brandon Flowers

The current labor situation in the NFL makes these things hard to predict but we'll assume they keep the threshold for free agency at four years. That means the Chiefs could keep Charles and Carr in-house as restricted free agents. DJ? Tamba? The Chiefs can offer them a long-term deal, franchise/transition tag them or let them walk.

If you look at the Patriots over the last decade they've had to make some very difficult personnel decisions. At some point, a player we view as critical -- such as Asante Samuel was with the New England Patriots -- will be traded or will walk because the Chiefs can't sign everyone. The key is knowing who to sign and who to let walk. In addition to that, do you let them walk for free (with a compensatory pick coming back)? Do you trade them? There are a lot of decisions to make and how you make those decisions are critical.

This is a high-class problem for the Chiefs to have and one of the reasons Clark Hunt continually pointed to GM Scott Pioli's drafting abilities. The plan is that, for some of these guys as their contracts come up, the Chiefs have someone in their place ready to replace them.

As they say, it's a process.

WTF is this crap, can't the guy even attempt to do a fact check before passing them off as fact? There are so many mistakes and flat out lies in this article we deserve and apology.

[wasi]

Originally Posted by veist

The fact that we're even having a discussion about "key free agents" that we'd not like to see leave is an improvement over the last few years.

I was thinking the exact same thing.