Chiefs are 63m under the cap

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

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.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by whoman69

For a QB, Cassel has a pretty low number the next two years.

Suitable for a good back up.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The REAL dough, for both the NCAA and the NFL, comes from the TV contracts.

Period.

TV revenue is shared. Stadium Revenue is not like TV revenue.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by jd1020

I still think he should be traded if we can find someone willing for a 2nd. He's got 1 more year on his contract and I can't see how he's brought back as a 3-4 DE.

He's good at stuffing the run but hes more than a liability on the field against the pass. He doesn't demand double teams and he's virtually non existent. Ship him to a 4-3 team to play inside.

I wouldn't mind that a bit. It would be a win win situation for all involved. Tghat said, we need to make sure we have a suitable replacement for his position. Either through the draft, FA, or some ascending DE we already have on the roster. Could Baily be that?

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by aturnis

They need to be within 5% if they want to carry the remaining balance to next season.

Let me repeat this in terms that I understand. This means that only 5% or less can be carried over to next year's salary purse, correct?

[beach tribe]

Just found this jewel from 2009 from one of our most prestigious posters.
Strange and ironic.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=164

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

TV revenue is shared. Stadium Revenue is not like TV revenue.

Stadium revenue isn't NEARLY what the TV revenue is.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

TV revenue is shared. Stadium Revenue is not like TV revenue.

Stadium revenue is actually shared. Ticket sales are split 60/40, home team gets 60, visitor gets 40. Teams though get to keep all luxury box money for themselves, its not shared.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

No offense, but you could pretty much replace Pioli with Peterson and this post would sound like 10 year ago all over again.

That's a silly post really. Ten years ago we were up against the cap ceiling in cap hell. Year in, and year out.

[whoman69]

I have a theory that the new numbers are coming out so there is no backlash when we don't spend money again. I think the figure is closer to the $63 million than Pioli wants to let on, so he lets the Star have his false numbers.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by aturnis

That's a silly post really. Ten years ago we were up against the cap ceiling in cap hell. Year in, and year out.

We were never in "cap hell" under Carl Peterson. We were always right up against it (or they at least would have us believe they were) but we were never in a bad place at all.

And while he never re-signed guys without a certain amount of negative fanfare in the media, he did retain guys (think Priest Holmes) more often then not.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by whoman69

I have a theory that the new numbers are coming out so there is no backlash when we don't spend money again. I think the figure is closer to the $63 million than Pioli wants to let on, so he lets the Star have his false numbers.

But aren't those numbers supposed to be public?

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And while he never re-signed guys without a certain amount of negative fanfare in the media, he did retain guys (think Priest Holmes) more often then not.

A little off tangent here but just an observation: Peterson's best FA signings = Dan Saleaumua and Priest Holmes.

Agree?

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Just found this jewel from 2009 from one of our most prestigious posters.
Strange and ironic.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...&postcount=164

That dude has be posting as one of these noobs. Has to be.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

We were never in "cap hell" under Carl Peterson. We were always right up against it (or they at least would have us believe they were) but we were never in a bad place at all.

And while he never re-signed guys without a certain amount of negative fanfare in the media, he did retain guys (think Priest Holmes) more often then not.

You don't remember going into the next season 3mil over, having to cut guys after June first to spread the cap hit, then make moves? You don't remember guys restructuring deals in order to help the team? Yes, Carl Petersen did retain guys, and he did lock them up before their current contract had expired. He did so to make the players short term cap number lower by back loading the contracts so that we could have more wiggle room with the cap now. I'm not saying he screwed us, but we were always right up against it, and it hindered us from making any real big splashes to get the one guy who might put us over the top, b/c our team was made up of FA's who we had to pay good money to get us close.

[BossChief]

Carls problem was always looking for the quick fixes.

Trade a first round pick for a ****ing coach? why not?

A first for a 36 year old quarterback? sure

A first for a 37 year old quarterback? sure

In almost 20 years, NEVER ONCE drafted a quarterback in the first round.

This team will NEVER learn.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by aturnis

You don't remember going into the next season 3mil over, having to cut guys after June first to spread the cap hit, then make moves? You don't remember guys restructuring deals in order to help the team? Yes, Carl Petersen did retain guys, and he did lock them up before their current contract had expired. He did so to make the players short term cap number lower by back loading the contracts so that we could have more wiggle room with the cap now. I'm not saying he screwed us, but we were always right up against it, and it hindered us from making any real big splashes to get the one guy who might put us over the top, b/c our team was made up of FA's who we had to pay good money to get us close.

Yes, we were always up against it. But we were never in a "fire sale" situation under Carl.

Whether he did so for short-term gain or not is really irrelevant. He retained his guys. (But as I already mentioned, HE never did it quickly and quietly - Pioli should get some credit for the way he handled Hali, Flowers, DJ, etc.)

As for "making a splash" did you forget Chester McGlockton? Shawn Barber was the very first player signed in free agency that year and even though his impact wasn't what many hoped, he was one of the biggest name LBs available. There's Derrick Alexander, Marcus Allen, Joe Montana, and more. Carl gets mis-characterized an awful lot.