Merrill: Chiefs won't need to make more cuts regardless of CBA

[tk13]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/14026801.htm

Chiefs won’t need to make cuts

By ELIZABETH MERRILL
The Kansas City Star

After weeks of nervous cap watching, and fears of a bloody Sunday, the Chiefs’ bloated number was poised to disappear with nary a whimper.

Pro Bowl guard Will Shields was still on the roster. So was Priest Holmes. By late in the afternoon, Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson said there would be no cuts Sunday. That came hours before the NFL new year was scheduled to begin and teams had scurried to get under a salary cap that had been a moving target.

Then the target moved again. Labor negotiations in New York restarted, then stalled again, then late in the evening, the start of free-agency was postponed — again — for another 72 hours. It meant the Chiefs can wait to get below the $94.5 million cap that could rise by $10 million if a deal is worked out.

But the Chiefs are ready to get below the cap with the help of four to six players who agreed to restructure their contracts.

“I appreciate those who have been receptive to it,” Peterson said, “and obviously there have been some who have not been receptive. And then I’ve had to make a decision to say goodbye to them.”

Documents provided to The Star showed the Chiefs were more than $20 million over the cap last month. About $6 million was cleared Thursday with the cuts of veteran defensive players Eric Warfield, Dexter McCleon, Gary Stills and Shawn Barber. But without a labor extension, the Chiefs were still way over the cap.

It is believed that Holmes, a three-time Pro Bowl running back, was one of the players who restructured a deal that would have cost the Chiefs $5.33 million under his previous contract. Peterson would only say, “First of all, I really appreciate players that think about the team first and themselves second. Priest Holmes has always been that way.”

Holmes’ future has been iffy after a helmet-to-helmet collision in San Diego at midseason. He was put on injured reserve and said he wanted to return pending some tests to determine if he was neurologically sound. If Holmes does come back, he’ll find himself in the unusual position as the franchise’s all-time leading rusher playing backup to Larry Johnson.

But Peterson bristled when asked about the speculation that Holmes’ career may be over.

“Priest is still under contract with the Kansas City Chiefs, all right?” he said. “Specific to his future, it’s still an ongoing evaluation by our medical people. He’s made a lot of progress. We don’t have to make a decision today, and neither does he because we don’t start the season until August.

“I would not count this man out. You or anybody else can speculate, but I will not count him out. I know him. He could’ve said, ‘I retire, I’m finished,’ but he’s not doing that.”

Shields’ return has also been clouded with uncertainty, and late last week he seemed pessimistic about playing in 2006 in Kansas City. Peterson reiterated that Shields would not be a cap casualty Sunday and that he hasn’t been asked to restructure his contract, which would pay him a $5.1 million salary.

Peterson has said the Chiefs are still waiting for Shields, who’s battled arthritis, to tell them he’s definitively coming back. Shields’ agent, Joe Linta, said again Sunday that Shields has made it clear he wants to play.

“The bottom line is that the decisions are all theirs right now,” Linta said. “There’s no fork in the road for Will to take. They haven’t asked him to restructure or cut him. There’s no decision for Will to make.”

But as the waiver deadline initially approached Sunday night, there were plenty of questions for the league. Will there be an uncapped season in 2007? How will the lack of an extension affect the start of free-agency?

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue made a brief appearance on a teleconference Sunday to announce Kansas City’s bid for the 2015 Super Bowl. He was locked in New York with negotiations that were on again, off again all weekend.

“I can assure you I’d much rather be there than where I am today,” Tagliabue said.

Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt thanked him and told him to “get back to work.”
This week, the work gets more complicated. There may be a scarce amount of teams with big cap space to use on free agents. Peterson said he didn’t anticipate the Chiefs being active this spring.

“Last year we went out and spent a lot of money on four or five defensive players,” he said. “The year before we didn’t. Every year is a different year, and it’s almost impossible unless you have an unlimited amount of cash and cap dollars to go out every year and spend a lot of money on unrestricted free agents.

“So probably even if there is an extension, we’re not going to go out and spend a lot of money on our free agents in 2006.”

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I would encourage you to look elsewhere for entertainment.

For us, the Chiefs is a hobby. For Lamar Hunt, it's a BUSINESS.

You know that Irsay had to liquidate assets from other NON-FOOTBALL business ventures to pay Manning's signing bonus?

This isn't Madden on the PS2.

I like the Chiefs. But this is the hard part about being a Chiefs fan. Seeing this team with a lot of holes to fill on defense, and them electing to stand pat, and not sign anybody. From a fans perspective, I'm just trying to express my concern for the team. That is all.

I know this is not PS2, madden. Im not saying they have to go out and sign every probowler on defense. I'm just saying, I'd like to see them sign some better players on defense to improve. Thats all. I'd like to see my team competitive, because I do care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be a fan.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by RedBull

Thank you. This is exactly where I was trying to get at. Competitiveness. Does Lamar have it?

I really don't know anymore.

I mean, I can't imagine pumping billions of dollars into a product and watching another team hold your trophy every year.

If my name was on a trophy, and my health was failing, I would be doing everything possible to get to hold that trophy one last time.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Laz

so which is it?

"obviously they want to win it all in Indy"

or

"Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do"

They subscribe to the every-other-year model. Lots of teams do. You act like this is something they do because they feel like it. It's the reality of big business.

The difference is that, in a year where Indy wouldn't normally have doled out signing bonuses, they found a way to give Manning the largest bonus in the history of the game.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by leviw

Cheer for someone else then. Like whoever Vinaterri signs with, perhaps?

DAM!!!!

so close ... if only you would of included "true fan" in there someplace.


"missed it by Thaat much!"

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Laz

always taking the smartass cheapshot at the nearest fan... aren't ya.

it's my understand that the team CAN'T make big commitments based on a no cap year.

bonuses can't be pro-rated past the end of the CBA so that doesn't save a team any money. The yearly increase can't be beyond 30% for next year either.

looks like someone's argument does have a HUGE hole it.

There are an infinite number of ways that a contract could be structured, taking into account the lack of a CBA, that would not work if a cap was suddenly re-introduced.

You know that as well as I do, but since you're bitter, you feel inclined to argue anyway.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They subscribe to the every-other-year model. Lots of teams do. You act like this is something they do because they feel like it. It's the reality of big business.

The difference is that, in a year where Indy wouldn't normally have doled out signing bonuses, they found a way to give Manning the largest bonus in the history of the game.

so they subscribe to the same method we do "with exceptions"


kinda a traditional model (with extras)

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by RedBull

I like the Chiefs. But this is the hard part about being a Chiefs fan. Seeing this team with a lot of holes to fill on defense, and them electing to stand pat, and not sign anybody. From a fans perspective, I'm just trying to express my concern for the team. That is all.

I know this is not PS2, madden. Im not saying they have to go out and sign every probowler on defense. I'm just saying, I'd like to see them sign some better players on defense to improve. Thats all. I'd like to see my team competitive, because I do care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be a fan.

When did they stand pat?

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

When did they stand pat?

keeping the same players(even re-signing the same players) is standing pat.



if those players weren't successful it's doubly frustrating

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

When did they stand pat?

Do you really have to ask that question? Is it necessary? If you're chiefs fan you should know. 2004 they stood pat. Gunthers first year here.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

When did they stand pat?

2004.

I don't know how you could stand pat with a new coach. He can't just give him Vermeil's guys and expect everything to work out.

[htismaqe]

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

jerome woods
eric hicks
greg wesley
jason dunn

oooh ooh ... they did add 3rd string QB damon Huard and utility backup Chris Bober.

oh yea... they tried to sign Az Hazim too ... but he bolted before signing IIRC.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You're assuming that the restructures they've done don't assume that there will be no cap. If these conditional restructures give out big sums of money, assuming that they'll be swallowed during the uncapped season, then your argument has a HUGE hole in it.



I'm sure you know exactly what it takes to be an NFL GM. If only they were working instead of staring out the window...

First off, Htis, Im not assuming that there will be no cap. All I'm saying is, the current contracts that have been restructured, in addition to that, the current contracts that have been terminated have put us under the current cap(94.5mill). I mean that is the impression I'm getting after reading Merrill's article. She did say, that there woulda been no cuts Sunday regardless. So this has to mean that the Chiefs are under the current cap? right? I can't think of anything else?


So what Im saying, is, if they're under the cap already. Why not keep those contracts the same? If you have a new CBA reached, the new cap number is projected to rise another 10+ million. So why not sign a defensive player or 2?
You have the cap room to work with....this is what Im trying to get at.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by RedBull

this is what Im trying to get at.

he knows exactly what you were getting at

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

They stood pat because they kept the same scabs around.

They signed Lional Dalton.

This interior defense needs a lot more than Lional Dalton.