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.”

[ct]

Originally Posted by jspchief

The front office will never win in the eyes of some fans.

If they create cap room this year, the fans will be bitching about our cap situation two years from now.

yep

Only time will tell what actually transpires with our roster by the cap deadline(whenever that might be...). But I'll go on record that if we can clear $18-21M, as the estimates have ranged around, to get under this less than anticipated cap, by releasing Warfield, McCleon, Barber, and Stills, I call that a tremendous success!!!

[RedThat]

I'm baffled by all this.

Merrill is saying the Chiefs don't have to make any cuts thanks to the restructuring of 4-6 players.

Ok fine. Now Im thinking, great we are under the cap.

If the cap stays at 94.5 million, and we didn't have enough room to bring some new FAs in here, fine, then I could understand as to why we aren't active.

Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

WTF?!

When he says "Our" I hope he means his own guys and not the guys that are on the market.

We clear all this room, and we have another 10 million, and we are going to sit back? fucking bullsh*t!

I hate this organization. Im growing sick of them. They do this every other fucking year. Their active 1 year, and lazy the next. what happens when we're lazy? we are rewarded with an 8-8 or 7-9 season. It's not like we are the Pittsburgh Steelers or the New England Patriots. We still have a ways to go, to even consider this team a SB contender.

You have the 26th ranked defense, and you're going to stand pat? fucking lovely. GO OUT, GET PLAYERS, AND FIX THE GODDAMN fuckING DEFENSE, SCHMUCK! You have the ability to do it Mr. Carl fucking Peterson!

*Pardon me for venting boys, I had to let that out. Im just pissed to see this organization pull the same repetitive crap over and over and over again, with "zero" results to show for.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by RedBull

I'm baffled by all this.

Merrill is saying the Chiefs don't have to make any cuts thanks to the restructuring of 4-6 players.

Ok fine. Now Im thinking, great we are under the cap.

If the cap stays at 94.5 million, and we didn't have enough room to bring some new FAs in here, fine, then I could understand as to why we aren't active.

Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

WTF?!

When he says "Our" I hope he means his own guys and not the guys that are on the market.

We clear all this room, and we have another 10 million, and we are going to sit back? fucking bullsh*t!

I hate this organization. Im growing sick of them. They do this every other fucking year. Their active 1 year, and lazy the next. what happens when we're lazy? we are rewarded with an 8-8 or 7-9 season. It's not like we are the Pittsburgh Steelers or the New England Patriots. We still have a ways to go, to even consider this team a SB contender.

You have the 26th ranked defense, and you're going to stand pat? fucking lovely. GO OUT, GET PLAYERS, AND FIX THE GODDAMN fuckING DEFENSE, SCHMUCK! You have the ability to do it Mr. Carl fucking Peterson!

*Pardon me for venting boys, I had to let that out. Im just pissed to see this organization pull the same repetitive crap over and over and over again, with "zero" results to show for.

Don't blame Carl Peterson. Start at the top.

It's been said THOUSANDS of times, yet people never listen.

The problem is not the cap, it's CASH.

Signing new players requires signing bonuses. Bonuses = CASH. Lamar doesn't want to pay signing bonuses because he paid them last year.

[leviw]

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

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by RedBull

Now, with the possibilty of a CBA extension, and words swarming around that the cap figure will jump another 10+ million, and Peterson says, "we're not going to out and spend a lot of money on our 2006 free agents." Even after restructing all those contracts and having decent enough cap room?

Many of those restructures only happen if there is no CBA.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Don't blame Carl Peterson. Start at the top.

It's been said THOUSANDS of times, yet people never listen.

The problem is not the cap, it's CASH.

Signing new players requires signing bonuses. Bonuses = CASH. Lamar doesn't want to pay signing bonuses because he paid them last year.

I hear ya. Part of it is Lamar too. He signs and dates the cheques. I guess I will consider Peterson his "puppet".

Lamar Hunt, SIGN some players. Please. You have money. I hate excuses. Excuses, excuses, I hate them. Excuses are for losers. I don't give a crap about last year, and who you signed. That's an excuse not to be active? That's a joke.

I got some advice for the Chiefs organization, pay attention to results, not the fucking money, and who you signed?! Fix the defense, because it sucks, it showed on the field. We ain't gonna sniff the playoffs with this current D. God forbid, you have the 26th ranked defense. Do you even care to go to the playoffs, and compete for the SB?

*Btw, htis I read that article. It is both cap room, and cash. It's not only cash. It's both. We have the cap room. I think Lamar is being a bit too tight with his wallet. If he doesn't sign any players, I think I'm gonna buy him some elastic bands for Christmas.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by RedBull

I hear ya. Part of it is Lamar too. He signs and dates the cheques. I guess I will consider Peterson his "puppet".

Lamar Hunt, SIGN some players. Please. You have money. I hate excuses. Excuses, excuses, I hate them. Excuses are for losers. I don't give a crap about last year, and who you signed. That's an excuse not to be active? That's a joke.

I got some advice for the Chiefs organization, pay attention to results, not the fucking money, and who you signed?! Fix the defense, because it sucks, it showed on the field. We ain't gonna sniff the playoffs with this current D. God forbid, you have the 26th ranked defense. Do you even care to go to the playoffs, and compete for the SB?

*Btw, htis I read that article. It is both cap room, and cash. It's not only cash. It's both. We have the cap room. I think Lamar is being a bit too tight with his wallet. If he doesn't sign any players, I think I'm gonna buy him some elastic bands for Christmas.

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.

[jspchief]

You guys should be bitching at Lamar to spend money on our goddamned scouting department, not free agents.

The inability to draft good players and sign the right free agents is what's keeping this team down.

[The Bad Guy]

I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by penguinz

Many of those restructures only happen if there is no CBA.

Fine. But it just goes to show, they can get under and stay at that figure if they REALLY wanted to. Let's say if there is a CBA, they can still keep those contracts restructed to sign some FAs to help build this team, and make it more strong.

And even "IF" lets say, both Peterson, and Hunt said, guys, we are going to keep your contracts the same because we want to bring in more players to help build this team to keep it competitive, make a run at the playoffs, and a possible SB run. Im sure guys like Green, and Holmes would be cool with that.

That's not a hard thing to do. But for some reason, they have to sit back, relax. It's ok.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

Yep. That's why I always use the Irsay example. Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do.

From a business standpoint, selling assets from one business to fund another isn't very smart.

But obviously they want to win it all in Indy.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

I applaud Lamar as a businessman.

I hate him as the owner of this team anymore if every other year is going to result in inactivity.

There has to be some urgency. Any competitive owner in the NFL should have a sense of urgency when you haven't won a playoff game in 13 years.

Lamar isn't a spring chicken. There has to be some urgency to hold that Lamar Hunt trophy one more time.

I get his business model, I don't get the competitive nature of some NFL owners.

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

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by RedBull

Let's say if there is a CBA, they can still keep those contracts restructed to sign some FAs to help build this team, and make it more strong.

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.

Originally Posted by RedBull

That's not a hard thing to do. But for some reason, they have to sit back, relax. It's ok.

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...

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yep. That's why I always use the Irsay example. Indy subscribes to the every-other-year model the same way we do.

From a business standpoint, selling assets from one business to fund another isn't very smart.

But obviously they want to win it all in Indy.

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"

[Mr. Laz]

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...

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.