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

[TEX]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Wesley was signed in '03

They signed several starters. Woods coming off a Pro Bowl year. Hicks was a starter, and it's not like they signed him just because he was cheap, because he didn't come all that cheap. They traded for Welbourn, which considering the new contract, was the equivalent of a FA.


Was it a big spending year like '05? No. But it's not like they didn't sign anyone.

People just pretend those signings didn't happen because the players all ended up sucking.

I view a trade as way different from signing your own free agents, especially when said trade cost you a first -day draft pick and then an other early-mid-rounder. But, if you mean that the Chiefs did make an attempt to upgrade the team by adding a player who was not on the roster the year before, then I see your point. But IMHO, Welbourn is not near as good as Tait was.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by TEX

I view a trade as way different from signing your own free agents, especially when said trade cost you a first -day draft pick and then an other early-mid-rounder. But, if you mean that it added a player to the roster, who was not as good as the one we lost, then I see your point.

So if we traded for TO tommorrow, it would fall under the category of "standing pat"?

Or were we supposed to make John Tait the highest paid left tackle in the game, while playing him on the right side?

We went out ond filled our need for a right tackle via trade, but that trade meant signing a player to a new contract, just like is he was a free agent.

It goes back to what I've said before about '04. It's not that the team "didn't sign anyone". It's that the team didn't sign the guys you wanted.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by jspchief

So if we traded for TO tommorrow, it would fall under the category of "standing pat"?

Or were we supposed to make John Tait the highest paid left tackle in the game, while playing him on the right side?

We went out ond filled our need for a right tackle via trade, but that trade meant signing a player to a new contract, just like is he was a free agent.

It goes back to what I've said before about '04. It's not that the team "didn't sign anyone". It's that the team didn't sign the guys you wanted.

No, it would not. I don't know where you got that T.O. analogy from. This is pretty straight forward. We went out and traded, meaning it cost us something other money which is all it takes to sign a free agent. A trade is a trade and acquiring a free agent is what it is. They are totally different ways of adding talent to the roster. That's all I'm saying.