Merrill: Chiefs won't need to make more cuts regardless of CBA - Page 6

tk13 · 03-06-2006, 02:12 AM

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.”

htismaqe · 03-06-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBull

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.

The Chiefs are under the current cap WITH those restructured contracts, which haven't yet been sent to the league.

They're awaiting the outcome of the latest round of negotiations.

Chiefnj · 03-06-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The Chiefs are under the current cap WITH those restructured contracts, which haven't yet been sent to the league.

They're awaiting the outcome of the latest round of negotiations.

How do you know they haven't been sent to the league?

jspchief · 03-06-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSPimpDude

Exactly. We havent had any good drafts for defensive players in quite some time. Jared Allen is the only late round gem. Thats why it was so huge that DJ fell to us. I would have ran out in 3 seconds after it was our pick to draft him. I dont know why Carl Peterson took the entire 15 minutes of clock time.

Eddie Freeman - 2nd round draft pick to practice squad
Ryan Sims - 6th overall pick - hasnt lived up to potential by any means and can never stay healthy.
Junior Siavii - Why in the bloody hell would ANYONE waste a 2nd round pick on a "project" DT?!?! We even traded down for that pick did we not?
Kawika Mitchell - I would use him as an example but he finally produced last season.

All of these shitty draft picks along with unproven veteran bum players, I can totally see how this defense sucks year in and year out. No wonder we cant have any Dline penetration. These guys along with Hicks and Dalton get penetration as much as a 3 inch penis. You build a team through the draft. This is something we have not been able to do in the last decade. Hopefully Herm being a former scout, we can start drafting some players that can actually play football.

It's not just that we can't find stars in the draft. We can barely find role players.

We have a roster full of guys like Siavii and Wilson, who can barely get on the field. And we draft guys like Hodge and Thorpe that can't even contribute on special teams.

At least during the Vermeil era, it's like we were content drafting projects and letting them stagnate on the bench. We can't afford to wait until year 3 of a 4 year rookie contract to get return on the investment.

TEX · 03-06-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

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.

Mecca · 03-06-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coryt

I disagree with ya. I fully expect we'll pick up a CB on Day1 this year, and have Battle, Sapp, Hodge and rookie fight it out. All part of the youth movement.

I don't think any of the CB's on our current roster are capable of starting........Now if we draft Antonio Cromartie then that's fine.

htismaqe · 03-06-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEX

I definately agree with you here as I'v e been making this case for 2 years now, but I believe the "different approach" the team took was hiring Gun.

And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

htismaqe · 03-06-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

How do you know they haven't been sent to the league?

Because Carl said they haven't been sent to the league.

htismaqe · 03-06-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coryt

Nor do we know what the longer term impact is from these restructured contracts, or if it has any impact whatso-freaking-ever on our FA activity.

I absolutely agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coryt

This has just turned into yet another Laz vs. htis cock fight. again...

Well, if he wasn't such an idiot...

CoMoChief · 03-06-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

It's not just that we can't find stars in the draft. We can barely find role players.

We have a roster full of guys like Siavii and Wilson, who can barely get on the field. And we draft guys like Hodge and Thorpe that can't even contribute on special teams.

At least during the Vermeil era, it's like we were content drafting projects and letting them stagnate on the bench. We can't afford to wait until year 3 of a 4 year rookie contract to get return on the investment.

Very True. BTW Congrats on 11,000 posts.

Mr. Laz · 03-06-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Well, if he wasn't such an idiot...

if HE wasn't such a stubborn bastige

Mr. Laz · 03-06-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And I FIRMLY believe that Gunther told Carl and Dick that he could win with his guys.

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

and who's fault is it that the organization was stupid enough to let Goonther make the decisions?

RedThat · 03-06-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

No matter what the Chiefs are saying in the media...........they have to sign a corner. That might be the only thing they spend on but we're probably gonna end up with like Sam Madison seeing as he's probably not going to demand huge money and knows players on our team already.

It is believed, according to Adam Schefter, that the New Giants are expected to be serious contenders in the Sam Madison sweepstakes. I do agree, CB is a priority.

htismaqe · 03-06-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

and who's fault is it that the organization was stupid enough to let Goonther make the decisions?

Carl Delano Peterson.

Chiefnj · 03-06-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Gunther is THE reason we signed Hicks, Woods, and Wesley to big contracts after the 2003 season.

And all three of them are still around for the 2006 campaign.

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-

go bo · 03-06-2006, 01:40 PM

cb does seem to be a bit of a weakness on the defense right now, unless surtain can play both cb positions at the same time (then we could add an extra safety to help out wesley, or better yet another de to help hicks)...

03-06-2006, 02:12 AM
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1967500	Merrill: Chiefs won't need to make more cuts regardless of CBA 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.”
Posts: 56,734

03-06-2006, 01:40 PM	#90
go bo Flop = Man of Steel!! Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: independence Casino cash: $10006405	cb does seem to be a bit of a weakness on the defense right now, unless surtain can play both cb positions at the same time (then we could add an extra safety to help out wesley, or better yet another de to help hicks)...
Posts: 36,678