Chiefs Chiefs Payroll (warning ... not for the weak of heart!!) - Page 2

Mr. Laz · 03-06-2010, 12:50 PM

.

Quote:

Bears Match Chiefs 2010 Payroll In One Day Of Free Agency

Quote:

by Joel Thorman on Mar 6, 2010 11:36 AM CST

in 2010 Campaign

24 comments

Jim Prisching - AP

Last week it was reported that the Kansas City Chiefs had approximately a $41 million payroll for the 2010 season. Of course that didn't include quite a few players that had yet to to sign or re-sign but it's still a low amount (that was bumped up a little with Mike Vrabel's signing). In fact, it's the lowest amount in the NFL barely eclipsing the Arizona Cardinals.

Well, the Chicago Bears saw that payroll and matched it.
In one day of free agency..

On Friday, the Bears committed almost $40 million in 2010 cash to three players, an amount slightly above the entire payroll of the Kansas City Chiefs and Arizona Cardinals. Welcome to the uncapped year.

Wow. Notice that that's nearly $40 million in 2010.

Julius Peppers alone received in the neighborhood of $40 million....guaranteed.

So, yes, the Chiefs do not have much money committed to 2010 and missed out on the A+ group of free agents but much of that was to be expected. It still doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2010/3...010-payroll-in

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

yes, we are going to win the NFC!!!!!!!!!

i think he was talking about the bears
Posted via Mobile Device

Micjones · 03-06-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

That's not happening.

Not sure how you know that, but...
Hell if we came away with Chad Jones/Nate Allen and Arrelious Benn/Mardy Gilyard we'd still be in better shape. Cheaper, younger options who'll be peaking when it comes time to make a run...

Micjones · 03-06-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

i think he was talking about the bears
Posted via Mobile Device

Shhh...

Titty Meat · 03-06-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Not sure how you know that, but...
Hell if we came away with Chad Jones/Nate Allen and Arrelious Benn/Mardy Gilyard we'd still be in better shape. Cheaper, younger options who'll be peaking when it comes time to make a run...

So by the time this team is ready to compete Cassel will be what? 32 years old?

**SAUTO** · 03-06-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

So by the time this team is ready to compete Cassel will be what? 32 years old?

might not matter how old cassel is, if his play doesnt rise he will probably be gone this time next year
Posted via Mobile Device

58kcfan89 · 03-06-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Not sure how you know that, but...
Hell if we came away with Chad Jones/Nate Allen and Arrelious Benn/Mardy Gilyard we'd still be in better shape. Cheaper, younger options who'll be peaking when it comes time to make a run...

If we land Gilyard, I'll be happy. Won't make up for a scrub 1st rounder, but I love me some Gilyard.

Fritz88 · 03-06-2010, 01:27 PM

Titty Meat · 03-06-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

might not matter how old cassel is, if his play doesnt rise he will probably be gone this time next year
Posted via Mobile Device

So you're admitting Cassel might have been a mistake. So even if we do build through the draft we're back to square 1 without a QB. Which means Pioli wasted 2 years with Cassel.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-06-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

If the Chiefs come away with Berry and Tate...
No one will even remember we had an opportunity to sign those two.
Both of them will be on the wrong side of 30 in two years when this team is ready to contend.

I could care less if the Chiefs had signed or traded for any over 30 year old players.

But there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Chiefs will draft Berry and Tate. It could just as easily be Okung/Baluga and Cody.

Pioli has NO track record of drafting playmakers.

Micjones · 03-06-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

So by the time this team is ready to compete Cassel will be what? 32 years old?

IF that's in two years...he'd be 30.

JD10367 · 03-06-2010, 01:30 PM

And, yes, let's examine some of the language in one of the linked articles....

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...pped-year.html

More than all the activity so far, I believe, is the fact that could be most the noteworthy about the first hours of life in the NFL without a salary cap: On Friday, the Bears committed almost $40 million in 2010 cash to three players, an amount slightly above the entire payroll of the Kansas City Chiefs and Arizona Cardinals. Welcome to the uncapped year.

When the prospect of an uncapped year started looking more and more realistic, thoughts turned to the usual suspects for spending without limits: Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc. Now that we’ve moved through the first – and biggest spending day of the uncapped year – an unlikely team has claimed the mantle of most aggressive team in an uncapped year. It’s the Chicago Bears. Who knew?

First, a tight end signing -- Brandon Manumaleuna, with $6M in guaranteed money, a strong amount for a tight end not considered among the league’s elite. This move may set off a chain reaction of the team being open to offers for one or both of their tight ends, either Desmond Clark, who could be had for cheap, or Greg Olsen, who would require a higher pick that the Bears desperately need to conduct some sort of draft in April. Olsen received approximately $4.5M in guarantees as part of his 2007 first-round deal.

Then running back Chester Taylor was brought under contract. Taylor, as we predicted, would be the hottest running back on the market, with multiple suitors chasing him if the Bears let him out of their grasp. The Vikings put on the hard push, using sentimentality with players and coaches constantly calling, but Taylor decided to leave for many reasons ($7M of them). The contract is about where we predicted, with $7M guaranteed on a four-year, $12.5M deal for a 30-year-old running back. What Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson wouldn’t give to make that deal.

Then the Bears landed the kingfish of the 2010 class when they picked a Julius Peppers. The deal averages $13.3M, with $40M in the first three years. The size of the deal was expected; in fact, I actually thought he would earn more (ignore reports of a total value of $91M; that’s an inflated number spun out for the media).

With Albert Haynesworth, at less of an impact position, earning $41M guaranteed last year (again, pay no attention to the reported overall value of $100M), the question was whether the 2010 top prize would jump that of the 2009 winner. The caveat, of course, is that the Haynesworth deal was done in an environment where ownership was not complaining about profits and came at the hand of the notoriously over-spending Redskins.

The deal is most like the contract given late in the season to Cowboys defensive end DeMarcus Ware, who received an astounding $40M guaranteed and would not have been an unrestricted free agent like Peppers, but benefited from an earlier deal for Terrell Suggs. Now Peppers will benefit from the Ware deal.

Not that the Bears got a bargain. As I expressed before, my concern about Peppers would be his motivation. If people were wondering about his motivation when he was playing on one-year deals – the ultimate motivator in sports – handing him long-term financial security in the form of almost $40M in guaranteed money is not going to alleviate that concern; rather, it will only exacerbate it.

Again, the issue of the uncapped year was whether a team or teams would engage in unfettered spending without the consequence of the cap. Some expected the Redskins, some the Cowboys, some expected no one. The Bears. Who knew?

Micjones · 03-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I could care less if the Chiefs had signed or traded for any over 30 year old players.

But there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Chiefs will draft Berry and Tate. It could just as easily be Okung/Baluga and Cody.

Pioli has NO track record of drafting playmakers.

The point I'm making is that many of the players we "missed out on" are at positions where we can find better, cheaper options in April.

It's not time to panic.

Titty Meat · 03-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

IF that's in two years...he'd be 30.

In 2 years Pioli would have to throw together some great drafts. Sorry but thats alot of blind faith.

Micjones · 03-06-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

In 2 years Pioli would have to throw together some great drafts. Sorry but thats alot of blind faith.

I don't know that they'd have to be GREAT drafts.
A few efficient drafts would work.

Titty Meat · 03-06-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

I don't know that they'd have to be GREAT drafts.
A few efficient drafts would work.

This team has alot of holes though. Look if you sign Atogwae then Berry becomes a luxury pick. So you either draft Berry & then have a secondary just as good as anyones or you be cheap and not sign anyone and hope Berry is there when you draft and if he isn't you're back to square one.

03-06-2010, 01:27 PM	#22
Fritz88 Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $8505943	haha
Posts: 12,706

03-06-2010, 01:30 PM	#26
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	And, yes, let's examine some of the language in one of the linked articles.... http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...pped-year.html More than all the activity so far, I believe, is the fact that could be most the noteworthy about the first hours of life in the NFL without a salary cap: On Friday, the Bears committed almost $40 million in 2010 cash to three players, an amount slightly above the entire payroll of the Kansas City Chiefs and Arizona Cardinals. Welcome to the uncapped year. When the prospect of an uncapped year started looking more and more realistic, thoughts turned to the usual suspects for spending without limits: Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc. Now that we’ve moved through the first – and biggest spending day of the uncapped year – an unlikely team has claimed the mantle of most aggressive team in an uncapped year. It’s the Chicago Bears. Who knew? First, a tight end signing -- Brandon Manumaleuna, with $6M in guaranteed money, a strong amount for a tight end not considered among the league’s elite. This move may set off a chain reaction of the team being open to offers for one or both of their tight ends, either Desmond Clark, who could be had for cheap, or Greg Olsen, who would require a higher pick that the Bears desperately need to conduct some sort of draft in April. Olsen received approximately $4.5M in guarantees as part of his 2007 first-round deal. Then running back Chester Taylor was brought under contract. Taylor, as we predicted, would be the hottest running back on the market, with multiple suitors chasing him if the Bears let him out of their grasp. The Vikings put on the hard push, using sentimentality with players and coaches constantly calling, but Taylor decided to leave for many reasons ($7M of them). The contract is about where we predicted, with $7M guaranteed on a four-year, $12.5M deal for a 30-year-old running back. What Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson wouldn’t give to make that deal. Then the Bears landed the kingfish of the 2010 class when they picked a Julius Peppers. The deal averages $13.3M, with $40M in the first three years. The size of the deal was expected; in fact, I actually thought he would earn more (ignore reports of a total value of $91M; that’s an inflated number spun out for the media). With Albert Haynesworth, at less of an impact position, earning $41M guaranteed last year (again, pay no attention to the reported overall value of $100M), the question was whether the 2010 top prize would jump that of the 2009 winner. The caveat, of course, is that the Haynesworth deal was done in an environment where ownership was not complaining about profits and came at the hand of the notoriously over-spending Redskins. The deal is most like the contract given late in the season to Cowboys defensive end DeMarcus Ware, who received an astounding $40M guaranteed and would not have been an unrestricted free agent like Peppers, but benefited from an earlier deal for Terrell Suggs. Now Peppers will benefit from the Ware deal. Not that the Bears got a bargain. As I expressed before, my concern about Peppers would be his motivation. If people were wondering about his motivation when he was playing on one-year deals – the ultimate motivator in sports – handing him long-term financial security in the form of almost $40M in guaranteed money is not going to alleviate that concern; rather, it will only exacerbate it. Again, the issue of the uncapped year was whether a team or teams would engage in unfettered spending without the consequence of the cap. Some expected the Redskins, some the Cowboys, some expected no one. The Bears. Who knew?
Posts: 12,916