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.”

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by jspchief

What difference does it make what Peterson says? The media around KC just makes up the news anyway. You're accusing Peterson of trying to spin his way out of a bunch of news reports that were based in nothing but speculation. Carl may be a snake, but I don't see any reason to give more credence to the Nick Athans and Rhonda Mosses of the world.

A few weeks ago, all anyone could talk about was how much cap hell we were in. When it looked like the CBA wouldn't get done, we were told that massive cuts were coming, including some big names. Now here we are, with no CBA, and Peterson has worked the team under the cap, keeping the team largely intact minus some losers that needed to go anyway.

And now, if we do get a CBA done, the Chiefs will have all the extra money that was added to the cap to use in free agency.

We should be applauding what Peterson pulled off.

I wouldn't expect that to fly here.

Carl = Satan

I was listening to Rhonda Moss this morning and she played some clips from Peterson this morning. The reason he isn't talking is because the deals ARE NOT DONE YET.

The guys that have been cut (Barber, McCleon, Warfield, and Stills) are still cut, but they are the only ones that will be cut. There have been several contracts have been redone but they haven't yet sent them to the NFL office because the CBA deal affects whether or not they need to do what has been done in the new contracts.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There have been several contracts have been redone but they haven't yet sent them to the NFL office because the CBA deal affects whether or not they need to do what has been done in the new contracts.

So the between the lines facts are:

1) These deals will probably saddle us with significant dead cap $ in future years. The Chiefs aren't going to execute the deals unless there is a gun to their head.

2) The Chiefs won't be active in FA regardless of what happens with the CBA.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by cdcox

So the between the lines facts are:

1) These deals will probably saddle us with significant dead cap $ in future years. The Chiefs aren't going to execute the deals unless there is a gun to their head.

2) The Chiefs won't be active in FA regardless of what happens with the CBA.

1) That could very well be.

2) Absolutely. Carl told us that months ago.

[Chiefnj]

Holmes' deal was sent to the league.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

Holmes' deal was sent to the league.

Apparently is was done prior to the whole "black Thursday" mess.

[Mr. Laz]

so if the nfl gets an extension which is supposedly gonna raise the salary cap another 10-15 million the chiefs are going to just sit on that cap room?


UN-restructure all the contracts they just changed to raise their cap number back up to save bottomline profit?

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Laz

so if the nfl gets an extension which is supposedly gonna raise the salary cap another 10-15 million the chiefs are going to just sit on that cap room?


UN-restructure all the contracts they just changed to raise their cap number back up to save bottomline profit?

My guess is htismaqe is assuming that the players agreed to the renegotiation contingent on there not being a new CBA.

If the team went to players and said "look, due the CBA not getting done, this is the only way we can retain you", and then a CBA did get done, it would be pretty dirty to still expect the players to make concessions.

Now if the basis for restructure was simply "you make too much for your level of play", then I don't think the CBA matters. But I dobt that is the case for these guys.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by jspchief

My guess is htismaqe is assuming that the players agreed to the renegotiation contingent on there not being a new CBA.

If the team went to players and said "look, due the CBA not getting done, this is the only way we can retain you", and then a CBA did get done, it would be pretty dirty to still expect the players to make concessions.

Now if the basis for restructure was simply "you make too much for your level of play", then I don't think the CBA matters. But I dobt that is the case for these guys.

that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

You're assuming that they could get the players to renegotiate even with out the bargaining tool of no CBA/limited cap.

I think that's a big assumption.

It's one thing for players to look around the league and see that all the teams are being hampered this year, and be sympathetic to the situation the Chiefs are in. It's something entirely different for them to just flat out agree to take a pay cut.

The other side, if they are simply restructures without pay cuts, is that the team probably doesn't want to do it unless they have to. It may be a matter of mortgaging the future. I'm sure the FO doesn't want to do that unless it's absolutely neccessary.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by jspchief

You're assuming that they could get the players to renegotiate even with out the bargaining tool of no CBA/limited cap.

I think that's a big assumption.

It's one thing for players to look around the league and see that all the teams are being hampered this year, and be sympathetic to the situation the Chiefs are in. It's something entirely different for them to just flat out agree to take a pay cut.

The other side, if they are simply restructures without pay cuts, is that the team probably doesn't want to do it unless they have to. It may be a matter of mortgaging the future. I'm sure the FO doesn't want to do that unless it's absolutely neccessary.

that's it ... put the chiefs cap situation on the players



most players will restructure ANY time the team wants them to. The players usually MAKE money on restructures because they get more money upfront.

all the team has to do is ask unless they are trying force a salary cut.


what matters is whether team is willing spend more money or not ...... Lamar hunt is not a free spender.

[ct]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.

It's very likely that being forced to create this cap room now, costs us cap room in the future, should the CBA extend and reinstate a cap later.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's it ... put the chiefs cap situation on the players



most players will restructure ANY time the team wants them to. The players usually MAKE money on restructures because they get more money upfront.

all the team has to do is ask unless they are trying force a salary cut.


what matters is whether team is willing spend more money or not ...... Lamar hunt is not a free spender.

How am I putting the cap situation on the players?

If you think the Chiefs are going to mortgage their future to fill your FA wish list, you're going to be disappointed. They've never done it in the past, and they aren't going to start in a year of uncertainty. Every player that they restructure is either going to burden the cap this year, or in future years. Either way, they are going to affect the cap. You act like it's just a matter of opening the checkbook, but it still hits the cap at some point.

They spent big last year. They've spent big retaining our veteran offense. The Chiefs are never going to be active in free agency year in and year out. It's not how the organization is run. I'd think after watching this team for the 13 years under the salary cap, you would have realized that by now.

[brent102fire]

Why the hell is Bartee still on the roster? That guy hasn't done jack since he got to KC except collect a paycheck...now that's what I call stealing

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by coryt

It's very likely that being forced to create this cap room now, costs us cap room in the future, should the CBA extend and reinstate a cap later.

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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Laz

that's convenient ... so the chiefs only have cap room if they HAVE to have cap room.

if it's optional, we'll just stand pat.