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.”

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Laz

jerome woods
eric hicks
greg wesley
jason dunn

oooh ooh ... they did add 3rd string QB damon Huard and utility backup Chris Bober.

oh yea... they tried to sign Az Hazim too ... but he bolted before signing IIRC.

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.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

It all depends on one's defination of "standing pat." Mine is whan you keep the same players, you stand pat. I know others, includong yourself, have a different oponion that I can respect, but do not agree with.

[beer bacon]

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.

I am guessing because restructuring contracts for all these vets means more trouble down the road when they are no longer playing at a high level or maybe not even playing at all.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by RedBull

So what Im saying, is, if they're under the cap already. Why not keep those contracts the same?

I think the assumption is that the restructures were done anticipating the CBA not getting done. If the CBA does get done, then either the team will choose to not keep the restructures due to future impact on the cap, or the players that agreed to them will no longer agree due to the team no longer having a "no CBA" leverage.

And remember, this is all speculation. We don't know that the team won't use extra cap space if the CBA gets done.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They signed several free agents in 2004.

It may be that they didn't do what we wanted them to.

It's certain that they signed the wrong guys.

But they did not stand pat.

I know what your saying, but still, it's frustrating to see this team reward the same players that were unsuccessful on porous defense.

Why give the same junks on defense "new" contracts? I know what you mean that they didn't stand pat. I understand you. If re-signing your own players is your definition of not standing pat, then I could accept that.

But, it still goes to show that this team was not susceptible to change. And it showed terribly. My definition of NOT standing pat is NOT keeping the same players that made your defense unsuccessful. My definition of NOT standing pat, is a different approach. Like going out and signing new players that are better than the current ones you had, and improving your team from there. We didn't do that in 2004. We kept this team the same, without failing to change direction, and the price was paid.

[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.

[ct]

Originally Posted by jspchief

I think the assumption is that the restructures were done anticipating the CBA not getting done. If the CBA does get done, then either the team will choose to not keep the restructures due to future impact on the cap, or the players that agreed to them will no longer agree due to the team no longer having a "no CBA" leverage.

And remember, this is all speculation. We don't know that the team won't use extra cap space if the CBA gets done.

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

[TEX]

Originally Posted by RedBull

I know what your saying, but still, it's frustrating to see this team reward the same players that were unsuccessful on porous defense.

Why give the same junks on defense "new" contracts? I know what you mean that they didn't stand pat. I understand you. If re-signing your own players is your definition of not standing pat, then I could accept that.

But, it still goes to show that this team was not susceptible to change. And it showed terribly. My definition of standing pat is NOT keeping the same players that made your defense unsuccessful. My definition of standing pat, is a different approach. Like going out and signing new players that are better than the current ones you had, and improving your team from there. We didn't do that in 2004. We kept this team the same, without failing to change direction, and the price was paid.

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.

[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.

[jspchief]

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

Exactly. None of us know shit about this situation.

It's an argument based on what we speculate the team will do with the contracts that we're guessing we know the structure of.

[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.

[ct]

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.

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.

[Reaper16]

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.

The Dolphins-ication of the Chiefs continues.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 as much penetration 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.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Exactly. None of us know shit about this situation.

It's an argument based on what we speculate the team will do with the contracts that we're guessing we know the structure of.

you sure don't mind telling everyone how wrong they are on such a speculative matter.