Chiefs have signed cornerback Chris Owens

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

#Chiefs have signed cornerback Chris Owens

— Rachel (@KCChiefs_Rachel) March 21, 2014

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by jd1020

And how does re-signing current players relate to free agency?

Are we really going to go back-and-forth about what specifically to call it? Preventing 3 pro bowlers from hitting the 2015 market is no small move. And it's going to eat significantly into our cap. And your choice is either to delay that hit, or eat it now. I would rather eat it now.

[thabear04]

Originally Posted by O.city

I agree.

But that brings up another point. How many great players do you need in core?

As of right now, I'd say

Berry
Bowe
Poe
DJ
Houston
Poe
Flowers
Charles
A.Smith

Are your core players. Thats 3 on offense, 6 on defense. How many do you need? Obviously you hope your first overall pick from last year becomes a Core guy at LT (puke) and that you have some young emerging guys step into it.

Why is Poe on here twice.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Not even sure what you are trying to say. That the Chiefs weren't active in FA?

You asked how does resigning current players relate to free agency... If you are active in FA and sign a bunch of high-profile players you'll have less money to re-sign existing players you want to keep. If you resign existing players to big contracts you have less money to make a big splash in FA. Money all comes from the same bucket.

Chiefs have really done neither this year, they did not resign some of the flashier players (Albert, Mccluster, Schwartz) nor did they make a splash in FA. My guess it's because they have more critical resigning of core players coming up (Smith, Houston, etc) that they need to prepare for and have some cash to spread around.

I'm not an expert on all the contract stuff, that's just what it looks to me like they are doing from 30,000 feet.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by temper11

You asked how does resigning current players relate to free agency... If you are active in FA and sign a bunch of high-profile players you'll have less money to re-sign existing players you want to keep. If you resign existing players to big contracts you have less money to make a big splash in FA. Money all comes from the same bucket.

Chiefs have really done neither this year, they did not resign some of the flashier players (Albert, Mccluster, Schwartz) nor did they make a splash in FA. My guess it's because they have more critical resigning of core players coming up (Smith, Houston, etc) that they need to prepare for and have some cash to spread around.

I'm not an expert on all the contract stuff, that's just what it looks to me like they are doing from 30,000 feet.

I think you are mixing up signing FAs with signing players that are still under contract, on the team, at this very moment.

Signing players still under contract does not an active free agency make.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by jd1020

I think you are mixing up signing FAs with signing players that are still under contract, on the team, at this very moment.

Signing players still under contract does not an active free agency make.

It's small semantics. Whether you want to call it an active off season or free agency period. The point being that if you re-sign 3 pro bowlers, it's no longer easy to call this a lazy offseason.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by jd1020

I think you are mixing up signing FAs with signing players that are still under contract, on the team, at this very moment.

Signing players still under contract does not an active free agency make.

Ok.. I don't think so, I'm just trying to make the point, that you only have so much money to spend - whether you choose to do so on FA's or resigning existing players. Chiefs have a number of existing players they want to resign coming up and I think that more than anything is why they have been quiet this year in FA.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by temper11

Ok.. I don't think so, I'm just trying to make the point, that you only have so much money to spend - whether you choose to do so on FA's or resigning existing players. Chiefs have a number of existing players they want to resign coming up and I think that more than anything is why they have been quiet this year in FA.

There's a huge advantage of doing it this way. You can set these three contracts up to be front-loaded in year 1, cap friendly in year 2, and loaded again in year 3. It's a great way to basically free up a shitload of money to be available in 2015 and 2016, even if it means taking a haircut in 2014.

[Snapplez]

Originally Posted by temper11

Chiefs cap situation sucks... This GM and Coach had nothing to do with that but they are having to deal with it now. If we'd been in a better situation maybe they would have done more. You can only play the hand you are dealt.

This is ridiculously false. This regime resigned Bowe to the contract he has now, this regime signed undertalented players like Fasano, Devito, Daniel, and Avery to overvalued contracts puttin us in cap hell. This regime is responsible for its actions and you tryin to say otherwise is some ridiculous bullshit

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Snapplez

This is ridiculously false. This regime resigned Bowe to the contract he has now, this regime signed undertalented players like Fasano, Devito, Daniel, and Avery to overvalued contracts puttin us in cap hell. This regime is responsible for its actions and you tryin to say otherwise is some ridiculous bullshit

Not sure it creates cap hell when almost all of them are cheap to cut and the only time it's ever and will ever restrict our cap is 2014.

[Snapplez]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Not sure it creates cap hell when almost all of them are cheap to cut and the only time it's ever and will ever restrict our cap is 2014.

It sure hamstrung us this year. While our opponents are wheelin and dealin to get good players, we're signin Chris Owens.

In my mind it just seems like there isn't a plan at all. Last year we signed a bunch of average players to big contracts so we can win right now. Now we're stuck in some stupid limbo area where we don't have cap space to try and improve the team, oh and we also lost a bunch of free agents that would've been nice to keep.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Snapplez

It sure hamstrung us this year. While our opponents are wheelin and dealin to get good players, we're signin Chris Owens.

In my mind it just seems like there isn't a plan at all. Last year we signed a bunch of average players to big contracts so we can win right now. Now we're stuck in some stupid limbo area where we don't have cap space to try and improve the team, oh and we also lost a bunch of free agents that would've been nice to keep.

Those players did not keep us from signing free agents. We would save $7M against the cap if we cut all of them tomorrow.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's small semantics. Whether you want to call it an active off season or free agency period. The point being that if you re-sign 3 pro bowlers, it's no longer easy to call this a lazy offseason.

They haven't signed any of them yet.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

They haven't signed any of them yet.

Based on reports, all 3 are negotiating new contracts.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Based on reports, all 3 are negotiating new contracts.

Good. But until they're signed, it's all feel-good speculation and nothing more.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by jd1020

If said "core" doesnt name a QB then you know the answer to why the team isn't winning.

I'm fine with calling AS core as long as he doesn't show signs of aging/slowing.

Cassel was the sine qua non of a rotten core.