I wonder how much being "right" on draft picks and free agents impacts this. Some teams throw a lot of money at free agents that don't work out, and so they turn around and blow more cash on the next batch. Some also draft poorly which further drives that behavior. Would look great to the NFLPA, even though it probably doesn't lead to much winning. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
I wonder how much being "right" on draft picks and free agents impacts this. Some teams throw a lot of money at free agents that don't work out, and so they turn around and blow more cash on the next batch. Some also draft poorly which further drives that behavior. Would look great to the NFLPA, even though it probably doesn't lead to much winning.
That's exactly what it is and why those 3 teams in particular showed up at the bottom of the list.
None of those 3 teams rely heavily on cash spending since their top paid players, by and large, were draftees of the team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
2 Superbowl visits in 2 years. That's what matters. This shit is stupid.
Well the Pats are on the list too.
It's cash spending from 2017-2021.
In those 5 years, the Chiefs and Pats together account for ALL FIVE of the AFC's Super Bowl appearances and 6 of the 10 possible AFCCG participants (since they faced each other in 2018). [Reply]
This is ridiculously stupid on the part of the NFLPA.
The Chiefs set the market at Tight End, Wide Receiver and QB in the past three years alone. They also entered into another $16 million dollar contact with Ty Hill, while paying Frank Clark $20 million and Chris Jones just below $20 million per. At no point have the Chiefs "low balled" their players or potential players.
But the biggest issue I see with looking at teams in this manner and claiming that it's somehow an "issue" lacks the fundamental understanding of finance and employment contracts.
While it's probably true that the Chiefs aren't spending an enormous amount on Guaranteed Money and Bonuses, they are rewarding their best players at or near the top of the market but not in what would be referred as the "Traditional" manner, which is to give guys $20+ million upfront while spreading their signing bonuses over the length of the contract. Instead, the Chiefs are taking huge Cap Hits upfront and paying their guys their full salary rather than spreading it out and taking massive Dead Money hits when players fail to live up to their contracts.
Now of course, every contract isn't structured in that manner or the Chiefs could easily cut Frank Clark without any or minimal cap damage. But most of the guys are receiving salary instead of bonuses, which also helps the Chiefs long term because they're able to go to a guy like Mahomes or Kelce or Jones to offer them guaranteed money, if necessary, that won't affect their long or short term earnings because they're able to convert their salary to cash, then spread it over several years.
But as usual, DeMaurice Smith is a detriment to the NFLPA, not an asset. The NFL and NFLPA would be in a much better position without that bozo's constant negativity and poor decision making. [Reply]
Pretty sure this means Clark is gonna have to get his checkbook out and write a $17 million dollar check
Patrick Mahomes pending contract restructure that will save the Chiefs about $17 million against the cap will allow KC to do some free-agent shopping.... https://t.co/py1pVGCxVm
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Pretty sure this means Clark is gonna have to get his checkbook out and write a $17 million dollar check
Patrick Mahomes pending contract restructure that will save the Chiefs about $17 million against the cap will allow KC to do some free-agent shopping.... https://t.co/py1pVGCxVm
Yes but it was going to happen this season anyway. Im not positive roster bonuses get paid out in a lump sum on the day they go into effect but at the very least it would have all been paid out by the last game of the season anyway. [Reply]
