BREAKING NEWS
[Reply]

Anyone that says "Jones deal could be frontloaded to help with Mahomes" isn't to be taken seriously because it doesn't work that way in the rollover era.

If you frontload it, you eat into rollover credits that could've been carried over and still provided the same amount of salary cap relief for Mahomes deal. It's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other.

Frontloading may be on the table, but it has nothing to do with the Mahomes contract. It's a different way for Jones to get more guaranteed money in the first 3 years. It's a way his camp may be looking to 'soften their demands' while still giving him lifetime security.

Those two concepts are unrelated.
[Reply]

KCTV5 no preseason - Great
Chris Jones coming back down to Earth - Great
Front loading in prep for a big Mahomes deal - Great
[Reply]

Marty is usually wrong so
[Reply]

Yeah, frontloading makes a ton of sense for Okafor or Sammy Watkins. These are guys you overpay because you want to draft their replacement. If we sign jones and frontload it, it's because we don't want him here too long after mahomes comes in because we don't think we should afford him. And I don't think the Chiefs are there right now.
[Reply]

I want them to pull preseason games from KCTV5 THIS YEAR not next. well next year too but this year, right now. Cut off all ties!
[Reply]

Frontloading makes no sense at all for Sammy Watkins. They needed to backload that deal precisely BECAUSE they intend to draft his replacement so you cut him before the big money hits.

The theory is that you frontload someone like Jones because you want to keep him for the duration of the deal and in years 3-4-5 when his base is lower, it makes your cap cleaner for a Mahomes extension. It's a sound theory but it ignores the rollover credits for unused cap space. By frontloading (let's say $12 million from years 3-4-5) you've plowed another $12 million into years 1 and 2. All that extra $12 million did was eat up cap space in years 1 and 2 that would've been a 1 for 1 carryover into years 3 and beyond.

Don't do it at all and nothing changes. You've instead built that $12 million into cap credits that raise your cap in year 3 by that very same $12 million which can then be used to pay the very same money to Mahomes. Meanwhile you've also left the threat of Jones getting cut as he reaches his bigger payouts over his head, encouraging him to continue to play hard.

Frontloading makes nearly no sense in any capacity unless it encourages the player to take a lower AAV. And frankly, it should, because frontloaded money acts as guaranteed money.

So the reason he's doing it has nothing to do with freeing up money for Mahomes - it makes no difference either way. The reason he'd be doing it is to create more up-front security. His agents can pitch it to the fans that way if they'd like, but that's not how the cap works in the rollover era.
[Reply]

That's not a news dump. That's speculation.
[Reply]

Don't you still have to pay out 90% of your cap or you have to pay all the members of your team extra on their salary to get up to that threshold? Not sure the Chiefs are in any danger of that being an issue but that could also be a reason to front load.
[Reply]

[Reply]

Marty got the attention of the owners daughter!!!

I’m with Marty and I believe
[Reply]

Came here expecting schottenheimer on the toilet, reading a newspaper......leaving disappointed.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
[Reply]

That's a cash spending mandate that's easily reached via signing bonuses.

And I don't believe it's done via a year to year review but rather an overview of a 3-4 year rolling window. With some of the significant bonuses the Chiefs have given out (and will give out with Mahomes) that's unlikely to ever be a real concern for them.
[Reply]

Kctv 5 roosters are coming home to roost.
[Reply]