PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs activate salary cap carry over



#58ChiefsFan
02-16-2012, 08:31 PM
Chiefs activate salary cap carry-over clause (http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/article-2/Chiefs-activate-salary-cap-carry-over-clause/e1174080-a8d2-4608-885a-35119b2a80bb)

Nice move by the front office. :chiefs:

toyotapower
02-16-2012, 10:04 PM
Cool, let's get some deals done before anyone can lure our guys away. Carr, Bowe and Orton.... I would be very happy

figcrostic
02-16-2012, 10:48 PM
Cool, let's get some deals done before anyone can lure our guys away. Carr, Bowe and Orton.... I would be very happy

:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
02-16-2012, 11:51 PM
Cool, let's get some deals done before anyone can lure our guys away. Carr, Bowe and Orton.... I would be very happy

You and me both!

TopekaRoy
02-17-2012, 12:11 AM
Good news, but there is nothing new here. This is just a rehash of the story posted on ArrowheadAddict.com four days ago---http://arrowheadaddict.com/2012/02/12/hunt-says-chiefs-will-carry-over-their-cap-space/. Now they have just made it official.

AussieChiefsFan
02-17-2012, 12:23 AM
"Chiefs sign WR Bowe and CB Carr to multi year contracts"
I hope to see this anyday now when I get home from school.

ctchiefsfan
02-17-2012, 01:43 AM
Glad to hear this. Surely seems to put the lie to the notion that Hunt isn't willing to spend money. He could have simply not done this and left the cash in the bank. I take this as a sign that we'll be aggressive in resigning our own FAs and may well make some serious plays in the FA market. Just hope we are not going to burn this money on Manning.

okikcfan
02-17-2012, 12:47 PM
Sign Bowe and Carr then let's go shopping!

70 chiefsfan70
02-17-2012, 01:42 PM
This is a good thing. I think this a crucial year for the Chiefs. Meaning they are having to spent money and do something to keep the fans here. Most fans are more into picking a winning team then they are in loyalty. Last year there were too many empty seats. Even people who had season tickets just didn't go to the game and if the chiefs don't change the additude ticket sales will start slowing. The best way to increase ticket sales is to win, the second best way is to sign popular stars. I think we will see a couple of big name free agents signed and we have money to spent, so lets get some signed, starting with Bowe and Carr.

dbolan
02-17-2012, 02:03 PM
Bout time they claim a desire to spend up some cash money!

pojote
02-17-2012, 02:18 PM
If what they (mainly Hunt) it's true, I think they're close to genius.
One year with a tight belt will make 2 years with plenty of space to re-sign in house talent and bring FA, with everyone else trying to cut some of their payrolls.

chief31
02-17-2012, 09:46 PM
Glad to hear this. Surely seems to put the lie to the notion that Hunt isn't willing to spend money. He could have simply not done this and left the cash in the bank. I take this as a sign that we'll be aggressive in resigning our own FAs and may well make some serious plays in the FA market. Just hope we are not going to burn this money on Manning.

I don't see this as anything of the sort.

Any team with this option, who would not activate this clause would be stupid.

Rather or not you expect to use any of that cap space, you would still make sure to leave that door open.

I hope they use it. But this move is no signal at all to me.

Or is there some stipulation that requires some spending, for activating this?

Hayvern
02-18-2012, 02:49 AM
I don't see this as anything of the sort.

Any team with this option, who would not activate this clause would be stupid.

Rather or not you expect to use any of that cap space, you would still make sure to leave that door open.

I hope they use it. But this move is no signal at all to me.

Or is there some stipulation that requires some spending, for activating this?

That's the thing, they do not have to spend it. Hunt implies they are going to spend in free agency and they might, but I would find it hard to believe we are going to even meet the regular cap.

AussieChiefsFan
02-18-2012, 03:59 AM
That's the thing, they do not have to spend it. Hunt implies they are going to spend in free agency and they might, but I would find it hard to believe we are going to even meet the regular cap.

It'd be hard to spend all that in one offseason.

TopekaRoy
02-18-2012, 05:08 AM
I don't see this as anything of the sort.

Any team with this option, who would not activate this clause would be stupid.

Rather or not you expect to use any of that cap space, you would still make sure to leave that door open.

I hope they use it. But this move is no signal at all to me.

Or is there some stipulation that requires some spending, for activating this?


That's the thing, they do not have to spend it. Hunt implies they are going to spend in free agency and they might, but I would find it hard to believe we are going to even meet the regular cap.


It'd be hard to spend all that in one offseason.

I agree with all 3 of you. Any team with significant cap space is going to carry it over, just for the flexibility of having it there if needed. And, no, they don't have to spend all of it, or any of it, for that matter.

What gives me hope is all the things Hunt and Pioli have said about what they intend to do with all that extra money. They have indicated a commitment to resign their best FAs and go after some quality players for depth, and they are setting themselves up for some heavy criticism if they don't follow through on that.

Hunt has said that the Chiefs are going to need that extra money in 2012 and 2013 so I wouldn't be surprised if they use a portion of that money this year (maybe $7-10 million) and carry over some of it to next year.

That's still a good thing in my opinion. it would give them the money they need to get some big names this year and put them a position to build on that next year.

AussieChiefsFan
02-18-2012, 05:15 AM
I agree with all 3 of you. Any team with significant cap space is going to carry it over, just for the flexibility of having it there if needed. And, no, they don't have to spend all of it, or any of it, for that matter.

What gives me hope is all the things Hunt and Pioli have said about what they intend to do with all that extra money. They have indicated a commitment to resign their best FAs and go after some quality players for depth, and they are setting themselves up for some heavy criticism if they don't follow through on that.

Hunt has said that the Chiefs are going to need that extra money in 2012 and 2013 so I wouldn't be surprised if they use a portion of that money this year (maybe $7-10 million) and carry over some of it to next year.

That's still a good thing in my opinion. it would give them the money they need to get some big names this year and put them a position to build on that next year.
Yea, its definitely a good situation to be in.

Especially if a good opportunity presents itself we can take it.

ctchiefsfan
02-18-2012, 07:55 AM
AFC West Champions in 2012. Super Bowl Champions in 2013.

AussieChiefsFan
02-18-2012, 07:56 AM
AFC West Champions in 2012. Super Bowl Champions in 2013.

:bananen_smilies046: :chiefs:

nicfre2011
02-18-2012, 09:56 AM
I don't see this as anything of the sort.

Any team with this option, who would not activate this clause would be stupid.

Rather or not you expect to use any of that cap space, you would still make sure to leave that door open.

I hope they use it. But this move is no signal at all to me.

Or is there some stipulation that requires some spending, for activating this?

I would agree with you...this is really an expected move by every team that has cap carryover. And I don't believe there are any requirements on spending the money...I think the amount can continue to be pushed forward.

TopekaRoy
02-18-2012, 01:17 PM
I would agree with you...this is really an expected move by every team that has cap carryover. And I don't believe there are any requirements on spending the money...I think the amount can continue to be pushed forward.

It sure can and I was just thinking that this new rule creates some very interesting scenarios.

1. I can see some teams - especially very young teams who are rebuilding through the draft - carrying over large amounts of cap space for 3, 4 or even 5 years and then going nuts in free agency when they become playoff contenders.

2. I can also see teams with high payrolls releasing high paid players who are just past their primes, but still have a couple of very productive years left, in order to create cap space for the future.

In the near future, this should lead to more quality FAs hitting the market and more teams with deep pockets to spend money on them.

I think the Chiefs have just gone through scenario 1 and are in a great position to land some of those big FA names, now.

chief31
02-18-2012, 01:33 PM
It sure can and I was just thinking that this new rule creates some very interesting scenarios.

1. I can see some teams - especially very young teams who are rebuilding through the draft - carrying over large amounts of cap space for 3, 4 or even 5 years and then going nuts in free agency when they become playoff contenders.

2. I can also see teams with high payrolls releasing high paid players who are just past their primes, but still have a couple of very productive years left, in order to create cap space for the future.

In the near future, this should lead to more quality FAs hitting the market and more teams with deep pockets to spend money on them.

I think the Chiefs have just gone through scenario 1 and are in a great position to land some of those big FA names, now.

As the seasons pile up, are teams not going to be required to spend most of their cap space? Or would that only be a high percentage of the "base" salary cap?Meaning, if their cap space is raised by using thise clause, when they are required to spend the 90% (Or whatever that number may be) would that be 90% of the base salary cap, or 90% of their adjust (from use of this clause) cap?

TopekaRoy
02-18-2012, 01:50 PM
As the seasons pile up, are teams not going to be required to spend most of their cap space? Or would that only be a high percentage of the "base" salary cap?Meaning, if their cap space is raised by using thise clause, when they are required to spend the 90% (Or whatever that number may be) would that be 90% of the base salary cap, or 90% of their adjust (from use of this clause) cap?

Excellent question! I didn't think of that. With the 90% percent threshold (starting next year), teams would still have $12.5 million or more to carry over, based on this year's $125 million cap, which hasn't been officially set, yet and is likely to go up in the future.

So this is the last year that teams will be able to stockpile a large amount of cap space, before the minimum sets in.

I don't know for sure the answer to your question, but I would assume teams will have to spend at least 90% of the hard cap for that year, regardless of how much money they carry over from past seasons. I will try to research this and see if I can find some more information.

TopekaRoy
02-18-2012, 01:57 PM
Well, that was easy! According to ProFootballTalk.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/12/minimum-cash-spend-will-be-based-on-unadjusted-cap-numbers/):


When the 89-percent per-team spending minimum kicks in next year, the threshold will be based on the unadjusted cap number. And so no amount of carried-over cap space will increase the amount each team must spend on a rolling three-year average, as of 2013.

As a result, there’s no reason for any team to avoid carrying over the full amount of any excess cap space. Unless, of course, the team is cheap.



That same article also puts the Chiefs cap space at $24.01 million. (yet another figure!)

Hope this helps...

TopekaRoy
02-18-2012, 02:20 PM
Another thought: I just noticed the phrase "rolling three year average" in the above quote. Does that mean that a team can spend, say, only 80% of the cap as long as they spend 95% the next two years to keep the average from the past 3 years above to 89% minimum?

This just keeps getting more and more interesting ...

chief31
02-18-2012, 02:24 PM
Another thought: I just noticed the phrase "rolling three year average" in the above quote. Does that mean that a team can spend, say, only 80% of the cap as long as they spend 95% the next two years to keep the average from the past 3 years above to 89% minimum?

This just keeps getting more and more interesting ...

Way to complicate things even further.

TopekaRoy
02-18-2012, 02:31 PM
Way to complicate things even further.

:lol: Don't blame me! Blame the NFL Lawyers who drafted this monstrosity!

dbolan
02-20-2012, 08:51 AM
If they can find ways to go over the cap...And many have over the years....Then can surely find a way to stay significantly under it.

ctchiefsfan
02-20-2012, 11:41 AM
Thank God I don't have to run a football team. I cann just watch the games and have fun!

TopekaRoy
02-20-2012, 01:10 PM
I thought this was an interesting snippet from ESPN.com:


http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/tag/_/name/2012-nfl-draft
The Kansas City Chiefs have a terrific salary-cap situation, with more than $62 million in cap room -- meaning they can do virtually whatever they wish. The Chiefs, entering their fourth year under general manager Scott Pioli, have not spent wildly during his tenure despite being in solid cap shape. He has maintained that he will not spend just to spend, and thus far he has opted for mostly role players in free agency.

Still, Pioli has been extremely aggressive in signing the Chiefs’ best players before they get to free agency. Yet two young standouts -- receiver Dwayne Bowe and cornerback Brandon Carr -- are weeks from hitting the market. The fact that the team hasn't gotten a deal done with either may be an indication that both players want to see what is on the open market even though the Chiefs can match virtually any offer.

The truth is that Kansas City has too much cap room to just let the players walk unless it thinks it can get upgrades at those players' positions. Kansas City visited this week with cornerback Stanford Routt -- cut by Oakland last week -- and perhaps is deciding between him and Carr. I wouldn’t be surprised if either Bowe or Carr is franchised.

Either way, Pioli is going to have to get aggressive and perhaps land a big fish or two from the outside. This is a young, intriguing roster that could make a big playoff push in a hurry with the right additions.

I think the fact that the Chiefs have so much cap space is actually making it harder for them to sign Bowe and Carr! Does this make any sense to you?

They know, or more likely their agents know, that the Chiefs are sitting on a mountain of cash and can match any offers these two get in FA, so they want to test the market and drive the cost up as high as possible.

The fact that the Chiefs are taking a hard look at Routt leads me to believe that they have already decided to franchise Bowe and are trying to put extra pressure on Carr to re-sign. The franchise tag for WRs is about $1.2 million less than it will be for CBs this year so it makes sense financially.

You can't really blame the Chiefs for not having signed these guys, yet. They don't have to accept any offer they get. You can't really blame the players either for using their leverage to get the best deal possible, either.

It's still a business after all.