Eddie Drummond and the Defense

**greg3564** · 12-16-2007, 05:48 PM

So Drummond has sucked it up all year and is inactive for several games. Now Herm decides to play him again and what does he do? A fumble lost and a fumble recovery but tackled at the 5. Why in the hell was he active? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Once again the "great" defense couldn't play two halfs of a football game. Think all the problems lie with the offense? Think again folks. Law, Surtain and Edwards are all past thier prime and all are in positions that need experience to make a good defense.

The only positive note was Kirby Smith running and catching well. Still think LJ won't be traded? Smith brings many of the same attributes to the table and given more playing time he'll be a great RB. Think of the trades we can get for LJ and the money we can save in the cap to use on free agents. Brodie did well but had some rookie mistakes. He too will get better with time and a better offense to work with.

So the way I see it is that we need help on the defense at CB, a field goal kicker, a kick returner, a new offensive line and a new head coach.

Is this season over yet?

**timsatt1** · 12-17-2007, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Chiefster

Exactly!

i dont know how this all works so this could qualify as a dumb question to some...

...but couldnt the chiefs trade larry for some other players, but the chiefs continue to pay the contract on larry while the other team continues to pay the contracts of their old players?

why does the contract transfer to the next team if the trade was player trading for player instead of contract trading for contract.

does that ever happen?

**Chiefster** · 12-17-2007, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by timsatt1

i dont know how this all works so this could qualify as a dumb question to some...

...but couldnt the chiefs trade larry for some other players, but the chiefs continue to pay the contract on larry while the other team continues to pay the contracts of their old players?

why does the contract transfer to the next team if the trade was player trading for player instead of contract trading for contract.

does that ever happen?

No.

Not to my knowledge.

**Coach** · 12-17-2007, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by timsatt1

i dont know how this all works so this could qualify as a dumb question to some...

...but couldnt the chiefs trade larry for some other players, but the chiefs continue to pay the contract on larry while the other team continues to pay the contracts of their old players?

why does the contract transfer to the next team if the trade was player trading for player instead of contract trading for contract.

does that ever happen?

Are you asking if the Chiefs would pay Larry's salary every month if he was traded to another team? If so, No.

Teams only pay the salaries of the players on their rosters. So if LJ was traded to another team, the new team would be responsible for paying LJ's contract. Essentially a trade is nothing more than selling a contract or exchanging contracts. The teams don't actually own a player.

**timsatt1** · 12-17-2007, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Chiefster

No.

Not to my knowledge.

ok i admit i know very little about the business aspect of the professional sports that i talk so much about :character00295:

**Chiefster** · 12-18-2007, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by timsatt1

ok i admit i know very little about the business aspect of the professional sports that i talk so much about :character00295:

That's ok, the only stupid questions are those you don't ask, unless your HH.

j/k HH

**chief31** · 12-18-2007, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by timsatt1

i dont know how this all works so this could qualify as a dumb question to some...

...but couldnt the chiefs trade larry for some other players, but the chiefs continue to pay the contract on larry while the other team continues to pay the contracts of their old players?

why does the contract transfer to the next team if the trade was player trading for player instead of contract trading for contract.

does that ever happen?

It happens a little bit in baseball. Most notably when the Yankees took A-Rod off the Rangers' hands. In that case, the Rangers agreed to accept part of A-Rods salary withion the terms of the contract.

But, without a salary cap in baseball, that was really noone elses business.

With the NFL having salary cap rules, I don't think that that would be possible.

**Chiefster** · 12-18-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by chief31

It happens a little bit in baseball. Most notably when the Yankees took A-Rod off the Rangers' hands. In that case, the Rangers agreed to accept part of A-Rods salary withion the terms of the contract.

But, without a salary cap in baseball, that was really noone elses business.

With the NFL having salary cap rules, I don't think that that would be possible.

Yep!