Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: new interesting fatlock reading

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Jun 2006
    Location
    betwwen lost and nowhere,southcentral ks.
    Posts
    1,258
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default new interesting fatlock reading


    0 Not allowed!
    Whitlock | Price goes up for Johnson


    function PopupPic(sPicURL, sHeight, sWidth) { window.open( "http://media.kansascity.com/static/popup.html?"+sPicURL, "", "resizable=1,HEIGHT=" +sHeight+ ",WIDTH=" +sWidth); }


    The record contract the Colts handed defensive end Dwight Freeney late last week is yet another new wrinkle in the Larry Johnson-Chiefs contract saga.
    Freeney’s $72 million deal, which includes $30 million in bonuses and $37.5 million over the first three years, raised the roof on all future contract demands across the league.
    The Colts treated Freeney, the game’s second-best defensive end after Julius Peppers, like a quarterback. And by doing so, the Colts hammered the point that you can’t compare 2007 contracts by the standards established under the old collective-bargaining agreement.
    The franchise-tag value for defensive ends had been around $8.6 million. Once Peppers inks a new deal, an agreement that should surpass Freeney’s, the franchise number for pass rushers will begin to approach $10 million.
    My point in bringing this up is it is being made abundantly clear that the deal that LaDainian Tomlinson, the league’s best running back, signed in 2004 is obsolete when talking about Larry Johnson’s value in today’s market.
    If the Chargers signed LT today, he would garner a $30 million signing bonus and $36 million over the first three years of the contract.
    Under that scenario, what does the game’s second-best running back deserve? Larry and his agent have virtually no choice but to demand $25 million in guarantees.
    I still see a trade as a legitimate possibility. The Hunt family has never shown the stomach for reaching into their piggy bank and handing out huge signing bonuses.
    The Chiefs still operate like a $10 million bonus is a big deal. Yes, Tony Gonzalez got $18 million in guaranteed money, but only $10 million was in signing bonus. The rest was in guaranteed salary over the first four years of his new deal.
    But look at the cash Colts owner Jim Irsay has been tossing around: Peyton Manning received $35 million in guarantees, Marvin Harrison got $23 million, Reggie Wayne took home $13.5 million and now Freeney just cracked $30 million.
    There’s a huge difference between paying a guy in salary and paying a guy in guaranteed bonuses. The latter is far more risky and causes an owner to initially dip into his own finances to do it. It’s the difference between cash dollars and salary-cap dollars.
    The Hunts will spend their salary-cap dollars, but they’ve been reluctant to stretch the cap by spending large sums of cash in bonuses.
    I’m not going to beat up the Hunts or team president/general manager WildCarl Peterson about their frugal spending habits. You could argue the Colts are in a unique situation; they have arguably the league’s best quarterback, pass rusher and wide receiver.
    The Chiefs have arguably the league’s best tight end, and they paid him like it. In my opinion, the Chiefs have the league’s best offensive guard, Brian Waters, and WildCarl took complete advantage of Waters in 2006 contract negotiations.
    Is it WildCarl’s fault that Waters chose to do his deal without the assistance of an agent? Waters is every bit as good as Minnesota’s Steve Hutchinson, who inked a $49 million deal that included $16 million in bonuses.
    Waters received a $4 million roster bonus, relatively modest salaries over the first three years ($585,000, $720,000 and $2.08 million), and roster bonuses in 2007 and 2008 of $3 million and $2.5 million. When you toss in workout bonuses and per-game roster bonuses, Waters received $14.6 million over three years. Hutchinson got $23 million.
    Waters signed an extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement. It’s simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters — at least not when they retain proper representation.
    Again, I’m not trying to beat up Peterson or the Hunts. The Patriots and the Eagles, to name two franchises, have experienced success while gaining a reputation as cheap.
    And does declining to give Johnson $20 million-plus in guarantees mean the Chiefs are cheap or does it signify that the organization believes Johnson isn’t worth it? According to my sources, so far, the Chiefs have offered Johnson less guaranteed money than Gonzalez. The Chiefs are allegedly in the $14 million to $15 million range, or about half of what LT would get today.
    Is Johnson only half the running back that Tomlinson is? No one would argue that. A trade just might make sense for all parties. Brett Favre would love to have Larry Johnson, and the Packers would properly pay Johnson. The Chiefs could pick up a few draft picks
    i can remember what a chief super bowl team looks like! ......

  2. #11
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,124
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 254
    Given: 447

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    This is such a Catch22. I'd hate to lose LJ, but he just isn't worth the money he is demanding.

    I think they'll probably play the up/down negotiating game and meet somewhere in the middle.


  3. #12
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    544
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkHillbilly View Post

    So please give me a legitimate reason not to pay this guy like a top 5 running back in the league!
    Because we are not planning on making a run during that time.

    If we were talking about a stacked team and he is the cornerstone, no doubt KC would find the money. But we're talking about a team that barely made the play-offs then were promptly thumped in one of the worst play-off games ever. No first downs in the first half?

    We don't have the answers on the team now to seriously believe we will be a top 5 team in the league in the next 2 - 3 years (probably when LJ's decline will be obvious from being a work horse for this year and those years).

    So the question is really "why pay him"? What do we gain by it? We finish 500 instead of a 4 win season? Why spend that money? Why NOT get a few draft picks for him? Will they be one-to-one equal to where he is now? No. Will they maybe be pieces that 2 - 3 years down the line help get us to that hallowed spot we wish to be in? They can't hurt.

    Not to even mention the salary cap room for the next few years we can use growing...
    You can only have one favorite team. There are no "second favorites".
    -- Chris, resident of Arrowhead East (St. Louis)

  4. #13
    Member Since
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    1,852
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by stlchief71 View Post
    Because we are not planning on making a run during that time.

    If we were talking about a stacked team and he is the cornerstone, no doubt KC would find the money. But we're talking about a team that barely made the play-offs then were promptly thumped in one of the worst play-off games ever. No first downs in the first half?

    We don't have the answers on the team now to seriously believe we will be a top 5 team in the league in the next 2 - 3 years (probably when LJ's decline will be obvious from being a work horse for this year and those years).

    So the question is really "why pay him"? What do we gain by it? We finish 500 instead of a 4 win season? Why spend that money? Why NOT get a few draft picks for him? Will they be one-to-one equal to where he is now? No. Will they maybe be pieces that 2 - 3 years down the line help get us to that hallowed spot we wish to be in? They can't hurt.

    Not to even mention the salary cap room for the next few years we can use growing...
    "Why not get a few draft picks for him"?????????

    Who gets only draft picks for a top 10 player in the league?

    Also, there is a big difference in finishing .500 and 4 wins!! Hell, there are teams that are flirting with getting into the playoffs with 9 wins!

  5. #14
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,124
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 254
    Given: 447

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkHillbilly View Post
    "Why not get a few draft picks for him"?????????

    Who gets only draft picks for a top 10 player in the league?

    Also, there is a big difference in finishing .500 and 4 wins!! Hell, there are teams that are flirting with getting into the playoffs with 9 wins!
    There have been a few 8-8 teams get in.


  6. #15
    Member Since
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    1,852
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Alrighty then! Big diff between .500 and 4 wins. I prefer .500

  7. #16
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,124
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 254
    Given: 447

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    I prefer A SB win, but what is possible and what is probably are, at this point, at opposite ends of the spectrum.


  8. #17
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,148
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkHillbilly View Post
    "Why not get a few draft picks for him"?????????

    Who gets only draft picks for a top 10 player in the league?

    Also, there is a big difference in finishing .500 and 4 wins!! Hell, there are teams that are flirting with getting into the playoffs with 9 wins!
    Squeaking into the playoffs, only to get exposed as a lesser team is quite appealing. But, I too, would rather create a real contender. The difference between 8-8 and 4-12 is drafting 5th and drafting twenty-fifth. Sure, you could build a contender, drafting late. But, there are so many more options, when drafting early, not to mention often.

  9. #18
    Member Since
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    1,852
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Squeaking into the playoffs, only to get exposed as a lesser team is quite appealing. But, I too, would rather create a real contender. The difference between 8-8 and 4-12 is drafting 5th and drafting twenty-fifth. Sure, you could build a contender, drafting late. But, there are so many more options, when drafting early, not to mention often.
    Yea, your right. Let's trade LJ and play for 4 wins so we can get some early draft picks!!!! Wake up please!:fighting0098:

  10. #19
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,343
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 29

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkHillbilly View Post
    Yea, your right. Let's trade LJ and play for 4 wins so we can get some early draft picks!!!! Wake up please!:fighting0098:
    Do you suggest that we max out the cap and play witht he team we have?

  11. #20
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,148
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkHillbilly View Post
    Yea, your right. Let's trade LJ and play for 4 wins so we can get some early draft picks!!!! Wake up please!:fighting0098:
    I already said "good morning", in another forum...... I would rather be 4-12, in a rebuilding year, than 4-12 while thinking that we were supposed to contend.

    Right now, with L.J., I see alot of similarities, between the Chiefs and the Raiders. How can you not see it? Good runningback,( Though I don't see, in L.J., what you do.) Basically, a rookie quarterback, good defense, (Giving the Raiders the edge, there.) and our offensive line has dropped, in ability,massively, these past two offseasons, where the Raiders, already have a bad O-line.

    If you look closely, who else, in our division, do we compare to?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •