NFL: Kansas City Chiefs Thread

[ZRF]

No player is ever getting less money unless they agree to it, you are implying that the Chiefs are doing this on their own, and Mahomes has no say in the matter. Mahomes and his agents are agreeing on every move the Chiefs are doing to his contract, or the move will not be made.

The Chiefs have already stated that they are going to have to rework the contract down the road, but right now the cap hit is too large to do it. I read it will be around 2025/6 when they will start to rework his contract to ensure that he is the highest paid player in the game.

I think there is a consensus with Mahomes and the Chiefs that they will do what works for everyone. The Chiefs will rework the deal to ensure Mahomes gets paid what he needs while Mahomes takes 'less money' than what he could get from football as he recognizes the power of brand and image.

It's nice when both team and player find a situation where everyone wins and work together mutually. Doesn't happen enough in sports.

 

[Mr Janny]

No player is ever getting less money unless they agree to it, you are implying that the Chiefs are doing this on their own, and Mahomes has no say in the matter. Mahomes and his agents are agreeing on every move the Chiefs are doing to his contract, or the move will not be made.

The Chiefs have already stated that they are going to have to rework the contract down the road, but right now the cap hit is too large to do it. I read it will be around 2025/6 when they will start to rework his contract to ensure that he is the highest paid player in the game.

Mahomes isn't getting less money, though. Not from a roster bonus conversion. And no, teams do not need the player's permission to exercise those conversions. They don't change the structure of the contract. They just change the back end accounting. The check still arrives on the same day it would have previously. The amount is the same. The taxes aren't any different. It's literally no different to Mahomes.

 

[houjix]

Mahomes isn't getting less money, though. Not from a roster bonus conversion. And no, teams do not need the player's permission to exercise those conversions. They don't change the structure of the contract. They just change the back end accounting. The check still arrives on the same day it would have previously. The amount is the same. The taxes aren't any different. It's literally no different to Mahomes.

Yep, Simply an accounting trick as it relates to the salary cap.

 

[IcSyUclone]

KC wouldn't do anything Mahomes would be upset about but they can do a simple restructure without his input.


"Mahomes' contract includes a clause that the team can convert salary or bonuses into a signing bonus automatically -- i.e., they don't have to let the QB know they're performing the restructure."

Chiefs restructuring contracts of Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Chris Jones

www.nfl.com

 

[CYdTracked]

All the cuts.

Chiefs 2023 Roster Down to NFL-Mandated 53

www.chiefs.com

Back to this, surprised to see Buechele cut. Guessing they hope he makes it through waivers so they can add him to the practice squad? Only Blane Gabbert right now as a backup and no 3rd emergency QB on the roster. This kind of explains the reasoning I guess?

Chiefs Roster: 53-man roster for 2023 NFL season revealed after cuts - Arrowhead Pride

Also of note is OL Darian Kinnard is amongst the cuts. Hopefully a sign that the quality of depth on the OL is good. No other cuts really stand out to me as a surprise.

 

[houjix]

Back to this, surprised to see Buechele cut. Guessing they hope he makes it through waivers so they can add him to the practice squad? Only Blane Gabbert right now as a backup and no 3rd emergency QB on the roster. This kind of explains the reasoning I guess?

Chiefs Roster: 53-man roster for 2023 NFL season revealed after cuts - Arrowhead Pride

Also of note is OL Darian Kinnard is amongst the cuts. Hopefully a sign that the quality of depth on the OL is good. No other cuts really stand out to me as a surprise.

I don't think many teams are really taking advantage of the 3rd QB opportunities right now. Hell, NE only kept Mac Jones and will at least grab one of the many veteran QBs not on a roster at the moment.

Unless a team has a rookie QB or injury concerns, it still seems like a waste to carry 3 QBs on the active roster, especially this early in the season.

 

[Mr Janny]

I don't think many teams are really taking advantage of the 3rd QB opportunities right now. Hell, NE only kept Mac Jones and will at least grab one of the many veteran QBs not on a roster at the moment.

Unless a team has a rookie QB or injury concerns, it still seems like a waste to carry 3 QBs on the active roster, especially this early in the season.

I read that only 13 teams kept a 3rd QB.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Mahomes isn't getting less money, though. Not from a roster bonus conversion. And no, teams do not need the player's permission to exercise those conversions. They don't change the structure of the contract. They just change the back end accounting. The check still arrives on the same day it would have previously. The amount is the same. The taxes aren't any different. It's literally no different to Mahomes.

I think we are both on the same page, what I meant to say is in the past, players have agreed to take less money and restructure their contract as not to get cut. Mahomes has had to do none of that, and while the Chiefs can restructure his signing bonus, they are never going to do that without telling Mahomes what and why they are doing it. If Mahomes would say "no" which he never has, I really doubt the Chiefs would just do it, even if the contract allows it.

It's never a really good idea to piss of the best player on your team, who is also the best player in the league. I am sure that Mahomes had quite a bit of input in the offensive players cut or waived yesterday. Meaning, that the numbers were given to him, and he had input into which receiver or running back he wanted to work with or felt better about.

 

[houjix]

I think we are both on the same page, what I meant to say is in the past, players have agreed to take less money and restructure their contract as not to get cut. Mahomes has had to do none of that, and while the Chiefs can restructure his signing bonus, they are never going to do that without telling Mahomes what and why they are doing it. If Mahomes would say "no" which he never has, I really doubt the Chiefs would just do it, even if the contract allows it.

You're still not really getting it. They aren't really changing anything about the contract or the dollars Mahomes has gotten or is getting paid. It a literal cap trick to designate a roster bonus as a signing bonus to spread the cap hit over multiple years.

Mahomes got a roster bonus of $34 million this year. KC converted $12 million of that into a signing bonus to create cap space this year by spreading it out over the next few years. Mahomes still gets a $34 million check this year. He does not have to approve any of that because it has zero effect on the money he is owed.

 

[CloneFanInKC]

Technical move IMO. Move made with the future in mind.

This allows the team to retain him without having to cut him and expose him to waiver wire.

Note - JuJu, Gordon and Hardman are not signed for next year (not a guarantee Gordon makes roster this yr). My guess is at most 2 of those 3 would be with the club next yr.

“Slap on the back…”

 

[Dandy]

Actually, next year he drops to 6th as Watson, Dak, Murray, Stafford, and Allen all pass him. By 2026, he will fall out of the top 10, but jump back again in 2027 with that looming $60+ million cap hit. Of course I think that was always the intended renegotiation year.

By 2027 a $60M QB may be a cheap cap hit for Mahomes if he is still elite. Justin Herbert just signed his deal making him the highest paid player ever and his projected cap hit in 2027 is $58.3M. Lamar Jackson's cap hit in 2027 is $74.7M.

 

[Dandy]

By 2027 a $60M QB may be a cheap cap hit for Mahomes if he is still elite. Justin Herbert just signed his deal making him the highest paid player ever and his projected cap hit in 2027 is $58.3M. Lamar Jackson's cap hit in 2027 is $74.7M.

Mahomes has the crazy cap it of $62.3M in 2027 but then 28 is $44.5M, 29 is $45M, 30 is $50.5M and 31 is $52.5M. All probably insanely good cap numbers by the time those years come about. And he'd be 36 years old in 2031 so could still be pretty good.

 

[Dandy]

One thing the Chiefs have not done (to my knowledge) and I absolutely love them for it is they have not done the stupid voidable years thing with contracts.

Mahomes's ten year deal is a ten year deal.

OBJ's one year deal with the Ravens is really a five year deal on their books. DUMB.

 

[houjix]

One thing the Chiefs have not done (to my knowledge) and I absolutely love them for it is they have not done the stupid voidable years thing with contracts.

Mahomes's ten year deal is a ten year deal.

OBJ's one year deal with the Ravens is really a five year deal on their books. DUMB.

Simply a cap manipulation thing that happens with players that are near the end of their career or on one year deals to get them a few extra dollars when a team has limited cap space. . But even Mahomes' last 5 years of his 10 year deal are smoke and mirrors as both side knew they would renegotiate long before he plays on those.

 

[CYdTracked]

Mahomes has the crazy cap it of $62.3M in 2027 but then 28 is $44.5M, 29 is $45M, 30 is $50.5M and 31 is $52.5M. All probably insanely good cap numbers by the time those years come about. And he'd be 36 years old in 2031 so could still be pretty good.

The cap hits that far down the road don't concern me too much right now as the Chiefs are focused on this current window to rack up some more championships while they have guys in the prime of their career and Andy Reid was coach. Reid is 65, who know just how many more years he wants to coach or if his health will allow him to coach 5 years from now. Also I think as long as Mahomes is happy in KC and they continue to build a competitive roster around him he will re-work his contract to keep the roster competitive. There are so many off-field financial opportunities for him and I think he has a good head on his shoulders thanks to his dad being a former professional athlete that he doesn't put his salary and contract at the top of his priority list. I love Kelce for this same reason and the front office already has shown with the Tyreek Hill trade that they won't let replacable guys hold them hostage and will trade them if need be.

Mahomes has a chance to be in the GOAT conversation some day if he continues to perform at the level he currently is and I think the front office is operating much like the Patriots did when Brady was in his Prime where they would draft well and trade guys that were going to be too expensive to keep before the lost them for nothing. Unfortunately I think Jones may have this same fate if they can't get a reasonable deal worked out soon.

 

[RonBurgundy]

I read that only 13 teams kept a 3rd QB.

Yes, it is rarely done. Almost everyone only holds two spots on the roster for QB, then they sign a third to their practice squad once the dust settles. Ironically, it was our Brock Purdy that was one of the only 3rd string QB's to be put on the active roster from day one last year.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the new 3rd QB rule does not relate to the 53 man active roster, does it? I thought the intent was the 3rd string QB could dress out and be available in an emergency without using a game day active spot.

But maybe the new rule is changing how teams construct their 53 this year. 13 QB's seems like a lot compared to years past.

 

[houjix]

Yes, it is rarely done. Almost everyone only holds two spots on the roster for QB, then they sign a third to their practice squad once the dust settles. Ironically, it was our Brock Purdy that was one of the only 3rd string QB's to be put on the active roster from day one last year.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the new 3rd QB rule does not relate to the 53 man active roster, does it? I thought the intent was the 3rd string QB could dress out and be available in an emergency without using a game day active spot.

But maybe the new rule is changing how teams construct their 53 this year. 13 QB's seems like a lot compared to years past.

They have to be on the 53, but do not count against the game day 46.

 

[Dandy]

Yes, it is rarely done. Almost everyone only holds two spots on the roster for QB, then they sign a third to their practice squad once the dust settles. Ironically, it was our Brock Purdy that was one of the only 3rd string QB's to be put on the active roster from day one last year.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the new 3rd QB rule does not relate to the 53 man active roster, does it? I thought the intent was the 3rd string QB could dress out and be available in an emergency without using a game day active spot.

But maybe the new rule is changing how teams construct their 53 this year. 13 QB's seems like a lot compared to years past.

Yes, it does.

Chiefs’ initial 53-man roster for 2023 revealed after cuts

Instant analysis of Kansas City’s initial 53-man roster.

www.arrowheadpride.com

 

[TitanClone]

Back to this, surprised to see Buechele cut. Guessing they hope he makes it through waivers so they can add him to the practice squad? Only Blane Gabbert right now as a backup and no 3rd emergency QB on the roster. This kind of explains the reasoning I guess?

Chiefs Roster: 53-man roster for 2023 NFL season revealed after cuts - Arrowhead Pride

Also of note is OL Darian Kinnard is amongst the cuts. Hopefully a sign that the quality of depth on the OL is good. No other cuts really stand out to me as a surprise.

Don't forget they have Blake Bell, I'm sure he's the 3rd string QB.

 

[Mr Janny]

Yes, it is rarely done. Almost everyone only holds two spots on the roster for QB, then they sign a third to their practice squad once the dust settles. Ironically, it was our Brock Purdy that was one of the only 3rd string QB's to be put on the active roster from day one last year.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the new 3rd QB rule does not relate to the 53 man active roster, does it? I thought the intent was the 3rd string QB could dress out and be available in an emergency without using a game day active spot.

But maybe the new rule is changing how teams construct their 53 this year. 13 QB's seems like a lot compared to years past.

Basically, it says that if your first and second string QBs get injured during a game, you can have a 3rd QB enter the game, without having that player count towards the 46 man active roster. If either of the other quarterbacks become cleared to play, the 3rd QB has to exit the game. The player has to be on the 53 man roster, though, so a team couldn't dress a practice squad QB and have this rule apply.