Jump to content
KC_Guy

Chiefs extend Cam Erving

Recommended Posts

That's interesting. He was in the final year of his rookie deal, and if I remember correctly the Chiefs declined his 5th year option.

His 2018 salary is (was??) 1.72 M$ fully guaranteed,so I expect at least the cash flow (signing bonus plus 2018 base salary) to top this. I would expect something in the 2-3 M$ range annually  over three years.

EDIT 1: Looks like I was completely off with my estimate. Ol' pal Terez Paylor (who else?) has the inside info. Well, ultimately it will depend on how the incentives are structured .

Quote

 

OT/OG Cam Erving has agreed to a two-year extension with the Chiefs worth up to $15.7M, depending on how much he plays, per source. Deal also includes $6.45M in guarantees and makes him one of the highest-paid swing linemen in the league.

 

EDIT 2: More reasonable. And closer to the 3M$ annually I considered the max. Now subtract 1.72 M$ he was supposed to make this year and you have 8.3 M$ in fresh money, or 4.15 M$ per extension year:

Quote

 

The Chiefs will pay Cam Erving $10 million over the next three seasons, with incentives based on snaps that would push it higher. There’s value in versatility — Chiefs think he can play guard, center and tackle.

 

 

Edited by KC_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we trade Brett Veach to get John Dorsey back yet?

It isn't a horrible deal from what I can tell. But it still seems a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kingseanjohn said:

Can we trade Brett Veach to get John Dorsey back yet?

It isn't a horrible deal from what I can tell. But it still seems a bit much.

Bite your tongue. Dorsey had his talents but so does Veach. For example, both were skilled at finding talent on the street. The difference I can see is the ability to handle money matters. Veach is much better.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

Bite your tongue. Dorsey had his talents but so does Veach. For example, both were skilled at finding talent on the street. The difference I can see is the ability to handle money matters. Veach is much better.

J

To say that I vastly disagree with you would be an understatement. We just spent 25M a year on 2 players: a WR who is likely our 4th weapon on offense and an ILB2 which we can find basically anywhere. What we spent there made us unable to improve our secondary, OL and depth. That's imho poor money management. Under Dorsey we had a stacked team despite paying premium contracts to a QB, LT, 2 edge rushers, an ILB1 and a safety. Almost all very valuable positions.

The big issue I had with Dorsey was the lack of quality players drafted in the first 2 rounds. Too early to say Veach is better there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no one close to Hitchens available now, so you cannot find one "anywhere". For that matter, Dallas did not want to let him go. If he overpaid, it was in a tight market.

I tend to agree about Watkins but, again, it was not a big reach. Dorsey's big problem was managing the whole budget. He got us in serious trouble with the cap, which led to the disgraceful situation with Jeremy Maclin. Veach has gotten the budget under control largely by replacing aging players with unproven talent, in several cases undrafted talent. We will see if he can handle the renewal contracts better than Dorsey did. 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we paying so much for a sub par swing tackle/terrible interior OL? He's making more than schwartz if incentives are met.

after this off-season of moves I have zero confidence in this current regime. I'm hoping they do well this year but at this point I'm not expecting much

Edited by Chiefer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Chiefer said:

Why are we paying so much for a sub par swing tackle/terrible interior OL? He's making more than schwartz if incentives are met.

after this off-season of moves I have zero confidence in this current regime. I'm hoping they do well this year but at this point I'm not expecting much

Chiefer, the Schwartz comparison is wrong. I know Geoff Schwartz tweeted this, but if OTC is just close to the thruth Mitch makes 6 M$ a year in base salary alone - not counting roster incentives and signing bonus. Ervings contract maxes out at 15 M$ for 3 years.

I won't judge his performance as I've only seen part of one preseason game. But unless he cracks the starting lineup permanently he won't max out his contract. If he does - 5 M$/yr isn't THAT much for a starting OL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dorsey didn’t really get us into to bad of shape cap wise, he just pushed money into the last few years of Smith to keep a team around him.  It was easy to get out of those contracts, I don’t see that as bad cap management, I see that as attempting to keep a core together a few more years.  Dorsey’s problem was communication with players and coworkers.

Veach gets a ton of unwarranted credit for fixing our cap problems.  Releasing DJ/Tamba and trading Smith were going to happen whether Dorsey/Veach/anyone else was the GM.

Not saying Veach will be better, or worse money wise but he only made moves that were preordained by a previous regime, that were going to happen regardless.

Jury is definitely still out, and I’m still not leaning to either side with him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

Bite your tongue. Dorsey had his talents but so does Veach. For example, both were skilled at finding talent on the street. The difference I can see is the ability to handle money matters. Veach is much better.

J

I agree with how Samsel put it. Dorsey drafted Mahomes knowing that Smith would be traded/cut the following year to free up cap space. That alone saved us $17mil this year. The rest of the moves are debatable that he would have done them.

I don't dislike Veach as a person, but I question his talent choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dorsey absolutely put us in terrible cap situations. He backloaded contracts in a way that left very little flexibility until the very last year of their contracts, we were consistently on the higher end of the spectrum in dead money, we were consistently up against the cap, and year after year were making roster decisions because of our lack of cap space, not for roster building reasons.

The jury is still out on Veach, he's basically had one full offseason so far, and we haven't even seen the onfield results for it, but people have ridiculously short memories if they already forget how much trouble Dorsey had managing the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2018 at 6:23 PM, kingseanjohn said:

I agree with how Samsel put it. Dorsey drafted Mahomes knowing that Smith would be traded/cut the following year to free up cap space. That alone saved us $17mil this year. The rest of the moves are debatable that he would have done them.

I don't dislike Veach as a person, but I question his talent choices.

If that was the whole story, you would have a solid point. As it is, it's pretty skinny. See Jakuvious.

On 9/6/2018 at 12:48 AM, Jakuvious said:

Dorsey absolutely put us in terrible cap situations. He backloaded contracts in a way that left very little flexibility until the very last year of their contracts, we were consistently on the higher end of the spectrum in dead money, we were consistently up against the cap, and year after year were making roster decisions because of our lack of cap space, not for roster building reasons.

The jury is still out on Veach, he's basically had one full offseason so far, and we haven't even seen the onfield results for it, but people have ridiculously short memories if they already forget how much trouble Dorsey had managing the cap.

1

As you say, the whole cap system was messed up. Sure, we freed a pile when we traded Alex Smith. it was not a big enough pile. They played last season with their hands tied moneywise. Hence the fiasco with Maclin. I wonder how much money figured in the Peters trade.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead money is misleading, in all honesty you should have dead money.  If you look at past Super Bowl participants, we really don’t look all the different, and Dorsey was consistently building this team to play against those guys.  If we weren’t consistently winning, I probably wouldn’t like the Dead Money but the consistency we had winning shows me we were replacing high priced guys with younger ones,  along with consistent coaching.

If you can cut a guy and save $3 Mil and replace him with a guy that makes under 1 mil, but still get the same production... you should.  Which was the case with most our Dead Cap situations.  The Maclin cut was the right decision,  it was just handled terribly.  The communication on it was terrible, and that’s why i said that is probably the biggest downfall from Dorsey was communication with players/management.

The Tamba deal is really the only TERRIBLE deal and it was awful the day it was signed, even if I do love Tamba.

 

But enough about Dorsey.  I have high hopes for Veach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×