Blog Entry

Cassel getting paid

Posted on: July 14, 2009 2:27 pm
Edited on: July 14, 2009 2:30 pm
I guess the Kansas City Chiefs liked what they saw from Matt Cassel the past two months.

After privately hinting they might not give Cassel a contract extension after trading for him from New England, the Chiefs have reportedly given him a six-year deal that is expected to average in the $10-million range, probably similar to what Jacksonville gave Davis Garrard last year.

When the Jaguars paid Garrard, I cautioned about paying a potentiial one-hit wonder. After he struggled last season, there is some debate as to whether the Jaguars made the right move.

The same theory applies here. Cassel had one good year and now he's getting big money? Why not make him play a year under the franchise tag and then see if he's worth it? What's the rush?

Then again, if you trade for him you must think he's the guy.

We'll see.

I would have waited.
Category: NFL
Tags: Matt Cassel

Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: July 15, 2009 12:43 pm

Cassel getting paid

I agree that paying for him now is the best option.  If the Chiefs waited until he played out this year, two things could've happened:

1. He bombs out and they don't know if he bombed because of the system, the coach, or because of him.  Then, they have to spend more money next season on re-signing Thigpen or a top draft pick (McCoy, Bradford, etc.)

2. He exceeds expectations and then you have to compete with other teams for his services to sign him to a long-term deal, since you can't franchise him anymore.

Either way, it hurts them less to sign him to a deal now, because it would cost them more to sign him later.

Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: July 15, 2009 12:38 pm

Cassel getting paid

They have incredibly smart people on their management team and in my mind if they franchised him, there was a good reason for doing that.Of course there was.  But you don't really think it's because they considered him a franchise player, do you?  It's a financial move, nothing more.  They obligated money they knew they'd never pay.  They would have lost a trade chip if they hadn't.  By franchising him, they got something for nothing.  Smart business, but merely a reflection of how well the Patriots read the playing field.

Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: July 15, 2009 12:29 pm

Cassel getting paid

Come on!  Num ber One, Matt Cassel is not David Garrard. True.  Of course, one would argue Garrard was the better gamble, having experienced success with the same personnel in the same system.  Cassel is a shot in the dark, but one that the team is obviously confident will pay off.

Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: July 15, 2009 12:25 pm

Cassel getting paid

I would agree.  What has Cassel really done to deserve to be a part of Pro sports "Monopoly money" circus?  This reminds me of my Boys stupidity a couple of years ago when Jones gave Romo a huge contract after a couple of months of decent play.  Where has that money gotten the Cowboys?  Doing nothing but scrambling to put pieces around a cracked QB so the entire house of cards doesnt completely fall down.  I digress though.  This is just typical of all Pro sports, not just football.  What happened to the days when players actually earned the pay?

Since: Dec 11, 2006
Posted on: July 15, 2009 12:18 pm

Cassel getting paid

Clearly the Chiefs wanted the flexibility to look into the free agent pool so the lower salary up front worked for them.

I don't understand why Cassell did this signing now. At 16 mill, he should make the amount of money he makes over the course of this contract in about 3.7 seasons, not 6. He's taking a 40% pay cut per year. If he exceled this year, not only would he likely make similar money next season but would have several teams competing for his services and might be able to wind up in a better market such as Washington D.C. or San Francisco.

Clearly, his agent and/or wife put her into this wanting stability and more money in the immediate future, or Cassell agrees with me that last year was more about the system and Belichek's brilliance than real talent.

Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: July 15, 2009 10:29 am

Cassel getting paid

why rush to bankroll him when he hasn't proven he can win in an unproven system?

Prisco is WRONG. KC is right in my opinion and I'll tell you why.  People on these boards make it seem like KC had the ability to wait and decide later after he proves himself.   They  couldn't do that at all, didn't have the choice whatsoever. 

If they wait and he succeeds, they have no chance at signing him during the season. Don't be arrogant enough to think KC would have any advantage over other teams.  If they would have shot him down now and he does well, he simply tests the free agent market where a few teams would go after him and kc's chances decrease tremendously of signing him. They "overpay" now and if he does well, they keep him as their starter and kc can take quarterback off of their list of needs.

Remember a couple of other things as well. One, quarterbacks are tough to find, good ones that is. And 2, most importantly it's not REALLY 63 million dollars. Only 28 is guaranteed. Forget about the other 35. If he's not good, this deal costs KC 28 million bucks. That's not a big gamble to take like people think it is. 

One more thing. If you're forced to rebuild and go after a top qb in the draft in the top 2 or 3 picks it costs you much more then that.

I don't know if Cassel is going to be good, great or a bust. But I do know one thing. The New England Patriots are NOT a dumb organization at all. They are one of the top organizations in all of sports for the last dozen or so years. They have incredibly smart people on their management team and in my mind if they franchised him, there was a good reason for doing that.

Don't give me the "product of his team" crap.  New England, if he was that bad could easily teach somebody else what they taught him for a quarter of that money. They know what they are doing, and I think KC in this case does as well.

Good job by the KC management. It's a risk, but without risks you'll lose for a lifetime.

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: July 15, 2009 10:26 am

Cassel getting paid

You won't get much of an argument from me on the need to cap rookie salaries.  However, this isn't my league.  I am not an owner.  Frankly, if you want a rook cap you'd have to give me guarenteed money.  So which is better?

I'd like the upfront money if I was a player.   Remember that upfront money is all that is guarenteed on a contract and even that has clauses ala Charlies Rogers and Michael Vick that teams have to recoup in the event a player does something astronomically stupid. 

You've essentially gotten out of the debate on why he needs to be paid.  You look at his peers and there salary.  You look at the salary you are paying him for a single season.

Now as the Chiefs how do you not give him 30 million signing bonus and 4-6 year contract backend loaded on salary? You where going to pay him 14 million this year.  You would almost 100% be paying him that if not more next year if you refranchise tagged the guy to keep his rights while you tried to sign him.  That is 30 million roughly in salary you'd be looking at for 2 years. 

The decision was very sound.  There is no way around the fact the Chiefs likely made a 30 million dollar committment to the player when they traded for him with his 1 year franchise tag contract.  So with that fact you may as well lock him up for 6 years at 30 million verses 2 years at 30 million plus the ability for another team to steal him from your roster next season.

Pete Prisco is a so wrong on this issue its not even funny.  He didn't consider many angles of the story.  He just has some kind of players beef about salaries.

Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: July 15, 2009 7:50 am

Cassel getting paid

I don't often agree with Prisco, but he's dead-on in this case. Don't get me wrong, I was pleased with what Cassel did for the Patriots last season. He stepped in and gave us a great season and a shot at the playoffs, even without the defending NFL MVP Tom Brady. The problem is that Matt Cassel stepped into a system where a competent quarterback will be good and a great quarterback will be even better. He had so many weapons to throw to, an offensive line to protect him, a good, albeit by squad, running game, and a great coaching staff. All of which aren't exactly in place in Kansas City. They didn't trade that much to get the guy - why rush to bankroll him when he hasn't proven he can win in an unproven system?

Since: Mar 22, 2007
Posted on: July 15, 2009 5:49 am

Cassel getting paid

    People are making good points about Cassel getting paid the same money pretty much as the rookie QBs have over the past couple of years. But really it shows why the NFL really needs a Rookie Salary Cap? I think thats the term im looking for, anyway its bad how much they get paid when they have not played a game. It hurts the team if they turn out to be a bust and why should the rookies even care after they make bank? Its like veterans who play during a contract year! Everyone notices that after they get that big pay check their performance goes down significantly, granted there are players out their who do continue to earn there starting spot but we've all seen what happens example shaun alexander(then again there were his knee problems but thats getting off topic) so yeah.

    I agree that Cassel benefited from the patriots system and I dont see him doing as good. Though I do hope he works out, I have alot of friends who are chiefs fans(of course because I live in Topeka, KS) and would like to see the chiefs have a winning season for their sakes haha.

Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posted on: July 15, 2009 1:01 am

Cassel getting paid

  So, let me know , are you 12 0r 13 ?

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or