KCFanatic,

1) I think most fans would say they’ve got no problem with Carl Peterson getting a good player for the best possible price for the Chiefs. The problem they have with him is that his negotiating tactics are well-documented as being highly acrimonius and overly drawn-out, to the point where he alienates current players against the team (often insuring acrimonious and prolonged negotiations in the future as well) and dissuades free agents from wanting to come here.

2) The dynamics of the NFL in regards to contracts, and particularly free agency, have changed since Carl Peterson came in the league, and most of his success using his negotiating tactics occured in a very different environment than what exists today. In 1989, free agency for all intents and purposes didn’t exist. You had a rough equivalent, called Plan B free agency, where teams might cut loose guys who’d been busts or who they thought were on the downside of their career, but rarely were these players who were of enough value to attract interest from much of the league (the only notable exception I can recall being Dan Saleamua). Thus, Peterson wasn’t competing against other teams for their affections…so he could afford to drag out negotiations and get them for a bargain price. Players who wanted to leave for other teams were in a similar boat…unless the Chiefs decided to cut them loose players whose contracts were up weren’t going anywhere unless they signed a deal pretty much on Peterson’s terms.

That situation doesn’t exist any more. Players achieve unrestricted free agency after four years or their first contract are up, after which they can go whereever they want so they aren’t held hostage by the teams (even those who use the franchise tag). When free agents hit the open market, the best free agents know that their best chance at the highest dollar contract is in the early days of signing, before job openings start getting filled (thereby limiting their options and bargaining leverage), thus a GM who prolongs negotiations will rarely be able to grab the top free agent talent in the league because those free agents know that prolonged negotiations likely mean less money. You witnessed this in this offseason when two players Peterson claimed he highly coveted, Jeff Faine and Josh Brown, signed contracts without even bothering to talk to the Chiefs…because they knew that Carl Peterson would nickel and dime them, possibly waste their time, and potentially cost them millions.

The reason that so many fans bash Peterson is that they realize that the league has passed Peterson by in how it operates, Peterson is either unwilling or unable to adapt to it, and it costs the Chiefs games now because of Peterson’s stubbornness. The NFL is a meritocracy and you’re only as good as your last couple of years, and frankly Peterson deservedly wore out the goodwill of his early years about a decade ago.

It really seems that you have it all figured out. Certainly the coaching staffs had nothing to do with those signings. I’m positive that they were against it in fact, it was Carl running like a wild bull through a china shop.

You are obviously a Carl Hater, and I can’t argue with that. Many of the things you bring up above are valid points. Supported by reality. But your original response (flame even) to my comment on this post is unsubstantiated. You clearly state:

The problem they have with him is that his negotiating tactics are well-documented as being highly acrimonius and overly drawn-out, to the point where he alienates current players against the team (often insuring acrimonious and prolonged negotiations in the future as well) and dissuades free agents from wanting to come here.

I haven’t seen anything indicating that any free agent has been dissuaded from coming here becasue our GM was Carl. You go on to say:

When free agents hit the open market, the best free agents know that their best chance at the highest dollar contract is in the early days of signing, before job openings start getting filled (thereby limiting their options and bargaining leverage), thus a GM who prolongs negotiations will rarely be able to grab the top free agent talent in the league because those free agents know that prolonged negotiations likely mean less money. You witnessed this in this offseason when two players Peterson claimed he highly coveted, Jeff Faine and Josh Brown, signed contracts without even bothering to talk to the Chiefs…because they knew that Carl Peterson would nickel and dime them, possibly waste their time, and potentially cost them millions.

Do you really believe that the reason that Jeff Faine and Josh Brown didn’t visit here was because Carl was our GM? Or could it have something to do with maybe playing for a better team, one that stands a playoff chance (Jeff Faine in TB) – or possibly because the Rams offered Josh the largest contract ever awarded to a kicker? Or would it have been better for Carl to get into a bidding war with the Rams over Josh? Is he worth $16 Million? $20 Million? What would you have paid? I believe that neither of those players visited Kansas City for their own reasons, Faine wants to play for a contender. Brown wanted a paycheck. Is it bad that Faine doesn’t see us as a contender this year? No, because we most likely won’t be, we’re rebuilding. Is it bad that Brown thought that we wouldn’t pay him more than the Rams would? No, if I was the owner I would be happy he skipped a visit here and wasting my time.

You also state:

He also signed Chester McGlockton (well-documented problem child with the Raiders), Kendrell Bell (coming off a serious knee injury with the Steelers), Dan Williams (one year away from being out of the league), Ty Law (30+ year old CB), Priest Holmes (5 year deal for a 30 year old RB) and Eric Warfield (toast CB) to long-term big money contracts those players weren’t even close to being able to justify. Honestly, I think that shows rather terrible judgment on Peterson’s part for who deserves to get paid and who doesn’t.

I actually agree with a couple of those – like I say, I’m not outright defending the man, just that I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that either he is horrible about signing draft picks (read Bob Gretz’s article regarding this – I know he’s a Carl Fanboy, but you can’t argue the numbers) or that there has been one free agent that was dissuaded from coming here because our GM was Carl.

Hate Carl all you want, I don’t disagree with you on some points, but be realistic man, if I was an owner I would be thrilled to have Carl negotiating on my behalf.

My apologies, came on a little strong, comments were uncalled for…

Only you are wrong =)

I won’t agrue that Carl needs to go – see there’s middle ground! The end of his contract can’t come soon enough!

Who should Clark be looking at to replace him when he’s gone? I don’t have a good feel for GMs in the NFL… I wonder if Bill Cowher would do it? Would he be any good? I loved him when he was with KC :)

Note: I assume that’s before our top three draft picks are included

Plus, I don’t believe we’ve noted in this thread that the Chiefs were widely regarded as having the best draft of anyone this year. Granted, it’s a litle slanted due to the picks we got from the Allen trade. But still, the GM needs to get some credit for orchestrating everything to make it happen. Including what I thought was one of the slicker moves to get Albert. And value with most every pick. Even when I was shaking my head in the third round as I kept looking for o-line help. Morgan and Charles now excite me. Cottam: jury’s out, but I’m hopeful.

The team went 4-12 this year. They’re facing a losing season this year. It’s nice we’re not in salary cap hell but I honestly don’t care that we have a lot of cap room. It’s not like Peterson attracts good free agents with that money.

You only sign big-money, long-term contracts with younger players who it can reasonably be assumed will play out their deals. Quite a few teams get in a bind because they give a long-term deal to an aging player, he can’t complete the contract, they cut him, then take the guaranteed money as a cap hit next season. Waive or trade enough overpaid players with guaranteed money in their contracts and you’ll find yourself in salary cap hell. That’s why player evaluation is so important.

As for how Peterson avoids cap hell, he hasn’t really been that clever, he just keeps players with bad contracts on the roster until enough time’s run off their contract so that the cap hit won’t be crippling. Why do you think Kendrell Bell was on our roster with his huge contract for three years when we realized after two that he wasn’t good enough to play? Peterson didn’t want to take a hit for the guaranteed money he paid so he kept him on the roster until the cap hit dropped. We may not have been in cap hell as a result of the deal, but we had to carry a horrible player on our 53 man roster for three years thanks to Peterson. Same with Priest Holmes. Peterson kept him around because Holmes had a long-term contract, he wasn’t going to retire (because he wasn’t giving up that salary), and Peterson didn’t want to cut him even though he wasn’t going to play for anyone else because Peterson didn’t want the cap hit. So we carried Holmes on our PUP list until we could finally force him to either play or retire last year. That’s the same situation we’ll probably find ourselves in with Patrick Surtain this year and Larry Johnson in the near future.

That’s why it kind of irks me when people give credit to Peterson for keeping our team out of salary cap hell like it makes him a better GM. He avoids cap hell by forcing our team to carry players with rotten contracts who aren’t going to help the team and then tries to pass it off as him being financially prudent when really he’s just covering for his personnel screwups.