While I cover the Kansas City Chiefs for a living, I make no bones about it -- I'm a fan and I want the team to succeed. We encourage that bias around here, as a blog of fans dedicated to the Chiefs, so I openly admit that I want the team to succeed.
As a fan, I will sometimes defend the team in indefensible situations. Also as a fan, I can react emotionally and point the finger at the team unnecessarily. That said, I feel like I'm pretty fair to the Chiefs pointing out when they do things wrong and when they do things right.
For example, there's the issue of the Chiefs being cheap. If you've been reading this blog, you know where I stand, and why I think the Chiefs salary cap situation is a good thing. And if you've been reading this blog, you know the Chiefs are in the middle of the pack when it comes to cash spending.
The issue of the Chiefs being cheap is a conversation we do have around here. We're interested in moving the conversation forward rather than spouting out the same old talking points. (For example, AP user kcsno56 cited a couple weeks ago that the Chiefs salary cap numbers have been near the bottom of the league for several years, dating back to the Carl Peterson regime. This wasn't the smoking gun that the Chiefs are cheap but it furthers the conversation rather than mindlessly saying the Chiefs are cheap.)
That brings us to Andy Brown of the Louisburg Herald who wrote this bizarre story on the Chiefs with the headline: "Chiefs are showing signs of cheapness." It's a catchy title that's sure to draw some visitors in.
If Andy Brown released a story with that headline, I expected to find several pieces of evidence indicating the Chiefs cheapness because damaging the reputation of an organization is a serious claim that shouldn't be taken lightly. I expected to find a breakdown of their spending -- at the very least a single mention of the salary cap -- to explain why the Chiefs were cheap. I expected to find something of substance that suggested the Chiefs were indeed cheap.
But...this is the extent of Andy Brown's evidence that the Chiefs are cheap:
The Chiefs didn't spend a lot of money in free agency last year, and they haven't so far this year. From the outside looking in, they appear cheap.
Uh, Andy Brown? Why would you write a story calling the Chiefs cheap without presenting any evidence? The Chiefs have had one of the lowest salary caps in recent years so it's not like you would need to try very hard to start digging into the story.
We want you to tell us whether the Chiefs are indeed cheap or not. You make the claim that they look cheap...but are they cheap? How much have they spent in free agency? Where does that rank relative to the rest of the league? What players, specifically, have the Chiefs failed to sign because of their cheapness? Is GM Scott Pioli lying when he says Clark Hunt has never put a cap on the team's spending?
And, Andy Brown, why didn't you mention the $120 million-plus in contracts doled out to LB Derrick Johnson, RB Jamaal Charles and LB Tamba Hali in the last 10 months? Because, you know, part of free agency is keeping your own players. Why didn't you mention that the Chiefs have four players -- QB Matt Cassel, LB Tamba Hali, DE Tyson Jackson and S Eric Berry -- with contracts worth over $60 million each?
Andy Brown says he has to "give them the benefit of the doubt" because what they did last season clearly worked but...two paragraphs later he's parroting the same talking point as a reason for the Chiefs decline this year.
The story line that the Chiefs are cheap has been out there for a while now. We're past the point of screaming "Ahh, the Chiefs are cheap!" We want to move the conversation forward with legitimate pieces of evidence indicating that A.) the Chiefs are cheap and B.) it's a reason they won't win on the field.
As Andy Brown writes, "Blah!"