One of the lesser talked about issues as we make our way to the first season without a salary cap since the early 1990s, is teams that will take advantage of the lack of a salary floor, as opposed to those that will break the bank to sign players.
Previously, teams had to spend about a minimum of about 86% of the total salary cap. Last season, the Chiefs were reportedly one of the last teams to make over that minimum.
Andrew Brandt, former Packers vice president from 1999-2008 and president of the National Football Post, suggests that the Chiefs will pull back on spending heading forward.
While many will point to teams such as Dallas and Washington potentially engaging in Steinbrenner-esque spending without any limits on their credit cards (unlikely), the less-discussed and more likely scenario is the pulling back on spending by teams without any thresholds that a salary cap required in the past.
In talking to people on the teams' and players' sides, the most likely to roll back spending in 2010 are Jacksonville, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Carolina, San Diego and perhaps Denver.
Maybe not what we wanted to hear. It's okay to spend less -- as long as you're spending smart -- but the larger issue, in my mind, is the perception that's being created.
If the Chiefs are perceived as a "cheap" team -- and the spending, or lack thereof, the past few seasons is starting to create that image -- what free agents are going to look at Kansas City with an open mind?