clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Makes sense Kansas City Chiefs would do Alex Smith's deal before Justin Houston

New, comments

We've been talking all summer about the Alex Smith and Justin Houston contracts. With training camp almost here, we come back to the question of which player is the priority for the Chiefs to sign first -- Smith or Houston?

Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports

When Justin Houston was a threat to miss training camp (he's not anymore, reportedly), I thought that it made more sense for the Chiefs to do a deal with Houston before Alex Smith. I am changing my mind based on several factors (thanks to commenters and CBS Sports Joel Corry for pointing it out ... also, I will probably change my mind again). I think Smith is the one who gets a contract first.

Here's why:

1. The Chiefs have repeatedly and publicly talked about their desire to do a deal with Smith. They've hardly said anything about Houston's contract.

2. Houston needs to be in camp by a certain date to accrue another year in free agency. That means he's likely to show up for camp, which would mean there's less pressure on the Chiefs to do a deal right now. I suppose the same could be applied to Smith, who is also showing up to camp.

3. Smith has a $7.5 million cap number in 2014. Houston has a $1.6 million cap number. Therefore, it's easier to give Smith a new deal. Houston's cap number would rise more dramatically with a pay raise and the Chiefs have just under $10 million in cap space.

Based on that, it makes sense to me that the Chiefs would be looking to extend Smith before Houston.

I don't have a problem with the Chiefs extending Smith -- depending on the money. One of the reasons Smith was an attractive player to trade for is because he had a team-friendly contract. If / when Smith gets his new deal, I hope the Chiefs are given credit in the negotiations for Smith's (relatively) low 2014 cap number.