|
Another way of looking at this is: From what I've read, it's gonna take $4.5M to sign our top 3 draft choices; prior to the Maclin move, we only had $3.5M available in cap space. By releasing Maclin, we now have space available to sign these draftees and have some excess cap space for contingency.
Would you rather have Maclin or our top 3 draft guys? Sure there are probably a million other ways to free up the cap space, but releasing Maclin definitely gave us some cap flexibility. Anyway, if you look at it this way, I'm not sure that the Chiefs "got worse" by releasing Maclin. Maybe their on field performance got worse (maybe), but the overall health of the organization actually improved. Otherwise, why would they have done the deal?!?!?!?!?!?
They were in a tight pinch cap-wise and it had to be addressed. I'd bet dollar to donut that the Chiefs themselves would like to have Maclin, but the harsh reality of the cap had to be addressed.
Additionally, this ultra-tight cap situation that we got ourselves in seems to lend credence to the thinking that said situation had a lot to do with the recent front office changes. My guess is that Dorsey allowed his minions to address detail contract/cap issues and they didn't exactly cross all t's and dot all i's in the process. Ergo, they were shown the door.
|