Why are the Kansas City Chiefs holding on to Nick Foles?

KANSAS CITY, MO - NOVEMBER 06: Quarterback Nick Foles
KANSAS CITY, MO - NOVEMBER 06: Quarterback Nick Foles /
1 of 2

The Kansas City Chiefs should have set Nick Foles free by now. Are they remotely thinking of keeping him or trying to pull off a trade?

The most telegraphed move of the 2017 offseason for the Kansas City Chiefs could be found at quarterback—not around whether or not Alex Smith would be around but rather with Nick Foles. The well-circulated idea was that Foles’ tenure with the Chiefs would be short-lived, a one-year signing that allowed the team to enjoy some modicum of security before giving Foles the chance to start somewhere else.

In the hours before free agency begins, Nick Foles is still a member of the Chiefs. While there’s still definite time for the Chiefs to set Foles free, the better question is why John Dorsey has yet to release Foles. After all, he’s had the time to release Jamaal Charles, re-sign Eric Berry, decide to let Dontari Poe test the market, extend Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, take a flyer on C.J. Spiller, sign 6 players to futures contracts and more. Somehow the most obvious move has proven to be not so obvious after all.

The cap space take up by Foles’ presence on the roster was corrected earlier in the offseason, lowered from the oft-quoted $10.75 million to $6.75 million. Still, the nearly $7 million owed to Foles seems cost-prohibitive for a back-up quarterback. It’s less than what Chase Daniel makes, so it’s not exorbitant, but a cash-strapped team like the Chiefs should be growing their own back-ups at the game’s most expensive position. In short, Dorsey should be going with Tyler Bray, experienced or not.