The Chiefs and the worry of a death by a thousand cuts

Should the Kansas City Chiefs be worried about the proverbial death by a thousand cuts? A closer look at potential offseason danger.

It occurred to me recently as I was chatting with a friend about the Kansas City Chiefs offseason and what they might do. “How realistic is another Super Bowl run given their cap issues?” was the question asked of me. I started in on my answer, assured of my stance at first before realizing by the end that maybe, just maybe, I’d stumbled on a reason to worry.

Yes, the Chiefs have to attend to a long-term deal for Chris Jones. They also have to make up their mind on a restructured deal for Sammy Watkins. Then there’s the whole making-Patrick-Mahomes-the-highest-paid player-in-the-game thing for Brett Veach and agent Leigh Steinberg to negotiate. Basically, the Chiefs aren’t expected to be rolling in cap space in 2020.

In response to this, however, I started to discuss how it easy it could be for the Chiefs to create more cap space than most people realize. “You can begin with a long list of free agents who won’t be back and won’t even need to be.” I stated that Cam Erving’s option won’t be exercised and that the Chiefs could save another couple million by not exercising Damien Williams‘ deal, too.

From there, I started cutting players in my head, replacing them with rookies. Do the Chiefs really need a veteran punter like Dustin Colquitt when a strong-legged rookie would get the job done for cheaper?

Do we need more money? Well, I guess we could start to consider safety Daniel Sorensen, guard Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, linebacker Damien Wilson and others. There’s a lot of money to be found in some or all of these put together for other moves, places where the Chiefs could conceivably go “cheap” for the sake of strengthening or maintaining other areas.

On paper it works. On paper every rookie performs well while also providing cheap production. On paper, the locker room isn’t a thing. On paper, intangibles like culture and leadership fail to matter. On paper, experience isn’t really something to consider. It’s two-dimensional and the only real measurement is overall talent.

Here’s where the worry of a death by a thousand cuts comes into play. Sorensen is no stranger to the discussion of being an expensive part who could be replaced, but when everything was on the line, he was the experienced player who came up big time and time again. Does that happen if a rookie, even a good one, is in the same position? It’s hard to say.

Here’s the thing: it’s easy to believe a team’s salary cap should largely resemble today’s social strata with a few players up on top who hoard the majority of wealth while the rest form a lower and lower-middle class to allow a few to be so rich. It’s possible to cut every player making something slightly north of average so that you can afford a few superstars.

But in the midst, does a team begin to suffer its own death by a thousand such cuts? In the end, is it not worth each position costing a million or two more for the sake of having strong leaders, great experience, a positive locker room? I have no real answer for this, and these are legitimate questions for me.

For now I pass these questions on to you. How many veterans can the Chiefs afford to cut in the name of cap space? How important are these intangibles? How many positions can a team afford to “go cheap” at? It will be interesting to see how the Chiefs navigate these questions this offseason.