On the non-offer of a flimsy contract extension to Scott Pioli
The Kansas City Star
TAMPA, Fla. — The clown show continued here, and this time I’m not sure they’re reaching new lows so much as rearranging their own waste. If you’re keeping track, the Chiefs are now on pace for 56 turnovers, which is a historically high number that would put them among the league’s most prolific turnover teams of the last quarter century.
I’m not sure how many of the others have an organizational philosophy so focused on eliminating turnovers.
Anyway, I do hope you read the column off the Chiefs’ latest embarrassment.
There’s a lot in there, but I did want to expand on the Scott Pioli stuff because that’ll be a heavy topic this week when I’m off (did I mention I’m off? I’m off).^
^ One programming note: I still owe you the Royals Over-Under results. My man Drew did a perfect job with these, and I have everything I need, I just couldn’t get to it last week. We’ll do it next week.
Much of what you need to know about the Chiefs can be taken from this.
Pioli is nearing the end of his contract — I believe it’s a five-year deal that expires after next season, though the Chiefs won’t confirm that — with a boss that hasn’t even opened discussions about an extension. Clark Hunt is consistent about preaching consistency, so this is significant.
The CBS report is obviously false — if you needed it, Peter King confirmed Teicher’s report — but these things don’t appear out of thin air. So even just taking the details that are in that report, it’s not a good look for Pioli. These types of extensions are typically four or five years, for instance. Not two. Add in the buyout language being an issue, and you have what appears to be a very flimsy faith in the general manager. A two-year extension with an easy buyout is the kind of deal you offer someone you’re just not all the way read to fire quite yet.
And remember that the report had this offer being made in August, before this season went to crap.
The other interesting part of Teicher’s report is this line: “Pioli doesn’t employ an agent to represent him in contract talks. Any such discussions he would have are held directly with the Chiefs.”
Think about that. The Chiefs have been adamant that they won’t talk about the contract status of management, which is fine. They’re not the only team in the league to do it like that. But it means that when there are leaks about these things, they typically come from agents.
Pioli doesn’t have an agent, so anything credible about this would’ve had to come from either Pioli or Hunt.
So…which one do you think is more likely to leak something about an unsigned extension offer?