I am an intelligent person, and my math skills are excellent.
$30 million + 3 games played over two seasons = one big cut.
Now you're dodging.
Your question was why would the Chiefs let him go.
The answer is less about the money already spent, and not that they don't like the player... but indeed, who in their right mind gambles a net $7m loss ($15m total) on a guy in that condition, even if he's great when he gets on the field?
No one.
But take away that disincentive, and the Chiefs seem to have loved the player and would have preferred to keep him.
Hey, if you can guarantee me that it's an incentive-only deal where he gets paid only when he plays? Sign me up! If there's any risk involved and he gets paid if and when he doesn't? I have no interest, and neither should this team.
I don't know what I don't know. Until I know it, I can't say what a reasonable offer would be.
But you appear to either know something I don't, or you're just presumptuous to decide on an appropriate offer without bothering.
You're welcome to stick with that approach, and I'll stick with mine. I'm confident it's more reasonable to wait and let the evidence lead to a conclusion.