Can we please stop with the "you cut Chandler without Clay a sure thing!" narrative.
The two moves aren't mutually exclusive. Whaley cut Chandler because he doesn't fit the new offense as well as the old, was making too much money, and his stats dropped off some last year.
If we miss out on Clay, Gresham is still an upgrade over Chandler. If they can't get either, Zach Miller is still out there and is a better fit here than Scott Chandler. And if they can't get any of the 3 - they'll draft someone they'll feel better about than Chandler.
Nothing about cutting Scott Chandler makes anyone look dumb regardless of what happens in FA. New England signed him as a #2 - which is what he would have been practically anywhere else.