Official: Bears sign Roquan Smith

[docc]

..uh..so far..
No Quan..

[The Marshall Plan]

I'm frustrated as hell that a player that we drafted that high who wasn't even in my top 2 of who I wanted (Davenport, Vea) is causing all this negative energy around a franchise with the highest level of enthusiasm in a decade or more.

He was drafted to be a leader. He's not in my opinion. This isn't like some veteran player with an established history who wants to get paid. This guy hasn't played a down yet.

This wasn't an urgent need. Pass rusher was. Vea in my mind would've given us an elite d-line that opens up pass rush possibilities.

We have a linebacking corps that is good enough to get the job done. And if an elite pass rusher like Mack is potentially out there we should take that very seriously.

[Otis Day]

I have not read that there is any negative energy around this team. Seems like camp has been moving along quite well and no one is really focusing on this outside of the fans.

[UOK]

@Bernstein_McK

"The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties

[Boris13c]

@Bernstein_McK

"The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties

that is a very strange quote

so the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable?

maybe Bernstein was drinking when he posted that

[Hiphopopotamos]

[G08]

@Bernstein_McK: "The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties

[G08]

Nick Kwiatkoski, I'm so glad I learned how to spell your name.

I hope he kicks ass and takes names.

[Boris13c]

@Bernstein_McK: "The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties

second time I've seen that quote and it still puzzles me

it reads as if the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable ... is that addressing the new fines as unacceptable? the fines before the new fines? both?

I'm unclear on what that actually means and how it applies to Smith's situation

as to Smith - I have read conflicting reports on what the Bears have or have not agreed to include or remove from his contract clauses

if they have removed the language regarding the new helmet hitting rule, then I don't see what the holdup is ... if they haven't, then I understand what the holdup is

[G08]

@Bernstein_McK: "The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties

second time I've seen that quote and it still puzzles me

it reads as if the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable ... is that addressing the new fines as unacceptable? the fines before the new fines? both?

I'm unclear on what that actually means and how it applies to Smith's situation

as to Smith - I have read conflicting reports on what the Bears have or have not agreed to include or remove from his contract clauses

if they have removed the language regarding the new helmet hitting rule, then I don't see what the holdup is ... if they haven't, then I understand what the holdup is

Roquan and his agents think he shouldn't be penalized for fines he accrues for non-football related occurrences.

The Bears think that is fucking ridiculous.


(The Bears are right)

[UOK]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are Smith’s requests for such broad protections unusual or unreasonable?

That depends on whom you ask. No one disputes that guaranteed money should be subject to forfeiture if a player commits a crime (i.e. domestic abuse) or violates the league’s drug policies. But opinions differ when it comes to on-field, in-game discipline.

Seven other teams have executed contracts that include clauses protecting a first-round draft pick’s guaranteed money if he is suspended for an illegal hit. Only four of 32 teams have executed contracts with the broader behavioral protections that Smith seeks, one source said.

Smith has nothing in his background to suggest he’ll be ever be suspended for any misconduct. So why are his agents insisting upon these provisions for him specifically? And why would the Bears dig in to protect themselves against such an improbable scenario?

This is where the impasse goes beyond Roquan Smith and involves precedent for future contracts.

Smith’s agents aren’t just fighting to protect every dime Smith can earn. They’re also fighting for their future business. They want to be able to hold up Smith’s contract in recruiting meetings and show draft prospects how they scrap and claw for their clients. They want to negotiate with other teams and say that because the Bears agreed to these protections, they’re the new standard.

Meanwhile, the Bears aren’t worried that Smith will be a behavior problem on or off the field. To them, this is about the principle of having leeway to assess punitive damages for a rules violation outside the parameters of a football play. They’d rather not sacrifice that authority. For any player.

[Boris13c]

ah ... that makes things much more clear

thanks UOK

however, I also have a question I don't seem to find being addressed elsewhere

the current CBA expires in 2020 ... so until then, the players and owners are supposed to abide by the terms agreed upon in the current CBA

so why do the owners now get to change rules regarding how player infractions are addressed in 2018? shouldn't the owners also have to wait until the current CBA expires? I think they should, but that is not how it is ... the owners get to do what they want with a simple majority vote ... which seems unfair to me and creates a very uneven negotiation playing field ... so it doesn't surprise me players aren't thrilled

in this case though I think Smith's agent may be over playing his hand ... he seems to want to make this some larger issue than simply taking care of his client

[Mikefive]

What I find interesting is that this whole battle starts because of one word... GUARANTEED. I believe this is the word from the mutually agreed upon rookie salary cap calculation agreement, established some years ago. It doesn't say just salary, bonus or payment. It uses that particular descriptor. And by making certain payments "guaranteed", that means you get them no matter what. (If not, why didn't they say "conditionally guaranteed"?)

I could be wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that NFL teams are trying to skirt around something they've already agreed to in collective bargaining. Now in the court of public opinion, it's easy to argue that promises to pay can and should be rightly withheld if the player behaves badly. But from a legal standpoint, saying certain payments are "guaranteed" and then later saying they're guaranteed, unless..., then morally right or wrong, that boils down to a player and his agent conceding ground they've already bargained (conceding other things) to gain.

Am I reading this wrong?

Also, I'm very glad that the first of the 3 previously linked articles had one writer rightly place blame on the NFL, which I find to be vastly ignored in this discussion. By making rule changes vague enough to have players, agents and teams entirely unclear about how enforcement will play out, you motivate agents to protect their clients from costly outcomes which aren't always avoidable. I'm frankly surprised there haven't been more holdouts like this one.

[Z Bear]

If the Bears exempted suspensions from the helmet rule, as has been reported even though not listed in the article above, CAA needs to go pound sand. Roquan needs to step up and tell them enough is enough and get in camp. 4 other teams were stupid enough to put language in, it does not mean the Bears need to as well. Get in the boat with the 7 other teams until people see how this new rule plays out.

[Adipost]

Read this on another board and found it thought provoking...

I have this sense that Roquan isn't worried about a ref bump or fight. I think he wants to be the first Bear to kneel for the anthem and he wants to protect his money if he were to do so. He has seen CK get cold shouldered and if he were to suck ass and then want to turn himself into a spectacle, he wants to have financial protections. Kneeling for the anthem in Soldier Field would be big news and by the way he has conducted himself as a college recruit and an unsigned rookie reeks of someone wanting to make a "bigger picture" gesture.

Whether you would love it or hate it matters not, that is would my sixth sense says this is about. He just isn't saying what non football action he wants to be protected from losing money as a result of doing.

My reasoning is that as a gifted athlete he is supremely confident in his skills and has little fear the Bears would strip money away from him as has never been done before as a result of a football fight. That fear would be a completely illogical reason to hold out this long and he knows it.
However, there is no barometer of how Ginny or George would react to a knelling Bear or what clause they may use to punish him to dissuade him from that action. That is what I think he wants his freedom to do.

I know that comes out there from left field, but holding out for the "fighting" issue is like picketing city hall for the right to jaywalk without fear of prosecution, sure technically it could happen, but is the non-issue worth the effort. I think he has other, possibly more divisive actions he wants protection to perform. I doubt he even knows what those may be, but I think, as he has proven, he likes to be on the leading edge of change and that may mean he wants to act in a provocative way in a Bears uniform.

[G08]

Read this on another board and found it thought provoking...

I have this sense that Roquan isn't worried about a ref bump or fight. I think he wants to be the first Bear to kneel for the anthem and he wants to protect his money if he were to do so. He has seen CK get cold shouldered and if he were to suck ass and then want to turn himself into a spectacle, he wants to have financial protections. Kneeling for the anthem in Soldier Field would be big news and by the way he has conducted himself as a college recruit and an unsigned rookie reeks of someone wanting to make a "bigger picture" gesture.

Whether you would love it or hate it matters not, that is would my sixth sense says this is about. He just isn't saying what non football action he wants to be protected from losing money as a result of doing.

My reasoning is that as a gifted athlete he is supremely confident in his skills and has little fear the Bears would strip money away from him as has never been done before as a result of a football fight. That fear would be a completely illogical reason to hold out this long and he knows it.
However, there is no barometer of how Ginny or George would react to a knelling Bear or what clause they may use to punish him to dissuade him from that action. That is what I think he wants his freedom to do.

I know that comes out there from left field, but holding out for the "fighting" issue is like picketing city hall for the right to jaywalk without fear of prosecution, sure technically it could happen, but is the non-issue worth the effort. I think he has other, possibly more divisive actions he wants protection to perform. I doubt he even knows what those may be, but I think, as he has proven, he likes to be on the leading edge of change and that may mean he wants to act in a provocative way in a Bears uniform.

Thought crossed my mind but I don't believe George McCaskey would fine a player for kneeling during the anthem. I also don't believe the NFL has a strict mandate (currently, anyway) that states a fine would occur for doing so.

[BR0D1E86]

@Bernstein_McK

"The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties

that is a very strange quote

so the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable?

maybe Bernstein was drinking when he posted that

The precedent for giving in regarding the off field discipline stuff would be unacceptable. Pretty sure that’s how that should read.

[Otis Day]

"on field, non-football related fines." On field, key two words. This is not about behavior OFF the football field. "On Field." Like the quote above states, maybe kneeling during the anthem, maybe getting kicked out of a game for a retaliatory punch, criticizing refs..........

[docc]

..ass raping an official..dropping Trousers and mooning the Pope ?

[skamanfrank]

**Hypothetical question and not what I think is going to happen**
What happens if he just doesn't sign? Does he have to go back into the draft? Does he become a free agent and anyone can pick him up? Do the bears get any compensation if he never signs?

[UOK]

**Hypothetical question and not what I think is going to happen**
What happens if he just doesn't sign? Does he have to go back into the draft? Does he become a free agent and anyone can pick him up? Do the bears get any compensation if he never signs?

Per the CBA:

If a Drafted Rookie has not signed a Player Contract during the period from the date of such Draft to the thirtieth day prior to the first game of the regular season: (i) the Club that drafted the player may not thereafter trade to another Club either its exclusive negotiating rights to such player or any Player Contract that it signs with such player for the player’s initial League Year; and (ii) the Club that drafted the player is the only Club with which the player may sign a Player Contract until the day of the Draft in the subsequent League Year, at which time such player is eligible to be drafted in the subsequent League Year’s Draft by any Club except the Club that drafted him in the initial Draft. (After the Tuesday following the tenth week of the regular season, the player and the Club may sign a Player Contract only for future League Year(s)).

(a) Notwithstanding Section 4(b) above, if a player is drafted by a Club and, during the period between the Draft and the next annual Draft, signs a contract with, plays for, or is employed by a professional football team not in the NFL during all or any part of the 12-month period following the initial Draft, then the drafting Club (or any assignee Club) shall retain the exclusive NFL rights to negotiate for and sign a contract with the player until the day of the Draft three League Years after the initial Draft, and shall thereafter have a Right of First Refusal as described herein, and the player may receive offers from any Club at any time thereafter. The player shall notify the NFLPA and the NFL of his desire to sign a contract with an NFL Club and of the date on which the player will be free of his other contractual obligations of employment, if any. Within thirty days of receipt of such notice by the NFL or the date of the availability of such player, whichever is later, the NFL Club that drafted the player must tender a Player Contract as set forth in Section 3 above to the player in order to retain its rights to that player

[bearsfaninaz]

**Hypothetical question and not what I think is going to happen**
What happens if he just doesn't sign? Does he have to go back into the draft? Does he become a free agent and anyone can pick him up? Do the bears get any compensation if he never signs?

He'd re enter the draft. Though I think his draft stock would plummet. Idt we'd get compensation either.

[G08]

His ass will start puckering once those game checks get deducted from his guaranteed money.

Dude will be here before week 1 unless he's on some sort of bizarre crusade to change the landscape of NFL contracts.

[UOK]

@AaronLemingNFL
Judging by the reports that are out there, it’s looking like there’s a decent chance that Roquan Smith may not be signed before the end of preseason. Even so much, that this could actually drag close to week 1 if not longer. Unreal, man. #Bears

@AaronLemingNFL
38s
Replying to @AHSILLINI32
Campbell & Wiederer plus had another well connected friend say similar things this morning.

[mmmc_35]

Fuck him. Everything about this stinks. I would lose his number, and let them crawl back.

[DaSuperfan]

I'm over it. If he doesn't want to sign then don't. Stay at home this year, make no money and re-enter the draft next year and get what would presumably be a lot less.

[G08]

Yeah, smelled this shit from a mile away.

Fuck this dude.

[UOK]

[G08]

I mean it's cute to keep throwing that word/connotation around, but I really don't understand what is 'meatball' about being angry at a player that is actively hurting your team.

Do you think it's good that he's not in camp? Do you think it's not putting our defense in a bind? Did you watch John Timu attempt to play coverage last night (woof)?

I mean how you can be indifferent or not care or whatever about this, to me, makes zero sense. You can keep talking about rationing out your anger and all that cute stuff, but on a strictly logical sense it's on par with telling me the Earth is flat.

If you have a crystal ball that tells you he plays week 1 and wins DROY this season, then I'll be right there with you saying none of this matters. I just don't believe that to be realistic.

[UOK]

I mean it's cute to keep throwing that word/connotation around, but I really don't understand what is 'meatball' about being angry at a player that is actively hurting your team.

Do you think it's good that he's not in camp? Do you think it's not putting our defense in a bind? Did you watch John Timu attempt to play coverage last night (woof)?

I mean how you can be indifferent or not care or whatever about this, to me, makes zero sense. You can keep talking about rationing out your anger and all that cute stuff, but on a strictly logical sense it's on par with telling me the Earth is flat.

If you have a crystal ball that tells you he plays week 1 and wins DROY this season, then I'll be right there with you saying none of this matters. I just don't believe that to be realistic.

I am of the opinion that this is indeed bullshit that makes me unhappy, but to say "FUCK THIS GUY" is, in my mind, low class. Attacking his character, calling for his being traded, ripping into him with such vitriol, etc - all of it feels really dopey.

I guess like I've said before about other things, I have only so many fucks to give about the Bears, and this feels like a drop in the bucket compared to the real pain of , say, losing to the Packers to start the season or Mitch Trubisky suffering a major injury.

All of this negotiation crap is none of my business, nothing that interests me, and I don't know enough about it to get all pissed off. While it hurts he's not on the field or in camp, I'd sooner he be doing this crap than getting his ACL blown out in some meaningless exhibition.

BUT HE'S MISSING INVALUABLE REPS
HE'S NOT MESHING WITH THE TEAM
HE'S BEING GREEDY
HE SHOULD PUT THE GAME AND THE TEAM ABOVE HIS CONTRACT

Meh. Eli Manning stomped his feet and kicked and screamed until he got what he wanted, and ultimately he's got a couple rings out of that. If all this posturing from Roquan's camp leads to an excellent career, I can deal. As will the Bears.

I have faith this won't go into the regular season. Bears will cave before then.