To Sign or Not to Sign

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:10 pm
dplank wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:28 pm I may change tune on Monty depending on who is our HC and what style of football be plays. If it’s Harbaugh or McDaniels then pay him. If it’s Daboll or Moore, don’t.
Ah, so you could go the Nagy/Howard route huh and get rid of a talented and productive player if he doesn't fit the HC? I'd rather see a HC adapt to the skillsets of those types of players.
southdakbearfan wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:37 pm It all depends on what they believe he can become. One knee injury, like Cohen, and he could be done.
Isn't that true of any player though? The key is to ensure there is an out after a couple of years. Pace used to be good at that. He signed a number of players who didn't work out but they didn't harm the team in the longer term because the contracts were structured in such a way that almost all the guarantees came in the first or second year. After that the dead cap hit was eminently manageable and they could be sent packing. More recently though he's been bad at doing that (see Trevathan, D). The other important thing is not to keep pushing the cap hit back. The benefit of a multi-year deal should be that the player becomes cheaper as he ages relative to the cap.
I’d like to see the player talent and coach scheme match up naturally rather than forcing one or the other to adapt. Once your team is set tho, it’s on the coach to use what he has and create a plan that works.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

<edit to reply quote>
Last edited by The Cooler King on Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

southdakbearfan wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:28 am

Do you see big growth in running back salaries. I went back to looked and grabbed the 2012 off-season just to see.

2012-13 RB franchise tag number. $8 million
2021 RB franchise tag number. $8.6 million

For comparison

2012-13 QB franchise tag number. $14.6 million
2021 QB franchise tag number. $24.1 million

2012 cap - $121 million
2021 cap - $182.5 million

Cap grew by a 1/3 yet the RB cap number grew by less than 1/10th over the same time.

NFL teams have devalued the position.
Not sure why 2021 was so low. I guess some of the newer extensions must still be kicking into the averages.

Per Over the Cap, 2022 projected RB franchise tag is back up to 12.5. So yes, there's growth already. What I've noted before though is the market has really recalibrated risk around RB deals. Many are only 25% fully guaranteed or less. So they're often like year to year deals.

I think at this stage Mixon and Jones (both 4/48, 10 and 13 guaranteed, respectively) are great assumptions as floors for a Montgomery extension. They rank 7th and 8th in contract value for RBs. And usually any good starter getting an extension makes top 5 money. If he were to get top 5 money extension, that would be 4/50.

It's true that the NFL has devalued RB to a large extent, but much of the blowback has already recalibrated. Teams have a better idea what a modern RB looks like and know what to draft and they know how to price in risk in extensions (I think the Bell holdout helped both sides see the relative value in extensions)
bbaker
Journeyman
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:06 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Several of you mentioned the idea with various players of letting them test free-agency and then matching an offer if it’s reasonable.

That’s doesn’t really happen, and is very unlikely to work. When a player agrees to a deal with a new team, they don’t really ever go back to the other team to see if they will match it… they sign their new deal. If their old team is going to have a chance, they need to beat the best offer they have. Players don’t have some sense of loyalty in them that pushes them to sign with their old team for the same money that a new team offers. It’s usually quite the opposite. If your old team let you go test FA, there’s usually some resentment towards the team that didn’t show you any commitment.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

bbaker wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:15 am Several of you mentioned the idea with various players of letting them test free-agency and then matching an offer if it’s reasonable.

That’s doesn’t really happen, and is very unlikely to work. When a player agrees to a deal with a new team, they don’t really ever go back to the other team to see if they will match it… they sign their new deal. If their old team is going to have a chance, they need to beat the best offer they have. Players don’t have some sense of loyalty in them that pushes them to sign with their old team for the same money that a new team offers. It’s usually quite the opposite. If your old team let you go test FA, there’s usually some resentment towards the team that didn’t show you any commitment.
It is player to player - and always a chance the Player just gets blown away by an offer

But having the agent keep you in the loop - that happens all the time - especially if Montgomery wants to stay

If someone doesn't break the bank - and you have an AAV type offer of say 6-7 million - it makes sense to if Bears will match or get close

That's less disruption in your life - one less move, etc
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 688 times

Nichols - Depends. For 5M, yes. For 10M, don't forget to write.
Montgomery - If it's short and modest, like 3 at 4-5per. Otherwise, we've got Herbert and can trip over another RB on the way out to the parking lot.
Robinson - I've been a No from way back, and I'm certainly not getting more enthused.
Roquan - Eh. Yeah, he's good. But the name of the game is getting more value than what you pay for. That's practically impossible for a 20M ILB.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 688 times

The Cooler King wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:21 pm
southdakbearfan wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:02 pm

Probably a shorter, 3 year max extension, 3 for 18-21 75% guaranteed, give him some cash up front, let him up his value on the open market, he then hits big time and you let him walk.

Or, you play out the contract, franchise him if he really hits, and go from there.
That's too low. That's Cohen contract on the low end. Montgomery is clearly more valuable than pre-injury Cohen and the cap will be much higher by the time hes on his new deal.
Well, you can't let overpays for Cohen and Patterson continue to dictate overpays to the position forever.

If they want 7M/yr, mostly guaranteed (and start with an opening of higher than that, obviously), I'm laughing and wishing his agent well without negotiation.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/ca ... ning-back/
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

You're using a single year cap hit which isnt the right way to view it. Many of those are pre-extension or first year extension numbers. Use AAV.

https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

RB are gonna get/have gotten paid again, it's just going to be heavily unguaranteed contracts.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 688 times

The Cooler King wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:20 pm You're using a single year cap hit which isnt the right way to view it. Many of those are pre-extension or first year extension numbers. Use AAV.

https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

RB are gonna get/have gotten paid again, it's just going to be heavily unguaranteed contracts.
Well, they do show you different things, but I would push back on that link being "the right way" to view it.

Yes, the other one includes cheaper (rookie contract or early second contract) numbers - which is part of the point.
You can staff RB much more cheaply (and very successfully, too) than handing out 5, 10, 15M to a veteran.

Even if the new trend is bigger money, but not very guaranteed - that doesn't help much.
It still means one of two things is going to happen:
1) You'll keep them the whole time and pay a shitload of money on a position where you shouldn't and don't have to.
2) You overpay for part of the contract, then cut them and get absolutely nothing for their loss, because there's no comps on a cut.


Also, AAV can be very illusionary if there are expensive back end years that aren't likely to be paid, as you are suggesting is starting to happen.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 204 times

RichH55 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:05 pm
GSH wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:46 am I could see Hicks retiring before he signs for a heavily reduced contract. You gotta think he'd walk away before his body took any more damage if thats what was on the table.


I think Hicks will be another example of a Home Town Premium

He's a guy who did very very good things here and gave alot to the franchise - He is also due a market based paycut

Going from 11 Million a year to 5 million a year can be hard to swallow pride wise - It's tougher to do it in the same uniform
Lol, that's a great way of putting it. Baffles me every time when players only take the pay cut on another team and have to uproot their lives for the privilege.

For resigning, Smith gets paid what it takes, I just hope it's for at least five years to let the market correct above it by the end.

Montgomery, we've got so little talent on the roster and ARob should be let go so I'd be tempted to convince him to stay for 2nd tier money, say under $8m but that clutch of players making $12m plus are just too much for the position. We'd be better off tagging him in 2023 than going for a $50m deal. Well, unless they find a creative way to clear some space for a front loaded year but that isn't happening.

The rest, time to clear out and get super young. Just a pity it wasn't this year as we're wasting time with Field's rookie contract. But focus on getting the offensive line in good shape and let the skill positions fall into place when he has time to throw and well developed options with his legs.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

I think a lot of people keep missing the fact that Montgomery and Roquan are signed for 2022....you do not have to do anything with either player right now.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Moriarty wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:59 pm
The Cooler King wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:20 pm You're using a single year cap hit which isnt the right way to view it. Many of those are pre-extension or first year extension numbers. Use AAV.

https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

RB are gonna get/have gotten paid again, it's just going to be heavily unguaranteed contracts.
Well, they do show you different things, but I would push back on that link being "the right way" to view it.

Yes, the other one includes cheaper (rookie contract or early second contract) numbers - which is part of the point.
You can staff RB much more cheaply (and very successfully, too) than handing out 5, 10, 15M to a veteran.

Even if the new trend is bigger money, but not very guaranteed - that doesn't help much.
It still means one of two things is going to happen:
1) You'll keep them the whole time and pay a shitload of money on a position where you shouldn't and don't have to.
2) You overpay for part of the contract, then cut them and get absolutely nothing for their loss, because there's no comps on a cut.


Also, AAV can be very illusionary if there are expensive back end years that aren't likely to be paid, as you are suggesting is starting to happen.
Yes AAV isn't perfect, but solely focusing on 2021 appears to be a weird quirk. See the discussion about franchise tag from 21 to 22. It's clearly primed to jump because 2021 isn't factoring in new money. Cap hits are just a facade of timing rules. Look at guaranteed AAV too if you want, and I normally would, but it's more applicable when it's a 40-60% contract guarantee.


I mean could you make an argument that something along these lines?

3/24 with 18 guaranteed
Is more favorable than
4/48 with 12 guaranteed

Sure, I guess. But the market trend appears to be the former based on the latest deals being signed.
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

I think a lot of these guys you let test the market. Bilal and Hicks can see what the market bears. Maybe we re-sign them. Maybe we don't. But we're not paying a lot. DL and CB are heavy needs in the offseason.

Same with ARob and the WR position, although you don't get the feeling he wants to return. Part of the issue with ARob I believe is that Nagy wants a bunch of speed merchants and ARob isn't one of those guys. A new coach may appreciate ARob more than Nagy does. So I'd consider re-signing him given the right circumstances.

The problem with Monty is that he takes a lot of punishment. In my mind, you keep him next year and see what he gets in the marketplace. If you're not breaking the bank, you definitely bring him back. But you don't pay him top 5 RB $$$ because he's just not going to last. Having Herbert allows us the flexibility to not overspend.

I'm tempted to re-sign Roquan. But you're not paying a 3-4 MLB $18M/year. No way. He's just not worth it at a non-premium position.

I'd definitely bring Jason Peters back if he's interested. The price for performance is a superior value. I'd let Borom and Jenkins battle it out for the RT spot and let the loser be the swing backup. That seems like a pretty good position to be in.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Cohen is already signed through '23, $12M guaranteed. The top 9 RBs are making more than $10M per year and few of them have lived up to big 2nd contracts, mostly because of injury. If the Bears can get Monty for $6 to $8M per year for 3 or 4 years, it's worth exploring.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5901
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 1716 times

My, how things have changed. The Bears used to be universally derided by fans for being cheap and reluctant to stump up for their star players, now there are fans who would rather run with cheap veterans (even 40 year old ones) and unproven guys on rookie contracts than pay the team's stars.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

Mikefive wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:02 am
I'm tempted to re-sign Roquan. But you're not paying a 3-4 MLB $18M/year. No way. He's just not worth it at a non-premium position.
The new staff might switch to a 4-3. I sure hope so, I favor the 4-3 generally and I think our talent is better suited for it. Particularly if we let both Hicks and Nichols go. You can play two run stuffers at DT (Goldman/Blackson with Edwards coming in on passing downs) and let Mack/Quinn fire off the edges from a 2 point stance like they prefer, without dropping them in coverage ever (which the 3-4 demands you do on occasion).

I'd love to see Roquan roam the middle of the field in a 4-3, he could be Luke Kuechly good.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Yea the market for Roqaun will probably be at least 18, could easily be 20. I know it's a lot, but look at the drop off the a replacement level ILB.

Sometimes you gotta pay through the nose to retain some talent even if it's not very efficient.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

At some point the Bears have to start keeping the good players they draft...especially the stars (which are few and far between).
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

wab wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:21 am At some point the Bears have to start keeping the good players they draft...especially the stars (which are few and far between).
Yes, it's generally bad team building to spend a top 10 pick on a player, grow them into a pro bowler, then let them walk after their rookie deal is up.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:52 am My, how things have changed. The Bears used to be universally derided by fans for being cheap and reluctant to stump up for their star players, now there are fans who would rather run with cheap veterans (even 40 year old ones) and unproven guys on rookie contracts than pay the team's stars.
It's a Cap League.

People advocating smart contracts makes sense. No one is advocating NOT spending. Just smarter
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

malk wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:27 pm
RichH55 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:05 pm



I think Hicks will be another example of a Home Town Premium

He's a guy who did very very good things here and gave alot to the franchise - He is also due a market based paycut

Going from 11 Million a year to 5 million a year can be hard to swallow pride wise - It's tougher to do it in the same uniform
Lol, that's a great way of putting it. Baffles me every time when players only take the pay cut on another team and have to uproot their lives for the privilege.


I can't take credit for the phrase - I think maybe it was Bill Barnwell?

But basically its a human nature and respect thing - The opposite of the home town discount.

Harder to take the pay cut from the Team you were once so great for
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

dplank wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:06 am
Mikefive wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:02 am
I'm tempted to re-sign Roquan. But you're not paying a 3-4 MLB $18M/year. No way. He's just not worth it at a non-premium position.
The new staff might switch to a 4-3. I sure hope so, I favor the 4-3 generally and I think our talent is better suited for it. Particularly if we let both Hicks and Nichols go. You can play two run stuffers at DT (Goldman/Blackson with Edwards coming in on passing downs) and let Mack/Quinn fire off the edges from a 2 point stance like they prefer, without dropping them in coverage ever (which the 3-4 demands you do on occasion).

I'd love to see Roquan roam the middle of the field in a 4-3, he could be Luke Kuechly good.
Roquan at 4-3 MLB never occurred to me. I was always a 4-3 guy until Fangio opened my eyes on the 3-4. Roquan is small for that role, so having a couple of space eaters in front of him would be key. You might be right on this one. I sure wouldn't mind seeing it.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

Some great MLBs were small. Samurai for one, also I forget his name but there a MLB for the Rams that led the league in tackles multiple years - played for the Redskins also IIRC. And Zach Thomas from the Dolphins all those years. I think Ro could play there

**EDIT** London Fletcher is who I was thinking about there
Last edited by dplank on Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Honestly I think it's less and less common to think of Ds in terms of base package personnel anymore.

Take this team D preview from PFF for example. It's entirely written in terms of coverage.
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-defensive- ... teams-2021

You aren't a 4-3 or 3-4 teams as an identity anymore. You're a cover 3 or cover 1 team, etc.

So yea stick Smith/Mack/Quinn/etc in any front IMO. Both a modern 3-4 and 4-3 often start to look similar in nickle anyways, where most of the game is played.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

The Cooler King wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:39 pm You aren't a 4-3 or 3-4 teams as an identity anymore. You're a cover 3 or cover 1 team, etc.
This exactly.
Post Reply