Random Salary Cap Musings and Questions

[The Cooler King]

I probably didn't explain my proposed structures well enough, but part of the additional risk is I've had to fronload all payments including unguarantees to make them viable in front loading cash. Quite often when you see deals, unguarantees are heavily backloaded with low risk of being paid out. I am basically swapping those inflated y4/5 numbers for guaranteed or de facto guaranteed payments in Y1-Y3 to get the deals to make sense for the cash need and player.

This cap-cash hole by the way also creates a dilemma with other possible cut candidates. Possible cut candidates for 2023 like Quinn (13.9M), Jackson (13M), and Whitehair (9.8M) all widen the issue hole if they were all to be cut.

All that said I don't want this to be misconstrued. I am fan number 1 of spending money in general. That's not my issue. But I don't think fans have a realistic idea about the cash requirements and some think Poles will patiently wait for a very long time. But they're setup to kind of have to, whether it's overpaying our own guys (doesn't improve the team) or overpaying new guys (improves the team albeit inefficiently).

To your point, as far as dead caps or whatever, it's the same number they kind of have to get to. The kind of "minimum" way to do that is using every bit of cap space in 2022 and 2023 (so no cap rollover for 2024) and adding 30M in new long term deferred hits/dead hits. Keeping in mind also - with the type of spending the Jags did, that would also be Y1 and Y2 frontloads. It is the same lingering cap "issue" (I.e. Dead cap) no matter how you slice it.

It is a significant player investment either way with the same net implication as far as overall cap management goes. The only other alternative is that Poles plans to write the check to meet the minimum which basically means every player on the team just gets the shortfall paid out to them.

[The Cooler King]

I want to put a little extra context around this cash:cap gap and what pushing some extra cap hits out actually means as far as flexibility and what not.

Earlier in the offseason I started to track a metric that was basically just all future guarantee and unaccrued dead hits for teams. Basically a sort of cap flexibility measure for teams. Like what would happen if you literally just cut your entire roster.

The clear lowest teams on that metric heading into the 2022 offseason were LV, CIN, and HOU, all well below 120M and next closest was at 129m (Bears were at 149m which was middle of pack) .

As of today the Bears number for that metric going into 2023 would be 48M. That is like astronomically low from where any team was this past year. 1/5 or less the value of many teams and less than half of the next lowest. Even if they kicked out and 30M in future dead caps (the gap I mentioned) they'd be hardly over half of even the lowest teams from a year ago. But at the current pace of all 1 or 2 year deals that number isn't projected to go up. They could replicate the Jags offseason 2× over next year and still be probably middle of the pack as far as how leveraged they are in future dead caps.

They already weren't cap strapped as many thought. And largely through the Mack trade, they are instantly in perhaps one of the most cap friendly positions in the league as far as mid term flexibility. Only Hou probably has them beat.

Any resource reaches diminishing returns. They can't possibly use all the flexibility "well" in a short time. The only possible outcome otherwise is just not to use resources. I would still maintain then it makes sense to utilize more of those resources now if they can, even if there's some overpaying.

[RichH55]

Great post Bill George

[dplank]

I agree they need to start spending into this now, there won’t be enough resources to spend it all if we wait. Even if we lock up Roquan or Mooney early to get in front of those costs now.

[southdakbearfan]

I am not too worried, it’s pretty easy to spend a boatload quick in the nfl.

[RichH55]

I agree they need to start spending into this now, there won’t be enough resources to spend it all if we wait. Even if we lock up Roquan or Mooney early to get in front of those costs now.

Having the right guys to spend on is key

Giving Alex Cappa 10 Million a year or Kirk 17 million a year just because they are above average and "there" isn't a great recipe

Maybe they take the monster swing at Armstead?

[dplank]

I wouldn't have spent that money on Cappa or Kirk (Cappa was just in a list of available FA OL that I threw together off the top of my head when asked who was an option for us). There are examples where I'd pass, certainly. There are examples where I'd go for it (Moses), and I'm pissed that we didn't try (pretty sure we could have paid him more and gotten him if we wanted him).

Don't know who all will be available next offseason yet, it's a moving target every year - can't just look at upcoming expiring contracts.

I probably would overspend a little to ensure my QB doesn't get murdered next year. Armstead would be an overspend most likely.

[The Cooler King]

I agree they need to start spending into this now, there won’t be enough resources to spend it all if we wait. Even if we lock up Roquan or Mooney early to get in front of those costs now.

Having the right guys to spend on is key

Giving Alex Cappa 10 Million a year or Kirk 17 million a year just because they are above average and "there" isn't a great recipe

Maybe they take the monster swing at Armstead?

Without quibbling about any one player, fans generally get too worked up over small amounts I think.

But we circle back again though the idea that cash minimums may be the biggest "constraint" for the Bears. They could write a massive check to remedy it, but for 30M I could also overpay Kirk and whoever a little and get something for it.

[southdakbearfan]

I think if any of the short term contract guys appear to be a long term fix that in season extensions will be happening.

[RichH55]

I wouldn't have spent that money on Cappa or Kirk (Cappa was just in a list of available FA OL that I threw together off the top of my head when asked who was an option for us). There are examples where I'd pass, certainly. There are examples where I'd go for it (Moses), and I'm pissed that we didn't try (pretty sure we could have paid him more and gotten him if we wanted him).

Don't know who all will be available next offseason yet, it's a moving target every year - can't just look at upcoming expiring contracts.

I probably would overspend a little to ensure my QB doesn't get murdered next year. Armstead would be an overspend most likely.

Armstead should be in the 20 million a year range - Could we undersell that anymore? "Armstead would be an overspend most likely"

Armstead is a pure health bet. If you are getting 17 out of him (STILL WEIRD ) then 20 million - sold. If it's 7?

[Xee]

[thunderspirit]

$15M per for 10 games a year.

That's...a lot of scratch for a guy whose availability is unreliable.

[The Cooler King]

$15M per for 10 games a year.

That's...a lot of scratch for a guy whose availability is unreliable.

Sign Armstead for $15 and Cornelius Lucas for like 2.5(?). Think you'd end up with pretty dang good OT play for the year.

[Xee]

$15M per for 10 games a year.

That's...a lot of scratch for a guy whose availability is unreliable.

Maybe they're banking on getting lucky like we did with Peters.

[dplank]

I’m not surprised, but for 15M I feel like we should’ve done that.

[wab]

Man that's a lot of money for a guy that never plays a full season.

I was hoping the Bears would go after him, but I understand "consistency" has been a big message from the FO since Poles was hired.

[Moriarty]

I’m not surprised, but for 15M I feel like we should’ve done that.

I felt like that at first. But then I looked up his games played/season and saw that people weren't exaggerating his lack of durability for a change.

[RichH55]

There are also a bunch of incentives and rumor mill was that he took less because he wanted to be in Miami.

High risk, high reward

[The Cooler King]

Just saying, if Bears don't win 8+ next year fire Poles

[Moriarty]

Just saying, if Bears don't win 8+ next year fire Poles

There's something to that, but I'm going to suggest a few caveats:


1) The Jags. They went +6...but they also have a stud QB. You can argue the added talent aided his improvement and certainly there's some truth to that - it's a somewhat circular/synergistic thing. But at the same time, he was the undebated consensus number 1 pick in a draft with 5(?) QBs in the top half of R1. He was a superstar waiting to happen and his personal yr 2 development played a big role in that.

2) It might be the case that Poles decides to roll a decent chunk of his cap space, if it looks like teams are going to have a lot more to spend in 2023 than they will in 2024 (meaning your FA dollar will buy you more in 2024). I haven't taken the time to analyze 32 cap positions in detail, but my sense is there is a least a little bit of truth to that.

3) Note the 2018 Bears on the list there. The Bears went all in, spent a ton, won a lot more games that year...but they went all in on a team that wasn't that good/ready, didn't have much money left for future years after shooting their wad in 2018, and went nowhere after that. Making it rain is fun and all, but if you do it at the wrong time and/or leave yourself nothing to work with in the future, it may not be as shrewd as it is fun.


All that said, I do expect them to spend a fair amount and I do expect them to win significantly more in 2023. But I think it would be wise for Poles to practice a little moderation and fans to do the same with their expectations.

I think 2023 is going to be another "The wins and losses really aren't that important, what matters is developing and evaluating young talent." kinda years.

[The Marshall Plan]

Just saying, if Bears don't win 8+ next year fire Poles

This offseason is being handed to him on a silver platter.

A Wildcard spot or he gets fired.

Launched from a trebuchet atop Halas Hall.

[The Cooler King]

Just saying, if Bears don't win 8+ next year fire Poles

There's something to that, but I'm going to suggest a few caveats:


1) The Jags. They went +6...but they also have a stud QB. You can argue the added talent aided his improvement and certainly there's some truth to that - it's a somewhat circular/synergistic thing. But at the same time, he was the undebated consensus number 1 pick in a draft with 5(?) QBs in the top half of R1. He was a superstar waiting to happen and his personal yr 2 development played a big role in that.

2) It might be the case that Poles decides to roll a decent chunk of his cap space, if it looks like teams are going to have a lot more to spend in 2023 than they will in 2024 (meaning your FA dollar will buy you more in 2024). I haven't taken the time to analyze 32 cap positions in detail, but my sense is there is a least a little bit of truth to that.

3) Note the 2018 Bears on the list there. The Bears went all in, spent a ton, won a lot more games that year...but they went all in on a team that wasn't that good/ready, didn't have much money left for future years after shooting their wad in 2018, and went nowhere after that. Making it rain is fun and all, but if you do it at the wrong time and/or leave yourself nothing to work with in the future, it may not be as shrewd as it is fun.


All that said, I do expect them to spend a fair amount and I do expect them to win significantly more in 2023. But I think it would be wise for Poles to practice a little moderation and fans to do the same with their expectations.

I think 2023 is going to be another "The wins and losses really aren't that important, what matters is developing and evaluating young talent." kinda years.

The thing is Poles probably will moderate himself to a degree, but even in that context he will be the likely top spender in 2023. Just hitting the 90% minimum spending would put him as spending $150M in new spending (that's already after draft spending). We will likely see extensions be part of that. But he will both be spending a shit ton and be spending conservatively.

The spending is coming. He got his tank. If he can't get 5+ wins of talent with a $100M offseason and Fields and a top 4 pick... Something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

If your expectations arent 8+ next year you're setting your expectations low.

[The Cooler King]

Not being hyperbolic when I say he can be the top spender this offseason and a top 5 spender again in 2024, and none of it will be "overspending"

[RichH55]

Just saying, if Bears don't win 8+ next year fire Poles

This offseason is being handed to him on a silver platter.

A Wildcard spot or he gets fired.

Launched from a trebuchet atop Halas Hall.

Shaking my head

[dplank]

Just saying, if Bears don't win 8+ next year fire Poles

This offseason is being handed to him on a silver platter.

A Wildcard spot or he gets fired.

Launched from a trebuchet atop Halas Hall.

Lol I don’t know about that. I agree everything fell his way and we should expect a lot of improvement but I’m not “playoffs or bust” mentality. I don’t think it would be wise to go all in this offseason and just throw money around just because you have it. He’s thinking long term, Steeers/Ravens style of team building, and I really like that about Poles even if I get frustrated by it sometimes. Even tho I spend a lot of time bitching about the things he did that I don’t like, on the whole I’m really happy with Poles and I’m pretty confident in him.

I don’t expect him to sign any players over 30 even if they may help our W/L in 2023. JMO but it’s playoffs or bust in 2024, and honestly I think it should not just be playoffs in 2024 but a team that can legitimately make a run in the playoffs.

[Grizzled]

The Bears should realistically expect to imrove to 7 or 8 wins in '23. However, there have been enough instances of teams going from worst to first (see Jaguars, '21 to '22 as the latest) so it is possible. More realistic, however, would be improvement in '23 and playoffs in '24. Poles will either cement his legacy or sign his termination papers by how he does this offseason although results won't be known until a year from now.

[RichH55]

The Bears should realistically expect to imrove to 7 or 8 wins in '23. However, there have been enough instances of teams going from worst to first (see Jaguars, '21 to '22 as the latest) so it is possible. More realistic, however, would be improvement in '23 and playoffs in '24. Poles will either cement his legacy or sign his termination papers by how he does this offseason although results won't be known until a year from now.

I think there is probably a sizeable middle ground between those two options for Poles this offseason IMHO

[Grizzled]

The Bears should realistically expect to imrove to 7 or 8 wins in '23. However, there have been enough instances of teams going from worst to first (see Jaguars, '21 to '22 as the latest) so it is possible. More realistic, however, would be improvement in '23 and playoffs in '24. Poles will either cement his legacy or sign his termination papers by how he does this offseason although results won't be known until a year from now.

I think there is probably a sizeable middle ground between those two options for Poles this offseason IMHO

Hey, it's the offseason now, drama rules.

[RichH55]

I think there is probably a sizeable middle ground between those two options for Poles this offseason IMHO

Hey, it's the offseason now, drama rules.

Or yeah - Regular Season and Training Camp people are just paragons of reasonableness

[wab]

I still think we should be cautious with our expectations for 23. Poles has all the resources in the world right now, but they aren't going to upgrade 80% of this roster in one offseason.

I think a wildcard spot should be the goal, but let's not get too far out over our skis. It's still going to be a very young team.