This surprises me about Poles' plan

[Mikefive]

Virtually all of what we've seen from Poles is consistent with what he said he was going to do. However, with the exception of the Ogunjobi and Bates deals that didn't work out, most FA contracts are 1 year which a couple 2 years. If your plan is that 2022 is a scheme switch rebuild year, you start adding pieces for first shot at a run in 2023 and sky's the limit in 2024, how do a bunch of 1-2 year contracts get you to that end in 2024? Sure, you can argue that we don't want dead cap from bad contracts for players that you bet on potential that work out. But now what you've done is said that any of those younger guys you want to keep for your 2024 run, the price goes up dramatically. It feels like we have a team full of place holders for the next year or two that most of whom will leave in their next FA opportunity. So you have Fields developing continuity with targets, only to have a mostly different group and start a lot of that over again.

In fairness, and consistent with Poles' statements, what mitigates this turnover challenge is the draft and UDFAs. But we only have limited resources, way more needs (especially when you consider players who won't be here in 2024 like Quinn) and all of the short player contracts we just signed. It feels like there's going to be a whole lot more rebuilding having to happen next year. Further, not every draft pick will work out.

Would it have made more sense to put more faith in your scouting and sign younger guys to longer deals, perhaps incentive laden, so that they're yours if they're good? And eat some dead $$$ if they're not?

Please share your thoughts and feel free to bash my thinking if you have different logic.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

I agree with your thinking but I also think this is a good time for the one-year "prove it" contracts.

I wish I would have gone that route in my pre-nups.

[Atkins&Rebel]

It’s not like the sky’s the limit on cap space. We had room for 1-2 bigger contracts and then everyone else would need to be value contracts or vet minimums.

Most of the value contracts are for prove it guys who it’s foolish to give a large contract with guaranteed money to (for a multitude of reasons from injury to scheme fit to guys just being difficult to have on a team). Most of these guys might not ever get a long term contract just because they will always be a risk for a team.

Vets who don’t get long term deals are guys who you hope still have enough in the tank to contribute but you wouldn’t tie a long term contract to because they could fall off athletically any season.

These are the guys your stuck with when rebuilding and with a short haul of draft picks. Nothing says these guys can’t be brought back, but in todays NFL your hope is to slowly switch out current players with draft picks every year.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

He’s making players earn their contracts.
That’s ok, but it’s going to take an age to turn this tanker around.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

He’s making players earn their contracts.
That’s ok, but it’s going to take an age to turn this tanker around.

[dplank]

He’s making players earn their contracts.
That’s ok, but it’s going to take an age to turn this tanker around.

The problem with this tho is we have to compete for those players on the open market - there's absolutely no guarantee that a player who "earns their contract" plays here vs. somewhere else. I agree with MikeFive on this, it's a bit odd and looks like we're going to have tons of roster churn the next few years. I just don't see how any of this helps Fields development - he was horribly mismanaged his first season, we need to do better by him if we expect him to be who we want him to be.

[RichH55]

It’s not like the sky’s the limit on cap space. We had room for 1-2 bigger contracts and then everyone else would need to be value contracts or vet minimums.

I agree with almost all of your post except the above.

There is a lot of cap room here - We did have the option to splurge (maybe more of the cap hits hit in 2023 than 2022 - but that is typical for longer term deals anyway)

[RichH55]

He’s making players earn their contracts.
That’s ok, but it’s going to take an age to turn this tanker around.

The problem with this tho is we have to compete for those players on the open market - there's absolutely no guarantee that a player who "earns their contract" plays here vs. somewhere else. I agree with MikeFive on this, it's a bit odd and looks like we're going to have tons of roster churn the next few years. I just don't see how any of this helps Fields development - he was horribly mismanaged his first season, we need to do better by him if we expect him to be who we want him to be.

He wasn't ready his first season - they should have sat him longer. If he doesn't take marked steps forward in various aspects of the game - then who you put around him largely won't matter. Can they help him more? Yes. Is Morgan Moses the difference between him busting and becoming a Superstar? No.

Teams always have a ton of roster churn. Though fair enough that you'll have to compete for the 1 year guys too (though all things being equal players do like to stay with familiar places/faces/schemes if things are going well)

Not sure how Morrow being a 1 year contract or 5 year contract helps or hurts the Fields development.

[Atkins&Rebel]

It’s not like the sky’s the limit on cap space. We had room for 1-2 bigger contracts and then everyone else would need to be value contracts or vet minimums.

I agree with almost all of your post except the above.

There is a lot of cap room here - We did have the option to splurge (maybe more of the cap hits hit in 2023 than 2022 - but that is typical for longer term deals anyway)

I have laid out a few ways before for the bears to structure contracts to fit their cap space this year, but it would take a high end play who will get paid anywhere he signs to agree to the structure. That is not a given. So the assumption must be to fit contracts into the cap space we have.

[RichH55]

I agree with almost all of your post except the above.

There is a lot of cap room here - We did have the option to splurge (maybe more of the cap hits hit in 2023 than 2022 - but that is typical for longer term deals anyway)

I have laid out a few ways before for the bears to structure contracts to fit their cap space this year, but it would take a high end play who will get paid anywhere he signs to agree to the structure. That is not a given. So the assumption must be to fit contracts into the cap space we have.

I think Players/Agents care most about the guarantees and overall money (especially in 1st 2 years). Plus the Signing Bonus is going to be prorated over 5 years

Easiest way to do it: Roster Bonus in 2023 - Fully Guaranteed.

If you are going to make say 12 Million a year in 2022/2023 (So say its 24 guaranteed for example in some way, or form) - It doesn't make a ton of difference between these two forms (assume there are 2024-26 years just no guarantees in those years)

2022: 12 Million Base
2023: 12 Million Base - fully guaranteed for both

v.

2022: 1 Million Base, SB 5 Million
2023: 12 Million Base, Roster Bonus 7 million

[thunderspirit]

There is absolutely going to be roster churn in the next couple of years.

Any growth from Fields is going to come with both the one-year contracts and the upcoming draft picks, and additionally if the one-year contract players sign elsewhere because they've exceeded the amount the Bears deem to be their worth, they should factor into future comp pick formulae.

[TheWorldBreaker]

Virtually all of what we've seen from Poles is consistent with what he said he was going to do. However, with the exception of the Ogunjobi and Bates deals that didn't work out, most FA contracts are 1 year which a couple 2 years. If your plan is that 2022 is a scheme switch rebuild year, you start adding pieces for first shot at a run in 2023 and sky's the limit in 2024, how do a bunch of 1-2 year contracts get you to that end in 2024? Sure, you can argue that we don't want dead cap from bad contracts for players that you bet on potential that work out. But now what you've done is said that any of those younger guys you want to keep for your 2024 run, the price goes up dramatically. It feels like we have a team full of place holders for the next year or two that most of whom will leave in their next FA opportunity. So you have Fields developing continuity with targets, only to have a mostly different group and start a lot of that over again.

In fairness, and consistent with Poles' statements, what mitigates this turnover challenge is the draft and UDFAs. But we only have limited resources, way more needs (especially when you consider players who won't be here in 2024 like Quinn) and all of the short player contracts we just signed. It feels like there's going to be a whole lot more rebuilding having to happen next year. Further, not every draft pick will work out.

Would it have made more sense to put more faith in your scouting and sign younger guys to longer deals, perhaps incentive laden, so that they're yours if they're good? And eat some dead $$$ if they're not?

Please share your thoughts and feel free to bash my thinking if you have different logic.

Part of the thought process is wanting guys that have to prove it but the other part is there is a new regime that wants to establish it’s culture. If you sign a guy to a 3 year deal and he doesn’t buy in you’re stuck with that contract whereas you aren’t stuck with a guy on a one year small deal and some of these guys could actually be cut without causing much harm based on their guaranteed money.

And if guys buy in and outperform their contracts this year, the Bears are in an excellent position to resign them based on the available cap space.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

If you sign a guy to a 3 year deal and he doesn’t buy in you’re stuck with that contract whereas you aren’t stuck with a guy on a one year small deal and some of these guys could actually be cut without causing much harm based on their guaranteed money.

Doesn't it depend on how a contract is structured? You can have a 3-year deal where all or almost all the guarantees are paid out in the first year. If the player doesn't pan out you can cut him after one year with no or minimal cap hit. If he does pan out then you've got him on a good deal for another two years. Of course, it all depends on whether the player and his agent would agree to such a deal.

[The Cooler King]

As to years and locking guys down, I think we just have to be careful about pure hypotheticals. Go pick out a deal that actually happened and say you'd have done that deal. But it's tough to suppose a 1 year deal could have been a 3 year deal where the final 2 were basically team options.

Anyways I'm torn between thinking this is exactly what Poles had in mind verse this being the plan B or plan C offseason playing out because he couldn't get enough of the longer deals he wanted. Obviously we know one fell through on the physical. Did other offers not materialize? I guess there are some rumors there was a big push on Brian Allen for instance.

[Grizzled]

I just don't see most of the guys Poles has signed as being re-signed next year. They're placeholders for a year and the deficiencies will need addressing next year. Pringle, yes, but as has been pointed out in other posts they'll have to bid against other teams if he earns another contract.

[RichH55]

There is absolutely going to be roster churn in the next couple of years.

Any growth from Fields is going to come with both the one-year contracts and the upcoming draft picks, and additionally if the one-year contract players sign elsewhere because they've exceeded the amount the Bears deem to be their worth, they should factor into future comp pick formulae.

I wouldn't factor much in the way of Comp Picks for next offseason - Next offseason I expect us to be a much larger FA spender and I don't see anyone in that Arob caliber in terms of guys we might lose

[RichH55]

As to years and locking guys down, I think we just have to be careful about pure hypotheticals. Go pick out a deal that actually happened and say you'd have done that deal. But it's tough to suppose a 1 year deal could have been a 3 year deal where the final 2 were basically team options.

Anyways I'm torn between thinking this is exactly what Poles had in mind verse this being the plan B or plan C offseason playing out because he couldn't get enough of the longer deals he wanted. Obviously we know one fell through on the physical. Did other offers not materialize? I guess there are some rumors there was a big push on Brian Allen for instance.

Brian Allen is the kind of guy you are lucky when you don't get him in FA

I liked Poles FA's - I just think you had to incorporate the ARob Comp Pick into the discussion

[Moriarty]

Virtually all of what we've seen from Poles is consistent with what he said he was going to do. However, with the exception of the Ogunjobi and Bates deals that didn't work out, most FA contracts are 1 year which a couple 2 years. If your plan is that 2022 is a scheme switch rebuild year, you start adding pieces for first shot at a run in 2023 and sky's the limit in 2024, how do a bunch of 1-2 year contracts get you to that end in 2024?

They don't much really.
For the most part, 2022 is a timekiller season, except for having enough protection for Fields to develop, and developing some other young rookie contract players.

In fairness, and consistent with Poles' statements, what mitigates this turnover challenge is the draft and UDFAs. But we only have limited resources, way more needs (especially when you consider players who won't be here in 2024 like Quinn) and all of the short player contracts we just signed. It feels like there's going to be a whole lot more rebuilding having to happen next year. Further, not every draft pick will work out.

Would it have made more sense to put more faith in your scouting and sign younger guys to longer deals, perhaps incentive laden, so that they're yours if they're good? And eat some dead $$$ if they're not?

Please share your thoughts and feel free to bash my thinking if you have different logic.

To some degree (such that you didn't ruin your comps), I would agree.

But you can't just sign those because you want to. The player has to want them, too. In general, players seem really determined to bet on themselves with smaller 1 yr deals, rather than modest 3 yr guaranteed deals. Especially with the cap boom anticipated in 2023, everyone wants to be a FA next year.

It's hard to know if the opportunity to do something like that was there and not explored vs explored and rejected.

[Bearfacts]

Would it have made more sense to put more faith in your scouting and sign younger guys to longer deals, perhaps incentive laden, so that they're yours if they're good? And eat some dead $$$ if they're not?

Please share your thoughts and feel free to bash my thinking if you have different logic.

Based on our current cap limitations and the manner in which Poles plans to rebuild I believe he's taken the right approach. Why?

As much as possible he's currently adding core vets who are in their prime years both as potential starters and as depth. Most are the kind of "lunchbucket" types many teams are built around. Wherever he needs to fill a position he's filling as many as he can prior to the draft and I'm convinced he'll add even more low cost vets after the draft. It's pretty much Roster Building #101 right now.

In some cases the players he's bringing in will meet or even exceed expectations while others will end up becoming disappointments. The scouting and personnel guys can only do so much. They can't play the game for the guys they're touting and if scouting was perfect there would never be another failed draft pick. Every rookie would end up with his ideal team and flourish.

In 2023 the cap should be well over $220 mil and by 2024 it could easily go as high as $250 mil. Having now shed costly deals that would still be "on the books" then he'll have more than enough cap to extend keepers and impact players as well as add some key pieces in FA. But IMHO it makes little sense to spend on impact players at skill positions until the OL and DL have been rebuilt and quality depth added.

[The Cooler King]

But IMHO it makes little sense to spend on impact players at skill positions until the OL and DL have been rebuilt and quality depth added.

This is an incredible logical error.

[The Marshall Plan]

But IMHO it makes little sense to spend on impact players at skill positions until the OL and DL have been rebuilt and quality depth added.

This is an incredible logical error.

I see his point.

Teams should be built from the ball outwards. OL, DL, and QB.

[dplank]

Would it have made more sense to put more faith in your scouting and sign younger guys to longer deals, perhaps incentive laden, so that they're yours if they're good? And eat some dead $$$ if they're not?

Please share your thoughts and feel free to bash my thinking if you have different logic.

Based on our current cap limitations and the manner in which Poles plans to rebuild I believe he's taken the right approach. Why?

As much as possible he's currently adding core vets who are in their prime years both as potential starters and as depth. Most are the kind of "lunchbucket" types many teams are built around. Wherever he needs to fill a position he's filling as many as he can prior to the draft and I'm convinced he'll add even more low cost vets after the draft. It's pretty much Roster Building #101 right now.

In some cases the players he's bringing in will meet or even exceed expectations while others will end up becoming disappointments. The scouting and personnel guys can only do so much. They can't play the game for the guys they're touting and if scouting was perfect there would never be another failed draft pick. Every rookie would end up with his ideal team and flourish.

In 2023 the cap should be well over $220 mil and by 2024 it could easily go as high as $250 mil. Having now shed costly deals that would still be "on the books" then he'll have more than enough cap to extend keepers and impact players as well as add some key pieces in FA. But IMHO it makes little sense to spend on impact players at skill positions until the OL and DL have been rebuilt and quality depth added.

Maybe he should’ve spent a little on OL then to get to this nirvana starting point you seek? Draft will take time to pan out, need to attack it from both sides IMO or you’re looking at a 4 year rebuild instead of 2, and you lose Fields rookie contract cost benefit.

[IE]

This is an incredible logical error.

I see his point.

Teams should be built from the ball outwards. OL, DL, and QB.

I see & agree with his point too. But highlighted the part of this notion where people's opinions seem to be going separate ways. It is "build" not "buy", or "instantly transform". Poles knows he has to build a high quality core on both sides of the ball. But he also knows that it doesn't happen overnight, and also needs to happen within his constraints and in consideration of what he knows about his current inventory, what he thinks he might know, and the opportunity costs.

Pace gifted Poles with a couple of promising rookie OTs and an inside with a bunch of questions. He's just focusing initially on the biggest questions or existing gaps. He also gifted him with zero depth at other important positions which, while not "linemen", are critical pieces of a good football team. It is way-oversimplifying to say that nothing else can/should happen until the lines are built. Linemen don't run routes or defend guys running at 4.4 speed down field. So WHILE OL is clearly A top priority, the notion of building a team in a serial fashion and only caring about the trenches until they are fully baked... just doesn't work IRL.

[RichH55]

Based on our current cap limitations and the manner in which Poles plans to rebuild I believe he's taken the right approach. Why?

As much as possible he's currently adding core vets who are in their prime years both as potential starters and as depth. Most are the kind of "lunchbucket" types many teams are built around. Wherever he needs to fill a position he's filling as many as he can prior to the draft and I'm convinced he'll add even more low cost vets after the draft. It's pretty much Roster Building #101 right now.

In some cases the players he's bringing in will meet or even exceed expectations while others will end up becoming disappointments. The scouting and personnel guys can only do so much. They can't play the game for the guys they're touting and if scouting was perfect there would never be another failed draft pick. Every rookie would end up with his ideal team and flourish.

In 2023 the cap should be well over $220 mil and by 2024 it could easily go as high as $250 mil. Having now shed costly deals that would still be "on the books" then he'll have more than enough cap to extend keepers and impact players as well as add some key pieces in FA. But IMHO it makes little sense to spend on impact players at skill positions until the OL and DL have been rebuilt and quality depth added.

Maybe he should’ve spent a little on OL then to get to this nirvana starting point you seek? Draft will take time to pan out, need to attack it from both sides IMO or you’re looking at a 4 year rebuild instead of 2, and you lose Fields rookie contract cost benefit.

Note that the guy you wanted - Morgan Moses - is basically an average starter.

He's a guy you are looking to replace in either THIS draft, next years draft or next years FA.

So in terms of the "building" analogy - he's not a key piece of the foundation.

[The Cooler King]

I see his point.

Teams should be built from the ball outwards. OL, DL, and QB.

I see & agree with his point too. But highlighted the part of this notion where people's opinions seem to be going separate ways. It is "build" not "buy", or "instantly transform". Poles knows he has to build a high quality core on both sides of the ball. But he also knows that it doesn't happen overnight, and also needs to happen within his constraints and in consideration of what he knows about his current inventory, what he thinks he might know, and the opportunity costs.

Pace gifted Poles with a couple of promising rookie OTs and an inside with a bunch of questions. He's just focusing initially on the biggest questions or existing gaps. He also gifted him with zero depth at other important positions which, while not "linemen", are critical pieces of a good football team. It is way-oversimplifying to say that nothing else can/should happen until the lines are built. Linemen don't run routes or defend guys running at 4.4 speed down field. So WHILE OL is clearly A top priority, the notion of building a team in a serial fashion and only caring about the trenches until they are fully baked... just doesn't work IRL.

Honestly I misread part of the original post, but yes to all this too.

[The Marshall Plan]

I see his point.

Teams should be built from the ball outwards. OL, DL, and QB.

I see & agree with his point too. But highlighted the part of this notion where people's opinions seem to be going separate ways. It is "build" not "buy", or "instantly transform". Poles knows he has to build a high quality core on both sides of the ball. But he also knows that it doesn't happen overnight, and also needs to happen within his constraints and in consideration of what he knows about his current inventory, what he thinks he might know, and the opportunity costs.

Pace gifted Poles with a couple of promising rookie OTs and an inside with a bunch of questions. He's just focusing initially on the biggest questions or existing gaps. He also gifted him with zero depth at other important positions which, while not "linemen", are critical pieces of a good football team. It is way-oversimplifying to say that nothing else can/should happen until the lines are built. Linemen don't run routes or defend guys running at 4.4 speed down field. So WHILE OL is clearly A top priority, the notion of building a team in a serial fashion and only caring about the trenches until they are fully baked... just doesn't work IRL.

Just to take a step back for a minute.

In my mind the most important thing to do is to build a team for success while Fields is on the rookie deal because things get exponentially more difficult when Fields is making $40M per year.

Prioritizing WRs to me is silly. How are they going to have time to get open if we can't block?

We had the #22 ranked OL last year. Bottom 1/3 of the league.

So to me, the priority is obvious.

Now to your point, yes it is BUILD. In a salary cap driven league you simply cannot sign 5 OL at $15M per year and expect to field a team.

Yet where we are with our OL, we absolutely should've made a move for at least one guy like that and the opportunities were there. I just don't see the excuse for NOT signing somebody given that if the deal was structured right, we had the cap space and then some.

With where we are now we absolutely have to draft a T in the second round. The OL is not looking good at all. We're too reliant on hoping for certain players to work out as opposed to knowing about known quantities.

[thunderspirit]

The argument against signing someone over what you have determined their value to be is that, honestly, it would be signing someone over what you have determined their value to be.

[dplank]

The argument against signing someone over what you have determined their value to be is that, honestly, it would be signing someone over what you have determined their value to be.

Have you ever been to a restaurant and looked at the menu and thought "Damn, I'd like to order steak but they're charging too much for it". Then ordered it anyways and been happy with it? Would it matter if you expected the Steak to cost $30 and they priced it at $31? Or if they priced it at $50?

This absolutism about value and strict adherence is not real world stuff, it's theoretical nonsense. Everything is relative to the amount of the PERCEIVED overpay, the availability of second/third options (like, if there's literally nothing else on that menu you like, you'd just leave because you think they overpriced the steak by a dollar?????), and the needs that you currently have (what if you were starving to death, would you die for that $1?).

Ever heard of Surge Pricing by Uber? If Uber surge priced you're ride and you needed that ride, would you pay more than you think is fair? This also highlights the importance of timing/need/scale - that same ride may be half price an hour later. If it's a $200 ride home from the airport, that drops to $100 you might wait an hour for the price to drop. If it's a $9 ride home from the airport that drops to $7, I'm guessing you wouldn't waste an hour of your life to save $2.

All things are relative and you have simplified this to a nonsensical degree.

[IE]

I see & agree with his point too. But highlighted the part of this notion where people's opinions seem to be going separate ways. It is "build" not "buy", or "instantly transform". Poles knows he has to build a high quality core on both sides of the ball. But he also knows that it doesn't happen overnight, and also needs to happen within his constraints and in consideration of what he knows about his current inventory, what he thinks he might know, and the opportunity costs.

Pace gifted Poles with a couple of promising rookie OTs and an inside with a bunch of questions. He's just focusing initially on the biggest questions or existing gaps. He also gifted him with zero depth at other important positions which, while not "linemen", are critical pieces of a good football team. It is way-oversimplifying to say that nothing else can/should happen until the lines are built. Linemen don't run routes or defend guys running at 4.4 speed down field. So WHILE OL is clearly A top priority, the notion of building a team in a serial fashion and only caring about the trenches until they are fully baked... just doesn't work IRL.

Just to take a step back for a minute.

In my mind the most important thing to do is to build a team for success while Fields is on the rookie deal because things get exponentially more difficult when Fields is making $40M per year.

Prioritizing WRs to me is silly. How are they going to have time to get open if we can't block?

We had the #22 ranked OL last year. Bottom 1/3 of the league.

So to me, the priority is obvious.

Now to your point, yes it is BUILD. In a salary cap driven league you simply cannot sign 5 OL at $15M per year and expect to field a team.

Yet where we are with our OL, we absolutely should've made a move for at least one guy like that and the opportunities were there. I just don't see the excuse for NOT signing somebody given that if the deal was structured right, we had the cap space and then some.

With where we are now we absolutely have to draft a T in the second round. The OL is not looking good at all. We're too reliant on hoping for certain players to work out as opposed to knowing about known quantities.

Keep in mind I didn't say prioritize WRs or any other position over OL. My point was the opposite - there is no serial approach to prioritization...there are multiple parallel priorities. It just isn't as simple as "we played bad on the OL last year so we need to replace them all and that is the first and only priority (in the sense that other actions will be perceived as ignoring the OL".

Plank noted that I seem to be all-in on "Nagy was the reason everyone is bad". It might look like that, but it isn't that extreme. But it MAY be true that McNagy was a huge reason why we saw some things we saw. We don't know. And importantly - Poles doesn't know and said as much when he said he expects things to improve simply with the change in regime. He is also admitting through his acttions/non-actions that he and his team haven't drawn conclusions about some guys.

Many fans have firmly established their POV on players based on what they saw and stats and PFF rankings and such. But final judgement on players at this point effectively waives the impact that Nagy really had on player performance, no matter how much it was. That makes zero sense to me. I think Poles agrees at this point & has decided it is better to seek more information and potentially take a lump or two than panic, potentially overspend AND potentially make bad decisions about players who end up better than their Nagy tape suggested.

[IE]

The argument against signing someone over what you have determined their value to be is that, honestly, it would be signing someone over what you have determined their value to be.

Have you ever been to a restaurant and looked at the menu and thought "Damn, I'd like to order steak but they're charging too much for it". Then ordered it anyways and been happy with it? Would it matter if you expected the Steak to cost $30 and they priced it at $31? Or if they priced it at $50?

This absolutism about value and strict adherence is not real world stuff, it's theoretical nonsense. Everything is relative to the amount of the PERCEIVED overpay, the availability of second/third options (like, if there's literally nothing else on that menu you like, you'd just leave because you think they overpriced the steak by a dollar?????), and the needs that you currently have (what if you were starving to death, would you die for that $1?).

Ever heard of Surge Pricing by Uber? If Uber surge priced you're ride and you needed that ride, would you pay more than you think is fair? This also highlights the importance of timing/need/scale - that same ride may be half price an hour later. If it's a $200 ride home from the airport, that drops to $100 you might wait an hour for the price to drop. If it's a $9 ride home from the airport that drops to $7, I'm guessing you wouldn't waste an hour of your life to save $2.

All things are relative and you have simplified this to a nonsensical degree.

Poles is operating as if he has hard cash budget and even though he wants the steak he also needs to get home.