Cutler

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Per The Score 670 Chicago - The Cutler contract contains an out we have not previously heard before. If the Bears cut Cutler by June (not the March 10 date previously reported), and another team signs Cutler for a contract worth at least $15 million (total, not per year), the Bears are off the hook on paying Cutler any more money, and he counts nothing against the cap.

 

According to The Score, the Bears are specifically leaking this - and Fox and Pace are being intentionally non-committal to Cutler - to rev up the trade market to try to get something for Cutler. The attraction of a trade being that a team would get him and avoid getting caught up in a bidding war for his services if he were cut and a free agent.

 

That means if Bears wanted to completely unload Cutler (basically cut him), it shouldn't be an issue as it would be astonishing if he didn't get a contract worth $15M (that would literally be impossible). I think it is much more likely than any of us previously thought that Cutler is moved sooner vs. later. I still think the ideal scenario has us getting a pick for him. Teams will be desperate and to be frank, we are selling Jay at his lowest value, but understand if the org wants to make a change. I just wish it was in a year where there were more attractive QB options available.

[scs787]

Interesting. We all know I'm a Cutler fan but this certain is a bit intriguing when you consider that this is supposed to be a really good free agent class.

 

If they can completely re-haul on defense they might be able to get by with a sub par QB. I'm still not in favor of McCown as the starter, I'd rather take a shot on Ryan Mallett, Christian Ponder, Matt Moore, or Jake Locker.

 

My main beef with cutting Cutler before was it really did nothing to help the team financially. This new wrinkle throws a wrench into that logic.

 

All that said, I do think they can win with him and the money that they already have but now I can go either way.

 

 

[Chitownhustla]

That means if Bears wanted to completely unload Cutler (basically cut him), it shouldn't be an issue as it would be astonishing if he didn't get a contract worth $15M (that would literally be impossible). I think it is much more likely than any of us previously thought that Cutler is moved sooner vs. later. I still think the ideal scenario has us getting a pick for him. Teams will be desperate and to be frank, we are selling Jay at his lowest value, but understand if the org wants to make a change. I just wish it was in a year where there were more attractive QB options available.

 

 

WOW...... some of the guys that want him gone may get their wish. That clause makes it a lot more interesting.

 

 

 

I do think you can win with Cutler in the right situation. Other teams will have believe that too if they are going to trade for him. With Cutler gone, who do ya, who do ya, who do ya?????

 

 

College QB??? Vet?????

[madlithuanian]

Said it before, I'll say it again...in Cliff Stein I trust!

 

That means if Bears wanted to completely unload Cutler (basically cut him), it shouldn't be an issue as it would be astonishing if he didn't get a contract worth $15M (that would literally be impossible). I think it is much more likely than any of us previously thought that Cutler is moved sooner vs. later. I still think the ideal scenario has us getting a pick for him. Teams will be desperate and to be frank, we are selling Jay at his lowest value, but understand if the org wants to make a change. I just wish it was in a year where there were more attractive QB options available.

 

[scs787]

WOW...... some of the guys that want him gone may get their wish. That clause makes it a lot more interesting.

 

 

 

I do think you can win with Cutler in the right situation. Other teams will have believe that too if they are going to trade for him. With Cutler gone, who do ya, who do ya, who do ya?????

 

 

College QB??? Vet?????

 

I'd go with a vet. If they're gonna save money to re-haul the D then I think we should go with a guy thats been around. Locker intrigues me a bit because he's never really had talent around him in Tennessee. Ryan Mallett has never really gotten a chance to show anything and I would trust him over what would likely be, at best Brett Hundley. Christian Ponder might be better with some actual weapons around him. And then I guess there's that McCown fellow.

['TD']

Do you remember who exactly broke this? I'd like to read the details, but it's hard to find because of all the articles on the Bears not committing to Cutler.

[bradjock]

That means if Bears wanted to completely unload Cutler (basically cut him), it shouldn't be an issue as it would be astonishing if he didn't get a contract worth $15M (that would literally be impossible). I think it is much more likely than any of us previously thought that Cutler is moved sooner vs. later. I still think the ideal scenario has us getting a pick for him. Teams will be desperate and to be frank, we are selling Jay at his lowest value, but understand if the org wants to make a change. I just wish it was in a year where there were more attractive QB options available.

 

Do you have a link? I haven't heard this from the SCORE. I might have missed it.

 

Either way, how does that help his trade value? We can more easily cut him so teams are more willing to trade for him? That makes no sense.

 

If we let him go, who is our QB? Early word is Marioti is killing it in the interview process. We'd likely have to give up a 1 and a 2 and a 1 and a 2 to get him. And he might not be better than Cutler (See RG3).

[scs787]

Do you have a link? I haven't heard this from the SCORE. I might have missed it.

 

Either way, how does that help his trade value? We can more easily cut him so teams are more willing to trade for him? That makes no sense.

 

If we let him go, who is our QB? Early word is Marioti is killing it in the interview process. We'd likely have to give up a 1 and a 2 and a 1 and a 2 to get him. And he might not be better than Cutler (See RG3).

 

"The attraction of a trade being that a team would get him and avoid getting caught up in a bidding war for his services if he were cut and a free agent."

 

That's from the quote he pulled.

 

A vet and a mid-late round pick could make some sense....Or they could possibly like Hundley or Grayson in the 2R.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Frankly I'd like to see the discussion on either Mariotta and Winston to die off. IMHO, neither should be anywhere on our radar not at #1 especially. Not at what it would cost.

 

With Winston I really don't need to say much other than Manziel 2.0. And before you suggest he "looks the part" I'd remind you so too did J'Marcus Russell.

 

With Mariotta, the more I hear it was more the system than it was Mariotta I start to wonder if that's not true. If the championship game wasn't indicative of that possibility then maybe there's something to it. And the fact he skipped out on both the Senior Bowl and Shrine game makes me wonder why? Here's some more insight to Mariota and his translation to being NFL ready: http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/23707...and-he-knows-it

 

No thanks. Look for a better skill player, preferably on D before you consider one of these two.

[scs787]

Winston is only Manziel-esque off the field, he's nothing like Manziel on the field, and not really Russell like either. Russell just had a huge arm, Manziel was just an escape artist. Winston is gonna be a baller, but ya, still not worth the picks.

[adam]

So if a team signs him to a 1-year $14 million deal, his 2015 and 2016 salaries are guaranteed (after March 12th) and both salaries are counted against our cap?

 

Cutler gets basically over $30 million from the Bears over 2 years and $14 million from the new team (for one year). The Bears are hit with a ridiculous cap hit for two years, and he can sign a new long term deal the next year (which would honestly be better for him after how bad 2014 was). Like playing on the franchise tag.

 

It is actually in Cutler's and the new team's best interest if he does sign a low ball offer for one to two years, which would give him actually more money (Bears+new team), it would allow his new team to sign other players with the cap space, and it would make his contract less of a liability for the new team. I could easily see a 1 year $14.9 million deal or $7.49 million per year for two years. The two year deal, even though less lucrative would at least give him some job security and still pay him almost $45 million over two years.

 

If the Bears are keeping Cutler, they need to convert his 2015 salary into a pro-rated bonus, which would average the cap hit out thru 2019, and free up a lot of cap space this year. If they are cutting ties, they have to cut him by March 12th or trade him.

[scs787]

So if a team signs him to a 1-year $14 million deal, his 2015 and 2016 salaries are guaranteed (after March 12th) and both salaries are counted against our cap?

 

Cutler gets basically over $30 million from the Bears over 2 years and $14 million from the new team (for one year). The Bears are hit with a ridiculous cap hit for two years, and he can sign a new long term deal the next year (which would honestly be better for him after how bad 2014 was). Like playing on the franchise tag.

 

It is actually in Cutler's and the new team's best interest if he does sign a low ball offer for one to two years, which would give him actually more money (Bears+new team), it would allow his new team to sign other players with the cap space, and it would make his contract less of a liability for the new team. I could easily see a 1 year $14.9 million deal or $7.49 million per year for two years. The two year deal, even though less lucrative would at least give him some job security and still pay him almost $45 million over two years.

 

If the Bears are keeping Cutler, they need to convert his 2015 salary into a pro-rated bonus, which would average the cap hit out thru 2019, and free up a lot of cap space this year. If they are cutting ties, they have to cut him by March 12th or trade him.

 

You'd have to imagine if the deal is under 15M the Bears just pay him the difference right? If not he'd be crazy to take anything over 15.

 

Jay was guaranteed 38M in his contract, Bears gave him 22.5 of it last year so I assume the deal is the Bears have to get that 15.5 with the kicker that another team can chip in to get him there.

 

 

['TD']

This is all new info to me so I can't say this for sure, but you'd have to imagine if the deal is under 15M the Bears just pay him the difference right? If not he'd be crazy to take anything over 15.

 

Jay was guaranteed 38M in his contract, Bears gave him 22.5 guaranteed last year so I assume the deal is the Bears have to get that 15.5 with the kicker that another team can chip in to get him there.

I think the information is wrong. I can't find it anywhere else, and the guys on Bears all Access on the SCORE was using the March 12th date tonight.

[scs787]

I think the information is wrong. I can't find it anywhere else, and the guys on Bears all Access on the SCORE was using the March 12th date tonight.

 

Possible. I searched the quote DB posted and it appears he got it from ChiCitySports, posters there said that its nothing new and that it is indeed true. Can't find any "Legit" sources confirming it, but the way they're talking about it there they sure do think it's true.

 

They seem to believe the Bears are just putting it back out there now in an effort to stir up trade talks.

['TD']

I think whomever was talking on the SCORE or the listener was wrong.

 

I think they may have confused two things that have been known, and jumbled them together.

 

It came out in December that Cutler has an offset clause. As far as I know, Cutler's 2015 salary would be offset by his 2015 salary with a new team. Possibly only the league minimum, as their would be no reason to ask for more from his new team. The Bears are on the hook for this year's salary unless he is traded. (not his whole new contract)

 

The other thing is, that he can be given the the June 1st designation before being cut this year. That will push most of his dead money (from the contract being converted to bonus last year) into the 2016 season, and the Bears can save money against the cap that way. (just applies to his dead money from the conversion last year, still would have to be cut by march 13th)

 

I think those 2 (as far as I know) facts got combined, into this new scenario.

[AZ54]

A few thoughts on the thread overall...

 

If this is true, this is the perfect time to throw this rumor out there. Teams are getting a first-hand look at the rookie QB class and are likely to come away unimpressed after the top 2.

 

Mariota does have question marks but as far as him skipping some of the pre-draft stuff it's because his shoulder was sprained badly in the championship game. He'd be a fool to throw too soon and injure it again before the draft. If he doesn't throw this weekend he'll throw at his pro day. However, all that just adds to the skepticism of this QB class and helps Cutler's trade value. I still see Mariota being taken before we pick at #7 and I don't see us trading up to get him but maybe we make a deal if he's there at #4. Oakland is not going to draft a QB so they will listen. There are just a few hundred points on the old trade value chart between #4 and #7 so the price is not that high and dropping down to #7 keeps them in position to draft one of the elite players. If we traded Cutler for a 3rd Rd pick we could toss that in and it almost balances out perfectly. I think we'd have to get to that spot ahead of Washington and maybe the Jets if we wanted him but it's also a deal that wouldn't happen until draft day because someone else could easily trade ahead of us.

 

If this were the Bears intentions they'd likely sign someone before the draft and name them the starter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

['TD']

According to a source familiar with the details of the deal, contract negotiator Cliff Stein made the offset language in each of the guarantee provisions apply to money earned from another team throughout the length of the contract. So if Cutler is released before March 12 and he earns $15.5 million over the lifetime of his next contract (not just this coming season), the Bears won't owe him a penny.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0218-story.html

 

Ok, there's the story. I didn't see the June part in there, but the offset clause running through out his next contract is amazing.

 

Of course he could sign some where for one year and the vet minimum, but likely the Bears could recoup all that money if he is cut.

 

If that language is in the contract, it would both give the Bears leverage for a renegotiation of his contract if they wanted, and would ultimately make him much easier to trade. A team that traded for him would be on the hook for that 10 million that kicks in for 2016, but the they should be able to recoup it if they cut him after this year from the next team.