Smith Contract Talks

[AZ54]

With one agency representing 5 of the 7 unsigned top 10 draftees, including Roquan Smith, this situation won't end quickly.  

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/05/offsets-re-emerge-as-a-top-10-contract-issue/

The Bears gave Trubisky everything last year so where will they draw the line this year?  

"The only other player in the top 10 from 2017 to get anything close to that was Bears quarterback Mitch Trubisky, who had the offset language removed from his guaranteed training-camp roster bonuses."

[Connorbear]

I was wondering about this.  Ugh. 

Peace

[BearFan PHX]

I hope it isnt too big of a stumbling block, I mean if Roquon Smith is SO bad that we cut him in his rookie deal, and he signs somewhere else, I doubt theyll be paying him much.

its a subtle point, and I see both sides but it doesnt seem like a big issue to me.

 

[adam]

This is getting ridiculous, I thought the CBA took care of this. They need to clean the language up for the next collective bargaining agreement.  Just slot the players based on draft position with a fixed contract value, offset language, and guarantees.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I see reasons to put stipulations in the deals.  The players want some of those removed.  You want your employee to abide you need leverage. If it was all guaranteed and no offsets, the league would be a disaster.  

[adam]

On 7/6/2018 at 10:41 PM, ASHKUM BEAR said:

I see reasons to put stipulations in the deals.  The players want some of those removed.  You want your employee to abide you need leverage. If it was all guaranteed and no offsets, the league would be a disaster.  

I don't know what you are referring to. I am not talking about guaranteeing everything, I am talking mainly about offset language. I just think the slots should have pre-determined values for everything. 

Offset language is where a team releases a player and if signed by another team, the old team would not be on the hook for the full salary. Players like it because they can double dip and get paid by both old and new teams. However, this would only occur if the player was released, so missing training camp and other offseason activities seems pretty dumb considering how rare this language comes into play. 

[BearFan PHX]

1 hour ago, adam said:

I don't know what you are referring to. I am not talking about guaranteeing everything, I am talking mainly about offset language. I just think the slots should have pre-determined values for everything. 

Offset language is where a team releases a player and if signed by another team, the old team would not be on the hook for the full salary. Players like it because they can double dip and get paid by both old and new teams. However, this would only occur if the player was released, so missing training camp and other offseason activities seems pretty dumb considering how rare this language comes into play. 

exactly

[ASHKUM BEAR]

On 7/8/2018 at 5:05 PM, adam said:

I don't know what you are referring to. I am not talking about guaranteeing everything, I am talking mainly about offset language. I just think the slots should have pre-determined values for everything. 

Offset language is where a team releases a player and if signed by another team, the old team would not be on the hook for the full salary. Players like it because they can double dip and get paid by both old and new teams. However, this would only occur if the player was released, so missing training camp and other offseason activities seems pretty dumb considering how rare this language comes into play. 

I wasn't responding directly to you, I was still typing as your comment was posted as I about backed out to read it.  

What I was saying are these top players want the offset languages removed, basically making the deals 100% guaranteed.  I think teams should still have the power to write in rules to follow that can get them out of that deal if the player breaks the rule. The pay scale is slotted, so it should be somewhat simple, except if the player doesn't agree with some of the offsets.  Maybe an arbitrator is fair to oversee these offsets.  

[BearFan PHX]

11 hours ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

I wasn't responding directly to you, I was still typing as your comment was posted as I about backed out to read it.  

What I was saying are these top players want the offset languages removed, basically making the deals 100% guaranteed.  I think teams should still have the power to write in rules to follow that can get them out of that deal if the player breaks the rule. The pay scale is slotted, so it should be somewhat simple, except if the player doesn't agree with some of the offsets.  Maybe an arbitrator is fair to oversee these offsets.  

Youre right but it's even worse. The offset language doesn't affect the guaranteed money they're due to receive under the deal, it affects whether they can double dip if they perform so poorly that they get cut and then sign somewhere else. It's nonsense. It's unlikely, and not necessary. Boo on the agents for inventing something to justify their existence now that the rookie contracts are slotted.

[AZ54]

He's a no-show at training camp.  Veterans haven't arrived yet so not an official holdout.   

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000940502/article/roquan-smith-not-at-start-of-camp-with-bears-rookies

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I hope they work things out. Just think of Chargers last year and the long holdout they had with Bosa.  

[madlithuanian]

It'll all be fine...  With no real Bears news, this is the only news.

[madlithuanian]

OK, now I'm starting to worry...

Now matter how this plays out, it looks bad on both the team and player as of right now.  They need resolution early next week.

[Mongo3451]

We know from history, it's not the Bears.

[AZ54]

In the meantime Kwiatkoski is making everyone watching training camp practicies forget Smith isn't on the field.  It's reaching the point where it's no longer clear that Smith will be the starter.    

[BearFan PHX]

1 hour ago, AZ54 said:

In the meantime Kwiatkoski is making everyone watching training camp practicies forget Smith isn't on the field.  It's reaching the point where it's no longer clear that Smith will be the starter.    

doubtful

dont get me wrong, Im pissed Smith isnt in camp too, but when he shows up, he'll be the starter pretty quickly.

[AZ54]

9 hours ago, BearFan NYC said:

doubtful

dont get me wrong, Im pissed Smith isnt in camp too, but when he shows up, he'll be the starter pretty quickly.

I think Smith will end up the starter too but it doesn't hurt to see Kwit doing his part to make him work for it.  Kwit may have worked on his coverage skills but I doubt he's that much faster and agile than last year.  For plays up the middle Kwit will likely be better than Roquan but getting to the edge and in coverage will be Roquan's advantage.  

And the new helmet rule that Smith is reportedly arguing over is a really stupid rule.   I understand player safety but you can't run if your head is not leaning in front of your body.  There is no way you will ever tackle anyone coming straight at you if you don't lean forward.  Or else you'll be getting run over which isn't exactly the safe way to take on contact.  There's no more diving for the end zone either.  That's illegal.   Not only that, these athletes are too good to not ever have incidental contact around the head area when players are spinning and twisting for every yard.  I think we can all rule out the obvious spearing issues.   My preference would be to put a stripe or a line on the top of the helmet and any contact above the line (the crown of the head) is a penalty.  This allows players to use good sound body leverage for tackling and when getting hit, and it will promote heads up football too.   Incidental contact in the face mask or forehead area is still ok.      

[Pixote]

From the article I read today on NFL.com, the problem is that some teams may use a suspension of a player for violating the new 'helmet rule' as justification to void guaranteed money in a contract. If that is the case, I can see Smith's concern. I wonder how other players are handling this issue in their contracts?

[jason]

17 hours ago, AZ54 said:

In the meantime Kwiatkoski is making everyone watching training camp practicies forget Smith isn't on the field.  It's reaching the point where it's no longer clear that Smith will be the starter.    

Which is pretty much the primary reason I didn't want to see an ILB for the Bears in the first round.

[Stinger226]

Ro Smith has pro bowl written all over him so no matter how well Kwiat looks, it won't last long. Reaching for a pass rusher at 7 doesn't passing by the best player on the board. It will prove out.

[BearFan2000]

While I don't like the holdout, and would like Smith in camp already.  I understand where he's coming from.  I read an article somewhere that said there are very few players who have protections against this issue due to rules like this new one.  It's also hard to predict how this rule will be applied/enforced in real games so I can see a rookie or a  player negotiating a new contract wanting some security in case they get screwed by this dumb new rule.  Like AZ pointed out a rule intended to promote safety actually puts defensive players in an unsafe position to take a hit.   If you run with your head straight up and get hit that's a risk for neck/back injuries.  What makes the whole spearing, issue so hard to officiate is that things happen so fast that it is sometimes hard to tell if the contact was intentional or not.  The issue defensive players have to deal with is they are aiming at a moving target which include a moving helmet contact area.  You could be aiming for the numbers, shoulder pads, etc to make a legal tackle/hit.  But when the ball carrier lowers their head/center of gravity to brace for the hit or initiate contact themselves your helmet can now be headed for their helmet.  Defensive players have become confused and concerned more about not getting flagged/suspended than making plays.  Hard to play good defense when you are worried about getting screwed.  They are trying to eliminate injury from a violent sport.  it's an oxymoron.  

That aside, Roquan is far too talented to be seriously threatened for the starting job by Kwit.  But, if there is good to come out of this holdout it is that he has gotten good first team reps and is experiencing success that will give him some confidence that would be helpful should he be called on at some point.  Smith not being there does allow us to develop some of the depth at that position.  Hopefully the contract gets signed soon and Smith gets in camp.  He is missing valuable reps that a rookie needs.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I normally am one that typically can understand both sides of a holdout, however, in this case, based upon the facts at hand, it appears to me that the Bears are way off here and should back down.  I can't think of any legitimate way to even defend the Bears position (albeit, maybe I'm missing out on a key fact set but it seems to me that the concern is that he gets suspended and all of sudden the Bears pull his guaranteed money from him and walk away (because he stinks / is a bust / etc). The intent of the rule was not to cut players over stuff like this.  

[AZ54]

9 hours ago, DABEARSDABOMB said:

I normally am one that typically can understand both sides of a holdout, however, in this case, based upon the facts at hand, it appears to me that the Bears are way off here and should back down.  I can't think of any legitimate way to even defend the Bears position (albeit, maybe I'm missing out on a key fact set but it seems to me that the concern is that he gets suspended and all of sudden the Bears pull his guaranteed money from him and walk away (because he stinks / is a bust / etc). The intent of the rule was not to cut players over stuff like this.  

The league has created a system where it fines defensive players far more often than offensive players.   For years defensive players have been fined while RBs and even WRs and QBs (Cam Newton) sometimes barreled head first into them.  I'm not surprised at all to see players being more cautious when the league throws out some new rule even they can't properly explain.  

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I heard one half legitimate concern over not giving in. If the rest of the defense has that language also in their contracts, would any of them threaten to walkout to get it removed from their contracts also.  

I think there were only 2 or 4 situations last year were players were suspended for this rule.

 

[adam]

This is all you need to know:

Smith's slot would net him around $17,500,000, yet the Bears paid Mike Glennon $18,500,000 for 4 starts.

I understand there will be precedence here for future deals, but 4 games paid for a suspension for a star is nothing compared to paying a Glennon almost $20 million, ever. 

To me, the Bears are looking worse by the day. Come up with a compromise. First suspension on the team, second, they split, and the third and subsequent ones are on the player.