To tag Berrian, or not to tag Berrian

[nfoligno]

That is the question. I have gone back and forth. On one hand, I do not want to tie up a ton of money into a player who I question will ever be a #1. On the other hand, can we really afford to lose him? So some talk about the tag, as have I at times, and I just got to thinking about the numbers.

 

What sort of deal do we expect Berrian to seek? He turned down, I think, something in the $20m range w/ $8m guaranteed, which is about what we offered Randle El a couple years ago. So what is he looking at.

 

Last year, I don't think there were any deals for WRs that Berrian would use. Stallworth signed basically a one year gimick deal. Moss, Welker and the rest didn't sign deals that I think Berrian would target either. I actually look back to 2006.

 

In 2006, Randle El and Reggie Wayne were signed to new deals. Laugh if you want that Berrian would seek money similar to Wayne, but I think it is legit. That year, El signed w/ Wash on a 7yr/$30m deal w/ about $11.5 in bonus money ($10m SB and $1.5 roster bonus). Wayne re-signed w/ Indy on a 6yr/$40m deal w/ $13.5m SB.

 

Fast forward to today. Many have talked about El as the comparison, but I think Berrian is considerably more proven today than El was when he signed w/ Washington. El's 4 seasons w/ Pitt averaged 40 catches for 503 yards and just under 2 scores. In none of those seasons did he have over 50 catches and hit the 600 yard mark (w/ 601) only once. Berrian had 51 and 77 catches the last two years, w/ 775 and 951 yards, plus 6 and 5 scores respectively. And he has done this in a far inferior offense than El had in Pitt. So I do not think El's contract is the base for Berrian today.

 

Wayne was coming off a pair of 1,000+ seasons, and considered a far better WR than Berrian. If this were two years ago, I would not consider Wayne's contract a basis for Berrian, but it is not 2 years ago. Berrian has elevated his play, was the #1 WR for us last year, and the salary cap has risen. Berrian has said he believes he should be paid like a top 5 WR, and I think Wayne's deal is what he is looking at.

 

So are we willing to give him 6yr/$40m w/ $13.5 SB? Heck, I can see him seeking an even greater SB, though the base may be similar.

 

Counter that w/ the $8m or whatever it will cost to tag him. If we tag him, we avoid the long term investment, yet at the same time, may be giving him guaranteed about 3/4 of what we might have to give him if we simply re-signed him. I was against re-signing him before, but now I wonder. What if we give him a deal w/ about $14m guaranteed. have about $4m of that in roster bonus (limiting the long term risk) and spreading out the other $10m over 6 years.

 

If the guaranteed money we are talking about is less than half the difference from the tag amount, I do not think it makes sense to tag him. At that point, I think it makes more sense to simply re-sign him. Now, if he is seeking significantly more than Wayne got, then I say let him walk. If another team is willing to pony up that sort of coin for him, they can have him. But I question whether he will get that much more than Wayne, even two years later. Thus, I am now thinking we should re-sign him. I still do not think it happens before the start of FA, but I do think it happens.

[madlithuanian]

I think sign or release. Tagging doesn't solve enough problems as you've mentioned.

 

Overall I view it as, do we think this guy is a legit #1 WR. If we do, we should sign him. If not, we should let him go and get help elsewhere with a veteran and in the draft.

 

That is the question. I have gone back and forth. On one hand, I do not want to tie up a ton of money into a player who I question will ever be a #1. On the other hand, can we really afford to lose him? So some talk about the tag, as have I at times, and I just got to thinking about the numbers.

 

What sort of deal do we expect Berrian to seek? He turned down, I think, something in the $20m range w/ $8m guaranteed, which is about what we offered Randle El a couple years ago. So what is he looking at.

 

Last year, I don't think there were any deals for WRs that Berrian would use. Stallworth signed basically a one year gimick deal. Moss, Welker and the rest didn't sign deals that I think Berrian would target either. I actually look back to 2006.

 

In 2006, Randle El and Reggie Wayne were signed to new deals. Laugh if you want that Berrian would seek money similar to Wayne, but I think it is legit. That year, El signed w/ Wash on a 7yr/$30m deal w/ about $11.5 in bonus money ($10m SB and $1.5 roster bonus). Wayne re-signed w/ Indy on a 6yr/$40m deal w/ $13.5m SB.

 

Fast forward to today. Many have talked about El as the comparison, but I think Berrian is considerably more proven today than El was when he signed w/ Washington. El's 4 seasons w/ Pitt averaged 40 catches for 503 yards and just under 2 scores. In none of those seasons did he have over 50 catches and hit the 600 yard mark (w/ 601) only once. Berrian had 51 and 77 catches the last two years, w/ 775 and 951 yards, plus 6 and 5 scores respectively. And he has done this in a far inferior offense than El had in Pitt. So I do not think El's contract is the base for Berrian today.

 

Wayne was coming off a pair of 1,000+ seasons, and considered a far better WR than Berrian. If this were two years ago, I would not consider Wayne's contract a basis for Berrian, but it is not 2 years ago. Berrian has elevated his play, was the #1 WR for us last year, and the salary cap has risen. Berrian has said he believes he should be paid like a top 5 WR, and I think Wayne's deal is what he is looking at.

 

So are we willing to give him 6yr/$40m w/ $13.5 SB? Heck, I can see him seeking an even greater SB, though the base may be similar.

 

Counter that w/ the $8m or whatever it will cost to tag him. If we tag him, we avoid the long term investment, yet at the same time, may be giving him guaranteed about 3/4 of what we might have to give him if we simply re-signed him. I was against re-signing him before, but now I wonder. What if we give him a deal w/ about $14m guaranteed. have about $4m of that in roster bonus (limiting the long term risk) and spreading out the other $10m over 6 years.

 

If the guaranteed money we are talking about is less than half the difference from the tag amount, I do not think it makes sense to tag him. At that point, I think it makes more sense to simply re-sign him. Now, if he is seeking significantly more than Wayne got, then I say let him walk. If another team is willing to pony up that sort of coin for him, they can have him. But I question whether he will get that much more than Wayne, even two years later. Thus, I am now thinking we should re-sign him. I still do not think it happens before the start of FA, but I do think it happens.

[balta1701-A]

Counter that w/ the $8m or whatever it will cost to tag him. If we tag him, we avoid the long term investment, yet at the same time, may be giving him guaranteed about 3/4 of what we might have to give him if we simply re-signed him. I was against re-signing him before, but now I wonder. What if we give him a deal w/ about $14m guaranteed. have about $4m of that in roster bonus (limiting the long term risk) and spreading out the other $10m over 6 years.

 

If the guaranteed money we are talking about is less than half the difference from the tag amount, I do not think it makes sense to tag him. At that point, I think it makes more sense to simply re-sign him. Now, if he is seeking significantly more than Wayne got, then I say let him walk. If another team is willing to pony up that sort of coin for him, they can have him. But I question whether he will get that much more than Wayne, even two years later. Thus, I am now thinking we should re-sign him. I still do not think it happens before the start of FA, but I do think it happens.

I think right here you've given the best argument possible for why it doesn't make sense to use the cap for any team that is looking at anything more than a 1 year shot...it's a terribly inefficient use of salary cap space. Except in the uncapped year, you're eating up a gigantic chunk of your cap space with that guy, and more importantly, the cap space you're eating up on that guy could be used to cover 40-50% of his guaranteed money/cap hit anyway.

[nfoligno]

I think it is a matter of percentages and situation.

 

For example, look at Briggs. In Briggs, you have a player who believes he is going to get $20m or more in bonus money (and I stress the "or more" part). In addition to that, we were coming off the SB and felt we were a top candidate to return the following season. So when factoring the window w/ the difference between expected guaranteed money and actual in the guarantee, I think it made sense.

 

For Berrian though, you are talking about giving a player something like 60% of the guaranteed money you would give him in a long term deal. In addition to that, while I have as much hope as any bear fan, or liklihood of the SB is less for next year than it was this past year, at least heading into the offseason. So I do not see it making sense to tag him.

 

Another example where it may be justified is Harris. In Harris, you have a player likely to seek $30m in guaranteed money. The tag will be closer to $7m or so, just a little under 1/4 the sought after amount. In addition, you have a history of injuries to add to the mix and factor. So if we do not come to terms w/ Harris, I can see the justification to tag him next year, as opposed to simply giving him the long term deal he wants, or letting him walk for nothing.

[DrunkBomber]

In terms of Berrian, I would say shop around to see what kind of WR we can sign, I know theres not much out there, or even trade for first. Then, if we cant make any moves I say franchising him may be better than trying to resign him. Its much better to have to overpay him for only one good year as opposed to six or seven. Who knows what WRs will become available in the next few years. We dont want to be stuck paying Berrian as our number one if a true number one becomes available.

 

We finally rid ourselves of Moose so we have the opportunity to spend at the position when a big name becomes available. We know one thing, that we cant afford to let him walk without having a back up plan or the pieces in place to bring someone else new in.

[bradjock]

Like you, I've went back and forth on the subject. At this point I'd say there's no way in hell we sign him. First & foremost, I think if Angelo was going to do it, it would have happened by now. Secondly, we probably got burned by tagging Briggs. We paid more money then we should have for a guy who's likely to walk. The difference is that we were coming off the Super Bowl & we were gearing up to make another run. Now we are not in "rebuilding mode" but we're definitely in "retooling mode."

 

More importantly, Lance Briggs is a pro-bowl player and is considered to be a top linebacker. If you were ranking top linebackers, rank would likely make the bottom of a top-ten list. Where does Berrian rank? Does he even make the top 20? Several teams have not one but two better WR's. If you're going to pay a guy to be the "top 5 at his position" you'd like for him to be near the top 5.

 

Stallworth & Booker are available which loosens things up, throwing in more competition. Stallworth is close to Berrian. We're better off waiting to see what happens then over-paying.

 

No tag.

I think it is a matter of percentages and situation.

 

For example, look at Briggs. In Briggs, you have a player who believes he is going to get $20m or more in bonus money (and I stress the "or more" part). In addition to that, we were coming off the SB and felt we were a top candidate to return the following season. So when factoring the window w/ the difference between expected guaranteed money and actual in the guarantee, I think it made sense.

 

For Berrian though, you are talking about giving a player something like 60% of the guaranteed money you would give him in a long term deal. In addition to that, while I have as much hope as any bear fan, or liklihood of the SB is less for next year than it was this past year, at least heading into the offseason. So I do not see it making sense to tag him.

 

Another example where it may be justified is Harris. In Harris, you have a player likely to seek $30m in guaranteed money. The tag will be closer to $7m or so, just a little under 1/4 the sought after amount. In addition, you have a history of injuries to add to the mix and factor. So if we do not come to terms w/ Harris, I can see the justification to tag him next year, as opposed to simply giving him the long term deal he wants, or letting him walk for nothing.

[AZ54]

We offered Berrian a contract so that gives me an indication that we are leaning towards tagging him. Otherwise BB would have little reason to consider our offer right now. Tagging him opens up a chance to trade him as well if he can work out a deal with the new team. The fact the FA market is so thin means there's a better chance for us to trade him.

[bradjock]

We offered Berrian a contract so that gives me an indication that we are leaning towards tagging him. Otherwise BB would have little reason to consider our offer right now. Tagging him opens up a chance to trade him as well if he can work out a deal with the new team. The fact the FA market is so thin means there's a better chance for us to trade him.

 

I disagree. We tagged Briggs and where did that gets us? There's been talk that if we had traded Briggs to Washington we'd have Landry as our safety right now, but that also means we wouldn't have Greg Olsen.

 

If we tag Berrian, it significantly increases his value since he'll make 8 million in his first year. That's not exactly a bad deal for him.

 

If you're a team wanting a WR do you think:

a) I'll sign Bryan Johnson or Dante Sallworth for whatever the market value is, or

I'll trade for Bernard Berrian, and pay him an inflated value since he's already been tagged.

 

I'm a Berrian fan and I'd take option a in a heart-beat. Nobody will trade for him, and if we tag him we'll risk losing him next year. The tag won't happen.

[nfoligno]

I agree we need to wait and see. I do not agree that if we were going to sign him, we would have done it by now. Berrian would not be the first to over estimate his value, particularly considering his agent. Frankly, looking at what is in FA, if I were his agent, I would tell him to wait and see what offers he gets before signing w/ anyone. I think we still could be in play to re-sign him, but not before the market is set first.

 

Remember Kreutz. If I recall correct, we let him hit FA, and after the market for his was set, we then came in and signed him. Sometimes both the player and team need to see what the market is before the deal can get done.

 

I think signing Booker should be a no brainer. He would replace Moose. As for Stallworth, once again, I want to see what the market is for him, as well as Berrian.

[nfoligno]

I don't know. While I do not want to tag him, I can see it.

 

You mention why a team would sign Berrian when they can get Johnson or Stallworth, but

 

(a) BJ is not a deep threat like Berrian, and

( while Stallworth is a deep threat, there is only one of him. Once he is signed, is there another deep threat on the market.

 

Your right. We did tag Briggs last year, but as you have also pointed out, the situation was different. We really wanted to keep him as we thought we had a solid shot at the SB again. I am not sure the thinking this year is the same. We could tag Berrian for the sole purpose of trading him. W/ Briggs, partially because we really wanted to keep him, we place a very high value on him. We were looking for a top 15 pick, and some reports said we even asked for more. What if we tagged Berrian but only asked for a 2nd or 3rd round pick in compensation. That might be enough.

 

Also, I would add that even if we tag him, it doesn't mean he would sign the tag offer right away. We very well could tag him, test the market, and then remove the tag if there are no takers.

[BigDaddy]

Tagging Berrian does 2 things. First, it buys us time to negotiate with him. There is no law that says if we find a better option, we can't trade him. So aside from the money, whats the harm in tagging him? Yeah, it's alot for 1 yr but so is a 15M SB and salary even if it's prorated over 7 yrs. The other thing we do is protect ourselves if somebody does give him a deal. At least we get the draft picks.

[DrunkBomber]

Tagging Berrian does 2 things. First, it buys us time to negotiate with him. There is no law that says if we find a better option, we can't trade him. So aside from the money, whats the harm in tagging him? Yeah, it's alot for 1 yr but so is a 15M SB and salary even if it's prorated over 7 yrs. The other thing we do is protect ourselves if somebody does give him a deal. At least we get the draft picks.

We wouldnt get any picks if we franchised him. Its not like being a RFA.

[nfoligno]

Yes, we would get picks. If we franchise a player, and another team signs that player, we would actually be owed two 1st round picks. That is NOT going to happen, but the other option is to tag him and then trade him for picks. But we do get compensation if another team steals a franchised player.

 

If you transition tag Berrian, and he signs w/ another team, then we would not be due any picks. W/ the transition tag, we have the right to match and offer made, but get no compensation (except comp picks next year) for losing him.

[DrunkBomber]

Yes, we would get picks. If we franchise a player, and another team signs that player, we would actually be owed two 1st round picks. That is NOT going to happen, but the other option is to tag him and then trade him for picks. But we do get compensation if another team steals a franchised player.

 

If you transition tag Berrian, and he signs w/ another team, then we would not be due any picks. W/ the transition tag, we have the right to match and offer made, but get no compensation (except comp picks next year) for losing him.

Not if its an exclusive franchise tag like Haynesworth got. The only way they can sign with another team is if its a nonexclusive tag then you get the two first rounders. Like you said though, it wouldnt matter with most players because no teams will give up two first rounders for them.

[BigDaddy]

On the other side of the coin, if you don't franchise him, you get absolutely nothing for him, there isn't even a chance to negotiate a trade. Again, it's the prudent thing to do.

[nfoligno]

You sure Haynesworth signe an exclusive tag? I don't think that is used very often. As good as players are, usually a team would be happy to take two 1st round picks for a player they are likely to lose soon anyway. Payton Manning is one of the only players I can think of off the top of my head that was tagged and would have made sense to be tagged exlusive. It costs more money to tag a player at the exclusive level, and since it is so unlikely a team would give up two #1s, there is little reason to spend the extra.

 

Even Haynesworth, would another team really give up two #1s for him? I doubt that.

[adam]

I would just Franchise him if he does not accept the offer. It would at least give the Bears one more year to fix the position. If the Bears Franchise Berrian and sign Booker, the WR corps will at least be solid for 2008. Also, if Davis or Bradley step up the corps could actually surprise in 2008.

[DrunkBomber]

You sure Haynesworth signe an exclusive tag? I don't think that is used very often. As good as players are, usually a team would be happy to take two 1st round picks for a player they are likely to lose soon anyway. Payton Manning is one of the only players I can think of off the top of my head that was tagged and would have made sense to be tagged exlusive. It costs more money to tag a player at the exclusive level, and since it is so unlikely a team would give up two #1s, there is little reason to spend the extra.

 

Even Haynesworth, would another team really give up two #1s for him? I doubt that.

The only link I could find that distinguishes which tag has been placed on players was on Wikipedia, it also says Cincinnati used the exclusive tag on Stacey Andrews.

[nfoligno]

I just did a quick google search, and every source that came up said Andrews was hit w/ the non-exclusive tag, and that other teams could in fact sign him to an offer sheet, at which point Cincy would have the right to match or receive two 1st round picks in compensation.

 

Google Stacy Andrews exclusive franchise tag, and you will see many articles that all say the same thing. His tag is non-exclusive, and other teams can still offer him a deal.

[Da Bears 88]

They're not tagging Berrian according to Lovie.

[nfoligno]

Well, I still go back and forth on this, but I think we are making a mistake by allowing him to hit FA w/o compensation.

 

I'm sorry, but especially due to who his agent is, if we slap the tag on Berrian, he is NOT going to immediately sign it. That gives us time to seek a trade. We don't have to get a great deal, but I think we could get a 3rd round pick for the top WR. If there is simply no trade market for him, then I would say (a) Berrian's contract demand may drop some if teams are not throwing themselves at him, as he may expect, which could allow us to sign him and/or ( we can simply remove the tag and allow him to walk. At least we tried though.

[ChileBear]

The Trib is reporting that JA said today we wil NOT tag Berrian. That, to me, says he's gone. Is the staff and JA making a mistake and thinking that Hester is the No. 1 guy? I think so.

[nfoligno]

My hope is for one of two things.

 

(a) That we believe, whatever Berrian's market will be, we can still re-sign him. I said all along he would hit FA, as he would not re-sign w/ us before checking out the market. Maybe this is similar to when we allowed Kreutz to hit the market, w/ the intention all along of re-signing him.

 

( That we have our sights set on another one, or couple, WRs. It will make me sick if we enter camp w/ Hester and Bradley set to be our starters. Sorry, but in all honestly, neither should enter camp as a starter. If they earn the spot, fine, but if we enter camp w/ either as our best option, then we have done our QB (whoever that will be) no favors.

[madlithuanian]

To top it off, I think just about every position on this team needs to earn their starting spot in camp!

 

My hope is for one of two things.

 

(a) That we believe, whatever Berrian's market will be, we can still re-sign him. I said all along he would hit FA, as he would not re-sign w/ us before checking out the market. Maybe this is similar to when we allowed Kreutz to hit the market, w/ the intention all along of re-signing him.

 

( That we have our sights set on another one, or couple, WRs. It will make me sick if we enter camp w/ Hester and Bradley set to be our starters. Sorry, but in all honestly, neither should enter camp as a starter. If they earn the spot, fine, but if we enter camp w/ either as our best option, then we have done our QB (whoever that will be) no favors.

[AZ54]

I thought the tag was gonna get placed on him but I was wrong. Although we'll never know I'm really curious what JA's limit is on the salary he's willing to pay BB.