nfoligno Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Remember when we signed Phillip Daniels, and he got something like $8m SB, and that was considered top tier money at the time? Today, that is a tad more than we have given an OL who has started one game in the last 4 years, w/ two different teams. In the last few days, I have been discussing FA w/ some friends, and in those discussions, I came to realize something. We all had been shocked in the last couple years at the deals FAs have been signing. The idea of giving X of dollars to some average player was simply shocking. To me, the money given to average/just above average players has been even more shocking than money given to big ticket players, who have always been overpaid in FA. Anyway, in our discussions, what we hadn't really thought about was how greatly the salary cap has risen over the last 5-10-15 years. A contract given to a "good" player 5 years ago would reflect the sort of contract given to a FA teams take a flyer on today. The cap has simply risen at such a rate, I wonder if we (fans and staff) sometimes get caught up in yesterday's value and thinking. To put things in perspective, take a look at the salary cap, and how much it has risen in the last 15 years. 1994 $34.6m 1995 $37.1m 1996 $40.77m 1997 $41.45m 1998 $52.38m 1999 $58.35 2000 $62.17 2001 $67.4M 2002 71.1M 2003 $75m 2004 $78.78 2005 $85 2006 $102.5M 2007 $109m 2008 $116.7M 2009 $127M The cap today is 4 times what is was 15 years ago and double what it was just 10 years ago. We have supposedly offered St. Clair what, like 3yrs/$15m, or something like that. 5 years ago, that would be considered a pretty nice deal, but today? Think about it in terms of % against the cap. I don't know. Maybe I am just spitting into the wind. But I read over and over again about how Angelo puts a price on a player, and often is not a player in FA as he is not willing to go above that price. I just wonder if our prices are doing a good enough job of factoring the changes in the market. I realize we are not the only inactive team, and I have the same question for those other teams. But when you look at the way the salary cap has risen, I just have to wonder if all 32 teams have adjusted their market values of players accordingly. Are the players signing deals today as over-paid as we have said. Or are they getting closer to market value, but we are still 5 years in the past in looking at what a players value should be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I don't know. Maybe I am just spitting into the wind. But I read over and over again about how Angelo puts a price on a player, and often is not a player in FA as he is not willing to go above that price. I just wonder if our prices are doing a good enough job of factoring the changes in the market. I realize we are not the only inactive team, and I have the same question for those other teams. But when you look at the way the salary cap has risen, I just have to wonder if all 32 teams have adjusted their market values of players accordingly. Are the players signing deals today as over-paid as we have said. Or are they getting closer to market value, but we are still 5 years in the past in looking at what a players value should be? The main problem I see with your argument is that the crappy economy plus the upcoming labor uncertainty may put a screeching halt to most of the big spending. Sure it won't stop Dallas & Washington, but teams like Jacksonville & Buffalo are likely to be hurting. If you'd have said that about Angelo last year at this time it would have made total sense. But last year he was busy signing Lance, Hester, Lloyd, Booker, Rex, Kyle, Kevin Jones, Urlacher . . . Of course the counterargument that pisses me off is that the Bears have not been affected by the economy and it shouldn't affect the way the Bears spend money. Our stadium will continue to sell out and be filled to capacity, and the TV money is already locked in. So what are we losing out on? Merchandising? Hell, I was one who thought we should have raised ticket prices if it meant we go cheap in FA. But I digress. Getting back to St. Clair, are you suggesting that he has a better offer out there but he just REALLY wants to play for the Bears??? If free agents see a big deal they know to jump on it ASAP. If anything, any offers St. Clair has received are likely very comparable. Which IMO proves that Angelo is dead on when determining a players value in this particular case. (Unless there St. Clair has received no other offers, which doesn't make much sense cause he would be screwed if we signed Khalif Barnes.) I'm glad you brought this up when it's boring as hell here in "Bear-land" but I think you're reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 The main problem I see with your argument is that the crappy economy plus the upcoming labor uncertainty may put a screeching halt to most of the big spending. Sure it won't stop Dallas & Washington, but teams like Jacksonville & Buffalo are likely to be hurting. If you'd have said that about Angelo last year at this time it would have made total sense. But last year he was busy signing Lance, Hester, Lloyd, Booker, Rex, Kyle, Kevin Jones, Urlacher . . . Of course the counterargument that pisses me off is that the Bears have not been affected by the economy and it shouldn't affect the way the Bears spend money. Our stadium will continue to sell out and be filled to capacity, and the TV money is already locked in. So what are we losing out on? Merchandising? Hell, I was one who thought we should have raised ticket prices if it meant we go cheap in FA. But I digress. Getting back to St. Clair, are you suggesting that he has a better offer out there but he just REALLY wants to play for the Bears??? If free agents see a big deal they know to jump on it ASAP. If anything, any offers St. Clair has received are likely very comparable. Which IMO proves that Angelo is dead on when determining a players value in this particular case. (Unless there St. Clair has received no other offers, which doesn't make much sense cause he would be screwed if we signed Khalif Barnes.) I'm glad you brought this up when it's boring as hell here in "Bear-land" but I think you're reaching. About not raising ticket prices: I don't know if this holds any truth or not, but Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson mentioned during interviews/speech at the Hall of Fame inductions that the NFL suggested to owners not to raise ticket prices b/c of the economy. The owners can do so if they wanted, but suggested not to do so. The Bears have been increasing tickets prices the last couple of years and chose to follow the NFL's way this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 St Clair has only one offer and that's ours so that is his value in the league right now. He might not like it but that's the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 About not raising ticket prices: I don't know if this holds any truth or not, but Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson mentioned during interviews/speech at the Hall of Fame inductions that the NFL suggested to owners not to raise ticket prices b/c of the economy. The owners can do so if they wanted, but suggested not to do so. The Bears have been increasing tickets prices the last couple of years and chose to follow the NFL's way this year. I didn't know that. It makes sense cause the Bears are usually ones who "go with the flow" of the NFL. That being said, if I may bitch for a moment: I have a biased opinion, because at least for me, it's impossible to buy a damn ticket without paying at least double the face value. Ticketmaster's impossible, while stub-hub & E-bay suck ass. I do genuinely feel bad for the dedicated season ticket holders who have to pay PSL fees, and then have the prices jacked up each year. But at the same time, I'm pissed at those who keep those tickets just to make a profit each each. That's my rant. I'm done . . . until I decide to bitch about the price of beer at games . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 St Clair has only one offer and that's ours so that is his value in the league right now. He might not like it but that's the way it is. I disagree. Let me put it this way. If your options are: 1. 3 years 15 million, or 2. 1 year for the minimum Wouldn't you be jumping all over option #1??? He must have some leverage or he'd have signed by now. Realistically, there are at least two teams with comparable bids, and he's waiting until one flinches or one drops out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I didn't know that. It makes sense cause the Bears are usually ones who "go with the flow" of the NFL. That being said, if I may bitch for a moment: I have a biased opinion, because at least for me, it's impossible to buy a damn ticket without paying at least double the face value. Ticketmaster's impossible, while stub-hub & E-bay suck ass. I do genuinely feel bad for the dedicated season ticket holders who have to pay PSL fees, and then have the prices jacked up each year. But at the same time, I'm pissed at those who keep those tickets just to make a profit each each. That's my rant. I'm done . . . until I decide to bitch about the price of beer at games . . . Agreed. PSL holders who keep them just so they can go to one or two games and make a massive profit on the rest are: A] Not real fans B] The second biggest problem with the ticket business C] Assholes (see: Your comments about ticketbastard, stub-rob, and E-Pay) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Agreed. PSL holders who keep them just so they can go to one or two games and make a massive profit on the rest are: A] Not real fans B] The second biggest problem with the ticket business C] Assholes (see: Your comments about ticketbastard, stub-rob, and E-Pay) I've only sold my tickets on the open market one time and that was when they moved the New Year's Eve game against the Packers from a noon to 7 pm start with the flex scheduling crap (I had plans and could not go and it was too late to find someone). Otherwise, I either trade them with the season ticket holder next to me or sell them to my friends at face value (if I cannot go). I agree, those fans that sell their tickets for profit on a regular basis are arseholes. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I wasn't just talking about this year. I was talking about other years as well. Sure, we have signed our own, but not many FAs, and that is more so the point. Angelo said himself, and it has been often repeated on this board, that he sets a value on a player and basically holds to it. Either he signs him or he doesn't. Question I have is whether his value factors well enough the level of change in the cap over the years. Further, as much as Angelo, I am talking just in general terms. How often do we, leading up to FA, talk about this player and that player and what we think they are worth or can be signed for, only to see them sign for a contract much greater than we expected. We often then rant and rave about teams over-paying for average players, but that goes back to my point. Are these players being so over-paid, or have we not altered our thinking? Again. This is not one of my conspiracy theories about Angelo. Frankly, it began w/ myself and how I simply did not realize how great the cap had changed over the years, and realized I had not really factored that enough when looking at FAs value. I then realized how many other fans, including those on the boards, likely are in the same boat as so many have also talked about over-paid FAs. Finally, I then sort of wondered how many teams, including our own, are living in the past a bit when it comes to player values. Maybe that one is a reach, but knowing the history of owners and staff in the NFL, it would not surprise me in the least. The main problem I see with your argument is that the crappy economy plus the upcoming labor uncertainty may put a screeching halt to most of the big spending. Sure it won't stop Dallas & Washington, but teams like Jacksonville & Buffalo are likely to be hurting. If you'd have said that about Angelo last year at this time it would have made total sense. But last year he was busy signing Lance, Hester, Lloyd, Booker, Rex, Kyle, Kevin Jones, Urlacher . . . Of course the counterargument that pisses me off is that the Bears have not been affected by the economy and it shouldn't affect the way the Bears spend money. Our stadium will continue to sell out and be filled to capacity, and the TV money is already locked in. So what are we losing out on? Merchandising? Hell, I was one who thought we should have raised ticket prices if it meant we go cheap in FA. But I digress. Getting back to St. Clair, are you suggesting that he has a better offer out there but he just REALLY wants to play for the Bears??? If free agents see a big deal they know to jump on it ASAP. If anything, any offers St. Clair has received are likely very comparable. Which IMO proves that Angelo is dead on when determining a players value in this particular case. (Unless there St. Clair has received no other offers, which doesn't make much sense cause he would be screwed if we signed Khalif Barnes.) I'm glad you brought this up when it's boring as hell here in "Bear-land" but I think you're reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Seriously, when you factor in agents, who knows. Who is to say an agent isn't telling him to wait for Barnes to sign, and once that happens, St. Clair would become the top OT left in FA, and teams still needing a veteran OL could begin a bidding war. Or maybe his agent is telling him teams are done w/ the spending spree, and he is just as well of waiting until after the draft. Teams who need an OT may be hedging, waiting for the draft, but if they don't get one, they could be desperate. Think about veterans who hold off and actually even wait until camp begins, waiting for a team to lose a player to injury, and thus to become desperate to add a player. Point is, we can never know. I disagree. Let me put it this way. If your options are: 1. 3 years 15 million, or 2. 1 year for the minimum Wouldn't you be jumping all over option #1??? He must have some leverage or he'd have signed by now. Realistically, there are at least two teams with comparable bids, and he's waiting until one flinches or one drops out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Sure teams will wait but they also spend money in the meantime and the longer you wait the contracts that get signed become smaller and the teams bidding for your services become fewer. Every agent knows that. St Clair is simply not a hot commodity and his agent can tell him all he wants but the lack of team visits or even just rumors of teams being interested speaks pretty clearly. He was simply ok last year at LT but he's getting older and slower so will only get worse at that spot. In the end he's at best a backup OT or a starter for deficient team (i.e. Bears). This draft is deep with OT prospects, 5 potential first round picks and several more for rounds 2-3. Just how many teams will St Clair wait for after the draft? I'm betting none and he'll be signed before practice next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 St Clair has only one offer and that's ours so that is his value in the league right now. He might not like it but that's the way it is. Agreed. See below. I disagree. Let me put it this way. If your options are: 1. 3 years 15 million, or 2. 1 year for the minimum Wouldn't you be jumping all over option #1??? He must have some leverage or he'd have signed by now. Realistically, there are at least two teams with comparable bids, and he's waiting until one flinches or one drops out. I don't think that's the case at all. I believe that St Clair has one option right now. He was arguably the worst starting left tackle in the NFL last year. Who wants to pay him 15 mil to be a backup. That's honestly where he will end up for us. If he doesn't then our team is not making the progress it needs to make in order to make the OL a strength. Plus there are better / younger free agents out there. Option 3: Is the ultimatum JA gave someone a few years ago. "The offer has been laid on the table. It will not increase. The offer only goes down from here." I think that was Benson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.