adam Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 they wont be re doing Pepps contract, it moves to much money out on the that will kill us in the next few years. Not necessarily. They are just converting the same money they were going to pay him anyway to lessen the impact on a single year. Also, the cap is expected to go up considerably in 2015, so they just have to make it work the next 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Not necessarily. They are just converting the same money they were going to pay him anyway to lessen the impact on a single year. Also, the cap is expected to go up considerably in 2015, so they just have to make it work the next 2 years. Restructuring pepp isn't good IMO sorry. U say cap is supposed to go up considerable in 2015 but what ive seen from Albert breer and mortenson and schefter is that we are looking at marginal increase for 2014 and then an increase of roughly $4M in 2015. Pepp already has cap hits of $17.1M in 2014 and $19.6M in 2015. By restructuring this yr we increase both of those figures and it will make it that much harder to release him if father times hits him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Restructuring pepp isn't good IMO sorry. U say cap is supposed to go up considerable in 2015 but what ive seen from Albert breer and mortenson and schefter is that we are looking at marginal increase for 2014 and then an increase of roughly $4M in 2015. Pepp already has cap hits of $17.1M in 2014 and $19.6M in 2015. By restructuring this yr we increase both of those figures and it will make it that much harder to release him if father times hits him Yeah, but those cap hits are not guaranteed money. Right now he has dead money of 9.5 million on his 16.1 cap hit. So if we cut him this year we would be on tap for the 9.5 and only save about 6.6 million. I doubt the Bears do that. However, next year, his dead money is down to 6.3 even though his cap hit goes to 17.1. So cutting him next year would save 10.8. Then if you get to 2015, his dead money is down to 3.183 and his cap hit is 19.6. Cutting him would save 16.4 million. With so little in guarantees, all they have to do is extend him one-year, give him a little more in guarantees (signing bonus) and shave a couple million off each year's cap hit. This would decrease the cap hits and leave some dead money on the back end of his deal if they decide to cut him later. Win win for everyone. Peppers gets more guaranteed money and the Bears get smaller cap hits with both parties knowing he will more than likely not make it to the last year of the deal anyway. Now if they don't believe in him long term, then he will more than likely be cut next year for the 10.8 million savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Yeah, but those cap hits are not guaranteed money. Right now he has dead money of 9.5 million on his 16.1 cap hit. So if we cut him this year we would be on tap for the 9.5 and only save about 6.6 million. I doubt the Bears do that. However, next year, his dead money is down to 6.3 even though his cap hit goes to 17.1. So cutting him next year would save 10.8. Then if you get to 2015, his dead money is down to 3.183 and his cap hit is 19.6. Cutting him would save 16.4 million. With so little in guarantees, all they have to do is extend him one-year, give him a little more in guarantees (signing bonus) and shave a couple million off each year's cap hit. This would decrease the cap hits and leave some dead money on the back end of his deal if they decide to cut him later. Win win for everyone. Peppers gets more guaranteed money and the Bears get smaller cap hits with both parties knowing he will more than likely not make it to the last year of the deal anyway. Now if they don't believe in him long term, then he will more than likely be cut next year for the 10.8 million savings. Ok now your talking an extension while earlier u said restructuring. They are 2 completely different terms. Restructuring is what the Steelers have done and why they are in cap hell. If you are actually meaning an extension then hell yeah im all for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Ok now your talking an extension while earlier u said restructuring. They are 2 completely different terms. Restructuring is what the Steelers have done and why they are in cap hell. If you are actually meaning an extension then hell yeah im all for that Sorry, you are correct, I was using those terms loosely. Definitely don't want to end up like the Steelers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Sorry, you are correct, I was using those terms loosely. Definitely don't want to end up like the Steelers. Heck np. I tease my steelers friend all the time. He is so pissed about what there constantly doing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chwtom Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Regarding Bush, it may not be a CAP savings to cut him, but it would be a cash savings. So if they truly believe he adds no value to the roster, they could still cut him and save some money, it just wouldn't free up any cap room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Regarding Bush, it may not be a CAP savings to cut him, but it would be a cash savings. So if they truly believe he adds no value to the roster, they could still cut him and save some money, it just wouldn't free up any cap room. The only way he adds no value to the roster is if: 1. The Bears think he won't be healthy at all this season 2. The Bears have a minimum salary RB who can replace his goal line/short yardage production. Matt Forte is still, IMO, remarkably bad in short yardage situations. I've just come to accept that's his weakness. When he can get into space, he's lethal, but when everything gets compressed, he can't get around people, and he can't get through them. Bush can get through them and get that yard, if he's healthy enough to play. If the Bears don't have him, they would have to go and spend money + Cap space, or a draft pick, on a short yardage back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 The only way he adds no value to the roster is if: 1. The Bears think he won't be healthy at all this season 2. The Bears have a minimum salary RB who can replace his goal line/short yardage production. Matt Forte is still, IMO, remarkably bad in short yardage situations. I've just come to accept that's his weakness. When he can get into space, he's lethal, but when everything gets compressed, he can't get around people, and he can't get through them. Bush can get through them and get that yard, if he's healthy enough to play. If the Bears don't have him, they would have to go and spend money + Cap space, or a draft pick, on a short yardage back. Bush was also 15th in the league for RB's in Rushing 1st Downs (28). Forte was 10th with 45. I believe that Bush compliments Forte pretty well, but don't think they were both used to the best of their abilities last year. Hopefully Trestman and Kromer can get more out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Bush was also 15th in the league for RB's in Rushing 1st Downs (28). Forte was 10th with 45. I believe that Bush compliments Forte pretty well, but don't think they were both used to the best of their abilities last year. Hopefully Trestman and Kromer can get more out of them. Things will be much different for our RBs this year, we have a OC and coach that will deal with there stengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Things will be much different for our RBs this year, we have a OC and coach that will deal with there stengths. ....and an Oline to open holes? 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.