madlithuanian Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/...ion-thereafter/ Doesn't seem like he thinks it's out of bounds. Again, for what it's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Very interesting. We paid more for Cutler than I wanted, especially in the first 3 years but after reading this I think I understand why. By making Cutler's contract no bonus he skipped getting his big paycheck all at once but is guaranteed that cash over only the next 2 seasons as of Mar 2014. Essentially we have a way out albeit an expensive one. As of Mar 2015 we must guarantee the third year of his deal. Compared to Flacco's deal....Flacco got $30mil in year 1 versus Cutler $22.5mil. In year 2 Flacco gets $21mil Cutler $15.5mil. Hard to say that's not the market where Cutler fits in. I'm sure more clarity will show up on this soon but it appears Cutler has taken some risk of getting cut and losing money with this deal. In exchange for that little bit of escape clause we end up paying more money per season for his services in the first 3 years. Both sides give up some of what they wanted. What stands out most to me is that by avoiding the massive signing bonus we should have more cash on hand to give out some significant signing bonuses to some FAs. Need to see what we did with Jennings and Slauson and tally all this up but I'd say by going this route the Bears paid Cutler more than they wanted per season in exchange for having some money available to fix the defense this offseason. The Bears are a family run organization that does have the deep pockets some other owners have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Compared to Flacco's deal....Flacco got $30mil in year 1 versus Cutler $22.5mil. Yes, it does seem to be a market deal. However, that money not being a bonus means the entire amount in year one hits the cap. I suppose the team might say they've retain flexibility as I'm sure Cutler won't care what the money is called they can always convert a portion of it to bonus should the need for cap space arise. Not sure though. The Bears are a family run organization that does have the deep pockets some other owners have. I'd say this hasn't been true in recent years, particularly since the new stadium deal. They've always seemed to have the money needed. No, they're no Dan Snyder but that's a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 What stands out most to me is that by avoiding the massive signing bonus we should have more cash on hand to give out some significant signing bonuses to some FAs. Need to see what we did with Jennings and Slauson and tally all this up but I'd say by going this route the Bears paid Cutler more than they wanted per season in exchange for having some money available to fix the defense this offseason. The Bears are a family run organization that does have the deep pockets some other owners have. The "leaving the Bears able to give out signing bonuses" would make sense if they were actually close to a yearly spending limit, but "having money available to fix the defense this offseason" is the opposite of what a deal structured like this does. The big benefit to the team of the front-loaded signing bonus is that it allows the team to spread the bonus out over more years, reducing the cap hit in the early years. This deal, it would appear, does not do that - it takes the cap hit as it is written, in exchange for giving the Bears the ability to end it quicker if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 The "leaving the Bears able to give out signing bonuses" would make sense if they were actually close to a yearly spending limit, but "having money available to fix the defense this offseason" is the opposite of what a deal structured like this does. The big benefit to the team of the front-loaded signing bonus is that it allows the team to spread the bonus out over more years, reducing the cap hit in the early years. This deal, it would appear, does not do that - it takes the cap hit as it is written, in exchange for giving the Bears the ability to end it quicker if necessary. Yes, your a right but we're going to have a youth movement on defense and that means lower cap hits on that side of the ball. Take the cap hit early on Cutler's deal and then in 2-3 seasons his hit drops significantly. I assume with this structure on the salary guarantees if we cut Cutler after two seasons we don't have a lot of cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yes, your a right but we're going to have a youth movement on defense and that means lower cap hits on that side of the ball. Take the cap hit early on Cutler's deal and then in 2-3 seasons his hit drops significantly. I assume with this structure on the salary guarantees if we cut Cutler after two seasons we don't have a lot of cap hit. My problem with saying this is that having a youth movement in the NFL requires the Bears to already have the youth on their team. They don't. The youth on their defense are guys like Shea, Bostic, and Conte. Heck, people are wanting to replace some of the youth for blowing the last play of the season. For the Bears to have a successful "youth movement" on defense, they're going to have to hit like 6 successful draft picks on defense next year. If they pull that off, they're going to the Super Bowl readily. What they're actually going to have to do is plug 2, maybe if you hope 3 holes in the upper parts of the rotation through the draft, and that assumes you don't miss and grab any busts in the first few rounds, which is tough on its own. That cuts the price a little, but you're still missing half a defense. The only place to fill that in is free agency. The bears don't have a ton of cap space so they're not going to be able to bring in a top flight FA defender, but they'll have enough cap space to bring in multiple veterans. That's what they're going to have to find - guys who are free agents and able to contribute but who aren't excessively overpaid. That also means...guys who washed out with other teams, guys who were hurt last year, or guys who are getting up in years. They almost have to pick up a bundle of guys like this in order to fill out the roster with their cap constraints. It could darn well work if Emery signs a couple guys and they stay healthy and Emery nails 2 or 3 draft picks. But IMO, this challenge makes the job Emery did last year of rebuilding the offense look easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 My problem with saying this is that having a youth movement in the NFL requires the Bears to already have the youth on their team. They don't. The youth on their defense are guys like Shea, Bostic, and Conte. Heck, people are wanting to replace some of the youth for blowing the last play of the season. For the Bears to have a successful "youth movement" on defense, they're going to have to hit like 6 successful draft picks on defense next year. If they pull that off, they're going to the Super Bowl readily. What they're actually going to have to do is plug 2, maybe if you hope 3 holes in the upper parts of the rotation through the draft, and that assumes you don't miss and grab any busts in the first few rounds, which is tough on its own. That cuts the price a little, but you're still missing half a defense. The only place to fill that in is free agency. The bears don't have a ton of cap space so they're not going to be able to bring in a top flight FA defender, but they'll have enough cap space to bring in multiple veterans. That's what they're going to have to find - guys who are free agents and able to contribute but who aren't excessively overpaid. That also means...guys who washed out with other teams, guys who were hurt last year, or guys who are getting up in years. They almost have to pick up a bundle of guys like this in order to fill out the roster with their cap constraints. It could darn well work if Emery signs a couple guys and they stay healthy and Emery nails 2 or 3 draft picks. But IMO, this challenge makes the job Emery did last year of rebuilding the offense look easy. Few thought Emery would fix the Oline in one offseason but he got it done. We have a ton of cap space, something like $50mil, just a lot of positions to fill and Cutler just took up a big chunk. I see no reason we can't replace Tillman's $8mil/yr salary by signing Jarius Byrd, if we want to. I agree, we won't get 6 defensive starters out of the draft but two is a realistic possibility. What we will have is more youth and hopefully better talent in our depth. That's where the previous GM fell short…lack of drafting good talent that could fill out our depth chart. The youth movement also includes players like Bass, Washington and our two LBs from last years draft. Who are the old guys on the defensive side of the ball? The 30 and over crowd includes: Tillman, Jennings, Briggs, Peppers, Ratliff, Hayden, DJ Williams, and Anderson. Bowman is 29. I've made it well known that I would cut Peppers. We reportedly eat $7.5 mil in dead cap space depending on when we cut him but we also free up another $10.5mil. I would like Tillman back by the way but for a lot less money. Emery might be ready to move on from Tillman although he didn't sound that way in his press conference, and he also sounded very positive on DJ Williams but I'd say both are on the fence. Players like Anderson may be gone as we move SMC and Bostic around. Hayden won't be back. Ratliff? Briggs will be back. Realistically the two main players we're talking about are Tillman and Peppers. What happens will depend a great deal on what scheme we transition to, if we change at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Few thought Emery would fix the Oline in one offseason but he got it done. We have a ton of cap space, something like $50mil, just a lot of positions to fill and Cutler just took up a big chunk. Pertaining to space. I remember them signing vets to the minimum and it not counting against the cap. Does anyone have info on if any of those guys paid off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Pertaining to space. I remember them signing vets to the minimum and it not counting against the cap. Does anyone have info on if any of those guys paid off? Couldn't really find any info on it but I did find this tidbit that might be worth bringing back to light.... Entering free agency, popular thinking was a snug salary cap situation would allow the Bears to sign one impact player to a large contract. They doubled that, agreeing to terms with tight end Martellus Bennett at the outset of free agency March 12 and quickly adding left tackle Jermon Bushrod. Their contracts total $57.365 million but are structured so they will count only $4.955 million against this season's cap.. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04...le-henry-melton There's some more info to re-read in there that could relate to this year, but that quote is the part that really stood out that I forgot all about. If they can do something like that again with a couple stud defensive guys then we could be in business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Pertaining to space. I remember them signing vets to the minimum and it not counting against the cap. Does anyone have info on if any of those guys paid off? The biggest success was Slausson, by far. DJ Williams the LB was one of those signings and he was the opening day starter...then missed the full season on IR. That's sort of the mixed bag you get from those signings. Some of the guys may be real values teams missed. Some may be undervalued because they're old/injury risks and if you are forced to count on them...you end up with major holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Pertaining to space. I remember them signing vets to the minimum and it not counting against the cap. Does anyone have info on if any of those guys paid off? All players count against the cap but if you sign a veteran player to a minimum contract they have a reduced cap hit. Here's a couple links that explain it. http://overthecap.com/explaining-the-minimum-salary-benefit/ http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/i...-salary-benefit 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.