Uncle Buck Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Brad Biggs is reporting that Cutler's contract is written so that the Bears can convert portions of the contract to a bonus status, so that it can be spread out. Trib posted the article at 8:00PM tonight They are calling it a automatic conversion clause that allows the Bears to convert salary to bonus whenever they wish and it will be allocated over the contract years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Had to figure that was the case...good stuff. Phil/Cliff hust wanted to piss some over-reactors off for a few days. I think I like this part the best... The Bears did not include a signing bonus in Cutler's contract but probably designed his deal knowing a tweak will be needed along the way. If not, the Bears can absorb the bulk of the cap figures in 2014, allowing for more flexibility in future years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Brad Biggs is reporting that Cutler's contract is written so that the Bears can convert portions of the contract to a bonus status, so that it can be spread out. Trib posted the article at 8:00PM tonight They are calling it a automatic conversion clause that allows the Bears to convert salary to bonus whenever they wish and it will be allocated over the contract years. If true, that's a stroke of genius right there. Maximize flexibility while still forcing as much of Cutler's cap hit to year 1 as possible, which maximizes future cap space. If we pursue Michael Bennett and agree to terms needing more cap space….make it so. If we don't get him on our terms and sign a lesser quality player keep the cap hit on Cutler's deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted January 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 If true, that's a stroke of genius right there. Maximize flexibility while still forcing as much of Cutler's cap hit to year 1 as possible, which maximizes future cap space. If we pursue Michael Bennett and agree to terms needing more cap space….make it so. If we don't get him on our terms and sign a lesser quality player keep the cap hit on Cutler's deal That is exactly right, if the quality FA's get resigned by their teams and there isn't anyone worthwhile, let the Cutler contract eat the cap and gain flexibility in future years. Biggs also stated on the radio this morning that the same clause was written into the Jennings and Slauson contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 If true, that's a stroke of genius right there. Maximize flexibility while still forcing as much of Cutler's cap hit to year 1 as possible, which maximizes future cap space. If we pursue Michael Bennett and agree to terms needing more cap space….make it so. If we don't get him on our terms and sign a lesser quality player keep the cap hit on Cutler's deal The one downside is that the Bears really, really need cap space in 2014 if they want to recover that defense. That said...it could be possible that Emery secretly is thinking of 2014 as a rebuilding year and is going to pile Cutler's contract and Peppers's dead space all in 1 year, sign as many cheap veterans as he can, play some kids, maybe throw an extension for a guy or two in there, and come out for the pre-2015 offseason able to build a powerhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 The one downside is that the Bears really, really need cap space in 2014 if they want to recover that defense. But see, it isn't a downside. They can convert salary to bonus without Cutler's approval. Which means they can free up cap space as needed. That's the whole point of the article and something I've been suggesting had to be out there because the deal as written didn't pass the sniff test. This clause effectively means Cutler's deal can be anything we want it to be cap-wise. I wonder what our #1 whiner is going to say about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 That said...it could be possible that Emery secretly is thinking of 2014 as a rebuilding year and is going to pile Cutler's contract and Peppers's dead space all in 1 year, sign as many cheap veterans as he can, play some kids, maybe throw an extension for a guy or two in there, and come out for the pre-2015 offseason able to build a powerhouse. And the beauty of the deal as reported seems to be that now Emery has the flexibility to go either way. If the FA's he most wants aren't available, he can do what you suggest above. If he can land a few top-notch players for the D, he converts some portion of Cutler's salary to bonus and... BAM! Shortest rebuilding process in NFL history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think I like this part the best... Another favorite of mine... On the whole, Cutler's contract is in line with what teams have to pay experienced quarterbacks to keep them off the free market. I think it's fair to argue that the Bears shouldn't have signed Jay. I'd disagree with that but at the end of the day, I'd have to respect your opinion. But if you thought we should've signed Jay, this contract, it seems to me and Biggs, is market. And now that we know about the salary conversion clause, it's a flexible deal that provides the team with valuable opportunities to improve via free agency. End of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 This is great news and makes sense since he didn't receive any bonuses as part of the deal. I bet this is going to be a trend going forward to allow teams more flexibility with the cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 In Cliff we all should trust... This is great news and makes sense since he didn't receive any bonuses as part of the deal. I bet this is going to be a trend going forward to allow teams more flexibility with the cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 And the beauty of the deal as reported seems to be that now Emery has the flexibility to go either way. If the FA's he most wants aren't available, he can do what you suggest above. If he can land a few top-notch players for the D, he converts some portion of Cutler's salary to bonus and... BAM! Shortest rebuilding process in NFL history. I'd be really, really stunned if they reworked his contract this year. I've never seen a guy signed to a big deal that was reworked before a single snap was played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'd be really, really stunned if they reworked his contract this year. I've never seen a guy signed to a big deal that was reworked before a single snap was played. I've never seen a contract designed for specifically that purpose. Not sure it hasn't happened but just don't recall it. Every other deal I've seen where early reworking happens (like you said, year 2 or later) typically had a signing bonus. Cutler's contract does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I've never seen a contract designed for specifically that purpose. Not sure it hasn't happened but just don't recall it. Every other deal I've seen where early reworking happens (like you said, year 2 or later) typically had a signing bonus. Cutler's contract does not. IMO, the big advantage here comes in year 2 and in year 4. If Cutler earns the payday, you can restructure him in 2015 and open up a ****ton of cap space. If he plays 12 games and is slightly worse than this season, you ride it out the next 2 years and you have zero year 4 liability. The advantage isn't this season. This season strikes me as "biting the bullet". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'd be really, really stunned if they reworked his contract this year. I've never seen a guy signed to a big deal that was reworked before a single snap was played. I am probably ignorant about this but I understood the clause to really be about cap impact, Jay will still be paid $x dollars now but how that payment applies to the cap is the beauty of the clause. Jay is not giving up any money I don't think. Like I said I could be wrong but after listening to radio shows about it, that was my takeaway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I am probably ignorant about this but I understood the clause to really be about cap impact, Jay will still be paid $x dollars now but how that payment applies to the cap is the beauty of the clause. Jay is not giving up any money I don't think. Like I said I could be wrong but after listening to radio shows about it, that was my takeaway. You're exactly right...but in order to make that the case, based on my reading, the Bears are taking the largest cap hit possible on Jay's deal in 2014 as it is currently written. The Bears have the opportunity, in future years in particular, to move things around to free up cap space in those years, but if I understand this contract, they are taking a large cap hit in 2014 in order to give them that flexibility in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 You're exactly right...but in order to make that the case, based on my reading, the Bears are taking the largest cap hit possible on Jay's deal in 2014 as it is currently written. The Bears have the opportunity, in future years in particular, to move things around to free up cap space in those years, but if I understand this contract, they are taking a large cap hit in 2014 in order to give them that flexibility in the future. The Bears have the opportunity to do this immediately. They can take the biggest hit this year if they don't need the money and it may turn out to make sense to do so. But they have the option to say $10 million of his 2014 money is now bonus and prorate it, thereby saving themselves a lot of room this year. I realize you don't think they will but the fact remains they can. And that's, once again, the point of the clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I am probably ignorant about this but I understood the clause to really be about cap impact, Jay will still be paid $x dollars now but how that payment applies to the cap is the beauty of the clause. Jay is not giving up any money I don't think. Like I said I could be wrong but after listening to radio shows about it, that was my takeaway. You're not ignorant of anything. What you say above is 100% right based on what I've read about the clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Way I see it is the money is there if they need it. Plain and simple. Like I've outlined a million times though already, I think the Bears will be working with a good deal of cap space already should they release Pep, Bennett, Bush, Weems?, and Podlesh while also extending Marshall so I'm not so sure they would actually need to do anything with the Cutler deal....If they have to though, the money is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Way I see it is the money is there if they need it. Plain and simple. Like I've outlined a million times though already, I think the Bears will be working with a good deal of cap space already should they release Pep, Bennett, Bush, Weems?, and Podlesh while also extending Marshall so I'm not so sure they would actually need to do anything with the Cutler deal....If they have to though, the money is there. I heard they stuctured Slauson, Jennings contracts the same way. They did this for ultimate flexibility. I also think it is basically a 3 year 54 mil deal and their off the hook. If this plan doesnt work with Cutler, they move on. If it develops as planned it in the end will be good deal. Also, I think it tells us it will take more than one year to build the defense, by throwing everything up front, it gives them a couple of years to get this done,and all the contracts will be user friendly if they have to move on from their plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The deal is JA approved... Jerry Angelo, the GM in Chicago from 2001-11, joined Twitter recently and responded to a question from a fan on Cutler's deal. "I'd feel better if I were Bus Cook, his agent!" Angelo wrote. "He got paid in line with the other quarterbacks that got paid recently. That's the number. You either pay or you don't. Don't be fooled: Some other team would have given the same money or more, because there would have been a bidding war. "Teams like the Browns, Raiders, Buccaneers, Texans, Titans, Jaguars, Jets, Cardinals would have been potential suitors. The reality -- what are your options? The value of what he does can't be underscored. It's rarer than a starting, 95 mph left-handed pitcher or a seven-foot center who can score." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Buzzkill! The deal is JA approved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Buzzkill! lol how so??? I didn't mean "Oh if it's approved by Angelo it must be a bad deal" I simply meant that it was approved by a former GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Anything with an Angelo belssing leaves me skeptical! DId Phil not check a box???!!!! :S lol how so??? I didn't mean "Oh if it's approved by Angelo it must be a bad deal" I simply meant that it was approved by a former GM. 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.