Mongo3451 Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 My friend at work said he read an article where Emery said he was strongly considering paying for Peppers for at least one more year. Thing is, I can't find it anywhere. Anybody? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I haven't heard a thing about him yet....I assume you mean passing on cutting him correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I haven't heard a thing about him yet....I assume you mean passing on cutting him correct? Typo. Meant paying for. Fixed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Gotcha, well I haven't seen anything yet so I question the validity of it....I do think that they should try to shift a lot of his money into bonus money if possible. If they can reduce his cap hit a ton it could make sense to keep him. He's been awfully inconsistent the last 2 years but he still shows flashes here and there. Paired with some better lineman he might become more consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 My friend at work said he read an article where Emery said he was strongly considering paying for Peppers for at least one more year. Thing is, I can't find it anywhere. Anybody? I think I've seen blog posts suggesting this based on Emery's comments about Peppers right after the season ended. But nothing definitive. I see Peppers' deal getting redone to where both sides are happy and he finishes his career as a Bear. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Gotcha, well I haven't seen anything yet so I question the validity of it....I do think that they should try to shift a lot of his money into bonus money if possible. If they can reduce his cap hit a ton it could make sense to keep him. He's been awfully inconsistent the last 2 years but he still shows flashes here and there. Paired with some better lineman he might become more consistent. I think we take the cap hit this year and be done with it. If we keep him one more year and then restructure his contact, we just move the money out for another year to take the big cap hit so he will be expensive for two years instead of just one. Just cut our losses and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 FWIW Jeff Dickerson of ESPN Chicago writes that there’s “no way“ Bears DE Julius Peppers returns to Chicago next season with his current salary and cap figures in place. http://nfltraderumors.co/julius-peppers-future-bears-doubt/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 FWIW http://nfltraderumors.co/julius-peppers-future-bears-doubt/ Thanks, not too much of a shocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Thanks, not too much of a shocker. Was listening to the score this morning and Marty Bennett was on, and I think it is realistic about us getting his brother here. They have a bond, and if the Bears offer for him is anything close to what he may get on the open market, he will be here. I think if they offer him 4 year, 27 mil. , that would work. If he plays well in the Super Bowl, his price may go up, but Chicago is the only place his brother is at and that will come into play. They (seahawks) gave Arvil 2 year 13 mil, so I think 4-27 is realistic price for him. We save 9.8 if we cut Peppers and we have our pass rusher at 27 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Was listening to the score this morning and Marty Bennett was on, and I think it is realistic about us getting his brother here. They have a bond, and if the Bears offer for him is anything close to what he may get on the open market, he will be here. I think if they offer him 4 year, 27 mil. , that would work. If he plays well in the Super Bowl, his price may go up, but Chicago is the only place his brother is at and that will come into play. They (seahawks) gave Arvil 2 year 13 mil, so I think 4-27 is realistic price for him. We save 9.8 if we cut Peppers and we have our pass rusher at 27 years old. I hope you're right...If not Bennett then Hardy, Orakpo, Houston, or Johnson would be ideal....Guys like Jason Worilds, Willie Young, or Robert Ayers could be good signings as well but not ideal. Gotta get some kind of pass rush in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Hard to imagine him being back at his current price tag. Maybe if they restructured and he forfeited money, but I don't see that happening. If they elect to retain him, the Bears basically can't sign anybody of real value in free agency.. It would be a terrible move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Hard to imagine him being back at his current price tag. Maybe if they restructured and he forfeited money, but I don't see that happening. If they elect to retain him, the Bears basically can't sign anybody of real value in free agency.. It would be a terrible move. I personally dont want to retain him, we cant get any worse than we were last year, and think we need to have a fresh start to our whole defense. We will have 9.8 mil left after we cut him, and know we can get a good (not great) pass rusher that is younger and can grow with the younger defense. It is going to be the best move we make all winter. The 4 games he showed up didnt give us valve for the 18 mil were paying him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I personally dont want to retain him, we cant get any worse than we were last year, and think we need to have a fresh start to our whole defense. We will have 9.8 mil left after we cut him, and know we can get a good (not great) pass rusher that is younger and can grow with the younger defense. It is going to be the best move we make all winter. The 4 games he showed up didnt give us valve for the 18 mil were paying him. I thought Peppers was pretty bad in most games. Often blocked by one OT and driven out of the play. Didn't see the hustle he displayed in years past to chase down the LOS. He had a few bright spots here and there but too many games with 0 tackles, 0 sacks, 0 hurries. We can get those zeros for a lot less money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Was listening to the score this morning and Marty Bennett was on, and I think it is realistic about us getting his brother here. They have a bond, and if the Bears offer for him is anything close to what he may get on the open market, he will be here. I think if they offer him 4 year, 27 mil. , that would work. If he plays well in the Super Bowl, his price may go up, but Chicago is the only place his brother is at and that will come into play. They (seahawks) gave Arvil 2 year 13 mil, so I think 4-27 is realistic price for him. We save 9.8 if we cut Peppers and we have our pass rusher at 27 years old. That would be a great start to free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 That would be a great start to free agency. Would definitely be in favor of this. Especially the age/production combo that Bennet could provide vs an aging Peppers who's clearly lost a step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Would definitely be in favor of this. Especially the age/production combo that Bennet could provide vs an aging Peppers who's clearly lost a step. Here is some information on if we restructed Peppers contract and the ramifications of those actions. Also if we cut him. @mikecwright: Glad you asked this question, and my first inclination would be to say, yes, he’d absolutely redo it. But ultimately, it will come down to how the Bears go about restructuring the contract. I can’t think of too many players that won’t take a lump-sum payment in millions up front, which is why I think Peppers would do it. For instance, the Bears could take Peppers’ $13.9 million base salary, reduce it to his veteran minimum of $955,000, and then pay the balance of the $12.945 million in a signing bonus. That would make Peppers’ cap number $11.711 million, which results in a cap savings of $6.472 million. But as usual with these types of situations, the bill always comes due at some point. So with the restructure I just explained above, Peppers’ cap number would swell in 2015 to $27.156 million. Now, if the Bears did that restructure and decided to cut him in 2015, his dead money would amount to $10.656 million, which is still $10.028 million less than his current cap charge of $20.683 million for 2015. Another option, I guess, would be to cut Peppers this year and use the post-June 1 designation (the designation allows the team to spread out the cap hit for two years), which would result in dead money of $4.183 million in 2014 and $4.183 million in 2015; which results in a respective savings of $14 million and $16.5 million. T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Just cut him and let's get going with absorbing the cap hit. Cut Peppers, sign Bennett and we still have enough change to sign a good DT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Just cut him and let's get going with absorbing the cap hit. Cut Peppers, sign Bennett and we still have enough change to sign a good DT. Agreed. I think this is best available option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Another option, I guess, would be to cut Peppers this year and use the post-June 1 designation (the designation allows the team to spread out the cap hit for two years), which would result in dead money of $4.183 million in 2014 and $4.183 million in 2015; which results in a respective savings of $14 million and $16.5 million. If this is 100% accurate I can't imagine them doing anything but cut him. Even say a restructure where he gets a smaller bonus up front and then vet minimum salaries doesn't seem to make sense cap-wise. Now they may have something up their sleeves and they may think he played well enough to retain at a reduced price-tag, but this doesn't look like it'll come together if the Bears can honestly get out of this deal for only $4 mil of dead space in 2014 and 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 If this is 100% accurate I can't imagine them doing anything but cut him. Even say a restructure where he gets a smaller bonus up front and then vet minimum salaries doesn't seem to make sense cap-wise. Now they may have something up their sleeves and they may think he played well enough to retain at a reduced price-tag, but this doesn't look like it'll come together if the Bears can honestly get out of this deal for only $4 mil of dead space in 2014 and 2015. At his age and productivity, it's almost better to cut then resign if they want him back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Just a guess here but I'm guessing he gets straight cut. Not a June 1 designation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Just a guess here but I'm guessing he gets straight cut. Not a June 1 designation That will depend if they need more money for this year or next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just a guess here but I'm guessing he gets straight cut. Not a June 1 designation I think June 1 is also the day they have to meet there cap restraints, so why wouldnt they wait to be able to spread his dead money over two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think June 1 is also the day they have to meet there cap restraints, so why wouldnt they wait to be able to spread his dead money over two years. Have to be under cap as of march 11 and stay under. Problem with June 1 designation is the extra $$ gained between normal cut and June 1 cut could not be used til June 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Have to be under cap as of march 11 and stay under. Problem with June 1 designation is the extra $$ gained between normal cut and June 1 cut could not be used til June 1. Not to mention, I think we want to be good to him and give him the opportunity to find a deal elsewhere. He's been one helluva a player for the Bears and he's busted his ass for us. That and the team will want to be in "we are moving on mode." With Urlacher we wanted to publicly cut ties and sign his replacement. That being said, I'm not convinced he won't be back with the Bears. He was by far our best defensive lineman (which is like being a tall midget.) 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.