BearFan PHX

You ARE the stat man. LOL I gotta admit that's a very well reasoned and researched argument. I was making a gut call based on his age, his measurables, and assuming he will agree to a lower extension. But I did no research on comparables. So i feel the market for him heating up a bit, but my guess as to what that means in terms of rounds was just out of the air. If had known what you put here, I'd still feel his market heating up, but Id have had a better understanding of what that meant in terms of actual draft value. Thanks for this, you've convinced me!

sure, but Im wondering if we might even do better?!

I agree with all of this. Cant wait to see how it happens.

I think we might be surprised with multiple teams interested. It wont be a 1st or anything like that, but we might do better than expected.

If we could get a 3rd for him, that would be incredible. I expect more like a 5th tho, but with three teams interested, maybe a later 4th?

It does look like a stunt there based on the angle of the other DT. I thought so too, but like you say, he should still he be up out of his stance. And there are lots of examples like this one. He's just slow off the ball. He certainly hasn't become the active 3T that we were hoping he'd be. And it's not like hes a BJ or DA "guy" either. He has value. For us in a rotation, maybe for someone else in trade? Hes far short of the starter I hoped he'd be, but he's not a bad 2nd stringer for us. I just feel like a housecleaning is coming, but I dont have any proof of course.

Yeah there are so many options, I am nowhere near predicting what we are going to do, but I have a strong feeling we're going to do SOMETHING and not just a little something. And when you add to that Ben Johnson's aggressive nature, I cant help but think there are going to be tons of new starters. And how we will accomplish that is going to be VERY interesting. This year for Poles should be really fun to watch.

Not to be rude or fighty or anything like that, but this is the perfect example, because last year were were debating the OL, and Stinger was saying the same thing. He said no more than 2 new faces on the OL, and that Jenkins would get better etc. I'm not mentioning it in terms of wrong or right, but more in terms of whether the team will look outside the roster for new faces, or be more inclined to roll it back with guys who arent making it. Whether we keep Dexter or not, he wont be a plus starter for us. AZ54 makes a good point about keeping him as a rotational player, and others talk about getting some value for him in the last year of his contract. But either way, no one in Halas Hall is penciling Dexter in as a starter at DT. We have to get significantly better on the DL, and Im expecting some new faces. I honestly think Turner is more trusted at this point than Dexter for our future. neither is someone you can count on to be a leader, but Turner has an untapped future, and we can see who Dexter is. Look at this frame from the playoff game. Sweat is already two yards upfield, and Dexter hasn't even started to move yet. This was the knock on him coming out of college, and it still persists.

That isn't so bad, we should be able to manufacture an easy $50M with regular moves. Bears are also like 5th in least amount of dead cap. Watching all the moves this year is going to be really interesting.

Totally agree. Look at the Eagles in 2024. That's the way to do it. I'm just saying, there is a decision to be made, on one side is whatever Dexter adds to the rotation, and on the other side is whatever draft value you can get from him in his last year. And can that draft capital help procure a better replacement. If Dexter was better, it'd be a no brainer to keep him, and if he was worse, it'd be a no brainer to trade him. So i think both are viable options right now, so that's all Im saying, is there are two sides to the coin. Im not passionate about either one. Stinger had asked about why anyone would want to trade him, so i was just giving that side of the argument, but like I said, I can see it either way, personally.

I can understand this, but this is his last year. Unless we are planning on paying him a big contract, then he walks next year for nothing. it might be nice to get something for him.

Because this is his last year, so unless youre gonna sign him to a big contract, better to let him go this last year and get something for him, even if it's a 5th rounder. Plus, you bank on the idea that his replacement is a better player than he is, and he is STILL so slow off the ball, and that is not what DA wants from the DLine. If you could keep 300 players, then i get it - why lose something if you dont have to, but the reason is because Dexter is taking up a spot that someone else could have an potentially do better with.

Right that's what i was saying. They will take that $15M owed next year and restructure it out and fold it into a 3 year deal at $6M a year or something. And thats the same deal they will get if we cut him anyway. So does a team want to spend a 6th rounder to be sure they get the exclusive negotiating rights? If there's more than one team that would take him at $6M a year, then someone might want to trade to make sure they get him. But he's gonna get between $6M and $8M a year next year from someone.

I think this was always going to be the outcome, and stupid politicians and team Presidents need to do the whole dance for God knows what reason. It's so stupid, but yeah, I think that's where we will end up.

For sure, even if we take a QB in the 6th round or something too.

he's probably not worth a 2nd, but he is worth something to us as well as a backup, so if you want him a year early you gotta pay a premium, that's why the 2nd. Next year, we would take a 3rd, but right now, I think we keep him another year and take the 3rd next year if thats all thats being offered. Also, if you think he's your starting QB, maybe you do think he's worth a 2nd if you really believe in him over other options?

I think the idea is that they would pay a 6th rounder to make sure they could sign him and not have someone else get him. Your point about the salary is a fair one. On the surface, the team trading would have to take on his contract, with $15M this year. But of course they wouldnt be trading him for one year OR wanting to pay that, so they will sign him to a new deal instead. I'm no cap expert, but i think as long as his new deal totals the $15M he is due or more across the life of it, they can do it. Maybe with Edmunds agreement they can just ignore it, I dunno. But I expect he'ill get a deal of at least 2 years, and the total value of the deal will exceed $15M so it can be a restructure to get him to a more reasonable number?

I also think that Caleb will leave $10M/yr on the table the way his idol Tom Brady did.

Right, getting him a year early should cost something like a 2nd. Maybe more. Starting QBs don't grow on trees, and if you're paying a 2nd, you think he's a starter. If teams feel he isn't worth it, then they can wait until next year. If they believe in him, then they should pay.

Let them bid, and with 2 years to go on his deal, that's not gonna be cheap.

I wont argue the offsetting sales and entertainment taxes collected, it sounds like you have a political point of view on it, so I'll just respect you and not argue that. I'm no tax expert, that's for sure. One thing I DO know is that out of all of professional sports, the team that pays the most property taxes for their stadium each year is the LA Rams, and they pay $9 Million annually. Under current Illinois law, the Bears would be expected to pay $100 to $200 Million in property taxes each year from the stadium they plan to build in Arlington Heights. That's insane, and obviously not reasonable. If the Bears have to move to avoid that, I think people can understand it. However, I don't believe that is the final word at all. I think Illinois will lower that to something more reasonable in line with all the other sports stadiums around the country. I still expect the Bears to end up in Arlington Heights, but they won't be paying $100 Million or even $20 Million a year in property taxes.

Every single sports stadium is taxed WAY less than the going rate for property tax? Why? Because it generates sales and entertainment taxes for the state far in excess of what a hotel on that land would. Its not corporate welfare, its an investment for the state that pays itself back and then some. I dont begrudge you your feelings about this, you have every right to them, and like I said, i think all of this is all really just leverage to get it right for Arlington Heights. But if they do move to Hammond (they wont) it wouldnt be the end of the world, or anything like the Browns situation. I cited the Jets and Giants as an example of having a stadium nearby in another state but still using the original state's name, that's all.

I hope the Bear stay in Illinois. I expect they will land in Arlington Heights after all of this. But if they move to Hammond, the new stadium will be significantly closer to Soldier Field than the Arlington Heights location is. I dont see this at all like the Browns, more like how the Giants and Jets play in New Jersey. But most of all, the threat of Indiana must be real in order to GET to Arlington Heights.

I agree with both of you that an impact DT is critical, and one is more likely to be found at pick #25 than an impact edge player probably will be. And of course all of this subject to change depending on who we bring in in free agency. Although we could definitely sign a FA DT and draft one in the first round too.

plus we already have two guards waiting in the wings in McFadden and Newman.