BearFan PHX

So in oversimplified terms, when you sign a player, you pay them two different ways. You agree on a yearly salary, which the player only gets if they arent cut. If you trade that player, the new team pays the agreed yearly salary, because what they traded for was the rights to the players contract. So if you cut or trade a player, the salaries and possible bonuses that could be earned all all gone from your cap. But if that was it, the players would be in a bind. They'd be subject to being cut any year. And teams compete for these players, so a good player is able to demand guaranteed money, also called a signing bonus. This is money the player gets when they sign the deal, and they get to keep no matter what (with very few exceptions not worth discussing here). If they play poorly or get injured, they still keep that money. Most players, especially the good ones are getting up to half up front in guaranteed money. For example, Mack's deal is a 6 year deal worth $141,000,000. Of that $141 Mil, $60MIl was guaranteed at signing. So calculating the cap hit of the yearly salary is easy. Whatever it is, that's what it is for that year. But if the team had to declare the entire signing bonus against the cap the year they gave the player the money, then they'd have to cut half their roster to be able to sign a guy like Mack. The entire 2019 salary cap was 181 Million, so youd need to spend $60Mil of that PLUS the other 20 Mil+ salary = $80 Mil off your $181 Mil cap in one year! Impossible! So the rule is, you give the player the upfront money in a lump sum check at signing, but you can prorate it across the years of the contract for the cap. So you'd pay $10 Mil of it each year across the 6 years. Cool. But what happens if you trade or cut the player? Then you have to pay the entire thing right then that year. In this way, players with large upfront money are kind of protected against being cut or traded for at least a few years, because teams cant take the cap hit to move them. Its kind of like how a kitchen contractor hasd all the leverage whn you give them the upfront portion of the contract before they start work. They have your money, but you have no kitchen. But then at the end, it's almost done and youre sitting on the final payment, and now you have all the leverage to make them finish the punch list. So players with big upfront contracts cant really be cut early in their deals, but then it gets easier to cut them, and the last year is basically a team option. This is why players often have huge salaries in the last year of their deal so they can go on TV and say they got a bigger contract than the last guy, when in truth, the team doesnt have to really honor it, and can renegotiate with them then or cut or trade them. This is why we cant trade Mack for at least a couple more years. There is another wrinkle that doesnt apply to Mack (yet) but does to Leno. Leno is in the second to last year of his deal. If we keep him, we will owe him $10,294,000 and that will cost our cap the same amount. If we cut him, we will have to pay back the remaining guaranteed money against the cap immediately, and that is $7,376,000 which is a lot of cap room to waste on a player who isnt on your team. Or put another way, you GOTTA pay the $7.3 Mil either way, and it costs you another $3Mil to keep him. So cutting him saves $3Mil more against the cap. But either way you're paying $7Mil. BUT The cap year is based on June 1st. If you cut him after June 1st, then it's like you cut him after the 2020 season was over, so you pay $2Mil against this years cap, and $5Mil against next years. THAT is doable, and opens up about $5 Mil for a free agent replacement. Mack is still too early in his deal for a June 1st designation, and his deal is so huge anyway, that you could realistically only trade him in the last year or two of his deal. Not until 2023.

to reiterate what Adam said, there is no way we can afford to trade Mack, the cap hit would be devastating. It's really irresponsible of these reporters to even float the theory. It'd be like saying we are bringing Walter Payton out of retirement. Fun idea, but with only a moment's research, provably impossible.

completely. Leno you could cut, Mack? no way.

+1

I'll bet you Leno is not a starter on the Bears OL on opening day. No need for $, we can just shake on it, and see who is right.

I disagree. If we deem Leno a post June 1st cut, we can spread it out, and afford to cut him this year. It is a logically fallacy to think that because you have already paid someone, that you have to play them. This is the fallacy of sunk costs., I do understand the argument of a cap hit being too large to swallow in a given year, but the June first designation makes this doable.

PFF is insane. I dont believe anything they say. I mean, Im sure they are right 50% of the time, but I dont know when theyre right and when theyre wrong. So I pay no attention to their stats.

I think Pace would know that no one would touch him again if he did that. And one assumes that you need owner approval for trading away first round picks? OK - just googled and found this quote from Mike MCCaskey: When approached about the Khalil Mack trade, McCaskey was on board. “I knew he was a dynamic player,” McCaskey said. “Ryan said it was an opportunity to get a premier player at a premier position in the prime of his career, and when you have an opportunity like that, you have to go for it." https://www.letsbeardown.com/articles/george-mccaskey-comments-on-nagypace-partnership-a/ So it sounds like there is an approval necessary...

agree!

in addition to his physical issues, being unable to sustain blocks etc, he was blocking the wrong guy all too often. That's not going to get better.

Hi Pix, I agree, it's good to see you post here. What if it was put a different way. Last season went very poorly and to change nothing would be like saying everything was fine, and so they felt they had to make some changes to shake things up. They knew they werent going to fire themselves (Pace and Nagy) so they went to the people who ran the positions that failed. OC and OL. That is almost the same as scapegoating, but from a different point of view, not purely political, but still systematic.

I dont think Howard has enough change of direction. I totally think this is a smart comment "I think someone hypothesized that the reason Hiestand lost his job was because he wanted to do more power blocking and Nagy did not. (My guess is Nagy needed a scape goat and Hiestand was one of a few options). " -- I think probably a combination of both and the horrible play of the OL in general. But it was a smart point you made.

I think we are going to cut Leno. If keeping him as the swing tackle backup saves a few buck to go towards the replacement OT so be it, but in no way do I think he will be a starter for us next year. He is easily the weakest link on the team, and personally bears a significant percentage of the blame for our season this year. It is rare that a single player could be responsible for so much of the failure. Especially a non QB. I urge anyone who disagrees to go to you tube and watch some of the weekly recaps on the BearsBarroom channel. The videos are called "the tape never lies" - if you watch those, you cant come away with anything but the idea that this guy is the worst lineman in all of football.

I totally agree that Leno doesnt have dominant physical tools. And Id be open to the idea that a technique guru could help him with those techniques. But the guy doesnt even choose the right player to block most of the time. If you watch the youtube channel "Bears Barroom" and the "the tape never lies" videos, you can see just how incredibly awful he is. You can even mute the commenter, you can see it with your own eyes, over and over every week. And these are things PeeWee league players understand. For me, Leno should not be on the team. So When I hear Long is praising him, and then the admission that he isnt that good, it sounds like Kyle is trying to be good to his guys, and I respect that, but I wouldnt think that way if I was Pace. Longs a good and loyal guy, I like him, but I dont expect unbiased info from him about his buddies. And more to the point, Leno is awful.

I dunno. I find it hard to believe that Hiestand, who was widely regarded as the best OL coach in college or pro football didnt understand that every defender needs a blocker, and that you cant double team the tackle and leave the end (or OLB) unblocked. I can imagine that Hiestand wanted a more power running game and Nagy likes the traps and pulling lineman. I can imagine that as the season went on an it became painfully obvious to everyone, that Hiestand might have spoken back to Nagy or challenged him. I can even imagine that Hiestand has certain blocking techniques (talking hands and back position, not Xs and Os) that werent popular. But every team down to pee wee league knows that if two OL are one one defender and the other is unblocked on the playside, that's just a mistake. And it's a mistake Leno made OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Leno is AWFUL. Anyone who says he isnt loses credibility in my eyes. (Im talking about Kyle Long or Nagy etc, not you!)

The idea that if you have money tied up in a bad player that you have to keep playing them is false. Pace cut Parkey, even though everyone predicted he wouldnt for the same reason. The money is gone, no need to ALSO play a bad player. Also, Leno can be cut and designated as a June 1st cut to spread the pain a bit over two years. We can afford it, and we should get rid of him.

OK if Leno is a coach on the field, why does he (attempt to) block the wrong guy so often?

I dunno. I think maybe Long is just being loyal to his guys. If you tell me Leno is an excellent OT, then I know youre wrong. I dont care who you are or how much experience you have. If you tell me last years OL was good, then you are wrong.

that will be their plan. But of course you gotta make a lot of first downs to make that work, and every 3rd down is a chance to end up punting it to Mahomes, who might well score a touchdown quickly. And if you get down 14, eating all that clock starts to work against you. From right here, this looks like a classic heavyweight prize fight. They both have their strategies, they both have their edges. Maybe it will come down to what kind of winner Mahomes is. We saw that in the playoffs...

Oh Im not saying that they actually would choose a team because they could dance. Im saying that Nagy is not the disciplinarian that Belichick is. Otherwise, theyd both still want to be in NE. But they want somewhere there is a coach weak enough to push around. That's what Im saying.

I totally agree that doubling down on bad choices is the way to get fired. I see a lot of that in Nagy. I worry that I see it in Pace too, but he is so secretive about this stuff (which is a good thing) that I dont really know what he is thinking.

Yes. I admit this is a stupid thread. Still, the idea is interesting, and worth a January conversation, even if just for fun. Gronk is apparently telling Brady to go to another team. That implies that he might be willing to come out of retirement to join Brady somewhere without Belichick. They'd want a team with a good defense. They'd want a team that needs a QB and a TE. A team that knew that they were getting older and would draft a QB to sit behind Brady for a couple of years. They'd want a team with a "fun" head coach. No winning at any cost like Belichick. Someone who liked to have dance parties when they win regular season games. Someone who was weak enough to dominate and do what they want. They'd want a team in a big media market. CHicago would certainly bring big ad opportunities for Brady and Gronk. They'd want a team that could contend for a Super Bowl, who didnt already have a QB. That's the real kicker. The best teams already have QBs. Now I said this was stupid. I'm not sure Id want them here. Brady is getting older, and it'd feel so mercenary. But maybe Brady would have the balls to reign in the offense in a way Nagy hasn't. Or maybe he'd get a quick PHD in Nagy-world and show us all how the video game offense really can work if you have a master. Anyway, a lot of the pieces fit, so it's worth a discussion since nothing else much is going on at this time of year. What do you think? Would you take Brady and Gronk on a 3 year deal?

agree

I think that after the first couple of rounds, trading down is always a good idea generically. The exception being that someone you have valued highly has fallen and you could snatch them up. In other words, if they arent a 1st or 2nd round talent in your own grading system, trading down is almost always a good idea. Of course that means you need a trading partner who wants to trade up and they know what we've just said is true too, so it's not always so easy to find a good trade down opportunity in later rounds. But yeah, I'd rather have more 3rds and 4ths versus being earlier in those rounds. A second player in the same neighborhood increases your chances of finding a player.

I like this one!