nfoligno

I am sorry. Maybe the problem is my ability to expain it. But I do not see how you can not see. Every team must work w/in the salary cap. At the same time, bonus' are used to (a) give the player guaranteed money and ( allowing the team to spread out the cap hit of such. I is in fact possible for us to sign Briggs, Harris, Berrian AND Faneca this year, and still be under the cap. That is a fact, and I have shown as much in other posts. At the same time, we would have to shell out something like $80 in cash, this year, for these four player's expected bonuses. While the bonus is factored against the cap over the length of the contract for the purpose of the cap, the money comes out of our budget THIS YEAR. Few team owners can afford to shell out that sort of coin. A better example might be to look at the Bears a number of year ago. Back then, we had a bad stadium deal. The stadium didn't generate the revenue other did due to a lack of luxury suites. In addition to that, we did not own the stadium, and did not recieve profits from concessions or parking, both of which are excluded from the shared agreement. Further, the team is our owners only source of income, as opposed to other owners who are rich from other businesses. Thus, the result was an ownership w/ a cheap label. By your reasoning, there would be no reason to believe we were cheap, as we spent up to the cap each year. By your reasoning, all teams spend the same, thus no one is cheap and no one is free spending. The reality though is very different. A cheap team, like us iat the time, is less willing to shell out the big bonus dollars to bring in big time FAs. We still spent up to the cap, but did not dole out the big bonus money to get the big FAs, because that was upfront money we would have to spend, at one time. While the cap might have been $60m or $70m, a team that year could easily spend $100m of actual money due to bonus dollars. We at the time were simply not willing to do that. I still may not be explaining it well, but if you understand the cap and spending, I do not see how you can argue that one team can spend more than another in any given year.

Just curious, have you looked at either LT2s cap analysis, or seen what the papers are saying. After factoring the accelerated bonus money (dead money we eat) we still saved about $10m cutting Miller, Walker and Moose. That IS counting the guaranteed money not yet counted against the cap. For example, Moose had 3 years remained on his deal, w/ $3m in unallocated bonus money that was excellerated against our cap. He was due to count $3.1m against our cap, but then you subtract the $3m in dead money, and he ends up basically as wash. Walker on the other hand, had 4 years left on a deal that netted him only a $500k SB. So that is $400k that we eat in dead money. At the same time, due to a written in $5.5m roster bonus due in March, and a $1.1m base salary, Walker had an expected cap charge of $6.75m. Take out the $400k in dead money, and Walker alone saves us $6.35m against the cap this year. Miller was due to hit our cap for $5.8m. After eating the remaining portion of his bonus, we ended up saving $3.4m in cap space. That is $9.85m in cap savings, which jives w/ the articles I have seen talking on this subject. Initially, some articles talked about our saving more than $15m, but those did not factor in the dead money. In doing the math, are you counting a players entire bonus as dead money? That might explain how you are getting the numbers you are representing. You should only be factoring bonus money yet not counted. So if a player signed a 6 year deal w/ $6m bonus 3 years ago, you only count the $3m allocated bonus dollars not yet applied to the cap. So we entered the money w/ around $20m in cap space, and just added another $10m w/ 3 cuts. You second point questions what a player will play for. My response is, often the first year, or even first two years, of a deal are for minimal base salary when the player gets a big bonus. It is common practice. Since the player is getting a big chunk of money up front, they have no issue w/ their base salary that year being peanuts. So Briggs for example. Lets say we sign him to a 6yr/$50m total deal, w/ $20m SB. That means we automatically would have a bonus allocation of $3.3m. Then you have to look at the $30m in base salary. It is not going to be spread out evenly. It is not going to be $5m a year, even if that is what it averages. More likely, it would look something like: Year 1 - Base $1m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $4.3m. Year 2 - Base $3m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $6.3m. Year 3 - Base $4.5m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $7.8 Year 4 - Base $5.5m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $8.8 Year 5 - Base $7.5m + Bonus $3.3 = cap hit $10.5 Year 6 - Base $8.5m + Bonus $3.3 = cap hit 11.8

Miller was already cut. So that is two OL cut. Kreutz is a lock to be our Center next year. Tait will be an OT, but which side may be yet to determine. Garza is likely to start, but I think may have some competition.

Sorry, but you lost me. I showed before how you can sign each of these players to deals under the cap. We have about $30m in cap space right now, and likely that will go up a bit more as a couple others are cut. We just let Brown go today. You mention $13.3m in allocated SB money, and then you can add to that veteran minimum for each player, to kick up the salary hit about $4m more. That means, of the $30m we have in cap space, we could sign/ re-sign, those four players to a cost of around $18m, which still leaves us $12m in cap space. The issue is not cap space. We can sign all the guys if cap were the only issue. But would we ever dole out $80m in cash at any one time?

"OK Grandma, but the Bears are in my heart!" Not even my daughter, but that fills me w/ pride.

My hope is for one of two things. (a) That we believe, whatever Berrian's market will be, we can still re-sign him. I said all along he would hit FA, as he would not re-sign w/ us before checking out the market. Maybe this is similar to when we allowed Kreutz to hit the market, w/ the intention all along of re-signing him. ( That we have our sights set on another one, or couple, WRs. It will make me sick if we enter camp w/ Hester and Bradley set to be our starters. Sorry, but in all honestly, neither should enter camp as a starter. If they earn the spot, fine, but if we enter camp w/ either as our best option, then we have done our QB (whoever that will be) no favors.

Disagree. One, While I am not going to try and prop Griese up, I also have to say I hated the way we tried to play when he was in. Do you realize we called for 40 or more passed in 5 or his 6 starts? Rex had ONE game throwing 40 times. Maybe it was over-confidence in a more veteran QB, but it was ridiculous how we abandoned the run when Griese entered and became such a one dimensional team. Two, I have no problem cutting Griese if we add a QB relatively high in the draft, but I see no reason to cut him early. In fact, I would have no problem entering camp w/ Griese still on the roster, and have a legit open competition. If he beats out Orton or whoever, so be it.

I often hear about how a QB controversy can be a distraction, and that is why Lovie wanted to avoid competition. I call BS. If after the 4th preseason game you still have not named a starter, I see the problem. But IMHO, camp and the early part of preseason should basically be open. I think the starter should be known by game three, but we have gone the opposite direction. Even when it was "said" that everything was open, you knew better by the number of reps each QB got in practice, and who worked w/ which unit. Side note you pic w/ comment made me think about: A couple years ago, my daughter (then 3) was in trouble at school and the teacher had to speak w/ me. I have trained my daughter well. Anytime someone mentioned the cowboys, she would reply, "Cowboys yuck, BEARS #1!". It was great until the teach was reading a cowboys and indians type book during storytime one day, and Avery kept repeating the statement everytime the teacher said the word "cowboy". Total disruption of storytime the teacher said, but since she was a Giant fan, she later gave Avery some candy as a treat. She made her daddy proud that day:)

Was 2006 about best talent available? I thought even you said it appeared we were more need focused. S was a top need, as we took D.Manning. While we traded down, many felt it was a reach. Hester was an elite talent, but a returner was considered a top need. DT could be argued either way. DT did appear to be a need for the staff, but Dusty may have also been viewed as a best available. But then we took a LB, which was considered a top need. Was he the best available. IMHO, 2006 was all about drafting for need. We may have been taking the best talent available at those position, but I think we were far more focused on needs and positions in 2006, rather than simply going after best talent available regardless of need/position. As for 2007, I really still today do not understand the philosophy. The only thing I can come up w/ is the idea that we felt we were set, and were looking for developmental players w/ higher upside that might need time to develop.

Sort of makes you think back to his college days too. While he was a starter at Oklahoma, they used a rotation which limited his actual snaps and reps. I remember it very much being a question whether he could play at the high level seen in college as an every down starter in the NFL. While I realize we do employ a rotation ourselves, it is more often the other DT that rotates out.

THANK YOU! That is what I have been saying too. I have pointed out that would could fit under our cap new deals for Briggs, Berrian, Harris and even Faneca, but it would cost an obscene amount of bonus dollars up front that I doubt any (except maybe Snyder) would fork over. I mean, how many teams shell out $80m or so in bonus dollars in one offseason? I would make the point though that the cap does still matter, just not as much. There are several teams that, even w/ the increased cap number, are still over the cap. These teams need to make moves just to get under the cap, and are less likely to be players in FA. Beyond them, there is a group of teams that have a smaller amount of space, and more holes to fill, and thus too will be less likely to be players for the bigger name FAs. W/ that said, there are a lot of teams w/ a ton of cap space, and I agree, cap space will not be the issue nearly so much as setting a budget for actual dollars spent.

Expected. Nothing to say but props to Brown. He was a good player for us. While he was not good last year, it was later revealed he was playing w/ one arm, and I question blaming him for that. It is up to the staff to recognize issues like this, and it isn't like Metcalf was better. I have nothing but respect for the Brown.

Unless we can get McNabb, which I doubt, I have no problem w/ Orton being in the picture, but to declare he should be given the job I think is a total mistake. That was a mistake made, IMHO, w/ Rex. If Orton can go into camp and earn the job, then it is his, but he should be given NOTHING.

One, why would McNabb not help this team? I do not understand how that could even be an argument. Now, whether we can get him, and whether he is worth whatever Phily may want is an understandable argument, but to say McNabb could not help this team? He didn't play great last year, but most agreed he came back from injury too soon, and he finished the year well w/ 4 solid games. I just do not understand the logic that McNabb would not help this team. Now I would preface that by saying no QB will help unless we upgrade the OL, but I think that upgrading the OL has to be an assumption no matter what. Two, why do you not want to draft a QB? I am not saying round one specifically, but I do see the need for drafting a QB. While a rookie QB isn't going to help us this year, we have to start the process of developing a QB at some point, and when better than now? Or do you simply think there is no quality at QB in this draft?

Well, I still go back and forth on this, but I think we are making a mistake by allowing him to hit FA w/o compensation. I'm sorry, but especially due to who his agent is, if we slap the tag on Berrian, he is NOT going to immediately sign it. That gives us time to seek a trade. We don't have to get a great deal, but I think we could get a 3rd round pick for the top WR. If there is simply no trade market for him, then I would say (a) Berrian's contract demand may drop some if teams are not throwing themselves at him, as he may expect, which could allow us to sign him and/or ( we can simply remove the tag and allow him to walk. At least we tried though.

Exactly. I hate the greed, but at the same time, we as fans are the reason that greed continues. Players are no different than actors. It is sick to see Actors demand $20m a film, which then gets passed on to the movie theaters, and then to us. But so long as we pay $10 a ticket, not to mention $5 for popcorn and $5 for soda, we enable the whole scene. No different in sports. So long as we pay the ticket prices, players will want a bigger share of that profit.

But it still defied your point. Your point was the injury questions are unwarranted. You also "seemed" to make the point that even though he was injured, he had his best statistical season, and thus the injury was not really an issue. My point is that his injury this past season was an issue, and a big one. The fact that he had 7 sacks in the first 8 games, and looked unstoppable, then 1 sack in the final 8 games as he dealt w/ the injury, sure seems to indicate the injury was in fact an issue, and a big one. Further, I question your comment that his injury this year was "lingering affects" from his original injury. He sure seemed fully recovered and healthy in the first half of the season when he was unstoppable. It appeared to be as two separate injuries.

He has had injury issues, and while he played through some, there was also plenty of talk about how he was hindered by the injury. It is an issue because he wants to be the highest paid defensive player in the NFL, which means he is seeking $30m. That is a massive investment/risk for anyone, but for a player who has seen some injury issues over the past two seasons, then the risk shoots up. Also, as I said at the start. If he has a fully healthy, productive year, then the injury issue is largely forgotten. But if he has further injury issues this year, even playing through them, then it becomes a HUGE issue when he is asking for so much money. As for this being his best statistical season, take a deeper look. 7 sacks in his first 8 games. 1 sack in his final 8. Harris may have finished w/ good overall numbers, but his 2nd half stats sure do indicate the injury did hinder his season.

To put it in perspective. Payton Manning, arguably the best QB in the NFL, got $34.5m guaranteed on record breaking deal. Russell, who had never thrown an NFL pass, got $29m guaranteed. So there is a $5.5m difference between the best QB in the league, and a kid who has never played an NFL down. Two other notables. Calvin Johnson has the 2nd highest number. He got $27.2m guaranteed. I believe that makes him the highest paid WR in the NFL. So a kid who has never caught a pass gets more guaranteed coin than Chad Johnson, Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, etc. Mario Williams got $26.5m guaranteed. If it were not for Freeney, Mario Williams would be the highest paid defensive player in the NFL, in terms of guaranteed coin. Still, 2nd highest is pretty sick. It is because of these sort of examples I believe something will be done before too much longer. Look no further than how teams are trying to get rid of the top pick in the draft, because the guaranteed money is simply not worth the risk. So no question teams would like to see a rookie cap. Further, I think the NFL players association would not mind, as the NFLPA represenst NFL players, not kids who are not yet in the league. And those NFL players are getting totally hosed by rookie deals. Veterans who have proven themselves still end up w/ contracts lower than rookies. The only group (other and rookies) who will strongly fight a change I think would be the agents, who enjoy the 2-3% they get from these ridiculous rookie contracts.

I just did a quick google search, and every source that came up said Andrews was hit w/ the non-exclusive tag, and that other teams could in fact sign him to an offer sheet, at which point Cincy would have the right to match or receive two 1st round picks in compensation. Google Stacy Andrews exclusive franchise tag, and you will see many articles that all say the same thing. His tag is non-exclusive, and other teams can still offer him a deal.

Never said we were a small market team. I would say that prior to the stadium reconstruction, we were at a disadvantage. We simply didn't have the same revenue as other teams, and thus less money to spend. And I never said we could not compete. What I said is rich owners do have an advantage. Not the same as in baseball, but an advantage none-the-less. Like I pointed out, I doubt we could sign all the players we are looking at, even if we wanted. We can talk all day about how much money our ownership has, but could they really shell out $80m at any one point? I doubt it. There are some owners however that could.

While the dollars will continue to rise, I do not think it will continue to rise at nearly the same rate. The league soared in popularity, which was a cause of the increase. As popular as it is today, unless they expand to new markets (outside America), I do not see the same level of increase. Also, 10 years ago, I do not believe the league had nearly the same TV deals that are in place today. Those TV deals were also a huge reason for the soaring cap dollars. Finally, in the past, stadiums didn't have the revenue they do today. I am not talking what you and I pay. It is the addition of the luxury suites that has jacked up the revenue far more. That was the huge issue our ownership had w/ the stadium before it's reconstruction. W/o those luxury suites, our ownership simply didn't have close to the revenue dollars most other teams had. Now, most teams have luxury suites, and thus revenues are more set. So while the cap, and the money players get, will continue to rise, I do not think it will nearly so dramatic. Three of the top factors for the increase have leveled off, and thus so might the spending. At least relatively.

That is the one area I think we will eventully see a major change. The players union is not as often big on making a stand for rookies, who are not yet even NFL players. I think we will at some point see a change in the rookie pool, as high end rookies, who have not set foot on a field, get deals greater than what veterans who are far more proven receive.

Disagree. I have often had this argument. It is one thing to talk about the cap, but another when talking about bonus dollars. For example, I could easily (and have) show how we could afford to re-sign Berrian, Briggs, extend Harris, and even add Faneca. I can show you how that can be done, and done w/ in cap space we have. BUT, then you have to consider the amount of cash a team has to cough up at one time. While not exact, potential bonus dollars for those players: Berrian ($15m), Briggs ($20m), Harris ($30m) and Faneca ($15m). That is $80m that we would have to front those four players. There are a handful of owners in the league that MIGHT do that. Snyder and Jones come to mind. Most wouldn't do it because it isn't cap smart. But many flat out could not do it. It is one thing to spend all your cap allotment. Every team has the ability to do that w/ shared revenue. But the more wealthy owners can really go above and beyond. For example, Team A offers a player a 5 year deal worth $50m, including a $10m SB. Team B offers a player a 5 year deal worth $50m, including a $20m SB. Team B is going to sign that player. Teams w/ rich owners can afford to dole out the bigger bonus dollars, and secure players. You can argue the McCaskey family is plenty rich, but the team is their only source of income. Counter that w/ owners who are freaking rich, independent of their team. Simply put, they have more to spend. So while the cap creates limits unseen in baseball, at the same time, a team owned by a rich owner does in fact have an advantage over a team w/o one. IMHO, it is lucky for the league that Snyder is so stupid. If he were smarter, and would allow football people to make the decisions, and simply wrote the checks, it could be scary how good Wash could be. Luckily, Snyder sees to it Washington spends tens of milions on players who were great FF players 5 years prior, but currently are in the twighlight of their careers.

W/ TJ being traded, I fully understood RB as a draft need, and even as high as a day one need. My issue was/is, if you are going to draft a RB, why not get one w/ the potential to be a starter. I just could not understand drafting a kid on day one who had next to no chance to develop into a starter. At best, he is a good change of pace player, but did we really need to spend a day one pick for that?