Bears sign TE Clark to extension

[madlithuanian]

Sounds like you're fishin'!

 

But I'll take the bait!

 

We could wait. Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot. Olsen could be injured again, etc... And regardless, he could simply want more since he'd be a FA and could probably get more on the open market. We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot. Angel's always managed the cap rather well. I don't see this as an issue.

 

Odds are salaries will go up in general, so signing now may end up being the same as waiting. Also, there's the loyalty issues... And yeah, no contract si guaranteed,etc. But it it a good show of faith. That just speaks well in my book. Again, as I'm mentioned, I just don't think it's that much to pay to lock him up for a while...

 

To any who believe this is a good move, let me ask you this?

 

Why not simply re-sign Clark next year? Think about it. Clark is coming off one of his best years ever, or was it his best? His market is pretty high today. What will it be next year. Does everyone not believe Olsen is going to see more snaps? Does everyone not believe Olsen's numbers are going to go up? While some might argue, I think logic will say that if Olsen's numbers go up, Clarks numbers are most likely to go down.

 

Today, Clark's market value is pretty high. A year from now? He will be a year older (he will be 32 at the start of the 2009 season). He will not likely be coming off a career high. He may not even be a starter, as I think most would expect Olsen to win that job by some point this year. So the most likely situation, IMHO, is Clark's market a year from now will not be as high as it is today. That tells me he would not be difficult to sign a year from now, if we still want him, which brings me back to my ealier issue. Will we even want him a year from now if we do not use a two TE set?

 

A year ago, Clark was a guy we were looking to replace/upgrade. While never bad, he was never that great for us either. We spent a 1st round pick to replace him, and make no mistake about it. Olsen was signed to replace Clark. One year later, we are giving him an extension?

 

Sorry, but I fail to see the logic. IMHO, we could have/should have let Clark play out his final season, and if we still had interest, we could have signed him then. I bet you his market a year from now would not be what it is today. Further, if we do not want him, we simply let him walk away.

[Leonard Zelig]

I like this because come December and January (hopefully we will be playing in January) it becomes more and more important to be able to run bigger two te sets in cold weather places and knowing you can have Olsen, whose a great blocker and a receiver as well as Clark (who you can end up splitting out wide as a receiver) could really create matchup problems.

 

I also like this because it is the second time this week that the Bears have rewarded one of there guys for working hard and having the right attitude (Alex Brown's extension was the first, now Clark, Orton will be next and than Urlacher). They are sending out the right message and I hope other players in the organization (including Tommie Harris and maybe even guys like Briggs/Berrian) see this and realize that it may be better to stick around with an organization that actually takes care of its guys.

 

This is the first time I've heard Olsen described as a great blocker.

 

 

 

edit: hey, this isn't my first post?!!?

[nfoligno]

No fishing and no bait. Never was good at fishing. I do enjoy the drinking part though

 

We could wait. Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot. Olsen could be injured again, etc... And regardless, he could simply want more since he'd be a FA and could probably get more on the open market. We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot. Angel's always managed the cap rather well. I don't see this as an issue.

 

And I could hook up w/ Angelina Jolie. Doesn't mean it will happen. Look at our offense? You expect Clark to have a "moster year"? I think it a reach to expect similar. Anything can happen. I agree. But I do not believe you make deals based on that logic. I think deals should be based on expectations. I expect Clark's numbers to be down as Olsens' go up. If we did a poll, I think everyone here (even you) would have to agree.

 

You ask why not strike now while the iron is hot. Well, that is the exact point of my question. Why strike while the iron is hot? IMHO, it is very unlikely his value will be as high, or higher, a year from now. Striking while the iron is hot is good for the player, but not the team. Let the iron cool, and if you still want him, then sign him.

 

Odds are salaries will go up in general, so signing now may end up being the same as waiting.

 

Maybe. On the other hand, this was a big cap jump year, and thus deals may not go up next year.

 

Also, there's the loyalty issues...

 

Hey, we showed loyalty by not cutting him after consecutative 24 catch seasons. Now that is loyalty.

 

We are not talking big money, and thus, it is not a big deal. I simply question the logic and reason of our staff. Look at our QB situation. We sign Rex for $3m+, which tells me we expect him to start. That start comes at the expense of Orton, who we do not seem very high on. At the same time, we are looking to extend him too? To me, that is reminicent of Angelo extending Metcalf, who the coaches never seemed to like.

 

We used a 1st round pick to replace Clark, and then he puts up a good season, so we extend him? Sorry, but while we are not talking about big money, it is simply the logic I question. I do not believe he would cost more a year from now to re-sign then today, so why take the risk. If Orton plays to expectations this year, Clark w/ be a backup. I doubt he will be happy then, regardless of salary.

[nfoligno]

Agreed.

 

- We re-sign Rex. Okay, I can deal w/ that. The market was very limited this year. Even if we draft a rookie, he isn't going to help this year. If we do not believe Orton can start (or Griese), then it makes some sense to re-sign Rex. But then to turn around and seek to extend Orton? If we like Orton, why did we first make the move to re-sign Rex? W/ Rex re-signed to a one year deal, regardless of the talk of competition, I think our starting QB has been declared. I just do not see the logic in seeking to extend Orton now.

 

- I understand the logic on both sides, but I would rather have tagged Berrian. Especially looking at the weak WR market, I believe we could have gotten "something" for him. Further, tagging him may have pushed him to accept a deal from us. But now, I look at our WRs and cringe. Add in our QB situation, and what are we doing to help this offense.

 

- We drafted a TE in the 1st round to replace Clark, then turn around and sign Clark to an extension? As I have said before, if we were using a two TE base package, I could see the logic, but has anyone seen anything to lead to the believe we will?

 

FA has not actually begun, and we are a month from the draft, so there is still a lot of time to do a lot more, but thus far, it has the feel of status quo. It is like the staff believes what we have is plenty good so long as we can upgrade the OL. I can see that argument for the RB position, but not the passing game.

[madlithuanian]

You must really dislike Clark...

 

First off, you will never hook up with Jolie. While Olsen could be injured again quite probably...

 

Anyway...I listed a chock full of reasons and possibilities that made sense for signing Clark. I did not say I expect Clark to have a Monster year. You are putting words in my explanations that aren't there. I listed about 5 or so...not putting all my eggs in the "Clark will have monster numbers" basket. It's one of many possibilities athat, I think, justifies the signing.

 

I just plian disagree with you on this. You make fine points, but I like Clark, and I like him locked up for a few years.

 

We aren't talking QB's here...that's a whole different Pandor'as box. We're talking about extending a good TE that's done well for us and wants to be here. I'm OK with it, while you'd prefer to wait it out. But, as Bill Murray so aptly put in "Meatballs"..."It just doesn't matter". He's signed. And I don't think either your or my methodology relating to Clark has that great an impact on this team.

 

 

No fishing and no bait. Never was good at fishing. I do enjoy the drinking part though

 

We could wait. Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot. Olsen could be injured again, etc... And regardless, he could simply want more since he'd be a FA and could probably get more on the open market. We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot. Angel's always managed the cap rather well. I don't see this as an issue.

 

And I could hook up w/ Angelina Jolie. Doesn't mean it will happen. Look at our offense? You expect Clark to have a "moster year"? I think it a reach to expect similar. Anything can happen. I agree. But I do not believe you make deals based on that logic. I think deals should be based on expectations. I expect Clark's numbers to be down as Olsens' go up. If we did a poll, I think everyone here (even you) would have to agree.

 

You ask why not strike now while the iron is hot. Well, that is the exact point of my question. Why strike while the iron is hot? IMHO, it is very unlikely his value will be as high, or higher, a year from now. Striking while the iron is hot is good for the player, but not the team. Let the iron cool, and if you still want him, then sign him.

 

Odds are salaries will go up in general, so signing now may end up being the same as waiting.

 

Maybe. On the other hand, this was a big cap jump year, and thus deals may not go up next year.

 

Also, there's the loyalty issues...

 

Hey, we showed loyalty by not cutting him after consecutative 24 catch seasons. Now that is loyalty.

 

We are not talking big money, and thus, it is not a big deal. I simply question the logic and reason of our staff. Look at our QB situation. We sign Rex for $3m+, which tells me we expect him to start. That start comes at the expense of Orton, who we do not seem very high on. At the same time, we are looking to extend him too? To me, that is reminicent of Angelo extending Metcalf, who the coaches never seemed to like.

 

We used a 1st round pick to replace Clark, and then he puts up a good season, so we extend him? Sorry, but while we are not talking about big money, it is simply the logic I question. I do not believe he would cost more a year from now to re-sign then today, so why take the risk. If Orton plays to expectations this year, Clark w/ be a backup. I doubt he will be happy then, regardless of salary.

[nfoligno]

Oh Madman, how shall I begin.

 

You must really dislike Clark...

 

While I do not dislike him, I do find it humerous how so many who screamed for us to draft a TE to replace him for the last two years suddenly want to walk down the isle with him.

 

First off, you will never hook up with Jolie. While Olsen could be injured again quite probably...

 

Damn. And I just watched her in Mr and Mrs Smith again. Damn she looks good in leather.

 

And now who is hating. You are saying Olsen will "quite probably" be injured because he had some minor injuries as a rookie?

 

Anyway...I listed a chock full of reasons and possibilities that made sense for signing Clark. I did not say I expect Clark to have a Monster year. You are putting words in my explanations that aren't there. I listed about 5 or so...not putting all my eggs in the "Clark will have monster numbers" basket. It's one of many possibilities athat, I think, justifies the signing.

 

No, you said, "Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot." My bad. It was mega, and not monster. And while you are not saying he will have a mega year, as it is part of your reasoning as to why we sign him now, I have to assume you support the idea of it happening. If you do NOT believe he will have a mega year, why sign him.

 

Yea, you list several reasons, but are you not standing by this one now? And I did address your other points. Besides the potential "mega year" argument, you gave....

 

- Olsen could be injured - Well, if he is, then you have Clark as a backup. Clark was under contract already, so I am not sure how this changes. Further, Clark can be injured. It goes both ways. But instead of Clark being injured in his final season, now he would be in the middle of a contract just signed.

 

- You say he (in 2009) could want more and could probably get more on the open market. This was one of my points. He would be a 32 year old average TE, and as I have argued, likely not coming off one of his better years. I argue his market in 2009 would be lower than it is today in 2008.

 

- You argued, "We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot." Frankly, I do not understand this. That is what his agent was likely thinking, but not really the thinking of most GMs. Most GMs don't want to extend their players after a "hot" season. That is like watching a stock rise, and when it hits a high, saying you want to buy now since it is so hot. Most GMs like to buy low and sell high, not buy high and sell low.

 

- You said, "Angel's always managed the cap rather well". Now your just trying to pick a fight. This would have to become a new thread, and would get my # of posts up into the thousands real quickly.

 

- Your final point is the loyalty issue. While it was a backhand, it was also addressed when I noted that we showed tons of loyalty by not cutting him after consecutive 24 catch seasons. Yes, I understand that you show loyalty to team leaders. On the other hand, I was under the impression Brown, Miller and Moose were all considered leaders. Weren't two of them team captains? I am not saying we should have cut Clark, but I question how much this was about showing respect.

 

We aren't talking QB's here...that's a whole different Pandor'as box. We're talking about extending a good TE that's done well for us and wants to be here. I'm OK with it, while you'd prefer to wait it out. But, as Bill Murray so aptly put in "Meatballs"..."It just doesn't matter". He's signed. And I don't think either your or my methodology relating to Clark has that great an impact on this team.

 

Our methodology on what we should do in the draft and FA has no impact on what Angelo actually does. Does that mean we should not discuss it? Honestly, I have never understood this logic. My screaming at the TV does not motivate the players, but that doesn't stop me, nor I bet you. I said before, this is not a big deal. I am not a fan of the move, but so what. It's not like we are talking big money. My issue is in the logic of moves. My issue is that, while I like Clark, I want Olsen on the field, and I fear this moves hurts that.

[madlithuanian]

nfo, you aren't reading my responses. I think you just like to read yours.

 

1. Yes, I liked the Olsen pick./ I wasn't creaming for it, but I was very happay and still am very happy. He is our FUTURE at the position.

2. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a horrible movie...too much Pitt. Get the one called Gia I think...much better.

3. You are arguing semantics... I do not hate on Olsen in the least. Thinking he could possibly be injured is maybe being negative, but not hating. Please get your terminology straight. That is somehow out of the realm of discussion? If he hadn't missed a single minute, I'd say you have something there. But he DID MISS TIME FOR INJURY! History does tend to repeat itself unfortunately. Again, my reasons are numerous, and one single items does not necessarily justify the signing. It's the comination of all of them that do. Apparently you don't think so.

4. Yep, Clark will be the back-up this season regardless if he did or did not re-sign. But be re-signing, he's now the back up for more years. I like it, you don't.

5. You argue his worth MAY be lower next year than today, but there is no quaranteee of that either.

6. Strike while the iron is hot...is just an expression. And while Clark has a good year, the team did not. The deisre to play here could be waning...so since he's on board at the moment, why not sweeten the deal a bit and extend now? The Econ 101 lesson was interesting and all. And in general I agree. However, in this case, the stock rose only a grand total of a small amount...and I'm betting it doesn't go down much. You seem to think it'll plummet. I'm hedging. I also think it could rise...or more correctly, I think the Bears stock could plummet making it less desirable to attract players.

7. We can argue whether you've like the picks, signing's, trades Angelo's made all day long. I'm not a super fan of every move. But, he has kept this team in a financially good spot and hasn't been fined by the NFL for shady dealings. I call that managing the cap. Manging the team, is a different arguement. And besides, as you mentioned, this element is off-topic. ...and for the record, as far as managing, he gets a C- from me.

8. I noticed your backhand, and while it's nice we keep retaining him...it's even nicer for him if we extend him. You tend to catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Brown, Miller and Moose were "leaders". However, Brown (I'm assuming you mean Rueben) and Miller got old and hurt. You can't fault their departure. Moose played his role and outwore his welcome. I venture to say he wasn't much of a leader last season. Who really knows about lyoaty, respect,etc...it could all be a smokescreen. I think, as I mentioned, all this plays a part. How much of a part of the whole, we'll never truly know.

9. If I didn't think it worthy to discuss I would bring it up... I suppose I was just frustrated in going around in circles a bit... Sorry about that.

 

In the end, I too want Olsen on the field more! But as you mentioned, Clark would have been here anyway...so with Clark in hand, it doesn't open any more space for Olsen. I think the problem is all on the coaching staff. And I'm not sure what can be done. I fear we will see pretty much the same this season as we saw last. But with guys signed longer, if there's a new regime, they'd be around. I guess my fear is an exodus of good players if we have another bad season...which I think is probable. I just don't trust our coaches anymore.

 

Oh Madman, how shall I begin.

While I do not dislike him, I do find it humerous how so many who screamed for us to draft a TE to replace him for the last two years suddenly want to walk down the isle with him.

Damn. And I just watched her in Mr and Mrs Smith again. Damn she looks good in leather.

 

And now who is hating. You are saying Olsen will "quite probably" be injured because he had some minor injuries as a rookie?

No, you said, "Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot." My bad. It was mega, and not monster. And while you are not saying he will have a mega year, as it is part of your reasoning as to why we sign him now, I have to assume you support the idea of it happening. If you do NOT believe he will have a mega year, why sign him.

 

Yea, you list several reasons, but are you not standing by this one now? And I did address your other points. Besides the potential "mega year" argument, you gave....

 

- Olsen could be injured - Well, if he is, then you have Clark as a backup. Clark was under contract already, so I am not sure how this changes. Further, Clark can be injured. It goes both ways. But instead of Clark being injured in his final season, now he would be in the middle of a contract just signed.

 

- You say he (in 2009) could want more and could probably get more on the open market. This was one of my points. He would be a 32 year old average TE, and as I have argued, likely not coming off one of his better years. I argue his market in 2009 would be lower than it is today in 2008.

 

- You argued, "We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot." Frankly, I do not understand this. That is what his agent was likely thinking, but not really the thinking of most GMs. Most GMs don't want to extend their players after a "hot" season. That is like watching a stock rise, and when it hits a high, saying you want to buy now since it is so hot. Most GMs like to buy low and sell high, not buy high and sell low.

 

- You said, "Angel's always managed the cap rather well". Now your just trying to pick a fight. This would have to become a new thread, and would get my # of posts up into the thousands real quickly.

 

- Your final point is the loyalty issue. While it was a backhand, it was also addressed when I noted that we showed tons of loyalty by not cutting him after consecutive 24 catch seasons. Yes, I understand that you show loyalty to team leaders. On the other hand, I was under the impression Brown, Miller and Moose were all considered leaders. Weren't two of them team captains? I am not saying we should have cut Clark, but I question how much this was about showing respect.

Our methodology on what we should do in the draft and FA has no impact on what Angelo actually does. Does that mean we should not discuss it? Honestly, I have never understood this logic. My screaming at the TV does not motivate the players, but that doesn't stop me, nor I bet you. I said before, this is not a big deal. I am not a fan of the move, but so what. It's not like we are talking big money. My issue is in the logic of moves. My issue is that, while I like Clark, I want Olsen on the field, and I fear this moves hurts that.

[Mongo3451]

This is a good signing for several reasons:

 

1) Locker room/character guy.

2) He was inexpensive. About 5mil/yr less than Dallas Clark. It makes, especially with our WR situation

3) 2 TE set is back in play. Let's not forget that Olsen was hurt much of the year, making it difficult to practice many 2 TE looks let alone play it.

4) Valuable insurance in a position of need. Who cares if it takes away from Olsen's production as long as the TE position as a whole is productive.

5) He's still a good football player, period.

6) If you want to win in the NFL, you lock up your offensive talent if you can. Don't be surprised if Berrian signs soon.

7) It just makes NFO wrong and he hates it.

 

Negatives are:

 

1) You may overspend for a player becoming obsolete.

2) You may overspend for a position you are not going to fully utilize.

3) Potentially takes money from the FA pool.

 

The known fact is; the team obviously values Dez and has plans for him.

[Pixote]

Let's not forget that Dez Clark is considered a stud blocker and with the way our OL performed last year and our need to revamp that unit I am happy we kept Dez around for that reason as well as his being very willing to help tutor G Olsen. With us revamping our receiving corps, I can only assume our TEs may play a bigger part in our passing game as well so having two solid receiving TEs will certainly be of benefit to the Bears as well. I can not see why anyone would think this is not a good solid contract extension. He earned it and we need him to stick around.

[madlithuanian]

Well said Mongo!

 

 

This is a good signing for several reasons:

 

1) Locker room/character guy.

2) He was inexpensive. About 5mil/yr less than Dallas Clark. It makes, especially with our WR situation

3) 2 TE set is back in play. Let's not forget that Olsen was hurt much of the year, making it difficult to practice many 2 TE looks let alone play it.

4) Valuable insurance in a position of need. Who cares if it takes away from Olsen's production as long as the TE position as a whole is productive.

5) He's still a good football player, period.

6) If you want to win in the NFL, you lock up your offensive talent if you can. Don't be surprised if Berrian signs soon.

7) It just makes NFO wrong and he hates it.

 

Negatives are:

 

1) You may overspend for a player becoming obsolete.

2) You may overspend for a position you are not going to fully utilize.

3) Potentially takes money from the FA pool.

 

The known fact is; the team obviously values Dez and has plans for him.

[Connorbear]

Let's not forget that Dez Clark is considered a stud blocker and with the way our OL performed last year and our need to revamp that unit I am happy we kept Dez around for that reason as well as his being very willing to help tutor G Olsen. With us revamping our receiving corps, I can only assume our TEs may play a bigger part in our passing game as well so having two solid receiving TEs will certainly be of benefit to the Bears as well. I can not see why anyone would think this is not a good solid contract extension. He earned it and we need him to stick around.

I remember him blocking 2 guys on 1 play in the Saints playoff game. He is an all around TE who is a leader on this team. This was an outstanding move.

 

Peace