nfoligno Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'm sure there have been some, but who have we lost because we couldn't afford to re-sign them, or wouldn't shell out to do so? Everyone was up in arms about Briggs a few years ago. The Bears tried to sign him early, but he wouldn't do it. They tried again just before FA. Made a sound offer, but he turned it down. He felt he was worth so much more. Seems his market was not as high as he thought, and finally he returned to the team he said he would never play for again to take whatever they offered. Kreutz was set to hit FA a few years back, when he was still playing at a high level and considered one of the top centers in the league. Everyone moaned about how he would be gone if he hit FA because we would never spend the money to match. Well, Miami made a very nice offer, and we matched it. This past year, he wanted X, we offered Y, and let him walk. I don't hear many crying over that. How about Bernard Berrian. He wanted more than we were willing to give him. He went to Minny. I remember some saying the Bears were cheap, but most felt Minny offered too much. Does anyone feel he earned his new contract? Heck, has he earned the deal we would have given him? It's not a new thing where a team sets a players value at X, while the player believes his value is Y. But I'm not sure how many examples can be pointed to where we lost a player, and regretted it, because we weren't willing to pay him what he felt he was worth. Seems like either the player over-estimated his value and returned, or left and never lived up the money he got. Am I missing any examples? I knock this managment plenty, but one thing they have always done well is in the area of contracts. We sign our rookies early, and for fair deals with minimal controversy. We re-up many of our talented players early on, avoiding FA, and reaping down the road salary cap benefits. So for all those who are screaming we have to pay Forte whatever he wants now, I think we need to take a step back. I'm still not sure he will find the market as great as he thinks, but even if he does, I'm not sure we lose him. I think maybe the biggest hangup I have is, Forte is demanding a contract at FA market value. The whole reason to lock up a player early is to sort of get a break on that value. He is signing early, thus should take a little off what he would get if he were a FA. If his demand is FA market value, why sign him early? What is the benefit to the team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Wouldn't you say based on all that, that the expectation would be the same? Or would you say, it's always happened, so aren't they due for it not happening once? Forte is of course going to ask for market value, because he knows the first offere from the team will be a lowball one. I just don't like JA saying that there will be no negotiations. There should be. (FYI - Brigg's situation is completely different...) If we tag him, does he not have to report until week 10? I'm honestly not sure how the tag works after this last labor deal... I see it at 70/30. I think 70% he'll continue to be a Bear. The 30 will grow depending on how the season plays out... I'm sure there have been some, but who have we lost because we couldn't afford to re-sign them, or wouldn't shell out to do so? Everyone was up in arms about Briggs a few years ago. The Bears tried to sign him early, but he wouldn't do it. They tried again just before FA. Made a sound offer, but he turned it down. He felt he was worth so much more. Seems his market was not as high as he thought, and finally he returned to the team he said he would never play for again to take whatever they offered. Kreutz was set to hit FA a few years back, when he was still playing at a high level and considered one of the top centers in the league. Everyone moaned about how he would be gone if he hit FA because we would never spend the money to match. Well, Miami made a very nice offer, and we matched it. This past year, he wanted X, we offered Y, and let him walk. I don't hear many crying over that. How about Bernard Berrian. He wanted more than we were willing to give him. He went to Minny. I remember some saying the Bears were cheap, but most felt Minny offered too much. Does anyone feel he earned his new contract? Heck, has he earned the deal we would have given him? It's not a new thing where a team sets a players value at X, while the player believes his value is Y. But I'm not sure how many examples can be pointed to where we lost a player, and regretted it, because we weren't willing to pay him what he felt he was worth. Seems like either the player over-estimated his value and returned, or left and never lived up the money he got. Am I missing any examples? I knock this managment plenty, but one thing they have always done well is in the area of contracts. We sign our rookies early, and for fair deals with minimal controversy. We re-up many of our talented players early on, avoiding FA, and reaping down the road salary cap benefits. So for all those who are screaming we have to pay Forte whatever he wants now, I think we need to take a step back. I'm still not sure he will find the market as great as he thinks, but even if he does, I'm not sure we lose him. I think maybe the biggest hangup I have is, Forte is demanding a contract at FA market value. The whole reason to lock up a player early is to sort of get a break on that value. He is signing early, thus should take a little off what he would get if he were a FA. If his demand is FA market value, why sign him early? What is the benefit to the team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Wouldn't you say based on all that, that the expectation would be the same? Or would you say, it's always happened, so aren't they due for it not happening once? Forte is of course going to ask for market value, because he knows the first offere from the team will be a lowball one. I just don't like JA saying that there will be no negotiations. There should be. (FYI - Brigg's situation is completely different...) If we tag him, does he not have to report until week 10? I'm honestly not sure how the tag works after this last labor deal... I see it at 70/30. I think 70% he'll continue to be a Bear. The 30 will grow depending on how the season plays out... In the last labor deal, the fines for holding out were raised significantly. The "Report by week 10" is so that you get to count that season as service time, otherwise, for example, the cost of tagging the player again would not increase. If Forte were to be tagged and then hold out, he would be walking away from something like $7-$8 million, depending on the actual tag numbers next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 thanks for the info. In the last labor deal, the fines for holding out were raised significantly. The "Report by week 10" is so that you get to count that season as service time, otherwise, for example, the cost of tagging the player again would not increase. If Forte were to be tagged and then hold out, he would be walking away from something like $7-$8 million, depending on the actual tag numbers next year. 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.