I agree. And Poles will extend good veterans within the team budget. If a player wants more money that the Bears feel he is worth to the Bears, then they will be disciplined enough to let that player go. As fans we often think it's just a bit of overpay for players, but the cumulative effect of not living within a budget hurts the future of the team. Of course the key will be keeping a healthy inflow of quality draft talent to backfill for players leaving. The stronger that inflow, the better to sustain long-term winning here. I know that seems like football 101 stuff, but so many Bears teams have failed to do it. It sounds like Poles (with Cunningham) have installed a great infrastructure to support player evaluation now. Poles seems to be a thoughtful guy. More planning and discipline than being reactionary and emotional. Definitely a more delayed gratification guy, willing to take a longer term perspective of things. LOL, of course that is a polar-opposite to most fans who - want it all, and want it now :-)
Take Monty as an example. Lions are paying him $6 million, and the Bears are paying Foreman $3 million. That’s a 50% savings. Poles doesn’t care about the market value Roquan or Monty has for other teams. Don’t expect any Bear to get an extension, unless he agrees to play for the $$$ value Poles assigns to that position, which may be considerably less than what the guy can get in the open market.
Maybe we'll begin to get meaningful comp picks like the Pats have for years now. This year there were 37 comp picks handed out - 49ers got 7 and of those they got three, 3rd round picks. Rams cleaned up too.
Take Monty as an example. Lions are paying him $6 million, and the Bears are paying Foreman $3 million. That’s a 50% savings. Poles doesn’t care about the market value Roquan or Monty has for other teams. Don’t expect any Bear to get an extension, unless he agrees to play for the $$$ value Poles assigns to that position, which may be considerably less than what the guy can get in the open market.
Maybe we'll begin to get meaningful comp picks like the Pats have for years now. This year there were 37 comp picks handed out - 49ers got 7 and of those they got three, 3rd round picks. Rams cleaned up too.
This is the best numerical representation of what Poles did in 2022...
It is a relational database, so you can click on the "returning" column to see how radical Poles went with his "rebuild". There are other teams with veterans, etc., but nobody did cuts/trades anywhere close Poles, nor replaced them with as many guys earning under $1 million (rookies and lost dogs). This is the "hole" I keep referring to. It basically means that he has to replace a TON of players, and can't do nearly all of it with the 10 guys he will pick up in the draft. That barely scratches the surface. That's why he had to go for quantity instead of quality in free agency. I wanted 5 blue-chip guys averaging about $15M (Taylor, McGlinchey, Jones, Hargrave, etc.). MP thought this was crazy, and Poles would get only 2 or 3 in free agency. Instead, got double even what I had, and WAY under $15M/yr. He has only one big contract, and that's for a linebacker.
Don't expect any of our veteran players to resign this year, unless it is for less than market value. Looking forward, the Bears will have more roster turnover than other teams. That will keep the costs/risks/ages per player lower, but high turnover has both positive and negative consequences.
Maybe we'll begin to get meaningful comp picks like the Pats have for years now. This year there were 37 comp picks handed out - 49ers got 7 and of those they got three, 3rd round picks. Rams cleaned up too.
Don't expect any of our veteran players to resign this year, unless it is for less than market value. Looking forward, the Bears will have more roster turnover than other teams. That will keep the costs/risks/ages per player lower, but high turnover has both positive and negative consequences.
My guess is that Poles will be selective and re-sign some veterans at market value but not others. Maybe one example is Montgomery. RB's are so replaceable in the NFL. Fields on the other hand will get his payday if he proves worthy of it. And he still has to prove himself. He hasn't earned it yet, obviously. But while RB's at Monty's level (non elite), are a easy to replace, franchise QB's are like unicorns. If you have one of those you'd better keep that guy.
Don't expect any of our veteran players to resign this year, unless it is for less than market value. Looking forward, the Bears will have more roster turnover than other teams. That will keep the costs/risks/ages per player lower, but high turnover has both positive and negative consequences.
I'll revise that just a bit for myself to say I don't believe those he offers extensions to will set the market. He'll make offers within the market as he did with Roquan and with a FA like McGlinchey but for the most part it will be a hard black line. I agree with that approach.
No one, and I do mean no one has outplayed their deals so firmly that they are entitled to become the highest paid ____________ at whatever position they play. If money and the recognition of having set the market is their sole incentive they'll become FA in 2023. If however they can appreciate being part of an ascending team acquiring the talent needed to compete for a championship they'll receive a fair offer to stay on as Bears. That's how Poles seem to operate.
Post by malagabears on Mar 19, 2023 1:33:36 GMT -6
My take is he will look at all 3 of Kmet, Mooney, & Johnson for extensions but will start to try & lock up Kmet first. I'm guessing just on the overall performances last year he might view Kmet as the key piece to extend. That doesn't take away from the solid but not necessarily spectacular stuff we saw from both Johnson & Mooney. They missed 6 & 5 games respectively which might hurt their stock slightly in negotiations. Johnson also hasn't been the ballhawk a true # 1 CB needs to be which might factor into a discount. Good problems to have.
Post by malagabears on Mar 19, 2023 4:52:54 GMT -6
Further to this, I'd wonder if Kmet would take a team friendly contract like 4/32 or 4/36M with 20M guaranteed plus 12.5M signing bonus and a probable out in 2025. That way he gets some decent $$ upfront (Say 16M) & we have an out in 2 years with little dead money (5M).
Don't expect any of our veteran players to resign this year, unless it is for less than market value. Looking forward, the Bears will have more roster turnover than other teams. That will keep the costs/risks/ages per player lower, but high turnover has both positive and negative consequences.
I'll revise that just a bit for myself to say I don't believe those he offers extensions to will set the market. He'll make offers within the market as he did with Roquan and with a FA like McGlinchey but for the most part it will be a hard black line. I agree with that approach.
No one, and I do mean no one has outplayed their deals so firmly that they are entitled to become the highest paid ____________ at whatever position they play. If money and the recognition of having set the market is their sole incentive they'll become FA in 2023. If however they can appreciate being part of an ascending team acquiring the talent needed to compete for a championship they'll receive a fair offer to stay on as Bears. That's how Poles seem to operate.
None of these players are good enough to merit franchise tag money. Poles will offer them considerably less based more on his personal $$$ value he assigns to the position they play as much, or more, than their market value based on their playing ability. I gave Monty as an example, but could have also used Smith. PFF and other sources estimated that Money's market value was $7M, which turned out to be about right (Lions payed him $6M). He wanted to stay with the Bears, so I am sure Poles could have kept him for $6M, or maybe even a little less. Poles is paying Foreman $3M. If you figure Foreman's playing ability is close to Monty's, that takes that element out of the equation, so it comes down to Poles thing he said about Smith "his position is not worth $20M" (even though the market proved otherwise). So, based on all this, I estimate he offered Monty somewhere between $3M to $6M, and got a guy (Foreman) who matches Poles number on the value of the position. Until proven otherwise, I anticipate Poles will follow the same approach with other players. Johnson might be the only one re-signed, because Poles obviously places high value on the CB position (having spent his first two draft picks on DBs).
Don't expect any of our veteran players to resign this year, unless it is for less than market value. Looking forward, the Bears will have more roster turnover than other teams. That will keep the costs/risks/ages per player lower, but high turnover has both positive and negative consequences.
My guess is that Poles will be selective and re-sign some veterans at market value but not others. Maybe one example is Montgomery. RB's are so replaceable in the NFL. Fields on the other hand will get his payday if he proves worthy of it. And he still has to prove himself. He hasn't earned it yet, obviously. But while RB's at Monty's level (non elite), are a easy to replace, franchise QB's are like unicorns. If you have one of those you'd better keep that guy.
Unless Fields blows up, Poles will tag him. But it would be contrary to his modus operandi to offer these players market value, and they will hold out like Monty and Smith did, UNLESS they take the conservative “bird in hand” approach and accept Poles offer to lock up a contract they consider acceptably close to what they can get on the open market. They would also be protecting themselves from the risk of major injury this season damaging their market value.
I would be very surprised if all three; Kmet, Johnson, and Mooney did not agree to extensions. If there is one of the three that may be more questionable than the other two I would say it would be Mooney. He's a productive WR but not a game changer so he should remain affordable.
I would be very surprised if all three; Kmet, Johnson, and Mooney did not agree to extensions. If there is one of the three that may be more questionable than the other two I would say it would be Mooney. He's a productive WR but not a game changer so he should remain affordable.
All are better than average, but they’re also all replaceable. I’m hopeful they don’t overestimate their value.