2026 Chicago Bears Offseason Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

8 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So if the bears are broke or simply the McCaskey’s don’t want to spend the money, really what can Piles do? 

Draft a lot better than he has to date 

[Rcal10]

21 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Draft a lot better than he has to date 

Of late, the Bears draft was voted the best in the NFL. And the discussion was about the off season. 

[jersey cubs fan]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Of late, the Bears draft was voted the best in the NFL. And the discussion was about the off season. 

There’s a vote? 
 

the question of what can he do if they bears don’t have enough cash to negate the cap issues is draft better 

 

that is what he has to do. He’s done a very poor job drafting as Bears GM which is why the team still has so many holes this long into his tenure. He did a good job fortifying the O line with expensive veterans last year but that isn’t a style of roster building that can last. The only answer is to surround your QB with high end drafted talent. That’s all he can do now. 

[Wilson A2000]

Bleacher Nation Bears says the Bears don’t have the money to pay Maxx Crosby even if they could trade for him. Right now they have $6 million in cap space left. But the article pointed to another financial issue: cash flow with the team itself. The Bears don’t have enough liquidity to pay star players or meet payroll? What?

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, jersey cubs fan said:

There’s a vote? 
 

the question of what can he do if they bears don’t have enough cash to negate the cap issues is draft better 

 

that is what he has to do. He’s done a very poor job drafting as Bears GM which is why the team still has so many holes this long into his tenure. He did a good job fortifying the O line with expensive veterans last year but that isn’t a style of roster building that can last. The only answer is to surround your QB with high end drafted talent. That’s all he can do now. 

Actually the topic was complaining about the off season and how it didn’t make the Bears better. So the answer to draft better doesn’t pertain to that discussion. I do agree they need to draft better. But last year they did have a very good draft. Maybe that becomes the norm with a new staff giving input. 
The only way the off season could have been good is if the Bears did restructure deals. But the FO doesn’t really have control over that if ownership is not willing to do it, or if they are broke. And really all that does it push the money problems down the road to, possibly, when they have to work on a contract for Caleb.
So all Poles can do is work with what he has. And while I am not happy about not getting a major upgrade anywhere, I do think they got guys they, at least, feel are better than what they had. With the price of what guys they lost went for, if the Bears really wanted them they could have had them. So they must think they upgraded, defensively. 

[jersey cubs fan]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Actually the topic was complaining about the off season and how it didn’t make the Bears better. So the answer to draft better doesn’t pertain to that discussion. I do agree they need to draft better. But last year they did have a very good draft. Maybe that becomes the norm with a new staff giving input. 
The only way the off season could have been good is if the Bears did restructure deals. But the FO doesn’t really have control over that if ownership is not willing to do it, or if they are broke. And really all that does it push the money problems down the road to, possibly, when they have to work on a contract for Caleb.
So all Poles can do is work with what he has. And while I am not happy about not getting a major upgrade anywhere, I do think they got guys they, at least, feel are better than what they had. With the price of what guys they lost went for, if the Bears really wanted them they could have had them. So they must think they upgraded, defensively. 

The draft is in the offseason 

[Rcal10]

48 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

The draft is in the offseason 

But the ‘26 draft hasn’t happened yet. Hard to complain about it until it happens. We are talking about the off season to this point. 

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

5 hours ago, Wilson A2000 said:

Bleacher Nation Bears says the Bears don’t have the money to pay Maxx Crosby even if they could trade for him. Right now they have $6 million in cap space left. But the article pointed to another financial issue: cash flow with the team itself. The Bears don’t have enough liquidity to pay star players or meet payroll? What?

I don't know if this is true about the bears, but I remember hearing something like this about the Bengals a year or so ago when the topic of paying Jamar Chase came up.  The reporter was saying it was hard for a team like the Bengals (whose owners aren't as rich as other owners) to sign big contracts because when you give a contract with guaranteed money, you have to put the guaranteed money in an escrow account.  So in a player like Chase's case, whose contract had 112 million in guaranteed money, the owner has to have the liquidity to pay out 112 million at the time of signing, even if it will be paid to the player over a number of years. Maybe that is what they were referring to.  Obviously the bears owners, like the Bengals, aren't as rich as many of the other team owners since their wealth has come from the team and not some outside source, but I have never heard that they don't have the money to do these things before. 

[Rex Buckingham]

Schefter was saying the same thing yesterday about them not having the cash, and then Bill Z mentioned extensions for Caleb and Wright playing a part in that, since they will have lots of guaranteed money that will have to be accounted for in those deals

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, PosterToBeNamedLater said:

I don't know if this is true about the bears, but I remember hearing something like this about the Bengals a year or so ago when the topic of paying Jamar Chase came up.  The reporter was saying it was hard for a team like the Bengals (whose owners aren't as rich as other owners) to sign big contracts because when you give a contract with guaranteed money, you have to put the guaranteed money in an escrow account.  So in a player like Chase's case, whose contract had 112 million in guaranteed money, the owner has to have the liquidity to pay out 112 million at the time of signing, even if it will be paid to the player over a number of years. Maybe that is what they were referring to.  Obviously the bears owners, like the Bengals, aren't as rich as many of the other team owners since their wealth has come from the team and not some outside source, but I have never heard that they don't have the money to do these things before. 

I always knew that the Mccaskeys were “cheap” (poor) but that explains how it impacts the on field product. What a shame. How much of their tight budget is related to stashing away $ on a new stadium?

Edited March 14 by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

I see the Bears stagnating next season. It’s one of either the front office realizing that this team is multiple players away, and need an infusion of cost controlled young defensive talent and or budgetary constraints set by ownership. It seems odd that Poles would offer picks to Vegas in the first place if the Caleb and Wright extensions were at all a consideration. No upfront money or the fear of upfront money for a possible extension? Neither?

Edited March 14 by Geographyhater8888

[WrigleyField 22]

16 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Doesn’t restructuring deals just kick the can down the road for payroll issues later? Like when they need to sign Caleb and Rome, Loveland and Burden. Besides that, the FO doesn’t control the purse strings. So if the bears are broke or simply the McCaskey’s don’t want to spend the money, really what can Piles do? 

Yes, restructuring pushes cap hits into the future. 

But this is a absolutely worthless concern to have without any added context. 

1. How much dead money do they have pushed into future? 

2. How much guaranteed money do they have in the future? 

3. How many roster spots / players under contract do they have into the future? 

4. Do they have a full assortment of future draft picks? 

5. What is their current CASH outlay? 

 

These are all the things you'd have to ask before determining if a restructure money is advisable or not. 

 

The median NFL team overspends the cap by around 6% and that level of overspending is very sustainable over longer timelines. Perhaps up to 10% over is as well.  Over a 4-5 year timeline a 20% may even be accomplished but carries a bit more risk.

 

Bears were in that 6-10% overage range the past 2 years. But the 3 years before that they were like 10% UNDER. 

 

If they make no more significant signings I'd estimate them at like 10% under this year as well, putting them just slightly above a 1:1 cash to cap 3 year cycle (the CBA dictates at least 90% for each team over these 3 year cycles). 

 

So very technically speaking they are being cap responsible, but there's a 5% + edge they aren't taking advantage of long term if that's how they spend. 

 

Does that matter? The Chiefs would say no, as they are perpetually low spenders.  So it's not the only thing that matters, but given Poles track record I'd like that extra 5%+ spending nudge to get more room for error. 

Edited March 14 by WrigleyField 22

[We Got The Whole 9]

I guess it does make sense why they wanted Crosby and werent serious about Hendricksen. Crosby is just a cap hit, no up front money. 

 

Bears and Cubs are one and the same lol

[Soul]

FWIW reading the comments on that article nearly everyone is saying Schefty was talking about cap space.

I didn’t read it that way.  When you say the team is “broke” that doesn’t scream cap space to me but anyway, there was a ton of backlash on the article.

Edited March 14 by Soul
Added my 2 cents

[WrigleyField 22]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I always knew that the Mccaskeys were “cheap” (poor) but that explains how it impacts the on field product. What a shame. How much of their tight budget is related to stashing away $ on a new stadium?

Throughout the George McCaskey era they didn't show real signs of cheapness. 

 

That changed when Poles came in 2022. However, that timeline is also when they agreed to purchase Arlington, closing in 2023. 

 

So distinguishing between Poles being cap conservative and Bears being cash poor due to the stadium isn't easy, though I think more signs point to Poles being conservative (take Ben Johnson for example of Bears not being cheap). 

Edited March 14 by WrigleyField 22

[Geographyhater8888]

21 hours ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Throughout the George McCaskey era they didn't show real signs of cheapness. 

 

That changed when Poles came in 2022. However, that timeline is also when they agreed to purchase Arlington, closing in 2023. 

 

So distinguishing between Poles being cap conservative and Bears being cash poor due to the stadium isn't easy, though I think more signs point to Poles being conservative (take Ben Johnson for example of Bears not being cheap). 

Jerry reinsdorf is cheap. McCaskey’s have only one primary source of income. Shefter wasn’t specific by what he meant by “broke”. I’ve always wondered if their limited cash affects their ability to fund scouting and analytics departments as well to the level of other owners.

Edited March 15 by Geographyhater8888

[jersey cubs fan]

5 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Jerry reinsdorf is cheap. McCaskey’s have only one source of income. Shefter wasn’t specific by what he meant by “broke”. I’ve always wondered is how their limited cash affects their ability to invest $ in scouting and analytics departments as well. 

The bears are obviously the primary source of income for this team. But they have been raking in hundreds of millions in profits every year, I guarantee they’ve established multiple other income sources over time. They aren’t tech billionaires, but they do have billionaire investors among their group. 

[WrigleyField 22]

2 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

The bears are obviously the primary source of income for this team. But they have been raking in hundreds of millions in profits every year, I guarantee they’ve established multiple other income sources over time. They aren’t tech billionaires, but they do have billionaire investors among their group. 

Yea. Even if the Bears are the vast majority of their wealth, they should be making handsome profits and we're probably talking about if they'll make like 20% or 25% returns 

[Wilson A2000]

22 hours ago, Soul said:

FWIW reading the comments on that article nearly everyone is saying Schefty was talking about cap space.

I didn’t read it that way.  When you say the team is “broke” that doesn’t scream cap space to me but anyway, there was a ton of backlash on the article.

I feel better now. Schefter could have given some more context. 

[Geographyhater8888]

10 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

I feel better now. Schefter could have given some more context. 

“Broke” is an odd way to phrase it unless those clips were edited to leave out important context. 

[Geographyhater8888]

On 3/14/2026 at 12:11 PM, jersey cubs fan said:

The bears are obviously the primary source of income for this team. But they have been raking in hundreds of millions in profits every year, I guarantee they’ve established multiple other income sources over time. They aren’t tech billionaires, but they do have billionaire investors among their group. 

Sure. They’re Beverly hillbillies. The question is more in regards to stashing away $ for a new stadium. There’s no way Mike Brown green lights Ryan Pace’s spending habits. Shefter’s tweet was in reference to the salary cap which is a relief?

Edited March 16 by Geographyhater8888

[Rex Buckingham]

Why would Schefter push that narrative in respect to the cap when everyone with a pulse knows the NFL cap is not real?

[jersey cubs fan]

19 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Why would Schefter push that narrative in respect to the cap when everyone with a pulse knows the NFL cap is not real?

He was clearly referring to cash considerations more so than just the cap. 
Who pushed him that way or why he chose to phrase it that way is unclear but he obviously was not just referring to the cap. 

[CubinNY]

The McCaskey’s are the same as the Ricketts without the obvious political stench. They have all the money they need to run a 1st-class operation and pay for a brand-new stadium. They'd rather get someone else to pay for that. 

These owners are wealthy beyond our comprehension, but when they measure themselves against others wealthy beyond our comprehension, they aren't the wealthiest, as if that even matters from a practical standpoint. 

[Derwood]

You don’t get rich by spending your own money