I think they’re two different things, or rather, the way you get there are different. When I hear ownership is “cheap” I hear: the ownership refused to extend the money to use in payroll. When you have a GM who is leery and reticent to spend over the cap because of value reasons or to avoid being in cap hell (whether or not it’s a real thing or not), it’s a very different thing.
i don’t think the Bears ownership is insisting on the Bears payroll being under the cap for any reason. I think Poles is just Like That.
now you might say: ok they signed Poles BECAUSE they knew he’d underspend. I guess that’s a possibility in some way, but you don’t make any more money for being under the cap. That money largely has to go back to the players anyway.
Poles does it for strategic reasons. You might say, well, that’s dumb. And I agree.