WrigleyField 22

At only 3/27 too. I'd have easily gone up to 3/30. That should count as a Rd 5 comp debit for Bears 2023 comp pick. As it stands now though, Ogunjobi offsets that. But there are a lot of compelling non CFA FA the Bears can build their line with (though it'd be a little old).

Just end the games in ties.

Also unless you're just sitting out FA you aren't getting much younger than Ogunjobi. His deal will go through his age 30 season.

Also mark this down as a likely 4th round credit (negative) for the 2023 comp pick formula.

While we have no prior for Poles, I'm going to guess this will be a small year 1 cap hit. 12M signing bonus, 1.35 Y1 and 13M Y2 guaranteed? That's a 5.35 Y1 cap hit if no void years or 3.75 Y1 cap hit if 2 void years added.

That's a big number

In former Bears new, Trubisky is signing with the Steelers.

That's kind of a weird thing to say. I understand a path is being laid, but they aren't literally closer to a Super Bowl than they were a few days ago (except for the fact the earth has completed another rotation and there's one less day until the next SB).

So apparently Cowboys looking for a third to trade Cooper. That's a somewhat compelling proposition.

No one had to say that

Trevathan and Cohen probably. I feel like would have kept Cohen (unless the medical reports are dire) because he doesn't understand or care about the concept of sunk cost Pace wasn't really bad about walking from sunk costs and mistakes. There were a couple bad examples of it on a player level (and generally I guess the team level), but he cut mistakes loose pretty quickly IMO and often salvaged something.

I don't even know it was necessarily about that. They had $47Mil cap hit in 2022 tied to the DE position. That's just an irresponsible amount. Having Gipson there certainly helped make the decision easier. But I think it simply came down to wanting to take resources from the defense and put them toward the offense, and the fact that they had limited draft capital. Mack was the best, most realistic player to get them much need draft capital and it just so happened that he was also at the most expensive position on the roster with the best depth. Yep. Bears were like a home theater with 3 big screens and no surround sound system. Gotta at least see the whole plan come together. Clearly everything is on the table.

Agreed. I wasn't expecting a 1st. I was hopeful for 2023 3rd or 2022 4th. I don't think Poles got fleeced, but this I'm at a "this could work out" mindset than thinking it was a slam dunk.

My baseline before was the Bears should hand out 50M of long term AAV in each of 2022 and 2023, but you can basically bump that to at least 60M and maybe up to 70M each year now.

They certainly didn't need cap help to get a Roquan extension done. But still, it's a now 63M cap hole over 3 years that just opened. Lots of new ways you could spend that. Quinn trade could free up another 3/40, but as some point you reach a diminishing rerun of FA spend capacity and just hand out dumb deals cuz you have nothing else to do.

Holy horsefeathers. Hope it's a damn haul.

Well there is a cash floor of 90% (over either 3 or 4 year periods). But the ability for a team to overspend is there and if enough teams did overspend over a long enough time then eventually the future year cap growths would be impacted because provisions exist to basically claw back or catch up any year where the revenue split target isn't met. In my non-expert mind this discussion tells me that it’s mostly a mirage that teams might be hampered by cap issues. But I hear that kind of talk a lot. Not too long ago someone here seemed convinced that the Packers wouldn’t be able to keep Rodgers. Yet here we are, and with Adams back too. Oh yea, the cap is a great excuse to not spend money for owners/GMs. But reality is there's almost always a way to figure things out.

You mean the one that derwood came up with and promoted only to get bounced in the first round? (I think it was derwood. Sorry if I’m wrong but if it wasn’t it sounds like a derwood thing) Oh, it was definitely me, and I DEFINITELY lost in the opening round. I think vance won? Sounds right. There was also the hot women tournament that I believe Vance also pushed the limits on as far as board rules. Unclear if winning the latter was a result of the former campaign.

The point of the cap is to make sure the player share of revenue is hit. It's really not about competetive balance or whatever. Some teams are eventually gonna be takers and others not, and they'll reallocate the bucket. Wouldn't that be a salary floor then? Or is it to protect the owners from going over the player share of revenue? Well there is a cash floor of 90% (over either 3 or 4 year periods). But the ability for a team to overspend is there and if enough teams did overspend over a long enough time then eventually the future year cap growths would be impacted because provisions exist to basically claw back or catch up any year where the revenue split target isn't met.

The point of the cap is to make sure the player share of revenue is hit. It's really not about competetive balance or whatever. Some teams are eventually gonna be takers and others not, and they'll reallocate the bucket. The point of the cap is to suppress spending. The ability to maneuver around it is just a mechanism to allow the team that want to win to keep their most popular players and it does not need to be fixed. We don't need added hurdles to owners spending. Yes, broadly speaking the point of having a revenue share is to suppress spending. I think even in the uncapped year, the NFL penalized two teams after the fact for basically treating it like the uncapped year it was.

His deal actually creates cap space for them. I get how that works, but damn doesn't seem right to me. To hell with it, he sucks in the playoffs hopefully that continues. He watched both Brady and Stafford move on and win Super Bowls. But he sticks around in GB. Hope it blows up in his COVID-denying face. I've said this before but the salary cap is an absolute joke and needs to be fixed. If you don't want a salary cap then fine get rid of it. But you have teams like the Saints that are going to defer their contracts until an asteroid hits the earth and destroys all life on the planet. Whats the point if you can just continue to circumvent the cap? The point of the cap is to make sure the player share of revenue is hit. It's really not about competetive balance or whatever. Some teams are eventually gonna be takers and others not, and they'll reallocate the bucket.

He's denying the details are correct. Maybe that is the true deal.

Pretty big get:

The Chicago Audible podcast which I listen to on YouTube pretty faithfully is a part of this group now. IDK if I'll still have free access to it, but I would kinda miss it. But in general, I'm with you. Got rid of cable probably 10 years ago and the last 6-7 years had streaming services. Started with Netflix (who keeps raising their prices), then to Hulu, Disney+, ESPN+/Insider, Discovery+, Paramount, Amazon, Peacock, HBOMax, was doing Sling for live TV and with all the services we had + internet, it was costing us more than cable. So, changed my internet provider and added regular cable and dropped most of the streaming services (even Netflix). Saving us so much money. I'd be more apt to pay $56 and be done w/ it vs. another money nickel and dime that I gotta keep track of. Yeah the constant adding of things behind a paywall sucks. They deserve to get paid so ultimately I'm ok with it, but its forced me to make undesirable choices and cutting out things I don't want to. Like even Desipio...have been reading their website since 2003 but Andy recently launched a paid newsletter for all his writings. For whatever reason I drew the line there, just couldn't afford another niche paid site. I'm happy they are making money but sucks that there's so many paid services that I cant keep track of them all without sifting through my credit card statement. I almost switched back to cable recently but then I realized 95% of the non-sports TV I watch is streaming. Wish all these companies could get on board with a company that bundles everything up in one neat monthly fee (like cable!) but that defeats the purpose of why they launched their standalone streaming services. For journalism I really want someone to launch some sort of per article service where I don't have to make a new monthly subscription just to read one interesting sounding article behind a pay wall. Like Spotify for journalism. Give me like 30 articles a month for a fixed fee from a wide brand of papers and then after that I could spend some de minimis amount per article. Oh that's interesting headline. 4 cents? Sure I'll open that article. Ooh a premium long form article for a dollar. Okay I really love that writer/topic, sure.

I've seen reporting that 12 teams gets MLB an extra 85 million, and 14 teams gets an additional 15 million on top of that. So owners are going through all of this when their big incentive is less than 4 million/team and the players have already agreed to ~3 million of that incremental revenue. On a related note, I think they should rename the regular season as 'The Playoffs.' And call the playoffs 'The Series of World Series.' And call the World Series "the Real World Series from Amazon.com" Unironically, but let's go full Euro basketball where there's the league play and then World Series League of the top 16, but in a 4 game round Robin followed by a 4 team playoff. Expand the league play to include even more teams, maybe with a foreign based league. For the bottom whatever teams they can loan out their veteran players annually to the World Series League and then play a minor league barnstorm schedule with any pre arb player during the WSL (this would be like mid July to Sept?) Throw in a World Baseball Classic semi annually. The World Series will just be a fun little summer classic.