Bears Could Be Handcuffed by Benson's Cap Hit
by Doctor Chicago on May 7, 2008 1:08 PM CDT
24 comments
The general consensus among Windy City Gridiron readers and most Bears fans is that Cedric Benson should be cut for his humiliations both on and off the field. However, as Brad Biggs of the Chicago Sun-Times points out, sending Benson on the next boat out of Chicago would result in a harsh cap hit for the team.
Benson’s salary-cap figure for 2008 is $3.335 million and if the Bears cut him before June 1 and do not exercise an option to spread the dead money over two seasons, the hit for this year would be roughly $6 million. That would be cutting a sizeable slice into the pie that’s meant to go to Tommie Harris, Devin Hester, Robbie Gould and others in the form of longterm extensions.
If the Bears did a post-June 1 cut, or cut him now and had the money go on the books as a post-June 1 cut, they would still be on the books for more than $2.5 million this season when subtracting out his base pay of $820,000 for 2008.
Biggs goes on to say that even if the Bears release Benson based on his injuries, he would likely file a grievance and win, resulting in effectively paying Benson his salary without him even being on the team.
Like Biggs says, we need all the cap space we can get to lock up Harris and Hester to long-term deals, and Benson's cap hit would definitely complicate things and cause a financial ripple effect that could have a negative impact on signing other players. So although he'll probably get extremely limited playing time in 2008, we may be stuck with him.
0 recs |
24 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If we don't
want him it frees up a roster spot.
by mikebdot on May 7, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is sort of
why I put the ellipsis on the end of my original comment. You’re such a douche.
by mikebdot on May 7, 2008 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happened to
the 20 million in cap space everyone reported that we had. We couldn’t of given all of that way by cutting Moose, Arch, and Miller. Robby isn’t going to make more than 1-2 mil per year. That leaves quite a bit of money for Hester and Harris. They can designate a lot of that to signing bonus and then spread it out over several years and it won’t hurt this years cap too bad and the players get money now. i’m not sure this is a cap question mark. I think they still need him to back up Forte because they aren’t sure about Wolfe or Peterson. I like Petersons play personally but I guess I missed what they saw.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on May 7, 2008 2:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought the number
was down to like 15 million due to Briggs signing. That doesn’t leave much for Urlacher, Hester, Harris, and our draft picks (Williams and Forte specifically). And we probably won’t spend all our cap money anyway…
by mikebdot on May 7, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, thanks.
I forgot about draft picks and Briggs.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on May 7, 2008 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cap hit not as bad as Biggs makes
it out to be. If they cut him they actually save the 820K this year. His 3.335 is already being counted against the cap. They would however have about 3mil in dead cap money for next year though.
by MuleTrain on May 7, 2008 2:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i agree
we had like 30 million in cap room. we sighn 2 players and now we are in cap trouble…..doesent make sence.
by SuperBowlXX on May 8, 2008 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't understand cutting him at this point.
Are you really ready to run Wolfe and Peterson out there for 30-35% of the snaps? Do you think it’s a coincidence that the two rookie RB’s last year both got hurt? I think it’s quite telling that Peterson’s YPC was the exact same as Benson’s!!! If Forte gets hurt for any length of time, which there is an okay chance of, you’re kissing the season goodbye w/o Benson.
by tyger1147 on May 7, 2008 3:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I should have added...
...I’m actually somewhat indifferent about Benson himself at this point. I don’t mind if they cut him, but only if they pick up a viable No. 2 RB like Rhodes, Alexander (if he’d even accept that role to a rookie), McAllister, etc.
by tyger1147 on May 7, 2008 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i like AP
as a number 2 back. behind the right starting running back and a good line he could be a rather servicable runner. a forte/AP combo doesn’t really bother me too much.
and honestly, i don’t want to cut benson due to his lack of production thus far…my main concern is the leg that he had surgery on and wether or not he’ll ever resemble the guy he was in college.
by lopey986 on May 8, 2008 2:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forte/Peterson doesn't bother me either.
It’s essentially the same as Forte/Benson. It’s the inevitable injury to a rookie starting RB followed by a Peterson/Wolfe 1-2 punch that concerns me.
by tyger1147 on May 8, 2008 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Count me in the camp
that think’s it pretty damn stupid to cut him over this.
Sounds like cops on a power-trip….
Visit The NEW Cub Reporter (thecubreporter.com)
by thecubreporter on May 7, 2008 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Keep him
I am very excited about Forte, but who the hell knows about this guy. All we have heard is praise after a rookie mini camp, which means absolutely nothing. We need both of these guys as options and more than likely they will both see a lot of snaps this year.
by Ando on May 7, 2008 4:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Depth
Benson does better when he’s splitting time. He seems to be better when someone (Jones) had already worn down the defense. You need a lot of RB’s to make it through the year. I think the Bears should keep 4 backs on the roster. We only ever keep 1 FB anyway and AP is practically devoted to ST.
When they boo you, you know they mean you. George Halas
by allhailmark on May 7, 2008 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bears are a team of Many Chances
and Benson should get his then. Tank Johnson got what about 3 or 4 chances, Grossman is on his 4th sort of so really if the o-line is going to be improved and it would cap strap us to cut him, bring him back one last time.
by GallopingGhost on May 7, 2008 8:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cutting Benson - options?
Can someone please explain why the Bears could not cut Benson without pay/ or with reduced pay – IF -
- He actually gets charged with resisting arrest and some form of DUI?
- He either takes a plea deal or gets convicted of a crime?
- His Bears contract includes some reference to professional conduct, being a detriment to the team, or something similiar?
- He gets sanctioned by the NFL?
Everyone seems to feel that the Bears have no right to get any money back if he is actually guilty of this stuff. I cannot believe that his contract doesn’t include some protection for the team in case a player behaves stupidly…
I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve to be heard out, but IF he did it, he surely wasn’t helping his employer… or his reputation.
by modai on May 9, 2008 2:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If they cut him,
they will not be paying his salary. His salary is only $820 K for 2008. That is a pretty low figure for a RB and we need to the depth at that position anyway. It is not worth it to cut him because in a sense he is already received most of his pay in advance. He got his payout in the form of a signing bonus the day he agreed to play for the Chicago Bears. The Bears will not be able to get that money back. Not even the Falcons were able to recovering a signing bonus from Vick situation that was much worse. The players union has good lawyers who will fight for any player that a team tries to take back money from them.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on May 13, 2008 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Windy City Gridiron
Related FanShots on Windy City Gridiron
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
