Cutler Boosts Bears Ratings
by Adam T on Jun 1, 2009 12:38 PM CDT
Email
Print
FOX Sports has run a list with the top orginizations in football. The categories used were:
The Bears fall in at #15, bolstered by the Jay Cutler trade.
15. Chicago Bears
Final Score: 57.5Jay Cutler helped the Bears stock improve significantly. But before the blockbuster trade, the Chicago ownership could most certainly be described as frugal. Actually, Cutler raised the grade for quarterback (8.5), front office (6), owner (6), and intangibles (8) as the team's esteem is sky high after the Cutler deal.
10 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll never understand the "frugal" comments
the NFL is a salary cap league so spending is pretty much restricted anyway. The Bears are always among the first teams to have their draft picks signed, they’ve made several of their players among the highest paid at their positions, and rarely lose key players to free agency because of money. Bernard Berrian was a decision that most fans and media agreed with at the time for the type of player he was and the kind of money that the Vikings threw at him. I’m not saying I agree with all the moves they have made or where they’ve spent the money, but I don’t see them as frugal either. I actually think they’ve done a good job of working within the salary cap system. Would you rather have a team like the Redskins who spend huge amounts on “Superstars” that never fit into a cohesive group?
I think that label gets used
because we rarely ever pursue (at least publicly) big name superstars. As you pointed out, we certainly reward our own, but the fact that we are always under the cap and never have blockbuster trades (until Cutler), it gives people the idea of being cheap.
Be nice. Flag comments that you think are offensive. Use the "reply" button. Drink plenty of water. Compliment others. Rec comments and posts you like. Don't call people names. If you don't like someone's comment, attack the comment and not the commentor. Learn the difference in your/you're, then/than, to/too. Exercise. Relax. Stretch often. Find good in the world.
You're right, that is the perception
but after thinking about it, I can’t recall many teams who routinely go after big names, that have had a lot of success. The only big name signing that really has worked out well for the team, off the top of my head, is Randy Moss to the Patriots. Even then, he was coming off some real “down” years with the Raiders. Before Cutler, the biggest signing for the Bears in recent years was Mushin Muhammed and that didn’t turn out well at all. I’m sure I’m forgetting some other big signings that have worked out extremely well for other teams, but they’re not coming to mind.
There is a difference
between payroll budget and salary cap budget. The Bears use up a good portion of their salary cap room, but they don’t have a payroll budget commesurate with their market. They don’t tend to pay the large signing bonuses needed to sign high-caliber free agents.
People always bring up the Redskins as the example of a team the spends wildly but doesn’t get results. But the fact that the Redskins can spend so much so often just illustrates the point that some teams CAN spend more than others despite the salary cap.
The fact that the Redskins don’t spend wisely doesn’t change the fact that an owner’s willingness to spend money CAN be an asset if spent wisely. The Bears haven’t spent poorly because they haven’t spent money. All you have to do is look at the seasons the Bears were close to winning it all, but fell short because of obvious weaknesses of the team. If the McCaskeys opened up the coin purse and allowed Angelo to fill those holes in the off-seasons that preceded those seasons, who knows, we could have a couple Lomardi trophies to admire.
DEJESUS!!!
You're only partially correct
the signing bonus does come back to hurt a lot of teams. It’s only if the player remains with that team for the entire length of that contract that the signing bonus doesn’t affect the salary cap. The bonus is guaranteed to the player, if the player is released, traded or waived, all of the bonus money that was being prorated throughout the length of the contract is accelerated to the present year. So, if our team released its star player after the third year of his contract (before June 1) for whatever reason, the entire remainder of the bonus, will have to count toward the cap the next year (if the team releases the player after June 1, only the yearly amount will count the next year, and the remainder will count the subsequent year). That’s why teams like the Redskins get into trouble later on. A similar thing happened to the 49’ers in the mid – late 90’s.
I know
how the cap works.
You said “the NFL is a salary cap league so spending is pretty much restricted anyway” which is incorrect. The Redskins spend more than the Bears, despite the salary cap (again, not saying they are spending wisely). Teams that have owners willing to spend money will always ahve an advantage over teams like the Bears because, while they use up much of their cap room, they don’t spend cash.
DEJESUS!!!
I know how it works too,
and what I’m saying is that since many of the free agent signings that have taken place throughout the league don’t always work out, the salary cap is affected if they leave before the end of the deal, which is very often the case. I never said the Bears spend a lot but I think they do a very good job of managing the cap, which the signing bonus becomes part of if the player leaves or is let go. Regarding your statement about Angelo not filling holes costing us Super Bowl trophies, you can make that argument about every team that doesn’t win the title, every year. When you hear comments from players who have visited the Bears over the last 15-20 years, they always comment about the quality of the facilities,etc. That doesn’t sound frugal to me. When all is said and done, it is still a business, and in the Bears case, the owners ONLY business so I see nothing wrong in their being sensible about they spend their money. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the McCaskeys as owners for a lot of reasons, but their spending habits are way down on the list of grievances.
That was really helpful..
I actually didn’t have a full grasp on how the guarantees work from a pro-rated standpoint. Let me ask: Is there a difference in the way that signing bonus, workout bonus and roster bonuses are applied to the salary cap? Are there other types of “guarantees” beside the signing bonus which apply to the these prorated rules?
I'm not an expert, but
here is a website that gives a pretty good basic understanding of how it works. Hope it’s helpful.
http://www.docsports.com/current/nfl-salary-cap-rules-031.html
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
