When will the Bears get a Compensatory Pick?

Rise said:

Fair enough and thank you for the link. I still think the system itself is not working as intended and needs to be changed. That is the main point of this thread. As it stands good teams are able to take advantage of it, and widen the talent gap. It also rewards being cheap, you don't have to be against the cap to get a pick, which is wrong imo.

Click to expand...

remydat said:

The point of the system is to reward teams that lost Free Agents not to help bad teams. Bad teams are already helped by the fact they get higher draft picks and/or they signed a ton of FAs.

Like what would be your proposal? Look at the Bears in that link. They had like a net gain of 4 free agents. Are you proposing they should receive comp picks still even though they signed a ton of FAs and had the 3/4 pick in the draft?

Click to expand...

Rise said:

Its rewarding teams for not paying players, big difference. No I don't think the Bears should be getting extra picks, they aren't playing the game correctly. Great example is Bennet. According to that link the Pats are getting a 5th round pick for just letting him leave, and got a year of his services. So they basically got him for free, which is ridiculous.

Bottom line looking at the Pats overall acquisitions this offseason do you honestly think they deserve extra picks? Teams are proactively not signing players based on these picks which is not how it should be. The system should be designed for teams at the cap limit who have to let players go, that way at least the players are winning, by virtue of more money spent in the league. It also ensures good teams aren't rigging the game by acquiring players via trade which then does not count at all against this system, which is what the Patriots basically did.

Click to expand...

remydat said:

Teams are required to spend like 95% of the cap over a 3-4 year period so as long as they are doing that then I fail to see why they should be penalized for being good. The fact is even with losing the players, the Pats will still be a Super Bowl contender so I am not sure your point. Should the Pats just sign guys that they have replacements for just for shits and giggles?

So no I don't think it's because they are cheap. I think it's because they are a well managed team and so they can afford to let guys walk because they have a plan to replace them and get equal or better production for less.

Click to expand...

Rise said:

No I just don't think they should be getting extra picks, it's pointless. Honestly I see no reason for the system to exist at all, especially with how high the cap is now. It should just be scrapped.

Click to expand...

remydat said:

Well that's a different argument altogether. I simply disagree with the idea the system doesn't do what it intends to do because it seemed you thought it was designed to help the bad teams. If you want to argue that the system is no longer necessary then I don't have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

Raskolnikov said:

I have been explaining they way to do this for 10 years, out of breathe.

The Patriots are the best, followed by the Ravens, 49ers, who have been doing this for a decade, and then close to 10 or more teams do it effectively now so you see these compensatory sections of the draft are very long, but you don't find any bears picks in there, almost ever.

Its simple. Keep in mind the head scratching Patriots moves.

This has to do with Cliff Stein, and the Bears bleed out money to make a media impression. We almost always sign 2-4 free agents like clockwork, every year. We are so budget conscious, but given that this system exists the way we do things is so stupid, so moronic I don't know what to say.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STAGGER YOUR FREE AGENT PURCHASING INTO BUY YEARS AND SELL YEARS!!! You counter this by having 10-12 pick years and 7 pick years by trading and adjusting.

So one year you can purchase all the free agents you need in the near future, get 6 or 8 of them, it doesn't matter. You aren't getting comp picks that year, but by looking ahead and over purchasing you aren't penalized for the future. You just lose one year.

You then restructure contracts, extensions, signing rookies for 4 instead of 5, or letting them walk...you have an exodus of players who don't quite fit or you don't quite trust their habits or lifestyle and don't want them after they have big money. All those guys need to be flushed by end of contract in same year and you need to fucking plan for that.

Its not that hard!! You aren't penalized for trading for players, so the Patriots if they have a need, will not sign a free agent and cock block pick block themselves like we do, they will trade for that free agent. Then restructure a contract that is favorable to their sell year.


I wish I could rant at McCaskey and explain how fucking stupid him and his front office are that they have not understood this through 4 regimes now and that you can't compete 5 picks against 10 or 12 anymore. We will never be good without massive luck as long as we are not playing the game.


Again, you aren't penalized for acquiring vets via trade. (Randy Moss and many others were acquired that way)
And again, you aren't penalized into the future if you buy everything you need and fill your grocery basket for a few years in one year. Better to buy 9 one year, and zero the next 2 while you are rebuilding and flushing. But the bears went through a rebuild still signing 2-4 every year and blocking the 2-4 leaving.

Click to expand...

Rise said:

Well it's both. I think it should go yes, but I also think the intent of it is to compensate teams who CANT sign a good FA, not a team who WONT sign said FA. I think that's why I view it as broken.

Click to expand...

remydat said:

No that is not the intent at all. The intent is to compensate teams that lose players regardless of reason. And if anything it was put in by the owners of the good teams because in effect, the good teams are providing the shitty teams with their excess talent and felt they should be compensated for it. I have never heard anyone claim that the intent was as you stated above.

Like there is a reason why it's good teams that generally get the comp picks. It's the good teams that can afford to let good players go because they have excess talent. I don't really care if it stays or goes but I think it does what it is suppose to. You just don't see it that way because you are a fan of a team that fucking sucks.

Click to expand...

Rise said:

Well if that is indeed its intent I think it is horrible. It honestly has nothing to do with the Bears, other than sure if it's here to stay then I'd like my team to take advantage of it. As it stands I'm firmly in the camp of get rid of it.

Click to expand...

MojoRisin said:

GB is also very good at acquiring comp picks. TT rarely signs FAs other than street FAs and IMHO, that is one reason they are pissing away a window of opportunity with having a HOF QB in Rodgers. Rodgers has clamored for additional talent and so have others on that team over the years. TT did sign Bennett this year as well as Kendricks, but he's a street FA. He signed Francois too. To me, Billy B is the master of building and maintaining rosters using all the available avenues.

Click to expand...

Raskolnikov said:

I have been explaining they way to do this for 10 years, out of breathe.

The Patriots are the best, followed by the Ravens, 49ers, who have been doing this for a decade, and then close to 10 or more teams do it effectively now so you see these compensatory sections of the draft are very long, but you don't find any bears picks in there, almost ever.

Its simple. Keep in mind the head scratching Patriots moves.

This has to do with Cliff Stein, and the Bears bleed out money to make a media impression. We almost always sign 2-4 free agents like clockwork, every year. We are so budget conscious, but given that this system exists the way we do things is so stupid, so moronic I don't know what to say.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STAGGER YOUR FREE AGENT PURCHASING INTO BUY YEARS AND SELL YEARS!!! You counter this by having 10-12 pick years and 7 pick years by trading and adjusting.

So one year you can purchase all the free agents you need in the near future, get 6 or 8 of them, it doesn't matter. You aren't getting comp picks that year, but by looking ahead and over purchasing you aren't penalized for the future. You just lose one year.

You then restructure contracts, extensions, signing rookies for 4 instead of 5, or letting them walk...you have an exodus of players who don't quite fit or you don't quite trust their habits or lifestyle and don't want them after they have big money. All those guys need to be flushed by end of contract in same year and you need to fucking plan for that.

Its not that hard!! You aren't penalized for trading for players, so the Patriots if they have a need, will not sign a free agent and cock block pick block themselves like we do, they will trade for that free agent. Then restructure a contract that is favorable to their sell year.


I wish I could rant at McCaskey and explain how fucking stupid him and his front office are that they have not understood this through 4 regimes now and that you can't compete 5 picks against 10 or 12 anymore. We will never be good without massive luck as long as we are not playing the game.


Again, you aren't penalized for acquiring vets via trade. (Randy Moss and many others were acquired that way)
And again, you aren't penalized into the future if you buy everything you need and fill your grocery basket for a few years in one year. Better to buy 9 one year, and zero the next 2 while you are rebuilding and flushing. But the bears went through a rebuild still signing 2-4 every year and blocking the 2-4 leaving.

Click to expand...

nobull said:

I am shocked. This was really well thought out

Click to expand...

Tjodalv said:

Except the part that you actually have to have players of value walk and sign elsewhere. Over the last, lets say five years, how many players have they let walk that would have actually resulted in a compensatory pick? Tillman may have made the cut for a 7th rounder, but I'm not sure if his playing time would have qualified him even for that. Forte? 7th rounder, or maybe a 6th. That's it...the Bears didn't have any other FA losses over the last three years that would have qualified. And they'd only have gotten those picks if they signed no FAs that make more than the bottom 53% of players that make final rosters (because those contracts would cancel out the lost contract values).

So Rask wants to explain to the front office that they should have completely forgone free agency in order to have picked up two 7th rounders... That means no McPhee, no Trevathan, no Freeman, no Hicks, Massie, or Sitton. But hey, they'd might have gotten two 7ths instead! You actually have to have a really good team built well before any sort of comp. pick stockpiling can occur -- the Bears haven't had that much talent in a really long time due to shit drafting.

Yeah, it's really not all that well thought out...

Click to expand...