Albright hinting at Seattle trade for Roquan?

[Enasic]

I respect that this is all speculation and my opinion is no more valid or invalid than yours. I do not however happen to agree.

That’s fair. It’s probably not a big coincidence that the two guys who are representing themselves don’t have new deals in place. Either way, hopefully it works out for the best for the bears and for roquan.

 

[Visionman]

If you can get him for Metcalf straight up, Poles has to make that move.

Metcalf on this team creates new things for this offense.

Again for those in the back…as soon as Metcalf signed his new deal, he became untradeable. His new cap hit prevents it.

 

[Chicagosports89]

Again for those in the back…as soon as Metcalf signed his new deal, he became untradeable. His new cap hit prevents it.

More importantly, Seattle signing him was a sign they have no interest in trading him

 

[gilder121]

This isn't him implying anything. He's basically joking about a previously rumored destination

I didn't read it that way myself, looking at the later comments it looks like he was trying to drop some news and got a slap on the wrist from someone that didn't want it out (not the guy he was arguing with).

 

[Myk]

The sun is still rising and the bears are still practicing. It’s only a distraction to fans because the media keeps talking about it. This is business and with that, these types of negotiations tend to drag out. For the Bears, they have Quan under contract and also tags at their disposal. For Quan, he wants to get big time paid immediately and rightfully so. I blame neither side.

The only thing it calls into question is Roquan’s business acumen. Not worried about that over the duration of a long term deal.

I don't call tampering business acumen.

If we play Smith for the 5th he's basically untradable, we're either keeping him long term or letting him go. If we tag him for a 6th he's really untradable, teams will just wait it out. And a 6th will cost. Someone would really have to want him to get a trade if it goes that far, which if they did want him the tampering would've turned something up.

Neither the 5th or a tag is going to make the player who jumps at any chance he gets to hold out want to be here any more than he did when drafted. Holding out the first time, meh, OK. Holding out the second time, this is who he is. He doesn't want to be here and I can't say I'd blame any "best" player for not wanting to be on the Bears, being the best loser doesn't mean much.
If you want to draft the best and force them to be on your bad team you have 4 years to turn things around or you trade that best player and try again.

 

[gilder121]

Again for those in the back…as soon as Metcalf signed his new deal, he became untradeable. His new cap hit prevents it.

I'm not really familiar with the post June 1st trade designation, but this is what OTC has:



I still doubt they would want to carry 34+ million in dead cap over the next few years, but this would be workable for most teams.

On the other hand, if the Bears didn't pay the signing bonus to DK, and also didn't pay for a new Roquan contract, they may have to push in more into a trade.

Just spitballing, but would it be possible to sign and trade Ro, have a similar delay of recognition of the signing bonus, then the teams swap players and the signing bonuses effectively stay on the originating team with neither side having to take a $30 million cap hit in any given year?

 

[Bearly]

Again for those in the back…as soon as Metcalf signed his new deal, he became untradeable. His new cap hit prevents it.

Not true at all. Bears can fit the cap situation with a sign and trade. Sign for similar bonus to Metcalf and make the rest guaranteed salary that Seattle would need to cover and help structure. It would also take Metcalf wanting the change enough to restructure.
Point is that it takes a lot of cooperation but can be done.

Of course, I don't expect any of this to happen.

 

[Enasic]

I don't call tampering business acumen.

If we play Smith for the 5th he's basically untradable, we're either keeping him long term or letting him go. If we tag him for a 6th he's really untradable, teams will just wait it out. And a 6th will cost. Someone would really have to want him to get a trade if it goes that far, which if they did want him the tampering would've turned something up.

Neither the 5th or a tag is going to make the player who jumps at any chance he gets to hold out want to be here any more than he did when drafted. Holding out the first time, meh, OK. Holding out the second time, this is who he is. He doesn't want to be here and I can't say I'd blame any "best" player for not wanting to be on the Bears, being the best loser doesn't mean much.
If you want to draft the best and force them to be on your bad team you have 4 years to turn things around or you trade that best player and try again.

I implied he doesn’t have any business acumen. as far as tampering goes I don’t believe anyone has been accused/charged/fined so that’s kind of baseless and irrelevant.

I also don’t believe the situation is as desperate as you’re making it out to be. It’s not a trade him now or never situation. Tag and trades do exist and have been done. Bears could play the long game if they can’t get a deal done right now. They have multiple options and avenues they can explore.

 

[Myk]

I implied he doesn’t have any business acumen. as far as tampering goes I don’t believe anyone has been accused/charged/fined so that’s kind of baseless and irrelevant.

I also don’t believe the situation is as desperate as you’re making it out to be. It’s not a trade him now or never situation. Tag and trades do exist and have been done. Bears could play the long game if they can’t get a deal done right now. They have multiple options and avenues they can explore.

I didn't say tag and trades don't exist. I said now with a 5th & trade is the best time for a trade. The team that gets him has him on the 5th with time to work things out without having to pay a tag price, no? (Assuming his holdouts and other games haven't given him a bad name.)
I don't understand why right after Allen Robinson we want to repeat the bad blood tagging again. How many times do we need to let good players go for nothing?

Smith's 5th should be around the $20m he wants so why isn't he accepting the 5th while he works out a deal for the future? You don't create bad blood unless you're OK with there being bad blood.

I don't believe anyone who's made tens of millions and is quibbling over $1.3 million is doing it about the dollar amount. They're doing it because they want to be on a team that is willing to win. Look at the money he's made and divide it by 80 years, he could walk away now and be set for a good life.
As far as the Bears go they know that one defensive player isn't going to make them win or he'd already be doing it. And if he was making them win I know from history the Bears would pay a linebacker.
Add those together and I come up with a player who doesn't want to be here so he's asking for more than he'll get to avoid having to be here for another year.

 

[bears51/40]

At some point you have to start measuring the disruptive impact an individual is having on your team. For me anyway, it's getting to that point.

I don't think it is even getting close to that point for the team. What you are talking about is from the fan's perspective. I would go as far as saying the players at this point are behind him.

 

[Enasic]

I didn't say tag and trades don't exist. I said now with a 5th & trade is the best time for a trade. The team that gets him has him on the 5th with time to work things out without having to pay a tag price, no? (Assuming his holdouts and other games haven't given him a bad name.)
I don't understand why right after Allen Robinson we want to repeat the bad blood tagging again. How many times do we need to let good players go for nothing?

Smith's 5th should be around the $20m he wants so why isn't he accepting the 5th while he works out a deal for the future? You don't create bad blood unless you're OK with there being bad blood.

I don't believe anyone who's made tens of millions and is quibbling over $1.3 million is doing it about the dollar amount. They're doing it because they want to be on a team that is willing to win. Look at the money he's made and divide it by 80 years, he could walk away now and be set for a good life.
As far as the Bears go they know that one defensive player isn't going to make them win or he'd already be doing it. And if he was making them win I know from history the Bears would pay a linebacker.
Add those together and I come up with a player who doesn't want to be here so he's asking for more than he'll get to avoid having to be here for another year.

Bad blood is only bad blood until it’s not. The fact is, Roquan is asking for a contract that the Bears simply aren’t willing to pay right now. Who knows what he’s asking. It could also be possible the Bears want to see how he performs in this new system to better gauge his impact and value to the team. Makes sense, right? Might want to dot those Is and cross those Ts when handing committing a big chunk of your cap allocation.

At the end of the day, the tag is included and negotiated into the CBA. If that creates bad blood or if teams shouldn’t be using it, it should be negotiated out. Again, I don’t fault either side for their positions right now. I think ultimately, if there is any bad blood, it can be fixed. Money talks…but it will only talk of Roquan shows his value on the field this season with a new scheme. It doesn’t help that he doesn’t play a premium position in todays game. It is what it is

 

[Les Grossman]

I'm not really familiar with the post June 1st trade designation, but this is what OTC has:

View attachment 21801

I still doubt they would want to carry 34+ million in dead cap over the next few years, but this would be workable for most teams.

On the other hand, if the Bears didn't pay the signing bonus to DK, and also didn't pay for a new Roquan contract, they may have to push in more into a trade.

Just spitballing, but would it be possible to sign and trade Ro, have a similar delay of recognition of the signing bonus, then the teams swap players and the signing bonuses effectively stay on the originating team with neither side having to take a $30 million cap hit in any given year?

I'm not cap expert, but I think the problem with that scenario is that both teams would take the $30M dead cap hit immediately, which kind of defeats the purpose. If they had traded first and then signed the players, then there would be no dead cap hit to take on immediately. This is usually what happens.

That said, maybe there's a way to have the players sign a new contract (or in this case Metcalf) that reworks the money? IDK.

 

[Myk]

Bad blood is only bad blood until it’s not. The fact is, Roquan is asking for a contract that the Bears simply aren’t willing to pay right now. Who knows what he’s asking. It could also be possible the Bears want to see how he performs in this new system to better gauge his impact and value to the team. Makes sense, right? Might want to dot those Is and cross those Ts when handing committing a big chunk of your cap allocation.

At the end of the day, the tag is included and negotiated into the CBA. If that creates bad blood or if teams shouldn’t be using it, it should be negotiated out. Again, I don’t fault either side for their positions right now. I think ultimately, if there is any bad blood, it can be fixed. Money talks…but it will only talk of Roquan shows his value on the field this season with a new scheme. It doesn’t help that he doesn’t play a premium position in todays game. It is what it is

I don't disagree. The bad blood can be worked out and that is the most likely reason the Bears don't want to pay him now when they have another year to decide.

But like tags, the 5th year is also etched in stone through CBA and if I understand it right Smith is at the top for LBs. If rumors are right what he wants is only $1.3M more than he'd get if he wasn't holding out.
So why is he holding out on the 5th to get a contract now instead of playing on the 5th? He could be fined that $1.3M easily for holding out, probably more if each preseason game is a $500,000 fine not to mention the no show at practices.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I don't disagree. The bad blood can be worked out and that is the most likely reason the Bears don't want to pay him now when they have another year to decide.

But like tags, the 5th year is also etched in stone through CBA and if I understand it right Smith is at the top for LBs. If rumors are right what he wants is only $1.3M more than he'd get if he wasn't holding out.
So why is he holding out on the 5th to get a contract now instead of playing on the 5th? He could be fined that $1.3M easily for holding out, probably more if each preseason game is a $500,000 fine not to mention the no show at practices.

It's called guaranteed money. Not that hard to understand really........

You want to make the 5th year option more fair to players, guarantee it against injury for the 6th year. So then if Roquan blows out his Achilles in the last game of the season, now the Bears are on the hook for the same amount the following year.

 

[Myk]

It's called guaranteed money. Not that hard to understand really........

You want to make the 5th year option more fair to players, guarantee it against injury for the 6th year. So then if Roquan blows out his Achilles in the last game of the season, now the Bears are on the hook for the same amount the following year.

Even more reason for the Bears not to jump now when there is no CBA obligation other than Smith plays the 5th year and the Bears pay what is mandated based on his 4 year performance. (And I point to Knox for the Bears screwing a player over on injury just like I point to many LBs who were able to name their price once they proved it.)
How about the CBA does something for their union workers like unions claim to do and buy disability insurance for the players?

Lifelong injury is why the top players probably should consider how much their rookie contract would spread over their lifetime. It would suck for us fans but the top draft picks probably should consider being high school or college coaches after 4 years or just retiring. Money isn't going to make up for being crippled.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Even more reason for the Bears not to jump now when there is no CBA obligation other than Smith plays the 5th year and the Bears pay what is mandated based on his 4 year performance. (And I point to Knox for the Bears screwing a player over on injury just like I point to many LBs who were able to name their price once they proved it.)
How about the CBA does something for their union workers like unions claim to do and buy disability insurance for the players?

Lifelong injury is why the top players probably should consider how much their rookie contract would spread over their lifetime. It would suck for us fans but the top draft picks probably should consider being high school or college coaches after 4 years or just retiring. Money isn't going to make up for being crippled.

Well, that is most certainly a particularly obtuse take.

As for the CBA, it is just like any other union, sacrificing the rights and benefits of those that have not yet been hired (and thus don't vote) for the benefit of those that already belong.

The difference here is the NFL is a monopoly.

You seem to think the it is somehow fair that the owners should be able to force a player to accept playing on this fifth year, for well below their market value, and at the same time have absolutely no guarantee should they suffer a career ending injury while playing under a contract they were forced to accept.

 

[Myk]

Well, that is most certainly a particularly obtuse take.

As for the CBA, it is just like any other union, sacrificing the rights and benefits of those that have not yet been hired (and thus don't vote) for the benefit of those that already belong.

The difference here is the NFL is a monopoly.

You seem to think the it is somehow fair that the owners should be able to force a player to accept playing on this fifth year, for well below their market value, and at the same time have absolutely no guarantee should they suffer a career ending injury while playing under a contract they were forced to accept.

Yours is the obtuse take here.

If Noshoquan doesn't want to abide by the NFL's CBA he should've played baseball and really got screwed over going through the minor leagues with one good signing bonus and a couple thousand dollars a year after that.
He was drafted in the 1st, that comes with a 5th year. Don't like it go flip burgers. Don't take a job and then whine about the conditions you agreed to after.

If he wants around $20M the 5th year for a top 10 LB with 2 pro-bowls is $18.7M. That's not far below his own inflated value.
You're also obtuse thinking 1) the Bears screw over their injured players or 2) Bears screw over their good defense or 3) the Bears should screw over themselves when they are the business here.
Businesses are not here to do your bidding.

You want to play poor little rich kid blue collar working man only making enough in a year to have $20K a month for the rest of their life from that one year of work. Cry me a freakin river.
No wonder you're on my ignore list. Freakin idiot.

 

[Payton!34]

Why would the Seahawks trade metcalf for Roquan?

Why would any team other than Detroit be this stupid?

 

[Payton!34]

Well, that is most certainly a particularly obtuse take.

As for the CBA, it is just like any other union, sacrificing the rights and benefits of those that have not yet been hired (and thus don't vote) for the benefit of those that already belong.

The difference here is the NFL is a monopoly.

You seem to think the it is somehow fair that the owners should be able to force a player to accept playing on this fifth year, for well below their market value, and at the same time have absolutely no guarantee should they suffer a career ending injury while playing under a contract they were forced to accept.

I don’t necessarily think it’s fair and you are right about unions : they are usually for right now and not necessarily for what is the right thing (human nature) I guess.

I just don’t see how there isn’t more injury insurance, there are insurance company’s that insurance j lo’s ass.

Owners want the most from their employees for the least amount of money possible and employees want the most money for the least amount of work possible. As a whole not every person but majority.

Would you pay Roquan what he’s asking for?

The shitty thing is that Poles didn’t draft him and doesn’t owe him any allegiance whatsoever! Roquan has zero leverage and Poles would be wise to exploit it at this point.

 

[Bearly]

Why would the Seahawks trade metcalf for Roquan?

Why would any team other than Detroit be this stupid?

Well, there's that. I don't see Roquan going anywhere this year but if he does, it's more likely for picks.