Tee Higgins a Possibility? (Per The Athletic)

Chicagosports89

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2018
Posts:
14,269
Liked Posts:
20,418
But it is a matter of how they allocate resources. Only Lane Johnson is making big money on that OL. They also paying him 24m next year but then taking it down to 14m in subsequent years when they have to start paying JM big money. One is also 25 while the other is 32 so they really aren't on the same timeline.

Likewise, AJ Brown is signed thru 2026. Smith is a FA in 2026. By the time they have to pay Smith, they can remove AJ's contract off the books and probably will have already drafted AJ's replacement.

The issue the Bengals will have is they have too many guys clustered together. Sure you can still sign them but it will have a greater effect on the rest of the roster than how the Eagles have managed it. They would be better off turning Higgins into a younger resource IMO and creating a bigger spread between their stars. Higgins is a luxury really not a necessity. That money is better spent elsewhere IMO.

The difference with the Bears is we have few stars we have to pay and we don't know if Fields is a franchise QB. If you are trading for Higgins then you are doing so to help Fields develop. If I already knew Fields was a franchise QB and elite passer then I would roll with Mooney and Claypool and dump far more resources in the OL and keeping that D good. I would then use the draft to get a WR so that if he becomes good, by the time I have to pay him Mooney and Claypool can be moved off the books if need be. A legit franchise QB does not need two no 1 WRs. They just need competent WRs.
This is a lot of nonsense rambling.

Bengals probably will eventually trade Higgins. 0 reason to do that now though as chase big money won't hit until 4 years from now and burrows (even if extended this offseason) big money won't hit until 3 years from now. They have 2 and 3 years left on their rookie contracts, so why would cincy expedite losing a big piece (higgins) to a championship contending core?
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
This is a lot of nonsense rambling.

Bengals probably will eventually trade Higgins. 0 reason to do that now though as chase big money won't hit until 4 years from now and burrows (even if extended this offseason) big money won't hit until 3 years from now. They have 2 and 3 years left on their rookie contracts, so why would cincy expedite losing a big piece (higgins) to a championship contending core?
Exactly. Sign him, get 2 or 3 more years with this great window, then maybe trade him.

They usually are real pros with the cap. For 2023 they will have less than $1mil in dead cap.
 

NCChiFan

Bald, fat, toothless
Donator
Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
Posts:
10,720
Liked Posts:
4,973
Tee would alter and change the WR's of the Bears, moving everyone down a peg. Now a team will have to have its safeties trying to decide who to double, Tee, Mooney or Claypool... This would completely change things offensively speaking and require defenses to adjust in a bigger way. If possible you bring in a Higgins.
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
If Cincinnati is not willing to pay Tee Higgins then I'm pausing and wondering what they know that we don't. They aren't cap strapped at all and the Joe Burrow money won't hit for years. They are in the heat of a championship window, they shouldn't be looking for cheeky ways to score a first round pick by pawning off big contributors.

If he's available it's because Cincinnati thinks he's fairly easily replaceable and not worth the money. That's the only way rationale that makes sense, especially in a draft that seems as weak as this one.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
No, only Lane Johnson has very large cap hit this year. Mailata and Kelce have huge contracts, they jut got extensions.

I don't think Cincinnati will see it that way. I think they will see him as an asset they want to keep rather than trading him in for a shot at a star that isn't guaranteed. That's based on how they've acted in the past.

Not sure what exactly is the point of the last paragraph. I think they need to dump resources into OL either way.

The point is the huge money in those large contracts don't overlap as they are on different timelines. This year those 3 only coast about 24m which is more than reasonable. Next year it is 42 million and it hover around 15m per for 3 years. That is more than doable.

I agree there is a chance Cincy views him as a core piece. I am saying paying both he and Chase a combined 45-50m would be a mistake IMO as I don't believe he is a necessity. You have a top 3 QB IMO, if he can't win without 2 No 1 WR then there is something wrong. It is better to take the 22-25m that Higgins wants and invest that in the OL or D IMO. But yes there is a chance that the Bengals spend all that money at WR but I think the Chiefs have the better model. They trust Mahomes to be able to deliver once he has reasonable targets (one elite guy in Kelce) and they spend their other resources on protecting him and building a better all around team.

If Cincinnati is not willing to pay Tee Higgins then I'm pausing and wondering what they know that we don't. They aren't cap strapped at all and the Joe Burrow money won't hit for years. They are in the heat of a championship window, they shouldn't be looking for cheeky ways to score a first round pick by pawning off big contributors.

If he's available it's because Cincinnati thinks he's fairly easily replaceable and not worth the money. That's the only way rationale that makes sense, especially in a draft that seems as weak as this one.

What they are thinking is simple. I have a top 3 QB and don't need to give him two NO 1 WRs for him to succeed. Plenty of top QBs win super bowls without 2 NO 1 WRs. It is fine when when both of them are on rookie contracts but if you have to eventually pay both then the obvious one to pay is Chase. 2 NO 1 WRs don't help much if Burrow is getting sacked or hit as he throws the ball.
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
It doesn't matter how Claypool talks. He either delivers on the field or he isn't getting paid period. Teams aren't going to pay him based on his talk. They are going to pay him based on his actual production. And he will have an agent that brings him down to earth if his asking price exceeds his production.
You love quoting me and missing the point.
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
If Cincinnati is not willing to pay Tee Higgins then I'm pausing and wondering what they know that we don't. They aren't cap strapped at all and the Joe Burrow money won't hit for years. They are in the heat of a championship window, they shouldn't be looking for cheeky ways to score a first round pick by pawning off big contributors.

If he's available it's because Cincinnati thinks he's fairly easily replaceable and not worth the money. That's the only way rationale that makes sense, especially in a draft that seems as weak as this one.
This is not how anything works. The Burrow money hits next year. He has a 5th year option that's like 30M, then he'll get paid so much money (50AAV) that there's no way to work the deal so he isn't getting paid a huge chunk of money in 2025.

As has been said many times, the reason the Bengals would trade Higgins is because they will have to pay Chase 25M/year in the next few years. While his huge cap number won't really be an issue for about 4-5 years, the point is at some point they'd be paying 45M for 2 WRs and 100M for those 2 plus Burrow. And once you sign Higgins long-term, his trade value goes down because now teams have to figure out how to fit him into their cap and it limits the teams that can afford him. Then you'd just reach a situation eventually where you cut him for the cap space and lose him for nothing. They could potentially draft another WR early and have him succeed next to Chase and with a top 5 QB and it'd be much cheaper than Higgins long-term.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
This is a lot of nonsense rambling.

Bengals probably will eventually trade Higgins. 0 reason to do that now though as chase big money won't hit until 4 years from now and burrows (even if extended this offseason) big money won't hit until 3 years from now. They have 2 and 3 years left on their rookie contracts, so why would cincy expedite losing a big piece (higgins) to a championship contending core?

I didn't say they have to move him now. However, if you want maximum value from him then it is probably better to move him now. You are going to get more for him in his age 24 season than if you wait a few years particularly if his production declines or he gets injuries in the interim. But yes they can keep him for a while longer if they want to. I just don't think that is the best move for them.

As for Burrow and Chase, the SB will hit this year and be allocated over the next 5 years immediately and I suspect they will be getting huge signing bonuses. If I am the Bengals given I have the 3rd most cap space and there will be more and more of my good players being up in the coming years, it is better for me to actually get more of that cap hit now hence why I would want to extend Burrow now so the signing bonus can be applied this year.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
You love quoting me and missing the point.

I know your point. I just don't think it is relevant until Claypool has the production to warrant the demands. You are talking about him wanting top 5 WR money but he isn't going to come close to getting that unless he produces so it is irrelevant. You are acting like he and his agent will somehow lack the common sense to know that he can only get top 5 WR if he produces close to that level.

This isn't the Quan situation. Quan had the production to warrant his 20m a year demands. Chase does not.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
The point is the huge money in those large contracts don't overlap as they are on different timelines. This year those 3 only coast about 24m which is more than reasonable. Next year it is 42 million and it hover around 15m per for 3 years. That is more than doable.

I agree there is a chance Cincy views him as a core piece. I am saying paying both he and Chase a combined 45-50m would be a mistake IMO as I don't believe he is a necessity. You have a top 3 QB IMO, if he can't win without 2 No 1 WR then there is something wrong. It is better to take the 22-25m that Higgins wants and invest that in the OL or D IMO. But yes there is a chance that the Bengals spend all that money at WR but I think the Chiefs have the better model. They trust Mahomes to be able to deliver once he has reasonable targets (one elite guy in Kelce) and they spend their other resources on protecting him and building a better all around team.
Next year the cap on those three is about $45m, and Kelce isn't even on the team. They have over $30m of Kelce pushed forward past when his contract expires. So I'm not sure your point is accurate.

The Bengals can play out those contracts on the cap in different ways too. They can do what every team does which is fuck with cap structure.

They also have the flexibility to sign Higgins to a deal that they can easily offload in 26 when the big $ from the other two would likely kick in.

Bottom line, to me, is that they have a window right now and they aren't likely to mess with the core. The Chiefs don't really have a model, they made a trade last year. The Chiefs have $60mil in cap charge for two DL next year, plus $45m for Mahomes. The point is that every team spends money somewhere, and there isn't some proven model that works that they are going to follow.
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
I know you point. I just don't think it is relevant until Claypool has the production to warrant the demands. You are talking about him wanting top 5 WR money but he isn't going to come close to getting that unless he produces so it is irrelevant. You are acting like he and his agent will somehow lack the common sense to know that he can only get top 5 WR if he produces close to that level.
Well, for one, you as usual took 1 line out of my post and ranted about it. Secondly, it is relevant because that's why you can't sign him now, if you wanted to. Because based on his production, he wouldn't get the money he wants to give up a chance to hit the market. But my point is, it's also why you upgrade him with a better long-term option if you can. And he will get his money anyway. As long as he's 6'4, 240 and runs a 4.4 people will pay him money. Maybe not top 5 money that he wants, but even numbers at his Steelers level gets him over 15M AAV based on the current WR market and ones as good as him not typically hitting the market.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
I didn't say they have to move him now. However, if you want maximum value from him then it is probably better to move him now. You are going to get more for him in his age 24 season than if you wait a few years particularly if his production declines or he gets injuries in the interim. But yes they can keep him for a while longer if they want to. I just don't think that is the best move for them.

As for Burrow and Chase, the SB will hit this year and be allocated over the next 5 years immediately and I suspect they will be getting huge signing bonuses. If I am the Bengals given I have the 3rd most cap space and there will be more and more of my good players being up in the coming years, it is better for me to actually get more of that cap hit now hence why I would want to extend Burrow now so the signing bonus can be applied this year.
That's not what will happen with Burrow and Chase's deal. Chase is finishing his second season, he's not even up for an extension and won't be really paid until 24, won't be really on the cap until at least 25. They can fifth year option him in 25 if they want.

Any extension to Burrow the SB wont even affect his cap charge next year, because it just take the place of the $11m he's already owed. So they can pay him probably up to about $70 in SB next year (over 6 years) without increasing his cap charge at all.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
Well, for one, you as usual took 1 line out of my post and ranted about it. Secondly, it is relevant because that's why you can't sign him now, if you wanted to. Because based on his production, he wouldn't get the money he wants to give up a chance to hit the market. But my point is, it's also why you upgrade him with a better long-term option if you can. And he will get his money anyway. As long as he's 6'4, 240 and runs a 4.4 people will pay him money. Maybe not top 5 money that he wants, but even numbers at his Steelers level gets him over 15M AAV based on the current WR market and ones as good as him not typically hitting the market.

There is no reason to sign him now as he hasn't proven himself in a Bears uniform so that is a moot point. He is going to have to produce next year to get 15AAV is the point. If he sucks or is injured then he isnt getting that. He would likely have to go the DJ Chark route and sign a 1 year deal to rebuild his value.
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
There is no reason to sign him now as he hasn't proven himself in a Bears uniform so that is a moot point. He is going to have to produce next year to get 15AAV is the point. If he sucks or is injured then he isnt getting that. He would likely have to go the DJ Chark route and sign a 1 year deal to rebuild his value.
Dude, this whole damn thread is a moot point because Higgins isn't going anywhere! And DJ Chark still got 10M with a torn ACL. Gallup got 13M per year with a torn ACL. Basically, Claypool has to be able to walk when the season ends and he's getting 15M. Granted that's not a given, but now you're completely jumping the shark in the conversation and throwing more factors into this conversation you admitted was moot.
 

BradyJay

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 4, 2012
Posts:
2,077
Liked Posts:
1,374
Location:
WI Dells, WI
The next WR on the team with any real potential and talent will be a rookie...that's really all there is to it.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
Next year the cap on those three is about $45m, and Kelce isn't even on the team. They have over $30m of Kelce pushed forward past when his contract expires. So I'm not sure your point is accurate.

The Bengals can play out those contracts on the cap in different ways too. They can do what every team does which is fuck with cap structure.

They also have the flexibility to sign Higgins to a deal that they can easily offload in 26 when the big $ from the other two would likely kick in.

Bottom line, to me, is that they have a window right now and they aren't likely to mess with the core. The Chiefs don't really have a model, they made a trade last year. The Chiefs have $60mil in cap charge for two DL next year, plus $45m for Mahomes. The point is that every team spends money somewhere, and there isn't some proven model that works that they are going to follow.

In 2023 they have Lane at 24m, JM at 7.7 and Kelce at 11.2 so around the 42m I noted ie about 15m per. If you are referring to 2024, JM is 21m but they structured it so Johnson goes from 24m to only 14.7m. Kelce would be 5.4m in void cap hit but yes he is not on the team. On a 5 man OL having 2 guys at those amounts is more than reasonable if they are elite.

The Chiefs clearly made a decision that rather than tie up 30m into a WR when they already have Kelce, they would trust their franchise QB to get it done and use that money elsewhere. They they went out and beat the Bengals and their elite weapons in large part because they were able to protect a hobbled Mahomes better than the Bengals could protect Burrow.

So yes every team spends money somewhere. I am saying if you have a franchise QB better to spend on one elite target and then focus on protecting him. The Chiefs lost the SB in 2021 because they could not protect Mahomes so Hill and Kelce didn't matter. In the last 2 losses in the SB and AFCCG, Burrow has been pressured on 43% of his dropbacks. That is ridiculous and directly tied into why he has floundered at the end of both those games. He needs protection more than he needs Higgins IMO.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
Dude, this whole damn thread is a moot point because Higgins isn't going anywhere! And DJ Chark still got 10M with a torn ACL. Gallup got 13M per year with a torn ACL. Basically, Claypool has to be able to walk when the season ends and he's getting 15M. Granted that's not a given, but now you're completely jumping the shark in the conversation and throwing more factors into this conversation you admitted was moot.

We aren't talking Higgins we are talking Claypool. Chark got a one year deal and Gallup's AAV is 11.5m. None of those would be a problem for the Bears. There simply is no incentive for the Bears or Claypool to work out a deal now unless the Bears are stupid enough to overpay or Claypool is willing to take far less than he says he wants.
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
We aren't taking Higgins we are talking Claypool. Chark got a one year deal and Gallup's AAV is 11.5m. None of those would be a problem for the Bears. There simply is no incentive for the Bears or Claypool to work out a deal now unless the Bears are stupid enough to overpay or Claypool is willing to take far less than he says he wants.
It's a Higgins thread, my guy. And the comment YOU quoted of mine was about what could happen to Claypool in relation to a Higgins trade. And I have NEVER ONCE suggested for the Bears to work out a deal with Claypool. Like I said, you're missing the point and arguing shit that nobody said.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,799
Liked Posts:
37,738
That's not what will happen with Burrow and Chase's deal. Chase is finishing his second season, he's not even up for an extension and won't be really paid until 24, won't be really on the cap until at least 25. They can fifth year option him in 25 if they want.

Any extension to Burrow the SB wont even affect his cap charge next year, because it just take the place of the $11m he's already owed. So they can pay him probably up to about $70 in SB next year (over 6 years) without increasing his cap charge at all.

Yes I know Chase isn't up yet. The point is the SB hits in the year you sign not further down the road. If Burrow signs a 5 year 250m extension with 70m signing bonus then in addition to his 11m cap hit, 14m of the SB (70/5) hits in 2023. So his cap hit in 2023 would be 25m. The SB bonus doesn't replace the salary and SB already allocated to 2023. It adds to it.

Also, the first year the extension would kick in would be 2024 because you can't exercise the 5th year option if you have already extended the contract. Now of course you likely offset that with lower base salaries in the early years but my point was some of the money from the extension ie the signing bonus starts hitting your cap the moment you sign not in the year the extension first kicks in.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
In 2023 they have Lane at 24m, JM at 7.7 and Kelce at 11.2 so around the 42m I noted ie about 15m per. If you are referring to 2024, JM is 21m but they structured it so Johnson goes from 24m to only 14.7m. Kelce would be 5.4m in void cap hit but yes he is not on the team. On a 5 man OL having 2 guys at those amounts is more than reasonable if they are elite.

The Chiefs clearly made a decision that rather than tie up 30m into a WR when they already have Kelce, they would trust their franchise QB to get it done and use that money elsewhere. They they went out and beat the Bengals and their elite weapons in large part because they were able to protect a hobbled Mahomes better than the Bengals could protect Burrow.

So yes every team spends money somewhere. I am saying if you have a franchise QB better to spend on one elite target and then focus on prtect Mshome.s otecting him. The Chiefs lost the SB in 2021 because they could not protect Mahomes so Hill and Kelce didn't matter. In the last 2 losses in the SB and AFCCG, Burrow has been pressured on 43% of his dropbacks. That is ridiculous and directly tied into why he has floundered at the end of both those games. He needs protection more than he needs Higgins IMO.
Kelce isn't on the team in 23, they are spending $43m on two OL that year.

The Chiefs made that decision two years after their QB was extended. They lost to that same Bengals team the previous three times, including when the Bengals OL was intact earlier this year.

He has protection, it's just when 4 starters are out it's tough. Would have been for KC as well missing four starters. Having Higgins doesn't preclude them from investing in OL, anymore than paying $60m for Chris Jones and Frank Clark inhibits KC from being able to protect Mahomes.
 

Top