Tee Higgins a Possibility? (Per The Athletic)

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,795
Liked Posts:
37,727
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.

This is what you said.

Secondly, it is relevant because that's why you can't sign him now, if you wanted to.

This is what I said was a moot point. You just said you aren't advocating signing him now and I said there is no reason for the Bears or him to want to sign now so I was just saying this is a moot point because no one has any interest in extending him now.

That is a far cry from this thread because there are reports that Higgins may be traded and how likely that is completely up for speculation. By contrast we both seem to agree that no extension is coming this offseason for Claypool so again the above point is completely moot. It has no bearing on anything.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
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.
No it wouldn't. It's an extension, the $ on his rookie deal can wrapped into it. The cap hit would be $14 or less. You can look at Mahomes current deal. My guess is if you paid him $70 up front he's take less than the average in base in the second year to help with flexibility.

I'm saying they could wait on Chase if they wanted. Fifth year him without extending if they wanted.
 
Last edited:

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,795
Liked Posts:
37,727
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.


Both over the cap and sportsrac report he has a base salary for 2023 and the void years don't begin until 2024. I think he has just talked about retirement but his deal technically runs thru 2023.

Yes that was because Hill and Kelce were making reasonable money when they first extended Mahomes. And the early years of Mahomes deal were dirt cheap because the base salary was low and the SB was only 10m. They didn't do a traditional deal.

And yes, it is entirely possible they can build a good OL without moving Higgins. They just haven't proven that year over the course of the whole season. Again in both their final games Burrow was pressured 43% of the time. The first time they played KC he was still under pressure 36% of the time. They won despite the pressure not because the OL was good.

Finally, Jones and Clark anchor the D. That is a different unit. My point is having a ton of money tied up into your QB and WRs when you already have a top 3 QB and a top 5 WR. Better to spend that 25m that Higgins may want actually improving an area of the team that isn't already stacked.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,795
Liked Posts:
37,727
No it wouldn't. It's an extension, the $ on his rookie deal can wrapped into it. The cap hit would be $14 or less. You can look at Mahomes current deal. My guess is if you paid him $70 up front he's take less than the average in base in the second year to help with flexibility.

I'm saying they could wait on Chase if they wanted. Fifth year him without extending if they wanted.

Mahomes SB was only 10m not the 70m you suggested. Most of his guaranteed money was roster bonuses not SB. That was a very team friendly deal. Of course, Bengals can chose that route as well. My point again was just that SB gets included in the year you sign.

Yes they could wait on Chase assuming Chase is fine with that. I suspect he is going to want to get paid sooner rather than later though but will have to see.
 

dennehy

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

Both over the cap and sportsrac report he has a base salary for 2023 and the void years don't begin until 2024. I think he has just talked about retirement but his deal technically runs thru 2023.

Yes that was because Hill and Kelce were making reasonable money when they first extended Mahomes. And the early years of Mahomes deal were dirt cheap because the base salary was low and the SB was only 10m. They didn't do a traditional deal.

And yes, it is entirely possible they can build a good OL without moving Higgins. They just haven't proven that year over the course of the whole season. Again in both their final games Burrow was pressured 43% of the time. The first time they played KC he was still under pressure 36% of the time. They won despite the pressure not because the OL was good.

Finally, Jones and Clark anchor the D. That is a different unit. My point is having a ton of money tied up into your QB and WRs when you already have a top 3 QB and a top 5 WR. Better to spend that 25m that Higgins may want actually improving an area of the team that isn't already stacked.
On spotrac it's void in 2023. Same as Hargrave and Graham. Edit, I see that he's still getting playing next year but there's a huge void portion after that. Anyway, crazy structure there.

They did a super long deal with Mahomes, no reason they can't with Burrow.

Burrow's entire OL was destroyed. Any QB is going to stuggle with those injuries.

I know what your point it. There are many ways to incorporate Higgins for a few more years before it get all gets crazy expensive.
 
Last edited:

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
Mahomes SB was only 10m not the 70m you suggested. Most of his guaranteed money was roster bonuses not SB. That was a very team friendly deal. Of course, Bengals can chose that route as well. My point again was just that SB gets included in the year you sign.

Yes they could wait on Chase assuming Chase is fine with that. I suspect he is going to want to get paid sooner rather than later though but will have to see.
The point is that the prorated signing bonus can essentially be the only $ on the cap the year the extension is signed.

The Mahomes deal wasn't team friendly, it just puts the guaranteed money all over the place, not mostly up front.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,795
Liked Posts:
37,727
On spotrac it's void in 2023. Same as Hargrave and Graham. Edit, I see that he's still getting playing next year but there's a huge void portion after that. Anyway, crazy structure there.

They did a super long deal with Mahomes, no reason they can't with Burrow.

Burrow's entire OL was destroyed. Any QB is going to stuggle with those injuries.

I know what your point it. There are many ways to incorporate Higgins for a few more years before it get all gets crazy expensive.

I think Burrow is probably going to push for a deal more like Watson ie less years and more guaranteed so he can get another shot at a deal. Salaries will keep going up so next go around he may be looking at 60m a year.

That OL hasnt proven they can be teusted even when healthy. They sucked early when healthy got better but still seemed to struggle against better DLs.

I agree they can incorporate Higgins if they want. Still think resources bettee allocated elsewhere.
The point is that the prorated signing bonus can essentially be the only $ on the cap the year the extension is signed.

The Mahomes deal wasn't team friendly, it just puts the guaranteed money all over the place, not mostly up front.

It can be but they are better off getting more cap hit this year before more of their core comes due IMO.

It was team friendly because of the length of time and the guaranteed money is locked in stages not all at once. So like 2025 gets locked in during 2023.
 

Raskolnikov

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
22,240
Liked Posts:
7,739
Location:
Enemy Territory via southern C
Higgins and Claypool and Mooney is a nice trio for Fields.

I would love KMET and Gesicki with that group you can do all things.

Bring back Monty.
Sign and draft a quality RT
Move Borom and Leatherwood to LG.
Sign and draft a quality center to compete with Deiter and sophomore from Illinois.
Draft Tank Bigsby.

Put everything else into defense for 3 years.
 

VickAshley✅️verified

✅️ verified member - He/Him/Himselve/Sir
Joined:
May 24, 2021
Posts:
1,594
Liked Posts:
2,569
Higgins and Claypool and Mooney is a nice trio for Fields.

I would love KMET and Gesicki with that group you can do all things.

Bring back Monty.
Sign and draft a quality RT
Move Borom and Leatherwood to LG.
Sign and draft a quality center to compete with Deiter and sophomore from Illinois.
Draft Tank Bigsby.

Put everything else into defense for 3 years.
I was literally with you until you put two players at Left Guard who are both bad at it I mean seriously have you never heard the old saying "two wrongs literally don't make it right?"

Besides that point if you have both Borom and Leatherword playing between the center and the left tackle that leaves you with one less wr or tight end so this makes exactly zero sense!
 

Bears4Ever_34

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
Posts:
13,529
Liked Posts:
10,010
I like Higgins, but he's not worth an early 1st round pick when he's never being the #1 guy before. That's too much of a gamble for me. I'd absolutely trade a 2nd for him, though.

Bengals have no real incentive to deal him, unfortunately. They'll probably just franchise him if they can't sign him to an extension.
 

Imabearsfan

Active member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2017
Posts:
399
Liked Posts:
272
Can we please just stop with the whole "Texans will give us their #2 and #12 for our #1). This is no world where Texas gives us both picks to move up 1 spot. Based on almost every Draft Value Chart available, that would be such a drastic over payment (almost a 30% over payment).

The most likely scenario from Texas would be to keep the #2 BUT offer up the #12, #33 and #103 for 2023 (1768 in value) and their 1st and 2nd rounder in 2024 (1412 is value). Based on most Draft Charts (and going with the concept that future picks are worth about 50% of the current value: example if the #5 pick this year is worth 1700, then the 2024 5th overall is only worth 850 today) that would be considered a fair trade with about a 10% premium paid.

My math above is assuming the Texans are picking in the top 5 next years as well so I averaged the Top 5 picks draft value.
Hence why I wrote “probably won’t happen BUT what about trade down to 7 or 9”.
 

Imabearsfan

Active member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2017
Posts:
399
Liked Posts:
272
So the whole idea that the Bengals will trade Higgins is because him Chase will cost too much,

In this scenario you likely have Mooney, Claypool, and Higgins, who will cost more than that, and all roughly at the same time.
No. You could have Tee and Harrison Jr. or another WR in what shapes up to be a very exciting 2024 WR class. You dump/trade the rest.
 

Imabearsfan

Active member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2017
Posts:
399
Liked Posts:
272
If Claypool is the #3 this year and puts up a meh year he's not going to bring 3rd for a comp pick.

I just don't think they're going to be as willing to write Claypool off as you think.

And as far as trading for Higgins, doesn't seem like they are going to be able to do that anyway, unless they acquire a mid-late first rounder and are willing to trade it rather than make the pick. Both those things seem unlikely to me.
Again, if they trade down to #7 or #9 and also get a boat load of picks (2023 2nd rounder and 2024, 2025 1sts), then you have the opportunity to set yourself up very nicely moving forward.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
No. You could have Tee and Harrison Jr. or another WR in what shapes up to be a very exciting 2024 WR class. You dump/trade the rest.
Very low probability of that happening.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
Again, if they trade down to #7 or #9 and also get a boat load of picks (2023 2nd rounder and 2024, 2025 1sts), then you have the opportunity to set yourself up very nicely moving forward.
If Cincinnati trades him this year, which is unlikely imo, they will want capital for this year. Their window is now.
 

Top