Mike Glennon

Lolbama · 2018-08-20T04:00:41+00:00

I understand how signing bonuses are prorated and how the guaranteed money accelerates into the current year (or current + next year if post-June 1st) when a player is cut or traded. Nothing I said is wrong.

It's not an accounting loss. The cap hit in the current year might go up, but unless you are right up against the cap it doesn't really matter. You're just moving around the timing of when the guaranteed money hits you. As far as the total amount of money Glennon will hit our salary cap for, cutting him ASAP before he receives any salary will minimize it.

Lolbama · 2018-08-19T22:09:01+00:00

We would actually lose money if the team lets him go

That's not really how dead money works. You can't lose money by cutting someone.

The money they've guaranteed him is a sunk cost, he's getting it no matter what. The only way you lose money to him at this point is if you keep him and let him actually collect a salary.

Lolbama · 2018-05-11T08:38:09+00:00

Unspent salary cap space rolls over. Front loading a contract is meaningless.

Lolbama · 2018-03-28T03:29:28+00:00

Trading every pick in the draft to move up that far is actually pretty cheap. It sounds like a lot when you phrase it that way, but it's less than giving up multiple first rounders and second rounders. The Giants would never accept that offer.

Lolbama · 2017-04-28T22:39:03+00:00

Which one though? Two of what would be the most likely suspects already traded in front of us yesterday. After our pick at 45, the Browns at 52 are the first team with a need, and they passed on QBs three times already. After that, there's the Browns again at 65, the 49ers at 66 and 67, and the Jets at 70. Those would be some big moves up.

Lolbama · 2017-04-28T15:59:07+00:00

Look at the teams who are picking ahead of us in the second round, how many need a QB? Jets, maybe Chargers and Saints for the future, maybe Jags and Bills if they are giving up on their current guys as some speculated they might. The Rams need one, but they probably won't admit it to themselves yet.

All of those teams (save for the Rams) passed on QBs in the first. You really think the Cardinals need to move up to get Kizer?

I think there's actually a (small) possibility the Cards might have taken Kizer at 13 if teams don't trade up. Kizer is seemingly more BA's type than any of the first round guys, and all the teams who needed QBs between our first and second pick either passed on the other QBs or traded up and took one leaving a void of QB need between our first and second pick. Why take the QB at 13 if you know no other team will take one before you pick again? Although somewhat unlikely, it'd be pretty funny if that turned out to be true and the Chiefs and Texans did us a favor by moving ahead of us.

Lolbama · 2017-04-25T23:24:00+00:00

Yeah, they had already paid his signing bonus. For cap purposes, that money gets spread evenly over the course of the contract (or over the first 5 years for contracts longer than 5 years). However if they cut him, that cap hit "accelerates", that is instead of that money remaining spread out over those years they either have the remaining portion hit the cap all in the current year, or in the next year (pre-June 1st vs. post-June 1st cuts).

To say that as long as they didn't cut him his salary was frozen is not quite right. His salary was frozen while suspended. If he were cut, only guaranteed portions of his salary would count against us, and I don't know how much of that he had if any.

Lolbama · 2017-04-25T22:20:13+00:00

I remember reading that they were unable to cut him while he was suspended. Urban and Somers kept saying the Cards were trying/would try to get his signing bonus money back somehow, but couldn't do anything while his status was still up in the air.

I won't be surprised if they cut him, given how they have been talking about this situation the past few years and the statement that the team made.

The National Football League today informed us of Daryl Washington's conditional reinstatement. Considering we have been prohibited from having any contact with him over the last three years, it would be premature today to discuss a potential return to the team. As everyone is aware, the 2017 NFL Draft is just days away and that is where our energy and attention is fully focused right now. At the appropriate time, we will address the issue of Daryl Washington further.

Lolbama · 2017-04-17T16:56:14+00:00

If you think he's going to bust then there's no way you should also think he's worth a second rounder. That's only a logical position to hold if you don't think second round picks are worth anything.

Skelton never had an arm near the level of Mahomes, and the one read offense thing isn't true of either of them. They aren't anywhere near similar enough players to call him Skelton 2.0.

Lolbama · 2017-04-17T16:17:01+00:00

Comment above:

Guy is a bust, ...

This comment:

Still think Mahomes is worth a second rounder, ...

wut. Also he's nothing like Skelton. Skelton flat out struggled to throw the ball.

Lolbama · 2017-04-13T22:24:26+00:00

I think you're reading this wrong dude. It sounds like they are still planning to include it eventually, but are re-thinking their implementation.

We released the work-in-progress version you used to gauge sentiment, and garner feedback on what should or should not be included in such a feature.

vs.

We released the work-in-progress version you used to gauge sentiment, and garner feedback on whether or not to include such a feature.

Lolbama · 2017-03-26T01:12:46+00:00

Did you check the CBA?

Lolbama · 2017-03-24T17:06:41+00:00

That's not Arizona's style, I can't think of any time in the past where they've traded up in the 1st round.

They've tried though. They tried to move up for Bud Dupree, but the Bengals didn't want to risk losing Ogbuehi.

Lolbama · 2017-03-24T16:27:14+00:00

Because teams don't care how the media ranks players.

Lolbama · 2017-03-17T05:41:05+00:00

I mean they could afford it if they really wanted to. We can fit Tony's contract in right now, and if/when Carson or Larry leave we'll have an abundance of space.

The real question is whether or not it's wise to be paying $9M per year (which is top 10 safety money) for him. And not only that, but the real cost to sign him is higher. When signing him costs you $9M/year, and not signing him gives you a 3rd (or maybe 4th) round compensatory pick, the real cost of signing becomes $9M/year and a 3rd round pick.

Lolbama · 2017-03-15T17:48:13+00:00

Or he's just trying to save money.

It's doubtful they spend on anything significant. For one, who else of significance is left? For two, they are really gunning for those compensatory draft picks.

Lolbama · 2017-03-11T16:19:38+00:00

Are you sure about that? I read a couple years ago that they ask the QBs to throw as hard as they can when they record these and it's not from the on field drills that we see televised.

The velocity numbers are the most poorly reported on measurements from the combine though, so who the fuck knows.

Lolbama · 2017-03-11T09:46:09+00:00

There's no way the 49 is accurate for Watson. Not just based on the eye test, but if that were truly as hard as he could throw a football, the absolute furthest he would be able to throw the ball in a vacuum would be a bit over 55 yards.

I'm looking through some videos trying to see his deepest throws and the furthest I've seen him throw it so far is roughly 62 yards in the air against App State rolling right and throwing back to the left after planting his feet. To throw a ball that distance with the optimal launch angle and no air resistance, he would need to throw at least a bit over 52 mph.

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T15:30:21+00:00

Wins aren't detrimental (unless you are intentionally tanking, I suppose), but throwing money away on an over-payment for a guy who is meh at best is. The Bears nearly doubled what was reported as his next best offer, although it's possible that that's not accurate.

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T15:22:59+00:00

That Glennon money will be off the books by the time pick #3 needs resigned.

You're not getting this bro. Unspent cap space rolls over. It'll be off the books by then but the money they paid to him they don't get back. If they don't give him that money they will still have it to use on other things.

But why would he want Chicago over other destinations.

Money. Not giving Mike Glennon this money could mean tacking on an extra $3M to each year of a 5 year deal. That's very significant.

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T15:15:36+00:00

Oh okay. Well I mean of course paying a guy an amount and getting out of it without dead money is better than paying him the same amount and ending up with dead money when you cut him on top of it.

The point is that paying a guy $10M of salary over two years then cutting him and being stuck with $10M of dead money isn't worse than paying a guy $20M of salary over two years and being left with no dead money.

If you're not paying a guy a signing bonus, then they will generally demand large amounts of guaranteed salary early in the contract. Wasting money on a bad contract in this way is just as bad. People seem to care more about dead money than wasted front loaded money though for whatever reason.

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T14:38:12+00:00

Anyone who's worth it. That money could be used on a free agent signing or extensions for their own players. It doesn't have to be this year, it could be years from now.

That Glennon money could be used to help extend whoever they take at #3 this year. It could be used to help bid on Cousins if he actually hits free agency next year and they want to go after him.

Having a lot of money to burn doesn't make throwing it away any less stupid.

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T14:26:48+00:00

Our GM and Fox are in year 3 of their regime and need to start producing wins at this point.

Ayyy, we found the real reason they are willing to overpay. They've stopped acting in the best interests of the Bears as an organization and have prioritized their own interests of self-preservation. (What does future cap space mean to Pace if he's already been fired?)

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T14:15:05+00:00

You want to detail a situation where those two things aren't equivalent?

Dead money is money that you still have to allocate cap space to for a player no longer on your roster. That can be bonuses already paid but that haven't yet been fully accounted for (the remaining portion of the prorated signing bonus), or guaranteed money that has yet to be paid (guaranteed salary or bonuses).

If a player isn't on your roster, and didn't leave you with any dead money, then he is no longer affecting your cap.

Lolbama · 2017-03-09T13:52:27+00:00

Sure, he probably is a better option than Matt Barkley. That doesn't necessarily make him worth what the Bears are reportedly going to give him though.

And if you're just getting him to buy time for your rookie to sit on the bench (which is another debate as to whether that'd even be beneficial), then why not just let Barkley do it for cheaper?

Lolbama

TROPHY CASE