Chisoxfn

$121M in cap space next year is the new Bears #.

I get it - but I said before with Mitch - they put the all-in chips one year too early. I think the way Poles is doing it is better - if Fields takes the right steps, you are in a position where you can go all in during year 3/ year 4 of the rookie deal and than year 5 you have the option on the rookie contract which still gives you a ton of flexibility. What the Bears did by going all-in a year too early was put all the chips in and create a situation that if they were wrong, they would have almost no window and have to do this type of restart. Instead - if Fields doesn't look the part and make real strides in year 2 - you have massive cap space but can actually take another shot at QB (knowing you have already put a stronger foundation under whomever the new QB, which just increases your chance at success this go-around while maintaining maximum flexibility). I basically think Poles is designing this where he'll have a ton of flexibility to build a great team around a young QB (but knowing he essentially has Fields and than 1-2 years from now can take one more shot).

One other thing - this means Gipson gets a shot to show what he's worth. He can either take advantage and Bears find a nice, cost effective fit or they know in a year they have more work to do in that department. But it creates opportunity for a potentially ascending player to show that. I absolutely think with this move, Quinn also has to be on the move.

More than anything - the tone Poles made here makes so much sense. It tells me they aren't trying to do some lame patchwork rebuild attempt...they really are taking a stepped approach and I presume we will see this offseason that whole approach will be built on putting the right pieces around FIelds while doing a patchwork job on the defense (but while presumably trying to find some more young playmakers who can grow into better roles on the defense).

Not when they spend most of that on level 2/3 guys in free agency. They don't really have that many big guys expiring. Daniels and Robinson are the only good players expiring and Robinson sucked last year anyway (injuries etc). Getting an extra $6 or $7M in space basically means you can go sign a FA center plus you get a 2nd rounder this year to address oline/db/wideout. I also agree with Ace - we might see Bears move back with their earlier pick and see if they can get a 3rd rounder too. And I still think we might see Quinn or someone else go. But Bears also now have capacity for a big max type of signing next off-season. So while I would have liked more - cap wise this was a really good deal in the long-run and they got increased flexibility in the immediate horizon (in terms of a nice 2nd rounder + some extra room this year to help set things up better for Fields development).

I would keep Monty, but don't believe in paying him big money so need to be balanced in that approach. But Jackson if he has any value I would trade (and than maybe use one of those picks to acquire a wideout). I don't think Jackson has value but what do I know. Quinn I would hope could maybe get you a 2nd rounder (but maybe he won't). Quinn doesn't have near as bad of a contract as Mack did (in terms of a team absorbing it).

Yeah - that actually means after they make some other moves they will end up with around 40M in cap space this year - so they will do something this year (maybe not a day 1 big signing - although they could). But they will even have crazier cap space next year. But I do think we see them likely sign a wideout + olineman for decent money. Maybe even trade for Amari Cooper or Metcalf as I think the cost for both of them would be cheap (if they can further find some ways to get some extra draft capital). Cooper likely waived, but it might be you don't want to do a free for all and instead trade something really low for them.

I think you mis-read that; The Bears get even more cap space next year, but technically even with all that dead money, they actually get some cap relief even this year (relative to where they were). This was huge deal from that front because it creates all kinds of future flexibility (even though talent wise it is a hurt) and it gives us more assets to focus on the offense/db.

This was the right move - they needed to move Mack and everyone knows I've been on that bandwagon for a year now. That said - I thought they could have done better. The 2023 pick being just a 6th rounder is weak. I would have thought they could have gotten a better '23 pick and more likely more like a 2nd, 4th, and future pick...but that said, I won't complain cause it is the right move and positions the team way better for the long-run. Would also like to move Quinn to be honest.

Lets Go

Wohoo!!!

The board is not a good representative sample of the actual union - so stick it to the top union

What % needs to vote yes for it to move forward?

Hey man is biased one way - this reporter is crazy biased the other way. I take her tweets like a grain of sand.

*Fingers Crossed*. My guess is it won't go on first vote but hopefully this shows how close they are and it can be a very quick close (vs. two sides backing away).

Not knowing if they lowered something else - it was 40 vs. 65 and they didn't move all the way to the middle - but they got pretty close to the middle. Next question is whether there is a growth factor of sorts (which to me there should be).

This - although its why I am optimistic because it is starting to get to such small amounts that people should just say - okay lets split the difference and move on.

Yeah - the $175 though is a more extreme use of numbers (so if you are comparing that cumulative number - it should be compared to cumluative revenue across the equation and it starts to get really small - especially given where the two sides were even 2 - 3 weeks ago). It would be like if your boss gave you a $5K raise and quoted you the raise based upon the impact of that increase over 30 years (i.e., a $150K). If you actually go back 3 weeks - they are getting closer and closer to a mid-point between where the players initial extreme offer was and the owners and where there extreme offer was.

The $175 is numbers happening - that is taking the $25M and multiplying it by 5 years (plus a HIGH growth factor). But it is a per year basis of $25M (plus growth factor). That isn't that big when you talk about a concession (relative to total annual revenues). My guess is it comes in around 50 but with a growth factor.

Pre-arb pool difference is $25M (between $65 (Players) and $40M (Owners). Plus some growth factor.

Jack - how many billions in total spend and we are down to like <$50M in total...probably closer to $30-$35M difference. That is small potatoes at this point. Not saying it gets done - but the whole burn it to the ground or x or y - it really is the key that both sides don't go back to their corners and start over. As long as they keep grinding forward - they will get there (but always a wildcard a group gets emotional and they take 1-2 steps back).

Wasn't easy - but that was a strong 4th quarter (nice change from the 4th quarters they had during the losing streak). In particular they played aggressive and got to the line and winning this game despite the other team hitting significantly more 3's isn't easy.

This is actually a great sign that even after all this - they are still continuing to work aggressively (or seemingly aggressively). I also think we are closer now than they were a week and a half ago (players have made real progress but owners also have something they can rally around on there side as a win too...which lets be honest, needs to happen in these types of negotiations). Fact that they continue to hack away at this makes me think there is still a possibility we get good news in next 24/48 hours.

Are they still going?

Please...please....please....