Ryan Pace optimistic about Bears' salary cap space

[JAF-N72EX]

2 hours ago, soulman said:

Goff gets his extension so we can reference this as far as Mitch goes if and when it happens.

AAV about $32 mil.

QB salaries rise every year, just as long as the cap does, so I think next off-season will tell us a little more about what we can expect the going price will be for Mitch. Not just his play but with Dak, Winston and Mariota playing in the final years are their contracts---moreso with Dak and Mariota. We'll see if any of them receive more per year than Wentz and Goff got this year.

[AZBearsFan]

QB salaries are crazy, and if Mitch takes a real step this year make no mistake he will eclipse the Goff/Wentz deals. Rodgers’ “largest in NFL history” deal from last offseason is now just 5th among QBs and we haven’t even seen a Rivers extension yet. 

[soulman]

5 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

QB salaries rise every year, just as long as the cap does, so I think next off-season will tell us a little more about what we can expect the going price will be for Mitch. Not just his play but with Dak, Winston and Mariota playing in the final years are their contracts---moreso with Dak and Mariota. We'll see if any of them receive more per year than Wentz and Goff got this year.

Yep, I'm only looking at Goff's deal as a base level cost intending on inflating it by whatever percentage increase we see in the cap.

Another year would likely add an additional $1.5-$2 mil to the AAV and two years $3-$4 mil.

Beyond that the other variables I can see are where does Mitch rank against other top NFL QBs and whether or not he's willing to accept a more team friendly deal and/or hometown discount so his cap costs don't inhibit the teams ability to keep top grade talent around him.

IMHO the goal on the part of Pace and Laine should be to keep his cap cost at no more than 12% of the total cap and far less if possible.

Others I'm looking at now who have more recent deals tend to fall into an 11%-13% range with a couple like Cousins and Stafford over 15%.  That's hitting the danger zone as far as cap management goes and it's costing them experienced talent.

If we can continue to get a jump on expiring deals by rewarding key players early with guarantees that provide them with security we may be able to keep our talent level high even after Mitch is on his next contract if he's earns his next contract and that we still don't know.

[malagabears]

1 hour ago, soulman said:

Yep, I'm only looking at Goff's deal as a base level cost intending on inflating it by whatever percentage increase we see in the cap.

Another year would likely add an additional $1.5-$2 mil to the AAV and two years $3-$4 mil.

Beyond that the other variables I can see are where does Mitch rank against other top NFL QBs and whether or not he's willing to accept a more team friendly deal and/or hometown discount so his cap costs don't inhibit the teams ability to keep top grade talent around him.

IMHO the goal on the part of Pace and Laine should be to keep his cap cost at no more than 12% of the total cap and far less if possible.

Others I'm looking at now who have more recent deals tend to fall into an 11%-13% range with a couple like Cousins and Stafford over 15%.  That's hitting the danger zone as far as cap management goes and it's costing them experienced talent.

If we can continue to get a jump on expiring deals by rewarding key players early with guarantees that provide them with security we may be able to keep our talent level high even after Mitch is on his next contract if he's earns his next contract and that we still don't know.

Soul, that 12% is still far below a yearly payout as far as I can see. Just using expected spikes in the CAP to extrapolate. I am sure I am not doing it right though.

12% of 210M = 25.2M 2021 CAP

12% of 222M = 26.6M 2022 CAP

[abstract_thought]

The question that interests me:

If Trubisky shows marginal but not significant improvement over last season, do you give him this type of contract?

[WindyCity]

33 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

The question that interests me:

If Trubisky shows marginal but not significant improvement over last season, do you give him this type of contract?

No, ride it out and see what happens in year 4.

[WindyCity]

The truth is that Trubisky has not even sniffed Goff statistically.

I am going to need to see him close the gap in terms of production before I hand over that amount of money next offseason.

[AZBearsFan]

14 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

The truth is that Trubisky has not even sniffed Goff statistically.

I am going to need to see him close the gap in terms of production before I hand over that amount of money next offseason.

Goff also came into the NFL with 24 more college starts and is a full season ahead of Mitch in terms of NFL experience. Goff’s first season under McVey after Fisher showed a more substantial improvement over Mitch last year (who’s was in its own right a significant one) but Goff also had Todd Gurley putting up nearly 2,100 yards of total offense where Mitch had Jordan Howard. Remember 2 years ago Goff was a sure fire colossal bust. He showed to be pretty good in year 2 and then better in year 3. 

With that, assuming 2019 Mitch production wise is somewhere between 2018 Mitch and 2018 Goff (pretty likely) then the contract that may dictate Mitch’s next pay day is that of Dak Prescott, who apparently is going to get similar money. 

Pretty comparable production last year, but that was year 3 for Dak. Here’s their year 2 comparisons:

Mitch appears ahead of the curve from Dak in most measurable ways through 2 seasons and you can make a pretty solid argument that he’s at least on par with year 3 Dak overall already. For the life of me, I can’t find a reason how people can say Dak Prescott is a $30-$35M QB but Trubisky is another Blake Bortles other than that he has a star on his helmet and Mitch doesn’t. Can one objectively say that if Dak gets $30-35M per that Mitch shouldn’t as well? I sure don’t think so. 

[AZBearsFan]

1 minute ago, AZBearsFan said:

Goff also came into the NFL with 24 more college starts and is a full season ahead of Mitch in terms of NFL experience. Goff’s first season under McVey after Fisher showed a more substantial improvement over Mitch last year (who’s was in its own right a significant one) but Goff also had Todd Gurley putting up nearly 2,100 yards of total offense where Mitch had Jordan Howard. Remember 2 years ago Goff was a sure fire colossal bust. He showed to be pretty good in year 2 and then better in year 3. 

With that, assuming 2019 Mitch production wise is somewhere between 2018 Mitch and 2018 Goff (pretty likely) then the contract that may dictate Mitch’s next pay day is that of Dak Prescott, who apparently is going to get similar money. 

 

Pretty comparable production last year, but that was year 3 for Dak. Here’s their year 2 comparisons:

 

Mitch appears ahead of the curve from Dak in most measurable ways through 2 seasons and you can make a pretty solid argument that he’s at least on par with year 3 Dak overall already. For the life of me, I can’t find a reason how people can say Dak Prescott is a $30-$35M QB but Trubisky is another Blake Bortles other than that he has a star on his helmet and Mitch doesn’t. Can one objectively say that if Dak gets $30-35M per that Mitch shouldn’t as well? I sure don’t think so. 

FML - images didn’t upload. I’ll fix it. I used to use tinypic for image hosting but it shut down. What do you guys use? 

Edited September 4, 2019 by AZBearsFan

[WindyCity]

34 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

Goff also came into the NFL with 24 more college starts and is a full season ahead of Mitch in terms of NFL experience. Goff’s first season under McVey after Fisher showed a more substantial improvement over Mitch last year (who’s was in its own right a significant one) but Goff also had Todd Gurley putting up nearly 2,100 yards of total offense where Mitch had Jordan Howard. Remember 2 years ago Goff was a sure fire colossal bust. He showed to be pretty good in year 2 and then better in year 3. 

With that, assuming 2019 Mitch production wise is somewhere between 2018 Mitch and 2018 Goff (pretty likely) then the contract that may dictate Mitch’s next pay day is that of Dak Prescott, who apparently is going to get similar money. 

 

Pretty comparable production last year, but that was year 3 for Dak. Here’s their year 2 comparisons:

 

Mitch appears ahead of the curve from Dak in most measurable ways through 2 seasons and you can make a pretty solid argument that he’s at least on par with year 3 Dak overall already. For the life of me, I can’t find a reason how people can say Dak Prescott is a $30-$35M QB but Trubisky is another Blake Bortles other than that he has a star on his helmet and Mitch doesn’t. Can one objectively say that if Dak gets $30-35M per that Mitch shouldn’t as well? I sure don’t think so. 

All true.

But he is going to have to show a significant statistical improvement before you can give him the 2nd deal.

At this point all we have seen is flashes. Goff has given the Rams 2 consistent years of top flight production, despite the fact that I do not think he is a special talent.

[WindyCity]

If he does not take a big step, I think financially it makes sense not to commit after next season.

If we see a small incremental improvement, I think you wait and see if we get another one in 2021.

[dll2000]

2 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

The question that interests me:

If Trubisky shows marginal but not significant improvement over last season, do you give him this type of contract?

If he plays bad or below average he gets the Mariota and Winston wait and see treatment.  

Otherwise he and Watson are in same boat and will get new huge deals together.    Probably with Watson getting a bit more if he stays healthy.  

If he plays above average he will get Goff/Wentz treatment and will get what they got with a slight raise on it due to timing.

Mahomes probably gets extended much earlier than MT and Watson and will get the record breaking contract that will stand for awhile even if MT and Watson deals come much later.

 If he plays amazing all bets are off.     

 

 

 

 

[WindyCity]

My biggest fear with Mitch is that he comes out and plays about the same as last season or just marginally better. That puts the Bears in a very difficult grey area when it comes to his contract.

[soulman]

6 hours ago, malagabears said:

Soul, that 12% is still far below a yearly payout as far as I can see. Just using expected spikes in the CAP to extrapolate. I am sure I am not doing it right though.

12% of 210M = 25.2M 2021 CAP

12% of 222M = 26.6M 2022 CAP

Add in an increase in the CBA's sharing arrangement and it will.  You know the Players Association is gonna demand it.

Conservatively adding just 1% to that should boost the 2021 over $220 mil with annual increases from there.

If you start with $220 mil and compound at 6% per annum the cap should average close to $250 mil from 2021-2024.

If Mitch gets a 4 year extension covering that period $250 mil x 12% = $30 mil AAV.....so close.

All of this is pure speculation right now.  The increase in the sharing arrangement might exceed 1%.  Revenues may grow faster or not as fast.  Mitch's performance may not earn him a top five deal or he may agree to one that's very team friendly that takes up less than 12% of the cap.

It's all just an educated guess right now hermano so I took a stab at a number around $30 mil AAV which would more than likely still have him in the top ten.  Conversely if he moves to the head of the QB class his deal may be the bell cow for new deals.  We just don't know.

I believe they key with any of these big money deals is to structure them so the majority of the guaranteed money comes early and the annual increases in cap cost are incremental and lack a huge jump from one year to the next.  That helps keep key players around.

For example.  If a guys current cap hit is $10 mil and we're already absorbing that, then increases to say $11.5 mil the following year we're only absorbing $1.5 mil more.  With annual increases in the cap now in the range of $12 mil and growing $1.5 mil is easily covering that increase and several others like it.  If needed, more cap his gained by releasing players we have cheaper replacements for and/or restructuring existing deals.

I have no idea how Pace and Laine operate so I'm simply substituting how I might go about cap management.

Edited September 4, 2019 by soulman

[beardown3231]

26 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

My biggest fear with Mitch is that he comes out and plays about the same as last season or just marginally better. That puts the Bears in a very difficult grey area when it comes to his contract.

You just said for yourself if this happens, push the contract out another year. If he's marginally better than marginally better in 2020, then you either let him walk or franchise him again.

There really is no reason to "fear" anything