Jump to content

Bears bring back Trevathan - 3 years


beardown3231

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Is it that much more risky than the alternative of signing a guy in Kwit who was a backup caliber player for all but half a season to an even bigger deal? 

It is a push for me.

Over paid and on the field is better than paid less and not on it.

But based on what we are hearing about Kwik someone is going to drop some serious coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Damikeeeee said:

8 mil a year would be an absolute horrible contract. 

8M a year is about the average for a veteran player heading into his 3rd -- and most likely, significant -- contract in his career at the age of 29.

The fact that him and his agent agreed to potentially less than 8M -- after incentives -- is a fair deal. 

6 hours ago, soulman said:
7 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Is it that much more risky than the alternative of signing a guy in Kwit who was a backup caliber player for all but half a season to an even bigger deal? 

LOL......yeah funny how some figured DT would be so much cheaper like maybe a 1 year HHC-D kinda deal.  Here's the kinda $$$ ILB are getting in 2020.  DT's deal has him ranked 11th.  If Kwit gets offered a top ten deal he could easily be over $10 mil AAV.

Agreed with both. Would it have been nice to see DT agree to a 6M APY deal....ofcourse it would've. But it's not like his 7-8M a year is ridiculous or anything either. 

Besides, let Kwiat is nothing more than a solid depth player and is NOT a starting caliber player, despite what he showed in a contract year. Let another team foolishly sign him and pretend that he is and take the potential comp pick.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm indifferent on this one. 

Hard to say this is a good or a bad deal yet. This is about the top end I could have gone for either DT or Kwit. I preferred Kwit due to DT's injury concerns and youth, plus I think Kwit could have been had for $6mil a year. Also Kwit isn't the same athlete as DT but he is MUCH more physical, and we are hoping the older DT retains said athleticism and breaks the trend of missing significant time. Regardless both need structured to be less than their APY and are both short-term options IMO. 

 

Overpaying for availability might (and is IMO) better than overpaying for the higher ceiling that is often on the sideines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I think Kwit could have been had for $6mil a year.

I think that’s where Kwit should be paid. My suspicion is that he’s going to get 50% or more above that on the open market. Solid but unspectacular players like him get grossly overpaid in FA all the time. We have seen plenty of examples of just that on our own roster. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

I think that’s where Kwit should be paid. My suspicion is that he’s going to get 50% or more above that on the open market. Solid but unspectacular players like him get grossly overpaid in FA all the time. We have seen plenty of examples of just that on our own roster. 

That estimates I've seen have Kwiatkoski getting offers in the $9-$10 mil AAV.  He may actually be more valuable as a singular MLB in a 4-3.

As for DT's deal I'd say it was about as fair for both sides as it could be.  He's playing for the same kind of $$$ he's average over the past four years while the cap has risen at least 25% since than.  So in essence he's taking a bit of a cut to stay in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

I think that’s where Kwit should be paid. My suspicion is that he’s going to get 50% or more above that on the open market. Solid but unspectacular players like him get grossly overpaid in FA all the time. We have seen plenty of examples of just that on our own roster. 

True, but that is where I feel we should have been more aggressive in re-signing him last season. I believe that would have reduced his cost since FA almost always causes a jump in price. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

True, but that is where I feel we should have been more aggressive in re-signing him last season. I believe that would have reduced his cost since FA almost always causes a jump in price. 

Meaning during the season? Last preseason the debate was whether or not he should even stay on the roster after he got the 4th year pay hike based on his amount of playing time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AZBearsFan said:

Meaning during the season? Last preseason the debate was whether or not he should even stay on the roster after he got the 4th year pay hike based on his amount of playing time. 

Yes, late in the season in November or December. In December he had enough PT that it seemed clear he was playing as well if not better than DT had at any point in the season. Just by the eye test he was more physical, a better passrusher, and seemed to do better in coverage in 2019 than DT.

 

I think prime Trevathan is better than prime Kwiatkoski, but we aren't sniffing a prime DT anymore IMO. Even so I'd be surprised if it was for 12+ games, he has only played in more than 75% of the season 2 times in the last 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how it lays out according to OTC.  I'd all it very team friendly.

Contract Notes

Danny Trevathan signed a three year, $21.75 million contract with the Bears on March 14, 2020. Trevathan received $13.625 million guaranteed at signing. The guarantee consists of his 2020 and 2021 base salaries, a $4 million signing bonus, and a $3.625 million option bonus due in 2021. Another option bonus is due in 2020. If Trevathan is on the roster on the 5th day of the 2022 league year he will earn a $500,000 bonus. The Bears included three dummy years in the contract for cap purposes. These seasons will automatically void if the contract is not extended before the start of the 2023 league year.

Current Contract

(📝: indicates contract trigger occuring during that year)
Total   $8,500,000 $11,275,000 $500,000 $900,000 $600,000   $6,000,000   $21,643,750      
2020 30 $3,000,000 $1,525,000 $0 $300,000 $200,000   $3,000,000   $4,893,750 2.5%  
$17,275,000
($12,381,250)
2021 31 $3,000,000 $2,250,000 $0 $300,000 $200,000   $3,000,000   $5,750,000 --  
$12,750,000
($7,000,000)
2022 📝 32 $2,500,000 $2,250,000 $500,000 $300,000 $200,000   $0   $5,750,000 --  
$7,500,000
($1,750,000)
2023 33 $0 $2,250,000 $0 $0 $0   $0   $2,250,000 --  
$5,250,000
($3,000,000)
2024 34 $0 $2,250,000 $0 $0 $0   $0   $2,250,000 --  
$3,000,000
($750,000)
2025 35 $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $0   $0   $750,000 --  
$750,000
$0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was surprised to see how similar Trevathan and Kwiatkoski's deals were. I think we've chosen to pay the guy who's a team leader, and I'm ok with that.

Going to be one of those comparisons that can be made properly in a year or so after we see how Kwit does in Vegas - I'm still not convinced the guy we saw for the last five or six games in 2019 is who Kwit is gonna be for the rest of his career, could have just been a good run. If he carries on playing like that, then yeah maybe we should have done things differently, but I'm not going to complain about a starting ILB pairing of Danny Trevathan and Roquan Smith.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATM: Bears Picked the Right Linebacker

212bf710fe9dfd56c9762bf769cdf891?s=16&d= Andrew Dannehy | March 17th, 2020

acrossmiddle.jpg?resize=1024%2C321

It was a simple play.

On third-and-four, Dallas had running back Jamize Olawale sneak out of the backfield. He was open for a first down, very possibly a touchdown. Dak Prescott threw it but Olawale never looked. The play almost worked because Nick Kwiatkoski was late in coverage.

Andy Reid saw that play.

The Chiefs offensive guru ran something very similar two weeks later. On third-and-eight he swung a pass out to Damien Williams. Kwiatkoski late again. Touchdown.

As well as Kwiatkoski played last year, he was always going to have a fatal flaw and good offensive coaches were always going to attack him. That’s why Ryan Pace and the Chicago Bears made the right call in keeping Danny Trevathan instead.

 

Kwiatkoski deserves credit for how well he played last year. He was fourth in the league in tackles, added three sacks and an interception. When he was on the field, he made plays.

But he was the backup for a reason.

While Roquan Smith didn’t have the kind start the Bears would’ve liked, he was great down the stretch. Trevathan has always been a stud and the leader of what has been a Super Bowl-caliber defense.

Before a freak elbow injury ended his season, Trevethan was playing at a high level. He was fifth on the team with 70 tackles, but his efficiency was more impressive as he only missed 4.1 percent of his attempts — whereas Kwiatkoski finished at 11.6 percent and Smith was at 3.8.

Trevathan is a master at making sure the Bears are in the right defense after the opponent audibles and is a sneaky good blitzer.

Kwiatkoski’s coverage generally wasn’t a huge problem for the Bears last year, but who can forget seeing a one-legged Aaron Rodgers pick on him time-after-time in the 2018 season opener?

20200301_082346.gif?resize=640%2C316

20200301_081722.gif?resize=640%2C316

While an argument can be made that the Bears should’ve invested in other positions — especially since Kevin Pierre-Louis also looked like a stud last year — if they were going to pick a linebacker to resign, they picked the right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...