Jump to content
CWood21

This Is Rival Talk v1.0

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It's money spent, not player for player. If we lost HHCD for 12m a year and signed Kevin White for 1.5 we don't give up our comp pick.

I also was under the impression 1 year, vet min deals did not factor into the formula. Believe White was only make 1.1 mil this year.

Either something changed with the rules or this guy is wrong. Either way that's a BS rule if it did change, but glad it was the Bears who are ultimately screwed by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

It's money spent, not player for player. If we lost HHCD for 12m a year and signed Kevin White for 1.5 we don't give up our comp pick.

I also was under the impression 1 year, vet min deals did not factor into the formula. Believe White was only make 1.1 mil this year.

Either something changed with the rules or this guy is wrong. Either way that's a BS rule if it did change, but glad it was the Bears who are ultimately screwed by it.

Not sure, just saying I see it reposted in a few place:

https://sportsmockery.com/2019/08/kevin-white-found-one-last-way-to-hurt-the-chicago-bears/

https://mavensports.io/bears/news/if-you-thought-kevin-white-was-coming-back-some-day-to-haunt-the-bears-guess-again-this-poor-guy-rYTtDTtvVUm70DgDEskw5w/

https://www.chicitysports.com/forum/index.php?threads/about-that-comp-pick-for-amos.72761/

If, say, White doesn’t stick with the Cardinals, it could mean that the Bears would need to make a corresponding cut — HHCD and Davis are the two hypotheticals mentioned by overthecap — to maintain their grip on a potential comp pick. Korte also posits Chicago could potentially open up an additional, fifth-round pick for losing Bryce Callahan by making one of the aforementioned cuts.

https://madison.com/sports/football/bears-positioned-for-now-to-end-decade-long-compensatory-pick/article_f7b6e291-9d64-5cc3-9cc6-7825c7381ded.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uffdaswede said:

I read the article, but since when do cuts have anything to do with compensatory picks?  Cuts aren’t FA losses.

From OverTheCap:

In order to qualify for the comp equation, a player must have been a true Unrestricted Free Agent whose contract had expired or was voided after the previous season (i.e., he cannot have been released by his old team); he must sign during the UFA signing period (which ended July 27 last year); if he signs after June 1[*], he must have been tendered a June 1 qualifying offer by his old team; his compensatory value or contract value must be above a specific minimum amount; and he cannot have been permanently released by his new team before a certain point in the season (which seems to be after Week 10) or, possibly, before getting a certain amount of playing time, unless he was claimed off waivers by another team

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uffdaswede said:

I read the article, but since when do cuts have anything to do with compensatory picks?  Cuts aren’t FA losses.

But comp picks ARE affected by FA acquisitions. So if someone else cuts your FA loss, you have to cut one of your acquisitions to keep the pick. Savy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HyponGrey said:

But comp picks ARE affected by FA acquisitions. So if someone else cuts your FA loss, you have to cut one of your acquisitions to keep the pick. Savy?

There we go! Thank you!

But such moves smack of desperation, don’t they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Uffdaswede said:

There we go! Thank you!

But such moves smack of desperation, don’t they? 

If nothing else, we'll see if that FO feels Haha is worth a 5th round pick. Then we might get to see Bears fans backpedal the Tour de France.

Edited by HyponGrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HyponGrey said:

But comp picks ARE affected by FA acquisitions. So if someone else cuts your FA loss, you have to cut one of your acquisitions to keep the pick. Savy?

Never used to be this way, odd that a rule would change and no one said anything.

If Sackrell gets 13 sacks this year and signs a 15m a year deal and Campbell has a decent year on ST and get a 1/1.5 deal. We sign a low level FA and then Campbell gets cut at cutdowns, why should we lose our comp pick? Just dumb. Again happy if it's true that it's the Bears, but value of the contracts used to be the overriding factor, not the number you signed vs the number you lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Never used to be this way, odd that a rule would change and no one said anything.

If Sackrell gets 13 sacks this year and signs a 15m a year deal and Campbell has a decent year on ST and get a 1/1.5 deal. We sign a low level FA and then Campbell gets cut at cutdowns, why should we lose our comp pick? Just dumb. Again happy if it's true that it's the Bears, but value of the contracts used to be the overriding factor, not the number you signed vs the number you lost.

I was under the impression it was a combination of both. Two similar contracts cancel each other out because net loss.

Edited by HyponGrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

contracts used to be the overriding factor, not the number you signed vs the number you lost.

Based on the OTC article, I think there are 2 components to the formula
The first part is the net loss/gain of qualifying FAs and that determines how many picks you are eligible to receive
Then comes part two, which is how high are the picks ( round 3 -7) and that's determined by the contract those guys sign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Never used to be this way, odd that a rule would change and no one said anything.

The OTC article I quoted is from 2015, pretty sure nothing has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×