This Is Rival Talk v1.0

[Packerraymond]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

https://www.bleachernation.com/bears/2019/08/21/the-cardinals-threw-a-wrench-in-the-bears-plans-to-land-2020-comp-pick-by-cutting-kevin-white/

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.

[incognito_man]

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

[Uffdaswede]

9 hours ago, incognito_man said:

https://www.bleachernation.com/bears/2019/08/21/the-cardinals-threw-a-wrench-in-the-bears-plans-to-land-2020-comp-pick-by-cutting-kevin-white/

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

[Packer_ESP]

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

 

[HyponGrey]

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?

[Uffdaswede]

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? 

[HyponGrey]

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 August 23, 2019 by HyponGrey

[Packerraymond]

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.

[HyponGrey]

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 August 23, 2019 by HyponGrey

[Shanedorf]

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

[Packer_ESP]

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.

[KManX89]

Well, whadd'ya know? It turns out the Bears were gifted a W on that BS roughing the passer call on their game-winning FG drive and we should be up 2 games to zip:

Luckily we held on to win the Vikes game, eh?

[Fl0nkerton]

This Roquan Smith stuff is kind of scary. I know Twitter is a giant cesspool of despair but there are quite a few Bears fans making themselves look foolish on there.

[Shanedorf]

from Warren Sharp

Since 2016, the Vikings are now 0-12-1 outdoors against an opponent with winning record.
In these games:

• Zimmer's defense allows over 27 ppg (4.3 ppg above expectation).
• his offensive scores fewer than 17 ppg (3.9 ppg below expectation)

[MacReady]

3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

from Warren Sharp

Since 2016, the Vikings are now 0-12-1 outdoors against an opponent with winning record.
In these games:

• Zimmer's defense allows over 27 ppg (4.3 ppg above expectation).
• his offensive scores fewer than 17 ppg (3.9 ppg below expectation)

I feel like somebody said that the Vikings would have been better off sticking with Keenum until they got their QBOTF through the draft and spending all that money supplementing their defense.

Every year that goes by that defensive core gets older.  Griffin and Wayne’s are free agents, as is Kendrick’s I think.  

They are one year away from a forced hard rebuild.