Roquan Smith - ILB #8 overall

[malagabears]

Nothing new as of yesterday. I woner if he will really want to miss paychecks.

 

[Gary]

This is selfish, plain and simple.  Now no matter if he comes and does very well, I won't like him.... It's a matter of respect!

[TB 1]

10 minutes ago, Gary said:

This is selfish, plain and simple.  Now no matter if he comes and does very well, I won't like him.... It's a matter of respect!

The Bears need to take half the blame as this is the way contract negotiations work.The Giants and Bills  have given the same protections to Barkley and Edmunds. So i blame both the Bears and Smith equally.

[Sugashane]

14 minutes ago, TB 1 said:

The Bears need to take half the blame as this is the way contract negotiations work.The Giants and Bills  have given the same protections to Barkley and Edmunds. So i blame both the Bears and Smith equally.

I can't say equally. Just because one group does something doesn't mean another has to follow. If the Giants or Bills have an off-the-field incident that costs them money while their player is suspended, the organizations will look foolish. While obviously rare and seemingly well against the pre-draft notes on their personalities, if they were to get into some serious trouble legally like Vick, Hurd, and Hernandez then they should not be entitled to that money IMO.

 

At some point players need to be able to accept accountability. If I'm in jail for a DUI then I am not on my job site, and don't make a dime. I have no issues with that because I'm not going to risk my livelihood over an illegal activity. These guys are making substantial money for something that is well known for its short window of opportunity. If they are willing to blow their careers over drugs, alcohol, etc then to hell with them. They don't deserve the opportunity they got, and the organization is already going to have to pay in more than a monetary manner when they are off the field.

 

If the players miss 4 games, that can cause them to lose ground in the playoff race, even losing out on the playoffs entirely. That costs the team money, especially the owners.

If the player goes to jail has a year or longer sentence on a mid-season act, the team likely will have to field a reserve with a substantial drop in talent for the remainder of the year.

If the player commits a crime in the offseason the GM has to take a swing in FA or spend a (likely) high round pick on another hopeful talent. GMs don't just try to field teams on a single year basis, they are trying to get a great core together and add/supplement that talent. Losing a key cog really screws the owner, GM, coach, and all the other players who are doing the right things. Why should someone get a free pass if they commit a crime?

Now if the language was in freak instances such as they were hit by another car, plane crashes, sudden heart attacks or something (Like Gaines Adams) then THAT is worth the player fighting for, and one I would fully support the player in pursuing. But being immune to pay loss when you screw the whole organization over is ridiculous to me. I don't feel like what the Giants and Bills did was intelligent or revolutionary if they indeed granted that monetary safety-net (I'm not looking into it specifically, just going off what I am getting here). I feel it was cowardly and ignorant of those organizations.

[beardown3231]

If Smith is still unsigned by the KC game, I’m going to be very concerned.

[MonserinNC]

Dude to be honest, Im not mad at the guy but Im kind of indifferent. I think Roquan is a good kid but so far this offseason  he is having a meaningless hold out and left his car unlocked and lost a bunch of valuables including his playbook. Is he kind of just stupid?? Haha.....Not to make fun of anybody in here but he seems kind of like a young guy from the south and just kind of naive or something.....like he is a linebacker, from GA, and is a rookie. What exactly is the leverage he thinks he has? That the good lesson for the kid

I almost never side with owners either but this is ridiculous for a rookie thats not even playing a premium position.(and like I said, has already lost his playbook once haha)

[Sugashane]

13 minutes ago, MonserinNC said:

Dude to be honest, Im not mad at the guy but Im kind of indifferent. I think Roquan is a good kid but so far this offseason  he is having a meaningless hold out and left his car unlocked and lost a bunch of valuables including his playbook. Is he kind of just stupid?? Haha.....Not to make fun of anybody in here but he seems kind of like a young guy from the south and just kind of naive or something.....like he is a linebacker, from GA, and is a rookie. What exactly is the leverage he thinks he has? That the good lesson for the kid

I almost never side with owners either but this is ridiculous for a rookie thats not even playing a premium position.(and like I said, has already lost his playbook once haha)

Agree completely man. I expect the CBA in a few years to have a major battle on rookie contracts. I'd like it to be completely defined and non-negotiable. Something like 1(1) through 1(15) get 100% guaranteed, 1(16) through 1(32) get 95 percent guaranteed, 2(1) through 2(15) get 85 percent guaranteed, etc. Sign the deal or wait two years to be re-entered into the draft. That is pretty much what I want to see. it won't be so streamlined or hard-set in real life but seems reasonable to me at least.

 

You're an unproven rookie, you shouldn't have a ton of leverage. You're getting paid a huge salary and if you don't suck the 2nd contract will likely be much bigger and with a chance to get some serious leverage.

 

 

[Superman(DH23)]

7 hours ago, TB 1 said:

The Bears need to take half the blame as this is the way contract negotiations work.The Giants and Bills  have given the same protections to Barkley and Edmunds. So i blame both the Bears and Smith equally.

Except they didnt?  The Giants gave Barkley protections against the new helmut rule.  As far as i know, there are no special provisions in Edmunds contract and certainly not ones for what Smith is asking.  Im not worried about this until the season starts, but there is no way the Bears should give him protections against on field boneheaded behavior in his contract.  The stipulation is never enforced, but you can be damn sure im not putting something in a contract that says if you start to act like a bonehead on the field that im going to guarantee your money still.

[AZBearsFan]

2 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Agree completely man. I expect the CBA in a few years to have a major battle on rookie contracts. I'd like it to be completely defined and non-negotiable. Something like 1(1) through 1(15) get 100% guaranteed, 1(16) through 1(32) get 95 percent guaranteed, 2(1) through 2(15) get 85 percent guaranteed, etc. Sign the deal or wait two years to be re-entered into the draft. That is pretty much what I want to see. it won't be so streamlined or hard-set in real life but seems reasonable to me at least.

 

You're an unproven rookie, you shouldn't have a ton of leverage. You're getting paid a huge salary and if you don't suck the 2nd contract will likely be much bigger and with a chance to get some serious leverage.

 

 

In my personal opinion Roquan is being martyred by the agent trying to set precedent. In that regard I agree with the Bears not budging. Norm bucking concessions are for superstars IMO. With that said, Roquan also needs to understand that the agent works for him and not the other way around, and that ultimately he can tell them to end this at any time. We need to remember that he’s a kid too and could very possibly getting bad advice here not only from the agent’s office in whom he almost certainly places complete trust but also from whomever he consults personally. Could be his mom, or his friends or who knows who. 

[Superman(DH23)]

2 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Agree completely man. I expect the CBA in a few years to have a major battle on rookie contracts. I'd like it to be completely defined and non-negotiable. Something like 1(1) through 1(15) get 100% guaranteed, 1(16) through 1(32) get 95 percent guaranteed, 2(1) through 2(15) get 85 percent guaranteed, etc. Sign the deal or wait two years to be re-entered into the draft. That is pretty much what I want to see. it won't be so streamlined or hard-set in real life but seems reasonable to me at least.

 

You're an unproven rookie, you shouldn't have a ton of leverage. You're getting paid a huge salary and if you don't suck the 2nd contract will likely be much bigger and with a chance to get some serious leverage.

 

 

I can pretty much guarantee you rookie contracts wont have any impact on the cba.  The nflpa doesnt care about rookies bc the vast majority of the nflpa membership are guys that are going to lose their jobs to rookies.  They have no desire to change the age of entry and they have no desire to change the contract structure.  They like the current system because it means the veterans, the vested membership, get the money in the contracts, not the guys who havent paid a single union due yet.

[Superman(DH23)]

5 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

In my personal opinion Roquan is being martyred by the agent trying to set precedent. In that regard I agree with the Bears not budging. Norm bucking concessions are for superstars IMO. With that said, Roquan also needs to understand that the agent works for him and not the other way around, and that ultimately he can tell them to end this at any time. We need to remember that he’s a kid too and could very possibly getting bad advice here not only from the agent’s office in whom he almost certainly places complete trust but also from whomever he consults personally. Could be his mom, or his friends or who knows who. 

100% agree AZ.  This stinks of the agent convincing Roquan he can get this in, and that hes receiving very bad advice.  The Bears are not going to cave on this one and nor should they.  The thing that Smith needs to be mindful of is that Kwit isnt going away and he is not going to make it easy on Smith to come in and win a starting job.

[Sugashane]

11 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

In my personal opinion Roquan is being martyred by the agent trying to set precedent. In that regard I agree with the Bears not budging. Norm bucking concessions are for superstars IMO. With that said, Roquan also needs to understand that the agent works for him and not the other way around, and that ultimately he can tell them to end this at any time. We need to remember that he’s a kid too and could very possibly getting bad advice here not only from the agent’s office in whom he almost certainly places complete trust but also from whomever he consults personally. Could be his mom, or his friends or who knows who. 

 

I feel he is being martyred as well, but he is a grown man at the end of the day. You see posters here with knowledge of agencies and holdout histories, you would imagine he would have done a fair bit of research when picking his own agency. he is young, but that isn't an excuse to me, he knows this hurts his team in at least some capacity. I don't feel he is ignorant of what is really going on.

 

10 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I can pretty much guarantee you rookie contracts wont have any impact on the cba.  The nflpa doesnt care about rookies bc the vast majority of the nflpa membership are guys that are going to lose their jobs to rookies.  They have no desire to change the age of entry and they have no desire to change the contract structure.  They like the current system because it means the veterans, the vested membership, get the money in the contracts, not the guys who havent paid a single union due yet.

 

If the NFLPA doesn't care about rookies then the change should be assumed. The owners are the ones getting pi**ed at the rookies, who have no proven record or guarantee of success, are spitting in their faces over nonsense like legal immunity. It is a negative image displayed when it arises. Think of all the "cheap McCaskeys" talk over the last 10 years. That stigma won't die.

 

But I think the guys in the NFLPA also know they have a limited chance at getting a ring and they want the rookies to do their part. You don't hear about 6th round scrubs holding out with any regularity, it is pretty much always going to be someone who is counted on contributing early. Sometimes you have QBs or a few other positions who might be drafted early but are going to sit at first, but usually if you are drafting an OL, LB, EDGE, etc early you are wanting them to step in early.

 

IDK though. Maybe I am completely overestimating how much they care about rookies. But I am sure the owners are going to want to squash this immediately.

[Superman(DH23)]

7 hours ago, Sugashane said:

 

I feel he is being martyred as well, but he is a grown man at the end of the day. You see posters here with knowledge of agencies and holdout histories, you would imagine he would have done a fair bit of research when picking his own agency. he is young, but that isn't an excuse to me, he knows this hurts his team in at least some capacity. I don't feel he is ignorant of what is really going on.

 

 

If the NFLPA doesn't care about rookies then the change should be assumed. The owners are the ones getting pi**ed at the rookies, who have no proven record or guarantee of success, are spitting in their faces over nonsense like legal immunity. It is a negative image displayed when it arises. Think of all the "cheap McCaskeys" talk over the last 10 years. That stigma won't die.

 

But I think the guys in the NFLPA also know they have a limited chance at getting a ring and they want the rookies to do their part. You don't hear about 6th round scrubs holding out with any regularity, it is pretty much always going to be someone who is counted on contributing early. Sometimes you have QBs or a few other positions who might be drafted early but are going to sit at first, but usually if you are drafting an OL, LB, EDGE, etc early you are wanting them to step in early.

 

IDK though. Maybe I am completely overestimating how much they care about rookies. But I am sure the owners are going to want to squash this immediately.

 The issues since the introduction of the wage scale arise from contract language, and thats not something that can be collectively bargained.  

[IronMike84]

Like I’ve said, this is just the tip of the iceberg of what we’ll be hearing come CBA negotiation time. 

[Madmike90]

This is great news for the fact we hopefully never need to see Timu play a significant down again...even after missing time I still expect him to be our leading tackler from day one.