128 replies to this topic

[LordOpie]

By bad, I mean compared to other NFL starting RBs.

Quote

Throughout the league, people have wondered why the Bears can't agree on a multiyear contract extension for one of the NFL's most productive running backs. A major sticking point stems from the Bears' worry over how long Forte's knees will hold up, a source told the Tribune. The wear and tear on Forte's knees drew the attention of several teams, including the Bears, before the 2008 NFL draft when he came out of Tulane.

The Bears won't acknowledge it publicly or privately but want to protect themselves from arthritis setting in and becoming a chronic problem for the fifth-year running back with 1,237 career NFL touches who turns 27 in December. In the NFL, data show running backs start declining after age 28.

http://www.chicagotr...,4014548.column

Is this just a ploy by CHI to not pay him as much or is there a legit concern here?

Any homers have more info on this?

[kpholmes]

Who has Michael Bush locked up on a long term contract?
This guy.

[Bronco Billy]

I guess that explains why CHI has restricted his touches so much for Forte's 4 years...



C'mon, show the guy a little respect for the way he's carried the O for his entire 4 years and ante up.

[bushwacked]

kpholmes, on 26 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Who has Michael Bush locked up on a long term contract?
This guy.

Forte is 27 and so is Bush.  I've seen enough of these convenient off-season reports not come to fruition and I'd be as equally worried about Bush's fat belly arthritis.

[Tford]

So let me get this straight, the Bears sign a guy in Mike Bush who destroyed his tibia and couldn't play football for two years to a four-year contract without qualms.

And yet, Matt Forte sprains his MCL once and the Bears are acting like Forte is an injury risk? Gimme a break.

[G.K.Trey]

Tford, on 27 May 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

So let me get this straight, the Bears sign a guy in Mike Bush who destroyed his tibia and couldn't play football for two years to a four-year contract without qualms.

And yet, Matt Forte sprains his MCL once and the Bears are acting like Forte is an injury risk? Gimme a break.

and how much did they give Bush? and compare that amount to the amount Forte wants. If Forte want tos sign the same deal , I guarantee the Bears would be ok wit that.

[Bronco Billy]

G.K.Trey, on 27 May 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

and how much did they give Bush? and compare that amount to the amount Forte wants. If Forte want tos sign the same deal , I guarantee the Bears would be ok wit that.

Because Bush means as much to CHI as Forte, right?

Forte played under his rookie contract of $3.5M for 4 years - and the Bears got all that premium production at what has proven to be a greatly reduced price.  Hell - CHI paid Marion Barber $2.25M the past season for what he did, and paid Taylor $7M for one freakin' year because they terminated his contract after 1 year before that.  Now they've signed Bush to 4 years for $14M.  So all of Forte's backups were making substantially more than him the whole time while Forte was racking up touches and yards doing all the heavy lifting for an at-best mediocre O behind a terrible O-line.  The guy has shown that he is one of the best RBs in the league and can be the bell cow for the O, and did it under his rookie contract.  All he's asking is to be paid in accordance with what he has proven he brings to the table and what his value has been to the team now that his rookie contract is up, and while he is still in the prime of his productivity/earning power.  Instead the Bears have chosen to reward all that with a 1 year tag on him.

The 6 year/$32M contract they offered at the start of last year was clearly undercompensation given what he's proven - and only $13M of that was guaranteed and it was backloaded so that Forte's eventual compensation if he were cut after say 3 or 4 years would have been a lot less than what the entire contract averaged out to, since the signing bonus was relatively small.  It actually would have worked out to barely more than Bush's contract unless it were allowed to run 5 to 6 years.

Forte did it right.  He didn't hold out for more when he was clearly being underpaid.  Now he's asking to be compensated for past and future value and the Bears have slapped the guy in the face.  I'm no fan of overpaying players - everyone who knows me here knows that.  But c'mon, this is embarrassing on the Bears' end - and now this additional slap of suddenly having injury concerns?  That's chicken#### on the Bears' part, plain & simple.

Edited by Bronco Billy, 27 May 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[electricrelish]

Bronco Billy, on 27 May 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Because Bush means as much to CHI as Forte, right?

Forte played under his rookie contract of $3.5M for 4 years - and the Bears got all that premium production at what has proven to be a greatly reduced price.  Hell - CHI paid Marion Barber $2.25M the past season for what he did, and paid Taylor $7M for one freakin' year because they terminated his contract after 1 year before that.  Now they've signed Bush to 4 years for $14M.  So all of Forte's backups were making substantially more than him the whole time while Forte was racking up touches and yards doing all the heavy lifting for an at-best mediocre O behind a terrible O-line.  The guy has shown that he is one of the best RBs in the league and can be the bell cow for the O, and did it under his rookie contract.  All he's asking is to be paid in accordance with what he has proven he brings to the table and what his value has been to the team now that his rookie contract is up, and while he is still in the prime of his productivity/earning power.  Instead the Bears have chosen to reward all that with a 1 year tag on him.

The 6 year/$32M contract they offered at the start of last year was clearly undercompensation given what he's proven - and only $13M of that was guaranteed and it was backloaded so that Forte's eventual compensation if he were cut after say 3 or 4 years would have been a lot less than what the entire contract averaged out to, since the signing bonus was relatively small.  It actually would have worked out to barely more than Bush's contract unless it were allowed to run 5 to 6 years.

Forte did it right.  He didn't hold out for more when he was clearly being underpaid.  Now he's asking to be compensated for past and future value and the Bears have slapped the guy in the face.  I'm no fan of overpaying players - everyone who knows me here knows that.  But c'mon, this is embarrassing on the Bears' end - and now this additional slap of suddenly having injury concerns?  That's chicken#### on the Bears' part, plain & simple.

+1.  Well said.  Watch him run uphill with a 100 lb sled tied tied to his waist.

[Cunning Runt]

Bronco Billy, on 27 May 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Because Bush means as much to CHI as Forte, right?

Forte played under his rookie contract of $3.5M for 4 years - and the Bears got all that premium production at what has proven to be a greatly reduced price.  Hell - CHI paid Marion Barber $2.25M the past season for what he did, and paid Taylor $7M for one freakin' year because they terminated his contract after 1 year before that.  Now they've signed Bush to 4 years for $14M.  So all of Forte's backups were making substantially more than him the whole time while Forte was racking up touches and yards doing all the heavy lifting for an at-best mediocre O behind a terrible O-line.  The guy has shown that he is one of the best RBs in the league and can be the bell cow for the O, and did it under his rookie contract.  All he's asking is to be paid in accordance with what he has proven he brings to the table and what his value has been to the team now that his rookie contract is up, and while he is still in the prime of his productivity/earning power.  Instead the Bears have chosen to reward all that with a 1 year tag on him.

The 6 year/$32M contract they offered at the start of last year was clearly undercompensation given what he's proven - and only $13M of that was guaranteed and it was backloaded so that Forte's eventual compensation if he were cut after say 3 or 4 years would have been a lot less than what the entire contract averaged out to, since the signing bonus was relatively small.  It actually would have worked out to barely more than Bush's contract unless it were allowed to run 5 to 6 years.

Forte did it right.  He didn't hold out for more when he was clearly being underpaid.  Now he's asking to be compensated for past and future value and the Bears have slapped the guy in the face.  I'm no fan of overpaying players - everyone who knows me here knows that.  But c'mon, this is embarrassing on the Bears' end - and now this additional slap of suddenly having injury concerns?  That's chicken#### on the Bears' part, plain & simple.

I have no interest in a debate and do not intend to defend myself, but I'll say only that I disagree with you completely. He got a paycheck and he honored his contract. Whoopty doo. That's what players are supposed to do. He's owed nothing else at this point. Both sides fulfilled their part of a business contract. Nothing more.

[Bronco Billy]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

I have no interest in a debate and do not intend to defend myself, but I'll say only that I disagree with you completely. He got a paycheck and he honored his contract. Whoopty doo. That's what players are supposed to do. He's owed nothing else at this point. Both sides fulfilled their part of a business contract. Nothing more.

Even in the "real" world, good companies reward employees who perform well above and beyond what they were initially contracted to do - the smart companies do at least.  And when you have an employee who provides substantial tangible value and proves themself to be elite in a position that provides great return to the company, the smart companies offer above the market price for them to keep them on board.

Not sure how this is different.  Your position is awfully jaded - and coming from me that's a lot.

Edited by Bronco Billy, 27 May 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[piratesownninjas]

Tford, on 27 May 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

So let me get this straight, the Bears sign a guy in Mike Bush who destroyed his tibia and couldn't play football for two years to a four-year contract without qualms.

And yet, Matt Forte sprains his MCL once and the Bears are acting like Forte is an injury risk? Gimme a break.

Bush's leg fracture wasn't a degenetative injury.  Forte's knees sound like they are.  Different situation.

[Cunning Runt]

Bronco Billy, on 27 May 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Even in the "real" world, good companies reward employees who perform well above and beyond what they were initially contracted to do - the smart companies do at least.  And when you have an employee who provides substantial tangible value and proves themself to be elite in a position that provides great return to the company, the smart companies offer above the market price for them to keep them on board.

Not sure how this is different.  Your position is awfully jaded - and coming from me that's a lot.

I understand your point. I did the first time I read it also. I just have a different take on players and what a team owes them. I hear people say Indy owes Manning. I say they don't. They owed him a paycheck, and a rather large one - nothing more. I'm consistent if nothing else in how I feel about these situations.

[LordOpie]

The system is still screwed up. I agree with the rookie pay scale cuz the 1st round salaries were getting nuts.

But it's clearly screwed for positions that have a short shelf life. If I'm not mistaken, it can, does and will go like this... good RB taken in the 2nd round signs a three year deal for, essentially, a cheap amount. Then gets RFA'ed for cheap. Now at this point, he has no choice cuz I think the new CBA says that you have to report 10 days *BEFORE* the season starts and be available to your team from that point on. A player can no longer hold out cuz he still under the RFA tender the next year. Then a franchise tag, then another, then "released". At which point, his best years are clearly behind him and he never got paid -- compared to other positions. When you're a 28 yo stud QB, you get $100mil. When you're a 28yo stud RB, everyone knows you're on the down side of your career.

Is my "analysis" correct? Do short-life positions still get royally screwed compared to positions that could have a 15 year duration?

[Cunning Runt]

LordOpie, on 27 May 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

The system is still screwed up. I agree with the rookie pay scale cuz the 1st round salaries were getting nuts.

But it's clearly screwed for positions that have a short shelf life. If I'm not mistaken, it can, does and will go like this... good RB taken in the 2nd round signs a three year deal for, essentially, a cheap amount. Then gets RFA'ed for cheap. Now at this point, he has no choice cuz I think the new CBA says that you have to report 10 days *BEFORE* the season starts and be available to your team from that point on. A player can no longer hold out cuz he still under the RFA tender the next year. Then a franchise tag, then another, then "released". At which point, his best years are clearly behind him and he never got paid -- compared to other positions. When you're a 28 yo stud QB, you get $100mil. When you're a 28yo stud RB, everyone knows you're on the down side of your career.

Is my "analysis" correct? Do short-life positions still get royally screwed compared to positions that could have a 15 year duration?

Well..... Those guys can always choose not to play. They have a choice.

[LordOpie]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Well..... Those guys can always choose not to play. They have a choice.

[Papajohn]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Well..... Those guys can always choose not to play. They have a choice.

I am at a loss for words. I am quite shocked that anybody could or would write something as silly as that.

[Bronco Billy]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

I understand your point. I did the first time I read it also. I just have a different take on players and what a team owes them. I hear people say Indy owes Manning. I say they don't. They owed him a paycheck, and a rather large one - nothing more. I'm consistent if nothing else in how I feel about these situations.

I appreciate the clarification.  The difference IMO is that IND compensated Manning appropriately based upon market value.  That means that I would agree with you - IND owed Manning nothing (prior to Manning going to DEN).  They compensated him appropriately and Manning reaps the benfits for what he did on the field for IND's gain.

CHI on the other hand did not and apparently has no intention of compensating Forte fairly based for past and potential future acheivement based upon the market.  That's where you and I part company on this.  Forte did his time under the crappy rookie contract - he played the whole thing out and didn't hold out despite being dramatically underpaid by market standards.  He acted in good faith.  CHI is clearly failing to act in a similar manner, IMO.  Then the bogus injury concern "leaking out" - that's downright unethical.  Show the guy just a modicum of respect and deal with him as fairly as he has dealt with CHI.  That's not unreasonable, is it?

[Scorcher]

Bronco Billy, on 27 May 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

I appreciate the clarification.  The difference IMO is that IND compensated Manning appropriately based upon market value.  That means that I would agree with you - IND owed Manning nothing (prior to Manning going to DEN).  They compensated him appropriately and Manning reaps the benfits for what he did on the field for IND's gain.

CHI on the other hand did not and apparently has no intention of compensating Forte fairly based for past and potential future acheivement based upon the market.  That's where you and I part company on this.  Forte did his time under the crappy rookie contract - he played the whole thing out and didn't hold out despite being dramatically underpaid by market standards.  He acted in good faith.  CHI is clearly failing to act in a similar manner, IMO.  Then the bogus injury concern "leaking out" - that's downright unethical.  Show the guy just a modicum of respect and deal with him as fairly as he has dealt with CHI.  That's not unreasonable, is it?

  


+1

[Cunning Runt]

Papajohn, on 27 May 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

I am at a loss for words. I am quite shocked that anybody could or would write something as silly as that.

It's silly to say that if someone doesn't like their work conditions or their compensation they can choose another line of work?  Gotcha.

Let me guess.... you favored the player's position in last year's labor dispute. Me? I wanted ownership to absolutely crush the players.

[bushwacked]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Me? I wanted ownership to absolutely crush the players.

Thanks for the clarification.  I was really wondering what your opinion was.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would hope that the way the Bears have treated Forte would be an object lesson to their other current players and to potential free agents.


The Bears are doing that which is leagally allowed, but they are not doing "right".

[BeeR]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

I have no interest in a debate and do not intend to defend myself, but I'll say only that I disagree with you completely. He got a paycheck and he honored his contract. Whoopty doo. That's what players are supposed to do.

Yet many do not.  You completely ignore how the game is played, and I don't mean on the field.  Comparisons to the "real world" can be dicey depending on what you're talking about.

BB, very well said.  This is total BS by the Bears.

[BeeR]

Ditkaless Wonders, on 27 May 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

I would hope that the way the Bears have treated Forte would be an object lesson

?  You mean abject?  

Quote

The Bears are doing that which is leagally allowed, but they are not doing "right".

yep

[Papajohn]

Cunning Runt, on 27 May 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

It's silly to say that if someone doesn't like their work conditions or their compensation they can choose another line of work?  Gotcha.

Let me guess.... you favored the player's position in last year's labor dispute. Me? I wanted ownership to absolutely crush the players.

I am curious to why you would want that? If we wanted to see crappy players payed little money then the XFL would still be around.
I didn't favor the players or the owners for that matter. I didn't care, I just wanted to watch football. But with that said I still don't see why the owners pr. definition should be entitled to the entire profit from the most lucrative business in all of sports, If you think businesses with powerful stake holders are run that way then you are sadly mistaken.

And your comment about quitting the job if unsatisfied is still nothing but silly, and makes no sense at all, and you know it.

Edited by Papajohn, 27 May 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Cunning Runt]

Papajohn, on 27 May 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

I am curious to why you would want that? If we wanted to see crappy players payed little money then the XFL would still be around.
I didn't favor the players or the owners for that matter. I didn't care, I just wanted to watch football. But with that said I still don't see why the owners pr. definition should be entitled to the entire profit from the most lucrative business in all of sports, If you think businesses with powerful stake holders are run that way then you are sadly mistaken.

And your comment about quitting the job if unsatisfied is still nothing but silly, and makes no sense at all, and you know it.

Just addressing the last part for now..... I do not believe it's silly......at all.

You don't like the working environment, you're free to find another line of work. We all are.

I genuinely believe that.

What the heck......As far as owners crushing the players. Yes. I wanted that too. My opinion may not be the most popular but it's only an opinion. Doesn't mean squat. The players are not the game. Players come and go.