A Pro Matt Forte Article.......We Could Use a Little Balance...........

Commentary: Front offices playing an unfair game

The Matt Forte and Ray Rice situations show absurdity of running backs' contracts


Updated: June 7, 2012, 10:34 AM ET
By Scoop Jackson | ESPNChicago.com


Let's put this Matt Forte dilemma into a different perspective.

Say you are a young chef doing a stint at a very successful restaurant, working for one of the greatest chefs in the world. Now the restaurant isn't yours and you aren't the head chef, but you are at the sous level. The plates you create begin to get recognized around the country and you are being called one of the nation's best young chefs -- one most other five-star restaurants would kill to have in their kitchens. You're career is beginning to buzz.
[+] Enlargehttp://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1108...rte_cr_200.jpgAP Photo/Matt SlocumThe Bears are using Matt Forte's heavy workload against him in contract negotiations.


Say the restaurant at which you work recognizes your talent, but doesn't honor it. The owner, perhaps the chef whose name is on the establishment, doesn't necessarily want you to leave, but he's not giving you any reasons to stay. You have options and are in demand. So you leave. Time to test the market.

Say you then open your own restaurant, and within a few years, you get the James Beard Foundation Award as the best chef in America and after that your restaurant is voted the best restaurant in America by Gourmet, Food and Wine and Travel and Leisure magazines.
A few years later Time includes you in the TIME100, a list of the "100 most influential people in the world."

The point? Finding your true worth when others might not see or fully appreciate it has its privileges. Sometimes, it becomes your blessing in disguise. In the case of Matt Forte with the Chicago Bears, he may need to follow that lead. Follow the path of a world-class chef and use it as a guide and inspiration for what can happen to someone when he does the opposite of what everyone seems to be telling him to do.

Sometimes it's just not smart to listen to the world when your heart is telling you to do something different.

The world seems to be telling Forte to take what the Bears are currently offering him and run. And catch … and block … and continue to be the second-most important offensive player on the roster.

Stop holding out and accept the franchise tag, which will pay him $7.7 million this season (a significant upgrade from what he made last season, when he was paid $600,000), have the same season he had last season before he was injured then come back to the table and get the contract from the Bears that he was looking for when this whole thing began.

But when Forte's contemporaries around the league are continuously being compensated with more secure, long-term packages, why should he be the one in the group to settle for less?

Take a look at these deals:
LeSean McCoy, Philadelphia (five-year extension/$45M/$20M guaranteed)
Chris Johnson, Tennessee (six years/$56M)
Adrian Peterson, Minnesota (seven years/$96M)
Arian Foster, Houston (five years/$43.5M)

Forte -- along with Baltimore's Ray Rice, who is also in the middle of a contentious negotiation -- falls somewhere on that list. His play has earned him the right to be in the same conversations with those other running backs. His play has also allowed him to decline the "strong offer" (words of former GM Jerry Angelo) Chicago initially put on the table or the franchise tag that they've placed on him since his initial decline of that offer.

It's a game that Forte and his agent, Adisa Bakari, are apparently not willing to play right now.

They have options.

And the reason they are continuing to hold out is because they are tired of the games.
Games -- not all, but too many -- teams play in which they want the player to overproduce and when the player does they hold it against them in contract negotiations; ownership saying the "shelf life of a running back is short" as a new way of devaluing a player regardless of what he does and using it as leverage against the value of the player's pending contract.

Age? Please. Here's how this absurdity works: Ray Rice (25) is under the 26-year-old time frame that the league and the media seem to be throwing out there as the new age limit for when a running back starts to decline in production. But in the contract talks, the team will bring up the fact that Rice has averaged over 280 carries and 72 receptions a year over the past three seasons.
[+] Enlargehttp://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1213...ice_bl_200.jpgMitch Stringer/US PresswireLike Forte, Ray Rice appears to be the victim of an unfair market for running backs.


So now he's overworked. Now, they'll use that as the reason Rice's 25-year-old body is closer to 32 in football years.

Now that it is contract-talk time, and Rice is good to them and for them, he's damaged goods. And the reason he's damaged? The same people refusing to extend his contract are the people who had coaches call his number and run plays for him to outperform his previous deal.

(If this is the new standard procedure of how NFL teams are going to monetarily access running backs, the entire structure of rookie contracts for players at that position needs to change.)

It's straight games. Games that the NFL seems to be playing, games certain players are tired of having to play.

Players in the NFL already have very little power. The only true leverage they have in contract negotiations is the value of their past productivity. The future for any player at any position in the league is a risk, but to single out running backs the way that they have over the past decade -- making them almost disposable commodities when their contracts expire -- can only be called disingenuous at best.

But then again this is business, and we are dealing with an organization that underpaid -- and at times undervalued -- Walter Payton.

So regardless of how you feel about Matt Forte and how he and his agent are handling this contract situation with the Bears, understand this: They have just as much right to hold out as the Bears do to play the contract game the way they seem to be playing it.

No side is right in this situation, but Forte shouldn't be looked at as being wrong. He is standing his ground and doing what he feels is necessary for his career.

It's his career. Just as it is their team.

The next CBA is going to have to look into the positions situation. If the best rb's are only going get 1 top end contract, if they're lucky 2 total then 4yr rookie deals and 2 FT's is a harsh buzz.

But the Bears are playing by the rules, and by those rules I don't have a problem w/what they want to do; I also dont have a problem w/what Forte is doing for the same reason though, the Rules are really slanted against the RB position so if he has to do things that fans or the team doesn't like, well kinda have to some time. I still think he should have pulled this stunt last year after the FT tag was off the table. That thing just muddies up the RB talks. But he couldn't have been asking for 20+ mil either.

Even though I'm opposed to some of what Scoop Jackson says here I still felt this was a good article worthy of discussion. We've posted several that promote the Bears side so it's only fair we include one that promotes Forte's side.

That said I'll list and characterize my position as far as this article goes.

First of all let's take his story about the sous chef making good on his own. The reason this example doesn't apply in this case is because the chef is not represented by a union that agreed that he could be bound to remain with his present employer if that employer so chooses although with a significant increase in salary.

The NFLPA had a fair shot at negotiating franchise tags out of this most recent contract but chose to not even put them on the agenda. The players as a whole, Matt Forte included, asked the NFLPA to be their representative and bargaining arm. Players can't pick and choose how they want to be represented on an individual basis. The NFLPA agreed to allow NFL teams to use a franchise tag on one player per year. It may seem unfair as far as that player establishing his true market value but it is what it is. There is absolutely no arguable position there.

The other issue that I have a problem with is that Jackson is behaving like a players age shouldn't come into the picture in negotiations. Well it has to. The productivity of most RB's begins to slide after their 6th or 7th season. Age and the cumulative beating their bodies take combine to hit at the same time. There are any number of cases where that's exactly what happened shortly after they got a big contract from their team.

So the players decline begins and 2 years into a five year deal he's all but through and anything but the feature back the team paid for. The problem is if they cut him they need to roll up 3 years worth of his amortized SB all in one year and not only does that create millions of dollars of "dead cap space" they have to pay his replacement as well. Currently teams have taken to paying smaller signing bonuses and have gone back to "back loading contracts". This is something the Bears have avoided.

So Jackson gives examples of only the 4 highest paid contracts given out in the past year. In all fairness at the very least he should include lower paid ones like Frank Gore and Marshawn Lynch. The ones for AP and CJ should be removed. They're outliers due to the fact that they are considered the two top RB's in football. Once that done what the Bears seem to be offering falls more in line with the average of these deals.

One other factor that Jackson fails to mention because it's likely he never even researched it for this article is this. None of those players will ever see 100% of the dollars in those contracts. Once the guarantees are paid out and their inflated salaries kick in counting 100% against the cap those deals will either need to be renegotiated or the player will become a "cap casualty". I would still stick with my belief that because the Bears refuse to "back load" deals Matt Forte would stand to get 100% of his money over a 4 year deal.

OK, so that's my gripes with the article but I do admit he does make some reasonable points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

The next CBA is going to have to look into the positions situation. If the best rb's are only going get 1 top end contract, if they're lucky 2 total then 4yr rookie deals and 2 FT's is a harsh buzz.

But the Bears are playing by the rules, and by those rules I don't have a problem w/what they want to do; I also dont have a problem w/what Forte is doing for the same reason though, the Rules are really slanted against the RB position so if he has to do things that fans or the team doesn't like, well kinda have to some time. I still think he should have pulled this stunt last year after the FT tag was off the table. That thing just muddies up the RB talks. But he couldn't have been asking for 20+ mil either.

---

The problem is the current CBA doesn't expire for 9 more years. I think Jackson has some valid points here but I also believe he glosses over some important factors as well.

"But then again this is business, and we are dealing with an organization that underpaid -- and at times undervalued -- Walter Payton."


Bad journalism. This is the kind of crap that is continuously perpetuated by the media surrounding the Chicago Bears. Every year over the last decade, they spend close to the cap without getting themselves into trouble. However, lets go back to the way the Great Walter Payton was treated by the Bears. When he was drafted, the Chicago Bears paid him a 125,000 signing bonus. Not a lot by today's standards, but at that time IT WAS THE HIGHEST EVER PAID. Fast forward to 1983, Walter payton signed a contract with the Chicago Bears that included a lifetime annuity of nearly 1/4 million Dollars, that combined with his annual salary was again, THE HIGHEST IN LEAGUE HISTORY. In 1988, Walter Payton was asked and accepted a position of the Chicago Bears Board of Directors, very rare for players at that time.

So I ask you "Scoop", what part of any of that suggests that the Chicago Bears underpaid or undervalued Walter Payton? When a part of your story is found to lack credibility, it jeopardizes all the rest. That said, I still like Matt Forte, and I wish him all the best, continuing to hope that "his best" done in a Bears Uniform, but not willing to risk multiple other parts of the team to do so.

THey aren't saying they are cheap 4db, they are saying they have a history of undervaluing/underpaying the RB position.

Since this is a Pro Forte thread, lets go ahead and point out that multiple team mates have supported him and the players rated him the 33rd best player, and the 7th best rb in the league. I think it's a safe assumption that if he had stayed healthy it would have been a few spots higher.

Soul, of course he glosses over other issues; he's trying to make a case FOR Forte, it's meant to be one sided, like the previous article that only took td's into account regarding him and McCoy was meant to be one sided. I know it's 9yrs down the road, but i believe either side can opt out in 5yrs.

I think forte is worth the money I just don't think it's wise sinking that money into the position

Also if forte wants to be mad at anyone he should be mad at his union brothers that allowed for the existence of a franchise tag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

THey aren't saying they are cheap 4db, they are saying they have a history of undervaluing/underpaying the RB position.

Since this is a Pro Forte thread, lets go ahead and point out that multiple team mates have supported him and the players rated him the 33rd best player, and the 7th best rb in the league. I think it's a safe assumption that if he had stayed healthy it would have been a few spots higher.

Soul, of course he glosses over other issues; he's trying to make a case FOR Forte, it's meant to be one sided, like the previous article that only took td's into account regarding him and McCoy was meant to be one sided. I know it's 9yrs down the road, but i believe either side can opt out in 5yrs.

---

I understand. But my contradictory point still stands regardless of the semantics. In fact, I would suggest that the Chicago Bears have, in fact, OVER valued the position in a PASSING league for far too long and it has been to their detriment. The Bears have always been a Running Back/Linebacker team and until now, they have always placed more value on Running backs than they have on Wide Receivers. As far as underpaying them, I just pointed out the one very famous RB that Scoop cited and offered up evidence that his citation is incorrect, and even opposite.

With all that said, there is a lot to be Pro-Forte about. The guy is a gamer and I really like the way he plays. His many strengths far exceed his weaknesses and I'm ready for this to be resolved. Even for a guy like me who is an open advocate for the team, I would really prefer he get paid in a manner that makes both sides happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

THey aren't saying they are cheap 4db, they are saying they have a history of undervaluing/underpaying the RB position.

Since this is a Pro Forte thread, lets go ahead and point out that multiple team mates have supported him and the players rated him the 33rd best player, and the 7th best rb in the league. I think it's a safe assumption that if he had stayed healthy it would have been a few spots higher.

Soul, of course he glosses over other issues; he's trying to make a case FOR Forte, it's meant to be one sided, like the previous article that only took td's into account regarding him and McCoy was meant to be one sided. I know it's 9yrs down the road, but i believe either side can opt out in 5yrs.

---

I don't feel that the Bears underpaid Walter. I remember KC making him an offer one year while he was between Bears contracts but he turned them down. He also had the only million dollar year contract the Bears had ever given out up to that time. He was definitely the highest paid player on the Bears team so f that's being under paid or under valued as a RB what would be over valued?

Ric I know he's trying to pump up Forte's side of this. That's why I posted it. The Bears can't get away with sticking all the bad out there in the press without some balance in favor of the other side. But despite that it doesn't mean I can't critique him on his article. To be honest I didn't find much wrong with it except those couple of things I singled out.

I want them to come to an agreement. I really don't want Forte playing under that tag anymore than he does. But there comes a point when you have to wonder who's being unreasonable here. The Bears have a pretty good reputation for re-signing there own FA and in other instances extending contracts before they expire.

Over the past 5 or 6 years or so the only guy I can remember them having a contract dispute with was Briggs and that was because he was asking for a ridiculous amount of money. So they tagged him and tried to work something out with him but when they couldn't come to terms they let him enter FA and what happened? He found out he wasn't worth quite what he thought, or what Rosenhaus as telling him he was worth, and he came back and signed the Bears offer.

I completely disagree that the Bears have undervalued RB or any other position on the team. If they had there would have been many more contract disputes like Forte's.

I'm not saying the writer is right, I'm saying that is what he was saying, or in other words not saying the whole team is cheap.

I think Briggs overvalued himself, and when he hit FA it showed, but I think the team and others felt his #'s were infalted b/c of the HOF'r he play's next to; and that hurt him. Forte is not going to have that issue if he gets to FA. Players feel he's a top 50 player, and a top 10 rb. I think teams are going to see that also.

I'm not going to talk #'s anymore b/c it's all heresay and theory. But I think we both agree he either plays via FT or w/a long term deal. And that's all I care about.

I will say this, I would not sign a FT just to continue on the contract talk b/c there is no reason to believe they will continue to negotiate. They went w/this manuvere last year and Forte got F'd for it. Continue to hold out until the deal is done. Let them know, once the tag is signed, you're going to FA next year unless they overwelm you w/an offer.