Five Scenarios For Ending Matt Forte's Contract Dispute...........

**soulman** · 06-19-2012, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by yttocs

Now add in all the running back the BEARS have draft between to two ( MF NA ) Hows that pan out? So MF is worth 7.7 mil a year with an infaltion increase, so 20 over 5 guarenteed is out of the question, got it. Less of a cap it and as you put it, the player never sees the full contract. The BEARS draft a player in the next draft, let him learn and KEEP THE WAER AND TEAR the BEARS will put on him down and then use against him on a contract. IF the BEARS tag twice thats around 17 mil, third year at 3 spread over 5 HMMMMM. And again as you state why should the BEARS say they wont tag him next year to get him to sign. OK Well why should MF sign before he HAS to to get full contract money? Its less wear and tear and is to his advantage to prolong it right? Be a good sport and risk your career for one year, when you state he was over used and has too many mles on? Thats more of a reason to prolong and come in when he HAS too.

P.S. go Garret Wolf, oh wait....K.Bell if he was better MF wouldn't be TAGGED. Bush, hmmm, Cap hit? But an often injuried player replaced him....Got it Abandon the running game, or put a RB in that runs well and team know that , then replace said RB with a pass blocker when we pass and team know that too. I'm not for breaking the bank, but 20 mill over 5 years guaranteed sounds right. He's getting almost half that this year alone, aged , over used and bad knee and all.

P.S.S. and what is the exact offer the BEARS offered MF? I dont know what hes asking either, so... I do note you think MF is on the out, not worth the price, He's a has been going down. The BEARS got rid of TJ, and CB only for them to have a few more good yeas ( TJ, CB still might have even more, but glad hes gone ).

I don't know what to say brother. You're kind of rambling through all kinds to things here so let me clarify what I'm saying about this and have said all along.

I'm not saying that Matt Forte isn't worth a $40 mil deal with $20 mil guaranteed. I believe it's the Bears who are saying that and they're the only ones who count. What we believe is nothing more than our sentiments on the matter. I'm taking a pragmatic view of it while yours is more emotional. You're point of view and that of a few others is that he's been a great player, a good and loyal Chicago Bear putting out 100% effort always so he deserves whatever he's asking for whatever that amount is. At least that what I get out if this.

The problem with that point of view is that what he done he's already been paid for. Underpaid yes but paid just the same and when he was a rookie it was the Bears who took a chance on him and drafted him in the 2nd round knee injury high mileage and all when others had him rated lower or not at all.

So he got paid like a 2nd round pick and he's made just under $3.8 mil over 4 years. Almost a mil per year for a guy who could have turned out no better than all of the others between Anderson and him that you singled out for me. This year he'll make no less than $7.74 mil so adding that to the pile he'll have made $11.6 mil over 5 years or an average of about $2.3 mil per year. That's not exactly underpaid for an unproven back with a history of knee problems severe enough to have cost him a lot of productivity in his second year.

Let's compare that to another top ten back who came to the NFL the same year. Arian Foster got just $1.71 mil over his first four years or about $2 mil less than Matt Forte. He made just $525k last year or about the same salary as Matt Forte got but he never once complained about being underpaid, over worked or being used up. Over those four years he proved more productive than Forte. He got a guarantee of $20.75 mil and if he's finishes his contract out he will have averaged $8.7 mil per year. He's also a year younger than Matt.

Now let me tackle your misconceptions. First of all $7.74 mil is roughly 39% of $20 mil not nearly half and you wouldn't be so free about spending it if it was your money. Next it's not $20 mil guaranteed payable over 5 years like you believe. The guaranteed money will be paid out over no more than THREE years with the majority of it being paid out over TWO years. In addition to that if he's expecting a 5 year/$40 mil deal he's asking for another $20 mil that will be paid out in years 3-5 so he averages right at $8 mil per year.

Unless I'm way off I believe the Bears have offered something in the range of $17-$18 mil in guarantee and in a 4 year $30 mil package. Maybe they added another mil or two in incentives like his rookie deal had. That's an average of $7.5 mil to possibly $8 mil per year which would keep him in the top ten as far as RB compensation is concerned and by almost anyone's rankings he's somewhere between #5 and #10. That may not be what Matt is looking for but that wouldn't be an unfair deal based on his status, his production, his loyalty, his future contributions and his anticipated longevity which may or may not begin to decline just as it did with Neal Anderson after he'd been used up during his career.

I don't know what the Bears have offered Matt Forte and I don't know exactly what he expects either but with a little deductive reasoning I think I can get close and I've said in many posts why I believe I'm close to what's actually been asked and offered. This ain't my first rodeo as far as negotiations are concerned. So if we accept the fact that Arian Foster ranks a little higher than Matt Forte. Most rank him right behind AP and CJ as a top three back and let's say Matt ranks somewhere between 5 and 8. So is it unfair for Matt to be paid a little less if that's what we're going by? I don't believe it is but if the Bears gave him the exact same deal I wouldn't complain we over paid him. Yet you say he's being underpaid if he doesn't get a deal on par with a back whose proven to be a better back.

So now having set the facts straight again, meaning the guaranteed money will not be paid out over all five years of a five year deal and the sum total of that five year deal I believe he's looking for is twice the amount of those guarantees. He's at least one year older and has more mileage on him in combination that any other back in his class and he does have a history of knee injuries which could lead to an arthritic condition which we all know is not curable by drugs or surgery. If his knees go so does his game.

I'm saying that I really don't care how much they pay him. But I am also saying that it's somewhat understandable why they would be offering a little less based on several of the factors I've mentioned. The Bears do have a right to protect their interests just as Matt has a right to protect his. So put yourselves in their place all of you who think they should just give in and pay him what he's asking. Now ask yourself if you had carefully considered all factors, as I'm sure the Bears have, and it was your money or your companies money would you give it up? It's real easy to spend other peoples money.

Now the final facts. Matt has no leverage to get them to up whatever offer they've made but it sounds like if he'd sign his tender they'd talk again and see if there wasn't some way to put a little more money in his pocket and still protect themselves. Despite what some think you don't resume negotiations expecting the same old offer to be accepted when it's already been rejected at least three times that I'm aware of. Nobody does that. Not even the NFL. It's a waste of time for everyone. So that's where it stands.

Michael Bush and Kahlil Bell have both proven they're competent NFL RB's and while neither is as good as Matt Forte splitting up the work between them they may be nearly as effective and we can win games with them as our RB's. Remember, Matt Forte isn't gonna be 40% plus of the Bears total offensive output this year. Half that is more like it.

Well that about wraps this up again. I don't know how many times I need to clarify that I'm not against Matt Forte or pro Bears and I really don't care what they pay him. I'm just laying out facts and reasonable deductions and nothing more.

**Riczaj01** · 06-19-2012, 10:34 AM

There is this really dumb theory right now that big contract to rb = poor performance. There might be a corralation there, but it's not the cause, the 2 have nothing to do w/eachother. And actually if Tenn would have signed him sooner, he wouldn't have missed all TC and Pre Season and probably would have performed at a far better, even on par pace w/how he has played in the past. Forte for all accounts is in even better condition then he was last year, no reason to think he won't be game ready.
There is also a REALLY bad theory that 26 is old for a RB, that also isn't the case. Your top rb's don't tend to decline until their 30's. If, as in most contracts, the bears are looking at a 4-5 year contract(normally front loaded) that means IF Forte were to start declining sooner then average(say 29) he's going to be very cuttable.
All these RB's are either older then Forte or have had at least 1 new contract:
AP got hurt last year for the 1st time, but his #'s have been pretty consistant througout, approx 1500 tot yards and 15 td's. He had a stand out td year a few years ago and a standout yards the year before. But his production has remianed fairly consisant. Last year he still had 12 td's and 1200 yards. Gore, pretty average w/1300-1500 yards, and 8+ td's. Jones Drew, pretty consistant at 1500 yards 10 TD's. Anyone think these guys AREN'T high milage backs? Thomas Jones, at age 30 was still at 1200+ yard back and actually at age 30 and 31 has some of his most productive years in yards and TD's. Think he's had a few extensions/contracts? Now he never made the huge cash, but he did more then 2x his money from Chi to NY. Point? stop buying what the media is selling, it's poor journalism at it's best.

RB's are in their prime up until 30, and some if they stay in good health and their OL's keep up can be productive into their 30's, even if they have milage. RB's that get contract extensions don't automatically fall off the cliff. Also it's not like signing a guy to 7-10 mil a year is destroying the salary cap. The cap is 120.6 mil, and most of your players aren't making million's per year. Hell last year there was only 20 of the Bears are, and 11 of them are below 2 mil a year. It's not going to break the Bears bank or payroll to add another elite player into the mix. This year only 13(14 when Forte signs), and 8 of those are 1-2 mil. Everyone else on the team is making 6 fig's. So no signing Forte isn't going to ruin the bears in years to come either.

As for the scenerio's. he's not holding out, at least not past TC, and I doubt that. He's definately not sitting out the year. The Bears aren't dumb enough to trade him; he's worth more to them on the team then a 2nd round pick. The Bears either get a deal done or he sign's the tender, that's it.

**soulman** · 06-19-2012, 01:59 PM

Horse Hockey Ric. You start posting your list of backs who gain 1500 yards or more in total yardage into their late 20's and early 30's and we'll debate more but until then all you've done is post suppositions where I've posted examples.

This entire post tells me you have no idea of what percentage of backs are able to do what you claim. If you do then post them! Let's see this long list of aging RB's who stay injury free and produce at top levels at age 30 and beyond. You want another example besides Neal Anderson? OK I'll give you a low mileage example to contrast with Anderson's high mileage one.

Matt Forte sustained an injury in his 2nd year that inhibited him and caused his production to drop significantly from where it had been his rookie year. Right? Here's the stats.

Career Statistics
Year	Team	G	rush	yds	avg	lg	td	rec	avg	td
2011	CHI	12	203	997	4.9	46	3	52	9.4	1
2010	CHI	16	237	1069	4.5	68	6	51	10.7	3
2009	CHI	16	258	929	3.6	61	4	57	8.3	0
2008	CHI	16	315	1231	3.9	50	8	64	7.6	4

The Bears had no idea prior to the 2010 season how well he'd recover from that and having no viable backup for Matt they went out and signed a 30 year old, low mileage back named Chester Taylor and gave him $7 mil in guaranteed money because he was such a low mileage back as we were told. How'd that work out?

I'm sorry but very few RB's stay at top levels into their 30's and beyond. They may continue to play in complimentary roles but seldom are they featured backs. It just doesn't happen very often.

And paying one RB $10 mil doesn't hurt your cap? That's 8% of the 2012 cap on one guy. Maybe if you have a $2 mil QB and a bunch of journeymen on your defense and at WR you can. But that's not the way the Bears are built so in THIS case yeah, it would hurt a lot. Hell the $7.74 mil they have to charge against the cap hurts so what to do think $2 or $3 mil more would do as far as signing others. On a 53 man roster just how many guys who consume 8%-10% of your cap can you afford GM Ric?

Don't take this personally because if we were sitting in a bar in San Antonio I'd be buying you beers and we'd be having this same discussion and I'd still be telling you that you don't know what you're talking about. This is all about your theory and you have nothing to back it up. Not one thing have you posted that proves that most 30 year old RB's are still very productive.

Where's your analysis of the Bears cap situation and how another $7-$10 mil per year contract would affect them with Cutler due for an extension that will probably push him up to around $15 mil per year. The $9 mil we took on for Marshall. An extension for Urlacher that will probably run anywhere from $9-$10 mil per year. Pep's cap hit which goes from $11 mil this year to $15-$16-$18 mil over the following three years. Tillman at $9.7 mil in 2013 (that will be renegotiated with an extension), Hester at around $7 mil or more with incentives, Briggs at $6.5 mil, Bennett averaging about $4.5 mil and Bush around $3.75 mil. There's over 60% of the cap right there on the 9 top paid players. Add $7-$10 mil to that for a top tier RB and your looking at 70% of the cap spent on 10 guys. So your left with about $35-$40 mil of cap space to cover 43 more guys, acquire more FA's and keep an in season reserve as a hedge against injuries.

Most of what you've posted is based on pure supposition. Run the numbers. Post the list of those RB's. Put up some support for what you believe. There's very little in the way of accurate facts in the post above.

EDIT: Let me just add this as I did in my post back to mo. I really don't care what they pay him. If they give him $20 mil that's fine with me I just want them to get in agreement on something just like everyone else. I'm not taking the Bears side but I am trying to point out what their point of view may be and the logic and facts it may be based on. Since to them it's simply business and how negotiations work it's easier to figure out where they're coming from. I've only been watching them do this for about 30 years or so and done plenty of my own negotiations during that time as well.

It's harder to figure out Matt's position because it's primarily based on emotion. He feels he's not being taken care of properly and he's taking that very personally. His talk and his actions pretty much tell the story. He seems to be overly focused on being underpaid last year only getting $550k. No mention of the fact that his original contract paid him a total of just under $3.8 mil ($950k avg. per year) or that $2 mil of that deal was guaranteed before he set one foot on the Halas Hall practice fields. The Bears gambled a 2nd round pick and $2 mil on a high mileage back with a history of knee problems and it paid off. We don't talk about that part of the story. Would he have fallen even farther in the draft if the Bears hadn't grabbed him?

He wants what others got (whatever that amount is) yet he won't accept that he's one to two years older. Has more touches. Hasn't been as productive as some until 2011. Has had one knee injury in college and two since he's been with the Bears. Or was it a hamstring in 2009 that inhibited his production? I forget. So he's a 27 year old (this year), high mileage back, who has had some knee problems throughout his career, hasn't been as productive as some of the other backs, and will be of lesser importance in the Bears offense than he has in the past. This is the way the Bears see it and on that basis to them he's not worth a 5yr/$40mil/$20mil guaranteed deal. To them he's worth what they're offering him. That's his market value to them.

He's franchised tagged by a team who's building up their passing offense behind a franchise QB, an all pro WR, a high draft pick WR, one of the best 3rd down receivers in the NFL, and a future HOF KR/PR. They've signed two RB's to back him up who could start and play well enough to win with if he doesn't sign. Unless one of them gets hurt in camp or preseason where's his leverage? He hasn't any. So with no leverage how does he get what he's asking for?

I'm not taking sides I'm simply being pragmatic. I'm an analytical. I look at facts and logic when I make business decisions and that's all I'm doing here.

**Riczaj01** · 06-19-2012, 03:39 PM

It's not what MOST can do Soul, it's about what the elite can do. And all of the rb's I posted have and do get 1500 plus in their late 20's. I didn't say they could into their 30's, b/c Forte would be either out of contract or cuttable at 30.

**GermansbombedPH** · 06-20-2012, 03:36 AM

why do you think LT retired? He could be a #2 RB on many teams. In the end, he is done with 33. Shaun Alexander retired ealry too.
Look at Ricky Williams of the last 2 years, Steven Jackson. Clinton Portis is another great example.
Gore and McGahee are worse than they were. Other name would be Jamal Lewis.

In the end, I have to say that Forte is just to old to get the contract he wants.

I'd part ways with him after next season as SB champion under the FT.

Forte, just sign the FT and play. If you play good, you will get your contract next year. Either from the Bears or another team.

**Riczaj01** · 06-20-2012, 07:36 AM

German He's 26. None of those guys declined signifcantly in their 20's, not even late 20's.
Steven Jackson 28, on a shitty team w/near no talent around him, still 1500 yards avreage and 6.
Frank Gore 29, still averaging 1300 yards and 8 td's.
I'm not even going to bring up the Ricky thing, he didn't want to play football, retired only came back b/c he owed a debt, minute that was paid off he was out again.
Clinton portis averaged over 4 yards at 28 and 29, but was given less then 200 touches. looking at his yards is misleading, but at 28 he was still getting 1500 yards w/the same 7+ td's he did his whole career. seems like, barring if he was inj'd those last 2 years he could've been productive seeing as his ypa were still where they always had been.
Willis McGahee had one of his most productive years at 30 in Denver 1200 yards and 5 td's; considering that Tebow was stealing goalline touches in a traditional O he would have had more yards and TD's.
Lewis at 30 and 31 was still getting 1500 and 1200 yards and 9 td's.
Shawn Alexander had down years when Seattle took away his all pro LT and the line sucked. But he's the poster boy for the current movement, a ton of his issues were on that line though, still the same at 28 he's still getting you 1800 yards. Again a 4 year deal w/Forte you could cut him at 29 if set up correctly, so that should not be an issue.
LT is another great example of shitty OL contributing to stats more then actual issues, hense his 1 year resurgance w/the Jets at 31 when he was still averaging 31 yards and had 6td on just over 200 tocuhes was he as good as he was in his late 20's, no but that's not the point b/c the Bears shouldn't sign Forte to a contract into his 30's. At 29 he was still a 1500 yard back w/10+ td's. 30 he has a down year(OL still an issue if you follow how poorly the SD run game has been) 31 resurgance, 32 done.

But thanks for the help German.

**GermansbombedPH** · 06-20-2012, 07:51 AM

What help? They all declined around that age. They all were better before. They all are not the guys they were before. Their roles and touches were reduced and some of them are a 1a/b tandem and not the known #1 / #2. Having Bush the next 4 years and Forte would end up as that, a 1a/b tandem. Fortes Cap would be to high for this. Fortes knees are a concern. Guy has 3 serious knee injuries that are known. Forte has to many questions around of him to be given that contract. Blame JA for this. He should have gotten that deal last year but we all know Forte should never have been given a 20 guarantee contract 1 year ago.

Forte will stay for 1 more year earing 7 whatever million.

good back will be good until they retire, but their best seasons are not in the late 20s and early 30s

**Riczaj01** · 06-20-2012, 10:03 AM

no they weren't German. They pretty much all from 24-29 or 30 had the same yards and td's.

**Riczaj01** · 06-20-2012, 11:47 AM

Gore, outside of 2010 when he missed four games, pretty much 1000-1200 total yards. other then 2006 when he stood out, and pretty much 6-9 td's.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
29	2011	16	1211	114	1325	8
28	2010	11	853	452	1305	5
27	2009	14	1120	406	1526	13
26	2008	14	1036	373	1409	8
25	2007	15	1102	436	1538	6
24	2006	16	1695	485	2180	9
23	2005	14	127	131	258	3

Steven Jackson: Outside his 2nd and 3rd year he's pretty consistant w/6-8 td's, and 1400+ yards.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
28	2011	15	1145	333	1478	6
27	2010	16	1241	383	1624	6
26	2009	15	1416	322	1738	4
25	2008	12	1042	379	1421	8
24	2007	12	1002	271	1273	6
23	2006	16	1528	806	2334	16
22	2005	15	1046	320	1366	10
21	2004	14	673	189	862	4

Portis, didn't get to play, touches were way down the last 2 years. not sure if the reason was hurt, but he was still averaging over 4 yards a carry so the #'s are heavily scewed and I'm not sure why they stopped using him other then the other backs they have.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
29	2010	5	227	55	282	2
28	2009	8	494	57	551	2
27	2008	16	1487	218	1705	9
26	2007	16	1262	389	1651	11
25	2006	8	523	170	693	7
24	2005	16	1516	216	1732	11
23	2004	15	1315	235	1550	7
22	2003	13	1591	314	1905	14
21	2002	16	1508	364	1872	17

Mcgahee, 2008-2010 was when balt had the 3 headed beast thing going on and he had career low's in touches but you'll see in 2011 at age 30 he's still capable of a being a 1200+ yard back. I'd say he could have done more and had more Td's also if Tebow hadn't been stealing goal line touches. But that is pretty much average for what he did most of his time in Balt so who knows. Also note during those 3 down years, he was still averaging 4-5 yards a carry.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
30	2011	15	1199	51	1250	5
29	2010*	15	380	55	435	6
28	2009*	16	544	85	629	14
27	2008*	13	671	173	844	8
26	2007	15	1207	231	1438	8
25	2006	14	990	156	1146	6
24	2005	16	1247	178	1425	5
23	2004	16	1128	169	1297	13
22	2003	0	0	0	0	0

**Riczaj01** · 06-20-2012, 11:47 AM

Shawn Alexander's is the poster boy for being cautious about RB's and salaries in their later years and the poster boy for the 350 rule for rbs, you cannot let them touch the ball that much w/out them breaking down in those 3 years prior to 06 he was touched the ball over 1100 times averaging 376 touches per year, that's abusrd and no wonder why he would break down at 29, now add into it losing All Pro OG Steve Hutchingson on top of that. Sea litterally ran him into the ground and he 350 touches the 2 years before that. I'm actually suprised he lasted as long as he did.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
31	2008	4	24	9	33	0
30	2007	13	716	76	792	5
29	2006	10	896	48	944	7
28	2005	16	1880	78	1958	28
27	2004	16	1696	170	1866	20
26	2003	16	1435	295	1730	16
25	2002	16	1175	460	1635	18
24	2001	16	1318	343	1661	16
23	2000	16	64	41	105	2

LT, another RB like SA litterally got run into the ground averaging 370 to 400 touches per game until 2007, again gonna age quickly like that, and he still had a few productive years at 29 and 30 and 31 w/a low at 30 of 884 yards but 12 td's, and 31 almost 1300 yards but only 6td's. BUT at ages 27-28-29 2300 yards, 1949 yards and 1500 yards, 31 tds, 18 td's and 12 td's. Ya is he going down...yes to merely an great back from the best back.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
32	2011	14	280	449	729	3
31	2010	15	914	368	1282	6
30	2009	14	730	154	884	12
29	2008	16	1110	426	1536	12
28	2007	16	1474	475	1949	18
27	2006	16	1815	508	2323	31
26	2005	16	1462	370	1832	20
25	2004	15	1335	441	1776	18
24	2003	16	1645	725	2370	17
23	2001	16	1683	489	2172	15
22	2001	16	1236	367	1603	10

Lets add one more into this list, Thomas Jones at 30 and 31 had his best statistical seasons, AND at 32 was still 1k yards and 6td's.

Age	year	gms	rush yrds	rec yrds	tot	td's
33	2011	16	478	43	521	0
32	2010	16	896	122	1018	6
31	2009	16	1402	58	1460	14
30	2008	16	1312	207	1519	13
29	2007	16	1119	217	1336	3
28	2006	16	1210	154	1364	7
27	2005	15	1335	143	1478	9
26	2004	14	948	427	1375	7
25	2003	16	627	480	1107	3
24	2002	9	511	113	624	2
23	2001	16	380	151	531	5
22	2000	14	373	208	581	2

More to the point, it's not the age, but the touches. You RB gets 350-400 touches per year he's going to age more quickly then other backs and will not make it into his late 20's or 30's. Matt Forte has NOT wiffed 350 touches since his 2nd year. RB's are not old at 26-29, Forte has not had enough touches to make him age prematurely like the few RB's who did get old at 28-29 did. IE this idea that Forte is not going to last to 29-30 has no basis in logic.

Thread: Five Scenarios For Ending Matt Forte's Contract Dispute...........

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions