Missing from your analysis is how the Rams will be anywhere near as likely to want to trade Bradford as the Bears obviously are with Cutler at this point. Says here Bradford is going nowhere, and an offer they could not refuse would have to be awfully expensive. Cutler can likely be had for agreeement to take over a chunk of his contract and a lower round draft pick. St. Louis will want much more in draft picks, and on top of that he's much more fragile than Cutler. I like Bradford very much, and at the right price I'd prefer him, too. But I don't see it happening.
Yep, I totally agree. No option is without risk right now, but the Jets match up as probably the best trading partner for the Bears. Unless something comes up that makes more sense, it appears to be the best option.
JB, You need to understand that Cutler is not going to be a free agent. His contract contains too many disincentives to cutting him. He will be traded.
Whether they cut him or not as a realistic scenario isn't of concern for me, just that he isn't worth trading for and paying that amount just because we can afford to do so. He isn't good and isn't going to make the Jets successful short term to grow around, nevertheless a long term Super Bowl contender. So what value is he? And he certainly isn't the player you want teaching and grooming a young QB. Vick would be a better choice for that. Hell, competitively Vick is a better option than Cutler. Cutler being better than what we have now in no way equates to him being worth trading for and assuming his existing contract just because we can afford it under our salary cap. I can afford to pay $50 for a Snickers when my stomach is grumbling before lunch, but I sure as fuck ain't paying $50 for a Snickers if I can get a bag of chips for $1 to hold me off until lunch. Trading for Cutler is paying $50 for a Snickers while waiting for lunch. It doesn't solve the need for lunch and there are cheaper and equal alternatives to the Snickers.
Mmmmmm....Snickers......I am not sure he is even a Snickers bar. He is an upgrade over what we have, though. As a stopgap he might be okay, but a stopgap to what? When do we get our QB? Argue all we want about stopgaps, but if we cannot get our QB this year, I wager our draft pick will still be worse next year. And---do we want a college QB coming in and playing right away? We may be in the stopgap business for 3 years!!! . And if we get a new GM, he may want to come in and shake the crumbs out of the blanket, setting things back further in the overall talent department. Very depressing. We probably have the highest draft pick we will have in years, and we are missing out on two non-sure things at QB. The stars are totally misaligned. We are probably doomed.
We are certainly in a no mans land until we get a young QB worth building around and need a stop gap QB for next year at the least. But you don't pay that stop gap as an elite QB just because he makes you better. 5 wins next year is better but not $15 million a year better.
I don't know why you took so much effort to post that when you don't know what the net cost might be for him. At the right price it's a deal the Jets shold make. Putting aside his current contract, what is the market price for a mid tier starting NFL Qb these days? Since that's what he is, that is what he should go for.
With regards to Cutler, what organization, besides the Jets, trades or cuts a serviceable QB without having one better on the roster? John Idzik GMs for the Jets not the Bears.
I'm not asking if it's in the news. I'm asking if it makes sense for an organization to trade away a capable player manning a position that is extremely difficult to replace without having a replacement. Not to mention said organization has had a harder time than most in finding a decent player to play this position. It's not like the Bears expect to have the #1 pick.
We know his cost in a trade - it's his existing contract. Since you have already asserted it is unlikely he gets cut we are talking about Cutler via trade. That's the angle of the discussion you have advocated and can't back up from now.
Jay Cutler is arguably one of the most overpaid players in the entire league. He's currently making more than Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Mark Sanchez and Russell Wilson combined. That alone is reason enough to consider moving on from a guy you aren't very happy with. Also, he plays in the second biggest media market in the country and seems to have worn out his welcome with both the fans and the media. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, it's not at all crazy to think that Chicago would have interest in moving him.
Cutler hasn't worked out in Chicago. They signed him to a deal that was too big for the organization to manage. They did this with a new head coach walking in the door. At this point things haven't worked out for them and the deal is too big for Chicago to maintain due to it's terms, which were guaranteed money instead of bonuses for the most part. This is the second organization in a row that has decided Cutler wasn't the guy. The first guy booted Cutler before he'd ever coached a game with the team and got fired after a short stint with the team. This one looks like he might be out the door in the same time frame. He tried to work with Cutler but was nailed by a bad defense and injuries to Cutler and others. For the record, the Chicago Bears have allowed 887 points in the last 30 games. That is by far the worst points allowed over that span. Any QB playing in the Windy City is going to have issues when his team is allowing 29.6 points per game and he has to throw the ball as much as Cutler has. When the Bears allow 20 or fewer points in the last two years with Cutler starting they are 5-0. When they allow 21-28 points they're 3-4. When they allow 29+ they're 0-14. Using the Jets points allowed the last two seasons with the defenses they've had the Jets would be 16-14 with Jay Cutler at QB instead of 11-19. The Jets would have made the playoffs last year with Cutler at QB.
I don't know why you are taking the approach you are taking here. My point is that the Bears are virtually certain to have to eat a big chunk of Cutler's current salary, bringing him down to the market price more or less for a mid tier NFL Qb. Surely you are aware of past situations where a player's then current team agreed to eat part of the contract in order to trade him. Sure that is not done very often. But it has happens, and will with Cutler, who they overpaid in his contract. If the price is right, Cutler will likely be the best available option for the Jets.
I don't know why you are taking the approach you are taking here. My point is that the Bears are virtually certain to have to eat a big chunk of Cutler's current salary, bringing him down to the market price more or less for a mid tier NFL Qb. Surely you are aware of past situations where a player's then current team agreed to eat part of the contract in order to trade him. Sure that is not done very often. But it has happens, and will with Cutler, who they overpaid in his contract. If the price is right, Cutler will likely be the best available option for the Jets.
Google Jay Cutler trade and read the numerous articles from this week talking about how and why he will be traded.
How much Woody has to pay nobody cares about. I addressed this in another exchange. The cost any fan cares about is the salary cap cost because that effects the team; the actual cash payout effects Woody and the shareholders. The Bears could pay all $15 million and I still wouldn't want him because he would still cost the Jets cap $15 million. I don't know why you are taking this approach worried more about what Woody can save versus what it costs the Jets in cap, which is the real expense of this discussion.
JB, Ineed to clarify. I concede obviously that Chicago will want to unload as much as they can of his contract, even the entire thing. How much is worth paying him? It's a matter fit for debate. Then there's the question which teams might compete for him, and how that will affect what the Bears can end up demanding for him. If the Jets could get some performance guarantees in a trade, they should be willing to pay more for him. Lots of variables here, and I don't mean to suggest that an overall deal will definitely not include picking up his contract if enough other elements make it palatable. But ftr I am not (yet) on board with the Jets picking up his entire contract as the NET cost of it.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. The state of Woodrow's pocket book, as you say, is not the concern here. But how much Woodrow would have to pay for him IS a concern, because if it's too much, he's not going to do it. Isn't that relevant?
