No love for Lovie? (1 Viewer)

[PsychoMan]

Heard on Mike & Mike this morning on the way in that Lovie's agent told them that they were nowhere near a decision on a new contract, and unless something completely unexpected happens soon, Lovie will fill out his current contract (1 more year) as the lowest payed coach in the NFL.

This is ridiculous and hopefully, just a move by his agent to get a rise out of the public and get the Bears' attention. I don't know anyone in the city of Chicago that would be happy if Lovie doesn't get a new contract.

Edit to add link: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear22.article

 

[Joe Bryant]

Heard on Mike & Mike this morning on the way in that Lovie's agent told them that they were nowhere near a decision on a new contract, and unless something completely unexpected happens soon, Lovie will fill out his current contract (1 more year) as the lowest payed coach in the NFL.

This is ridiculous and hopefully, just a move by his agent to get a rise out of the public and get the Bears' attention. I don't know anyone in the city of Chicago that would be happy if Lovie doesn't get a new contract.

Edit to add link: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear22.article

I had a feeling about this when they lost. A win would have made the pressure nearly unbearable on ownership to pay the guy.

He won Coach of the year in 2005 and was told "let's see you do it again" before a new contract was given. So he nodded his head and took his team to the Super Bowl. Evidently, that wasn't enough.

Now we need to know a lot more before we too get excited, but he HAS to make at least the going rate for good NFL coaches. What they're doing now is a disgrace.

They'd better pay now or they will be paying later when they try to hire the new guy after the 07 season.

J

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

One of the biggest hurdles for any up and comming franchise is that success will cause persons within the organization to overvalue their contribution to the increased success. Lots of people want their percieved share of the recognition. To remain succcesful egos have to remain in check while at the same time allowing rewards to be shared. Lovie wants his, Rivera wanted his and Briggs wants his. All are worthy to some extent, but all may potentially still mispercieve their value. The organization needs to make these choices wisely or risk sliding back.

That said I remember a few short years ago, in the pre-Lovie era, when the Bears did not even resemble a pro-team. Given his contribution, and given that his pay would not be a salary cap issue as Brigg's will be, I believe they should give fair market value. Failure to do so will have a lame duck coaching in a situation that has a built in Q.B. controversy, not a good situation. Of course Bear's management may percieve it has been their fiscal decisions and their acumen that has been responsibvble for the turn around. Just as with players and coaches they have ego involved and paying the man means assigning some of what they may percieve as their credit to another. It's an old and cliche` dynamic.

 

[Joe Bryant]

One of the biggest hurdles for any up and comming franchise is that success will cause persons within the organization to overvalue their contribution to the increased success. Lots of people want their percieved share of the recognition. To remain succcesful egos have to remain in check while at the same time allowing rewards to be shared. Lovie wants his, Rivera wanted his and Briggs wants his. All are worthy to some extent, but all may potentially still mispercieve their value. The organization needs to make these choices wisely or risk sliding back. That said I remember a few short years ago, in the pre-Lovie era, when the Bears did not even resemble a pro-team. Given his contribution, and given that his pay would not be a salary cap issue as Brigg's will be, I believe they should give fair market value. Failure to do so will have a lame duck coaching in a situation that has a built in Q.B. controversy, not a good situation. Of course Bear's management may percieve it has been their fiscal decisions and their acumen that has been responsibvble for the turn around. Just as with players and coaches they have ego involved and paying the man means assigning some of what they may percieve as their credit to another. It's an old and cliche` dynamic.

Thanks DW,What's the mood among Bears fans? I'd have to think they're going nuts.Losing an excellent coach for being too cheap can't sit well. Or do they think they'll get Cowher or Parcells or someone like that?Do you know what the agent means by "far apart"? Are they asking 8 million a year or something? I just look at Bobby Petrino making 4 million a year and just when you consider what they're paying Smith.J

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

One of the biggest hurdles for any up and comming franchise is that success will cause persons within the organization to overvalue their contribution to the increased success. Lots of people want their percieved share of the recognition. To remain succcesful egos have to remain in check while at the same time allowing rewards to be shared. Lovie wants his, Rivera wanted his and Briggs wants his. All are worthy to some extent, but all may potentially still mispercieve their value. The organization needs to make these choices wisely or risk sliding back. That said I remember a few short years ago, in the pre-Lovie era, when the Bears did not even resemble a pro-team. Given his contribution, and given that his pay would not be a salary cap issue as Brigg's will be, I believe they should give fair market value. Failure to do so will have a lame duck coaching in a situation that has a built in Q.B. controversy, not a good situation. Of course Bear's management may percieve it has been their fiscal decisions and their acumen that has been responsibvble for the turn around. Just as with players and coaches they have ego involved and paying the man means assigning some of what they may percieve as their credit to another. It's an old and cliche` dynamic.

Thanks DW,What's the mood among Bears fans? I'd have to think they're going nuts.Losing an excellent coach for being too cheap can't sit well. Or do they think they'll get Cowher or Parcells or someone like that?Do you know what the agent means by "far apart"? Are they asking 8 million a year or something? I just look at Bobby Petrino making 4 million a year and just when you consider what they're paying Smith.J

Love to helpout Joe but I'm not a Bear's fan and have no particular insight into the organization. The above was just my general thoughts applicable to any up and coming franchise.

 

[ThePittbully]

I'm not a bears fan, but this is just baffling to me. The guy wins coach of the year, they give him nothing, he then tops that by taking them to the superbowl and basically dominating all competition for the better part of the year and they give him the cold shoulder. Have they forgotten what the franchise was before Lovie took it over? Seriously, give the man what he has earned

 

[trader jake]

I'm not a bears fan, but this is just baffling to me.

The Bears organization is cheap. They have been for quite a while now.

 

[DrJ]

I personally believe this is standard agent speak and nothing to get excited about.

The Scott Skiles situation had boiled over to the point where his agent was taking interview on WSCR670 and badmouthing Bulls management. Skiles was done as Bulls coach, he was going to hit the open market, yadda yadda. 1 day later, he had a contract.

Many were calling the Bears cheap while Benson held out, and threatened to go back to Texas and back into the draft the next year. He wised up and signed the same deal they had been offering.

This is all standard stuff IMO. Agent does and says what will get him and client most money. Bears do what they can to get the best deal for themselves. And the Sun Times, ESPN, etc print what will sell them the most papers.

 

[DrJ]

I'm not a bears fan, but this is just baffling to me. The guy wins coach of the year, they give him nothing, he then tops that by taking them to the superbowl and basically dominating all competition for the better part of the year and they give him the cold shoulder. Have they forgotten what the franchise was before Lovie took it over? Seriously, give the man what he has earned

Who knows that the agent isn't trying to milk them since he knows not signing Lovie would be a PR nightmare? Skiles ended up signing the deal the Bulls offered after his agent badmouthed the organization on local radio. All we have here is a couple of statements by a guy's agent, who obviously has a stake in the whole thing, and people are all ready to jump all over the Bears management without even knowing what the differences are, what the Bears are offering, etc.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Lovie Smith signed a contract. He is living up to that contract. If he feels he is worth more in the future than what Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.

Lovie Smith is making over a million dollars a year. I dont think we need to shed any tears for him.

I dont think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch because Lovie Smith is underpaid. Plenty of people are underpaid. Big deal.

 

[DrJ]

Lovie Smith signed a contract. He is living up to that contract. If he feels he is worth more in the future than what Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.Lovie Smith is making over a million dollars a year. I dont think we need to shed any tears for him.I dont think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch because Lovie Smith is underpaid. Plenty of people are underpaid. Big deal.

Ron Rivera defended his contract this morning, saying that salaries are tied to a person's experience in the role. When he signed his deal, he had no DC experience, the salary was in line with market value based on that, and he is very thankful for the opportunity. He pointed out that they were the youngest coaching staff in the NFL. When Lovie signed his deal, he also had no HC experience and the salary was in line with market value based on that. I'm sure that he felt that it was fair, or he wouldn't have signed the deal. And I'm also sure he was thankful then and now for the opportunity.Yes, they need to reward him for what he has accomplished now and give him a contract that is line with his market value based on those accomplishments. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Lovie Smith signed a contract. He is living up to that contract. If he feels he is worth more in the future than what Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.Lovie Smith is making over a million dollars a year. I dont think we need to shed any tears for him.I dont think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch because Lovie Smith is underpaid. Plenty of people are underpaid. Big deal.

Ron Rivera defended his contract this morning, saying that salaries are tied to a person's experience in the role. When he signed his deal, he had no DC experience, the salary was in line with market value based on that, and he is very thankful for the opportunity. He pointed out that they were the youngest coaching staff in the NFL. When Lovie signed his deal, he also had no HC experience and the salary was in line with market value based on that. I'm sure that he felt that it was fair, or he wouldn't have signed the deal. And I'm also sure he was thankful then and now for the opportunity.Yes, they need to reward him for what he has accomplished now and give him a contract that is line with his market value based on those accomplishments. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract.

So you guys are good with letting him go into the final year as a lame duck with no extension as the lowest paid guy in the league coming off the Coach of the Year in 2005 and a Super Bowl berth in 2006?J

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I'm not okay with it but IMO as good as Lovie has been, he hasn't finished out seasons. I know that you can point to this past season, but take out the Saints game and they looked like ---- after they lost to the Phins. **** Jauron also won coach of the year and we gave him an extension and look how that worked out.

Are the Bears a cheap organization?......probably

Should they pay Lovie 4+ million per year?.....yes

Is Lovie an amazing coach?.......jury is still out

I think the bears have a lot of talent and am not sure if the coaches are getting everything out of them.

 

[BringItOn]

It all boils down to the fact that the McCaskey family is too cheap to pay anyone. Before they hired Lovie, they wanted Saban, but when it came down to $$$ they were unwilling to pay, so they went with an unproven coaching staff that would work for peanuts. They ALWAYS try to lowball, and in the end, I think they could very well end up losing out on Lovie because of their desire to underpay.

The McCaskey's need to do the city of Chicago a favor and SELL the team to someone who is actually willing to cough up the dough to win consistantly.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It all boils down to the fact that the McCaskey family is too cheap to pay anyone. Before they hired Lovie, they wanted Saban, but when it came down to $$$ they were unwilling to pay, so they went with an unproven coaching staff that would work for peanuts. They ALWAYS try to lowball, and in the end, I think they could very well end up losing out on Lovie because of their desire to underpay.The McCaskey's need to do the city of Chicago a favor and SELL the team to someone who is actually willing to cough up the dough to win consistantly.

Hi Bring,I forget, what is the story with them financially? Where did they get their money? Do they have lots more of it coming in?J

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

Hi Bring,I forget, what is the story with them financially? Where did they get their money? Do they have lots more of it coming in?J

The Bears are their money train.Virginia McCaskey is the daughter of George Halas.

 

[FTRWRTR]

lovie getting rid of rivera makes sense now since it gives him more leverage with the front office and if the bears are stupid enough to let him go than screw 'em.

And yes lovie did sign a contract but that was based on his not having any HC experience. Now he not only has experience but he's been named coach of the year and this past season took them to the SB. Have any of you "he signed a contract" guys ever heard of a performance review? He not only met every expectation but exceeded them, what's wrong with lovie asking for a raise? Also $1.3 mil is a lot to you and me but in the world of coaching that's a joke

 

[jbird5150]

Bears are the cheapest team in the league. They've always thrown nickels around like manhole covers. This doesn't surprise me a bit.

Lovie will get his contract. Might not be Parcells type money, but he'll get it.

 

[trader jake]

If Lovie signs a contract extension there are no problems, but if he's a lame duck coach I wouldn't be shocked to see the Bears miss the playoffs. Free agents and current players like Briggs certainly won't be signing with Chicago until Lovie is signed long-term and this story could become as big of a distraction as the QB issue currently is.

 

[dparker713]

Im completely baffled as to why being a lame duck coach would have any effect on the team. Everyone in the NFL is playing for a paycheck every year. Its just one more thing for the media to harp on I guess.

The notion that Lovie must get paid right now is ridiculous. He's a bargain right now and he has a brief track record. He has little leverage. Going into a contract year, he'll need to continue to perform well to be an attractive candidate. I personally don't see why the Bears would want to rush to make a bad deal in this situation.

This is almost as absurd as when on the last Real Sports Gumble suggested that the Phillies needed to give Ryan Howard a pay raise even though he's still in a rookie contract.

 

[trader jake]

Im completely baffled as to why being a lame duck coach would have any effect on the team. Everyone in the NFL is playing for a paycheck every year. Its just one more thing for the media to harp on I guess.The notion that Lovie must get paid right now is ridiculous. He's a bargain right now and he has a brief track record. He has little leverage. Going into a contract year, he'll need to continue to perform well to be an attractive candidate. I personally don't see why the Bears would want to rush to make a bad deal in this situation. This is almost as absurd as when on the last Real Sports Gumble suggested that the Phillies needed to give Ryan Howard a pay raise even though he's still in a rookie contract.

Apples and oranges between football and baseball contracts. However, I do agree that Gumble was 100% wrong with his statement.The talent level between teams in the NFL is so slight that even minor distractions can be the difference between winning and losing. The Bears played extremely hard for Lovie last season and they came very close to winning it all. Will those guys still sell out if they know Lovie won't be back? Briggs and any other Bear who has their contract up certainly isn't going to sign an extension. How many of those players will opt for health entering free-agency vs. laying it on the line for the team?That's just the way these things tend to play out. Look at the Steelers this past season as a prime example.

 

[dparker713]

Im completely baffled as to why being a lame duck coach would have any effect on the team. Everyone in the NFL is playing for a paycheck every year. Its just one more thing for the media to harp on I guess.

The notion that Lovie must get paid right now is ridiculous. He's a bargain right now and he has a brief track record. He has little leverage. Going into a contract year, he'll need to continue to perform well to be an attractive candidate. I personally don't see why the Bears would want to rush to make a bad deal in this situation.

This is almost as absurd as when on the last Real Sports Gumble suggested that the Phillies needed to give Ryan Howard a pay raise even though he's still in a rookie contract.

Apples and oranges between football and baseball contracts. However, I do agree that Gumble was 100% wrong with his statement.The talent level between teams in the NFL is so slight that even minor distractions can be the difference between winning and losing. The Bears played extremely hard for Lovie last season and they came very close to winning it all. Will those guys still sell out if they know Lovie won't be back? Briggs and any other Bear who has their contract up certainly isn't going to sign an extension. How many of those players will opt for health entering free-agency vs. laying it on the line for the team?

That's just the way these things tend to play out. Look at the Steelers this past season as a prime example.

Briggs and all the other players will do exactly like nearly all other players in the past have done. They will follow the money. If the Bears pay him what he wants, he'll stay. If not he walks. Its as simple as that. And if the players don't play hard this upcoming year, they hurt their wallets in the following offseason. The concept of a contract year isn't exactly new.

Should the Bears up Lovie's contract? Yeah. Should they break the bank to do so? No. They need to get a deal that makes sense for the team, and if he's seeking 6 mil a year he's just not going to get that.

 

[DrJ]

Lovie Smith signed a contract. He is living up to that contract. If he feels he is worth more in the future than what Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.Lovie Smith is making over a million dollars a year. I dont think we need to shed any tears for him.I dont think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch because Lovie Smith is underpaid. Plenty of people are underpaid. Big deal.

Ron Rivera defended his contract this morning, saying that salaries are tied to a person's experience in the role. When he signed his deal, he had no DC experience, the salary was in line with market value based on that, and he is very thankful for the opportunity. He pointed out that they were the youngest coaching staff in the NFL. When Lovie signed his deal, he also had no HC experience and the salary was in line with market value based on that. I'm sure that he felt that it was fair, or he wouldn't have signed the deal. And I'm also sure he was thankful then and now for the opportunity.Yes, they need to reward him for what he has accomplished now and give him a contract that is line with his market value based on those accomplishments. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract.

So you guys are good with letting him go into the final year as a lame duck with no extension as the lowest paid guy in the league coming off the Coach of the Year in 2005 and a Super Bowl berth in 2006?J

Of course not, but I'm not assuming that will be the case. If you're going to take everything an agent says at face value, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[DrJ]

Should they pay Lovie 4+ million per year?.....yes

The latest numbers I've heard are that the Bears are offering 4 over 4. He wants 5 over 5. I really don't think either side is being entirely unreasonable - the Bears aren't being cheap and lowballing the guy, and Lovie is asking for a bit more than his resume commands. Something is going to eventually get done.Until Lovie Smith is coaching in another uniform, I'm really not going to get upset about silly things his agent is saying for posturing...

 

[DrJ]

lovie getting rid of rivera makes sense now since it gives him more leverage with the front office and if the bears are stupid enough to let him go than screw 'em.And yes lovie did sign a contract but that was based on his not having any HC experience. Now he not only has experience but he's been named coach of the year and this past season took them to the SB. Have any of you "he signed a contract" guys ever heard of a performance review? He not only met every expectation but exceeded them, what's wrong with lovie asking for a raise? Also $1.3 mil is a lot to you and me but in the world of coaching that's a joke

And the Bears are planning to reward him for that success. They've been very clear about it. Assuming you exceed the expectations of your employer, you expect that they will cave into any salary demand you might have? If you want to be paid more than others who have accomplished more in a similar role, and who have had more experience, they should just say "yessir, anything you want sir! You want 150K for a resume that only commands 100K, well, we wouldn't want to have a PR nightmare of losing you so we're going to give you WHATEVER you want".I mean seriously, how can you possibly criticize the Bears when you have no information on the negotiations outside of this statement the agent has made?

 

[DrJ]

Bears are the cheapest team in the league. They've always thrown nickels around like manhole covers. This doesn't surprise me a bit. Lovie will get his contract. Might not be Parcells type money, but he'll get it.

Parcells had a 4 year $17 million dollar deal. So yes, Lovie will be payed Parcells money if he accepts what is reported to be the Bears current offer.Billick just got $5 million a year - he's been a head coach far longer and has WON a Superbowl. Supposedly, the only coaches that would make more money than Lovie if he takes the Bears offer are coaches that have either won a Superbowl and Fox and Reid. Reid has been to what - 4 NFC Championship games and has been a coach longer. Fox has been to 2 and has been a coach for longer. They both have resumes that command more than Lovie.Is 4 million maybe a tad light? Maybe... But Lovie doesn't deserve 5 million yet. The middle ground will be found.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

I can tell you this much for sure, the mood with some of the McCaskeys after the Superbowl was worse than if they never made it in the first place. You couldn't even bring up the Bears for weeks, and even now its totally a sore subject. Some took it almost personally and seem really embarrassed by it. I mean over the edge hurt. Nervous twitch and everything (which I cracked a joke about and was subsequently shot down coldly)

I know they like Lovie, but its completely true that they ultra frugal.

All I can hope is all the overall negativity isn't being channeled toward this negotiation. Lovie, IMO, is the best coach the Bears have had since Buddy Ryan and most marketable since Ditka. They would be fools to let him feel under appreciated.

But all you can do is with that family sometimes. They do what they want. There is no rhyme or reason sometimes. It just is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Lovie Smith signed a contract. He is living up to that contract. If he feels he is worth more in the future than what Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.Lovie Smith is making over a million dollars a year. I dont think we need to shed any tears for him.I dont think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch because Lovie Smith is underpaid. Plenty of people are underpaid. Big deal.

:X Ron Rivera defended his contract this morning, saying that salaries are tied to a person's experience in the role. When he signed his deal, he had no DC experience, the salary was in line with market value based on that, and he is very thankful for the opportunity. He pointed out that they were the youngest coaching staff in the NFL. When Lovie signed his deal, he also had no HC experience and the salary was in line with market value based on that. I'm sure that he felt that it was fair, or he wouldn't have signed the deal. And I'm also sure he was thankful then and now for the opportunity.Yes, they need to reward him for what he has accomplished now and give him a contract that is line with his market value based on those accomplishments. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract.

So you guys are good with letting him go into the final year as a lame duck with no extension as the lowest paid guy in the league coming off the Coach of the Year in 2005 and a Super Bowl berth in 2006?J

Of course not, but I'm not assuming that will be the case. If you're going to take everything an agent says at face value, I don't know what to tell you.

Who's listening to his agent? I'm looking at the facts of the situation. It's not really that hard. So you're assuming the Bears will give him a new contract in line with is market value?When do you think that will happen?Why would they consider doing that if "there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract."?J

 

[Joe Bryant]

:X I can tell you this much for sure, the mood with some of the McCaskeys after the Superbowl was worse than if they never made it in the first place. You couldn't even bring up the Bears for weeks, and even now its totally a sore subject. Some took it almost personally and seem really embarrassed by it. I mean over the edge hurt. Nervous twitch and everything (which I cracked a joke about and was subsequently shot down coldly)I know they like Lovie, but its completely true that they ultra frugal.All I can hope is all the overall negativity isn't being channeled toward this negotiation. Lovie, IMO, is the best coach the Bears have had since Buddy Ryan and most marketable since Ditka. They would be fools to let him feel under appreciated.But all you can do is with that family sometimes. They do what they want. There is no rhyme or reason sometimes. It just is.

Do you know them? How so?J

 

[Joe Bryant]

I mean seriously, how can you possibly criticize the Bears when you have no information on the negotiations outside of this statement the agent has made?

Simple. It's two weeks past the game now and still no deal. What information do you have on the negotiations? J

 

[Captain Blowhard]

I mean seriously, how can you possibly criticize the Bears when you have no information on the negotiations outside of this statement the agent has made?

Simple. It's two weeks past the game now and still no deal. What information do you have on the negotiations? J

POW!

 

[Captain Blowhard]

lovie getting rid of rivera makes sense now since it gives him more leverage with the front office and if the bears are stupid enough to let him go than screw 'em.And yes lovie did sign a contract but that was based on his not having any HC experience. Now he not only has experience but he's been named coach of the year and this past season took them to the SB. Have any of you "he signed a contract" guys ever heard of a performance review? He not only met every expectation but exceeded them, what's wrong with lovie asking for a raise? Also $1.3 mil is a lot to you and me but in the world of coaching that's a joke

And the Bears are planning to reward him for that success. They've been very clear about it. Assuming you exceed the expectations of your employer, you expect that they will cave into any salary demand you might have? If you want to be paid more than others who have accomplished more in a similar role, and who have had more experience, they should just say "yessir, anything you want sir! You want 150K for a resume that only commands 100K, well, we wouldn't want to have a PR nightmare of losing you so we're going to give you WHATEVER you want".I mean seriously, how can you possibly criticize the Bears when you have no information on the negotiations outside of this statement the agent has made?

I've been watching this thread from the sidelines, and I have to say Joe is making some valid points and asking some valid questions that so far DrJ and other Bear fans aren't really answering effectively.First off, I haven't seen a media source anywhere that confirms, or says, the Bears are offering $4 mill over 4 years. And if a single source somewhere is saying that, again so far no link provided, how is taking that single source's word as gospel any different than people taking Lovie's agent's word at face value? Why should we believe the Bears management any more than Lovie's agent? I'm predicting that the response to this will be really good. Waiting.

 

[Joe Bryant]

lovie getting rid of rivera makes sense now since it gives him more leverage with the front office and if the bears are stupid enough to let him go than screw 'em.And yes lovie did sign a contract but that was based on his not having any HC experience. Now he not only has experience but he's been named coach of the year and this past season took them to the SB. Have any of you "he signed a contract" guys ever heard of a performance review? He not only met every expectation but exceeded them, what's wrong with lovie asking for a raise? Also $1.3 mil is a lot to you and me but in the world of coaching that's a joke

And the Bears are planning to reward him for that success. They've been very clear about it. Assuming you exceed the expectations of your employer, you expect that they will cave into any salary demand you might have? If you want to be paid more than others who have accomplished more in a similar role, and who have had more experience, they should just say "yessir, anything you want sir! You want 150K for a resume that only commands 100K, well, we wouldn't want to have a PR nightmare of losing you so we're going to give you WHATEVER you want".I mean seriously, how can you possibly criticize the Bears when you have no information on the negotiations outside of this statement the agent has made?

I've been watching this thread from the sidelines, and I have to say Joe is making some valid points and asking some valid questions that so far DrJ and other Bear fans aren't really answering effectively.First off, I haven't seen a media source anywhere that confirms, or says, the Bears are offering $4 mill over 4 years. And if a single source somewhere is saying that, again so far no link provided, how is taking that single source's word as gospel any different than people taking Lovie's agent's word at face value? Why should we believe the Bears management any more than Lovie's agent? I'm predicting that the response to this will be really good. Waiting.

Hi capn,I'm certainly no Bears insider so I'm assuming dr J has sources much more reliable than someone from the McCaskey family pumping up their side.I'm no PR whiz but if I was getting killed in the press by my coach's agent saying there is likely going to be no deal because the team is miles apart and I had a fair deal on the table, I couldn't dial the Trib or Sun Times sport department fast enough to let them hear how fair a deal was on the table.If the Bears are offering 4 million and Smith's agent says they're miles apart because he wants 6 million, that's an entirely different situation. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.But even to this point, it's embarrassing. Coach of the year as the lowest paid guy in the league. They effectively tell him they're not sure it wasn't a fluke and they want to see how he does the next year. He takes them to the Super Bowl and two weeks after the game, they still appear to be hemming and hawing. This deal should have been done in Week 17.J

 

[trader jake]

But even to this point, it's embarrassing. Coach of the year as the lowest paid guy in the league. They effectively tell him they're not sure it wasn't a fluke and they want to see how he does the next year. He takes them to the Super Bowl and two weeks after the game, they still appear to be hemming and hawing. This deal should have been done in Week 17.J

Bingo.Joe - If a contract isn't reached do you see the Bears making the playoffs next season?

 

[Joe Bryant]

But even to this point, it's embarrassing. Coach of the year as the lowest paid guy in the league. They effectively tell him they're not sure it wasn't a fluke and they want to see how he does the next year. He takes them to the Super Bowl and two weeks after the game, they still appear to be hemming and hawing. This deal should have been done in Week 17.J

Bingo.Joe - If a contract isn't reached do you see the Bears making the playoffs next season?

Hi TJ,I think Smith is a guy that wouldn't pout or whine if a deal isn't done. I don't pretend to know him at all but from what I read of him, he strikes me as a guy that would give them pretty much 100% effort whether he was the lowest paid guy in the league or the highest. So yes, I think they probably make the playoffs either way. Maybe that's what the McCaskey's are thinking?J

 

[DrJ]

Lovie Smith signed a contract. He is living up to that contract. If he feels he is worth more in the future than what Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.Lovie Smith is making over a million dollars a year. I dont think we need to shed any tears for him.I dont think anyone needs to get their panties in a bunch because Lovie Smith is underpaid. Plenty of people are underpaid. Big deal.

Ron Rivera defended his contract this morning, saying that salaries are tied to a person's experience in the role. When he signed his deal, he had no DC experience, the salary was in line with market value based on that, and he is very thankful for the opportunity. He pointed out that they were the youngest coaching staff in the NFL. When Lovie signed his deal, he also had no HC experience and the salary was in line with market value based on that. I'm sure that he felt that it was fair, or he wouldn't have signed the deal. And I'm also sure he was thankful then and now for the opportunity.Yes, they need to reward him for what he has accomplished now and give him a contract that is line with his market value based on those accomplishments. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract.

So you guys are good with letting him go into the final year as a lame duck with no extension as the lowest paid guy in the league coming off the Coach of the Year in 2005 and a Super Bowl berth in 2006?J

Of course not, but I'm not assuming that will be the case. If you're going to take everything an agent says at face value, I don't know what to tell you.

Who's listening to his agent? I'm looking at the facts of the situation. It's not really that hard. So you're assuming the Bears will give him a new contract in line with is market value?When do you think that will happen?Why would they consider doing that if "there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be ashamed that he is making what he is on his current contract."?J

What are the fact then exactly? That Lovie Smith has a year left on his deal, the team is working on an extension with him, and his agent is posturing with the media...I am assuming that the deal will happen at some point before the season. Currently we are 5 months away from training camp, which is why I don't see this story as that big of a deal. The deal is going to get done. Is it going to be on the timetable that fans would like? Not necessarily, but I am entirely confident that it will get done. They would consider doing it because they would prefer to sign him to an extension before he hits the open market next offseason. Please explain why you think that means they should be ashamed that they signed him to a contract that was in line with his market value when he signed it.

 

[DrJ]

I mean seriously, how can you possibly criticize the Bears when you have no information on the negotiations outside of this statement the agent has made?

Simple. It's two weeks past the game now and still no deal. What information do you have on the negotiations? J

And you believe that anything over 2 weeks, and by default it's bad on the Bears part not matter how realistic Lovie and his agent's demands have been?

 

[DrJ]

But even to this point, it's embarrassing. Coach of the year as the lowest paid guy in the league. They effectively tell him they're not sure it wasn't a fluke and they want to see how he does the next year. He takes them to the Super Bowl and two weeks after the game, they still appear to be hemming and hawing. This deal should have been done in Week 17.J

The deal that he signed in 2004 was well in line with his market value. Dave WannstedtDick JauronJim HaslettRay Rhodes...etc, etc...Plenty of coaches have done well in their first season or two to go on and be terrible. The team lost in the 1st round of playoffs last season. It wasn't all that long ago that people were sitting here and saying that they would do the same due to Lovie's stubbornness this season with the Rex situation.If Lovie loses in the 1st round of the playoffs this season, none of this talk his happening. Everyone is saying how he wasted the talent on this team with his stubbornness and they aren't sure he's the right guy to take the team to the next level. They're saying to let him play out the last year of his deal, and we'll see what happens then.A couple of playoff wins, and here we are on the other end of the spectrum. I'm not going to fault the Bears for waiting to ensure that he's the right guy long term before they sign him to an extension. If it were about money, and they simply wanted to sign a coaching staff for a little as they could, they could have signed him last year for an awful lot less. But according to Phillips, money was never an issue in the process.Hub Arkesh is on the Score every week during the season. He was saying "the Bears shouldn't extend the contract until we see what happens in the playoffs. They should give him a bonus for his success, but I'd wait to see if he can take this team to the next level before I'd extend him" all season long. They make the Superbowl and he's on there blasting Bears management for "letting it get this far". WTF, you can't have it both ways. And that's exactly what the media who is writing these stories is trying to do. The same guys blasting them now for not having this done would have been blasting them if it were done had a Robbie Gould field goal gone a different direction.That's how fickle and ready to turn the media is, so pardon me if I take these sorts of stories with a grain of salt...

 

[Joe Bryant]

Please explain why you think that means they should be ashamed that they signed him to a contract that was in line with his market value when he signed it.

Simple. Because it's been out of line with his market value for about a year now. At the very least for the last few months. J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Bears are the cheapest team in the league. They've always thrown nickels around like manhole covers. This doesn't surprise me a bit. Lovie will get his contract. Might not be Parcells type money, but he'll get it.

Parcells had a 4 year $17 million dollar deal. So yes, Lovie will be payed Parcells money if he accepts what is reported to be the Bears current offer.Billick just got $5 million a year - he's been a head coach far longer and has WON a Superbowl. Supposedly, the only coaches that would make more money than Lovie if he takes the Bears offer are coaches that have either won a Superbowl and Fox and Reid. Reid has been to what - 4 NFC Championship games and has been a coach longer. Fox has been to 2 and has been a coach for longer. They both have resumes that command more than Lovie.Is 4 million maybe a tad light? Maybe... But Lovie doesn't deserve 5 million yet. The middle ground will be found.

Again, I know you follow this closer than I do. Who is reporting the Bears are currently offering 4 million?J

 

[EZD222]

Bears are the cheapest team in the league. They've always thrown nickels around like manhole covers. This doesn't surprise me a bit. Lovie will get his contract. Might not be Parcells type money, but he'll get it.

Parcells had a 4 year $17 million dollar deal. So yes, Lovie will be payed Parcells money if he accepts what is reported to be the Bears current offer.Billick just got $5 million a year - he's been a head coach far longer and has WON a Superbowl. Supposedly, the only coaches that would make more money than Lovie if he takes the Bears offer are coaches that have either won a Superbowl and Fox and Reid. Reid has been to what - 4 NFC Championship games and has been a coach longer. Fox has been to 2 and has been a coach for longer. They both have resumes that command more than Lovie.Is 4 million maybe a tad light? Maybe... But Lovie doesn't deserve 5 million yet. The middle ground will be found.

Bobby Petrino's getting 4.5 million a year. Blame the Falcons for screwing up the market.

 

[DrJ]

Please explain why you think that means they should be ashamed that they signed him to a contract that was in line with his market value when he signed it.

Simple. Because it's been out of line with his market value for about a year now. At the very least for the last few months. Is that really that hard to understand?J

It wasn't out of line though - Callahan took a team to the Superbowl. Did he deserve some massive extension because of it? Haslett and Dave Wannstedt each had playoff wins, they didn't deserve some massive extensions because of it. Barry Switzer once took a team to a Superbowl....he didn't deserve some massive contract extension for it either. It is not unreasonable in any way shape or form for a team to want to see more than a single season of success before committing big dollars to a coach long term. The last 2 Bears coaches before Lovie were COTY too. And a few short seasons later everyone in town couldn't get them out of here fast enough.If they wanted to see how he performed in the playoffs this season, or didn't want contract negotiations to be a distraction during the season and playoffs (which seems to be the case since all they had were preliminary discussions before the playoffs according to Phillips), then I don't see it as unreasonable that it wasn't done during this past season either. Again - had Robbie Gould's FG gone a different direction, half of the people criticizing the Bears now would have been saying they weren't sure he was a top tier coach and should be here long term.

 

[DrJ]

Bears are the cheapest team in the league. They've always thrown nickels around like manhole covers. This doesn't surprise me a bit.

Lovie will get his contract. Might not be Parcells type money, but he'll get it.

Parcells had a 4 year $17 million dollar deal. So yes, Lovie will be payed Parcells money if he accepts what is reported to be the Bears current offer.Billick just got $5 million a year - he's been a head coach far longer and has WON a Superbowl.

Supposedly, the only coaches that would make more money than Lovie if he takes the Bears offer are coaches that have either won a Superbowl and Fox and Reid. Reid has been to what - 4 NFC Championship games and has been a coach longer. Fox has been to 2 and has been a coach for longer. They both have resumes that command more than Lovie.

Is 4 million maybe a tad light? Maybe... But Lovie doesn't deserve 5 million yet. The middle ground will be found.

Again, I know you follow this closer than I do. Who is reporting the Bears are currently offering 4 million?J

It's a number I've been seeing on the Bears message boards quite a bit. I'm looking for a link to substantiate it at this point, but I'm not finding much. Really, everything on this entire thing is just rumor and speculation at this point though. Which is why I don't understand how people can jump to conclusions with almost no concrete information...Here's a quote I found regarding it: Which is why you both are WRONG, as the latest number from the ESPN analyst who broke the story is that the Bears are offering 4 mil a year for 4 years, and Lovie is seeking 5 mil a year for 5 years.

So, I'm guessing these numbers were reported on an ESPN broadcast of some sort...

 

[Captain Blowhard]

Worth asking until it gets answered:

Where's the link saying the Bears have offered Lovie $4 mill a year?

 

[DrJ]

Worth asking until it gets answered:Where's the link saying the Bears have offered Lovie $4 mill a year?

Again, I'm not finding a link but several posters on the Bears message board have indicated that the ESPN analyst that broke the story gave those numbers. They're numbers that have been accepted on the board, even by posters that are critical of the Bears not having this deal done.You're not going to find a source that can give reliable figures though, because again this is all rumor and speculation at this point. Which is again why I don't understand how anyone can fault the Bears in the process. If you don't know what they're offering, and what Smith is declining, how can you possibly say they're not handling this correctly? It's not likely, but it is possible that they're offering him $5 million a year and he's trying to milk it even more - no one knows but Phillips, Lovie, and Lovie's agent...If the Bears don't get this done, I'll be more than happy to blast them for it. But it's entirely premature to assume that's the case, and it's impossible to say they've handled it poorly given the information we have. Everyone was banding around Scott Skiles as well when almost the same thing was happening....and like I said he went in and signed a deal the next day and admitted it was the same deal they were offering before his agent went off the deep end. So obviously they weren't being unfair as his agent had suggested. And I'm just not sure it's what's happening here in the case of the Bears either. They just doubled the salary of their ST coach...they're rewarding success and this organization isn't operating the same under Phillips as it had in the past. In the past, Jerry Angelo's position didn't even exist as they were too cheap to actually have a GM. So all of this "throw nickles around like manhole covers" thing is more history than anything else...

 

[Captain Blowhard]

Worth asking until it gets answered:Where's the link saying the Bears have offered Lovie $4 mill a year?

Again, I'm not finding a link but several posters on the Bears message board have indicated that the ESPN analyst that broke the story gave those numbers. They're numbers that have been accepted on the board, even by posters that are critical of the Bears not having this deal done.You're not going to find a source that can give reliable figures though, because again this is all rumor and speculation at this point. Which is again why I don't understand how anyone can fault the Bears in the process. If you don't know what they're offering, and what Smith is declining, how can you possibly say they're not handling this correctly? It's not likely, but it is possible that they're offering him $5 million a year and he's trying to milk it even more - no one knows but Phillips, Lovie, and Lovie's agent...If the Bears don't get this done, I'll be more than happy to blast them for it. But it's entirely premature to assume that's the case, and it's impossible to say they've handled it poorly given the information we have.

If someone at ESPN said it, there'd be print evidence of it at ESPN. There is not. You're skeptical of information that makes the Bears management look bad, yet you're taking as gospel second hand info posted by Bear fans at an Internet message board. That's okay. Just pointing that out.Not sure the about the continued reference to Skiles? Did he take the Bulls to the finals recently? Was he coach of the year last year? Both? I think there are many more examples of good coaches proving their worth and their teams taking care of them promptly and long before it got ugly in the media. Cowher was reupped twice by the Steelers after losing seasons, for example. I have to agree with Joe and others who say this really should have been taken care of before now. Holmgren, for example, signed a 2-year extension in May last year after the Super Bowl lose. But the lapsed time was of his own choosing. He told the Seahawks he wanted time to ponder his future. I think it's odd, though, that a coach-of-the-year and a Super Bowl coach and a coach who has made it very clear he wants to coach the Bears for a long time, hasn't gotten his extension yet, and furthermore has to resort to having his agent play attack dog in the media over it.

 

[DrJ]

People also forget that before they signed Lovie, this team made a push for Saban. And the reports at the time indicated that the reason it didn't happen weren't because of money, but because he wanted Jerry Angelo's job too. This organization was prepared to pay good money for a top coaching candidate, so I don't see why they won't do it for Lovie after he's proven to be that.

 

[DrJ]

Worth asking until it gets answered:Where's the link saying the Bears have offered Lovie $4 mill a year?

Again, I'm not finding a link but several posters on the Bears message board have indicated that the ESPN analyst that broke the story gave those numbers. They're numbers that have been accepted on the board, even by posters that are critical of the Bears not having this deal done.You're not going to find a source that can give reliable figures though, because again this is all rumor and speculation at this point. Which is again why I don't understand how anyone can fault the Bears in the process. If you don't know what they're offering, and what Smith is declining, how can you possibly say they're not handling this correctly? It's not likely, but it is possible that they're offering him $5 million a year and he's trying to milk it even more - no one knows but Phillips, Lovie, and Lovie's agent...If the Bears don't get this done, I'll be more than happy to blast them for it. But it's entirely premature to assume that's the case, and it's impossible to say they've handled it poorly given the information we have.

If someone at ESPN said it, there'd be print evidence of it at ESPN. There is not. You're skeptical of information that makes the Bears management look bad, yet you're taking as gospel second hand info posted by Bear fans at an Internet message board. That's okay. Just pointing that out.

I'm not taking those numbers as gospel, I said that it is all rumor and speculation at this point. And again, I still don't see how you can say the agent's statements make them look bad. "Market value" is an intentionally ambiguous statement and since you expect the Bears to spell out their offer for the public why don't you ask the agent spell out "Market value" as well?That's okay. Just pointing that out.

 

[Captain Blowhard]

Worth asking until it gets answered:Where's the link saying the Bears have offered Lovie $4 mill a year?

Again, I'm not finding a link but several posters on the Bears message board have indicated that the ESPN analyst that broke the story gave those numbers. They're numbers that have been accepted on the board, even by posters that are critical of the Bears not having this deal done.You're not going to find a source that can give reliable figures though, because again this is all rumor and speculation at this point. Which is again why I don't understand how anyone can fault the Bears in the process. If you don't know what they're offering, and what Smith is declining, how can you possibly say they're not handling this correctly? It's not likely, but it is possible that they're offering him $5 million a year and he's trying to milk it even more - no one knows but Phillips, Lovie, and Lovie's agent...If the Bears don't get this done, I'll be more than happy to blast them for it. But it's entirely premature to assume that's the case, and it's impossible to say they've handled it poorly given the information we have.

If someone at ESPN said it, there'd be print evidence of it at ESPN. There is not. You're skeptical of information that makes the Bears management look bad, yet you're taking as gospel second hand info posted by Bear fans at an Internet message board. That's okay. Just pointing that out.

I'm not taking those numbers as gospel, I said that it is all rumor and speculation at this point. And again, I still don't see how you can say the agent's statements make them look bad. "Market value" is an intentionally ambiguous statement and since you expect the Bears to spell out their offer for the public why don't you ask the agent spell out "Market value" as well?That's okay. Just pointing that out.

Thanks for the clarification. Your posts #24 and #26 inferred something more substantive than just pure speculation.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Please explain why you think that means they should be ashamed that they signed him to a contract that was in line with his market value when he signed it.

Simple. Because it's been out of line with his market value for about a year now. At the very least for the last few months. J

There is no market value for Lovie Smith because he is already under contract. Market Value indicates what is currently being paid for new head coaching hires. That market is around $4.5 million because of the Petrino signing. Lovie Smith is under contract.I would not be embarassed by that fact if I were the Bears. Maybe you think Lovie Smith is currently underpaid but he was probably overpaid his first year when he had no idea what he was doing. You want to be paid on a stict performance basis, sign 1 year contracts every year.

Is it an embarassment that the Phillies are paying the reigning NL MVP $500,000 this year? No, that is the contract that he signed and the system that was negotiated by his union.

Stop crying for Lovie Smith.