Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sschind" data-source="post: 837204" data-attributes="member: 10247">That's the big thing.  Not that they couldn't afford Mack but that it would make it more difficult for them to afford anyone else.  That's why, IMO, it made much more sense for the Bears.  They already had a top defense and Mack made them that much better.  He would not have done that for us and it may have prevented us from getting the guys we did or prevented us from resigning Lowry (maybe not that big of a deal) or perhaps Clark (remains to be seen) .Now it may come back to bite the Bears in the *** if they have to pony up a ton for Trubisky or when the other defensive players start wanting their cut but for last year and this year at least I think Mack made more sense for them than us. I also think that the players will be getting an even bigger cut once the new CBA is ironed out.  What that will do to current contracts I have no idea but I don't think teams with high priced players after 2020 will be hurt.  My gut tells me an extra game or two will be at the forefront of the owners minds and they will be willing to give up a lot to get it.  A higher percentage of revenue to the players perhaps?</blockquote>

Total: 1,386 (members: 2, guests: 1,384)