Bears Actively Pursuing Cutler Trade(rumor)

[RamsJunkie]

Radio host in Chicago is adamant the bears are actively shopping Cutler around.

Just got a tweet saying this. Have no Idea if its true but apparently this guy is a pretty good inside source for bears news. I sure hope the Rams are kicking the tires.

 

[jrry32]

Unfortunately, actively shopping doesn't necessarily mean the Rams have interest. Just don't seem like this is a deal the Rams want to do. Why? I don't know. They seem to favor Foles. Can't say that's exciting to me. But I guess the upside with Foles is that we could keep Bradford.

 

[Mackeyser]

Supposedly the Rams are front runners for Foles, so prolly not...

 

[Dodgersrf]

Unfortunately, actively shopping doesn't necessarily mean the Rams have interest. Just don't seem like this is a deal the Rams want to do. Why? I don't know. They seem to favor Foles. Can't say that's exciting to me. But I guess the upside with Foles is that we could keep Bradford.

We could easily keep both.
Doesn't Foles make less than Hill.
I read Foles is expected to make 1.4 mill this year.

 

[HometownBoy]

Unfortunately, actively shopping doesn't necessarily mean the Rams have interest. Just don't seem like this is a deal the Rams want to do. Why? I don't know. They seem to favor Foles. Can't say that's exciting to me. But I guess the upside with Foles is that we could keep Bradford.

Probably has something to do with Foles being less of a team killer, locker room divider. Cutler divides locker rooms like Moses parts seas. I doubt many teams want to be a part of that.

 

[jrry32]

Probably has something to do with Foles being less of a team killer, locker room divider. Cutler divides locker rooms like Moses parts seas. I doubt many teams want to be a part of that.

I remember when some people alleged Bradford did the same thing. Can't say I care much for anonymous sources and rumors.

 

[FRO]

Bradford and Foles together is a much better option than Cutler in my opinion.

 

[jrry32]

Bradford and Foles together is a much better option than Cutler in my opinion.

You're also not giving up a 2nd or a 3rd round pick to get Cutler.

 

[Yamahopper]

Cutler is owed big guaranteed $$$$. That's a big hurdle to clear. Da Bears will offer a high pick with him just to get some team to take him.

 

[HometownBoy]

I remember when some people alleged Bradford did the same thing. Can't say I care much for anonymous sources and rumors.

True enough, but for Bradford the rumors disappeared over time. For Cutler they've persisted for years, from when he started getting up there to now. I'm usually inclined to agree with your belief, but if it sticks around for long enough you have to start to wonder if it's persisting for a reason.

 

[FRO]

You're also not giving up a 2nd or a 3rd round pick to get Cutler.

I know. I think Bradford can be a top tier QB. I'm not willing to pass that for Cutler. Foles is top notch insurance for me. If it fails I'm not tied down to bad contracts after this year.

 

[RamsJunkie]

If we go Cutler I'd say Bradford is gone and with long and wells gone those 3 clear up a ton of space so cutlets contract wouldn't be an issue and we would still have some money to spend to help fix the line in free agency

 

[jrry32]

I know. I think Bradford can be a top tier QB. I'm not willing to pass that for Cutler. Foles is top notch insurance for me. If it fails I'm not tied down to bad contracts after this year.

You've also got no QB next year. And can't use that 2nd or 3rd on an important contributor. Rather, you used it on a QB for insurance that just walked in free agency.

True enough, but for Bradford the rumors disappeared over time. For Cutler they've persisted for years, from when he started getting up there to now. I'm usually inclined to agree with your belief, but if it sticks around for long enough you have to start to wonder if it's persisting for a reason.

No. The Cutler rumors were nonexistent when the Bears were winning from 2010 to 2012. They only popped up after the team started losing.

 

[FRO]

You've also got no QB next year. And can't use that 2nd or 3rd on an important contributor. Rather, you used it on a QB for insurance that just walked in free agency.



No. The Cutler rumors were nonexistent when the Bears were winning from 2010 to 2012. They only popped up after the team started losing.

And if Cutle plays at the level he did last year you are stuck with a mediocre QB on a large contract.

 

[Selassie I]

Jay must be loving the thought of joining in with his teammates and coaches when the offseason is over. Bet he can't wait.

 

[jrry32]

And if Cutle plays at the level he did last year you are stuck with a mediocre QB on a large contract.

For two years? Yea. Isn't the same true of Foles? And I can't even talk about how Bradford played last year because he hasn't played in the last 1.5 years.

I'm just saying that both plans have their pros and cons. But if the Bears are willing to basically give Cutler up for nothing and Foles is going to cost us a 2nd, I know which plan I favor.

Because I can use that 2nd round pick on an important player. While the truth is that Foles played even worse than Cutler did in 2014 in a better situation and if we don't re-sign him...likely to a big $$$$ deal if we're bothering to re-sign him, Foles walks in FA and there goes that 2nd.

So in the end, Cutler is an average QB with a bloated salary for the next two years...but that still gives us two years to get the QB situation figured out. Something Bradford and Foles do not...unless we franchise one of them. And if that happens, they'll have an even more bloated salary than Cutler in 2016.

For me, the Foles plan all comes down to potential with him and Bradford. If you think sticking by Sam is the way to go or that Foles will be a future good/very good QB, go through with it. But if you think both guys are temporary solutions...then the Cutler deal is the better deal.

 

[Corbin]

Any of you think we should put out a Cutler trade rumor out there so it will steady the price for a Foles trade with us?

 

[FRO]

For two years? Yea. Isn't the same true of Foles? And I can't even talk about how Bradford played last year because he hasn't played in the last 1.5 years.

I'm just saying that both plans have their pros and cons. But if the Bears are willing to basically give Cutler up for nothing and Foles is going to cost us a 2nd, I know which plan I favor.

Because I can use that 2nd round pick on an important player. While the truth is that Foles played even worse than Cutler did in 2014 in a better situation and if we don't re-sign him...likely to a big $$$$ deal if we're bothering to re-sign him, Foles walks in FA and there goes that 2nd.

So in the end, Cutler is an average QB with a bloated salary for the next two years...but that still gives us two years to get the QB situation figured out. Something Bradford and Foles do not...unless we franchise one of them. And if that happens, they'll have an even more bloated salary than Cutler in 2016.

For me, the Foles plan all comes down to potential with him and Bradford. If you think sticking by Sam is the way to go or that Foles will be a future good/very good QB, go through with it. But if you think both guys are temporary solutions...then the Cutler deal is the better deal.

I'm a Sam guy. I believe in his potential to be a top end QB. I think Foles is great insurance if he gets hurt again. If I didn't think Sam would be the guy I would explore the Cutler angle or a trade up angle more.

 

[jrry32]

Any of you think we should put out a Cutler trade rumor out there so it will steady the price for a Foles trade with us?

I doubt Philly would buy it if we upped our offer.

 

[LesBaker]

Unfortunately, actively shopping doesn't necessarily mean the Rams have interest. Just don't seem like this is a deal the Rams want to do. Why? I don't know. They seem to favor Foles. Can't say that's exciting to me. But I guess the upside with Foles is that we could keep Bradford.

Not exactly a thrilling proposition IMO. If they landed Foles I think Bradford would get cut because if they make a move for him it isn't to be the backup and leaving Bradford on the roster creates controversy.

If they get Foles Bradford is finished as a Ram.