Bears sign Marty Booker

SportsWorld · Post #1 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:37 am

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com ... 7344.story

Wide receiver Marty Booker is returning for a second stint with the Bears after agreeing to a two-year contract on Tuesday. Terms of the contract were not disclosed.

Booker was a third-round draft pick of the Bears in 1999 but was traded to the Dolphins in 2004 for defensive end Adewale Ogunleye and a third-round pick (linebacker Channing Crowder).

Booker, who turns 32 on July 31, probably has at least a couple good years left in him despite being released by Miami. His production tailed off this past season with just 50 catches for 556 yards and one touchdown. But Miami was the fifth-worst offensive team in the league and Booker was the team's leading receiver.

NoSkyy · Post #2 » by **NoSkyy** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:43 am

Well, at least we signed someone.

Howling Mad · Post #3 » by **Howling Mad** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:46 am

a quarter sigh of relief

Howling Mad · Post #4 » by **Howling Mad** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:47 am

Once again we go shopping in the bargain bin. What a surprise.

SWIFTSLICK · Post #5 » by **SWIFTSLICK** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:49 am

Well, here comes a familiar face. It's probably not the most welcome comeback. But it's better than seeing Muhammed dropping another pass.

Chewie · Post #6 » by **Chewie** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:19 am

Hoo boy.... if this means were now not looking at Hackett and B Johnson I'm going to lose my mind. Who is this supposed to excite?

Posey H8er · Post #7 » by **Posey H8er** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:25 am

This is possibly an upgrade over Muhammad, who was a 3rd string receiver at best with us. Hey can we sign David Terrell too?

SportsWorld · Post #8 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:30 am

Meh, I want Curtis Conway ASAP

SWIFTSLICK · Post #9 » by **SWIFTSLICK** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:04 am

As long as they don't go after Marcus Robinson...

Post #10 » by **CBS7** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:57 pm

Okay, thats not a bad move, but it better not be "the" move.

We still lack a legit #1 WR, or even someone that comes close to a #1 WR, like Berrian did last year.

Still need Walker/Johnson/Hackett.

Post #11 » by **dougthonus** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 3:58 pm

It's a good move.

Since the salary cap information in football people seem to just ignore that it exists. We don't really have the space to chase the premier WRs and still build the rest of the football team. Especially since the premier WRs are guys who, quite frankly, aren't very good.

Right now, the Bears have about 12 million in cap space for this year after we allocate room for our draft picks. I sure as hell wouldn't want to blow 8 million of that on a mediocre WR. I'd rather go after Max Starks or Jake Scott.

Post #12 » by **CBS7** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:01 pm

Oh wait, just saw the Raiders signed Walker to 6 years, 55 million.

NLK · Post #13 » by **NLK** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:15 pm

Doug you do bring a good point. We do have issues at the Offensive line. And that is where we need to shore up.
However...
It won't shock me if the 14th Pick is traded down so that they could nab DeSean Jackson. I'm sure in the wild world of Angelo & Lovie, they pick up this guy up, and to have a tandem of KR/PRs, hence keeping the offense off the field (or the lack thereof).

Chewie · Post #14 » by **Chewie** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:32 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Right now, the Bears have about 12 million in cap space for this year after we allocate room for our draft picks. I sure as hell wouldn't want to blow 8 million of that on a mediocre WR. I'd rather go after Max Starks or Jake Scott.

Well, Starks has the transition tag slapped on him and has been tendered an offer of nearly $7M so I don't see that happening. If we get Scott in the fold, I can swallow the likes of Booker as our <cough> big free agent WR signing a little more easily.

NLK · Post #15 » by **NLK** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:41 pm

Really, would BULLS fans who are also BEARS fans, like a guy on their team who's name is STARKS??? Gotta tell you, stigma is attached to that name.

Post #16 » by **dougthonus** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:50 pm

Well, Starks has the transition tag slapped on him and has been tendered an offer of nearly $7M so I don't see that happening. If we get Scott in the fold, I can swallow the likes of Booker as our <cough> big free agent WR signing a little more easily.

The transition tag just means the Steelers can match an offer, but they don't have a lot of cap space to do so. We could easily put a poison pill tag on our offer to make it so that the Steelers can't match. If he plays more than 30% of his snaps in Pennsylvania then his contract becomes fully guaranteed.

The tender offer is irrelevant and doesn't mean anything compared to what we have to offer. It just means that's his one year deal if he doesn't find a better offer in FA.

Chewie · Post #17 » by **Chewie** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:58 pm

dougthonus wrote:

Well, Starks has the transition tag slapped on him and has been tendered an offer of nearly $7M so I don't see that happening. If we get Scott in the fold, I can swallow the likes of Booker as our <cough> big free agent WR signing a little more easily.

The transition tag just means the Steelers can match an offer, but they don't have a lot of cap space to do so. We could easily put a poison pill tag on our offer to make it so that the Steelers can't match. If he plays more than 30% of his snaps in Pennsylvania then his contract becomes fully guaranteed.

The tender offer is irrelevant and doesn't mean anything compared to what we have to offer. It just means that's his one year deal if he doesn't find a better offer in FA.

Right. My reason for bringing up the money is that he's going to be looking for similar annual money to the tender offer, IMO. Granted he may take less for some long term security but I just can't see the Bears stepping up to the plate as we seem more concerned with restructuring the contracts of our own at this point. The good news with a transition tag, though, is we wouldn't have to offer the Steelers any kind of draft pick compensation (unlike with a franchise tag).

That being said, I think we're looking at whatever table scraps are left after we make Hester, Urlacher, and Harris happy.

Cliff Levingston · Post #18 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:15 pm

Good signing even if it's very pedestrian. Booker gives us that veteran possession receiver who hopefully doesn't completely suck for us.

Cliff Levingston is with Doug, combined with his own thoughts of course. The little cap we do have is better spent on the offensive line, and we can ride our tight ends hard in the passing game.

Chewie · Post #19 » by **Chewie** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:42 pm

Cliff Levingston wrote:we can ride our tight ends hard

chibearsfan · Post #20 » by **chibearsfan** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:08 pm

[quote="Chewie"]-= original quote snipped =-

[/quote]