Mazrimiv Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 I am more or less indifferent to whether Graham returns, but there have definitely been enough blurbs coming from GB beat writers to make me think the talk of cutting him is legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: there was a breakdown of pay/year that had me convinced the smart move is to cut your loses with him at this point. Other than Cook, the FA class sucks. Not sure if there's guys on the block or cap-casualty guys however. Not an easy decision. I don't get where it's smart to cut your losses, I don't actually see any conceivable argument as such. We have about 40m, we'd have to be incredibly lucky to even spend all of that, let alone any extra cash we'd get by cutting Graham, Daniels, Perry, Bulaga, Crosby. To me cutting them is a clear sign that we're not desiring to be in contention for a SB this year, which means signing Rodgers to that extension was the dumbest move we've made in awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopackgo27 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Cut your losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 23 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: So you can agree, on record, that if Gute cuts Graham it is a stupid move? I'm shocked of the love here for Jimmy Graham. He's was awful this year for what he's being paid. Anyone think this guy is going to get better as he gets a year older and slower is fooling themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, gopackgo27 said: https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/the-true-options-for-jimmy-graham-nick-perry-444?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Totally flawed way of looking at it. That writer should be embarrassed. You already paid his SB and that 3.6 would go toward NEXT year's cap, where you would see a net GAIN of 5m cutting him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: there was a breakdown of pay/year that had me convinced the smart move is to cut your loses with him at this point. Other than Cook, the FA class sucks. Not sure if there's guys on the block or cap-casualty guys however. Not an easy decision. Cameron Brate is a high likely cut or trade option for TB. 7 million in 2019. Contract is for a few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopackgo27 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Totally flawed way of looking at it. That writer should be embarrassed. You already paid his SB and that 3.6 would go toward NEXT year's cap, where you would see a net GAIN of 5m cutting him. Totally flawed way of looking at it? Seriously? It's completely accurate and a phenomenal breakdown of what our options are with both of these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Totally flawed way of looking at it. That writer should be embarrassed. You already paid his SB and that 3.6 would go toward NEXT year's cap, where you would see a net GAIN of 5m cutting him. Huh? I don't see where the flaw is in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Totally flawed way of looking at it. That writer should be embarrassed. You already paid his SB and that 3.6 would go toward NEXT year's cap, where you would see a net GAIN of 5m cutting him. Totally inaccurate. If we cut him before June 1st we save 5.3333 million in cap space for 2019. He would be OFF the books next year and we'd gain 11.666 million next year. This is pretty simple math and right here for you via overthecap. https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/ The reality is we save almost 17 million in cap space over the next two years if we cut him b4 June 1st. Jimmy Graham has been an unmitigated disaster. Your comment about us not spending the 40 million he have this year is also very flawed. Over the next year we have to extend Martinez and Clark for sure. We need to look at the possibility of extending King after next year if he has a good year as well. You don't keep a bad contract with a guy who doesn't produce because you have the money. Simply bad business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Danneskjold Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, gopackgo27 said: https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/the-true-options-for-jimmy-graham-nick-perry-444?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter You aren't understanding the way the money flows. When they sign the contract, they are paid the signing bonus. It is up front money that the player gets right away. For salary cap purposes, the signing bonus gets amortized over the life of the contract, up to 5 years. That is the majority of "dead money" that shows up in most contracts. Here is the actual breakdown of Graham's contract: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/jimmy-graham-6603/ If they keep Graham, they will add 9 million in cash this year. Next year they would have dead money of 3.6 million if they cut him because the signing bonus he received was amortized over 3 years. That is signing bonus that has already been paid, and will end up as a cap charge at some point whether he stays or goes. There is no avoiding it. The only thing they add if they keep him is the 9 million cash charge from this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I don't get where it's smart to cut your losses, I don't actually see any conceivable argument as such. We have about 40m, we'd have to be incredibly lucky to even spend all of that, let alone any extra cash we'd get by cutting Graham, Daniels, Perry, Bulaga, Crosby. To me cutting them is a clear sign that we're not desiring to be in contention for a SB this year, which means signing Rodgers to that extension was the dumbest move we've made in awhile. Disagree. The play we got from Graham this year doesn't give me any hope of him being a positive contributor to a SB run. Ultimately it's going to come down to LaFleur and staff evaluating his tape from 2018 and seeing how strongly they feel about getting something valuable from him in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: Huh? I don't see where the flaw is in the article. He disagrees with it, thus it is flawed. That is how Internet discussions go. It's science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, Golfman said: I'm shocked of the love here for Jimmy Graham. He's was awful this year for what he's being paid. Anyone think this guy is going to get better as he gets a year older and slower is fooling themselves. It's not love for Graham, it's reality of the situation. You're not getting better than Graham in free agency for the same price. If it was a QB we were talking about, the money involved in cutting him makes sense. It's not QB, it's TE. Graham was more than adequate, in spite of public opinion of him, last year. He's being paid too much, but the cost of cutting him while taking into account the cost of replacing him suggests you don't cut him. Do you really want to spend 14 million on TE next year? Because that's what it would be. It would be 16 million at tight end. 7 million in dead cap (Graham). 7 million on new TE (Cook, Eiffert). Cook provides a modest upgrade, at the cost of 7 million dollars. Eiffert is probably retiring with his next injury. That's 14 million at tight end for a modest upgrade --or-- 12 million at tight end hoping for better results from Graham in his second year with Rodgers. Logic dictates you try to find Graham's replacement in the mid rounds of the draft, then cut him after this coming season at a loss of 3 million and a savings of 8 million as opposed to cutting him now at a cost of 7 million and a savings of 5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, Ragnar Danneskjold said: You aren't understanding the way the money flows. When they sign the contract, they are paid the signing bonus. It is up front money that the player gets right away. For salary cap purposes, the signing bonus gets amortized over the life of the contract, up to 5 years. That is the majority of "dead money" that shows up in most contracts. Here is the actual breakdown of Graham's contract: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/jimmy-graham-6603/ If they keep Graham, they will add 9 million in cash this year. Next year they would have dead money of 3.6 million if they cut him because the signing bonus he received was amortized over 3 years. That is signing bonus that has already been paid, and will end up as a cap charge at some point whether he stays or goes. There is no avoiding it. The only thing they add if they keep him is the 9 million cash charge from this year. That's exactly what the article states 0 yrs - $7.3 million 1yr - $16.3 million (+$9 million from above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopackgo27 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, incognito_man said: That's exactly what the article states 0 yrs - $7.3 million 1yr - $16.3 million (+$9 million from above). Am I taking crazy pills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.