2019 Free Agent Discussion

[Norm]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Denial is people who think all FA's #1 requirement is how much time they can spend in da club, so GBs eliminated.

Cash, that's really it. GB offers more cash than the other 31 teams they'll get whatever FA they want.

But we won't. And shouldn't. And when you offer equal money "da club" usually wins out. 

 

[Arthur Penske]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Denial is people who think all FA's #1 requirement is how much time they can spend in da club, so GBs eliminated.

Cash, that's really it. GB offers more cash than the other 31 teams they'll get whatever FA they want.

Yep. Cash and a chance to win are the top 2 priorities for the vast majority.

[Arthur Penske]

4 minutes ago, Norm said:

But we won't. And shouldn't. And when you offer equal money "da club" usually wins out. 

 

Gutey did for Jimmy, who chose GB over "da Club " aka $$ in New Orleans. Which may or may not have been a mistake. Glad he didn't for Trumain Johnson.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Arthur Penske

[MacReady]

Just now, Arthur Penske said:

Yep. Cash and a chance to win are the top 2 priorities for the vast majority.

Once again, not true.  More is not a definite number. 

Green bay offers 10 million.
Dolphins, Buccaneers, Jaguars, Texans, Cowboys, Titans offer 10 million. 

That player is signing elsewhere. 

The Raiders will soon be added to that list. 

Why?  Because of income tax.  Same amount of cap, yet the player gets more money. 

Talking about guarantees and total money, if you really think 3, 4, 5, 6 million dollars on a 45-51 million dollar contract is going to convince a player to pick a population of 100,000 and an Applebees for 6 million more over 5 years over a veritable vacation destination, you're wrong again. 

If you were given 600 dollars to shop in the town of Green Bay Wisconsin with all it had to offer or 500 dollars in Houston or Tampa Bay or Miami or Jacksonville or Dallas or Tennessee, you'd make the warmer choice with more options, too. 

Even if it was true exactly as you say it...

Even if it was true that more money equals signing in Green Bay, you are

STILL

neglecting the fact that is, by definition, a DISADVANTAGE. 

If we have to spend more money on the same player to get that player to pick us, that is incredibly clearly unavoidably a disadvantage. 

[Packerraymond]

16 minutes ago, Norm said:

But we won't. And shouldn't. And when you offer equal money "da club" usually wins out. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Once again, not true.  More is not a definite number. 

Green bay offers 10 million.
Dolphins, Buccaneers, Jaguars, Texans, Cowboys, Titans offer 10 million. 

That player is signing elsewhere. 

The Raiders will soon be added to that list. 

Why?  Because of income tax.  Same amount of cap, yet the player gets more money. 

Talking about guarantees and total money, if you really think 3, 4, 5, 6 million dollars on a 45-51 million dollar contract is going to convince a player to pick a population of 100,000 and an Applebees for 6 million more over 5 years over a veritable vacation destination, you're wrong again. 

If you were given 600 dollars to shop in the town of Green Bay Wisconsin with all it had to offer or 500 dollars in Houston or Tampa Bay or Miami or Jacksonville or Dallas or Tennessee, you'd make the warmer choice with more options, too. 

Even if it was true exactly as you say it...

Even if it was true that more money equals signing in Green Bay, you are

STILL

neglecting the fact that is, by definition, a DISADVANTAGE. 

If we have to spend more money on the same player to get that player to pick us, that is incredibly clearly unavoidably a disadvantage. 

Taxes are in the spectrum of cash. Obviously we all understand how taxes work, there are plenty of teams hit harder by this than GB.

EDIT: Norm no idea why you're quoted here but I'm too lazy to take it out.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

 

Taxes are in the spectrum of cash. Obviously we all understand how taxes work, there are plenty of teams hit harder by this than GB.

It's just a coincidence that Buffalo and Green Bay haven't had a major free agent signing in 20 years, right? 

[Arthur Penske]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Once again, not true.  More is not a definite number. 

Green bay offers 10 million.
Dolphins, Buccaneers, Jaguars, Texans, Cowboys, Titans offer 10 million. 

That player is signing elsewhere. 

The Raiders will soon be added to that list. 

Why?  Because of income tax.  Same amount of cap, yet the player gets more money. 

Talking about guarantees and total money, if you really think 3, 4, 5, 6 million dollars on a 45-51 million dollar contract is going to convince a player to pick a population of 100,000 and an Applebees for 6 million more over 5 years over a veritable vacation destination, you're wrong again. 

If you were given 600 dollars to shop in the town of Green Bay Wisconsin with all it had to offer or 500 dollars in Houston or Tampa Bay or Miami or Jacksonville or Dallas or Tennessee, you'd make the warmer choice with more options, too. 

Even if it was true exactly as you say it...

Even if it was true that more money equals signing in Green Bay, you are

STILL

neglecting the fact that is, by definition, a DISADVANTAGE. 

If we have to spend more money on the same player to get that player to pick us, that is incredibly clearly unavoidably a disadvantage. 

Yeah, it's black and white like that. No other factors than income tax come into consideration. Just like when I moved across the country for a job awhile ago ( from SD no income tax to DC one of the highest taxed and expensive areas) the only thing i looked at what income tax. Not career opportunities, bigger stage, etc.

So, if we're offering a similar deal to a pass catcher with Miami or Jags they're 100 times/100  signing in Florida for the tax reasons and not a chance to play with Rodgers and the Packers who get more primetime games and increase their value/notoriety/endorsements. Right? C'mon.

[Packerraymond]

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It's just a coincidence that Buffalo and Green Bay haven't had a major free agent signing in 20 years, right? 

Yeah Buffalo has sucked and GB has had both a franchise/ HOF caliber QB on a big deal and well as a very fiscally responsible GM over the last 20 years.

[MacReady]

Just now, Arthur Penske said:

Yeah, it's black and white like that. No other factors than income tax come into consideration. Just like when I moved across the country for a job awhile ago ( from SD no income tax to DC one of the highest taxed and expensive areas) the only thing i looked at what income tax. Not career opportunities, bigger stage, etc.

So, if we're offering a similar deal to a pass catcher with Miami or Jags they're 100 times/100  signing in Florida for the tax reasons and not a chance to play with Rodgers and the Packers who get more primetime games and increase their value/notoriety/endorsements. Right? C'mon.

It's funny you bring up catching passes from Rodgers or going to Miami or Jacksonville when we literally missed out on Allen Robinson signing here because he chose Mitch Trubisky to receive passes from. 

You can deny it all you want.  Since teams have figured out free agency (mid-90's), the Packers have had one single large free agent signing.  Joe Johnson.  How'd we get him?  Nobody else wanted him and we paid way, way, way too much, resulting in our worst free agent signing of our franchise. 

Look at the others. 

Woodson - Nobody wanted him at corner.
Pickett - He's a moderate signing.
Peppers - He was cut.
Saturday - He was cooked.
Bennett - Lol
Cook - Nobody wanted him.  He sucked.  We still paid a lot.
Graham - Saints offered less, and probably significantly less considering their cap space.

We tried to get Robinson, Johnson, and other aforementioned big name free agents over the years.  They didn't sign here. 

Steven Jackson literally said that he used us to increase Atlanta's offer. 

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Yeah Buffalo has sucked and GB has had both a franchise/ HOF caliber QB on a big deal and well as a very fiscally responsible GM over the last 20 years.

How'd that fiscal responsibility and HOF QB effect us getting Allen Robinson? 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

How'd that fiscal responsibility and HOF QB effect us getting Allen Robinson? 

Bears offered more cash. See point 1

[Arthur Penske]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Bears offered more cash. See point 1

Yep.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Bears offered more cash. See point 1

Rodgers + Wisconsin < Trubisky, Chicago, more money. 

And I'm not so sure you're right there. 

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/25/top-free-agent-wr-allen-robinson-chose-bears-over-packers/

Article seems to suggest the offer was extremely similar.  14 million is what Robinson ultimately got out of Chicago, and 14 million was a number that kept repeating itself in Green Bay.  So, what, Robinson chose Chicago and Trubisky for 1 million more?  And you seriously think that's a point in your favor?  Really? 

Quote

Moreover, this $14 million figure keeps repeating itself in Packers-related news, which suggests there’s a number the Packers feel comfortable spending this offseason without impeding on Rodgers’ contract situation.

Quote

“Chicago was definitely a team I had my eye on, from the standpoint that they had just hired Coach Nagy,” Robinson said.

Looks like straight from the horse's mouth it was not, in fact, about money. 

Then there's Wilkerson.  He left and visited 3 other teams.  Gotta say visiting three other teams before eventually signing is a good indication that nobody else wanted him. 

 

[Arthur Penske]

8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It's funny you bring up catching passes from Rodgers or going to Miami or Jacksonville when we literally missed out on Allen Robinson signing here because he chose Mitch Trubisky to receive passes from. 

You can deny it all you want.  Since teams have figured out free agency (mid-90's), the Packers have had one single large free agent signing.  Joe Johnson.  How'd we get him?  Nobody else wanted him and we paid way, way, way too much, resulting in our worst free agent signing of our franchise. 

Look at the others. 

Woodson - Nobody wanted him at corner.
Pickett - He's a moderate signing.
Peppers - He was cut.
Saturday - He was cooked.
Bennett - Lol
Cook - Nobody wanted him.  He sucked.  We still paid a lot.
Graham - Saints offered less, and probably significantly less considering their cap space.

We tried to get Robinson, Johnson, and other aforementioned big name free agents over the years.  They didn't sign here. 

Steven Jackson literally said that he used us to increase Atlanta's offer. 

Peppers had NE and others after him. He picked GB. The fact that he was cut is irrelevant. He was free to sign anywhere after being cut. 

Bennett was a mistake but he still came to GB. Over other places to IIRC.

Cook was a nice find by GB. He wanted to resign in GB and his agent screwed him over and got him less money.

From what I read on Graham, the Saints offer was competitive. And if the Saints weren't competitive, they were used by Grahams agent like you point to in the Steven Jackson example. You're conjecturing to try and make a point and using double standards.

You mad we didn't sign Steven Jackson at that age? lol He was cooked like Saturday. Also was there any evidence of how serious TT's was or that his agent just had a conversation with TT and Ball and told Hotlanta GB wanted him?

Robinson, Johnson, ( you're forgetting Watkins) ,et al got more money other places. And I'm glad we didn't pay them what they got. You want Robinson or Watkins at $15 million a year? No thanks. But thank you to Gutey for not offering that.

[MacReady]

Just now, Arthur Penske said:

Peppers had NE and others after him. He picked GB. The fact that he was cut is irrelevant. He was free to sign anywhere after being cut.  10 Million a year for a 36-year-old pass rusher.  Patriots haven't spent that much on pass rusher since Seymour. 

Bennett was a mistake but he still came to GB. Over other places to IIRC.  Wrong.  Patriots were the only other team Bennett spoke to. 

Cook was a nice find by GB. He wanted to resign in GB and his agent screwed him over and got him less money.  You're using re-signing as a point in a free agency discussion.  Nobody wanted him in his first free agency.

From what I read on Graham, the Saints offer was competitive. And if the Saints weren't competitive, they were used by Grahams agent like you point to in the Steven Jackson example. You're conjecturing to try and make a point and using double standards.  Wrong.    https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/27/packers-were-willing-to-pay-jimmy-graham-what-saints-werent/

Article literally reads, "Packers willing to pay Graham what Saints weren't."  Shocking.

You mad we didn't sign Steven Jackson at that age? lol

lol, no, I am using it as evidence.  Packers are used frequently to increase the offer of teams they actually want to sign with.  Good shot trying to turn this point to your favor.

Robinson, Johnson, ( you're forgetting Watkins) ,et al got more money other places. And I'm glad we didn't pay them what they got. You want Robinson or Watkins at $15 million a year? No thanks. But thank you to Gutey for not offering that.  No, I don't want Robinson at 15 million a year.  I didn't want him at 14 million a year, but I just provided evidence to suggest we offered Robinson 14 million a year, which, not coincidentally, is exactly what he got from Chicago if you can divide 42 by 3.  So, again, point in my favor.