Les Punting Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 With the inevitable reorganization of the roster in '22, it might be useful to explicitly identify the full universe of realistic cap-clearing moves. Estimating GB's maximum achievable cap space (MACS) will make clear what is and isn't possible in terms of '22 roster construction. Cap relief in '22 depends almost entirely on a dozen premium contracts, adjustments to which generate the following approximate savings: (*Savings through extension are rough estimates) If there are other notable moves that have been overlooked, or if the projected savings are inaccurate, please append. By most estimates, GB stands approximately $55m over the '22 cap. As can be seen, they're capable of clearing considerably more than that number. The obvious restructures (DB, Clark, Jones) clear $16m. All the potential extensions clear $40m. A few cuts (e.g. Cobb, ZSmith, Lowry, Crosby) clear $30m. As an example, all the bolded moves above would leave GB more than $30m under the cap, with Rodgers still under center. That seems sufficient to re-up Adams (assuming a reasonable '22 cap figure) and several of their own free agents, pay their RFA's and fill out the rest of the roster. When viewed through the lens of achievable cap space, GB's '22 situation seems fine. If they can ink Rodgers to a cap-friendly number, they will, with a few exceptions, be able to mostly "run back" the '21 team if they so choose. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 A 5th year option is fully guaranteed, can't gain anything from cutting or trading Alexander. His cap # is locked in for next year. Only way to get relief is with an extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) I think it's a bit moot as in reality we wouldn't cut Jaire. Extending him, whilst pairing him with Stokes and maybe even Rasul is a pretty exciting thought. Although the cap cuts are a bit of a demolition it's good to know there's enough flexibility to trade Rodgers and tag and trade Adams if needed. Extending them, if they're willing, has always been one way around the cap problem. But I've feared that we'd have to let Adams go for just a 3rd round comp pick if we traded Rodgers without a new deal. But it seems we can at least control their 2022 future and ensure fair value. Edited December 30, 2021 by British Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 5 hours ago, British said: I think it's a bit moot as in reality we wouldn't cut Jaire. Extending him, whilst pairing him with Stokes and maybe even Rasul is a pretty exciting thought. Might as well make peace with Rasul Douglass signing elsewhere this offseason. Someone is going to pay him a large chunk of money with the season he's had. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 5 hours ago, CWood21 said: Might as well make peace with Rasul Douglass signing elsewhere this offseason. Someone is going to pay him a large chunk of money with the season he's had. Yes. Need to make peace with it and take comfort from the fact it should at least give us a comp pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 5 hours ago, British said: Yes. Need to make peace with it and take comfort from the fact it should at least give us a comp pick. Pretty sure he's not eligible to get a comp pick from since he was signed midseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) 34 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Pretty sure he's not eligible to get a comp pick from since he was signed midseason. Well that would suck. Nothing in this little explainer that mentions it. But maybe that's covered in a different section. Appendix V of the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement contains the binding bylaws of the compensatory pick system. App. V, §1 explains the basics as follows: [A] Compensatory Free Agent (“CFA”) shall be defined as an Unrestricted Free Agent (“UFA”) who: (i) signed with a new Club during the prior free agency signing period […] prior to 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the Monday following the NFL Draft for that League Year1 […]; and (ii) ranked within the top 35%2 of all League players Edited December 31, 2021 by British Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 5 minutes ago, British said: Well that would suck. Nothing in this little explainer that mentions it. But maybe that's covered in a different section. Appendix V of the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement contains the binding bylaws of the compensatory pick system. App. V, §1 explains the basics as follows: [A] Compensatory Free Agent (“CFA”) shall be defined as an Unrestricted Free Agent (“UFA”) who: (i) signed with a new Club during the prior free agency signing period […] prior to 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the Monday following the NFL Draft for that League Year1 […]; and (ii) ranked within the top 35%2 of all League players There's a deadline that when players sign after are not eligible to be part of the comp pick formula. https://www.nfl.com/news/fa-signings-could-follow-after-comp-pick-deadline-ends-0ap3000001111913 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 24 minutes ago, CWood21 said: There's a deadline that when players sign after are not eligible to be part of the comp pick formula. https://www.nfl.com/news/fa-signings-could-follow-after-comp-pick-deadline-ends-0ap3000001111913 Interesting. Feels like that is about whether the previous team gets a pick, not about when the new team loses them. So had Rasul been a free agent, rather than a PS signee, it means that the Cardinals wouldn't have got a comp pick for him in '22. But the Packers would still get a comp pick in '23 as long as someone signs him before that deadline in '22. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 1 minute ago, British said: Interesting. Feels like that is about whether the previous team gets a pick, not about when the new team loses them. So had Rasul been a free agent, rather than a PS signee, it means that the Cardinals wouldn't have got a comp pick for him in '22. But the Packers would still get a comp pick in '23 as long as someone signs him before that deadline in '22. I might be wrong, but pretty sure there is a deadline in the offseason in which a player who signs AFTER that deadline is not eligible to be part of the comp pick formula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmansmell Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 22 hours ago, CWood21 said: Might as well make peace with Rasul Douglass signing elsewhere this offseason. Someone is going to pay him a large chunk of money with the season he's had. Ehhh, he's been on four rosters this year, I highly doubt the rest of the NFL is that high on him. GBP's are underestimated in the rest of the league, and fringe roster flyers that succeed aren't going to push a needle compared to the opportunities/experience they have here. I would almost guarantee both parties feeling like each other's best interest is him being here - ala pay cut that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzPackfan Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 On 12/31/2021 at 7:45 AM, Les Punting said: With the inevitable reorganization of the roster in '22, it might be useful to explicitly identify the full universe of realistic cap-clearing moves. Estimating GB's maximum achievable cap space (MACS) will make clear what is and isn't possible in terms of '22 roster construction. Cap relief in '22 depends almost entirely on a dozen premium contracts, adjustments to which generate the following approximate savings: (*Savings through extension are rough estimates) If there are other notable moves that have been overlooked, or if the projected savings are inaccurate, please append. By most estimates, GB stands approximately $55m over the '22 cap. As can be seen, they're capable of clearing considerably more than that number. The obvious restructures (DB, Clark, Jones) clear $16m. All the potential extensions clear $40m. A few cuts (e.g. Cobb, ZSmith, Lowry, Crosby) clear $30m. As an example, all the bolded moves above would leave GB more than $30m under the cap, with Rodgers still under center. That seems sufficient to re-up Adams (assuming a reasonable '22 cap figure) and several of their own free agents, pay their RFA's and fill out the rest of the roster. When viewed through the lens of achievable cap space, GB's '22 situation seems fine. If they can ink Rodgers to a cap-friendly number, they will, with a few exceptions, be able to mostly "run back" the '21 team if they so choose. The max savings for Clark and Bahktiari if we want to do a max restructure is close to 20m With Jaire we can save max 6m with an extension. Looking at the others there are some savings if we cut Lowry/Cobb/Crosby/Turner The biggest decisions though centre around Rodgers/Adams/Z Smith and P Smith. I don’t think we can keep more than 2 of those 4 players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 8 hours ago, oldmansmell said: Ehhh, he's been on four rosters this year, I highly doubt the rest of the NFL is that high on him. GBP's are underestimated in the rest of the league, and fringe roster flyers that succeed aren't going to push a needle compared to the opportunities/experience they have here. I would almost guarantee both parties feeling like each other's best interest is him being here - ala pay cut that makes sense. 5 Interceptions in 10 games whilst moving up the depth chart to starter is going to draw attention. This might be the only chance he gets to get paid so he is going to be looking for starter money or close to it. Jaire coming back probably dumps him down the depth chart so it may well be the case Green Bay is ideal spot for him in 21 somewhere else he has a chance to be a starter would probably be a better spot for him in 22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 6 hours ago, OzPackfan said: The max savings for Clark and Bahktiari if we want to do a max restructure is close to 20m With Jaire we can save max 6m with an extension. Looking at the others there are some savings if we cut Lowry/Cobb/Crosby/Turner The biggest decisions though centre around Rodgers/Adams/Z Smith and P Smith. I don’t think we can keep more than 2 of those 4 players Sensible to cross Z off the list - you can't give a significant 3rd contract to a guy coming off a major back injury. Maybe he signs a prove-it deal but he isn't getting a lot of new money. If we could keep 2/3 then its about as clear cut as it gets Rodgers and Adams are back next year and Preston is elsewhere. Think we will keep Rodgers or Adams though - both seems unfeasible. Preston will depend on how team friendly a deal you can strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 If two of the above were indeed kept, I'd settle for Turner and P.Smith as being the best compromise of both affordable and desirable. There is no denying though, that the loss of Rodgers, Adams, Z.Smith, Lowry, Cobb, Crosby and possibly others like Campbell and Douglas, will impact the team, a lot. It may mean mediocrity is the future of the team for a few years, though I hope it is otherwise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.