OneTwoSixFive Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 (edited) 20 hours ago, Scoremore said: Just conjecture. We'll see if Love and his agent play ball with the Packers or get greedy. If no contract by the time the season starts we'll know. Knowing the way the Packers operate he'll get paid. Still expect a deal before training camp. So, would you ever criticise the Packers for 'getting greedy' ? I suspect the answer is you haven't considered it......... and no. Edited May 18 by OneTwoSixFive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 The trade love talk is blasphemy and I wont participate in this mental ************. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 On 5/18/2024 at 1:21 AM, OneTwoSixFive said: So, would you ever criticise the Packers for 'getting greedy' ? I suspect the answer is you haven't considered it......... and no. Want to explain to me what that means? The Packers spend up to the cap. There is no Packers getting greedy. The FO job is to put the best team possible out there within the limits of the cap. When one player takes up north of 20 percent of the cap it makes this much more difficult. Yes I think a player wanting any player wanting excess of 50-60 million a year at the expense of his teammates and forgoing a championship to line his pockets is greedy. This is a team sport. It's not just about one player. QB salaries are clearly out of hand. I really don't get how many of you on this board defend this. Seriously whether Love makes 40 mil/yr or 60mil/yr is that really going to make that much difference to his lifestlye? How much money is enough? Don't you have any sympathy for players making the minimum? The salary structure is skewed. I don't like it think the money should be more evenly spread out amongst all 53 players. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 On 5/18/2024 at 7:51 AM, HokieHigh said: The trade love talk is blasphemy and I wont participate in this mental ************. Don't have to worry about it the Packers are not going to trade Love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 On 5/19/2024 at 3:17 PM, Scoremore said: Want to explain to me what that means? The Packers spend up to the cap. There is no Packers getting greedy. The FO job is to put the best team possible out there within the limits of the cap. When one player takes up north of 20 percent of the cap it makes this much more difficult. Yes I think a player wanting any player wanting excess of 50-60 million a year at the expense of his teammates and forgoing a championship to line his pockets is greedy. Sure I will explain it. Greed, as pertains to the Packers, is being unwilling to pay market price for Love's services. Fans tend to want the cheapest deals possible so the team can pay bigger contracts to more difference makers. Thus fans tend to side with the team in wanting minimum money paid. What tends to get lost is that narrative is that players are entitled to get market value for their services. If the market dictates they are worth 20% of the cap, that is what they are likely to go for. An example of player greed (for me) was how Dak Prescott engineered his deal with the Cowboys. He got offered a hefty deal by Jerry Jones (rather more than I thought he was worth) and still held out for some time, for more. I'm just pushing back against the idea that Love can be greedy, but the Packers can't be (relative) cheapskates. However, I doubt too much conflict happens between the two parties. I expect a deal to be done and some might be surprised at how high that contract will be. The real point here is at what point (in your view) it is too much in salary terms, compared to similar deals around the league. I'm guessing he takes 20% of the cap ($51.1m), but I could be a fair way out. Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 42 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: ...Greed, as pertains to the Packers, is being unwilling to pay market price for Love's services. .... I'm just pushing back against the idea that Love can be greedy, but the Packers can't be ... 1265, this is semantics. When a team is spending to its cap, "greed" can't apply (in terms of spending). The Packers always spend their cap as best they can, so "greed" never applies, literally. You might dispute the way they allocate their spending, and argue that spending is dumb, un-strategic, or short-sighted. But "greed" isn't the word. [Unlike mlb, where fans of most teams view their owner as greedy for not spending more.] Because teams have capped spending but players have uncapped earning, "greed" is not a reciprocal term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 35 minutes ago, craig said: 1265, this is semantics. When a team is spending to its cap, "greed" can't apply (in terms of spending). The Packers always spend their cap as best they can, so "greed" never applies, literally. You might dispute the way they allocate their spending, and argue that spending is dumb, un-strategic, or short-sighted. But "greed" isn't the word. [Unlike mlb, where fans of most teams view their owner as greedy for not spending more.] Because teams have capped spending but players have uncapped earning, "greed" is not a reciprocal term. I am trying to find an applicable word. Sure greed isn't the best description, but the essence of my posts were to say that greed applied to Love without a reciprocal look at how the Packers do business is one sided. Bottom line is that Love and his agent will want the maximum they can leverage, while GB want the minimum, spread the best way for them............and that's ok for both sides to pursue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 1265, just to add a non-original note on that. Of course the team and the *agent* are on opposite ends: *agent* wants most, team wants least necessary. But as many sports fans have observed over the years, is it actually in the **player's best self-interest** for a player to press for the maximum he can leverage? At $40/year, will player struggle to feed his family? Will the difference between $50 vs $40 make any appreciable upgrade in player's sense of fulfillment? Might the difference between winning and losing a superbowl make an appreciable difference in a player's sense of fulfillment? Might freeing an extra $10M hypothetically make that difference? Enable team to retain a good o-lineman versus scrambling with JAG? Enable team to retain a good WR that helps score a TD to keep a SB-season alive? Enable team to retain one good defensive player that helps make a play, make a stop that keeps a SB-season alive? Maybe maxing your contract makes it harder to keep winning players around you, and that's not great for your professioal fulfillment? Might underperforming a max contract and being referenced as "overpaid" improve a guy's sense of fulfillment and appreciation? Perhaps with a more modest contract, people would only talk about the player, not the contract? Or if they do, maybe it's "good value", "what a steal", "great deal" rather than "overpaid" or "albatross"? I get it, agents' job is to max, not to help a team. And players are contract-competitive, many use contract size as a surrogate for professional respect. But yeah, objectively I think a lot of guys would have happier and more fulfilling careers if they took less and freed many millions for teammates, and won more games and more championships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: I'm just pushing back against the idea that Love can be greedy, but the Packers can't be (relative) cheapskates. However, I doubt too much conflict happens between the two parties. I expect a deal to be done and some might be surprised at how high that contract will be. The real point here is at what point (in your view) it is too much in salary terms, compared to similar deals around the league. I'm guessing he takes 20% of the cap ($51.1m), but I could be a fair way out. Time will tell. I mean, it's a happy medium. Jordan Love has every right to go and ask for every dime and penny he's likely going to get as a FA if he were to hit free agency. And the Packers know that for their long-term future of the franchise, they need Jordan Love and preferably at a below-market rate ideally. That pretty much went out the window this offseason. Jared Goff getting $53M/year, and Tua's next deal likely guaranteed that Jordan Love gets at minimum $50M/year. I thought if the Packers were proactive and Jordan Love wasn't trying to nickel and dime the Packers, I thought they could get him for below $50M/year. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. But I'd point to the Chiefs' deal with Patrick Mahomes several years ago. Now that's starting to look like a bargain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 There is no likely scenario in which Jordan Love is not the starting Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers in 2025. If an extension does not get worked out this offseason, he will be franchised- that's the leverage that the Packers have. The leverage that Love & co have is that no deal gets done until they agree to it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosser80 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Looks like Pratt has passed Clifford on the depth chart. Do we still keep three QB's if this keeps up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 5 minutes ago, Rosser80 said: Looks like Pratt has passed Clifford on the depth chart. Do we still keep three QB's if this keeps up? What now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 hour ago, Rosser80 said: Looks like Pratt has passed Clifford on the depth chart. Do we still keep three QB's if this keeps up? The Packers haven't posted a depth chart yet for the coming season, so I'm guessing you are going off somebody's random website to come to this conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 On 5/20/2024 at 5:44 PM, PossibleCabbage said: There is no likely scenario in which Jordan Love is not the starting Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers in 2025. If an extension does not get worked out this offseason, he will be franchised- that's the leverage that the Packers have. The leverage that Love & co have is that no deal gets done until they agree to it. He could be franchised 2 years in a row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrILL! Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 2 hours ago, R T said: The Packers haven't posted a depth chart yet for the coming season, so I'm guessing you are going off somebody's random website to come to this conclusion? 2 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.