squire12 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 6 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I think it would best if you had cap-adjusted numbers. That's apples to apples. What did the cap go up by, 10%? Love being 10% higher across the board would be a direct comparison (or whatever the increase was) I didn't generate the cap % numbers. that is what Spotrac has it listed as. Just copied the tables from their info on each player 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 39 minutes ago, squire12 said: I didn't generate the cap % numbers. that is what Spotrac has it listed as. Just copied the tables from their info on each player Oh damn I missed that column! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackersGarfield Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 I think the near term impact of the contract on the cap is comparable to other QBs who have signed contracts. The lack of an easy out I think is more a testament to their trust in the kind of player they think Love is going to be and even if Love has the FO bent over the barrel to some degree, I dont think it matters right now for a couple of reasons... 1. Its a discussion for the future 2. What that future discussion looks like is literally going to be determined how Love and the team perform between now and then Pay your great players, especially if you have one at the most important position in sports. Let Russ Ball figure out an extension for Love in 2027 after the packers have won a Super Bowl or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 (edited) 5 hours ago, squire12 said: Maybe having it in table form will help. Take note of those that have a no trade clause. might have been the difference between getting 4 years vs 5 years. The last few big QB contracts are all structured really similar with multiple year option bonus in the 3rd-4th+ years of the contract. There may also be an advantage in getting to the negotiation table sooner to avoid "not being last and having to clear the last QB deal that was done" situation all over again. yes, Love has a large dead cap potential after that 4 year, but not that much different than Burrow or Jackson and slightly above Hurts and Herbert after their 5th year. Signing bonus option bonus YEAR AGE STATUS Base salary prorated prorated CAP HIT Cap % DEAD CAP LOVE year 1 2024 26 $3,500,000 $16,757,731 - $20,757,731 8.13% $107,830,924 year 2 2025 27 $11,900,000 $16,757,731 - $29,757,731 10.89% $87,573,193 year 3 2026 28 $10,400,000 $16,757,731 $7,900,000 $36,157,731 12.37% $58,915,462 year 4 2027 29 $10,400,000 $16,757,731 $14,200,000 $42,457,731 13.57% $31,757,731 year 5 2028 30 $43,900,000 $15,000,000 $14,200,000 $74,200,000 22.16% $15,000,000 2029 31 VOID UFA - - $14,200,000 $34,700,000 9.69% - 2030 VOID - - $14,200,000 $14,200,000 3.71% - 2031 VOID - - $6,300,000 $6,300,000 1.54% - Hurts no trade clause year 1 2023 25 $1,010,000 $5,144,286 - $6,154,286 2.74% $110,485,486 year 2 2024 26 $1,125,000 $4,658,800 $7,775,000 $13,558,800 5.31% $120,871,200 year 3 2025 27 $1,170,000 $4,658,800 $15,941,000 $21,769,800 7.97% $107,302,400 year 4 2026 28 $1,215,000 $4,658,800 $25,898,000 $31,771,800 10.87% $52,858,600 year 5 2027 29 $1,345,000 $4,658,800 $35,829,000 $41,832,800 13.37% $20,218,800 2028 30 $1,400,000 - $45,749,000 $47,149,000 14.08% $7,775,000 2029 31 VOID UFA - - $37,974,000 $97,553,000 27.23% - 2030 VOID - - $29,808,000 $29,808,000 7.78% - 2031 VOID - - $19,851,000 $19,851,000 4.84% - 2032 VOID - - $9,920,000 $9,920,000 - - Herbert no trade clause year 1 2023 25 $1,010,000 $7,448,176 - $8,458,176 3.76% $137,960,876 year 2 2024 26 $6,000,000 $3,225,675 $10,120,000 $19,345,675 7.57% $129,502,700 year 3 2025 27 $15,000,000 $3,225,675 $19,120,000 $37,345,675 13.66% $110,157,025 year 4 2026 28 $24,000,000 $3,225,675 $19,120,000 $46,345,675 15.85% $36,811,350 year 5 2027 29 $36,000,000 $3,225,675 $19,120,000 $58,345,675 18.65% $23,465,675 2028 30 $47,000,000 - $19,120,000 $71,120,000 21.24% $10,120,000 2029 31 $40,500,000 - $9,000,000 $59,500,000 16.61% - Burrow year 1 2023 27 $1,010,000 $13,970,025 - $19,515,043 8.68% $174,229,043 year 2 2024 28 $10,714,000 $8,000,000 $11,000,000 $29,714,000 11.63% $154,714,000 year 3 2025 29 $25,250,000 $8,000,000 $13,000,000 $46,250,000 16.92% $105,250,000 year 4 2026 30 $25,250,000 $8,000,000 $15,000,000 $48,250,000 16.50% $49,000,000 year 5 2027 31 $27,250,000 $8,000,000 $17,000,000 $52,250,000 16.70% $28,000,000 2028 32 $35,500,000 - $18,000,000 $53,500,000 15.98% $15,000,000 2029 33 $48,039,000 - $18,000,000 $68,539,000 19.13% $2,000,000 2030 34 VOID UFA - - - $5,000,000 $9,000,000 2.35% 2031 VOID - - - $3,000,000 $3,000,000 0.73% 2032 VOID - - - $1,000,000 $1,000,000 - Lawrence No trade clause year 1 2024 25 $1,500,000 $13,529,725 - $15,029,725 5.88% $148,029,725 year 2 2025 26 $2,000,000 $7,500,000 $7,000,000 $17,000,000 6.22% $133,000,000 year 3 2026 27 $2,000,000 $7,500,000 $14,000,000 $24,000,000 8.21% $88,500,000 year 4 2027 28 $6,000,000 $7,500,000 $21,000,000 $35,000,000 11.19% $44,000,000 year 5 2028 29 $11,000,000 $7,500,000 $28,000,000 $47,000,000 14.04% $7,500,000 2029 30 $50,000,000 - $28,000,000 $78,500,000 21.92% - 2030 31 $53,341,000 - $21,000,000 $74,841,000 19.53% - 2031 32 VOID UFA - - $14,000,000 $21,000,000 5.12% - 2032 VOID - - $7,000,000 $7,000,000 - - Jackson no trade clause no FT after 2027 year 1 2023 26 $7,500,000 $14,650,000 - $22,150,000 9.85% $135,000,000 year 2 2024 27 $14,250,000 $14,650,000 $3,500,000 $32,400,000 12.69% $133,850,000 year 3 2025 28 $20,250,000 $14,650,000 $8,000,000 $43,650,000 15.97% $101,450,000 year 4 2026 29 $51,250,000 $14,650,000 $8,000,000 $74,650,000 25.53% $57,800,000 year 5 2027 30 $51,250,000 $14,650,000 $8,000,000 $74,650,000 23.86% $35,150,000 2028 31 VOID UFA - - $8,000,000 $12,500,000 3.73% $12,500,000 2029 VOID - - $4,500,000 $4,500,000 1.26% $4,500,000 Thank you for putting this together. Now we are talking and having a proper discussion. With the tables above I feel you are highlighting the wrong years. The interesting year is the year the deal expires, as that becomes the mechanism to drive a new negotiation. With all of the deals with the exception of Jackson, and Love's is worse, is that the dead cap numbers are low so in the final year or some cases final couple of years, that the player is forced to get to the negotiation table before their deal expires. The player doesn't want to be playing with little or no guarantees. Both player and team are coming together to form a new deal and that gives equal leverage in crafting something new. Burrow final year of contract, cap is $53m dead cap $11m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Hurts final year of contract, cap is $47m dead cap is $7.75m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Herbert final year of contract, cap is $71m dead cap is $10m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Lawrence final year of contract, cap is $74m dead cap is $7m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal With Love that is really not the case. Over The Cap has that final year differently, they have $74m as cap hit and $40.5m as deadcap. Now the player knows it is very unlikely that he is getting cut at $40.5. There is full incentive for him to see out his contract with a cap hit of $74m, in other contracts that money is never likely to be earned, and the contract is ripped up and a new deal forged. Love's agents have no incentive to do a new deal till his contract has expired, or that $74m is already factored into any new deal. That's what makes Love's deal pretty unique, he is going to see all of that money, there is no fluff and he has all the future leverage, and we didn't get anything really back for that. Again if you look at most of these deals they are also better in terms of percentage of cap at the beginning of the contract as well compared to Love. That is why I liked Hurts contract year 1 - 2.6%, year 2 - 5.2%, year 3 - 8.4%, year 4 - 11.2%, year 5 - 13.3%. The last $150m of his contract seems to be fluff (unless I'm reading that wrong) as the dead cap against it $7.75m You might not still agree with me, but do you see why I dislike the deal? Edited July 30 by Brit Pack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 It's ok to not agree with the terms of Love's new deal. LOL .. However, it's done, over and doesn't matter for the next 4-5 years, I am thrilled it's been completed .. Packer life goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 4 hours ago, Brit Pack said: Thank you for putting this together. Now we are talking and having a proper discussion. With the tables above I feel you are highlighting the wrong years. The interesting year is the year the deal expires, as that becomes the mechanism to drive a new negotiation. With all of the deals with the exception of Jackson, and Love's is worse, is that the dead cap numbers are low so in the final year or some cases final couple of years, that the player is forced to get to the negotiation table before their deal expires. The player doesn't want to be playing with little or no guarantees. Both player and team are coming together to form a new deal and that gives equal leverage in crafting something new. Burrow final year of contract, cap is $53m dead cap $11m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Hurts final year of contract, cap is $47m dead cap is $7.75m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Herbert final year of contract, cap is $71m dead cap is $10m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Lawrence final year of contract, cap is $74m dead cap is $7m - incentive for player to seek out a new deal Do you like the cap hit from the void years on the Hurts contract? Do you like the no trade clause on the Hurts contract? 4 hours ago, Brit Pack said: With Love that is really not the case. Over The Cap has that final year differently, they have $74m as cap hit and $40.5m as deadcap. Now the player knows it is very unlikely that he is getting cut at $40.5. There is full incentive for him to see out his contract with a cap hit of $74m, in other contracts that money is never likely to be earned, and the contract is ripped up and a new deal forged. Love's agents have no incentive to do a new deal till his contract has expired, or that $74m is already factored into any new deal. That's what makes Love's deal pretty unique, he is going to see all of that money, there is no fluff and he has all the future leverage, and we didn't get anything really back for that. Again if you look at most of these deals they are also better in terms of percentage of cap at the beginning of the contract as well compared to Love. That is why I liked Hurts contract year 1 - 2.6%, year 2 - 5.2%, year 3 - 8.4%, year 4 - 11.2%, year 5 - 13.3%. The last $150m of his contract seems to be fluff (unless I'm reading that wrong) as the dead cap against it $7.75m Look at the void year cap hit. $97M for a player that might not be on the team. You seem to think that is a good use of cap dpfor the Hurts contract. Any next contract for Hurts would have that cap cost already there so a new deal would be added onto that. 4 hours ago, Brit Pack said: You might not still agree with me, but do you see why I dislike the deal? I think you are looking at all the pieces as a collective. The no trade clause. The % cap hits. The dead cap. The void year cap hits How soon you can get to the negotiation table, being first might be better than being last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 44 minutes ago, squire12 said: Do you like the cap hit from the void years on the Hurts contract? Do you like the no trade clause on the Hurts contract? Look at the void year cap hit. $97M for a player that might not be on the team. You seem to think that is a good use of cap dpfor the Hurts contract. Any next contract for Hurts would have that cap cost already there so a new deal would be added onto that. I think you are looking at all the pieces as a collective. The no trade clause. The % cap hits. The dead cap. The void year cap hits How soon you can get to the negotiation table, being first might be better than being last. This is now a good discussion and gets me a better understanding. Thank you What I don't understand is why is the void year values not put on as dead cap hits at the end on Spotrac and Over the Cap. Surely if the contract comes to an end that money needs to be paid and why is that not shown? If that is how the void years figures are added at the end, then Love is in an even stronger negotiating position going into the last year of the deal. He has $74m cap hit, against a $40.5m dead cap and plus another $34m in void cap hit. That is over $100m!!! The Packers have no choice but to pay that out. Ouch!! Agreed Hurts at $97m is not much better. Looking at Burrow's deal his last year he is at $57m on the cap, $0 dead cap and $9m on the void. And after year 5 years he is $53 on the cap and $11m dead cap, so probably a new deal gets done then and it is relatively easy to do. That possibility is not there with Love's deal. Again what makes it so bad. There is no incentive for him to do a deal early. The no-trade clause for me is not such a biggie for me. If it got to the stage that you had to trade your franchise QB it probably means he isn't your franchise QB and not worth a lot anyway, plus I doubt anyone would take on the cap hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Brit Pack said: This is now a good discussion and gets me a better understanding. Thank you What I don't understand is why is the void year values not put on as dead cap hits at the end on Spotrac and Over the Cap. Surely if the contract comes to an end that money needs to be paid and why is that not shown? I think using 1 site or the other and not crossing between the 2 is better for comparing and understanding. each of those sites account for things in their tables slightly different, so crossing between them will be confusing at times. I think the Dead cap comes from if a player gets cut where the void years the contract "ends" with the voided years cap charges still being on the books. they are essentially the same, but get put into different categories. 1 hour ago, Brit Pack said: If that is how the void years figures are added at the end, then Love is in an even stronger negotiating position going into the last year of the deal. He has $74m cap hit, against a $40.5m dead cap and plus another $34m in void cap hit. That is over $100m!!! The Packers have no choice but to pay that out. Ouch!! Agreed Hurts at $97m is not much better. That $74M cap hit is misleading as some of that has already been paid out. some of that cap hit will be there even if the contract is renegotiated. $29.2M is from the signing bonus proration and the option bonus proration (assuming that GB spreads it across the remaining years vs paying it out sooner which is an option... hence the option bonus name. Love has a base salary of $43M and that is the part that would drive the negotiation along with that void year cap charge. So it is more like $43M + the $34M from the void year 1 hour ago, Brit Pack said: Looking at Burrow's deal his last year he is at $57m on the cap, $0 dead cap and $9m on the void. And after year 5 years he is $53 on the cap and $11m dead cap, so probably a new deal gets done then and it is relatively easy to do. That possibility is not there with Love's deal. Again what makes it so bad. There is no incentive for him to do a deal early. The no-trade clause for me is not such a biggie for me. If it got to the stage that you had to trade your franchise QB it probably means he isn't your franchise QB and not worth a lot anyway, plus I doubt anyone would take on the cap hits. the no trade clause is a bigger deal if you get to the end of the contract and wanted to trade the player or franchise tag and then trade the player (Davante Adams). The team loses a leverage chip in that they could obtain assets for the QB vs letting them go to FA and getting only a compensatory pick. Unless you feel like the Davante Adams trade was a bad value in acquiring assets for GB as a team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 I'm just never going to worry about contracts/salary cap as long as Russ Ball is around. I honestly think he is the best Packer at his job in my lifetime. It feels like at least a decade since getting in cap hell without a way to finagle the books was even a problem for anybody but the least competent teams. There's a million different ways to finesse the cap and Russ Ball knows a million and one of them. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 to me, the only thing to quibble with is they only locked him in for 3 more years, 4 years total. Similar to a lot of these players who signed deals, Love still had 1 year left on his "pseudo 5th year option "extension from last offseason. That is always gonna keep the cap hits small until the tipping point season, and the Packers decided on 2028 when they will need to renegotiate. The unfortunate thing is that if Jordan Love plays really well, and I expect him to, he's gonna have a ton of leverage in that season because of the void years. And who knows? Maybe 72M cap hit won't be 22% of the cap at that time, maybe it will be a more palatable 18%. But if Love puts the screws to the packers in 2028 it could make for a much stronger negotiation than this go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 1 minute ago, skibrett15 said: to me, the only thing to quibble with is they only locked him in for 3 more years, 4 years total. Similar to a lot of these players who signed deals, Love still had 1 year left on his "pseudo 5th year option "extension from last offseason. That is always gonna keep the cap hits small until the tipping point season, and the Packers decided on 2028 when they will need to renegotiate. The unfortunate thing is that if Jordan Love plays really well, and I expect him to, he's gonna have a ton of leverage in that season because of the void years. And who knows? Maybe 72M cap hit won't be 22% of the cap at that time, maybe it will be a more palatable 18%. But if Love puts the screws to the packers in 2028 it could make for a much stronger negotiation than this go around. Draft a QB in 2026 and have an option. Seriously though, we dealt with this for over 2 decades as an organization. I trust our management knows how to navigate these situations and make it work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: Draft a QB in 2026 and have an option. Seriously though, we dealt with this for over 2 decades as an organization. I trust our management knows how to navigate these situations and make it work. I really doubt we invest a high pick to back up a 31 year old player. 36/37 is when you start to think about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: I really doubt we invest a high pick to back up a 31 year old player. 36/37 is when you start to think about it That is why I started the next paragraph with, "seriously though." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 11 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Draft a QB in 2026 and have an option. Seriously though, we dealt with this for over 2 decades as an organization. I trust our management knows how to navigate these situations and make it work. I hope when the time comes to replace Love we have the same level of management able to handle the situation. It looks like we have lucked out with Thompson and Gutey. Just need a few more lucky bounces to go our way with Love to get us over the top more then what happened with Rodgers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 I'm not quite as sophisticated as you guys. Seems to me that relative to elite Jackson-Burrow-Herbert, Ball elected to give the last-year leverage away in exchange for keeping the 4-year cap % down. Not sure if that was a smart exchange or not, or how that will pay off long-term. But it kinda seems like the Packers were willing to trade massive 5th-year leverage in exchange for a clean 4-year window of opportunity. So my feeling is to capitalize on this 4-year window, while the opportunity is there. After that, it's probably going to be pretty tough. That leverage factor will spill costs into ensuing years; we'll have lost many of our best current players to age, injury, or free agency by then; and adding/replacing talent via draft will be an uphill battle, once we're drafting late and don't have all the extra Adams/Rodgers high draft picks. So, I kinda feel like windows of opportunity open and close. Within this contract, there allows for a pretty extended 4-year window. We know it's going to kinda close after that. Live to the hilt while it's all in place, but it's not going to last forever. Agree with Brit that Love is going to have massive leverage with year 5. It kinda is what it is. I think the discussion question is two-fold: did it need to be included? And what would the Packers have needed to sacrifice in order to reduce that leverage? I assume that to reduce the late-leverage, they'd have needed to give more cap-% in earlier years. I think Gute/Ball understood the leverage factor, obviously. They were evidently willing to concede the massive leverage in exchange for keeping the cap hits down early. Love doesn't exceed 13.6%-of-cap till year 5, and takes till year 4 to reach 13%. Burrow is already ≥16.5% by years 3 and 4. Packers chose to back-load, Cinci didn't. Jackson's year-two % is already around the year-four % for Love, and Jackson's year-five % is still much higher than Love's. Herbert's year-three % is already higher than Love's year four %. Again, Packers back-loaded into the leverage year. I also think Love's agent is good, and had the leverage of those other contracts to work off of. The Packers think Love is better than some of those other guys, Tua, Hurts, so is worth a better contract. Will be interesting to see how future contracts structure. Every new contract leverages off previous ones, so Love's might look increasingly attractive over time. Obviously the deal is gambling that Love will be good and will stay good, and that 2nd-half Love was no fluke. Hopefully over the next four years, he'll play at an elite level and stay healthy and justify the contract. Obviously new TV deals will come, and revenue will rise. Not sure how those cap-% numbers get calculated. But perhaps by 2028, the actual cap % won't be nearly as high as it looks in tables now? New TV deals will come and revenue will rise, and QB rates will rise. Perhaps by 2028, a $74 cap hit won't even look that awful, and the leverage won't be as gruesome as it looks now? 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.