Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

What does that Dak contract mean for any Rodgers restructure?   That's the kind of contract Rodgers was waiting on since the Pack reportedly approached him in Jan.    I think the Packers will be better off eating his cap hit this year and keeping future flexibilty rather than trying to restructure now.   Might mean an even leaner year in FA than we already figured it to be.

Means nothing. We might have to restructure this year's contract by converting part of his P5 salary into a signing bonus (freeing up to 17M) depending on the cap number, but there isn't much more to it. However, we can free up a similiar number by restructuring Z/Preston/Amos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

Yeah, I understand what you say, but J'Mon Moore was picked ahead of them in that same draft and didn't make the team after MLF arrived.

J’Mon not making the team was not necessarily a LaFleur decision and more a lack of hands/head to play in the NFL. He wasn’t  a small receiver and had some power and suddenness.

All of those guys had flaws, which you would expect at their draft position but I wasn’t mad at the throw three darts at the board approach in the later rounds. ESB still might have something but has not been able to get healthy.  Sitting out his whole second year really hurt his development. Funchess is an immediate upgrade at this point so might make him redundant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

Means nothing. We might have to restructure this year's contract by converting part of his P5 salary into a signing bonus (freeing up to 17M) depending on the cap number, but there isn't much more to it. However, we can free up a similiar number by restructuring Z/Preston/Amos.

Rodgers has to agree to do that.   If he intends to play until he's 40 than he might not be inclined to simply accept provisions that help the team but don't materially help himself.   He has more leverage right now with Dak's new contract with huge guarantees, GB's current cap situation and him coming off an MVP season then he'll ever have.   He can put the team over the barrel now or himself in a year or two.  Why waste that oppty if you're him by simply accepting a minor restructure?  I don't think freeing up cap space so the team is in a better situation to win a SB will be his top choice between the options (I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong on this one!).  I just think looking at that new Dak deal the Packers are in a really poor spot with this one 

Yes, we can free up a similar number by restructuring Z/Preston Smith/Amos and/or extending Adams but in order to free up enough cap space to actually do something in FA, we need Rodgers' number to come down too

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kampfgeist said:

Rodgers has to agree to do that.   If he intends to play until he's 40 than he might not be inclined to simply accept provisions that help the team but don't materially help himself. 

Restructures do materially help players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Dee Ford .. 2 years ago.  KC tagged him and dealt him to San Fran for a 2nd round pick.  So, it has happened in recent history.  I don't see why the Packers wouldn't do it .. if you are going to lose the guy might as well try to coax a pick out of someone.  If they don't get him dealt or re-signed then they can un-tag the guy and let him walk.  I don't care about the feelings of the players .. it's a business and the the franchise tag was negotiated between the owners and players. 

K.  So that is one name.  One.  As I said, it doesn't happen often.

And in GB's case, I think they need to have the cap space to fit him under the cap if he gets the tag.  And we simply do not have the room.

I get wanting to do it, I'd love to do it.  But I don't feel like GB is in a position to actually do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

K.  So that is one name.  One.  As I said, it doesn't happen often.

And in GB's case, I think they need to have the cap space to fit him under the cap if he gets the tag.  And we simply do not have the room.

I get wanting to do it, I'd love to do it.  But I don't feel like GB is in a position to actually do it.

They don't have to be under the cap until March 17 .. the start of free agency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tagging Jones creates issues the moment you do it.  It is not exactly OK with the NFL brass to tag a player with intent to trade him.  No team would trade for Jones if they think they can wait to sign him when he's cut free.  No team will trade for him without a long term deal done with him and that takes some time.  I think it very unlikely this would all be hashed out by the 17th, we would have to clear room for the tag.  He was apparently offered a very lucrative and fair deal by the Packers and he turned it down.  Time to move on.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 15412 said:

Tagging Jones creates issues the moment you do it.  It is not exactly OK with the NFL brass to tag a player with intent to trade him.  No team would trade for Jones if they think they can wait to sign him when he's cut free.  No team will trade for him without a long term deal done with him and that takes some time.  I think it very unlikely this would all be hashed out by the 17th, we would have to clear room for the tag.  He was apparently offered a very lucrative and fair deal by the Packers and he turned it down.  Time to move on.  

The Packers can get under the cap by redoing a few deals and maybe making a cut or two.  It's not that difficult .. they are just waiting to find out what the cap number will be.  I think tagging Jones spurs Rodgers to rework things to help the Packers keep him around for at least one more year.  Same could be said about Linsley as well, but I think his new deal will be too rich.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TransientTexan said:

Restructures do materially help players.

If he simply restructures how much does it raise his base salary of $25mil when he's 39 and 40?  His guarantees?   It might raise the cap charge in those years and make it slightly more prohibitive to the team to cut/trade him but really not enough to give him any more security and doesn't bring his salary and guarantees in-line with the new wave of QB signings.  He'll never have more leverage than right now to accomplish those things and a simple restructure doesn't do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

They don't have to be under the cap until March 17 .. the start of free agency. 

So...8 days.  That's a lot of work to be done in order to tag someone.

And I believe they have to be under the cap in order to participate in the draft.  I'm not sure if they have to be far enough under to have money there to sign the rookies, but I'm pretty sure I read that as well.

Point being...there is much to be done before GB can do much, outside player wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Point being...there is much to be done before GB can do much, outside player wise.

Correct. Far as GB fans, this is nothing but a treading water (killing time) period. Far as these players being released and all GB has work to do before even entertaining the idea of making an offer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

If the Packers franchise tag Jones he can't go to Miami unless the Packers deal him there or un-tag him.  If the Dolphins want to sign while on the tag the Packers would get (2) 1st round picks.

Depends on what type of tag GB would use.  If Jones was the only decent RB on the market and the draft was void of RB, then it might make sense for MIA.   Since there are other FA options and the draft has RB, for MIA, there are many other options.  

GB would also be giving MIA a lot of leverage in the process as GB would be on the hook for the tag value until a trade would go through.....thus GB would be limited in making other moves

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Depends on what type of tag GB would use.  If Jones was the only decent RB on the market and the draft was void of RB, then it might make sense for MIA.   Since there are other FA options and the draft has RB, for MIA, there are many other options.  

GB would also be giving MIA a lot of leverage in the process as GB would be on the hook for the tag value until a trade would go through.....thus GB would be limited in making other moves

I think the Packers would tag him with hopes of working out a long term deal.  If things fell apart in negotiations then they would look at the tag and trade scenario.  I would only use the franchise tag on Jones, as the transition tag only gives you the right of first refusal and there are teams out there that can blow us away and make it so we can't match.  Then we'd lose the player and get nothing in return.  

Edited by {Family Ghost}
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I think the Packers would tag him with hopes of working out a long term deal.  If things fell apart in negotiations then they would look at the tag and trade scenario.

Again, then GB is giving the leverage to Jones and MIA in the process.  GB is on the hook for the $8+M while the tag is applied and can't use that money on other FA...unless they rescind the tag.   GB backs themselves into a corner in the process

2 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

 

  I would only use the franchise tag on Jones, as the transition tag only gives you the right of first refusal and there are teams out there that can blow us away and make it so we can't match.  Then we'd lose the player and get nothing in return.  

 

 

Agreed that transition tag gets you nothing

exclusive vs non-exclusive franchise tag is the question.  Exclusive tag has the player only able to sign a long term deal with the original team.   non-exclusive is where another team can sign the player to a deal and original team can match or not --> then getting 2 firsts.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...