2025 Draft Prospects for Packers

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd prefer not to trade starters away, until after the Free Agency period and the draft. That way you know your needs.

There are situations that change that.

- Big roster bonus due before Free agency.
- You have someone on your roster that can effectively take their place.
- Player insists on trade.
- Other factors that create a "no future" for your team with that player.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

But it isn’t the same cost if he stays. We are paying this year in this cap X amount if he leaves, if he stays it is that like $18M PLUS that X amount.

I think the Jaire boat sails based more on relationship at this point well before what the team thinks he is player wise

That isn't true. Without restructuring his current contract, the Packers or another team, would have to pay JA a base salary of $16.15M in 2025 and $18.15M in 2026. He would also be entitled to a $700K workout bonus/year with either team, as well as a roster bonus $267K (figured per game he is active). His roster bonus jumps to $650K in 2026.

So just for ease, round all that to $17M of new money that JA gets from whomever he plays for in 2025 and $19+M in 2026.

Now the Packers, no matter what they do with him, also have to account for his signing bonus portion ($6M in 2025), as well as his restructured deal portion of $2.634M. That $8.634M can't be erased from the books, nor can the same amount be erased from the books in 2026.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[tynimiller]

That isn't true. Without restructuring his current contract, the Packers or another team, would have to pay JA a base salary of $16.15M in 2025 and $18.15M in 2026. He would also be entitled to a $700K workout bonus/year with either team, as well as a roster bonus $267K (figured per game he is active). His roster bonus jumps to $650K in 2026.

So just for ease, round all that to $17M of new money that JA gets from whomever he plays for in 2025 and $19+M in 2026.

Now the Packers, no matter what they do with him, also have to account for his signing bonus portion ($6M in 2025), as well as his restructured deal portion of $2.634M. That $8.634M can't be erased from the books, nor can the same amount be erased from the books in 2026.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Is the probation I’m speaking to. If we were like ANY team his cap hit would be higher than we’ve been discussing. We are not like ANY team acquiring him.

 

[Heyjoe4]

But it isn’t the same cost if he stays. We are paying this year in this cap X amount if he leaves, if he stays it is that like $18M PLUS that X amount.

I think the Jaire boat sails based more on relationship at this point well before what the team thinks he is player wise

I think a defensive line with strong DTs, DEs (edge guys), guys who can consistently get to the QB via pressures or sacks takes the heat off the secondary. It depends on who Gluten can find in FA and the draft. The lack of any pressure was very apparent this year.

As for JA..... I'm conflicted. If he can play as well as he's capable, and stay healthy, then it's probably better to keep him. I don't know what his trade value is. Other teams will see what we've seen, a guy with an injury and attitude history. His attitude isn't all that bad - I don't think he disrupts the team. He's just a talker who doesn't always think first. I just don't see him fetching more than a 3rd rounder, more likely a 4th or 5th. But he's pretty damn expensive for a guy who is a question mark.

As for WR, I only mentioned Higgins because he looks pretty good. But yeah, he'd cost a lot so he's probably not worth it. But find someone who can be consistent and move the chains. I don't know FA well enough to know if a guy like that will be available. Otherwise, hope Love gets and stays healthy and also shows some confidence. The WR group wasn't so much held back by a lack of talent but by a QB who just couldn't seem to find his mojo.

 

[milani]

Hafley played a lot more zone than I expected. But considering the CB talent, and with JA out, he really couldn't play man. So yeah, a lot of passes in the flat/underneath that go for 5 to 15 yards. Death by a thousand cuts describes it all right.

That can be avoided with better CBs, and a better pass rush. I think he has to go after a WR in FA, kinda limited to Tee Higgins.

That's a long list of needs. Will he try and trade for Max Crosby? That's risky and costly, but Gluten has to do something.

The Rams played a lot of man against the Vikings. Against Philly even with the weather they had a ton of sacks. If they had been able to slow the running game and not turn the ball over they win that game. But against teams like the Vikings we get called in man unless they are playing a backup QB.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The Rams played a lot of man against the Vikings. Against Philly even with the weather they had a ton of sacks. If they had been able to slow the running game and not turn the ball over they win that game. But against teams like the Vikings we get called in man unless they are playing a backup QB.

Were the Rams in man in the snow? Interesting call. I thought the Rams outplayed the Eagles, but as you note, too many mistakes, too many Barkley HRs. When the Rams got in the red zone on that last drive, they committed an offside penalty allowing the Eagles to substitute for the worn-out DL. Next play, they sack Stafford and game over.

But considering the field conditions, the number of stacks seemed very high.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Even in a world Hafley controls you likely still line up in a zone concept/coverage play call more than half the time. That said, yes man concepts were deployed less than I bet anyone wanted and Jaire being out the primary reasons.

I hope they don't even consider Tee personally. Going to cost too much and anyone that keeps ******* Watson for availability just do a google and find out how many games Watson has played in the last two seasons and how many Tee has played in the last two seasons.

I will never be a fan of paying top top dollar for a RB or a WR, I just don't think history will tell you the odds are in your favor of this working out...now Edge, CB or few other spots I understand and get it. If Gute is going to break the bank, I think it needs to be on a Maxx Crosby type acquisition...otherwise I'd love to see two or three Amos style or type acquisitions which include CB and Edge and maybe iDL.

Yeah the problem with paying too much for a RB or WR is that it's a home run or a strikeout (sorry for the mixed-sport analogy). The Packers had a lot of good reasons to believe Jacobs would be exceptional, and at $12 mil/year, certainly not overpaying. And it worked out.

And a WR FA is either a hit or miss. I won't be that disappointed if Gluten takes a pass at WR FA, but then he's gotta pull the trigger on Edge, DL, and CB. Just reading this exchange with you and Poker, I think the focus should be on re-establishing a pass rush, and then deal with CBs. The Packers weren't pressuring anyone the last month or so, and that makes the CB job so much harder.

 

[milani]

Were the Rams in man in the snow? Interesting call. I thought the Rams outplayed the Eagles, but as you note, too many mistakes, too many Barkley HRs. When the Rams got in the red zone on that last drive, they committed an offside penalty allowing the Eagles to substitute for the worn-out DL. Next play, they sack Stafford and game over.

But considering the field conditions, the number of stacks seemed very high.

Philly did not throw the ball much. And why should they. That is what makes it tough in the playoffs to win road games. The Commanders have done it so far. Look for the home field effect in KC Sunday.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Is the probation I’m speaking to. If we were like ANY team his cap hit would be higher than we’ve been discussing. We are not like ANY team acquiring him.

???

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Probation?

With any player under contract, you have to look at sunk costs and future costs in 2 different ways.

The Packers sunk costs in JA are what they are, they can't vanish into thin air. They are a result of contractual decisions made in the past and have to be accounted for, whether it is all at once or divided up over 2 or more seasons.

The Packers should only be looking at the future costs of holding onto JA, as should any team that might be interested in trading for him. Future costs include, base salary, workout bonuses, game bonuses, roster bonuses, and any incentive bonuses that could be earned in the future. In addition to looking at the future costs of holding on to JA, the Packers should also consider the cost of replacing JA, if they part ways.

Unless the Packers or another team tear up JA's current contract, those future costs of having JA on the roster are the same for the Packers, as they are for any team that would acquire him (and his contract) via a trade.

 

[tynimiller]

???

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Probation?

With any player under contract, you have to look at sunk costs and future costs in 2 different ways.

The Packers sunk costs in JA are what they are, they can't vanish into thin air. They are a result of contractual decisions made in the past and have to be accounted for, whether it is all at once or divided up over 2 or more seasons.

The Packers should only be looking at the future costs of holding onto JA, as should any team that might be interested in trading for him. Future costs include, base salary, workout bonuses, game bonuses, roster bonuses, and any incentive bonuses that could be earned in the future. In addition to looking at the future costs of holding on to JA, the Packers should also consider the cost of replacing JA, if they part ways.

Unless the Packers or another team tear up JA's current contract, those future costs of having JA on the roster are the same for the Packers, as they are for any team that would acquire him (and his contract) via a trade.

Apologies prorations of course.

Disagree, Jaire costs more to the packers if we keep him than he will cost ANYONE else. That isn't hyperbole or fake money, just because it is part of the proration doesn't negate it as existing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Disagree, Jaire costs more to the packers if we keep him than he will cost ANYONE else. That isn't hyperbole or fake money, just because it is part of the proration doesn't negate it as existing.

Which "proration" are you referring to? The signing bonus or the restructure? Both of those are sunk costs for the Packers and for accounting purposes only, are spread out over 5 years.

Neither of those go away if Jaire is cut or traded. What happens though is that they must be reported immediately or spread out over 2 years.

One of us is either missing something or not understanding what the other is saying.

For discussion sake, let's say the Packers trade JA to the Jags for a draft pick. The Jags would be paying JA the following:

2025: $16.150M (base salary) + $700K (workout bonus) + $267.647K (roster bonus)= Total of $17.118M

The Packers would have a dead cap hit of: $19.092M Which is the amount that is still on his contract for the proration of his signing bonus and restructure. This isn't any new money, it is just money that was already paid to JA and not yet accounted for.

If the Packers KEEP JA, his 2025 cap hit is: $25.481M. Why? $17.118 is "new money" that would be paid out directly to JA, same as the amount the Jags would pay out. The difference, $8.363M, is the additional accounting for the prorated money on his contract, commonly known as "dead cap".

 

[tynimiller]

Which "proration" are you referring to? The signing bonus or the restructure? Both of those are sunk costs for the Packers and for accounting purposes only, are spread out over 5 years.

Neither of those go away if Jaire is cut or traded. What happens though is that they must be reported immediately or spread out over 2 years.

One of us is either missing something or not understanding what the other is saying.

For discussion sake, let's say the Packers trade JA to the Jags for a draft pick. The Jags would be paying JA the following:

2025: $16.150M (base salary) + $700K (workout bonus) + $267.647K (roster bonus)= Total of $17.118M

The Packers would have a dead cap hit of: $19.092M Which is the amount that is still on his contract for the proration of his signing bonus and restructure. This isn't any new money, it is just money that was already paid to JA and not yet accounted for.

If the Packers KEEP JA, his 2025 cap hit is: $25.481M. Why? $17.118 is "new money" that would be paid out directly to JA, same as the amount the Jags would pay out. The difference, $8.363M, is the additional accounting for the prorated money on his contract, commonly known as "dead cap".

Cost to a team is the player's cap hit for any given year. He will absolutely cost the Packers more than he would for other teams. Yes, some of that cost for us exists regardless of his presence but that is still cost as a cap hit.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Cost to a team is the player's cap hit for any given year. He will absolutely cost the Packers more than he would for other teams. Yes, some of that cost for us exists regardless of his presence but that is still cost as a cap hit.

You and I don't agree, at least as to how Ball and Gute are/should be looking at it. The timing of all the non-reported dead cap is about all that they they can control. They can speed it up or slow it down, but at some point, it HAS TO BE reported. That isn't an additional cost of keeping JA .

Simply put, if JA's contract isn't torn up, JA will not notice any difference in is paychecks in 2025, whether he is a Packer or a Jaguar. Thus, the actual money both teams would be paying out to JA in 2025 would be identical. The only difference between the 2 teams, would be how they account for money paid out to JA...past and future.

 

[tynimiller]

You and I don't agree, at least as to how Ball and Gute are/should be looking at it. The timing of all the non-reported dead cap is about all that they they can control. They can speed it up or slow it down, but at some point, it HAS TO BE reported. That isn't an additional cost of keeping JA .

Simply put, if JA's contract isn't torn up, JA will not notice any difference in is paychecks in 2025, whether he is a Packer or a Jaguar. Thus, the actual money both teams would be paying out to JA in 2025 would be identical. The only difference between the 2 teams, would be how they account for money paid out to JA...past and future.

It is cheaper for a team's 2025 cap to have Jaire than it is for Packers. I fully understand dead money and that is why it is not the same for the Packers with him. Dead, not dead it doesn't matter, Ja will hit/cost the Packers more than he will for ANY team acquiring him.

 

[Voyageur]

I see some of the "so-called experts" on the internet are suggesting the Packers will cut ties with Malik Willis to save the cap space. The moment I read that I knew the writer is a total moron. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Willis should be kept on his existing contract for the upcoming season or traded for no less than a 2nd round pick! Option? Trade for an established cornerback with solid credentials and a cap friendly contract, a wide receiver in the same vein, or a defensive lineman who can be a difference maker. There is no way in God's creation that I would even consider cutting him.

There are way too many idiots out here on the net having platforms that allow them to spew insane garbage. I've gotten to the point that there's very few I respect.

 

[Voyageur]

It is cheaper for a team's 2025 cap to have Jaire than it is for Packers. I fully understand dead money and that is why it is not the same for the Packers with him. Dead, not dead it doesn't matter, Ja will hit/cost the Packers more than he will for ANY team acquiring him.

What I'm seeing is the Packers needing to pony up $19 mill to Alexander if they cut him or trade him before 2025. If he's gone via trade, the receiving team will have to play him roughly $6 mill for 2025, and be on the hook for $17 mill in 2026. Is that correct?

I might add that the Packers keeping him in 2025 would cost them the same $6 mill over the $19 mill for 2025. If they cut him after 2025 they pay him over $10 mill. My opinion? Trade him for whatever you can get, just don't cut him unless it's a dire necessity. Reason? The difference between the two will still impact the cap, but it's better to get rid of it ASAP than sit on it for another year and still not save that much against the cap.

Jaire Alexander | NFL Contracts & Salaries | Spotrac.com

Jaire Alexander contract and salary cap details, full contract breakdowns, salaries, signing bonus, roster bonus, dead money, and valuations.

www.spotrac.com

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ja will hit/cost the Packers more than he will for ANY team acquiring him.

This is where you are confusing yourself.

"Hit" and "Cost" are not the same things. In this situation, since you are talking about 2 teams and a current player under contract, you have to look at "New Cost" to each team, which is the money paid out to a player, whether its upfront or deferred. "Cap Hit" can be 2 different things. It can be "new money hitting the cap", "old money hitting it" or a combination of the 2.

If his contract doesn't change, JA's new COST will be the same for the Packers, as it would be for any other team that they trade him to. JA's new "HIT", would also be the same for both teams. What would be different for the Packers and a new team, would be the "old money hitting the cap" of the Packers.

IF JA's 2025 salary is a "good deal" for other teams, it is because the Packers have already supplemented it, through deferrals. JA's contract is for $21M/year, over the next 2 years, a new team would pay less than that to him, because the Packers already paid him the difference. Basically, by trading JA they would be saying to the new team "Here, have this guy on a very reduced salary, because we already gave him that money, now we have to go report it on our cap."

Essentially, by trading JA, the Packers are saying that they don't want to pay him any new money that is due on his contract. IF the Jags say "Wow, this guy is worth $21M a year and we only have to pay him $17M/year for 2 years, lets give up $8M worth of draft value for him."

Also and a completely different part of the discussion, by trading JA, you will be needing to replace his services on the Packer team, how much will that cost the Packers?

 

[tynimiller]

This is where you are confusing yourself.

"Hit" and "Cost" are not the same things. In this situation, since you are talking about 2 teams and a current player under contract, you have to look at "New Cost" to each team, which is the money paid out to a player, whether its upfront or deferred. "Cap Hit" can be 2 different things. It can be "new money hitting the cap", "old money hitting it" or a combination of the 2.

If his contract doesn't change, JA's new COST will be the same for the Packers, as it would be for any other team that they trade him to. JA's new "HIT", would also be the same for both teams. What would be different for the Packers and a new team, would be the "old money hitting the cap" of the Packers.

IF JA's 2025 salary is a "good deal" for other teams, it is because the Packers have already supplemented it, through deferrals. JA's contract is for $21M/year, over the next 2 years, a new team would pay less than that to him, because the Packers already paid him the difference. Basically, by trading JA they would be saying to the new team "Here, have this guy on a very reduced salary, because we already gave him that money, now we have to go report it on our cap."

Essentially, by trading JA, the Packers are saying that they don't want to pay him any new money that is due on his contract. IF the Jags say "Wow, this guy is worth $21M a year and we only have to pay him $17M/year for 2 years, lets give up $8M worth of draft value for him."

Also and a completely different part of the discussion, by trading JA, you will be needing to replace his services on the Packer team, how much will that cost the Packers?

LOL

I fully understand what Jaire's cost to the team on the books for 2025 would be with him here or without him here. I'm done talking in circles with our different opinions on best way to articulate it.

 

[Heyjoe4]

LOL

I fully understand what Jaire's cost to the team on the books for 2025 would be with him here or without him here. I'm done talking in circles with our different opinions on best way to articulate it.

I'm no cap expert, but didn't the Packers have to eat a lot of dead cap after he was traded to NY? Wasn't it less costly for the Jets to acquire him, unless they agreed to move that dead cap? Like I said, I'm no expert.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm no cap expert, but didn't the Packers have to eat a lot of dead cap after he was traded to NY? Wasn't it less costly for the Jets to acquire him, unless they agreed to move that dead cap? Like I said, I'm no expert.

Are you talking about Rodgers? Rodgers eventually signed a new contract with the Jets after the trade.

Had he not, the Jets themselves would have been paying Rodgers the same new money as the Packers would have. However, since the Packers had a ton of "old money" still on the books and unreported on the cap, they had to declare it as dead cap. BTW, the new deal that Rodgers signed with the Jets, had ZERO impact on what the Packers dead cap hit from Rodgers was.

Most players with existing contracts leave behind "unreported" hits on their old team, basically, that is the dead cap and represents money already paid out to said player.

Also of Note:

To facilitate his trade to the Jets in 2023, Rodgers restructured his contract with the Packers in April, pushing a $58.3 million option bonus (fully guaranteed) into 2024.

Basically, the four-time NFL MVP was on the books for three months at the minimum salary in 2023 -- only $1.2 million against the cap.