CB, Rasul Douglas

[Pkrjones]

Savage is a perfect example of how I would approach as many contracts as I could. I would say to him "Look, we like you as a player, but your game dropped off last year. What we would like to do is keep you in Green Bay for several more years and give you an incentive filled contract. Your base salary will be relatively low, but if you hit incentives, you will be payed pretty well."

Incentive based pay would really be a nice feature with a guy you really aren't that sure of. I am not well schooled on the cap implications of incentive based pay, but a lot of them aren't counted on the cap of the current year and only against the next years cap if reached.

Unfortunately EVERY YEAR there are 2-5 teams with huge cap space that love to steal young talent from successful teams. GB may offer Savage that type of incentive-laced deal one of those bottom-dweller-with-cap will offer him a contract 20% more than "predicted value" along with a guaranteed SB of 40% of the deal total and he's gone.

Gute/Ball need to play the same game or risk losing an ascending, young, talented player for nothing more than a comp pick next year.

 

[McKnowledge]

Savage and Amos both regressed as players this year - I believe arguably more than any other defenders this year. It is because of that I think a departure from Amos could be on the horizon as one of the "cap casualties" that many don't include in discussions at times. However, move on from Savage.....you clearly mispoke there, he's still on his rookie deal and costs very little.

I think you misread what I wrote. I never mentioned Amos. I'm about moving on from Savage to keep Douglas, who is the subject of this thread.

Savage has earned himself a nice paycheck, because he is a young Safety that's played on a winning team since being drafted.

While his play has been properly evaluated by everyone on this forum that doesn't mean he won't get paid by another team that overvalues him.

Rasul Douglas is a better player period and I think keeping him and trading Savage maybe an option worth exploring.

You can trade Darnell Savage for a 2nd/3rd rd pick, he plays his last year, and more than likely receives a nice deal. Win/win for both sides.

 

[tynimiller]

I think you misread what I wrote. I never mentioned Amos. I'm about moving on from Savage to keep Douglas, who is the subject of this thread.

Savage has earned himself a nice paycheck, because he is a young Safety that's played on a winning team since being drafted.

While his play has been properly evaluated by everyone on this forum that doesn't mean he won't get paid by another team that overvalues him.

Rasul Douglas is a better player period and I think keeping him and trading Savage maybe an option worth exploring.

You can trade Darnell Savage for a 2nd/3rd rd pick, he plays his last year, and more than likely receives a nice deal. Win/win for both sides.

Cutting Savage literally saves you zero money to "allocate" to Amos which is exactly what you said...hence why I discussed the fact Savage is still on his rookie deal.

Now discussing trading Savage, that's a trail I've never given much thought and I doubt a 2nd rounder would happen though.

 

[sschind]

IMO incentive based contracts are too unpredictable to become a mainstay.

From a player standpoint they require, at the minimum, consistency. This can become contentious when tied to playing time or team accomplishments. Say you have a DB who has a 2 million dollar bonus if the team makes the SB. He makes 3 picks in the championship game but the kicker misses 3 FGs. He's not going to say anything but he's probably not going to be happy.

From a team standpoint unlikely to he earned incentives can come back and bite them in the *** if too many are earned. They can cause issues if teams are already up against the cap.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

IMO incentive based contracts are too unpredictable to become a mainstay.

They seem no more unpredictable then injuries, decreased or increased performances. Especially, when you spread them over the entire roster. Look at the Packer roster this season, look at what each player was paid and tell me if they earned it or didn't.

I would say 2 examples of skewed pay each way, would be Bahk and Rasul Douglas. Incentive contract based pay would have cost Bahk millions, but for Rasul, it would have meant millions in his pocket. Of the 2 players, who was paid the amount that was commiserate to their performance in 2021? Neither.

While your example of one player, costing the bonuses for others is convenient, it wouldn't be the only incentive a player is paid for. It is a team sport and incentives that require the whole team to play at a certain level are far from guaranteed. Individual incentives (games played, catches, TD's, yards, etc.) are a bit more on the player to earn.

My bringing up incentive pay is more of my own personal pipe dream of what I wish would happen in the NFL. Sadly, it will never happen for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the abundance of money in the NFL. Owners only have to deal with the cap ramifications of salaries. I doubt whether player X makes $10 M/ year and player Y makes $3M is a big concern for the owners, but more of a "how do signing these guys effect our cap and our team play?" Second, due to that abundance of money and the onset and normalizing, of all these guaranteed contracts, its going to be hard for the NFLPA to ever want to agree to incentive based contracts becoming the norm.

 

[tynimiller]

I'd be all for the leage and player's union coming up with a better way for fiscally things to occur when a season ending injury happens. Imagine if a player's perhaps cap hit decreased by say 8% or 10%...just fiscally how that would at times allow a team to maybe go afford a replacement they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

 

[McKnowledge]

Cutting Savage literally saves you zero money to "allocate" to Amos which is exactly what you said...hence why I discussed the fact Savage is still on his rookie deal.

Now discussing trading Savage, that's a trail I've never given much thought and I doubt a 2nd rounder would happen though.

When did I ever say anything about cutting Savage...that's right never. You're quoting me...so find the receipts were I wrote that the Packers should cut Savage.

 

[tynimiller]

When did I ever say anything about cutting Savage...that's right never. You're quoting me...so find the receipts were I wrote that the Packer's should cut Savage.

HERE:

I agree. He's a great player period. He has commanded himself a great market and I would actually consider moving on from Savage, just to allocate some money towards keeping him.

I wouldn't make up what someone else said.

 

[McKnowledge]

HERE:



I wouldn't make up what someone else said.

But you'll misinterpret and infer things that weren't said to fit your argument? Show me where I used the word cut, release, or drop.

 

[gopkrs]

Whether or not he costs money; the important thing is does he hurt us during the game? I admit to not knowing the answer but I do think he should be taught and play centerfield.

 

[tynimiller]

But you'll misinterpret and infer things that weren't said to fit your argument? Show me where I used the word cut, release, or drop.

OH my word seriously? You said you'd move on from savage in order to allocate money elsewhere....all I was doing was bringing up you don't do that with a guy that is on a rookie deal - his cap hit is hit as it is a guaranteed rookie first round deal.

LOL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

But you'll misinterpret and infer things that weren't said to fit your argument? Show me where I used the word cut, release, or drop.

Oh come on man. Your name implies that you are somewhat smart. You said the following:

McKnowledge said:
I agree. He's a great player period. He has commanded himself a great market and I would actually consider moving on from Savage, just to allocate some money towards keeping him.

How does that not imply cutting or trading Savage? You basically said that moving on from Savage, gives the Packers more money to retain Douglas. Let's forget about the fact that cutting him is a ZERO gain in cap or money itself since his dead cap equals what the Packers have to pay him. How does what you are implying, I guess, not "cut, release or drop" him, give the Packers more money to allocate to Douglas?

Basically, what were you trying to say?

 

[Half Empty]

But you'll misinterpret and infer things that weren't said to fit your argument? Show me where I used the word cut, release, or drop.

But you did say moving on. What is any reasonable person expected to infer?

 

[McKnowledge]

OH my word seriously? You said you'd move on from savage in order to allocate money elsewhere....all I was doing was bringing up you don't do that with a guy that is on a rookie deal - his cap hit is hit as it is a guaranteed rookie first round deal.

LOL

I don't know where these other 2 guys came from, but here it is...

Trade Savage for a 2nd/3rd rd pick. Green Bay is not going to pick up the fifth year option for him.

I cannot see him re-signing for a long term contract at less than 8M annually, which is the price for picking up the fifth year. Another team will overvalue him and give him a deal.

https://dairylandexpress.com/2022/0...ming-another-decision-packers-darnell-savage/

Use the draft pick to pick up a Safety under team control for another 4 years at a friendly rate.

The money that would be used for Savage to remain in Green Bay could go towards keeping Douglas. Douglas is the better player.

Releasing Savage is not an option, because there wouldn't be any compensation for the loss.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The money that would be used for Savage to remain in Green Bay could go towards keeping Douglas. Douglas is the better player.

This is where your whole point falls apart. Tell me what money the Packers save by trading Savage? They actually spend MORE. Since they have to pay the guy who took his place.

Also, if you think someone is going to trade a 2nd or 3rd rounder for a guy you say isn't worth keeping, that is somewhat of a conflicting statement

I don't know where these other 2 guys came from, but here it is...

We lurk in the bushes, only coming out when the sun goes down.
.

 

[McKnowledge]

This is where your whole point falls apart. Tell me what money the Packers save by trading Savage? They actually spend MORE. Since they have to pay the guy who took his place.

This whole thing began as just a suggestion, not something I'm seriously advocating.

Pay what other guy...you mean a rookie safety?

Also, if you think someone is going to trade a 2nd or 3rd rounder for a guy you say isn't worth keeping, that is somewhat of a conflicting statement

Clearly, every single Packer fan knows that over the last three seasons Savage has been inconsistent.

However,while he is inconsistent, he makes splash plays that look great on film. Another team may see his tape, grow interested, and make a play for him. Another's trash is another's treasure. Some poor desperate team (Jaguars?) would consider giving up a 2nd or 3rd for his potential.

Rasul Douglas is a more consistent player. I would rather keep him, if giving the choice between Savage and Douglas.

This is a Rasul Douglas thread.

We lurk in the bushes, only coming out when the sun goes down.

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

 

[Packerbacker1996]

Savage will be here 1more year and most likely he will have his best year since be will be playing for a new contract, which is what bums do.

 

[weeds]

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This whole thing began as just a suggestion, not something I'm seriously advocating.

Pay what other guy...you mean a rookie safety?

Yes. If the Packers trade/cut Savage, not only do they save zero money, they have to pay someone else to do his job. Whether it's a 1st round rookie, an UDFA or free agent, there is a cost. Also, no guarantees that you have a better player than Savage.