covid will trash the 2021 cap.

[HardRightEdge]

And we have now come to the conclusion of those Jones or Clark "pay the man" discussions, for the next 7 months anyway.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would expect TV ratings to be boffo this season, kneeling for the anthem or not, which might bump up the TV revenue and the cap above that $175 mil.

I'm not sure TV revenue is dependent on ratings.

If the cap for next year is in fact $175 mil, $23 mil less than this year, then it's not an over-30 issue per se. It's who yields cap savings if cut and their value relative value to others on the roster. I don't think Rodgers' $5 mil in savings is the first place to look.

In that case it would actually be smart to extend Rodgers' contract by another two years and convert the majority of his base salary and roster bonus into a signing bonus next offseason.

Thereby the Packers could hold on to their HOF quarterback and save $16.34 million in cap space for the 2021 season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not sure TV revenue is dependent on ratings.

I'm not sure either which is why I said "might". I do recall an Olympics some ways back, maybe in the 1990's, where the TV ratings were particularly bad. I don't recall the year or circumstances. The network rebated a portion of the ad revenue to the advertisers and ended up taking a bath on the broadcasts. I don't recall if the IOC ended up rebating the network.

The point being, whether an Olympics deal or a long term NFL TV deal, a network is buying into content over which it has little control extending far into the future. I would expect networks to negotiate in advance some adjustments to NFL rights payments based on a minimum ratings threshold. If so, I would expect the NFL to negotiate an upward tilt to rights payments if ratings came in above some benchmark.

I wouldn't expect adjustments made week-to-week, but it would stand to reason that particularly good or bad ratings in one season would be reflected in ad costs and flow through to NFL revenue the next season.

That's a speculation. I base that on what would make sense. It may not be the case.

In that case it would actually be smart to extend Rodgers' contract by another two years and convert the majority of his base salary and roster bonus into a signing bonus next offseason.

Thereby the Packers could hold on to their HOF quarterback and save $16.34 million in cap space for the 2021 season.

As you know, I share your side of the argument that Rodgers is still an elite QB regardless of what the superficial stats may say. That said, I think your proposal is a bridge too far, piling more dead cap into more out years. It makes 2021 more palatable but 2022 is already a problem in a year where the cap should be expected to be flat, give or take, relative to this year with this spread of losses over 4 years.

Before Covid-19, we might have expected the cap to go up $20-$30 mil in the mean time going into 2022, not so now. I think you'd have to do something with his 2022 numbers as well, but you'd then be pushing a lot of dead cap into years where he'd be turning 41 and 42 years of age.

Alternatively, more risk can be taken on with other players, more backloading than would otherwise be prudent in a Clark second contract or extensions/renegotiations with other players such as Adams in a contract year with a $12 mil base salary.

One thing's for sure. Under a $175 mil 2021 cap, if that's where it lands, pain and/or excessive risk cannot be avoided. The "good" news is most teams are in the same boat to one degree or another. Of course Belichick has only $124 mil in contract commitments for 2021. He might be able to snap up a bunch of decent guys on cheap deals who can't find work on the usual terms.

On thing's for sure. If stacking good players on cheap rookie deals, stacking drafts, was critical to winning before, it is now essential.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As you know, I share your side of the argument that Rodgers is still an elite QB regardless of what the superficial stats may say. That said, I think your proposal is a bridge too far, piling more dead cap into more out years. It makes 2021 more palatable but 2022 is already a problem in a year where the cap should be expected to be flat, give or take, relative to this year with this spread of losses over 4 years.

Before Covid-19, we might have expected the cap to go up $20-$30 mil in the mean time going into 2022, not so now. I think you'd have to do something with his 2022 numbers as well, but you'd then be pushing a lot of dead cap into years where he'd be turning 41 and 42 years of age.

Alternatively, more risk can be taken on with other players, more backloading than would otherwise be prudent in a Clark second contract or extensions/renegotiations with other players such as Adams in a contract year with a $12 mil base salary.

One thing's for sure. Under a $175 mil 2021 cap, if that's where it lands, pain and/or excessive risk cannot be avoided. The "good" news is most teams are in the same boat to one degree or another. Of course Belichick has only $124 mil in contract commitments for 2021. He might be able to snap up a bunch of decent guys on cheap deals who can't find work on the usual terms.

On thing's for sure. If stacking good players on cheap rookie deals, stacking drafts, was critical to winning before, it is now essential.

While extending Rodgers for another two seasons is definitely not ideal by any means the Packers would need to get creative if the salary cap was set at $175 million for the 2021 season.

There's no other player on the roster who could even come close to create that much cap space as him though. Therefore it would be reasonable to increase his dead money down the road.

 

[jon]

While extending Rodgers for another two seasons is definitely not ideal by any means the Packers would need to get creative if the salary cap was set at $175 million for the 2021 season.

There's no other player on the roster who could even come close to create that much cap space as him though. Therefore it would be reasonable to increase his dead money down the road.

Cap management in the time of covid.

This is an interesting option, one the packers could consider as a means to get more players in under a reduced cap were it not for Mr Love. Extend Rodgers and you have Love's contract ending before 12's. GB might want to keep Love, but does a first rounder willing sit for 6 or 7 years? Extending 12 could mean Love goes unused and goes to another team without playing a down for GB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is an interesting option, one the packers could consider as a means to get more players in under a reduced cap were it not for Mr Love. Extend Rodgers and you have Love's contract ending before 12's. GB might want to keep Love, but does a first rounder willing sit for 6 or 7 years? Extending 12 could mean Love goes unused and goes to another team without playing a down for GB.

The Packers already won't be able to fully take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a rookie contract because they selected one with Love at least two years early.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Other than stipends and medical insurance, if games are canceled the players will not be paid for those games:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...act-coronavirus-face-team-discipline-lack-pay

"If the season is canceled before final training camp roster cutdown, any player who is on a training camp roster and earned a 2019 credited season or was drafted in 2020 will get a $250,000 stipend and his NFL player health insurance. A player who did not earn a 2019 credited season or was undrafted in 2020 will get a $50,000 stipend. If the season is canceled before final roster cutdowns, all contracts toll.

"If the season is canceled after final cutdown, a player who is on the roster at the time of cancellation will get a stipend of $300,000 offset by any salary he earned during the season, plus health insurance. Practice squad players will get $100,000 stipends (offset by any salary already earned) and health insurance.

Note that's "salary" and presumably per-game roster bonuses. I don't see any provision for clawing back signing bonuses. I don't see how that could be calculated on a per game basis and is very difficult to claw back under any circumstances.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's a decent run down on the Packers situation under a $175 mil 2021 cap under contracts as currently consitituted.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/thoughts-on-the-revised-cba-713

"That would leave them with a 2021 salary cap deficit that ranges between roughly $7.4 million to $13 million... four of their eight best players will be free agents in 2021 with two being elite and two being very good players."

Those players happen to be Bakhtiari, Clark, Jones and King. Throw in Linsley for good measure, three other possible starters in Funchess, Greene (who is restricted), Lancaster (also restricted), Ervin, a bunch of the bench and any other UFA or RFA you might happen to like in the following list:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2021/all/green-bay-packers/

Lazard will be a cheap exclusive rights FA, Dillon replaces Jones, we've got an H-back to block for him, and we have the QB of the future! So, we've got that going for us.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2021/all/green-bay-packers/

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers already won't be able to fully take advantage of having a starting quarterback on a rookie contract because they selected one with Love at least two years early.

The deal with the NFLPA allows players to opt out of the season, collect a stipend, and have the contract pick up in 2021 with same terms as in 2020. Perhaps the Packers could persuade Love to take an opt out redshirt year pushing his rookie contract out through 2024.

 

[PikeBadger]

Here's a decent run down on the Packers situation under a $175 mil 2021 cap under contracts as currently consitituted.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/thoughts-on-the-revised-cba-713

"That would leave them with a 2021 salary cap deficit that ranges between roughly $7.4 million to $13 million... four of their eight best players will be free agents in 2021 with two being elite and two being very good players."

Those players happen to be Bakhtiari, Clark, Jones and King. Throw in Linsley for good measure, three other possible starters in Funchess, Greene (who is restricted), Lancaster (also restricted), Ervin, a bunch of the bench and any other UFA or RFA you might happen to like in the following list:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2021/all/green-bay-packers/

Lazard will be a cheap exclusive rights FA, Dillon replaces Jones, we've got an H-back to block for him, and we have the QB of the future! So, we've got that going for us.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2021/all/green-bay-packers/

The cheesehead tv article was really informative though I must say that I don’t see the Packers situation as gloomy at all. Every team in the league is going to have to adjust their situations as well and imo, few teams are going to be out there gobbling up large numbers of free agents without cutting some of their more expensive players. It’s a terrible time for any player to be a free agent imo. I think Russ Ball is liable to be better at wading through these financial weed beds than most anyone else in the league. But then again, my Packer glass is always 2/3 full when it comes to management decisions. I trust that crew more than most fans I suspect.

 

[melvin dangerr]

I’ll agree to keep Arod for now, because if his backup proves to be a goldmine I would trade Rodgers than release him, he’ll probably go the Farve route and out of spite sign with a division rival, as far as A Jones, hold on to him, just drafted a backup RB which could prove valuable, and given the market on RBs Jones could be open to contract negotiations, Bak has to stay for now decent O’lineman are hard to come by..me 2cents..

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think Russ Ball is liable to be better at wading through these financial weed beds than most anyone else in the league. But then again, my Packer glass is always 2/3 full when it comes to management decisions. I trust that crew more than most fans I suspect.

Go to the following link, click on the 2021 tab, and you'll see the current 2021 cap commitments for each team for contracts currently in force:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

The Packers $182 mil for the top 51 is 12th. highest in the league.

Do the Packers have any likely candidates they can cut after this season to free up cap space? Not really. Again, click on the 2021 tab in this link:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

It would be best cut Linsley now for the $8.15 mil cap savings that can be carried over even at the risk of looking like as*holes to players and agents. Desperate times call for desperate measures if you want to call cutting Linsley "desperate".

I've already itemized the 2021 Packer free agency situation which is pretty daunting.

Additional cap space can be bought by extending Rodgers, Adams and/or Z. with salary converted to signing bonus. Rodgers would be a bad idea, pushing his contract and/or dead cap out further. Adams and Z. are young enough to extend and pick up cap some coin. That's about it. Expect to have a weaker roster next year compared to this.

How much worse is the Packer situation than the league average? Hard to tell without examining the 2021 free agent situation for each team but I think it is fair to say teams like the Colts, Patriots, Chargers and Jaguars with $126 mil or less in cap commitments for 2021 are in prime position to pick up free agents on the cheat in what will be a buyers market.

Such players might prefer a cheap one year deal over a cheap longer term one in the hopes more money will be on the table in 2022. Who's the guy who has among the lowest contract obligations for 2021, who turns over his roster like most GMs change their underwear, and who somehow manages to cobble together what he needs with rent-a-players? You guessed it.

The cheeseheadtv piece put the Packers 2021 cap situation in light of the free agents in the bottom 1/4 of the league. That's probably about right.

I've never detected any particular genius in Russ Ball's game. There are no geniuses in writing rookie contracts under the scale. With vets it's paying market value and you hope you get more than what you paid for which is more about Gutekunst than Ball. The rest is take the cap hit now or take it later with backloaded contracts which eventually hits a dead end. The 2019 free agent signings was certainly not an exercise in genius--the contracts were backloaded which is how we got to $182 mil in top 51 cap for 2021 in the first place.

If the cap remains below or at this years level through 2023 as revenue losses are recouped there isn't even a "later" on the visible horizon.

This is the year to get it done, now more than ever, with the window closing in 2021. The window was closing before any of this happened. Now you're staring down the barrel of about $35 - $40 mil less cap to work with than what would have been projected under the new CBA.

It would have been nice to land some combination of WR, OT, DL or CB in the first 3 rounds while waiting on the QB and RB and getting a FB down the board. Alas, it was not to be.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Vikings "infection control specialist" has tested positive. That's the way things are going these days.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...n-control-officer-tested-positive-coronavirus

 

[gbgary]

they're thinking about signing a former viking DL. linsley may be gone soon if that happens.

 

[gbgary]

Additional cap space can be bought by extending Rodgers, Adams and/or Z. with salary converted to signing bonus. Rodgers would be a bad idea, pushing his contract and/or dead cap out further. Adams and Z. are young enough to extend and pick up cap some coin. That's about it. Expect to have a weaker roster next year compared to this.
If the cap remains below or at this years level through 2023 as revenue losses are recouped there isn't even a "later" on the visible horizon.

yup. rodgers cap hit in 2022 is already $39m. as i've said i think he's gone after 2020. kirksey might end up being just a one year deal and gone in 2021. preston smith too.

 

[HardRightEdge]

yup. rodgers cap hit in 2022 is already $39m. as i've said i think he's gone after 2020. kirksey might end up being just a one year deal and gone in 2021. preston smith too.

Those are possibilities, among others, under the current circumstances though Rodgers is the least likely of the bunch. There's a long way to go make up a $23 mil drop in cap with several valuable players in contract years.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I’ll agree to keep Arod for now, because if his backup proves to be a goldmine I would trade Rodgers than release him, he’ll probably go the Farve route and out of spite sign with a division rival, as far as A Jones, hold on to him, just drafted a backup RB which could prove valuable, and given the market on RBs Jones could be open to contract negotiations, Bak has to stay for now decent O’lineman are hard to come by..me 2cents..

The Packers might not have a choice to let Jones walk away in free agency next offseason based on limited cap space, having drafted a running back in the second round and players at the position being easier to replace. Bakhtiari might price himself out of Green Bay as well.

yup. rodgers cap hit in 2022 is already $39m. as i've said i think he's gone after 2020. kirksey might end up being just a one year deal and gone in 2021. preston smith too.

Those moves would only yield $18.8 million in cap space for the 2021 season. In that case it would be smarter to extend Rodgers for another two years and save nearly as much cap space in the process.

 

[Conan Troutman]

yup. rodgers cap hit in 2022 is already $39m. as i've said i think he's gone after 2020. kirksey might end up being just a one year deal and gone in 2021. preston smith too.

The Packers would only save about $5m in cap space for the 2021 season. As for real cash, Rodgers is owed $25m in 2021. Both numbers say it makes sense to pay him 2021 as well - but if the cap plummets (although I don't think it's going to go down all the way to $175m) the Packers won't be able to field a contender that year anyway and certainly not a year later with a $39m cap hit, so might as well eat all the dead money next offseason and be done with it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm going to share some advice unrelated to football or the cap as a public service announcement.

The evidence has been mounting for some time, now approaching fact, that the severity of symptons after contracting the virus, or whether you have any symptoms at all, is dependent on viral load.

What that means if you inhale a smaller number of virus particles the symptoms are more likely to be mild or non-existant as the immune system is better able to fight it off. If the load is high, the opposite. This has been found to be the case among many viruses including flus.

Initially it was thought that a mask might prevent spewing viral particles into the air but would not protect a person from contracting the virus. Mask wearing under that assumption amounted to an unselfish public good, "socialist" in some minds.

Evidence is now mounting, with experts already hinting at such for some time, that just about any mask may limit intake of the viral load, not just N-95 masks. So, if unselfish social good was not compelling, how about self-interest?

Even if mask-wearing did not protect the wearer and merely a social good, the notion of exercising "American freedoms" in not wearing a mask is ludicrous based on all of the available science. Is driving drunk an "American freedom"? I don't recall any prohibition against it the Constitution or the Federalist Papers. And there really isn't any distinguishable difference between non-mask wearing and driving drunk. While insurance companies have a vested interest in both regardless, a libertarian would say that if you choose to kill yourself one way or the other that's your business. Where both the masks and the drunk driving cross the line is when the "crime" ceases to be "victimless". Don't come near me without a mask; go ahead and get drunk and wrap yourself around a telephone pole but don't involve me in it.

In short, wear the d*mn mask, keep your d*mn 6' distance, and for your own good wash your d*mn hands.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Maybe all pro sports needs to take a year off. Look at the rocky start for MLB.

Sports would be a terrific distraction in this devastating year. Nevertheless, America “wants” sports, America does not “need” sports.

Had the feds and the WH Administration addressed this pandemic starting in January or early February, we’d probably be fine. They didn’t. We have to look forward, get some control over this virus before we can ever use the phrase “normal life” again.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Maybe all pro sports needs to take a year off. Look at the rocky start for MLB.

Sports would be a terrific distraction in this devastating year. Nevertheless, America “wants” sports, America does not “need” sports.

Had the feds and the WH Administration addressed this pandemic starting in January or early February, we’d probably be fine. They didn’t. We have to look forward, get some control over this virus before we can ever use the phrase “normal life” again.

Well, it's like any business. Shut down for a year and there may not be any business left. There may be some bulletproof balance sheets that can survive that, but not very many. And the perception that NFL owners have bottomless pockets is well overstated. It's easy to look at the assets, be they football teams or golf resorts. It is much harder to see the liabilities, the loans taken out to buy those assets. If you can see the balance sheet you might find the billionaire isn't really that.

As with other businesses, the middle ground is to proceed with due precautions even if business is conducted on a limited basis if the overhead cost structure vs. revenue equation can stand it.

What doesn't make sense, what never made sense, and what will never make sense until there is an effective vaccine that a sufficient number of people will accept is "open up, business as usual." That has been and will remain stoopid for the foreseeable future. There is no other word for it, and the correct spelling of that word does not do it justice.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And here we have yet another instance of stoopid:

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...ootball-covid-19-outbreak-linked-campus-party

Given what has transpired in recent months, particularly at other campus parties, there is simply no excuse. I think you'd have to follow zero news or all the wrong news (lots of that) to attend such a thing. Now go try to contact trace those 14 guys. Good luck with that.

By the way, so many people have contracted this thing or are silently carrying, while there are indications that acquired immunity might wear off, you wouldn't have to get anywhere near 7 degrees of separation to cover the whole population. Contact tracing at this point is probably pointless as a containment tool.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers would only save about $5m in cap space for the 2021 season. As for real cash, Rodgers is owed $25m in 2021. Both numbers say it makes sense to pay him 2021 as well - but if the cap plummets (although I don't think it's going to go down all the way to $175m) the Packers won't be able to field a contender that year anyway and certainly not a year later with a $39m cap hit, so might as well eat all the dead money next offseason and be done with it.

Rodgers definitely gives the Packers a better chance of winning in 2021 than Love and $5 million of cap savings. Therefore the Packers should hold on to him.

 

[gbgary]

The Packers would only save about $5m in cap space for the 2021 season. As for real cash, Rodgers is owed $25m in 2021. Both numbers say it makes sense to pay him 2021 as well - but if the cap plummets (although I don't think it's going to go down all the way to $175m) the Packers won't be able to field a contender that year anyway and certainly not a year later with a $39m cap hit, so might as well eat all the dead money next offseason and be done with it.

yup but their guaranteed obligations to him will have been met, and then some, at the end of the 2020 season. nothing will be owed for 2021 if they part ways before the 3rd day of the league year in mid march. i also hope it doesn't go down to $175.

 

[HardRightEdge]

yup but their guaranteed obligations to him will have been met, and then some, at the end of the 2020 season. nothing will be owed for 2021 if they part ways before the 3rd day of the league year in mid march. i also hope it doesn't go down to $175.

Love is currently in a red shirt year. No OTAs, no preseason, and only about three weeks of on-field camp before week 1 game prep begins. Once the games begin, "nobody learns anything holding a clipboard," to once again borrow from Ariens.

Love starting in 2021 in what will amount to a rookie season, with a scant $5 mil in cap savings with Rodgers release or trade, in a $175 mil cap season with the Packers among the teams in the worst shape in terms of current 2021 cap commitments plus the free agent class, your proposal for 2021 would certainly lead to something quite ugly.