Official Nick Perry deal thread

[HardRightEdge]

What do you expect an outside linebacker coming of a season with 11 sacks in addition to being an excelkent run defender to be paid??? Of course he didn't sign for peanuts but in my opinion Thompson and Ball did a decent job structuring the contract.

I expected him to get paid given it's a second contract + 1 year. It's not high end crazy given the injuries and mediocre performance over the first 4 years with just the one breakout year. Lorenzo Alexander got paid a whole lot less after his breakout year at age 32, 2 years for $9 mil total.

Like I said, it's what the market will bear. The Packer offer would have been near or above competing offers. What I reacted to is the "cap friendly" claim or that the $18.5 mil guaranteed makes this some kind of bargain for a one-season breakout:

http://overthecap.com/player/nick-perry/1129

Year 3 carries $11.1 in dead cap and $3.6 mil in cap savings. He could play some disappointing football over the first 2 years of the deal and still be retained for year 3 given those numbers. At the conclusion of year 3, the effective guarantee is $39 mil (cap for years 1-3 + year 4 dead money).

Year 4 has the $7.4 mil in dead cap and $6.9 mil in cap savings. Still, decent but not great performance in years 1-3 would likely lead to retention in year 4.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I expected him to get paid given it's a second contract + 1 year. It's not high end crazy given the injuries and mediocre performance over the first 4 years with just the one breakout year. Lorenzo Alexander got paid a whole lot less after his breakout year at age 32, 2 years for $9 mil total.

Alexander is seven years older than Perry though, therefore it was pretty obvious he will get paid less.

 

[armand34]

It makes me feel a lot better that they could keep Nick and essentially lock him up for the remainder of his prime.

I really want to a capable rotational player in the depth mix for OLB **COUG-BARWIN!-COUGH***

 

[HardRightEdge]

Alexander is seven years older than Perry though, therefore it was pretty obvious he will get paid less.

It was also pretty obvious that I noted that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It was also pretty obvious that I noted that.

What's the point in comparing Perry's deal to the one of Alexander then though??? Taking a look at the contract Chandler Jones signed the Packers contract to retain Perry seems to be pretty team friendly.

 

[armand34]

what do 3 question marks mean?

 

[Half Empty]

I really, really want to know? I really, really don't understand?? Maybe a third option???

 

[HardRightEdge]

What's the point in comparing Perry's deal to the one of Alexander then though??? Taking a look at the contract Chandler Jones signed the Packers contract to retain Perry seems to be pretty team friendly.

The point with Alexander is that if you're judging Perry's contract in terms of an "out" after 2 years as you claim (which really isn't the case), you might get 2 decent years out a guy like Alexander with far lower risk. For what Buffalo paid him, I would not have minded the Packers picking up as the #3 OLB. But that's neither here no there as to your original point.

For the second time (or is it the third?), the point is that $18.5 mil guaranteed with Perry isn't really $18.5 mil from a practical standpoint, and it is not the "team friendly" number you suggest. It's a market value contract, no special deal, probably a match of the high competing offer.

By the way, I wouldn't pay Chandler Jones that kind of money with a gun to my head, but that's really neither here nor there regarding the Perry's $18.5 guaranteed figure. At least Jones has 3 good seasons under his belt. Perry's one good season is a data point; Chandler's three is a trend.

Let's hope Perry lives up to the contract.

To digress again with an unrelated observation, it's kinda odd that Perry played best last season when Matthews was on the field even though Matthews was not being double-teamed much at all.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

We paid full retail for a player ready to break out. A full season like last year and he might lead the league in sacks... he steps it up a notch with some new dlinemen, and he could reach 20, which is coming up on NFL record... 12$ MIL will be a bargain at that point.

 

[Dantés]

People calling 12M "full retail" for a pass rusher at the level we saw from Perry last season need to look around the league at the most recent contracts being handed out to dynamic pass rushers. 12M is a discount.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The point with Alexander is that if you're judging Perry's contract in terms of an "out" after 2 years as you claim (which really isn't the case), you might get 2 decent years out a guy like Alexander with far lower risk. For what Buffalo paid him, I would not have minded the Packers picking up as the #3 OLB. But that's neither here no there as to your original point.

The Packers might get five productive seasons out of Perry at a decent price for an outside linebacker that has eclipsed 10 sacks last season and is an excellent run defender though.

There's no denying the Packers are capable of getting out of the contract after two seasons as well as the team would save some millions in cap space by releasing Perry at that point if he doesn't perform up to the deal.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There's no denying the Packers are capable of getting out of the contract after two seasons as well as the team would save some millions in cap space by releasing Perry at that point if he doesn't perform up to the deal.

Sure, the Packers may get 5 productive seasons out of him. Or they may not. That's pretty of obvious.

There's no denying the dead cap in year 3 is $11.1 mil and the cap saving only $3.6 mil. He can perform some margin under the deal in the first 2 years would still be retained in year 3. What can you buy with that savings? Not much.

Through year 3, the total cap commitment runs to $39 mil. That's the effective guarantee barring career ending injury or going in the tank, playing at something like a Datone Jones-level of productivity in year 2.

And consider Perry in year 4. His status then will be roughly equivalent to Cobb this season who's 2017 cap number is $12.7 mil, with $6.5 mil dead cap and $6.2 mil cap savings. I think we can agree that Cobb has not played up to the contract and I think most would agree that a repeat of his 2014 season is not in the cards. But it's the dead cap and the cap savings numbers that keep him in the equation.

I never said this a bad deal. I said it's the deal the market bears. To say it is "team friendly" based on the guarantee figure is a misrepresentation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's no denying the dead cap in year 3 is $11.1 mil and the cap saving only $3.6 mil. He can perform some margin under the deal would still be retained in year 3.

I understand that a huge amount of dead money should mostly be avoided but it's better to save some cap space than to hold on to a player not performing on a decent level.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I understand that a huge amount of dead money should mostly be avoided but it's better to save some cap space than to hold on to a player not performing on a decent level.

Let's say he plays at an adequate starter level in year 2, disappointing in playing at neither an impact nor core player level.

You're only going to dump him under one circumstance. A bench player gets some significant playing time due to injury and performs surprisingly well. We're not talking about an Elliott or a Fackrell here.

Saving $3.6 mil comes down to a "who else ya got? calculation, and given Matthews may be at the end of the line (if not sooner), you'd need 2 "who else ya got" guys. What are the odds of that happening?

While the approach I describe is sensible, you can layer on top of that Thompson, more than any other GM, eschewing dead cap like the plague.

It's best to view this deal as effectively a $39 mil guarantee, at least, providing Perry plays at adequate starter level.

I don't dislike the deal, and it is a good thing Perry is still on this team in the "who else ya got?" calculation. But there is no special performance insurance here.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let's say he plays at an adequate starter level in year 2, disappointing in playing at neither an impact nor core player level.

You're only going to dump him under one circumstance. A bench player gets some significant playing time due to injury and performs surprisingly well. We're not talking about an Elliott or a Fackrell here.

Saving $3.6 mil comes down to a "who else ya got? calculation, and given Matthews may be at the end of the line (if not sooner), you'd need 2 "who else ya got" guys. What are the odds of that happening?

While the approach I describe is sensible, you can layer on top of that Thompson, more than any other GM, eschewing dead cap like the plague.

It's best to view this deal as effectively a $39 mil guarantee, at least, providing Perry plays at adequate starter level.

I don't dislike the deal, and it is a good thing Perry is still on this team in the "who else ya got?" calculation. But there is no special performance insurance here.

It's possible the Packers roster includes two productive outside linebackers currently not on the roster two years from now. In addition I truly hope Thompson isn't the team's general manager in 2019 anymore.

I agree the team doesn't plan on releasing Perry after two seasons based on the deal he signed but it's not impossible to cut him at that point if he flops.

 

[Half Empty]

People calling 12M "full retail" for a pass rusher at the level we saw from Perry last season need to look around the league at the most recent contracts being handed out to dynamic pass rushers. 12M is a discount.

Don't know, but how many of the other guys have done it for more than a year?

 

[Dantés]

Don't know, but how many of the other guys have done it for more than a year?

Most. Hence the discount. If Perry had a 2-3 year track record of his 2016 production, he would have gotten money in line with Jones and Vernon. I was darn near expecting him to get it anyways, simply because of how strong the market is for pass rushers and the reality that he was the best EDGE guy by such a wide margin.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's possible highly unlikely the Packers roster includes two productive outside linebackers currently not on the roster two years from now. In addition I truly hope Thompson isn't the team's general manager in 2019 anymore.

I agree the team doesn't plan on releasing Perry after two seasons based on the deal he signed but it's not impossible to cut him at that point if he flops.

I'd agree with the above modifications.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Most. Hence the discount. If Perry had a 2-3 year track record of his 2016 production, he would have gotten money in line with Jones and Vernon.

That's right. And the fact it took him 5 years to get there. That's why his deal is fair market. One year is a data point, two years gets more interesting, three years is a trend.

You should be fairly confident the Packers were very near or equal to the highest counter offer. Maybe Perry took a little discount. Smart players, like management, are surely aware of scheme change performance risk.

 

[Dantés]

That's right. And the fact it took him 5 years to get there. That's why his deal is fair market. One year is a data point, two years gets more interesting, three years is a trend.

Agreed. However, if 2016 or something like it becomes the new normal, then the deal turns out to be a bargain.

 

[PikeBadger]

Let's say he plays at an adequate starter level in year 2, disappointing in playing at neither an impact nor core player level.

You're only going to dump him under one circumstance. A bench player gets some significant playing time due to injury and performs surprisingly well. We're not talking about an Elliott or a Fackrell here.

Saving $3.6 mil comes down to a "who else ya got? calculation, and given Matthews may be at the end of the line (if not sooner), you'd need 2 "who else ya got" guys. What are the odds of that happening?

While the approach I describe is sensible, you can layer on top of that Thompson, more than any other GM, eschewing dead cap like the plague.

It's best to view this deal as effectively a $39 mil guarantee, at least, providing Perry plays at adequate starter level.

I don't dislike the deal, and it is a good thing Perry is still on this team in the "who else ya got?" calculation. But there is no special performance insurance here.

Sounds like you expect Thompson to be the GM yet after 2018.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Sounds like you expect Thompson to be the GM yet after 2018.

I have no idea. I would hope not, particularly if that meant Capers was gone as well.

But like I said, the treatment of a $3.6 million cap savings, as illustrated in this possible scenario, should be treated sensibly. I would hope Thompson's replacement is sensible in playing the hand that is dealt. Thompson's high principle of limiting dead cap is hardly necessary to make the calculation. It's just another reason supporting such a decision.

You know, if that replacement is going to be Wolf, now would be a good time for Thompson to step back to Chairman of the Draft, providing advice and consent, while letting Wolf assume the CEO of the Draft role in running the scouting and the draft board construction, with Thompson kibitzing. That might have been the promise in getting Wolf to pull out of the SF GM competition. We'll know if that's the case when we see the draft room. Is Thompson huddled over his laptop, poring over the Combine spreadsheets as the draft progresses, or is it Wolf running the show?

After Wolf gets the job, if it is Wolf, Thompson can mercifully serve as sage consultant to somebody else.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Agreed. However, if 2016 or something like it becomes the new normal, then the deal turns out to be a bargain.

Sure. For like the 4th. time, I don't have a problem with the deal. My sole point is that a fairly low bar of performance going forward makes this a $39 mil guarantee. That's all.

 

[Dantés]

Sure. For like the 4th. time, I don't have a problem with the deal. My sole point is that a fairly low bar of performance going forward makes this a $39 mil guarantee. That's all.

Sorry I came in late to the discussion. I'm not saying you had a problem with the deal. I was just talking numbers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Sorry I came in late to the discussion. I'm not saying you had a problem with the deal. I was just talking numbers.

That's what I was doing...talking about the numbers.