Packer Free Agents: What should the Packers do? Track Their Decisions

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers shouldn't offer Matthews a contract averaging close to $6 million a season.

That is what I am trying to get a gauge on.

If people would be interested in keeping Matthews around, how much would they be willing to pay?

I honestly have no clue what his Market Value is or will end up being. My prediction, someone like the Raiders will pay extra for his name and in hopes he has a productive year.

 

[Half Empty]

Why not? The dead cap is just what it is, which is currently an $11.1M sunk cost. Cutting him now saves $10,737,500 this year, $10.6 M in 2020 and $10.4 M in 2021.

As Poker has correctly pointed out the Packers would save a total of $10.7 million in cap space by releasing Perry before March 15.

I thought for a while that I had a basic grasp on the cap, but obviously that isn't the case. Since they're free for what I want, I use Sportrac and Over the Cap. In Perry's case, they both show an $11.1 cap hit if released this year, with a $3.3375 cap savings. I see that there's a $4.8 roster bonus on March 15, which correlates to WIMM's post, but even if that's added to the savings, that's $8.137.

The number from Poker match those in the "Cash Details" column of Sportrac, but cash and cap are apples and oranges, right?

The ironic thing is that all I was trying to do was agree that Perry could be cut, but if I'm that far off on understanding the cap, I'd really appreciate a short primer from either of you. If it's too much to tie up the thread, PM would be great. Thanks.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I thought for a while that I had a basic grasp on the cap, but obviously that isn't the case. Since they're free for what I want, I use Sportrac and Over the Cap. In Perry's case, they both show an $11.1 cap hit if released this year, with a $3.3375 cap savings. I see that there's a $4.8 roster bonus on March 15, which correlates to WIMM's post, but even if that's added to the savings, that's $8.137.

The number from Poker match those in the "Cash Details" column of Sportrac, but cash and cap are apples and oranges, right?

The ironic thing is that all I was trying to do was agree that Perry could be cut, but if I'm that far off on understanding the cap, I'd really appreciate a short primer from either of you. If it's too much to tie up the thread, PM would be great. Thanks.

LOL....I get confused at times as well and originally used both Spotrac and Over The Cap as well. I quickly found out that for whatever reason, it was easier to stick to one and I just happened to understand Spotrac better.

Now whether I got those numbers right in regards to Perry, I will have to go back and look.

Someone could make some money on a site called "Salary Cap for dummies", because I would use it. I am amazed at all the articles you read on the same guy and most have different numbers, so we aren't the only ones trying to nail down this concept.

Edit: Yes...cash and cap are 2 different things. The Cap hit for 2019 for Perry if they kept him, which means they have to pay him his salary + roster and workout bonuses is cash paid to him (cash hit) plus the prorated share of his dead cap (signing bonus), which has already been paid to him and equals $18.5M over 5 years, or $3.7M/year. That $3.7 can be taken in each year that he is on the roster, but as soon as he isn't, whatever remains unaccounted for is an accelerated and immediate hit for the coming season. If he is kept until June 1, they can cut him then and spread the remaining 3 year dead cap ($11.1M) over 2 years. But to do that, they would have to pay him his 3/15 roster bonus of $5.1375 M + workout bonus of $400K, so unless they plan on being super tight to the cap, makes more sense to me to save the $5.5375 M he is due after 3/15 and just take the full dead cap hit of $11.1M now.

Also, don't forget, if Perry ends up on the final 53 man roster, he gets paid his annual base salary, which for this year is on the books for $5.2M.

In looking at this contract, I think Ball and the Packers thought it would end up being at least a 3 year deal. I say that because getting out in this, the 3rd year, is pretty pricey for them.

Lots's of numbers in there, so sorry if I didn't explain, at least the way I read it, very well

EDIT 2: I looked at Over The Cap and remembered what confused me. The "per game roster bonus". For Perry, that is $600K/game which over 16 games is equal to $9.6M. Which is roughly his "roster bonus" + "Base Salary"-"workout bonus". Now maybe if he is cut mid season, he doesn't get paid all of the $9.6M, but I believe it is still fully counted against the Packers cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I thought for a while that I had a basic grasp on the cap, but obviously that isn't the case. Since they're free for what I want, I use Sportrac and Over the Cap. In Perry's case, they both show an $11.1 cap hit if released this year, with a $3.3375 cap savings. I see that there's a $4.8 roster bonus on March 15, which correlates to WIMM's post, but even if that's added to the savings, that's $8.137.

The number from Poker match those in the "Cash Details" column of Sportrac, but cash and cap are apples and oranges, right?

The ironic thing is that all I was trying to do was agree that Perry could be cut, but if I'm that far off on understanding the cap, I'd really appreciate a short primer from either of you. If it's too much to tie up the thread, PM would be great. Thanks.

You can't add the $4.8 mil roster bonus to savings if he's cut before it is due because that amount is already included in the $3.3 mil savings number. The thing to keep in mind is these dead cap / savings numbers are as of this moment. To illustrate:

- If he is cut before the roster bonus is due the savings is that $3.3 mil figure
- If he is cut after the roster bonus is due, the savings goes negative, -$1.5 mil

Here's the thing. What happens if you keep him for the entire season? There is cash and cap that dwindles away as the league year moves along that you would not pay if he is cut now. To illustrate:

- When the $400,000 workout bonus gets paid the cap savings goes from -$1.5 mil (after paying the roster bonus) to -$1.9 mil.

- At final cutdowns with the $5.3 mil base salary then guaranteed, the savings goes to -$7.2 mil.

- And if he earns the $600,000 in per game bonuses the savings goes to -$7.8 mil.

So, from this standpoint, where you forego $3.3 mil in savings by cutting him for -$7.8 mil in savings if kept for the year, brings the one year cap cost for Perry to $11.1 mil vs. cutting him now. I would surmise this is where the Captain came up with that $10.8 mil savings number after accounting for some discrepancies too deep in the weeds for me to bother figuring out. This $11.1 savings figure is not be confused with the $11.1 mil in dead cap. It is mere happenstance that they are equal.

So, there are a couple of ways to look at it. If you're looking to build a roster for 2019 with the future be damned, then you could say you're not going to get much of a Perry replacement for that $3.3 mil in savings before that roster bonus comes due. This is usually where the analysis stops (but not in the front office where they would be taking a multi-year view) and I admit to glossing over the math myself in the past. But as he earns the various chunks of money as we go along and it comes off the cap, you're really looking at that $11.1 mil (or $10.8 mil) in cap difference in the cut-now vs. keep-for-the-year equation.

So, if you keep Perry and don't win, that's $11.1 mil (or 10.8 mil) in cap you will not have next season. There's no free lunch. If you go all-in for one year, whether it is gambling with Perry or signing some aging free agent to big bucks over a couple of years, and you don't win, those are resources you do not have to spend next year or the one after.

So, in the inimitable words of Harry Callahan, "do you feel lucky?" I'll leave out the "punk" because you don't seem to be that. And by "lucky" I mean, "how close do you think this roster can get to championship caliber by opening day".

I don't feel close to that lucky. It's why I advocate spending cap on second contract guys who are more likely to have a multi-year runway of productivity and count on adding impact (and cheap contracts) through the draft to create a viable window of opportunity.

 

[OldSchool101]

So, there are a couple of ways to look at it. If you're looking to build a roster for 2019 with the future be damned, then you could say you're not going to get much of a Perry replacement for that $3.3 mil in savings before that roster bonus comes due. This is usually where the analysis stops (but not in the front office where they would be taking a multi-year view) and I admit to glossing over the math myself in the past. But as he earns the various chunks of money as we go along and it comes off the cap, you're really looking at that $11.1 mil (or $10.8 mil) in cap difference in the cut-now vs. keep-for-the-year equation.

What gets more convoluted when having to make the decision to cut now vs after each successive contract threshold is one also have to account for things like the 89 expenditure rule and the future expiring contracts. As the league Cap historically gets lifted year to year and each team has their own unique sets of internal expiring players’ contracts. While one team could back themselves into a financial corner, the next team may have enough contracts expiring simultaneously to heavily dilute the futures cap impact to a point in favor of walking away from said player. Simply said..to one franchise that much cap hit could be a crippling blow feeling like $15M, while to the next team it feels like a modest $7M.
HRE. I haven’t done thorough research but read or heard somewhere in my recent travels (the source eluded me so take it for what it’s worth). The Packers future expiring contracts are set to curve further into the Cap financial “black” than the average team.

This is also another reason why I don’t like trading out of day 1 and losing a 5th year option like we did in 2017 with King. You can potentially pick up some of that hit exercising a players 5th year if they live up to your standards while contractually locking them in for 6 full years. This year is unique in that we have not one, but two 5th year options, doubling our chances of utilizing one or the other to recoup some of that 1st round tender and extending the time make a decision on the future of the position. LaFleur knows this all too well as they exercised it on Mariota after year 3 and that allows Tennessee to have an additional 3year wrap guarantee past the firsf 3 years (2+ the franchise tag) on their QB at the time LaFleur was OC.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What gets more convoluted when having to make the decision to cut now vs after each successive contract threshold is one also have to account for things like the 89 expenditure rule and the future expiring contracts. As the league Cap historically gets lifted year to year and each team has their own unique sets of internal expiring players contracts. While one team could back themselves into a financial corner, the next team may have enough contracts expiring simultaneously to heavily dilute the futures cap impact to a point in favor of walking away from said player.
HRE. I haven’t done thorough research but read or heard somewhere in my recent travels (the source eluded me so take it for what it’s worth). The Packers future expiring contracts are set to curve further into the Cap financial “black” than the average team.

This is one of the reasons why I think you take the cap hit now on Perry. Given a new coaching staff as well as a lot of holes to fill, I just don't see 2019 as a realistic shot at the Super Bowl. Use this years cap to wash out his contract, draft well this and next year, as well as use Free Agency wisely in the next 2 years, to build for 2020 and beyond. The Packers list of Unrestricted Free Agents after the 2019 season isn't something I worry about and with an eye to the future, the Packers should be pretty Cap flush this time next year:

• Bryan Bulaga, T
• Mason Crosby, K
• Mike Daniels, DE
• Trevor Davis, WR
• Kyler Fackrell, OLB
• Dean Lowry, DE
• Blake Martinez, ILB
• Jason Spriggs,
• Tramon Williams, CB

 

[OldSchool101]

This is one of the reasons why I think you take the cap hit now on Perry. Given a new coaching staff as well as a lot of holes to fill, I just don't see 2019 as a realistic shot at the Super Bowl. Use this years cap to wash out his contract, draft well this and next year, as well as use Free Agency wisely in the next 2 years, to build for 2020 and beyond. The Packers list of Unrestricted Free Agents after the 2019 season isn't something I worry about and with an eye to the future, the Packers should be pretty Cap flush this time next year:

• Bryan Bulaga, T
• Mason Crosby, K
• Mike Daniels, DE
• Trevor Davis, WR
• Kyler Fackrell, OLB
• Dean Lowry, DE
• Blake Martinez, ILB
• Jason Spriggs,
• Tramon Williams, CB

Wow. I keep forgetting Tramon is under contract.

Yeah we’re fine financially without Nick. I’m not sure the insider knowledge of his injuries we can push a little bit into next year if needed to delay the bleeding. Plus, I don’t like how Perry turned his nose up at that guy saying “happy new year” in the airport.
Bring Morgan back he’s a nice kid!
Nite Poker I’m out of here.

 

[HardRightEdge]

HRE. I haven’t done thorough research but read or heard somewhere in my recent travels (the source eluded me so take it for what it’s worth). The Packers future expiring contracts are set to curve further into the Cap financial “black” than the average team.

At the moment, Packer contract committments for 2020 total only $126 mil. That might look like a lot of cap space but note that is for only 27 players and you have to look at who those players are and who they are not:

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

That's a long, long way from a full deck. That cap "bounty" is not very meaningful at this juncture.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Since the Antonio Brown thread was shut down, I will post this article here. It's actually an interesting read on how Pittsburgh does some unusual things with the way that they structure their contracts.

I really enjoyed this article and the way the author broke things done, from more than a few angles.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26186487/grading-antonio-brown-trade-steelers-raiders-won

 

[HardRightEdge]

Since the Antonio Brown thread was shut down, I will post this article here. It's actually an interesting read on how Pittsburgh does some unusual things with the way that they structure their contracts.

I really enjoyed this article and the way the author broke things done, from more than a few angles.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26186487/grading-antonio-brown-trade-steelers-raiders-won

Packer contracts are not dissimilar to Steeler contracts in that guarantees are concentrated in the signing bonuses. This was true of Perry's, Adams', Linsley's and Graham's contracts, some of the larger ones of more recent vintage, Rodgers being a unique exception.

Barnwell's opening paragraph hits the nail on the head: This fiasco was first and foremost about Brown wanting more money than Pittsburgh was willing to give, then creating a situation forcing a trade, then telling potential trade partners they were not offering him enough in a restructuring until Oakland came along.

 

[Stanger37]

Packer contracts are not dissimilar to Steeler contracts in that guarantees are concentrated in the signing bonuses. This was true of Perry's, Adams', Linsley's and Graham's contracts, some of the larger ones of more recent vintage, Rodgers being a unique exception.

Barnwell's opening paragraph hits the nail on the head: This fiasco was first and foremost about Brown wanting more money than Pittsburgh was willing to give, then creating a situation forcing a trade, then telling potential trade partners they were not offering him enough in a restructuring until Oakland came along.

I know this is always going to be an issue in professional sports and maybe this is the wrong place for this question but the article and your post made me think of it. I know the players and owners make the agreements so this will never happen because there isn't one player these days that will agree with it. But I don't feel it is right that a player can do what he did, when 2 years ago he was just made the highest paid WR, and now someone makes more so he acts like a fool to get traded BUT ONLY if they redo his contract and pay him more? That just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I know this is always going to be an issue in professional sports and maybe this is the wrong place for this question but the article and your post made me think of it. I know the players and owners make the agreements so this will never happen because there isn't one player these days that will agree with it. But I don't feel it is right that a player can do what he did, when 2 years ago he was just made the highest paid WR, and now someone makes more so he acts like a fool to get traded BUT ONLY if they redo his contract and pay him more? That just doesn't sit well with me.

Well said and an aspect of professional sports that I really despise. Some might make the argument that the NFL is a free market and as long as players and teams are acting within the CBA, anything is fair game. I found it interesting with the Steelers that they drew the line in the sand with Le'Veon Bell and didn't let him dictate things, but seemed to cave to Brown's antics. While Brown's antics could have blown up in his face and probably with most players it would have, his talent level allowed him to do what he did, within the structure of the NFL. As much as I don't like AB, if this was his and his agents ultimate game plan, well played ***holes!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well said and an aspect of professional sports that I really despise. Some might make the argument that the NFL is a free market and as long as players and teams are acting within the CBA, anything is fair game. I found it interesting with the Steelers that they drew the line in the sand with Le'Veon Bell and didn't let him dictate things, but seemed to cave to Brown's antics. While Brown's antics could have blown up in his face and probably with most players it would have, his talent level allowed him to do what he did, within the structure of the NFL. As much as I don't like AB, if this was his and his agents ultimate game plan, well played ***holes!

The Raiders being the worst run franchise in the league was the only reason Brown was able to pull it off. I highly doubt any other team would have guaranteed him more than $30 million at this point.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I know this is always going to be an issue in professional sports and maybe this is the wrong place for this question but the article and your post made me think of it. I know the players and owners make the agreements so this will never happen because there isn't one player these days that will agree with it. But I don't feel it is right that a player can do what he did, when 2 years ago he was just made the highest paid WR, and now someone makes more so he acts like a fool to get traded BUT ONLY if they redo his contract and pay him more? That just doesn't sit well with me.

The good news is it is uncommon for a player to go to such extremes to get out of a contract. And it takes two to tango. Nobody put a gun to Gruden's head.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The good news is it is uncommon for a player to go to such extremes to get out of a contract. And it takes two to tango. Nobody put a gun to Gruden's head.

Don't mess with Chucky!

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

 

[Stanger37]

The good news is it is uncommon for a player to go to such extremes to get out of a contract. And it takes two to tango. Nobody put a gun to Gruden's head.

you are absolutely right. This doesn't typically happen but does not mean more players aren't going to. Better to get in front of it. And much like PokerBrat said, if this was his plan, good for him and his agents. AB isn't the first player to hold out and will not be the last. He MAY be the first one to take it to social media and get a sh*tstorm following and I think that pressure got to the Steelers. Going on talk shows and giving interviews just to sh*t on the Steelers. I dont know the rules but clearly there is not anything against it. But I think before the other players' inner diva's come out, the NFL has to put that to an end.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Why not? The dead cap is just what it is, which is currently an $11.1M sunk cost. Cutting him now saves $10,737,500 this year, $10.6 M in 2020 and $10.4 M in 2021.

We definitely can, should and probably will cut him.

So is GB changing their strategy on dead cap? Maybe learned from keeping Mathews and Cobb through their contracts, essentially throwing 20 mil a year out the window the last 2 years?
I see the logic. Apparently Perry was front loaded big time, because 10 mil dead cap doesnt seem proportionate to the dead cap Mathews amd Cobb carried with 3 years left on their deals... Or maybe it is proportionate, but different leadership and strategy. More of a "light it up or else" mentality. Rather than the " please light it up" mentality?

I also remember taking plenty of opposite minded opinions when mentioning Mathews/cobb being cut. Mainly because we don't have a replacement... Or depth behind the guy who would step up....
Now that we are losing mathews to free agency. Now we decide to cut Perry? Seems contradictory to all previous thinking.... After you all convince me that dead cap is unacceptable...lol.
Perry is a locomotive when healthy. If him and mo dog could have stayed healthy, I bet we make the playoffs......
Which brings up a big point. Eye guys like modog came here for 5 mil. It was because we were going to win the damn Superbowl.... 6-9-1 and new gm/coach/etc. Later........ Thats not going to happen anymore. (Cheap impact fas)
Are we going to risk another 5-11 $season on a purge/rebuild types of year? Stacking two losing season on top of one another? Or is Perry just that unimpressive to the new coaches amd gm, that they are just like, effit. Get rid of him. ?

We aren't far off of a super bowl run. 31-0 or not. We have the core and the maneuverability to bounce right back.... By stacking Thompson's weak *** lines. Deep. High
. wide. Keep Aaron Rodgers healthy and upright. Not most the time, all the time. And give the dline a Vikings type d line. A dominant d line is all we need on defense. Perry and fackrell are fine starters for this year. Need a savy past prime veteran to guarantee depth. The secondary is going to be a strength this year I believe. Martinez amd Perry are two studs out of a hybrid 3-4. And fackrell almost marked double digit sacks last year. Two tweener ilbs developed over the last few years.... Just need depth...imo

I don't know. I'm usually the one who says cut em and never look back. But something is pinging...

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

if the goal is to force a renegotiation? I'd be up front....

Tell him he has looked like a lame duck. Hasn't earned his salary. And if the packers decide he is a **** head the football gods won't be pleased.... Mention how he will get another deal right away. But will be a twisted ankle away from being in the list of unemployed free agents....... Then ramble off a list of maybe 50 or so former GBP stars who's careers derailed after they angered the football gods........

Explain in simple terms. That after his lost season, he owes us 12 mil and he can pay that back 4 mil a year over the next 3 years.... And if he becomes the man he thinks he is in that time. He will get a fresh payday.....

One offer. Or to the glue factory with you........

Because overpaying under performing veterans is bad business....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I guess we will see what Gute does with a guy like Perry. TT probably would have hung on to him another year. I can't speak for others, but I think both Matthews and Cobb were held on to longer than some would have desired, simply because they were better/more valuable players at their positions than Perry. Matthews didn't miss many games, but his stats were definitely down. However, I think he was still viewed as a guy who made enough of an impact to keep. Cobb's injuries probably were his biggest albatross, but still a guy the Packers felt should be kept around for what he added to the offense. It sounds like you really like Perry, but IMO, he had one good year, his contract year and has never played all 16+ games in any of the 7 seasons he has been a Packer. I won't be sad to see him leave.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

if the goal is to force a renegotiation? I'd be up front....

Tell him he has looked like a lame duck. Hasn't earned his salary. And if the packers decide he is a **** head the football gods won't be pleased.... Mention how he will get another deal right away. But will be a twisted ankle away from being in the list of unemployed free agents....... Then ramble off a list of maybe 50 or so former GBP stars who's careers derailed after they angered the football gods........

Explain in simple terms. That after his lost season, he owes us 12 mil and he can pay that back 4 mil a year over the next 3 years.... And if he becomes the man he thinks he is in that time. He will get a fresh payday.....

One offer. Or to the glue factory with you........

Because overpaying under performing veterans is bad business....

While I agree with you in theory, it just doesn't seem to be the way the NFL operates. How many guys do you see taking a pay cut to stick with the same team, as opposed to just hitting Free Agency? Jordy might have been the exception to the rule last season, but just doesn't seem like the way GM's and players do business in the NFL.

If Perry is cut, he will find some team to give him some guaranteed money and a new contract. He will probably land in a better 1 year situation than had he stayed in Green Bay with a lowered contract and no guarantees.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rob Demovsky‏Verified account @RobDemovsky
The Packers will tender OLB Reggie Gilbert, an exclusive rights free agent, before free agency officially opens on Wednesday, a source said. We already know they will do the same with G Justin McCray.

Others on that ERFA list of likely to be tendered include: WR Jake Kumerow, TE Robert Tonyan, OL Lucas Patrick, OL Adam Pankey, RB Lavon Coleman.

 

[sschind]

If you think you have a pretty good grasp on how the salary cap works you may want to skip this. If you think you might need a little help hopefully this will explain some of it specifically regarding guaranteed money, guaranteed salary and signing bonuses. Its a long read and there are lots of numbers ( but no math if you trust me) so you have been warned.

Guaranteed money really comes down to how much cap space the team has. Lets assume they are going to sign a player to a 5 year deal worth 81 million with 40 million in guarantees. If they are strapped for cap space they may give out most or even all of that guaranteed money in the form of a signing bonus and offer a smaller salary for the first year or even two and then raising it considerably in years 3,4,5 when hopefully they have more cap space. By doing this they can keep the cap hits to a smaller amount in years 1 and 2 by only having to count the lower salary and 8 million a year in signing bonus (40 million divided by 5) Lets say they agree to a 1 million dollar salary in year 1 , 3 million in year 2 then 8, 13, 16 in years 3,4,5. The cap hits would be as follows 9 million, 11, 16, 21, 24. In the past many of these deals were often considered to be 3 year deals because it was though that there was no way the team would pay the last two years. If they did cut the player after year 3 the team would save 5 million on the salary cap in year 4 but they would still have to count 16 million because the 8 million a year for years 4 and 5 would all count at once. This is the dead money. Pushing money out via large signing bonus got a lot of teams into a lot of trouble when it came time to cut a player because of cap reasons or simply because they were no longer productive.

Now lets look at a team with a lot of cap space. Same deal 5 years 81 million 40 million guaranteed but now the team has a lot of money in year 1 and maybe even year 2 so they offer a 20 million dollar signing bonus with year 1 salary of 9 million guaranteed and year two of 11 million guaranteed then they go 12, 14, 15 not guaranteed. That gives them cap hits of 13,15, 16, 18, 19. Not only is it more stable cap wise but if they decide to move on after year 3 they are only on the hook for 8 million instead of 16 (20 million SB divided by 5 years = 4 million a year)

The way I look at it is if you are going to sign a free agent to a big deal it is very likely that you are going to keep him around for at least the first year for sure and probably the second as well so if you know you are going to keep them why not guarantee their salary for those two years. If it allows you to get by with a smaller signing bonus which will keep potential dead money to a minimum in the future why not do it. If the player isn't producing you can cut him after year two with less dead money. It also lessens the likelihood that they will have to cut a productive player because their cap hits are too high in years 4 and 5. They may also not feel the need to offer an extension if they want to keep the guy but need to lower the cap hits in the last two years which may just push the problem out further. This is what a lot of restructures or extensions do. They convert a large part of a non guaranteed salary into a guaranteed signing bonus which allows the team to count less in the first year but it forces them to count more in each succeeding year of the extension. Its what a lot of fans were suggesting we do with Matthews and Cobb prior to last season to reduce their cap hits for 2018. The problem with doing that is it adds new money to the deal and if the packers felt it was time to move on from either of them now they would still be on the hook for some amount of dead money instead of being free and clear like they are now. Players go for it because instead of getting a 10 million dollar salary paid out of 17 weeks they get 9 million all at once.

The results to the player are the same. They get 40 million dollars guaranteed and if they play the whole contract they get 81 million. If they are cut after year three will have gotten a total of 52 million (65 or 66 if cut after year 4 with dead money to the team of 8 or 4 million in year 5)

Sorry it so long. I tried to keep the numbers fairly simple. There are other ways to guarantee money as well such as roster bonuses and workout bonuses just to name a couple. All can be very useful for teams with lots of cap space in reducing the signing bonus which in turn lessens the risk for dead money in the future. The bottom line is every dollar paid to a player had to count against the cap eventually. If the player plays out the full contract with no extensions or other modifications in my example above the team will have to count 81 million against their cap. The way it is structured simply determines when it will be counted and how much in each year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I see the logic. Apparently Perry was front loaded big time, because 10 mil dead cap doesnt seem proportionate to the dead cap Mathews amd Cobb carried with 3 years left on their deals...

Actually Cobb ($10.75 million) and Matthews ($8.2 million) had similar dead money counts than Perry with three years left on their contracts.

The team definitely doesn't want to release a veteran with three seasons left on a deal but sometimes it makes sense to move on if the production isn't there or injuries have taken a toll.

Perry is a locomotive when healthy. If him and mo dog could have stayed healthy, I bet we make the playoffs......

I'm absolutely convinced the Packers wouldn't have made the playoffs with both having stayed healthy last year either.

We aren't far off of a super bowl run.

Unfortunately the Packers are far away from being legit contenders.

Perry and fackrell are fine starters for this year. And fackrell almost marked double digit sacks last year.

Fackrell had 10.5 sacks last season but nevertheless I don't consider him as a solid starter. It's unrealistic to expect him to put up similar numbers in 2019.

 

[OldSchool101]

If it allows you to get by with a smaller signing bonus which will keep potential dead money to a minimum in the future why not do it. If the player isn't producing you can cut him after year two with less dead money.

Graham reminds me of a smaller scale example of this with a relatively “easy out” year 3

 

[tynimiller]

Smith and Amos coming reported...wow.