Packers expected to sign Joique Bell

[HardRightEdge]

Easy answer, I would have viewed a trade of Sitton for a 4th round pick, to a team the Packers chose, as a much better outcome.

Well, to paraphrase the Rolling Stones, the outcome is one of not getting exactly what you wanted, but you got what you needed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Bahk was resigned 10 days after they released Sitton. Not sure how resigning Bahk, even had it been before releasing Sitton, changes things or forgives TT for getting nothing for him. Again, this was just added things around the whole Sitton decision. The Packers could have even gambled a bit on some of his guaranteed money, put Sitton on their 53 and later found a trade partner who was willing to give up something as well as assume a pretty reasonable contract.

Edit: Or did you mean the apparent upcoming resigning of Bahk tipped the scales with Sitton's attitude?

As for the Edit, yeah that's exactly what I mean. By 10 days prior, they had a good idea where the Bahktiari contract was heading.

There's a problem has they kept Sitton on the 53 in hopes a later trade: once opening day hits the contract provisions for that year become guaranteed. After that, if no trade could be swung, the $6+ mil in cap savings goes out the window.

I think some are suffering under the McGinn misinterpretation at the time he was cut that, to paraphase, this is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world. He reported the Packers were "apoplectic" in not getting a pick. That's probably an exageration; "disappointment" is probably a better word. I'm sure they knew going in that it was a possibility. Once getting no pick was the reality, cutting him to save the cap was clearly the right move in retrospect.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Considering a young and absolute stud on defense garnered the patriots a 3rd rounder, I think people are overvaluing Sitton.

Either way, knowing what I know right now today, I'm much happier with getting nothing for Sitton and the savings that came with it and the the cost and production from Taylor over the other scenario of having Sitton still on the team with his level of production and his cost to the team.

It's worth noting that would be low 3rd. rounder in the form of a Cleveland comp pick if they have one, not their high third rounder. Otherwise it would be Cleveland's 4th. round pick which should be high in that round.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm going to take a more extreme case here, but how would you feel if Clay Matthews was the last player cut next year and the Packers got nothing in exchange for him besides the cap savings?

Here's what we know:

- His cap number for 2017 is $15.2 mil, his dead cap would be $4.1 mil, so the cap savings for 2017 would be $11.1 mil.

- His cap hit for 2018, the last year of his contract, is $11.4 mil with no dead cap.

- He'll be 31 years old with chronic hamstring problems.

- He's not the same player he was a few years ago.

So, who's going to give you anything in trade to take on the last 2 years of that contract? Nobody.

This is not an extreme case. These contracts are structured this way to have an out if the player goes into decline. It's why the value of a contract is to be measured by (1) the guarantees and (2) how the dead cap is structured.

Depending on when Matthews gets back on the field, and how he plays when he does, I could see where they might not think he's worth keeping vs. the $11.1 mil cap savings. It could be a case of Matthews' money transferred to Perry, or another FA that needs to be signed, which is another distinction without a difference.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My last 2 comments on the Sitton thing, because I think it's been beaten to death. One, the cap savings and Taylor are both there whether we traded or cut Sitton. Two, the results of the decision are in and can't be changed, but they can be used to evaluate the job that TT has done.

 

[HardRightEdge]

My last 2 comments on the Sitton thing, because I think it's been beaten to death. One, the cap savings and Taylor are both there whether we traded or cut Sitton. Two, the results of the decision are in and can't be changed, but they can be used to evaluate the job that TT has done.

I'm not a big fan of Thompson. He's had some good drafts and some very bad ones. He's signed his players to good deals in the past; lately he's been paying top dollar. He's OK, better than most, not as good as a number of others.

But this was one of his better moves in recent years, draft pick or not.

 

[PackerDNA]

Because older guys never fall off and young guys never improve. People can judge the situation all they want back in training camp when it happened. At this point, i can't imagine anyone would want what Sitton is producing at his price over why we have.

Taylor isn't a probowl Sitton, and Sitton isn't playing like one either

It was a bad move handled badly. How it turns out after the fact- and there are still 7 weeks to go- doesn't change that.

 

[PackerDNA]

He had back issues. Thompson preferred to save the cap. All in all, not a bad decision in retrospect.

There was no discussion of back issues when and even after he was cut. he had dropped weight, and said he was feeling great.
The team must have agreed since he was the starter from day one of camp until being cut.

 

[PackerDNA]

Yeah, there was something that tipped the scales: Bakhtiari's contract.

The Packers currently have over $10.5M in cap space. With Sitton, they'd still have around $4M or so.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It was a bad move handled badly. How it turns out after the fact- and there are still 7 weeks to go- doesn't change that.

True, and while Taylor has played pretty well there's no doubt he's a downgrade from Sitton.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It was a bad move handled badly. How it turns out after the fact- and there are still 7 weeks to go- doesn't change that.

I really wouldn't say it was a "bad move" at the time, especially considering the Cap savings as well as it being Sitton's final contract year. It was also pretty obvious that the Packers were confident enough in Taylor to make the sudden move. Now if Taylor played poorly, we would have another thing to hang our hats on as far as it being a bad decision, but he hasn't, so I think the Packers knew what he could do. Barclay coming in yesterday, proved it was a bad move from a depth standpoint. Had Sitton still been a Packer, Taylor would probably be backing him up.

Anyway, where I still contend it was really "bad", was just the timing and getting nothing in exchange. The Packers didn't wake-up on that final cut day and just then discover the cap savings or that they had a good enough player in Taylor to be able to part ways with Sitton. Those 2 things were known way before then. Sitton had to have done something pretty close to that day to finally make the Packers want to jettison him at the cost of getting nothing in return.

 

[swhitset]

True, and while Taylor has played pretty well there's no doubt he's a downgrade from Sitton.

I would say there is some doubt considering the fact that Sitton has already missed games due to injury this year. Sure the same could happen to Taylor, but given Sitton's age, and his history of back problems, I would say that the likelihood of Taylor remaining on the field is greater. Sitton cannot be better if he is not playing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Barclay coming in yesterday, proved it was a bad move from a depth standpoint. Had Sitton still been a Packer, Taylor would probably be backing him up.

I have been pointing out the fact that the Packers don't have a single backup best suited to play guard since Sitton was traded to the Bears. With Lang possibly missing some time with an ankle injury that might come back and haunt the team.

I would say there is some doubt considering the fact that Sitton has already missed games due to injury this year. Sure the same could happen to Taylor, but given Sitton's age, and his history of back problems, I would say that the likelihood of Taylor remaining on the field is greater. Sitton cannot be better if he is not playing.

While Sitton has missed two games this season he has performed better than Taylor in the ones he played in.

 

[Carl]

I have been pointing out the fact that the Packers don't have a single backup best suited to play guard since Sitton was traded to the Bears. With Lang possibly missing some time with an ankle injury that might come back and haunt the team.



While Sutton has missed two games this season he has performed better than Taylor in the ones he played in.

The difference in level of play between Taylor and Sitton hasn't been worth the difference in their contacts though, especially since Sitton has had trouble staying on the field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The difference in level of play between Taylor and Sitton hasn't been worth the difference in their contacts though, especially since Sitton has had trouble staying on the field.

It's true that Taylor presents a better value than Sitton because of their respective cap hits. It doesn't change the fact the Packers don't have a decent backup at guard though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's true that Taylor presents a better value than Sitton because of their respective cap hits. It doesn't change the fact the Packers don't have a decent backup at guard though.

Ohhh but they do, if Lang can't go, much like the RB and CB positions the Packers have an ace in the hole with PS player Patrick Lucas.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ohhh but they do, if Lang can't go, much like the RB and CB positions the Packers have an ace in the hole with PS player Patrick Lucas.

True, no idea how I forgot about him. It will most likely take Thompson several weeks to promote him to the active roster though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

True, no idea how I forgot about him. It will most likely take Thompson several weeks to promote him to the active roster though.

Well of course, he has to sift through the scrap heap of available players first. Maybe bring back Matt Rotheram for a few days, contemplate moving Perillo or a defensive lineman to guard, you know.....cover all the unobvious possibilities first.

 

[Pkrjones]

Well of course, he has to sift through the scrap heap of available players first. Maybe bring back Matt Rotheram for a few days, contemplate moving Perillo or a defensive lineman to guard, you know.....cover all the unobvious possibilities first.

Don't forget about the '14 tactics of moving Bulaga inside to G and then playing Spriggs or Murph at RT. Why insert a backup when you can affect 2 positions, instead?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't forget about the '14 tactics of moving Bulaga inside to G and then playing Spriggs or Murph at RT. Why insert a backup when you can affect 2 positions, instead?

Good point and actually probably what we would see. Good thing we spent 3 draft choices on a versatile guy like Spriggs. Versatile does rhyme with turnstile right?