Packers tried to trade for Jonathan Taylor

[Heyjoe4]

They are akin to a contract where the last 1, 2, or 3 years have high base salaries that make it likely the team will cut a player when those higher base salaries are due. Consider three similar, 5 year contracts, all with a 10M signing bonus, and a base salary of 500k per year for years 1-3, and a 3 year contract with a 10M signing bonus and base salary of 500k/year. I'm also ignoring Pre/Post June 1 details, but understand in that world, the last 2 years of prorated bonus MAY be able to be split over years 4 and 5.

Ballon base salary in year 4 and 5 of 10M per year:
10M bonus, 2M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 2.5M
Year 2 total cap: 2.5M
Year 3 total cap: 2.5M
Year 4 potential cap hit: 12.5M. NOPE, player is cut.
Dead cap: 4M, the remaining 2 years of prorate bonus money due right now. Again, ignoring June 1 magic.

Standard 5 year contract, 500k per year, but for whatever reason, the player has hit the wall by year 4 and is cut after year 3.
10M bonus, 2M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 2.5M
Year 2 total cap: 2.5M
Year 3 total cap: 2.5M
Year 4 potential cap hit 2.5M. NOPE, player is cut.
Dead cap: 4M, the remaining 2 years of prorate bonus money due right now. Again, ignoring June 1 magic.

Void years contract, 3 years intended, years 4 and 5 are the void years. They "exist" but allow the cap hit to be spread over future years, lowering the prorated bonus number for the non-void years. 500k per year base salary.
10M bonus, 2M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 2.5M
Year 2 total cap: 2.5M
Year 3 total cap: 2.5M
Year 4 None. Contract automatically voids after year 3's Super Bowl. Or pick whatever date you want.
Dead cap: 4M, the remaining 2 years of prorate bonus money due right now. Again, ignoring June 1 magic.

So why would a team do that? Look at the void year example if it were just a 3 year contract, which is what it is intended to be.
500k per year base salary.
10M bonus, 3.33M per year prorated.
Year 1 total cap: 3.83M
Year 2 total cap: 3.83M
Year 3 total cap: 3.83M

Over the three intended years of the deal, Void vs. 3 year-straight up, you've saved 1.33M per year against the cap. There is a cost at the end because you don't get cap space money for free, but you were probably more competitive in those first three years with that extra cap space to allocate everywhere. And the cap is likely higher in year 4, so that 4M is likely less of a hindrance.



That's just dealing with the bonus money. The player already go paid that money, which is why they have to take the hit. It's gone. It's paid. Now you've just gotta balance the books.

More generically, players like money. This is their job, after all. And money in the hand now, today is worth more than the same money tomorrow. Opportunity cost of money and all that jazz. AND teams are less likely to cut players early in the contract as the dead cap accelerates to whenever the contract ends, so in our 10M example above, if the player were to be cut after year 1, boom, 8M dead cap hit. Players also like stability, it turns out.

So should team do that? Maybe. It's a little borrowing from the future, it's a little making a short-term push while you have a good core of players. Right now, the Packers probably shouldn't add new contracts with void years as we don't really know what we have on the whole. However, if we make the Division Round and things look great for 2024, then it should at least be considered for extensions. Of course that said, with the Rodgers hits expiring for the 2024 season, we might have enough room to not need to do so.

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this. Much appreciated.

I understand the "win now" philosophy in the NFL. So moving some of the cap hit to voidable years, and lowering the cap hit in the earlier years to pay more players makes sense. You also make the excellent point that the cap will have increased by the time the voidable years roll around, so that lowers the dead cap hit as a % of total cap.

So it seems like the player and the team win. The player gets his money up front (or most of it), and the team gets a lower cap hit as a % of total cap. This makes sense, and I really appreciate that you took the time to explain it. (Ironically I do understand the significance of the June 1 deadline, although I'm not sure why it's there at all. Go figure.)

 

[Heyjoe4]

I think it all depends on what the plan is with Aaron Jones, as well as what Dillon and his agent are asking for. I can see a scenario where both players are back in Green Bay next season. However, if Dillon wants starting RB money and its top 20-25 for a RB, then the Packers might just let him walk.

Injuries and/or development of another back can change all those plans.

Agreed. And given the very public problems of Elliott, Cook, and Taylor in getting more money, or being paid too much - a RB and his agent might be a bit more reasonable going forward. So yeah, Jones and Dillon could be back next year. That's probably a good thing.

 

[Heyjoe4]

There is a difference between "Cap Hit" and "Dead Cap Hit". Hopefully, I get them right in explaining. As far as representing the "cash" paid out each year to each player, neither of them are usually reflective of actual cash/check given to that player in a given year. They can be, but often they aren't.

Cap Hit: This is the amount that each player effects the total cap for the Packers in a given season. When you add up all the "Cap Hits" of the roster, it's sum has to be on or under the NFL's cap limit for that season.

Dead Cap: This is more of an accounting margin for each player. It typically represents money that is either already paid out or guaranteed to the player, but deferred for reporting purpose to the future. If a player is cut or traded and there is dead cap money still due to be reported, it either all comes due (on the teams cap) in that year or can be divided between the current season and next season (against the cap), if it is declared a post June 1st transaction.

Given those 2 definitions. I'll give an example.

A player could be given a 4 year $48M dollar contract, with $10M guaranteed. In year 1, the team could structure it to be a $1M dollar cap hit. So the team pays the player his $12M salary in a check in year 1, but since only $1M was put against the present years cap, that players dead cap hit would be $11M (paid money pushed out into the future).

If the player is cut/traded the following offseason, that $11M needs to be reported as a cap hit on that next seasons cap. Or if it is a post June 1st transaction, divided between the 2 seasons.

A very simple salary would be a 1 year deal for $2M. The Packers would pay the player $2M, report $2M onto the cap and there would be $0 dead cap.

Thanks Poker. I appreciate the time you took to write this. Between you and mradtke - well you guys could give a clinic on this stuff. Anyway, I understand the cap, voidable years, and cap hit/dead cap hit much better.

I mentioned this earlier, but with parity, the NFL is a "win now" league - meaning to me a team will go all in for a year, maybe two to win a SB, and mortgage the future. If the team is solid at most or all position groups, this makes sense. I think it's what the Packers did with Rodgers, it was just executed poorly. I don't believe one guy can eat that much cap for the team to be competitive.

I guess Andy Reid and the Chiefs are the exception, although that might change. Justin Herbert making more than Patrick Mahomes (and every other player in the NFL) makes no sense to me. I think Mahomes deal averages about $45 mil/year while Herbert is at $62 mil/year. I might be off on these numbers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it's what the Packers did with Rodgers, it was just executed poorly. I don't believe one guy can eat that much cap for the team to be competitive.

As I was discussing with @Schultz, I think the Packers kind of straddled the "All-In With Rodgers" and "keeping an eye on the future". Now some might say they did a poor job at doing either, but I actually think the opposite. While they didn't do a perfect job on the all-in side or they would have won a SB or 2, but they did put themselves into position for it quite a few times. Hard to argue that back to back 13 win seasons isn't close to being on top of the mountain. A break here or there and they win those NFCCG's.

What they did a really good job on though, is being prepared for life without Rodgers. They never had a super solid exit plan for Rodgers, but Gute and the Packers knew it wasn't that far away when they drafted Love.

Now we won't really know how the "keeping an eye on the future" part of the approach works out just yet. However, here we sit, 4 1/2 months after Rodgers was traded and the Packers appear to be in pretty good shape, as long as that key piece, Rodgers replacement works out. Not a lot of teams have been able to do that.

 

[OldSchool101]

Happy Labor Day!
Once my wife was in Labor for 25 hours..
She told me it felt like she was working a Triple(t) shift.

 

[Heyjoe4]

As I was discussing with @Schultz, I think the Packers kind of straddled the "All-In With Rodgers" and "keeping an eye on the future". Now some might say they did a poor job at doing either, but I actually think the opposite. While they didn't do a perfect job on the all-in side or they would have won a SB or 2, but they did put themselves into position for it quite a few times. Hard to argue that back to back 13 win seasons isn't close to being on top of the mountain. A break here or there and they win those NFCCG's.

What they did a really good job on though, is being prepared for life without Rodgers. They never had a super solid exit plan for Rodgers, but Gute and the Packers knew it wasn't that far away when they drafted Love.

Now we won't really know how the "keeping an eye on the future" part of the approach works out just yet. However, here we sit, 4 1/2 months after Rodgers was traded and the Packers appear to be in pretty good shape, as long as that key piece, Rodgers replacement works out. Not a lot of teams have been able to do that.

All good points. Rodgers is arguably one of the best QBs to ever play the game. So yeah, the Packers weren’t afraid to go all in.

And I was a critic, but now see that Gluten did keep an eye on life after Rodgers. I think it will be a fun year as a fan. A lot of pieces are in place. Time to play the games.

 

[Half Empty]

Thanks Poker. I appreciate the time you took to write this. Between you and mradtke - well you guys could give a clinic on this stuff. Anyway, I understand the cap, voidable years, and cap hit/dead cap hit much better.

I mentioned this earlier, but with parity, the NFL is a "win now" league - meaning to me a team will go all in for a year, maybe two to win a SB, and mortgage the future. If the team is solid at most or all position groups, this makes sense. I think it's what the Packers did with Rodgers, it was just executed poorly. I don't believe one guy can eat that much cap for the team to be competitive.

I guess Andy Reid and the Chiefs are the exception, although that might change. Justin Herbert making more than Patrick Mahomes (and every other player in the NFL) makes no sense to me. I think Mahomes deal averages about $45 mil/year while Herbert is at $62 mil/year. I might be off on these numbers.

52 for Herbert

 

[Heyjoe4]

52 for Herbert

Thanks for the correction. Is that more than Hurts? Burrow will certainly set a record, for a day or two……

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Love is making $3,095,863 M this year. 98% of the people in the World would love that kind of money, but guessing most in the NFL look at is as peanuts for a starting QB.

 

[OldSchool101]

Love is making $3,095,863 M this year. 98% of the people in the World would love that kind of money, but guessing most in the NFL look at is as peanuts for a starting QB.

Aaron Jones is making 4X that no wonder why he’s smiling all the time

I suppose $$ will change real fast though if Lover Boy goes 30 TD 12 INT for 3,500+ etc. he’ll be making 4X what Aaron Jones makes very quickly.

Interesting note. Love will make Aaron Jones money next year even if he doesn’t play another snap. Must be a tough life!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Aaron Jones is making 4X that no wonder why he’s smiling all the time

I suppose $$ will change real fast though if Lover Boy goes 30 TD 12 INT for 3,500+ etc. he’ll be making 4X what Aaron Jones makes very quickly.

What was Gute thinking??!! He should have drafted Love THIS year, the Packers would have him on a rookie deal for 4-5 more seasons!

 

[OldSchool101]

What was Gute thinking??!! He should have drafted Love THIS year, the Packers would have him on a rookie deal for 4-5 more seasons!

Ha you’re still stuck in that rut!
Funny part is we had a thread topic several years ago about when we would draft Rodgers replacement. I think I had guessed about now (age 39-40) because I naturally figured Aaron takes care of his body pretty good.

I can’t find the thread now do you remember that conversation? Maybe 2019-2020 range?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ha you’re still stuck in that rut!
Funny part is we had a thread topic several years ago about when we would draft Rodgers replacement. I think I had guessed about now (age 39-40) because I naturally figured Aaron takes care of his body pretty good.

I can’t find the thread now do you remember that conversation? Maybe 2019-2020 range?

Wait, there has been chatter about replacing Rodgers??? I must have missed ALL that.

My guess, it started back around 2017 when he got injured and missed a lot of games. Back then, I don't think many Packer fans actually wanted him gone, but it was the start of him "being on the back 9 of 18 hole career". We all started realizing, that like Favre, the ride would end eventually.

 

[OldSchool101]

Wait, there has been chatter about replacing Rodgers??? I must have missed ALL that.

My guess, it started back around 2017 when he got injured and missed a lot of games. Back then, I don't think many Packer fans actually wanted him gone, but it was the start of him "being on the back 9 of 18 hole career". We all started realizing, that like Favre, the ride would end eventually.

That sound about right.
Wow ok. Time sure really flies when you’re busy bashing Rodgers.
What’s this? Love is our QB now? What year is this anyway?

 

[PackerDNA]

Why? Why try to trade for Taylor, when you're already pretty well set at running back. You'd be giving up a lot in pics and cap for a move that's not a " move the needle " type of move. Apparently all this news may have done is possibly alienate Dillon. Want to make a big move, that would have a difference making effect for the team? See about trading for Chris Jones.

 

[Snoops]

They are still interested in him currently Miami seems to be out. Buckle up

 

[Heyjoe4]

Why? Why try to trade for Taylor, when you're already pretty well set at running back. You'd be giving up a lot in pics and cap for a move that's not a " move the needle " type of move. Apparently all this news may have done is possibly alienate Dillon. Want to make a big move, that would have a difference making effect for the team? See about trading for Chris Jones.

I agree. All this talk about a RB in a market where RB has become almost like a commodity. I say "almost" because guys like Taylor and other greats at the position are not commodities.

And yeah this talk would alienate a guy like Dillon - but - I don't think Dillon is back next year under any conditions. He's gonna want feature-back money and he's not a feature back.

 

[AmishMafia]

I agree. All this talk about a RB in a market where RB has become almost like a commodity. I say "almost" because guys like Taylor and other greats at the position are not commodities.

And yeah this talk would alienate a guy like Dillon - but - I don't think Dillon is back next year under any conditions. He's gonna want feature-back money and he's not a feature back.

Well then he is going to bust his butt to have a great year to get a bigger deal. I hope he is back, the RB position is a buyers market. Looking forward to a big year for him and a decent contract extension.


I'm not sure we did much more than make a probing inquiry for Taylor. As a Wisconsin guy, maybe he wanted to come to the Packers. We probably will never know.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well then he is going to bust his butt to have a great year to get a bigger deal. I hope he is back, the RB position is a buyers market. Looking forward to a big year for him and a decent contract extension.


I'm not sure we did much more than make a probing inquiry for Taylor. As a Wisconsin guy, maybe he wanted to come to the Packers. We probably will never know.

Agree with all. I don't know where the Taylor/GB rumors started. I don't think it was the media or the Packers' FO. Who knows. That's why they're called rumors. This one just seems like a real stretch.

And yeah, if Taylor has a career year, or close to it, once he returns, he should be able to command a good contract. Yeah RBs have overall Benn devalued, but Taylor is or could be arguably the best RB in the NFL. And he's young. Make hay while the sun is shining. I don't see him in GB though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why? Why try to trade for Taylor, when you're already pretty well set at running back. You'd be giving up a lot in pics and cap for a move that's not a " move the needle " type of move. Apparently all this news may have done is possibly alienate Dillon. Want to make a big move, that would have a difference making effect for the team? See about trading for Chris Jones.

I totally agree with you, for this season and one other reason. However, I think if Taylor is someone the Packers want, it would be for this season and beyond. The idea of loosing both Jones and Dillon for 2024 is most definitely a possibility. Jones is cut/traded due to cost and Dillon walks via Free Agency.

The other reason I wouldn't want the Packers trading for him, is if it cost too much in draft resources (1st round). Now if he cost the Packers Dillon, and a 3rd rounder and a new contract was reasonable, I would be intrigued. A second rounder and Dillon? Maybe, since we do have 3 picks in rounds 1-2, you trade the worst pick of either the Jets pick that we own or our 2nd rounder.

Trading for a 24 year old elite RB, when you are possibly facing not having a proven RB on the roster in 2024 wouldn't be a bad move. Having Taylor and Jones at RB in 2023, might be just what Love needs to settle in. If it was a super successful combination, who knows what Jones might do with his contract, to remain a Packer and extend his career with not being a lone workhorse on another team.

 

[PackAttack12]

Another trade that Gute *almost* made.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Another trade that Gute *almost* made.

Yeah we may never know all the details. The media likes to play things up. Hell, there is a Wisconsin writer, I won't name him, but I am so done clicking on his articles. They are always just his speculation on Packer trades, none of which seem to have anything but speculation behind them and he is usually leaning towards the extreme on what he thinks the trades would include. He also usually titles them with something that people will want to click on like "Packers trade For Davante Adams". Followed by a bunch of gobbly goop that he puts together to talk about why the trade makes sense to him.

I always said it would have been fun to hang out with TT for a day and try to get all the gritty details of what fans don't know. Same goes for Gute, guessing he could fill an 8 hour fishing trip with plenty of "almost did this" or "he did/said this" stories.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Question.

The Colts put Taylor on their PUP, prior to training camp. Which means he has to sit out for at least 4 games. My question is this, if he is traded, can he automatically play for his new team or does he still have to sit out a total of 4 games?

I assume the answer is "yes, he has to still sit out a total of 4 games", which brings his value down some.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I totally agree with you, for this season and one other reason. However, I think if Taylor is someone the Packers want, it would be for this season and beyond. The idea of loosing both Jones and Dillon for 2024 is most definitely a possibility. Jones is cut/traded due to cost and Dillon walks via Free Agency.

The other reason I wouldn't want the Packers trading for him, is if it cost too much in draft resources (1st round). Now if he cost the Packers Dillon, and a 3rd rounder and a new contract was reasonable, I would be intrigued. A second rounder and Dillon? Maybe, since we do have 3 picks in rounds 1-2, you trade the worst pick of either the Jets pick that we own or our 2nd rounder.

Trading for a 24 year old elite RB, when you are possibly facing not having a proven RB on the roster in 2024 wouldn't be a bad move. Having Taylor and Jones at RB in 2023, might be just what Love needs to settle in. If it was a super successful combination, who knows what Jones might do with his contract, to remain a Packer and extend his career with not being a lone workhorse on another team.

Good points. I'm just wondering if the Packers could afford it. Taylor doesn't sound like he's gonna be providing any discounts.

 

[milani]

Good points. I'm just wondering if the Packers could afford it. Taylor doesn't sound like he's gonna be providing any discounts.

Packers do not need a RB.