The Spectre of 2017 FA's

[PackerDNA]

I don't think the inflation trajectory is quite that pronounced, but that's certainly the general idea. In this instance, there are several good kickers still under their cheap rookie deals who will be bouncing up the list and likely passing Crosby in fairly short order, with more to come as the best current vets come up for second, third or fourth contracts given the longevity of place kickers.

The backup money at year 5 is a real stretch given the simple fact of the rookie salary schedule. There will always be starters under their rookie deals getting paid relative peanuts. Average starter vets will always be "overpaid", if you want to look at that way, relative to guys who have panned out in their first 4 years.

Maybe a wee bit of exaggeration on my part to make a point.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think a lot of my posts try to dig into that process to maybe encourage others to dive below the surface in their evaluations of TT's moves or seeming lack thereof. I know there's a lot of hypotheticals in there but I hope also a lot of fact as well. I think TT is a thinking man's GM and when we slow down and take a look at things carefully, I think we probably agree with him a whole lot more than we disagree. We may not get what we think we should or could have, we end up with pretty good at the end of the day.

No one get's it right every time but getting it right more than the other guys is the goal. Hind sight is 20/20, it's the fore sight that's a lot tougher.

I have mixed feeling on the matter. I generally agree with the draft and develop approach, even if a few more modest FA signings like Guion to help back an fill would have been welcome in the years where cap space permitted it.

Because he's so committed to the draft and his "Packer guys", and so averse to free agency, he's tended to pay up a little on retained FAs. Every once in while there are guys who evidently don't want to leave and don't hardball their deal and come in a little on the cheap side...Nelson, Sitton in past deals for instance...but by in large I don't think the level at which guys have played at or above their contracts or draft status, in the aggregate, has been particularly impressive.

Then there's the execution of the philosophy. The 2011 and 2012 drafts have proved to be sub-par...I think we're now down to 3 players on the roster from those 2 drafts. Sure, had a few of them panned out, the cap might not be there to pay them now. But had they panned out, more playoff success might have been in the offing the past few years. Those drafts are black marks on a good record.

I don't think I've ever suggested Thompson be replaced, even when in a particular fit of pique over some move, like drafting Perry or Jones, or finding out he offered Raji $8 mil per year after a crappy season which he thankfully declined. (Capers is, of course, another matter. )

But I don't think Thompson's track record ranks among the best GMs. Good, sort of, not great. His signature moves were drafting Rodgers and then knowing when he was ready in order to end the Favre dramas. That's paid a ton of dividends that covers over to some extent the overall quality of his rosters.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers could have gone with a rookie kicker, most likely without any decline in performance (there are a ton of facts supporting that claim) and saved $13 million in cap space over the next four years.

Even if some other kickers will surpass Crosby's average salary over the length of the contract there's absolutely no way this deal will end up being a bargain.

Frankly, I didn't like the contract either, and said so at the time, because like you I see Crosby as being overrated.

The point being, to think of him as the #2 average pay kicker in the league at the time of the deal (and now #3) as an affront to all that is cap and holy, is somewhat of an exaggeration as he'll fall down the list in pretty short order.

The deal is an expression of risk aversion, the devil you know being better than the one you don't. Risk aversion is a Thompson hallmark. Every philosophy has it's strengths and weaknesses, and if one is OK with Thompson this is taking a little of the bad to go with the good, with the bad improving as Crosby works his way through this contract.

A rookie, no matter how good in college, represents a risk when placed under NFL pressure or developing a different holder chemistry. Further, if you look at the better kicker prospects in this draft, for instance, you'll be hard pressed to find one who did much cold weather duty. While Crosby's cold weather rep is not up to common perception, as you so well supported in that post from a few weeks back, it can be worse. We remember the kickers who make it, but forget (or more likely never knew) the ones who don't get past camp or preseason.

In other words, I don't see it as a good deal, but I don't see as any kind of game changer either. If Thompson looks like he overpaid by $1 million per year, that will improve as we move along.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And he is definitely as close to a starting center as you can get for a backup.

I agree with that, which brings to mind another thought. Tretter is a free agent after 2017 along with the starting O-Linemen. His center work is on tape. A team running a zone scheme in need of a center might offer what we think of as a surprising offer. That could put upward pressure on any Packer offer if he's pegged to replace one of the guards. If he's still in backup mode, for whatever reason, it would be hard to justify matching a starting center offer. Under that scenario, look for him to be gone.

 

[Ace]

Well, let’s just look at this from a simple math standpoint and see where we’re at. I know simple math and contracts is hard to do but it will give us a rough estimate anyways. As of now we have roughly $123M on the books going into next offseason. If the cap is $165M ($10 more than this year) we are at $42M in space. If we roll over $5M let’s say, we have $47M in space.

Re-signing our own core guys (estimations of course):
Bahk - $8M per
Sitton - $7M per (slight raise over what he’s making now)
Lang - $6M per (slight raise over what he’s making now, gave him a little more because he’s less injury prone)
Lacy - $5M per (low end I think assuming he has a good year)
Perry - $5M per (assuming he stays healthy and produces)
Hyde - $3M per (no idea what his market will be)

Right there is $34M in per year money.

Fringe guys:
Tretter - $2M per? (Much like the Lane deal would be my guess)
Datone - $3M per? (Similar to his rookie deal, and what we’ve paid Neal)
Restricted guys are hard to project because of the tenders, and I have no idea what we’d tender them as.

So another $5M+ if we keep Tretter, Datone, and the restricted guys. Now, if he re-signs both Sitton and Lang I have a hard time seeing Tretter sticking around when I think he could start elsewhere so minus him out if you like. Maybe you earmark Tretter’s money for a guy like Barrington.

Again, there is nothing concrete here obviously, and based on a lot of assumptions but realistically we aren’t going to have a ton of money next year either. I know I’m the guy who has said I’d take years of being up against it if it meant more SB’s but look at it, we’re going to be up against it anyways more or less. We don’t have the money if we want to keep our own, it’s just not there unless he gets creative which I don’t believe Ted is prone to do because all that really does is create problems down the line.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, let’s just look at this from a simple math standpoint and see where we’re at. I know simple math and contracts is hard to do but it will give us a rough estimate anyways. As of now we have roughly $123M on the books going into next offseason. If the cap is $165M ($10 more than this year) we are at $42M in space. If we roll over $5M let’s say, we have $47M in space.

Re-signing our own core guys (estimations of course):
Bahk - $8M per
Sitton - $7M per (slight raise over what he’s making now)
Lang - $6M per (slight raise over what he’s making now, gave him a little more because he’s less injury prone)
Lacy - $5M per (low end I think assuming he has a good year)
Perry - $5M per (assuming he stays healthy and produces)
Hyde - $3M per (no idea what his market will be)

Right there is $34M in per year money.

Fringe guys:
Tretter - $2M per? (Much like the Lane deal would be my guess)
Datone - $3M per? (Similar to his rookie deal, and what we’ve paid Neal)
Restricted guys are hard to project because of the tenders, and I have no idea what we’d tender them as.

So another $5M+ if we keep Tretter, Datone, and the restricted guys. Now, if he re-signs both Sitton and Lang I have a hard time seeing Tretter sticking around when I think he could start elsewhere so minus him out if you like. Maybe you earmark Tretter’s money for a guy like Barrington.

Again, there is nothing concrete here obviously, and based on a lot of assumptions but realistically we aren’t going to have a ton of money next year either. I know I’m the guy who has said I’d take years of being up against it if it meant more SB’s but look at it, we’re going to be up against it anyways more or less. We don’t have the money if we want to keep our own, it’s just not there unless he gets creative which I don’t believe Ted is prone to do because all that really does is create problems down the line.

According to Over the Cap the Packers have already committed $126.7 million towards the cap for only 29 players. So you have to subtract at least another $8 million of cap space for guys filling out the bottom of the roster.

 

[Ace]

According to Over the Cap the Packers have already committed $126.7 million towards the cap for only 29 players. So you have to subtract at least another $8 million of cap space for guys filling out the bottom of the roster.

Right, I actually wrote this in email to a buddy before the Starks deal so that would be about right.

The point is, $40+ million gets eaten up real quick if we want to keep their own guys.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The point is, $40+ million gets eaten up real quick if we want to keep their own guys.

Well, actually it´s pretty obvious the Packers won´t be able to re-sign all of their core free agents in 2017.

 

[Ace]

Well, actually it´s pretty obvious the Packers won´t be able to re-sign all of their core free agents in 2017.

You think so? I don't think it's likely but I don't think it's impossible either. Wasn't what I was getting at though, simply saying there's a reason he hasn't gone hog wild in free agency. He can't, not with what's coming down the road. At some point Clay and Aaron are going to come calling again as well and if I were Aaron I'd be asking for more $ now to be honest looking at what these QB's are signing for. We have Aaron at a bargain right now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You think so? I don't think it's likely but I don't think it's impossible either. Wasn't what I was getting at though, simply saying there's a reason he hasn't gone hog wild in free agency. He can't, not with what's coming down the road. At some point Clay and Aaron are going to come calling again as well and if I were Aaron I'd be asking for more $ now to be honest looking at what these QB's are signing for. We have Aaron at a bargain right now.

Well, with the numbers you suggested it would take the Packers to re-sign their core players ($34 million per season) even filling out the roster with only minimum rookies ($8.37 million) would result in the Packers being over the cap. The team will have to use more than $2 million additional cap space on draftees, $1 million on the practice squad players and save another couple millions for replacements for players being put on injured reserve.

That makes me believe that the Packers won´t be able to re-sign all of their high priced free agents next offseason. I agree that´s a reason he hasn´t signed any unrestricted free agents but overpaying for the team´s own didn´t help the matter either. While Rodgers isn´t the highest paid QB in the league he´s far from a bargain either.

 

[tynimiller]

You think so? I don't think it's likely but I don't think it's impossible either. Wasn't what I was getting at though, simply saying there's a reason he hasn't gone hog wild in free agency. He can't, not with what's coming down the road. At some point Clay and Aaron are going to come calling again as well and if I were Aaron I'd be asking for more $ now to be honest looking at what these QB's are signing for. We have Aaron at a bargain right now.

I think at some point Clay Mathews will be wearing a different uniform sadly...gut feeling I hope is wrong.

 

[Ace]

Well, with the numbers you suggested it would take the Packers to re-sign their core players ($34 million per season) even filling out the roster with only minimum rookies ($8.37 million) would result in the Packers being over the cap. The team will have to use more than $2 million additional cap space on draftees, $1 million on the practice squad players and save another couple millions for replacements for players being put on injured reserve.

That makes me believe that the Packers won´t be able to re-sign all of their high priced free agents next offseason. I agree that´s a reason he hasn´t signed any unrestricted free agents but overpaying for the team´s own didn´t help the matter either. While Rodgers isn´t the highest paid QB in the league he´s far from a bargain either.

Who did he overpay for? And even if he did, he didn't overpay by some crazy number. And as I've said before, for every slight overpayment, there's an incredible deal i.e. Mike Daniels.

Fine, hard to call anyone a bargain at damn near $20M per year but relatively speaking he is.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Who did he overpay for? And even if he did, he didn't overpay by some crazy number. And as I've said before, for every slight overpayment, there's an incredible deal i.e. Mike Daniels.

There´s no doubt Daniels´ deal is a good one, Thompson overpaid for every other player he re-signed though.

 

[Ace]

There´s no doubt Daniels´ deal is a good one, Thompson overpaid for every other player he re-signed though.

Agree to disagree I guess. Perry maybe but it's a one year deal, not a back breaker IMO. Starks has $1.5M guaranteed, hardly a tough pill to swallow if he wants to walk away from him after this year. If Lane Taylor is starting next year, he's a bargain. I mean I somewhat understand where you (and others) are coming from when they say he overpaid but like I said even if he did, he didn't overpay by some crazy amount on anyone.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agree to disagree I guess. Perry maybe but it's a one year deal, not a back breaker IMO. Starks has $1.5M guaranteed, hardly a tough pill to swallow if he wants to walk away from him after this year. If Lane Taylor is starting next year, he's a bargain. I mean I somewhat understand where you (and others) are coming from when they say he overpaid but like I said even if he did, he didn't overpay by some crazy amount on anyone.

If the Packers release Starks after the 2016 season he will have counted a total of $3 million towards the cap for one year. None of Perry, Guion and Taylor even played 40% of the snaps last season but will count a combined $10 million towards the cap in 2016. Crosby is an average kicker making $4 million a year.

All of these contracts for rotational or backup players resulted in the Packers not being able to get starters in free agency or will factor into not re-signing core players after next season.

 

[Mondio]

Agree to disagree I guess. Perry maybe but it's a one year deal, not a back breaker IMO. Starks has $1.5M guaranteed, hardly a tough pill to swallow if he wants to walk away from him after this year. If Lane Taylor is starting next year, he's a bargain. I mean I somewhat understand where you (and others) are coming from when they say he overpaid but like I said even if he did, he didn't overpay by some crazy amount on anyone.

But everyone else's free agents are cheaper, dontchaknow?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But everyone else's free agents are cheaper, dontchaknow?

Do you honestly believe it was a smart move by Thompson to spend more money on average per season to re-sign Perry, Crosby and Taylor than it would have cost to bring in Trevathan and Green or Freeman???

 

[El Guapo]

I honestly believe that Thompson is planning on Tretter and Taylor (get it, TT...) replacing Sitton and Lang on the inside. He rolled with much worse options in 2005. That would allow him to sign Bahktiari while he searches the draft for Bulaga's eventually replacement.

I agree with others. I don't think that Ted will pay big bucks for Lacy if he has a good season and gets interest in the FA market. He'll let Eddie walk and work on drafting another. He will likely draft one in the lower rounds this year, looking for someone who can demonstrate a reason to let Eddie walk - if need be.

 

[PackerDNA]

I honestly believe that Thompson is planning on Tretter and Taylor (get it, TT...) replacing Sitton and Lang on the inside. He rolled with much worse options in 2005. That would allow him to sign Bahktiari while he searches the draft for Bulaga's eventually replacement.

I agree with others. I don't think that Ted will pay big bucks for Lacy if he has a good season and gets interest in the FA market. He'll let Eddie walk and work on drafting another. He will likely draft one in the lower rounds this year, looking for someone who can demonstrate a reason to let Eddie walk - if need be.

I agree, at least on Taylor. And if that is the mindset, than I have a problem with it.
You're gonna decide on a position a whole year in advance without even considering any other options or possibilities?

 

[Mondio]

what's wrong with that? it's forward thinking and it gives us possibilities. None of them are signed to contracts that says they must stay or must go. Maybe someone better is available in the draft? Would it be better to not have anyone under contract? Have both guys with more leverage as FA's in the same year at the same position? Would it be better to go into next year with neither under contract?

 

[PackerDNA]

what's wrong with that? it's forward thinking and it gives us possibilities. None of them are signed to contracts that says they must stay or must go. Maybe someone better is available in the draft? Would it be better to not have anyone under contract? Have both guys with more leverage as FA's in the same year at the same position? Would it be better to go into next year with neither under contract?

Forward thinking? It's lazy on the cheap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, let’s just look at this from a simple math standpoint and see where we’re at. I know simple math and contracts is hard to do but it will give us a rough estimate anyways. As of now we have roughly $123M on the books going into next offseason. If the cap is $165M ($10 more than this year) we are at $42M in space. If we roll over $5M let’s say, we have $47M in space.

Re-signing our own core guys (estimations of course):
Bahk - $8M per
Sitton - $7M per (slight raise over what he’s making now)
Lang - $6M per (slight raise over what he’s making now, gave him a little more because he’s less injury prone)
Lacy - $5M per (low end I think assuming he has a good year)
Perry - $5M per (assuming he stays healthy and produces)
Hyde - $3M per (no idea what his market will be)

Right there is $34M in per year money.

Fringe guys:
Tretter - $2M per? (Much like the Lane deal would be my guess)
Datone - $3M per? (Similar to his rookie deal, and what we’ve paid Neal)
Restricted guys are hard to project because of the tenders, and I have no idea what we’d tender them as.

So another $5M+ if we keep Tretter, Datone, and the restricted guys. Now, if he re-signs both Sitton and Lang I have a hard time seeing Tretter sticking around when I think he could start elsewhere so minus him out if you like. Maybe you earmark Tretter’s money for a guy like Barrington.

Again, there is nothing concrete here obviously, and based on a lot of assumptions but realistically we aren’t going to have a ton of money next year either. I know I’m the guy who has said I’d take years of being up against it if it meant more SB’s but look at it, we’re going to be up against it anyways more or less. We don’t have the money if we want to keep our own, it’s just not there unless he gets creative which I don’t believe Ted is prone to do because all that really does is create problems down the line.

You've underpriced Lang, Hyde and Tretter. I'd say $5 mil light in the aggregate. If either Perry or Jones steps up as heir to Peppers, then you've underpriced that guy as well. If they don't step up, you're now in the market for a 3-4 OLB, not something you can count on to pick up in the 2017 draft, even in the first round, and slam into the starting lineup.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Do you honestly believe it was a smart move by Thompson to spend more money on average per season to re-sign Perry, Crosby and Taylor than it would have cost to bring in Trevathan and Green or Freeman???

I don't see how anyone can disagree. They could have completely filled that void with the same amount spent on players who won't be any more effective than much cheaper players.

 

[Mondio]

Forward thinking? It's lazy on the cheap.

How do arrive at that conclusion?

 

[PackerDNA]

How do arrive at that conclusion?

You're going to decide- a year plus in advance- that an unknown- and IMO unproven, limited player- will be one of your starting guards in 2017? without knowing or so much as considering other possible options that could present themselves in that time? Do you decide important matters in your life without even considering other options a year plus in advance?