Trade Deadline Targets

[Mondio]

That was said tongue firmly in cheek.

But in all seriousness, I do believe a new contract could be worked out right now, but I doubt that contract talk with a player like Chander Jones, who's current contract averages $16.5M/year until 2021, is going to include "we can only pay you $5M for the rest of the season and oh by the way, will you reduce the next 3 as well?"

I'm pretty sure that unless a player is without a contract now, no existing contracts can re-negotiated until sometime in March of 2019

 

[Dantés]

Well first off the Cardinals are clearly in rebuild mode after this debacle of a season. The Packers dangle BOTH those 1st rd picks. Some of you guys are enamored with the ideal of keeping them...I’m not. I want a proven commodity still on a very friendly deal. You make it seem like getting the guy would be impossible smh. Cards can clear 86 mil, and have 3 first rd picks with money to play with. It’s not a terrible deal at all. I know it’s hard to fathom at times being a Packers fan.

You're going to trade TWO 1st round picks for a 28 year old on a 5 year 82.5M$ contract? I'm not saying Jones is overpaid, but that is not a team friendly deal. That was a top of market deal when he signed it.

A GM who ships out two first round selections for a guy getting top $ and about to turn 29 should be fired.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm pretty sure that unless a player is without a contract now, no existing contracts can re-negotiated until sometime in March of 2019

Someone else chime in here, but I am pretty sure a contract can be reworked at anytime, as long as both parties agree to it? Thus, if the Packers had traded for Mack, who was refusing to play under the terms of his current contract, a new contract had to be worked out first.

 

[Mondio]

Someone else chime in here, but I am pretty sure a contract can be reworked at anytime, as long as both parties agree to it? Thus, if the Packers had traded for Mack, who was refusing to play under the terms of his current contract, a new contract had to be worked out first.

That was before the 1st game though right?

 

[jiggz125]

How about Shane Ray?
https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/Shane-Ray-trade-Packers-NFL-Network--123784338/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That was before the 1st game though right?

Yes it was, good point. I can't find the rules on "when a new contract can be entered into by a players current team or one he is traded to". But with all the trade talk of some guys being on their final year, why would anyone even consider trading for them if they can't lock them up for more than just this season?

 

[Mondio]

Yes it was, good point. I can't find the rules on "when a new contract can be entered into by a players current team or one he is traded to". But with all the trade talk of some guys being on their final year, why would anyone even consider trading for them if they can't lock them up for more than just this season?

Maybe a reason all these blockbuster trades are never more than fans talking, most like us that don't really know the rules First rights to negotiate I guess? like now Bell is locked into that Franchise tag contract no matter who he plays for (if he were in fact to be traded) unless the Steelers rescinded it and he became a FA. at least that's how I understood it. But maybe that is just because he's a Tagged player. I guess technically right now he has no contract with anyone, but he can't play for anyone else either. It's weird.

ETA: In reading about Bell, this is about the best I could find about in season trades that doesn't come from what's swimming up in my melon

A team must have enough salary-cap room to absorb a player's current salary in order to trade for him.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-might-work-and-why-it-would-be-so-difficult/
That doesn't really give a lot of details, but I assume it to mean, we can't trade for Jones without making some room and none of our big money guys count because their contracts are now guaranteed. Best we could do with one of them is move them to IR and make a roster space, but there will be no cap relief by letting any of them go.

 

[McKnowledge]

If you keep a close on Free Agency, these "one year guys" you speak of do not dominate the list. You are talking about guys who are probably bigger unknowns than signing our own guys or other teams guys to a 3-4 year deal. "One year guys" are typically guys who nobody is quite sure of, but both the player and the team are willing to sign a "prove it" deal.

I am sure you could make me a list of all the "one year" guys that outperformed their 1 year contract, but I could find an equal amount of guys that didn't. Trying to build a team year to year with "one year deals" is not an ideal way to build a team, nor is it the way of the Packers.

If I had my way, each guy would get paid strictly on what he actually earns, incentive pay, but that probably will never happen. One year deals are about as close as you get to that, but still a very unstable way to build a solid roster from year to year.

If you had your way running a football organization, nobody would want to be a part of it. Strictly incentive laden deals may deter a veteran player that has produced year after year, from joining your organization. Guaranteed contracts should be be a part of football. However, I think any deal longer than 4 years isn't good for business. For example, the deal for Kirk Cousins is ideal, because it coincides with the Vikings' perception of their championship window. He gets paid for his service as a franchise QB, and if the Vikings aren't satisfied, the contract has ended with all money paid out.

Obviously, one year deals are not an ideal way to construct a roster, however they are important in "hedging your bets". Because essentially that's what a draft pick is, a bet that a player will live up to potential. I proposed on year deals, and I think I was quite clear, as a means to maintain production from an experienced player, either due to injury or the unknown expectations of a rookie. Roster construction is a fluid process and should remain so. Sticking to a basic template can sink an organization.

Definitely not a Patriots fan, but I like their business model. They target players they cannot live without, pay them, and fill out the rest of their roster with mid level players and draft picks. Players they have drafted, that exceed expectations, but do not fit the roster construction are flipped for other teams's draft picks or once that player leaves the Patriots are rewarded with a compensatory pick. Either way they replenish their roster without allocating money for a player that doesn't fit their vision of the roster construction.

 

[OldSchool101]

I’m not saying don’t try. But I just don’t think GB is just one Probowl level player away from a Championship (yes, even Khalil Mack).
I believe we are 5-6 players away.
I do think that in 2019 GB can manipulate their 2-1st rounders along with a mixture of a 2nd day and/or 3rd day pick to get 2 formidable players (also with 5th year options that pair nicely with most of #12s contract). This should reduce that overall needed personnel number to 3-4 needed playmakers. Much like a junior version of the 2018 Buffalo Bills trades. If we can end up with say...a top 15 pick and another top 20 pick without trading more than 4 total picks we will still have 5 remaining draft choices, which in turn still gives us plenty of resources to work with.
Then if we make a couple of wise, but crucial logistical FA contract moves to free up Cap space, we can NET at least 2 more quality players in 2019 and we are very close to the needed ingredients for a winning recipe.

By the 2019 playoffs there needs to be just a couple of other young players (rookie or 1st year players) that elevate their game enough to win starting positions. Think Martinez types here that are found mid draft.
The problem with putting all your eggs in one Khalil wicker basket is that you become 1 injury away from a lost season. You drop that basket? breakfast, lunch and dinner are over and it makes for a very long day on an empty stomach.

If we were self perceived to be 1 stellar player away from a Championship team..no way do we trade current resources for future picks. I believe GB goes after at least one Edge rusher in FA next year among others. IMO it’s also possible they take another LB with pass rushing traits early in the draft

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you had your way running a football organization, nobody would want to be a part of it. Strictly incentive laden deals may deter a veteran player that has produced year after year, from joining your organization. Guaranteed contracts should be be a part of football. However, I think any deal longer than 4 years isn't good for business. For example, the deal for Kirk Cousins is ideal, because it coincides with the Vikings' perception of their championship window. He gets paid for his service as a franchise QB, and if the Vikings aren't satisfied, the contract has ended with all money paid out.

Obviously, one year deals are not an ideal way to construct a roster, however they are important in "hedging your bets". Because essentially that's what a draft pick is, a bet that a player will live up to potential. I proposed on year deals, and I think I was quite clear, as a means to maintain production from an experienced player, either due to injury or the unknown expectations of a rookie. Roster construction is a fluid process and should remain so. Sticking to a basic template can sink an organization.

Definitely not a Patriots fan, but I like their business model. They target players they cannot live without, pay them, and fill out the rest of their roster with mid level players and draft picks. Players they have drafted, that exceed expectations, but do not fit the roster construction are flipped for other teams's draft picks or once that player leaves the Patriots are rewarded with a compensatory pick. Either way they replenish their roster without allocating money for a player that doesn't fit their vision of the roster construction.

When you get done talking out of both sides of your back end, just let me know.

How do you compete for championship by overpaying for veterans not performing to the standards of their contracts.

Guaranteed contracts should be be a part of football. However, I think any deal longer than 4 years isn't good for business.

Obviously, one year deals are not an ideal way to construct a roster, however they are important in "hedging your bets". Because essentially that's what a draft pick is, a bet that a player will live up to potential.

Sounds more like you are hedging your answers to try and make a point, your point being.....you like to use hindsight and say it was a mistake for the Packers to sign this guy or that guy to a longer than one year contract, when if they wanted to sign that guy, a longer than one year contract was probably their only option.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Packers look real dumb not getting Eric Reed. He’s already made more plays in 2 games than Brice has made all season. That was a bad choice not to at least bring him in smh. Sometimes I don’t think this franchise is willing to do whatever it takes to win
More SB’s. That signing would’ve at least solved one major issue on the defense.

Reid currently has allowed a perfect passer rating when being targeted so far this season.

How do you compete for championship by overpaying for veterans not performing to the standards of their contracts. Why offer long term deals to players that only produce in bursts or one standalone season? I agree the Packers haven't drafted well the past few seasons.

How is that trying to bring home a championship?

The hope that a player performs up to standards isn't a good plan.

Once again, the Packers have definitely tried to compete for another Lombardi by using the financial resources available to improve the roster. The reason it hasn't worked out isn't because of a lack of effort from the front office but players not performing up to expectations.

BTW there's hope involved with every contract being signed around the league as there aren't any guarantees even with elite players.

There's a big difference between re-signing a player for multiple years and signing a free agent for one year. History shows and suggest, which is factual information, that Packers tend overpay for their drafted players once their rookie deal is up. A huge deal I never agreed with was re-signing Nick Perry. I think he was re-signed out of fear that he would go to another team and start ballin' a la Casey Hayward.

And in all honesty, I personally think the Packers overpay, because they know that some players would prefer to live and play somewhere else. Green Bay is a small market and isn't the first choice for players with great talent, it just isn't. Offering one year deals to veterans that have developed a resume is mutually beneficial for both sides. Its only one year.

The Packers made a smart move by re-signing Perry at the point he was headed for free agency. Most productive players wouldn't agree to a one-year deal no matter what.

I don't think it's true that Green Bay being a small market prevents the Packers from signing free agents. The best player in the league feeling comfortable in Wisconsin should work as evidence for it.

Someone else chime in here, but I am pretty sure a contract can be reworked at anytime, as long as both parties agree to it? Thus, if the Packers had traded for Mack, who was refusing to play under the terms of his current contract, a new contract had to be worked out first.

Maybe a reason all these blockbuster trades are never more than fans talking, most like us that don't really know the rules First rights to negotiate I guess? like now Bell is locked into that Franchise tag contract no matter who he plays for (if he were in fact to be traded) unless the Steelers rescinded it and he became a FA. at least that's how I understood it. But maybe that is just because he's a Tagged player. I guess technically right now he has no contract with anyone, but he can't play for anyone else either. It's weird.

Teams are allowed to renegotiate contracts with most players at any point during the season. Take Adams as an example who signed his extension before week 17 of last season.

There are different rules in place for players having been franchise tagged as they have to agree to an extension by mid-July or otherwise are forced to play that season under the tag.

However, I think any deal longer than 4 years isn't good for business. For example, the deal for Kirk Cousins is ideal, because it coincides with the Vikings' perception of their championship window.

I definitely don't consider Cousins' deal with the Vikings as an ideal one.

 

[Mondio]

So they could renegotiate it, but to make the trade in the first place they need to have the space to take on the current contract?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Teams are allowed to renegotiate contracts with most players at any point during the season.

Thanks Captain, I thought that was the case.

So they could renegotiate it, but to make the trade in the first place they need to have the space to take on the current contract?

Just guessing again, but I imagine that a new contract could be worked out as a condition of the trade happening and there is some sort of "cap grace" period while the trade(s) and the contract are completed. For instance if the Packers were going to trade Mathews for Landon Collins, both teams could probably sign each player to a new contract in succession with the trade.

 

[Mondio]

Thanks Captain, I thought that was the case.



Just guessing again, but I imagine that a new contract could be worked out as a condition of the trade happening and there is some sort of "cap grace" period while the trade(s) and the contract are completed. For instance if the Packers were going to trade Mathews for Landon Collins, both teams could probably sign each player to a new contract in succession with the trade.

I’m pretty sure it’s not the case. You can add to a players cap hit for that season like they did with Adams. Allow teams to use some space this year yet when spreading it out. Though being able to carry over cap space kind of gets rid of that benefit.

I don’t have a link, but I am almost certain you couldn’t do what you suggested. Both have contracts that are guaranteed. At least Matthews does at this point. He’s not making less this year no matter how you want to slice it. Neither is Chandler Jones. Probably the best you could do is convert salary to “bonus” and give him more and subtract from future years.

But we do not have cap space to trade for Jones and there is zero chance the Cardinals are going to renegotiate a contract that only hurts their cap and puts more dead money to their future for a player they’re getting rid of before they make a trade. I’m not aware of any cap grace period during the season.

 

[McKnowledge]

When you get done talking out of both sides of your back end, just let me know.

I don't know what that means...

Sounds more like you are hedging your answers to try and make a point, your point being.....you like to use hindsight and say it was a mistake for the Packers to sign this guy or that guy to a longer than one year contract, when if they wanted to sign that guy, a longer than one year contract was probably their only option.

For the record, I was never a fan of the Nick Perry signing, and when the Packers offer Ha Ha Clinton Dix a long term deal, I won't support that either. What you call hindsight, I call facts. These facts are the results of history, a past suggesting that most re-signing of players drafted by the Packers usually don't end well. Past performance, in this case, with the front office indicates a tendency to overpay and sometimes overvalue a players worth.

 

[McKnowledge]

Once again, the Packers have definitely tried to compete for another Lombardi by using the financial resources available to improve the roster. The reason it hasn't worked out isn't because of a lack of effort from the front office but players not performing up to expectations.

BTW there's hope involved with every contract being signed around the league as there aren't any guarantees even with elite players.

Kirk Cousins deal suggests otherwise. There will be others in the future.

The Packers made a smart move by re-signing Perry at the point he was headed for free agency. Most productive players wouldn't agree to a one-year deal no matter what.

I don't think it's true that Green Bay being a small market prevents the Packers from signing free agents. The best player in the league feeling comfortable in Wisconsin should work as evidence for it.

That's a lot of money tied to a one hit wonder. Perry played well in his contract year, and that was the only time he truly gave maximum effort. Tape don't lie. What's worse is his contract is very hard to trade.

I definitely don't consider Cousins' deal with the Vikings as an ideal one.

That's your opinion. I would imagine the Vikings are trying to use the financial resources available to them to improve their roster. Getting a player they identified as elite, and him choosing them seems like an ideal situation. That was a huge move that directly threatened Packers place in divisional hierarchy.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't know what that means...

For the record, I was never a fan of the Nick Perry signing, and when the Packers offer Ha Ha Clinton Dix a long term deal, I won't support that either. What you call hindsight, I call facts. These facts are the results of history, a past suggesting that most re-signing of players drafted by the Packers usually don't end well. Past performance, in this case, with the front office indicates a tendency to overpay and sometimes overvalue a players worth.

So going off of your "facts of history" as well as your "knowledge", the Packers should never sign a player to a second year contract? So this leaves you fielding a team of 1st to 4th/5th year players, unless your wisdom says "its ok to sign FA from other teams to their second contracts, because those teams know how to draft better than the Packers".

You seem to be cherry picking a few cases where 2nd contracts didn't work out for the Packer organization and forgetting about Players like Nelson, Bahk, Adams, Farve, Rodgers and on and on....but those guys don't matter to you, because they don't fit your argument of "don't overpay a Packer player with a second contract".

 

[Mike McCarthy]

So after reading through all these posts it is evident that the consensus of the posters on this forum is the Packers are the only nfl team that would want Matthews, Perry and Cobb on their current contracts? TT really was some sort of special genius all right, goodness gracious what a mess he has created.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So after reading through all these posts it is evident that the consensus of the posters on this forum is the Packers are the only nfl team that would want Matthews, Perry and Cobb on their current contracts? TT really was some sort of special genius all right, goodness gracious what a mess he has created.

Actually, if you go back in time, to when those players were resigned by the Packers, there were other teams that wanted all 3 as well.

Does every decision that you make in your life work out after the fact? Because if they do, then you yourself are a special kind of genius.

 

[Mike McCarthy]

Actually, if you go back in time, to when those players were resigned by the Packers, there were other teams that wanted all 3 as well.

Does every decision that you make in your life work out after the fact? Because if they do, then you yourself are a special kind of genius.

Obviously not everything goes to plan, but when you swing and miss on as many major pieces(draft picks, over pricing “our guys” etc) as TT did, four will find yourself on the outside looking in. It’s ok to admit TT was a failure.

 

[Dantés]

Obviously not everything goes to plan, but when you swing and miss on as many major pieces(draft picks, over pricing “our guys” etc) as TT did, four will find yourself on the outside looking in. It’s ok to admit TT was a failure.

It's ok to admit that he was bad at the end of his tenure. Its' asinine to try and call him an overall failure.

 

[Dantés]

So after reading through all these posts it is evident that the consensus of the posters on this forum is the Packers are the only nfl team that would want Matthews, Perry and Cobb on their current contracts? TT really was some sort of special genius all right, goodness gracious what a mess he has created.

When the Packers paid Matthews, he was a 26 year old with 42.5 sacks through his first four seasons. I don't quite know why I'm even replying to you, and this is probably a waste, but I just have to point out how utterly stupid it is that anyone would use hindsight, armchair analysis to criticize the resigning of that type of player. Had they let him walk, you and literally every other fan who now rips TT for the deal would have lost your ****.

Likewise, when the Packers extended Cobb, he was 24 and coming off of an amazing season. The Packers weren't even his biggest offer. He turned down more from Oakland to stay in Green Bay.

Congratulations to you that with the benefit of knowing what has happened in the years following the extensions, you have been able to arrive at the profound conclusion that they've been overpaid at times. I can't believe no NFL franchise has hired you yet to tell them which of their 3-5 year old extensions have or have not worked out.

 

[McKnowledge]

So going off of your "facts of history" as well as your "knowledge", the Packers should never sign a player to a second year contract? So this leaves you fielding a team of 1st to 4th/5th year players, unless your wisdom says "its ok to sign FA from other teams to their second contracts, because those teams know how to draft better than the Packers".

You seem to be cherry picking a few cases where 2nd contracts didn't work out for the Packer organization and forgetting about Players like Nelson, Bahk, Adams, Farve, Rodgers and on and on....but those guys don't matter to you, because they don't fit your argument of "don't overpay a Packer player with a second contract".

Clearly you're fishing, but brats tend to do a lot of trolling. I'd like you to find a statement from me claiming "to never sign a player to a second year contract". Good luck with that.

Furthermore, I've been specifically speaking about offering contracts to players that clearly are solely playing for that huge contract. Nick Perry, in my opinion, is a clear example of this. The players you mention are Pro Bowlers, All-Pro, and MVPs, of course their steady production, season after season, would warrant a huge second contract offer.

Last, there's a saying that "hindsight is always 20/20", events of the past gain more clarity in the present. Knowledge is essentially useful information. For all the players you just mentioned, there are more players, that didn't pan out when offered a second contract by the Green Bay Packers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Clearly you're fishing, but brats tend to do a lot of trolling. I'd like you to find a statement from me claiming "to never sign a player to a second year contract". Good luck with that.

By your logic of using hindsight, you are correct, you would only sign those players that either play up to or outperform their contracts. But using your metrics with the following statements, that task is impossible and you would resign nobody, unless you are using a crystal ball.

How do you compete for championship by overpaying for veterans not performing to the standards of their contracts. Why offer long term deals to players that only produce in bursts or one standalone season?

... feeling comfortable overpaying players drafted by the organization based solely on familiarity and hope. The hope that a player performs up to standards isn't a good plan. Definitely not a good plan to bring home another Lombardi.

Furthermore, I've been specifically speaking about offering contracts to players that clearly are solely playing for that huge contract.

WTF does that mean?

Who doesn't play for a big contract in their contract year?

I'm glad that you have such a clear knowledge of guys who are "solely playing for huge contracts" and after they get them will no doubt tank. Should the Packers only resign the guys who play for free or feel they shouldn't be paid what they deserve or just players who have a really crappy contract season?

Who are you specifically talking about? Does this happen with other NFL players or just Packer players?

I seriously think you need to change your name from "MrKnowlege" to "MrHindSite".....then you would actually make a bit of sense.

 

[Mondio]

Is hindsight the same as having your head stuck up your ***?