Could you explain this? I get that they save some money this year. What are you saying is mitigated? What "money from this year"? I get it from a profitability standpoint, but not from a cap perspective.Originally Posted by pbmax
Could you explain this? I get that they save some money this year. What are you saying is mitigated? What "money from this year"? I get it from a profitability standpoint, but not from a cap perspective.
Doesn't change the calculus of helping sign others to extensions. That money still helps, it just lets you spend it over a longer window.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
So money saved in 2016 (cap space, the dollars don't matter, they got plenty dollars) can pay for extensions - contracts for future years can be applied to the 2016 cap? Is this what you and that wretched postal worker are saying?
(Pretend you are talking to your mildly retarded step son. Talk slowly and use gestures.)
Yes.
Cap space used to be a use it or lose it deal. There was a near end of season deadline for applying any contract extension money to the current year. It was like Week 12 or something. So if you signed Rodgers to an extension that paid him an immediate bonus (which, if you wanted to use up your cap dollars and save room going forward, you would want to do) that immediate bonus counted on the current year cap, even though the contract ran 3 more years or whatever.
So under that old system, any deal the Packers signed this year would be eligible to be paid for partly with 2016 cap room. But there was a hard deadline and agents knew it.
Now, under the new CBA, those 2016 left over cap dollars, if they exist at the end of the year, can be pushed forward to create more cap room in the following League year.
Meaning that for 2016, any contact signed during the season AND any contract agreed to next year, can be paid, in part, with the leftover cap. And Sitton's cap savings will add to that amount.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
well, I'll be a monkey's uncle
OK Lang and Bulaga say nothing happened in the locker room. It's not hard to understand why they'd say that, and none of this makes sense based on what we know. I still think we don't know the important information but until/unless we learn something else I'll back off the haughty interpretation. Happy Belated Labor Day Harlan. Power to the people and all that.
Vince,
I'm willing to give management the benefit of the doubt for the most part, although Fat Mike was a knucklehead to spread innuendo about Sitton being a cancer. Maybe that wasn't his intent, but we certainly took it that way.
All the players and most of the media, including former players, are pushing back against the notion that Sitton was a bad egg. As the postman suggested, it could be that management simply feared that Sitting might become disgruntled in time, and this whole story got blown out of proportion by one over-eager reporter, Daugherty I believe.
Pbmax's explanation of the finances further puts things in perspective.
Edit:: When I type "Sitton" autocorrect keeps changing it to "sitting".
Last edited by Harlan Huckleby; 09-06-2016 at 06:35 AM.
I still believe there was some kind of incident or series of incidents that undermined team chenistry but I acknowledge that there is nothing concrete to support that. In my opinion it's a mistake to conclude with certainty that nothing of that sort is at play.
I have to side with Vince here; if there is none of that involved the move is simply stupid. So I have to think chemistry issues had to be involved
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
So I'm looking at this discussion and thinking it has now arrived at some kind of resolution concerning the charges of lockerroom cancer and the circumstancial evidence supporting that charge. I am wondering how Kafka would describe the state's case against Sitton: Definite acquittal? Ostensible acquittal? Or just indefinite postponement?
Even under the old CBA, unused cap dollars were pushed ahead using "likely to be earned" bonuses on players who would not earn them. The "likely to be earned" bonuses were bonuses paid for a defined list of things like number of games played, and certain other personal statistical achievements. Per the then existing CBA, these bonuses automatically counted against the salary cap in the year they could be attained, thus "using" the cap dollars. If the player did not actually earn the bonus, the cap dollars were added back into the next season's salary cap, effectively moving unused cap dollars from one season to the next.
Near the end of the season, there was always a flurry of contract revisions giving some players "likely to be earned" bonuses that they had no chance of earning at that point of the season, just so the unused cap dollars could be pushed ahead. It was sometimes ridiculous, with teams rewriting the current season compensation to give a backup QB a huge bonus if he played in 10 games, for example, when there were only 3 games left in the season and he hadn't played in a game yet. However; it still "used" the cap dollars in the current season, then refunded those cap dollars to the team the next year when the bonus went unearned. The Packers were one of the earlier teams to exploit this "loophole", and did it every year thereafter to push ahead the majority of their unused cap dollars, but it was never 100% because they always had to retain some cap space for contingencies at the end of the season.
The change in the CBA simply recognized what teams had always done, and eliminated the ridiculous procedure they used to do it.
Late to the party but my 2 cents.
Sounded like they were trying to trade him but teams realized the Pack was in the losers chair for negotiations. Teams would simply wait for FA if they weren't in des parathion mode - which as M3 stated, LG is not high on the list of key positions (qb, wr, lb, safety, tackles).
I think they should've kept him around for the year and let him walk. But maybe that would've caused some perceived issues with their next year extension plan.
But I'm not paid to be a GM - I get to pay to be a fan. Sitton doesn't suddenly make the Bears a 10 win squad nor does it change the fact that outside of a collapse/injuries that we are still a legit 1-3 seed in NFC which is the ticket to play to make a SB run.
Ted has been right more than being wrong. So I'll save the homerism and witch hunt while hoping M3 can get the oline's head back in the game for the season to start.
And this might have been TT and MM's thinking too. The more I ponder this situation the more I suspect Ted and Mike wanted to free up cap space for players playing positions of greater value - in their eyes - going forward and felt they could roll the dice with Taylor at RG. With the line perhaps the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts?
I think it is obvious that something happened, or the team perceived that something was about to happen to sour the relationship with Sitton. The facts that we know:
- We have a long history of TT's and MM's handing of players, contracts and issues.
- They have allowed many veterans to play out their contracts. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They have retained somewhat malcontent veterans, like Scott Wells, through the ends of their contracts. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They have retained overpaid veterans, like Donald Driver, who were no longer worth their salaries. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They have released long-standing veterans for salary cap and/or performance reasons, but that has occurred early in the off-season, generally shortly after the end of the previous season. They did not do that with Sitton.
- They had salary cap room to keep Sitton.
- They have no history (except the unique Favre situation) for making radical roster adjustments at the end of training camp.
- We know that MM considers the atmosphere of his locker room to be of significant importance.
- We know also that TT is concerned with the atmosphere of the locker room, and the interactions of players, one of the reasons he walks the sidelines during preseason games.
- Sitton has always been mentioned as a team leader, so everyone would know his release would cause some waves; yet the team went ahead and did it.
The team acted uncharacteristically based on their previous history. That tells me that something occurred, or the team anticipated something much different than with previous veterans entering the final year of their contract.
When the Bears come to town nobody is gonna boo Josh Sitton.
HOFer
what are the chances the TJ lang gets pissed off at the team for what they just did to his good buddy and decides not to re sign?
Whatever the reasons were for releasing Sitton, I have little doubt that MM was on board with the decision, and may even have had final say. While a GM may act somewhat autonomously to release a player of Sitton's stature in the off-season for salary cap and or performance issues, it is highly unlikely he would do so at the end of training camp without having the head coach's agreement. You don't take a starting player of that caliber away from the coach without giving the coach a chance to adjust or prepare unless the coach is in agreement with the decision.
Slim to none. TJ Lang will do and should do what is best for him.
i don't know the numbers or the names but i heard yesterday that the Packers will be in cap trouble very soon due to several big FA contracts looming. so this looks like a pure money deal and maybe a message. i think if a message was part of it it backfired as sitton got a multi-year deal with a raise and a big guarantee.
This was an interesting watch. I was struck by how subdued he is, understandably so. When you don't see it coming, it's harder to process, and in the immediate aftermath, his reaction is totally understandable. Think about your best friend where you work. If they were suddenly fired, and no reason was given, you'd probably have some mixed emotions as someone who is remaining with the employer.
http://www.packers.com/media-center/...1-1c9b52009efc
It's understandable that the front office and players can't talk about things, but it's interesting to note Lang's comment about the rumor about Sitton showing open discontent were false. If there was no immediate reason for not letting Sitton play out his deal and letting him move on next off-season, then perhaps we'll see if they re-up any of the expiring deals in-season. That's the only thing I can think of is that they knew they weren't going to bring Sitton back and they wanted his cap number freed up for deals they felt like they needed to complete sooner than later. Does that sound right to anyone else?
Last edited by Carolina_Packer; 09-06-2016 at 11:56 AM.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
