PFW on new contract for Ryan Grant

[motife]

March 26, 2008
New deal for Grant hardly a stretch

On coincidentally the same day that Brandon Chillar signed a new deal with the Packers, PFW asked Chillar’s agent, Alan Herman of Sportstars Inc., just how far down the road he envisioned a new contract for fellow client Ryan Grant. With the Packers having cap money to burn — more than $35 million including the cap charge for Brett Favre, who at this writing had yet to turn in his retirement papers — and Grant coming off a breakthrough campaign in which he was one of the league’s most dynamic running backs the second half of the season, Herman confirmed that it hardly takes a genius to connect the dots. “From all the rhetoric that I’ve seen about the Packers preferring to take care of their own before they reach free agency, and also looking at what Ryan accomplished last year, I would like to think the timing is right to get something done for a significant period of time,” Herman told PFW. At this writing, the Packers had yet to officially open talks with Herman, who the day after talking to PFW told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that Grant would not sign his $370,000 minimum tender for an exclusive-rights player with only one accrued season in the NFL. Grant is planning on full-scale involvement in the Packers’ spring offseason program, however, and while team insiders believe there could be some pretty lively discussions at some point between the Packers and Grant’s agents over the actual value of a running back who has been an elite performer for only half a pro season, the odds still seem pretty strong that a new deal will be struck later this offseason. Said Herman: “Ryan absolutely loves Green Bay — the team and the players — and we plan on fostering as good a working relationship with the Packers as possible toward reaching a long-term agreement that will benefit both sides.”

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like his agent's attitude. I hope Ryan shares the sentiment.

[Fritz]

I'd kinda hope they could do a one or two year deal so we can see if Grant can hold up over a whole season.

[3irty1]

Sounds like a good agent to deal with. Does he have anymore superstars we can buy?

[Gunakor]

I'd kinda hope they could do a one or two year deal so we can see if Grant can hold up over a whole season.


I hope it's only a 2 year deal so that he'll hit RFA at the end of the contract. As I've said in another thread, that would open up more options to us. If Grant turns out to be a one hit wonder it won't end up hurting the team too badly, if he turns out to be average or a little above average we could let him sign with another team and recieve a middle or upper round draft pick as compensation, and if he turns out to be elite we can resign him to a very lucrative 4 or 5 year contract ourselves.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd kinda hope they could do a one or two year deal so we can see if Grant can hold up over a whole season.


I hope it's only a 2 year deal so that he'll hit RFA at the end of the contract. As I've said in another thread, that would open up more options to us. If Grant turns out to be a one hit wonder it won't end up hurting the team too badly, if he turns out to be average or a little above average we could let him sign with another team and recieve a middle or upper round draft pick as compensation, and if he turns out to be elite we can resign him to a very lucrative 4 or 5 year contract ourselves.

They don't have to pay him big money now. He doesn't have the leverage. I think that's the point. They could lock him long-term at a relative bargain if he turns out to be a stud. If you sign him for two years and then he becomes a stud, then you'll have to pay MUCH more for him.

Of course, with how players want to renegotiate deals (and teams are able to cut players at any time) it probably doesn't matter.

Whatever they decide to do works for me. They won't have to give him huge money, so I have no problem with a solid long-term deal. Kind of similar to Ahman Green in that they signed him to his first deal the year after they traded for him. He looked good, but was a one year wonder. They ended up getting Ahman for a handful of years at below average market value.

If they decide to make him prove that it wasn't a one year wonder, I'm okay with that also. They have his rights for a couple of more years, so it's not like he'd be able to walk next year.

[vince]

Of course, with how players want to renegotiate deals ... it probably doesn't matter.
I'd say I agree with everything you said here, except for this. If Grant continues to perform as he did last year (which I expect him to), it makes a huge difference in who has negotiating leverage (and how much of it they have) depending on whether the player who wants to renegotiate is locked up for the next three years, or whether he is on the brink of free agency. If I'm a GM (or a fan who is interested in the team's success), I'd much prefer to have the player locked up and under an extended-term contract.

[packrat]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

[vince]

Exactly. There are also other ways that the team would hedge their bet against injury and/or poor performance. "Pay-as-you-go" weekly roster and off-season workout bonuses being two that the Packers have been using lately...

Weekly Roster Bonuses (http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/PKR01/111120069/0/theme)

The Green Bay Packers have turned to weekly roster bonuses as a new way to reward big-contract players but help protect the club financially against injury or a major dropoff in performance.

Your Moment of Zen (http://www.railbirdcentral.com/2008/02/your-moment-of-zen.html)

Brandt stressed that it really comes down to how they, over the past 2-3 years, have transitioned how they structure contracts. "Pay as you go" is a term being thrown around lately. And this is what they mean by that.

They are no longer building "signing bonuses" into contracts. They felt this sent the wrong message to the athletes. A signing bonus only pays them, literally, for signing the document. After that point there is no incentive to continue to earn that normally huge amount of money they were just given. In essense, if created complacency.

So instead what they have done is worked exclusively with workout and roster bonuses. This is where availability and accountability come into major play.

Accountability: With the workout bonuses they are trying to create incentive for all of the players to be here from March-June. This is the time that MM says they "get the most work done", and makes training camp a much more fruitful experience for everybody involved.

As evidenced by this past year they were also able to keep their players fresh through training camp-even giving Wednesdays off, which led to a fast start.(for the past 3-4 years before MM was here there was a constant struggle at the beginning of the year, but they always finished strong to stay in playoff contention. It seemed to really put some undo pressure on everyone though because they were always trying to catch back up.) This was a big goal for MM when he came in..and especially last year when he already was 1 year into his program.

We also saw a very nice increase in offseason player activity in GB because of these incentives, which most of us feel did lead to a very closely-knit team this year and directly correlated with the success they had.

Availability: We can all see how important gameday availability is. If you don't have the players you need it's tough to accomplish what you need to in order to consistently win.

To stress this idea what they have emphasized is bonuses for being on the gameday 45 person active roster. This puts the ball in the players hands for them to do everything they can to make sure that they are on the actives that week. If that means seeking extra treatment, extra film study, extra drills, whatever the player can do to entice the coaches to put them on the 45 for that week.

What this also allows them to do is structure low-middle market value base salaries while giving the player all the opportunities to raise their own value throughout the year. It really puts their value back into the players' hands. If they want to make big $$, be responsible for your actions and you will earn that big $$. But you must earn it while helping this TEAM reach its goals.

In the long run what this is doing is two things.

1-It is keeping the organization fiscally sound. They are not gonna run into the cap hell that many have when they suddenly need to pay $10 million on a signing bonus they gave 3 - 4 years ago, which normally leads to that person being released..and as we saw with Wahle, regrettably released.

2-It helps the GM and coaches to more quickly identify players that they think are going to fit into the culture they are trying to create. When 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year players are not participating in the off season programs and taking advantage of incentives it may provide insight into that persons longterm future in this program. There are obviously exceptions to this: Woodson and Harris are the immediate examples. But what we can say is that these two have proven that they aren't sitting around getting fat and lazy all summer. Harris hasn't missed a game in years and Woodson is simply a gamer. They both are in impeccable shape and have developed regimens that allow them to pick it right up in camp.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Ted's figured out how to deal with players who have outperformed their contracts. And even the one that blew up (Javon Walker), we got a 2nd round pick and ended up working out for the best.

[The Leaper]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it.

That is why you do a 4-5 year deal with voidable years based on performance. Personally, I think that will be the trend as time moves on in the NFL in terms of emerging players. It gives the player a chance at a new deal after a couple strong seasons, but protects the team if the player craps out.

If Grants proves he is an elite RB, he'll get a new deal in 2 years after proving himself...we won't mind paying at that time.

If Grant doesn't prove he is an elite back, the Packers at least have a solid RB locked up for 4-5 years at a reasonable price, or could also dump him and move on without much cap impact.

[Gunakor]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.


Grant does not become a UFA in 2 years. He will be RFA in 2 years, which means he does not have the leverage you assume he will have. He doesn't have a choice at that point yet. We offer him a tender, other teams have the option of signing him to an extended contract and offering a draft pick or picks as compensation, and we have the option of matching that offer to keep him in Green Bay. At no point during that process does he have the ability to choose to stay or leave, nor does he have any leverage over the length or dollar amount of that contract. The only choice he'll have is whether to sign it or not, with no assurances that by refusing the contract he'll get a better one.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

Grant does not become a UFA in 2 years. He will be RFA in 2 years, which means he does not have the leverage you assume he will have. He doesn't have a choice at that point yet. We offer him a tender, other teams have the option of signing him to an extended contract and offering a draft pick or picks as compensation, and we have the option of matching that offer to keep him in Green Bay. At no point during that process does he have the ability to choose to stay or leave, nor does he have any leverage over the length or dollar amount of that contract. The only choice he'll have is whether to sign it or not, with no assurances that by refusing the contract he'll get a better one.

You're not getting my point. Whether it's 2 or 3 years, I'm saying that signing him to a short-term deal may not be the best option. If you can lock him into a 5 year deal at a good rate, like we did with Ahman, then that could be the right move. If Thompson thinks he's the real deal, then lock him up. It's up to Thompson and his staff to evaluate him and make the right decision though. Your point about him being an RFA in 2 years and a UFA in 3 years only tells me that it won't take much to lock him into a long-term deal because he has little leverage.

I'm cool with either option, but I don't think you can just say that he doesn't have any leverage, so just give him the short-term deal. It might be in the best interest to the team to lock him up to an affordable deal with a front-loaded contract. It might be better to pay a little now (when we have cap room) and make the contract more affordable in the future then low-ball him and then have to pay more (when we might not have that same cap room).

[Gunakor]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

Grant does not become a UFA in 2 years. He will be RFA in 2 years, which means he does not have the leverage you assume he will have. He doesn't have a choice at that point yet. We offer him a tender, other teams have the option of signing him to an extended contract and offering a draft pick or picks as compensation, and we have the option of matching that offer to keep him in Green Bay. At no point during that process does he have the ability to choose to stay or leave, nor does he have any leverage over the length or dollar amount of that contract. The only choice he'll have is whether to sign it or not, with no assurances that by refusing the contract he'll get a better one.

You're not getting my point. Whether it's 2 or 3 years, I'm saying that signing him to a short-term deal may not be the best option. If you can lock him into a 5 year deal at a good rate, like we did with Ahman, then that could be the right move. If Thompson thinks he's the real deal, then lock him up. It's up to Thompson and his staff to evaluate him and make the right decision though. Your point about him being an RFA in 2 years and a UFA in 3 years only tells me that it won't take much to lock him into a long-term deal because he has little leverage.

I'm cool with either option, but I don't think you can just say that he doesn't have any leverage, so just give him the short-term deal. It might be in the best interest to the team to lock him up to an affordable deal with a front-loaded contract. It might be better to pay a little now (when we have cap room) and make the contract more affordable in the future then low-ball him and then have to pay more (when we might not have that same cap room).


I do understand your point, but you don't understand where I am coming from. What if Grant is NOT the future at RB for this franchise? You automatically assume that this guy is going to regularly pump out 1500 yards per season for the rest of his career. What if he doesn't? Then we have a long term PROBLEM to deal with.

If he hits RFA and hasn't panned out for us like we'd have liked, some other team might be willing to give him a shot. Depending on the RFA tender we offer him, any team signing him at that time would be obligated to compensate us with one or more draft picks. I'm not talking about the money it would cost us should he turn out to be elite. I'm talking about getting something back for him if he doesn't. If he makes it all the way to UFA then we don't have any possibility of getting something for him. It's about options, and there are more options available to us if we don't let him hit UFA after his contract is up. I'd like to have every option available in 2 years since we don't know for certain what Grant's future holds. If he doesn't pan out for us but in a couple years some other team is willing to give him a shot and will offer us a 4th round pick as compensation, that's alot better than him not panning out and us releasing him 3 years down the road and getting nothing for him.

If in 2 years he proves himself to be worthy of a top 5 RB salary then he should rightfully get it. I'd rather lowball him NOW and pay him the big contract he deserves if and when he earns it than sign him long term now and have him grumbling in the locker room in a few years about how he's one of the best in the league but not making elite money. If he proves himself to be in the class of an LT then he should be making comparable money. If not then we won't give it to him. But let him prove that one way or the other first.

[RashanGary]

I just think it's a year too early with him. He only has 9 or 10 good games in the NFL. Next year is when conversations should heat up. If it is done now I think it should be a long deal with very little of the money coming up front (but just enough to get him to sign) and most of the money coming later.

Essentially it should be a way to lock him up for a long time at a cheap upfront price and fair prices down the road. We get the prime of his career for below market value. He gets more money up front (but not a ton). It's the only win/win I can think of, but I think it can be a lot better for both sides if they wait one more year. It's just too premature right now. Last year was his first year on an NFL 53. He's a 2nd year player. He should play one more like Harrell, Jones and the other 2nd year guys.

The worst thing the Packers can do is give him a 2 year deal that gives him the security to sneak closer to UFA. The urgency he has right now (being broke) and will have for the next three years (if we so choose) is the most powerfull card we have. Do NOT give that up. No, no. Anything that gets done is going to be a deal with the devil where he gives up his only card (the rest of his earning potential or the rest of his prime in other words). The agent knows it. That's why he's bantering that around. It's the only thing they have. Green did it. If the RB pans out he loses alot, but it does give the early security against injury. I think you, gunkor, are entirely missing the point. It's a buisness. A two year deal for more money is a gift with nothing in return. No thanks. How about a win/win and how about wait a year while we're at it because Grant has nothing now and he'll have nothing next year either.

[sharpe1027]

I do understand your point, but you don't understand where I am coming from. What if Grant is NOT the future at RB for this franchise? You automatically assume that this guy is going to regularly pump out 1500 yards per season for the rest of his career. What if he doesn't? Then we have a long term PROBLEM to deal with.

If he hits RFA and hasn't panned out for us like we'd have liked, some other team might be willing to give him a shot. Depending on the RFA tender we offer him, any team signing him at that time would be obligated to compensate us with one or more draft picks. I'm not talking about the money it would cost us should he turn out to be elite. I'm talking about getting something back for him if he doesn't. If he makes it all the way to UFA then we don't have any possibility of getting something for him. It's about options, and there are more options available to us if we don't let him hit UFA after his contract is up. I'd like to have every option available in 2 years since we don't know for certain what Grant's future holds. If he doesn't pan out for us but in a couple years some other team is willing to give him a shot and will offer us a 4th round pick as compensation, that's alot better than him not panning out and us releasing him 3 years down the road and getting nothing for him.

If in 2 years he proves himself to be worthy of a top 5 RB salary then he should rightfully get it. I'd rather lowball him NOW and pay him the big contract he deserves if and when he earns it than sign him long term now and have him grumbling in the locker room in a few years about how he's one of the best in the league but not making elite money. If he proves himself to be in the class of an LT then he should be making comparable money. If not then we won't give it to him. But let him prove that one way or the other first.

If he isn't the real deal after two years and they need the cap space, they cut him. As long as they are smart about the contract, the cap hit should be minimal. However, if he is the real deal and he hits the open market because they don't lock him up now, they either lose an elite back or they end up paying through the nose to keep him. A simple exercise in risk-reward analysis, IMO.

[Gunakor]

I do understand your point, but you don't understand where I am coming from. What if Grant is NOT the future at RB for this franchise? You automatically assume that this guy is going to regularly pump out 1500 yards per season for the rest of his career. What if he doesn't? Then we have a long term PROBLEM to deal with.

If he hits RFA and hasn't panned out for us like we'd have liked, some other team might be willing to give him a shot. Depending on the RFA tender we offer him, any team signing him at that time would be obligated to compensate us with one or more draft picks. I'm not talking about the money it would cost us should he turn out to be elite. I'm talking about getting something back for him if he doesn't. If he makes it all the way to UFA then we don't have any possibility of getting something for him. It's about options, and there are more options available to us if we don't let him hit UFA after his contract is up. I'd like to have every option available in 2 years since we don't know for certain what Grant's future holds. If he doesn't pan out for us but in a couple years some other team is willing to give him a shot and will offer us a 4th round pick as compensation, that's alot better than him not panning out and us releasing him 3 years down the road and getting nothing for him.

If in 2 years he proves himself to be worthy of a top 5 RB salary then he should rightfully get it. I'd rather lowball him NOW and pay him the big contract he deserves if and when he earns it than sign him long term now and have him grumbling in the locker room in a few years about how he's one of the best in the league but not making elite money. If he proves himself to be in the class of an LT then he should be making comparable money. If not then we won't give it to him. But let him prove that one way or the other first.

If he isn't the real deal after two years and they need the cap space, they cut him. As long as they are smart about the contract, the cap hit should be minimal. However, if he is the real deal and he hits the open market because they don't lock him up now, they either lose an elite back or they end up paying through the nose to keep him. A simple exercise in risk-reward analysis, IMO.


This isn't about cap space. We are perfectly healthy salary wise. We could afford LT's salary if LT was in our backfield. If Grant emerges as the next LT, we could afford to pay him like the next LT.

Again, he would not be hitting the open market in 2 years. He'd be an RFA, which means other teams can offer him a contract but all Green Bay would have to do at that point is simply match the offer and he remains a Packer. If Grant is worth paying through the nose for - meaning he continues to produce at nearly LaDanian Tomlinson pace - then he should be making nearly LT salary and Green Bay should be the team paying it to him. If he doesn't, it gives us the possibility of getting something back for him if another team signs him. This is what people don't seem to be understanding about where I'm coming from.

Your arguement is that we should lock up Grant long term now because he IS the real deal. My arguement is that we should approach this cautiously, considering Grant has only had 8 or 9 good games in his entire career. If Grant is signed to a 5 year deal and flops, yeah we can just release him and the cap hit won't be too great. If Grant is signed to a 2 year deal and flops, other teams that are willing to sign him would have to offer Green Bay compensation for it. 5 year deal means we are assured of getting absolutely nothing in return for releasing him, 2 year deal leaves open the possibility that we could get something back. That's my point.

Assume nothing. Grant is still unproven as far as I'm concerned. The whole RFA/UFA issue aside, I don't think he's worth a 5 year deal anyway. He should be treated as an unproven back until he proves himself over a longer period than half a friggin season. He deserves more than the 370k tender he's been offered, only because any player being asked to carry the ball 300+ times a year should make more than 370k. But lets not take this too far.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This isn't about cap space. We are perfectly healthy salary wise NOW.

Fixed. I don't believe the cap will continue to go up like it has. Eventually, it will level off (for a little while at least). Have you seen who is coming up for a contract in the next 2-3 years?


Your arguement is that we should lock up Grant long term now because he IS the real deal. My arguement is that we should approach this cautiously, considering Grant has only had 8 or 9 good games in his entire career.

That's not my argument. My argument is that it might be prudent to lock him up. It depends on how they evaluate him. If they think he's on his way to being an elite RB, then lock him. It will be cheaper now than later.

Plus, the chemistry on this team is fantastic. Part of the reason for that is they've shown that they'll reward their own guys for doing well. I don't think we need to play hard-ball just because we have leverage. He isn't going to get big money, and there's little risk in signing him to a fair, front-loaded contract.

On the other hand, if they think this season was a fluke, then they can just wait it out. I think we'll know a lot about what the Packers think about Grant by what they do with this contract.

[sharpe1027]

Again, he would not be hitting the open market in 2 years. He'd be an RFA, which means other teams can offer him a contract but all Green Bay would have to do at that point is simply match the offer and he remains a Packer.

This I know.




If Grant is worth paying through the nose for - meaning he continues to produce at nearly LaDanian Tomlinson pace - then he should be making nearly LT salary and Green Bay should be the team paying it to him. If he doesn't, it gives us the possibility of getting something back for him if another team signs him. This is what people don't seem to be understanding about where I'm coming from.

This I understand. However, what precludes them from getting something in return for him if they sign him to a long term deal? If he has any value, they can swing a trade, but that assumes he has value. If he doesn't have value, they won't get anything regardless.



Your arguement is that we should lock up Grant long term now because he IS the real deal.

No it is not. I never said anything close to that.



My arguement is that we should approach this cautiously, considering Grant has only had 8 or 9 good games in his entire career. If Grant is signed to a 5 year deal and flops, yeah we can just release him and the cap hit won't be too great. If Grant is signed to a 2 year deal and flops, other teams that are willing to sign him would have to offer Green Bay compensation for it. 5 year deal means we are assured of getting absolutely nothing in return for releasing him, 2 year deal leaves open the possibility that we could get something back. That's my point.

I still say your "cautious" approach is more risky than my approach. What exactly did San Diego get for Turner? They pretty much followed your model.

[sharpe1027]

Assume nothing. Grant is still unproven as far as I'm concerned. The whole RFA/UFA issue aside, I don't think he's worth a 5 year deal anyway. He should be treated as an unproven back until he proves himself over a longer period than half a friggin season. He deserves more than the 370k tender he's been offered, only because any player being asked to carry the ball 300+ times a year should make more than 370k. But lets not take this too far.

There is no need to give him a HUGE mega contract with loads of guranteed money. If they sign him now they have some significant leverage and should be able to sign him to a decent contract that does not hurt the Packers in the future. If he does not pan out, why would you expect some other team to give up draft picks for him?

[Gunakor]

Assume nothing. Grant is still unproven as far as I'm concerned. The whole RFA/UFA issue aside, I don't think he's worth a 5 year deal anyway. He should be treated as an unproven back until he proves himself over a longer period than half a friggin season. He deserves more than the 370k tender he's been offered, only because any player being asked to carry the ball 300+ times a year should make more than 370k. But lets not take this too far.

There is no need to give him a HUGE mega contract with loads of guranteed money. If they sign him now they have some significant leverage and should be able to sign him to a decent contract that does not hurt the Packers in the future. If he does not pan out, why would you expect some other team to give up draft picks for him?



You don't think a team would be willing to part with a 4th round pick for a backup RB with 2+ years starting experience that's still in his 20's? I would. I'm not talking about first round pick here. Maybe it isn't even on the first day. The lowest RFA tender compensation is a day 2 pick I think. But it's something more than we'd get if he were simply released.

And again, and again, this isn't about money. It's about the length of the contract. If they want to sign him to a huge mega contract right now that's fine - they can easily afford it. As long as its up in two years.

Besides that, I am in the camp that believes if you prove yourself to be in the elite class of players in this league you should be paid like an elite player. I don't think you should lowball a player until he is over 30 years old. A 2 year deal brings Grant to 28 years old. THAT is when he should be getting his lucrative longer term deal, not after he turns 30. If he proves himself worthy of it, that is.

[sharpe1027]

You don't think a team would be willing to part with a 4th round pick for a backup RB with 2+ years starting experience that's still in his 20's?


I absolutely DO think that a team would trade for a backup RB. But, why would it matter if he is a RFA or under contract? RFA didn't work for Turner...



I would. I'm not talking about first round pick here. Maybe it isn't even on the first day. The lowest RFA tender compensation is a day 2 pick I think. But it's something more than we'd get if he were simply released.

And again, and again, this isn't about money. It's about the length of the contract. If they want to sign him to a huge mega contract right now that's fine - they can easily afford it. As long as its up in two years.

Besides that, I am in the camp that believes if you prove yourself to be in the elite class of players in this league you should be paid like an elite player. I don't think you should lowball a player until he is over 30 years old. A 2 year deal brings Grant to 28 years old. THAT is when he should be getting his lucrative longer term deal, not after he turns 30. If he proves himself worthy of it, that is.

You still don't get it. Any draft pick they can get through RFA process, they can probalby also get through a trade. In both cases, the other team will probalby need to renegotiate Grant's contract. So, I say again, why would you wait to sign him?

One more point, by using the RFA process you effecitively limit what pick you get and don't have a ton of control over where he goes. If you have him under contract you can take the highest bidder and have a say in where he goes (you could even trade for another player, something RFA doesn't allow).

You say your not against giving him big money now...why wouldn't they sign him to a front-loaded contact so that they could hang on to him even if he doesn't end up being an all-star? Instead you'd have them front load a contract that has no back-end...

[Gunakor]

RFA didn't work for Turner because the Chargers didn't let it. San Diego made it clear that they weren't letting him go. Stupid move on thier part IMO. They could have gotten a 1st and a 3rd for him, instead he signs a UFA contract with Atlanta and San Diego gets nothing. How does this help them at all?

I see your point about a trade, but if we trade him we take a cap hit. Whether it's 500k or 5 million, it's still dead money that wouldn't be there if he left in RFA. So it's better in the case that he doesn't pan out as a starter if he simply left as a RFA and we get compensation than if we trade him (likely for about the same pick as the compensation for RFA would be) and take on dead money against our cap.

If he emerges a star then whatever he is worth in 2 years we can easily afford to pay him. With our extremely healthy cap situation right now I don't understand why people are clammoring for a long term deal simply to save money should he become the star people project him to be. If he's a star then we can afford to pay him like one. It's not like it would be a long term deal anyway - in 2 years Grant will be 28 years old. A highly lucrative 4 year deal with gobs and gobs of guaranteed money given to Grant in 2 years time wouldn't hurt the franchise at all, as long as Grant is worth that money.

For crying out loud, we'd have to rework his deal in a couple years anyway should we sign him to a mediocre long term contract now and he blows up in the coming years. That or trade him to a team that is willing to pay him the money he wants. We don't just get him on the cheap forever just by signing him long term now. Players in the NFL don't play out thier contracts if they feel they've outplayed that contract. They hold out, demand trades, cause distractions. So just sign him to a short contract that he can't outplay, then re-evaluate him and pay him what he's worth. We get our star, our star gets his money, morale is good, everyone is happy. What is everyone's objection to this??

[sharpe1027]

Option 1: use the RFA tag.

Advantages:
1. If another team agrees to pay more than the Pack is willing to pay, the Pack gets a pick or two.
2. No cap hit after two years if Grant goes elsewhere.
3. ??

Disadvangates:
1. Only get pick(s) according the the RFA rules
1a. If they use a RFA level that is too high, nobody picks him up and he becomes a FA the next year (see Turner)
1b. If they use a RFA level that is lower than market value, they lose out on value.
2. No control over where Grant goes.
2a. He could go to a division rival.
2b. A team with a late round pick (RFA level doesn't care if it is begining or end of a round) might pick him up.
3. If you want to keep him because he is very good, you have a RB that is only one year away from striking it huge on the open market. This same running back was not given the long term deal he desired earlier. The leverage has shifted significantly from where it is now.

Option 2: sign him now to a front-loaded contract that has little cap impact in future.

Advantages:
1. You have a happy RB in camp.
2. You maintain your image of taking care of your own first.
3. You can trade him at any point for the highest bidder and can deny trades to teams you don't want.
4. If he asks to renegotiate, the PR is better for the team if he is under contract for several more years AND you have significantly more leverage.
5. It is possible that in 3 or 4 years you have a pro-bowl caliber back who counts very little against the cap.

Disadvantages:
1. You may take a small cap hit if he doesn't pan out.
2. He can still hold out in future years.


You decide.

[Gunakor]

Option 1: use the RFA tag.

Advantages:
1. If another team agrees to pay more than the Pack is willing to pay, the Pack gets a pick or two.
2. No cap hit after two years if Grant goes elsewhere.
3. ??

Disadvangates:
1. Only get pick(s) according the the RFA rules
1a. If they use a RFA level that is too high, nobody picks him up and he becomes a FA the next year (see Turner)
1b. If they use a RFA level that is lower than market value, they lose out on value.
2. No control over where Grant goes.
2a. He could go to a division rival.
2b. A team with a late round pick (RFA level doesn't care if it is begining or end of a round) might pick him up.
3. If you want to keep him because he is very good, you have a RB that is only one year away from striking it huge on the open market. This same running back was not given the long term deal he desired earlier. The leverage has shifted significantly from where it is now.

Option 2: sign him now to a front-loaded contract that has little cap impact in future.

Advantages:
1. You have a happy RB in camp.
2. You maintain your image of taking care of your own first.
3. You can trade him at any point for the highest bidder and can deny trades to teams you don't want.
4. If he asks to renegotiate, the PR is better for the team if he is under contract for several more years AND you have significantly more leverage.
5. It is possible that in 3 or 4 years you have a pro-bowl caliber back who counts very little against the cap.

Disadvantages:
1. You may take a small cap hit if he doesn't pan out.
2. He can still hold out in future years.


You decide.

You'd have a happy RB in camp if he were signed to a moderate 2 year deal with the understanding that he has alot to prove yet and at the conclusion of that 2 year deal he can resign for BIG money should he prove himself to be worth it. Option A: A moderate 2 year deal followed by a huge 3 year deal in total would make him 30 million. Option B: A mediocre 5 year deal only makes him 15-20 million, but when thats up he's 31 years old and can't recoup the 10 million he would have made. I think he'd be happier with option A. Even with the alternatives broken down as you have, I'd still rather take him for a shorter term deal right now. It is possible that we could have a pro bowl caliber back demanding a trade in a couple years if we sign him to a front-loaded long term deal.


My other point is that we have plenty of cap space to pay through the nose for this guy in a couple years if he deserves it. We SHOULD be paying through the nose for this guy if he deserves it. We are EXTREMELY healthy salary wise, so the next few years are not the time to be penny pinching and lowballing our stars. I think signing him to a moderate 2 year deal to further evaluate him and then, if deserved, signing him to a blockbuster deal afterwards would do more for our image of taking care of our own than signing him to a mediocre 5 year deal would. As an added bonus, it in no way puts in any kind of a salary situation where we'd have to ask veterans to take pay cuts or release players to come up with the money. We already have it just sitting there.

You said you want a pro bowl caliber RB at a low salary, well that's I guess where we differ. If he IS a pro bowl caliber RB, he should be making pro bowl money. I might feel differently about it if we didn't have so much money to spend right now, but since we do then that's how I feel about it. If we have the money and our guy deserves it, PAY IT TO HIM. That's how you take care of your own.

The pick(s) we'd aquire following RFA rules would still be better than the pick(s) we'd aquire through a trade PLUS the cap hit. If he leaves to go somewhere else as a backup, who cares who he goes to. If he's only worthy of a backup position, let him go to Chicago and back up Cedric Benson. I don't care at that point because he isn't a good enough player to earn a starting spot anyway. Division rival or not, if he's not on the field he can't hurt us. Yeah, I'd take a day 2 pick from a division rival for a guy who isn't going to win a starting spot.

[sharpe1027]

You'd have a happy RB in camp if he were signed to a moderate 2 year deal with the understanding that he has alot to prove yet and at the conclusion of that 2 year deal he can resign for BIG money should he prove himself to be worth it. Option A: A moderate 2 year deal followed by a huge 3 year deal in total would make him 30 million. Option B: A mediocre 5 year deal only makes him 15-20 million, but when thats up he's 31 years old and can't recoup the 10 million he would have made. I think he'd be happier with option A. Even with the alternatives broken down as you have, I'd still rather take him for a shorter term deal right now. It is possible that we could have a pro bowl caliber back demanding a trade in a couple years if we sign him to a front-loaded long term deal.


My other point is that we have plenty of cap space to pay through the nose for this guy in a couple years if he deserves it. We SHOULD be paying through the nose for this guy if he deserves it. We are EXTREMELY healthy salary wise, so the next few years are not the time to be penny pinching and lowballing our stars. I think signing him to a moderate 2 year deal to further evaluate him and then, if deserved, signing him to a blockbuster deal afterwards would do more for our image of taking care of our own than signing him to a mediocre 5 year deal would. As an added bonus, it in no way puts in any kind of a salary situation where we'd have to ask veterans to take pay cuts or release players to come up with the money. We already have it just sitting there.

You said you want a pro bowl caliber RB at a low salary, well that's I guess where we differ. If he IS a pro bowl caliber RB, he should be making pro bowl money. I might feel differently about it if we didn't have so much money to spend right now, but since we do then that's how I feel about it. If we have the money and our guy deserves it, PAY IT TO HIM. That's how you take care of your own.

The pick(s) we'd aquire following RFA rules would still be better than the pick(s) we'd aquire through a trade PLUS the cap hit. If he leaves to go somewhere else as a backup, who cares who he goes to. If he's only worthy of a backup position, let him go to Chicago and back up Cedric Benson. I don't care at that point because he isn't a good enough player to earn a starting spot anyway. Division rival or not, if he's not on the field he can't hurt us. Yeah, I'd take a day 2 pick from a division rival for a guy who isn't going to win a starting spot.

This is frustrating, you continue to jump to conclusions that support your opinion. Nobody said he would get a mediocre contract, but even if he does, they can renegoitate it the same as with RFA, BUT THEY WILL HAVE MORE LEVERAGE.

You argue until you are blue in the face by trying to diminish the positives of my approach all you want. You are still left with nothing gained from your approach other than a cap hit. That can be minimized so that it is a non-factor.

Basically, there are a number of reasons that the RFA is worse (you can debate all you want about how important they all are) and only one reason it is better (cap hit). If you want to be right just to be right, fine, but everything you want to get out of RFA can still be gained by signing him to a longer contract, which is what he wants. You seem to think he would be happier with a short-term contract. Maybe Grant just doesn't know what is good for him. Why don't you call him up and straighten him out?

[Gunakor]

Dude, we can get everything and more from him if we break this up into 2 seperate contracts that we could get if we signed him to one long one. Will you acknowledge the possible disadvantages to one long term deal? He either will or wont be worth more money in a couple years than he's due to get this year. We should decide then what to do with him. Why the hell should we make the committment and sign him to a long term deal right now if WE DONT KNOW IF HE IS WORTH THE DAMN THING?! Forget about cap space, either this year or years down the road. We have enough room under the cap to pay market value for Grant should he earn the right to be a Packer for life. If he is worth 8-10 million dollars per year then we should be paying him 8-10 million dollars per year. We can afford it. So stop making your point about having a pro bowl back at a low cost because cost isn't important.

Forget the UFA/RFA thing and just focus on what he's worth to us right now then. Right now he isn't worth more than a 2 year deal regardless what state of FA he enters at the end of it. He's UNPROVEN. He hasn't yet EARNED the right to sign a long term deal. He is just as likely to turn out to be a bust as he is to turn out to be a star. I could give you many. MANY reasons why a long term deal isn't a wise move for him right now. Your point revolves around your assumption that he is DEFINITELY going to be a pro bowl back, and that we could have the future pro bowl back for a very low cost. It's not guaranteed that he'll even be worth the front-loaded portion of that contract THIS year. Which is why it's wise to wait a couple years to determine both the length AND price of his lengthy deal.

Just give him enough to play now, and tell him if he wants to be a Packer for life and if he wants to make the big bucks then he has to prove it over a longer duration of time than 9 games. The only thing he earned last year IMO is the right to demand more than the 370k tender that Green Bay is required to offer him to retain his services. I do think that he should be making more than that. But 900 yards in 9 games for your CAREER does not give you the right to demand a 4 or 5 year deal. No effing way. Not in this league.

He hasn't earned a long term deal so he doesn't deserve one and shouldn't get one. That's how I feel about it. A 2 year deal leaves more options (and better options) open than a 1 year deal does which is why I press the 2 year deal so hard. He hasn't earned 3 or more years yet and that's why I argue the whole long term deal issue so hard.

Really, it isn't about RFA or UFA or money or any of that. It's about making that committment before you know what you are getting in return. I don't like the idea of releasing or trading players still under contract - I mean, what does that do to an image of a team if they make a 5 year committment to a player but only honor 2 years of it?? The player feels slighted and the team takes a cap hit. Nobody wins.

We got all up in arms a few seasons ago when Javon Walker held out while he was still under contract. We cheered Brett Favre for chewing him out over how he should play out his contract. Don't you think General Managers should be held to the same standard on the contract issue as players? How would signing Grant to a 5 year deal now and cutting him in 2 years when he doesn't pan out possibly help our image?

My point is that he isn't worth a long term deal and hasn't earned one. Hopefully in this post I've said that enough times that you understand what my point is. But just in case, I'll say it one more time.

RYAN GRANT HAS NOT EARNED AND IS NOT WORTH A LONG TERM DEAL.

Whatever benefits you list to signing him long term do not outweigh the fact that he has not earned one yet. So we'll just disagree I guess. Peace.

[sharpe1027]

A long term deal means nothing if it does not contain guaranteed money for the final years.

There, I just refuted your entire argument.

[Gunakor]

A long term deal means nothing if it does not contain guaranteed money for the final years.

There, I just refuted your entire argument.


From my previous post:

"We got all up in arms a few seasons ago when Javon Walker held out while he was still under contract. We cheered Brett Favre for chewing him out over how he should play out his contract. Don't you think General Managers should be held to the same standard on the contract issue as players?"


Please answer this question as pertains to your idea of releasing Grant with multiple years left on his contract. Try not to contradict yourself.

[sharpe1027]

The contract can be structured based upon performance and they probalby would not need to cut him. However, if they did cut him, he would be free to sign as a free agent with any team for whatever price he can get. I don't see how that is unfair.

The Walker situation was about his specific situation and about how he and his agent handled it. Nobody complained when Driver or Barnett got an extensions, yet they were both still under contract.

Besides, Grant doesn't want a 2 year deal. He should be well aware of what would happen if he doesn't produce down the road.

Anything else?

[Gunakor]

We don't know what Grant wants, so how can you say he doesn't want a 2 year deal? All he has said is that he won't sign the 370k tender that was offered to him and that he wants to be a Packer for life. If he was told that the team would not sign him to a long term deal without first seeing him perform over the course of a full season against defenses that weren't routinely dropping 7 men into coverage, I'm sure he'd sign the shorter deal and use it to better prove himself. Remember, he is an ERFA right now, so if he doesn't agree to our terms then he doesn't have a job. So we tell him he has to prove himself first, and when he does then we pay him what he earns. Hell, at least see what the kid can do against defenses that stack the box to stop the run as opposed to dropping into coverage to stop Favre.

This arguement has gotten very simple from both perspectives. Let me break it down for you from each perspective as I understand it:

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. As far as I can tell that is the ONLY advantage to signing him long term, and everything you've said comes back to us paying less for his services than we would if we had to rework a new contract. Is that the gist of what you're getting at? If not then I apologize for this rant as I do not know what you are looking to accomplish by signing him long term.

I on the other hand want to see us paying him EXACTLY what his market value is. If he becomes a pro bowler, I think we should be paying him like one. I think it's incredibly fucked up that some people, while realizing how much goddamn money we are just sitting on under the cap atm, are suggesting that we still underpay one of our stars by signing him to a modest long term deal right now. It's not like he's going anywhere in the next year or two - he won't hit FA until 2010 so until then he's property of the Green Bay Packers. My idea is simply to wait until he is eligible for FA to decide whether or not he should get the opportunity to be here beyond that, and if we decide yes, to pay him every penny he's earned over that 2 year evaluation period.

Yes, I realize that means he may come at a much steeper price tag. That's irrelevant. We can easily afford that steeper price tag if Grant proves himself to be worth that steeper cost. More to the point, if Grant DOES prove himself to be worth that steeper cost then he should get it. And he should get it from Green Bay.

He CAN'T leave Green Bay for 2 years. Given his uncertainties, why would you sign him longer than that? What is it that makes you want to sign him long term right now? I mean, we don't have to so why do it? He's not going anywhere for a couple years, so why the need to sign him long term right now? I know, I know. To save money, right? Sheesh... We don't need to save money any more for crying out loud. We need to SPEND some of it. This would be a very wise way to do so. If Grant doesn't work out, we lose nothing. If he becomes average it only costs us an average contract. If he becomes a star then we can easily afford to pay him a superstar salary.

I'm done here now. If you have already grown a man-crush for Grant and want him to stay in Green Bay forever or risk separation anxiety, so be it. I like the kid but am not convinced he's the RB of the future. I'd like a couple full seasons playing without the Favre threat in the passing game to evaluate him before I make any kind of lengthy committment to him. I'm out now. Peace.



P.S. Driver and Barnett were on the last years of thier contracts when the got thier extensions. That's the soonest TT has done that for players. Walker's situation was that he had more than one year left and demanded renegotiations anyway. The situations are not the same.

[sharpe1027]

We don't know what Grant wants, so how can you say he doesn't want a 2 year deal? All he has said is that he won't sign the 370k tender that was offered to him and that he wants to be a Packer for life. If he was told that the team would not sign him to a long term deal without first seeing him perform over the course of a full season against defenses that weren't routinely dropping 7 men into coverage, I'm sure he'd sign the shorter deal and use it to better prove himself.

Hypocritical



Remember, he is an ERFA right now, so if he doesn't agree to our terms then he doesn't have a job. So we tell him he has to prove himself first, and when he does then we pay him what he earns. Hell, at least see what the kid can do against defenses that stack the box to stop the run as opposed to dropping into coverage to stop Favre.

This goal is possible under both strategies.



You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost.

I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write.



As far as I can tell that is the ONLY advantage to signing him long term, and everything you've said comes back to us paying less for his services than we would if we had to rework a new contract. Is that the gist of what you're getting at? If not then I apologize for this rant as I do not know what you are looking to accomplish by signing him long term.


Well, if you look at my post showing the advantages, you see the only one of them states "possibly" counting little against the cap. I put possibly in there because they may redo it if he is good enough.



I on the other hand want to see us paying him EXACTLY what his market value is. If he becomes a pro bowler, I think we should be paying him like one. I think it's incredibly fucked up that some people, while realizing how much goddamn money we are just sitting on under the cap atm, are suggesting that we still underpay one of our stars by signing him to a modest long term deal right now. It's not like he's going anywhere in the next year or two - he won't hit FA until 2010 so until then he's property of the Green Bay Packers. My idea is simply to wait until he is eligible for FA to decide whether or not he should get the opportunity to be here beyond that, and if we decide yes, to pay him every penny he's earned over that 2 year evaluation period.


If you want to pay him the open market value, I contend that given the current salary cap situations, you want to overpay for him. Very few quality players are making the open market because teams realize this and don't let it happen.



Yes, I realize that means he may come at a much steeper price tag. That's irrelevant. We can easily afford that steeper price tag if Grant proves himself to be worth that steeper cost. More to the point, if Grant DOES prove himself to be worth that steeper cost then he should get it. And he should get it from Green Bay.


I see, a steep price tag is NOW irrelevant, but before you were saying my idea doesn't fly because they might take a little salary cap hit.



He CAN'T leave Green Bay for 2 years. Given his uncertainties, why would you sign him longer than that? What is it that makes you want to sign him long term right now? I mean, we don't have to so why do it? He's not going anywhere for a couple years, so why the need to sign him long term right now? I know, I know. To save money, right? Sheesh... We don't need to save money any more for crying out loud. We need to SPEND some of it. This would be a very wise way to do so. If Grant doesn't work out, we lose nothing. If he becomes average it only costs us an average contract. If he becomes a star then we can easily afford to pay him a superstar salary.

Using this logic we should sign EVERY player to single season contracts and pay them their fair market value.



I'm done here now. If you have already grown a man-crush for Grant and want him to stay in Green Bay forever or risk separation anxiety, so be it.

Uncalled for, rude and rather amusing given that I never said I was sold on Grant and nothing I said implied it either.




P.S. Driver and Barnett were on the last years of thier contracts when the got thier extensions. That's the soonest TT has done that for players. Walker's situation was that he had more than one year left and demanded renegotiations anyway. The situations are not the same.

My point exactly.[/b]

[Partial]

wow, that guy just did some pwnage

[RashanGary]

Why not wait one more year. Grant's agent will figure out there is nothing gained by not playing. One more year, if Grant has a good year give him a fair 5 year deal at the 2 year early discount.

[Gunakor]

wow, that guy just did some pwnage


Not really. He's basically saying that we can get everything out of a 5 year deal that we could get out of a 2 year deal, i.e. if he doesn't pan out we can get something back and it would cost us little to nothing and if he outplays his contract we can renegotiate at a higher salary. Maybe he's right. But he didn't pwn anybody. He didn't list some huge advantage to a long term deal either. Something about leverage... but then he said it isn't about the cost of the contract either so why then would who has leverage be important. I don't know. I really don't care anymore. I had stopped thinking about it and given up and was going to put this to rest, but then you had to chime in with this...

Just because he broke down my post and answered each part individually doesn't mean he "pwned" anyone. I could do the same thing to him, but why continue this. We obviously fiercely disagree on this topic, and nothing either of us could say would change the other's mind. So why bother.

[sharpe1027]

he said it isn't about the cost of the contract either so why then would who has leverage be important.

We obviously fiercely disagree on this topic.

Lies! :shock: Sorry, once again that's just not true.

[sharpe1027]

Why not wait one more year. Grant's agent will figure out there is nothing gained by not playing. One more year, if Grant has a good year give him a fair 5 year deal at the 2 year early discount.

That would be a good plan, but I'm not sure Grant is willing to risk injury while playing for peanuts this year. If they do that, they would probalby have to pay him a pretty good salary this year anyway. It is also a double edged sword, if he does really well, his price tag will go up even more.

It's a bit of a chance anyway you cut it.

[Partial]

Why not offer him 3 mil a year for 3 years instead of worrying about a long-term contract?

Collins is advocating being a cock to a player. That is not a good way to run a franchise.

[SnakeLH2006]

Ok. ok. Just sayin...Why sign the guy to any long term deal? He's basically a rookie and has 3 more years to free agency, right? Give him shit now, and shit next year, then talk in 2010. There was a really good post on here or god forbid it on packerchatters of the 8-10 good players becoming free agents next year that will need new contracts. This topic is void for 2 more years. We'll have to give over 20-25 million in the next year just to keep those guys with new contracts with the 2009 cap figures. Fuck Grant for now. Just draft a dude (we will) if he acts up. Running backs are a dime a dozen. Who's the best in the NFL now? LJ, LD, are they worth major money for attitudes/injuries? NOPE...So cool Joe TT keeps his head and doesn't pay for 2 more year.....you know it will happen, mark my words. :x

[sharpe1027]

Why not offer him 3 mil a year for 3 years instead of worrying about a long-term contract?

Collins is advocating being a cock to a player. That is not a good way to run a franchise.

They could, but I don't see the harm in offering a two more years. It would seem to be a low risk move with a significant upside if he holds up that long.

As the other poster mentioned, they could also totally low-ball him. I can't arguethat financially it would seem smart, especially over the next few years. I just don't think it takes into consideration long-term effects of having a potential star player being low-balled. I think most players would side with Grant on this one, so it may have more repercussion than just making Grant unhappy.

[Gunakor]

he said it isn't about the cost of the contract either so why then would who has leverage be important.

We obviously fiercely disagree on this topic.

Lies! :shock: Sorry, once again that's just not true.


Then why don't you just simply state specifically what it is you hope to gain by signing him to a 5 year deal? Ok ok, I'm sorry if I completely missed your point. Please explain it to me. I had thought it was about keeping Grant on our roster at a minimal cost against the cap, which absoluetly is a good thing as long as Grant doesn't earn a blockbuster deal in the coming years and holds out for better money (ala Javon Walker). You stated that this wasn't your point, so I then assumed that it was about the leverage being on Green Bay's side when it comes to contract negotiations (which you did mention in earlier posts). This apparently is also not true. I'm not trying to be an ass here, I guess I just simply don't understand what, if not those two things, your goal is in signing him long term. Or even if there IS an advantage beyond those two reasons. Is it simply to give Grant what he wants? Is it to appease everyone else in the locker room? I'm lost here...

I think I've made my point clearly, which is that I don't think you offer long term deals to 2nd year players with much to prove. That's the simplest way I can put it. The added bonuses I listed to a 2 year deal are simply that - added bonuses, not the sole reason for doing so. The biggest reason for not signing him long term is that he hasn't even completed a full season in the league yet or shown an ability to gash a defense geared around stopping the run. That is the biggest point I am trying to make. If that is the point you are trying to argue, then we'll never come to an agreement. I'm sorry if I came across as an ass.

[sharpe1027]

Then why don't you just simply state specifically what it is you hope to gain by signing him to a 5 year deal? Ok ok, I'm sorry if I completely missed your point. Please explain it to me. I had thought it was about keeping Grant on our roster at a minimal cost against the cap, which absoluetly is a good thing as long as Grant doesn't earn a blockbuster deal in the coming years and holds out for better money (ala Javon Walker). You stated that this wasn't your point, so I then assumed that it was about the leverage being on Green Bay's side when it comes to contract negotiations (which you did mention in earlier posts). This apparently is also not true.

Wrong, it is partially about leverage. You claimed I stated it was not about the cost of the contract, that was wrong.



I'm not trying to be an ass here, I guess I just simply don't understand what, if not those two things, your goal is in signing him long term. Or even if there IS an advantage beyond those two reasons. Is it simply to give Grant what he wants? Is it to appease everyone else in the locker room? I'm lost here...

I think I've made my point clearly, which is that I don't think you offer long term deals to 2nd year players with much to prove. That's the simplest way I can put it. The added bonuses I listed to a 2 year deal are simply that - added bonuses, not the sole reason for doing so. The biggest reason for not signing him long term is that he hasn't even completed a full season in the league yet or shown an ability to gash a defense geared around stopping the run. That is the biggest point I am trying to make. If that is the point you are trying to argue, then we'll never come to an agreement. I'm sorry if I came across as an ass.

I can state it very simply (once again): there is very little risk to signing him to a 5 year deal, and there are several benefits to doing so.

I would like to point out that your earlier argument was all about how the RFA would allow the Packers to get a few picks for Grant. I think I showed quite clearly that a 5 year deal is a better way to get picks for Grant if they don't want to keep him. That alone should be sufficient as it was pretty much your only reason in support of RFA originally.

Now you simply say you don't give him a long term deal because he hasn't played enough. On the surface it seems like common sense. But as I've tried to explain (and have yet to be given any reason I am wrong), there is little risk in signing him to a longer deal.

So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.

[Gunakor]

[quote=Gunakor]

Then why don't you just simply state specifically what it is you hope to gain by signing him to a 5 year deal? Ok ok, I'm sorry if I completely missed your point. Please explain it to me. I had thought it was about keeping Grant on our roster at a minimal cost against the cap, which absoluetly is a good thing as long as Grant doesn't earn a blockbuster deal in the coming years and holds out for better money (ala Javon Walker). You stated that this wasn't your point, so I then assumed that it was about the leverage being on Green Bay's side when it comes to contract negotiations (which you did mention in earlier posts). This apparently is also not true.


Wrong, it is partially about leverage. You claimed I stated it was not about the cost of the contract, that was wrong.



"Gunakor wrote:

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. "


"I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write. "

If it IS about the cost of the contract, then what did you mean when you posted this? This post makes it sound like you aren't concerned with the cost of his contract...




I'm not trying to be an ass here, I guess I just simply don't understand what, if not those two things, your goal is in signing him long term. Or even if there IS an advantage beyond those two reasons. Is it simply to give Grant what he wants? Is it to appease everyone else in the locker room? I'm lost here...

I think I've made my point clearly, which is that I don't think you offer long term deals to 2nd year players with much to prove. That's the simplest way I can put it. The added bonuses I listed to a 2 year deal are simply that - added bonuses, not the sole reason for doing so. The biggest reason for not signing him long term is that he hasn't even completed a full season in the league yet or shown an ability to gash a defense geared around stopping the run. That is the biggest point I am trying to make. If that is the point you are trying to argue, then we'll never come to an agreement. I'm sorry if I came across as an ass.


I can state it very simply (once again): there is very little risk to signing him to a 5 year deal, and there are several benefits to doing so.

I would like to point out that your earlier argument was all about how the RFA would allow the Packers to get a few picks for Grant. I think I showed quite clearly that a 5 year deal is a better way to get picks for Grant if they don't want to keep him. That alone should be sufficient as it was pretty much your only reason in support of RFA originally.

And I have stated that the reference to RFA was simply an added bonus to a 2 year deal, but that is not the sole reason to sign him for 2 years. I said that you might be right (read a few of my posts ago) that we could get the same thing by signing him to a 5 year deal. I just don't think he's worth a 5 year contract right now, so regardless of the picks we could or could not get I do not think a 5 year deal is necessary. Again, I'll give you the fact that we could get the same or even better picks by signing him long term. I don't think what we'd get in return via RFA would be that much worse than via a trade to necessitate a long term deal. Supposing we could get essentially the same value either way, the tipping point is that IMO Grant does not deserve a 5 year deal - whatever the risk.


Now you simply say you don't give him a long term deal because he hasn't played enough. On the surface it seems like common sense. But as I've tried to explain (and have yet to be given any reason I am wrong), there is little risk in signing him to a longer deal.

You are not wrong. I agree there is little risk. Is there a greater risk in signing him to a short term contract to evaluate him first before signing him beyond that? No. The risk factor cannot prove your theory any more than it can disprove mine. There is little risk either way.


So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.


Because he hasn't earned a 5 year deal IMO. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to our players that all you have to do is play well in half a season to earn a long term contract. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to Grant that we necessarily WANT him to be a Packer for life. That we aren't sure yet, and would like to see more before we make that type of committment. Isn't that reasonable?

[sharpe1027]

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. "


"I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write. "

If it IS about the cost of the contract, then what did you mean when you posted this? This post makes it sound like you aren't concerned with the cost of his contract...

There is a difference betwen being concerned with the cost of his contract and being well below market cost. For example, over-paying is a concern.


Is there a greater risk in signing him to a short term contract to evaluate him first before signing him beyond that? No. The risk factor cannot prove your theory any more than it can disprove mine. There is little risk either way.


It is called losing him to FAs because once he signs the RFA tender offer and he is guraranteed to be a UFA in one year. If a team offers a RFA tender, the player is guranteed to be a FA the next year if they want.


So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.

Because he hasn't earned a 5 year deal IMO. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to our players that all you have to do is play well in half a season to earn a long term contract. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to Grant that we necessarily WANT him to be a Packer for life. That we aren't sure yet, and would like to see more before we [b]make that type of committment. Isn't that reasonable?

Reasonable, maybe from your perspective. I don't agree that "sending a message" to our best RB that we don't necessarily want him for more than a year or two is good policy.

"make that type of committment": if you take one single thing away from everything I've said it should be that there is no committment. Good grief man, how many times have people tried to explain that to you? Without counting I think there were 3 or 4 different posters explaining how the contracts can be worked out so that there really is no committment.

[Gunakor]

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. "


"I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write. "

If it IS about the cost of the contract, then what did you mean when you posted this? This post makes it sound like you aren't concerned with the cost of his contract...


There is a difference betwen being concerned with the cost of his contract and being well below market cost. For example, over-paying is a concern.


Earlier you had said that we'd want to overpay for him, or else some other team that was willing to overpay for him might lure him away. On top of that, overpaying a little bit for him doesn't concern me at the moment because we have plenty of cap room going forward to do it with.



Is there a greater risk in signing him to a short term contract to evaluate him first before signing him beyond that? No. The risk factor cannot prove your theory any more than it can disprove mine. There is little risk either way.



It is called losing him to FAs because once he signs the RFA tender offer and he is guraranteed to be a UFA in one year. If a team offers a RFA tender, the player is guranteed to be a FA the next year if they want.


Untrue. Green Bay would offer him a RFA tender, and other teams would have the option of signing him to whatever length of contract they desire, at whatever cost they choose. The tender we offer would dictate the compensation picks they'd have to give us in return, but it doesn't mean that's the only contract other teams can sign him to. Now, if another team does make an offer, Green Bay can simply match that offer to retain his services. If another team offers a 3 year deal and Green Bay matches it, Grant is signed for 3 years. If no other team makes an offer, Grant can sign his one year tender but the team can extend that offer at any time during the season to prevent him from hitting FA. They would do so if he's worth keeping around at that point, or they won't because he hasn't turned out to be what we thought he would be.



So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.

Because he hasn't earned a 5 year deal IMO. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to our players that all you have to do is play well in half a season to earn a long term contract. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to Grant that we necessarily WANT him to be a Packer for life. That we aren't sure yet, and would like to see more before we [b]make that type of committment. Isn't that reasonable?


Reasonable, maybe from your perspective. I don't agree that "sending a message" to our best RB that we don't necessarily want him for more than a year or two is good policy.

That's not the message we'd be sending to him. The message would be "We like you but we aren't 100% convinced yet. Here's a 2 year deal with x money guaranteed. Use these 2 years to prove that you can handle the punishement of a full NFL season, and that you can successfully run the ball against a defense who've gameplanned to stop YOU. Then if you show us that you can handle it, we'll talk about an extention." If he can't man up and accept the fact that 9 good games does not warrant a 5 year deal...



"make that type of committment": if you take one single thing away from everything I've said it should be that there is no committment. Good grief man, how many times have people tried to explain that to you? Without counting I think there were 3 or 4 different posters explaining how the contracts can be worked out so that there really is no committment.


That's the problem with the NFL. There is no committment. I'll have to simply disagree with you on moral grounds and leave it at that. Of course I understand that this is the way things work in the NFL. It doesn't make it right. But we won't argue this one, because it is essentially an argument of the way things are vs. the way things should be. That arguement will go on forever with no way of stopping it. But you know where I'm coming from now. To me a contract, put simply, is a committment in writing. I already know you disagree and why, so don't bother typing it out.

[sharpe1027]

Your rather long explanation of RFA is interesting but not on point at all.
What I said was that a player offered a RFA tender is guaranteed to be a free agent next year if they choose. I fully realize that there are other options for that player, but if they want they simply sign the tender and in one year they are an UFA and there is nothing the Packers or any other team can do about it.

You have some personal issues with signing a player to a five year deal even though it doesn't hurt the team, fine. Seriously though, if this was your point, why did it take you so many posts where you argued a bunch of other unrelated reasons for using RFA before you said so? Heaven forbid you acknowledge that someone else's idea may be better than yours. :roll:

[sharpe1027]

Earlier you had said that we'd want to overpay for him, or else some other team that was willing to overpay for him might lure him away.


I just read this. Stop saying what you think I said, I'm tired of correcting you. If you are going to comment on what I said please quote it ootherwise you are just making stuff up to prove yourself right.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.
:D

[twoseven]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.
:D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JGpajGj07BU&feature=related

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a149/CameronVarney/Doc.jpg

http://home.att.net/~wordaboutbiehn/Tombstone22b.jpg

[Partial]

You think Grant would sign for 5 year for peanuts? I don't. He'll sign for 2 or 3 and get enough to live comfortably if he gets hurt, but he won't sign long term. No way.

[sharpe1027]

You think Grant would sign for 5 year for peanuts?

No.

[sharpe1027]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.
:D

I'm your huckleberry.

[Gunakor]

I on the other hand want to see us paying him EXACTLY what his market value is. If he becomes a pro bowler, I think we should be paying him like one. I think it's incredibly fucked up that some people, while realizing how much goddamn money we are just sitting on under the cap atm, are suggesting that we still underpay one of our stars by signing him to a modest long term deal right now. It's not like he's going anywhere in the next year or two - he won't hit FA until 2010 so until then he's property of the Green Bay Packers. My idea is simply to wait until he is eligible for FA to decide whether or not he should get the opportunity to be here beyond that, and if we decide yes, to pay him every penny he's earned over that 2 year evaluation period.



If you want to pay him the open market value, I contend that given the current salary cap situations, you want to overpay for him. Very few quality players are making the open market because teams realize this and don't let it happen.


There's your quote.

[RashanGary]

You think Grant would sign for 5 year for peanuts? I don't. He'll sign for 2 or 3 and get enough to live comfortably if he gets hurt, but he won't sign long term. No way.

I guarantee you are wrong. He will not get a 2 or 3 year deal. He'll either play for a one year small deal close to the tender or he'll sign a long one for less than he's worth. There are no other options. Fact. I think he'll play for the one year tender.

[run pMc]

2 years...5 years...who cares? GB has the cap room, right? ;)

Seriously, as long as he signs his tender and shows up for camp, I'm not going to worry. TT isn't the only GM to prove that RBs can be discovered almost as easily as they are replaced.

[The Leaper]

Grant will get a 4-5 year deal...with voidable years based on performance/playing time. It is the only deal that makes sense for both sides. GB gets a happy, motivated RB. Grant gets some financial security, and a chance for a big payday in 2 years if he plays well.

[sharpe1027]

If you want to pay him the open market value, I contend that given the current salary cap situations, you want to overpay for him. Very few quality players are making the open market because teams realize this and don't let it happen.


There's your quote.[/quote]

I said that you (Gunkar) essentially want to over pay for him because you want open market pricing. Most FAs don't live up to the super huge contracts. I did not say that the Packers would intentionally overpay. That is just stupid.

[sharpe1027]

If you want to pay him the open market value, I contend that given the current salary cap situations, you want to overpay for him. Very few quality players are making the open market because teams realize this and don't let it happen.


There's your quote.

I said that IF you (Gunkar) want open market pricing you essentially want to overpay. Most FAs don't live up to the super huge contracts. I did not say that it would be wise for the Packers to intentionally overpay. That is just stupid and doesn't make any sense in the context of what I wrote including the very next sentence.

[Gunakor]

So does this mean that YOU (Sharpe) want to sign him to a contract BELOW market value? I don't get it. What is the COST that you'd like to sign him at? Market value? Below market value? Slightly above market value? Which is it?

I have stated several times that I don't think it's fair to RYAN GRANT to sign him to anything below market value. His market value now is not the same as it is going to be in a couple years. Sure we could sign him long term now and renegotiate later, but how is that any different than signing him to 2 seperate contracts? A bit more salary perhaps, but why does that matter. You are not understanding the fact that we are SO far below the cap that we can afford to do it either way with no reprecussions. Slightly overpaying for his services would not concern me AS LONG AS HE HAS EARNED IT. We have more than enough money to do so. This doesn't mean overpay him no matter what. The large chunk of money I'd give him isn't guaranteed up front right now. It wouldn't be included in the first contract. It would be the carrot I'd be dangling in front of him in the form of a potential contract extention. But he has to EARN it first.

Both of us have made our points on this issue, and it seems that the risks and rewards would generally be the same either way. There is no huge advantage or huge risk in either of these scenarios. The only major difference then is the message we are sending. You want to send the message to Grant that we want him long term, and I think that's a bit premature. I'd like to see more of him before I would send a message like that. Again, what I would tell him is that I'd be willing to sign him to a shorter term deal right now and re-evaluate him based on what he does during that contract. I would tell him up front that I'd be more than willing to talk about an extention should he earn one. That isn't telling him he can't be here longer. It's telling him that if HE wants to be here longer he can, but he has to show us that WE want him here longer as well. That WE aren't convinced yet. That's a reasonable message, unless you are convinced after 9 games that he's the real deal. I am not.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.
:D

I'm your huckleberry.

Where's superfan when we need him?
:D

[sharpe1027]

So does this mean that YOU (Sharpe) want to sign him to a contract BELOW market value? I don't get it. What is the COST that you'd like to sign him at? Market value? Below market value? Slightly above market value? Which is it?

They should sign him according to the value he has to the Packers as a team. What they should not do is get in a bidding war and be forced to pay what some other team values him at. If you agree with this, then you should realize why your strategy carries significantly more risk as Grant could easily play out his RFA contract and either 1) the Packers get nothing or 2) they are forced to pay more than the highest of what 32 other teams would pay him.

It just doesn't make much sense to take that chance when you can just offer him a 5 year deal now that has little to no ramifications if they want to trade or cut him loose in 3 years.

I will leave the judgment up to the experts, let's see how this thing plays out.

[twoseven]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.
:D

I'm your huckleberry.

Where's superfan when we need him?
:D
Tombstone quotes, that's just my game. Say when..

[woodbuck27]

Of course, with how players want to renegotiate deals ... it probably doesn't matter.
I'd say I agree with everything you said here, except for this. If Grant continues to perform as he did last year (which I expect him to), it makes a huge difference in who has negotiating leverage (and how much of it they have) depending on whether the player who wants to renegotiate is locked up for the next three years, or whether he is on the brink of free agency. If I'm a GM (or a fan who is interested in the team's success), I'd much prefer to have the player locked up and under an extended-term contract.

Yup. Especially given the money we have available.

It's simple LOCK DOWN logic to me. Extend this RB now for three years.

PACKERS FOREVER.