Grant deal inching closer

[RashanGary]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080528/PKR01/805280708/1058&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

Ryan Grant's contract talks hit a substantive stage late last week and left Grant's agent optimistic he and the Green Bay Packers can grind out a deal in the coming weeks.


Grant, the Packers' starting halfback, is in an unusual position in seeking a long-term deal, because though he's been out of college for three years, he's played only one season in the NFL and can't become an unrestricted free agent until 2011, when he'll be 28. But after almost single-handedly supplying the Packers with a respectable rushing game the second half of last season, Grant is looking for some financial security while in his prime.

His agent, Alan Herman, has said Grant won't sign the $370,000 minimum tender for a second-year pro. However, after a 1½-hour conversation with Packers negotiator Russ Ball late last week, Herman said the team is open to a long-term deal, though it will require major compromises by both sides. ****hmmm. . . the agent seems to get it*****

"The important issue is the club has indicated they're not big players in the free-agent market and they like to take care of their own," Herman said. "Ryan had truly an extraordinary year and it wasn't like he was a flash in the pan. He played 12 games, that's a lot of games, at the highest level. Clearly, they know what they have and that's why the opportunity to get something done and keep him there for a long time is kind of apparent."

[RashanGary]

No suprise that it's a long term deal. That's the only piece of leverage Grant has (other than not playing and ending his career before it starts). Some here said it would be 3 years. I really couldn't fathom the Packers doing that.

[RashanGary]

"The important issue is the club has indicated they're not big players in the free-agent market and they like to take care of their own," Herman said. "Ryan had truly an extraordinary year and it wasn't like he was a flash in the pan. He played 12 games, that's a lot of games, at the highest level. Clearly, they know what they have and that's why the opportunity to get something done and keep him there for a long time is kind of apparent."

Notice the agent play up the teams benefit to signing Grant for a "long time". This is quite obviously a leverage pry. It makes sense. The Packers can have all of Grant's good years for a "three year early" price and Grant gets security for himself and his family rather than risking injury every game. Win/Win. It was the only way, whether people want to recognize it or not. I thought it was quite obvious that GRant wasn't going to walk in there, demand more money and not give up anything in return. He just didn't have that type of leverage.

[Zool]

Source please.

[vince]

Assuming Grant is realistic about his current value in the negotiations, this will be a big value signing (THE key to ultimate success in a salary-capped NFL) as Grant reaches his prime if it's for 4-5 years or more.

[The Leaper]

No suprise that it's a long term deal. That's the only piece of leverage Grant has (other than not playing and ending his career before it starts). Some here said it would be 3 years. I really couldn't fathom the Packers doing that.

I think most felt Grant might object to a long term deal...not the Packers. Due to his age, this could very well be Grant's only chance at a big payday unless he proves himself to be an elite player over the next 3 years.

[texaspackerbacker]

Unless you believe Grant is going to bomb out or get injured, 3 years is simply not enough. In three years, Grant will have another 2-4 good years left. He will be able to command a 5-8 year contract fior top dollar at that time--which means either we pay too much for too long or we lose him for half of his best years.

The smart thing is to sign him for at very least, 5 years, more likely, 6 or 7 now. By then, he will be like Ahman Green, and we can let him go/wish him luck at getting too much from somebody else.

[Zool]

Unless you believe Grant is going to bomb out or get injured, 3 years is simply not enough. In three years, Grant will have another 2-4 good years left. He will be able to command a 5-8 year contract fior top dollar at that time--which means either we pay too much for too long or we lose him for half of his best years.

The smart thing is to sign him for at very least, 5 years, more likely, 6 or 7 now. By then, he will be like Ahman Green, and we can let him go/wish him luck at getting too much from somebody else.

I agree with signing him for 4-5 now, but I dont think after a 3 year he would command anything near an 8 year deal. He's 25 already. RB's as a trend fade at 30.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ahman Green commanded a big deal when he was approaching 30.

It will be at least 4 years. If Green Bay is going to boost his deal, they are going to want to buy out at least one year of FA--just like the Crew did with Ryan Braun. Win-win for both teams. Grant gets the security of good money--when Green Bay isn't obligated to pay him good money. Green Bay keeps a crucial player happy and buys out a year of FA.

[Zool]

Can you remember anything over 5 years for any RB?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Can you remember anything over 5 years for any RB?

Shaun Alexander got an 8-year deal. Of course, he was cut after 2-3 years.
:D

I agree that 6-8 years is too much.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I don't think money is the big issue.

Length of the contract is the biggest issue. RB's are usually only good for about 4 years and then they fade. 3 years gets Grant right to free agency unless we have the uncapped year or big changes to the CBA.

The Packers can have Grant for cheap for most of those years.

Grant can't get a big guaranteed money deal. He has to compromise on incentives in the deal.

Somehow I think it will be close to a minimum deal for 4 years with some easy incentives (45 man game day roster, starting games, etc.) and a work out bonus.

There will be some big money incentives that increase based on performance. 800 yards rushing, 1200 yards rushing, 1500 yards rushing, 2000 yards, 500 yards receiving, 1000 yards receiving, etc.

There will be some for league MVP and Super Bowl MVP and other things that the agent can then brag the deal could be worth up to _____ million dollars.

Such a deal would keep Grant from getting cut if he becomes a bust (due to injury or whatever reason) and allows him to make some money if he performs well.

If they spent 90 minutes negotiating some progress was made without visible signs of it. They both know the parameters.

My guess is that the Packers are compromising the most. The Packers could have not listened or discussed anything until July 15th. The fact that they are talking now is a good sign.

It will be interesting to see how the new negotiator does.

If talks break off it will be because Grant's agent is pushing too hard for too much.

[texaspackerbacker]

Can you remember anything over 5 years for any RB?

Emmitt Smith got 8 years when he was way too old to get that much.

True, Ahman Green "commanded" big money at an advanced age, but fortunately, he didn't get it from the Packers.

Grant may be 25 already, but he has less "mileage" than most 25 year old RBs. I think barring injuries, his prime years should last until 31 or 32.

[Tarlam!]

What Tex said.

Sign the guy long term. He was there when Wynn, Jackson and Co. folded. He was as big a part of 13-3 as Favre.

Don't fuck with it TT, just give him his money.

[Pack-man]

What Tex said.

Sign the guy long term. He was there when Wynn, Jackson and Co. folded. He was as big a part of 13-3 as Favre.

Don't fuck with it TT, just give him his money.

I agree with you guys, but that's not the TT way. He is pretty stingy with the Packs money. He's gotta figure I found Ryan Grant on the scrap heap, RB's are a dime a dozen. Can't see Grant breaking the bank in GB.

[Scott Campbell]

Grant may be 25 already, but he has less "mileage" than most 25 year old RBs. I think barring injuries, his prime years should last until 31 or 32.



I dunno. It's extremely rare for a RB to be effective past 30, unless he's the 2nd coming of John Riggins.

[the_idle_threat]

Grant may be 25 already, but he has less "mileage" than most 25 year old RBs. I think barring injuries, his prime years should last until 31 or 32.



I dunno. It's extremely rare for a RB to be effective past 30, unless he's the 2nd coming of John Riggins.

I agree. They said the same thing about Ahman Green regarding low milage.

[bobblehead]

As much time and thought as I have put into the Ryan Grant deal I originally said he have to sign a minimum 5 year deal and my opinion was it shouldn't be worth more than 15-17 million. Now that I have looked at what some guys have gotten (still considering Grant has no leverage) I am predicting he will sign for 6 years in the range of 22-25 million...the catch will be that year 6 will be about 6-7 million of that so the packers will have a chance to waive it off if it isn't worth it then. Given his age this could basically get him paid now and give the team all of his expected productive years. I still don't think he gets a ton upfront, maybe 3 million tops.

We'll see if I'm nostradamus or not.

[vince]

Yeah I could see that too bobble. That would be IMO a great deal for the Pack, and a fair deal for Grant, who's in a tough spot.

Grant will obviously want more upfront money in exchange for that contract length, and I think he may get more front-loaded money - say $5-6 mil - just because that'll be important to Grant and our cap situation gives the team the ability to use current dollars in a deal like this - like Woodson's deal.

That's more risk for the team for what some consider to be a marginally proven player, but I think it's a good risk to take with this guy. McCarthy has said one of the best attributes of Grant is his consistency, and he's not only intelligent and has a great team-first attitude, but this guy has proven to be able to find even a small seam in the ZBS and bust through it with unique ability. And he's more likely to get better than worse at this stage of his career.

However, a "pay as you go" contract is the M.O. for the Packers these days, so I think most of the bonus money (say another $6mil or so) will likely be tied to his ongoing roster spot, offseason workout attendance, and on-the-field production, as it should be.

That would give him about an average of $2mil salary, which would probably escalate from almost nothing in year 1 to about $4mil at the end of his contract.

If he continues to produce at a very high level for the next three years or so, the foundation/opportunity to renegotiate in good faith if appropriate - ala Driver - would exist under this scenario. The Packers would then still likely be able to keep a very productive Grant at a relative bargain even then.

[RashanGary]

As much time and thought as I have put into the Ryan Grant deal I originally said he have to sign a minimum 5 year deal and my opinion was it shouldn't be worth more than 15-17 million. Now that I have looked at what some guys have gotten (still considering Grant has no leverage) I am predicting he will sign for 6 years in the range of 22-25 million...the catch will be that year 6 will be about 6-7 million of that so the packers will have a chance to waive it off if it isn't worth it then. Given his age this could basically get him paid now and give the team all of his expected productive years. I still don't think he gets a ton upfront, maybe 3 million tops.

We'll see if I'm nostradamus or not.


I think your close. You added the 6th year, but this is pretty much what I've been saying all along (about 2 months now).

[vince]

JH, I think you're one of the most knowledgeable posters around here (and that says a lot), but if people are going to start laying claim to being "right" about their positions, then others are bound to check the facts... This hasn't been your position "all along."

Here was the first in-depth thread in this forum about the Grant situation...
http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=10989&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

...and here is the basis of your position "all along." Granted you've modified it a bit after alot of discourse, and you have wanted to lock him up through his prime years, but you've been clear that you believe the team should hardball Grant while he has little leverage and wait to sign him to a long-term deal until after next year. That's been the basis of disagreement with some, and that's the difference between what the team appears to be doing and what you've been advocating in this situation.

He's got next year and the year after before he's even restricted and if he were restricted, we'd still have the leverage of tenders.

A 4 year deal is basically only adding on a year to what we already own him for. It would amount to a big gift, really. I could see doing something after next year, but even then it would have to be somewhat discounted.

Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

After next year, I'd consider a 5 year deal to lock him up through his prime.

[vince]

With that said, you may still be right if Grant overestimates his current value and a long-term deal is unable to be attained this year.

[RashanGary]

You got me (somewhat), but I still think a year or at least half of one should be given before the deal. If something is to get done now (and it seems like Grant is really showing an urgency), I've been consistant that it has to be long term (5 or more years) and somewhat backloaded. I think I made that quote when you said it was a good idea to lock him up now. I still disagree, but if he's hell bent on making it happen (and he is), I think my history will show that I've always said it had to be long term (as I've always said that was his only leverage) and somewhat backloaded/smallish because the Packers hold the cards

[vince]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.

[RashanGary]

bobble head is echoing exactly what I have. He doens't want to do it right this moment, but if it has to be done, he added all of the stipulations that I've been preaching since this discussion has been brought up. He made it 6 years, I've been saying 5 or more. And I"m still with bobble head that it's about 1 year too soon, but it's being pushed and he is worth it so it might get done.

[vince]

Obviously a legitimate opinion, but at Grant's age and with his intelligence and work ethic, he's not going to lose the skills he has demonstrated or forget how to use them...

Back to my original argument - he's highly likely to be more expensive to lock down next year than this year, so this year is the optimal time to get it done - unless Grant holds firm on demanding a blockbuster deal. So far, his and his agent's comments don't indicate that...

[Scott Campbell]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.


Some really nice runs there. Pay the man.

[bobblehead]

bobble head is echoing exactly what I have. He doens't want to do it right this moment, but if it has to be done, he added all of the stipulations that I've been preaching since this discussion has been brought up. He made it 6 years, I've been saying 5 or more. And I"m still with bobble head that it's about 1 year too soon, but it's being pushed and he is worth it so it might get done.

JH speaks the truth, we were the two posters on the previous thread saying don't get too carried away, we have to hardball him a bit so the team gets something too. I still wouldn't be upset if TT said "kid, sign the offer, if you get thru 10 good games this season, I promise you a solid 5 year extension."

Now that being said, I know most of the posters/fans even the coaches want RG locked up, that is why I am predicting said 6 year deal that gives him a boost thru his 3 exclusive years, and a solid salary in his FA years, but still a discount than if he went FA. I'm predicting a fairly big year 6 salary that is waivable cuz it allows RG to "save face" and get bigger number while not really exposing the team. Also, 7 million in year 6 of this deal may indeed be a bargain at that time.

[RashanGary]

Sorry if I tried to take credit for your opinion, bobblehead. I just think it's such a good guess that I had some prediction envy there :) :)

[sharpe1027]

JH speaks the truth, we were the two posters on the previous thread saying don't get too carried away, we have to hardball him a bit so the team gets something too. I still wouldn't be upset if TT said "kid, sign the offer, if you get thru 10 good games this season, I promise you a solid 5 year extension."



If they are going to do that I would hope that they at least give him a raise for the year. He's worth alot more than $250,000 to the Packers, everyone can agree on that. They aren't going to signing more FAs and have alot of cap space.

[bobblehead]

No harm JH, like I said we have been pretty close on our ideas on how it should be handled.

And I agree with what sharpe says to a limited extent. Way back when the offers were tendered I remember thinking "man with all the room under the cap they should just offer him and bigby a flat 1 mill as a good faith gesture." I posted as much on the old JS site.

I still feel that way kinda, but then you gotta think about repurcussions. What happens if 3 years from now we are up against the number and we have a couple undrafted FA's have really good years? We might not be able to offer them more than the minimum then you got a situation because they will hold out citing past situations. If we cave on Grant now, what happens if Muir has 8 sacks this year. I'm not against paying guys who have earned it, but I really wish Grant had signed the tender, put in 10 games and then politely requested a long term deal.

[sharpe1027]

If we cave on Grant now, what happens if Muir has 8 sacks this year.

What happens? They pay the man, unless they think it was a fluke. Good pass rusing DEs are hard to find.

[bobblehead]

And if we have his exclusive rights, have put time and capital into developing him but don't have any more cap room than is necessary to hold his exclusive rights??

[sharpe1027]

And if we have his exclusive rights, have put time and capital into developing him but don't have any more cap room than is necessary to hold his exclusive rights??

Then they would have done a crap job of managing their cap. Maybe you haven't noticed how ever since TT showed up, that hasn't even been a remote issue?

Time and capital? As in, they did their job? I guess they should be spending half their income paying back all the colleges that have spent time and capital on the players they have now? Besides, they would have gotten 8 sacks out of him the year before as a payoff for their time and capital.

Not to mention that your hypo is is Apples to Oranges. They have the cap room now. I'm not a mind-reader, but common sense tells me that if Grant and his agent knew that they had absolutely zero cap room this would have been handled differently.

You have a point, I just think it is only a minor issue, if at all. Pay the man and move on.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.


Damn that really gets me ready for football season. I was at the bar the other night and all that was on was women's softball and MLS soccer :(

[BallHawk]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.

Great video. Had to mute the sound though. :shock:

[Farley Face]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.

Thanks Vince, that got the juices flowing.

[vince]

Not a lot new in this article from NFL.com, but its a national perspective, and hey, its about Ryan Grant, so here's a link and a couple stanzas of the more interesting stuff...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=3CA2D3D44491C5D7308F894513BEB003? id=09000d5d80893f06&template=with-video&confirm=true


Packers depending on Grant to keep them in the running

...

Surely you remember that snowy Saturday night a little more than four months ago. Grant lost a fumble on his first carry against Seattle, and another on his third. Four minutes into the game, the Packers trailed, 14-0.

Teammates rallied to Grant. McCarthy said he never considered pulling him. Brett Favre told Grant to forget the fumbles, in somewhat more earthy language. Grant still has not forgotten them, but he did make up for them. He went on to rush for 201 yards -- a Green Bay playoff record -- and three touchdowns as the Packers won the game, 42-20.

"Quite frankly, when you screw up like that on national TV, it takes courage to go back out there," said Ted Thompson, the Packers' general manager. McCarthy called the post-fumble performance "remarkable," particularly in the conditions. Said Thompson: "You couldn't see him at times when he was running, because it was snowing so hard."

Grant says he did it by staying "true to myself," not changing his running style, and not running tentative or scared.

"It wasn't the first time I've made a mistake on the football field since I was a little kid, and it won't be the last time," he said.

"That game didn't start the way I wanted it to. My NFL career didn't start the way I would like it to. There are going to be trials and tribulations, and the way you deal with them is going to show up in the end. You've got to keep moving forward. I take what I do very seriously."

...

Grant was a feel-good story during the 2007 season. He spent his rookie season in 2005 on the Giants' practice squad and his second year on injured reserve. When, just before the season opener last September, the Packers dealt for him, Grant didn't know what to expect. For that matter, neither did the Packers.

"My number one thought was, for a team to trade for you at that point, they have to want your services, so I took it as a good thing," he said. Actually, what the Packers wanted at that point was just a healthy body. They got that, and more.

Grant gave the running game what McCarthy called "a shot in the arm" during the season, averaging 5.1 yards a rush, third best in the league among players who averaged at least 10 carries a game. But it wasn't until the playoffs that Grant really established himself, both with his performance and his demeanor after those two lost fumbles.

"That tells a lot about him as a person," McCarthy said.

The emergence of Grant may have been a surprise to many, but not to Grant, who said, "The only surprise, maybe, is . . . how fast it came on, but not by the level of performance." "Did we envision him becoming the lead guy and sort of a dominant player among that group (of young backs)? Probably not right away," Thompson said. "But we felt like he had that kind of ability."

The Packers like their stable of young backs, particularly now that they are all healthy again. And if they liked what Grant showed them in January, they really like what he's showing them now. Although Grant is unsigned, but is not a free agent (the Packers hold his exclusive rights), he has been working out regularly at the team's facility, taking part in meetings and conditioning drills, and doing everything but the on-field work in the OTA program.

Both sides expect a contract to be worked out in advance of training camp, which begins July 28.

Veteran NFL writer Ira Miller is a regular contributor to NFL.com.

[vince]

I'm predicting a fairly big year 6 salary that is waivable cuz it allows RG to "save face" and get bigger number while not really exposing the team. Also, 7 million in year 6 of this deal may indeed be a bargain at that time.
TT hasn't been a guy to backload contracts like you're predicting here bobblehead, even if the expectation is that he might cut him or renegotiate at that point as you're suggesting. And even though $6 mil may be a relative bargain in six years, I would predict a more evenly distributed contract from year over year, with more money upfront than you're suggesting and smaller increases as the years progress - without a big, inconsistent increase from any one year to another...

His philosophy has been to stay with a pay-as-you-go structure and avoid being put into a position where a player (Mike Wahle) has to be restructured or cut because of a backloaded contract structure that could become out of whack with the player's projected valuet...

Obviously, we'll see how it plays out, most likely just prior to training camp.

[bobblehead]

All I can say is its a good thing for RG he came back big in that seattle game.

Also, the stellar performance in the championship game outta prove he deserves a long tem deal....where were the highlights of that game anyway??

OK, calm down, i'm mostly kidding, but the point is he disappeared, which is why I am in favor of being a little tough with him and making sure the packers get something as well.