HAWKS DEAL COULD UPSET HARRIS EVEN MORE

[woodbuck27]

HAWKS DEAL COULD UPSET HARRIS EVEN MORE

By Doug Ritchey / PackerReport.com


You think Al Harris is ticked off about his pay now? Wait till rookie linebacker A.J. Hawk signs his new deal, says PackerReport.com's Doug Ritchay. Hawk has yet to sign, but when he does, Harris will be bumped further down the ladder among the team's highest-paid defenders. We all know Packers cornerback Al Harris is whining this off-season about a contract which over the life of it pays him almost $19 million over five seasons. Poor boy, how can he put food on the table? His anger likely stems from Charles Woodson signing a seven-year, $39 million deal with the Packers. Many would argue Harris is better than Woodson, who has had a problem staying healthy.

Still, isn't that Harris' signature on the deal? I always get frustrated by pro athletes when they want to renegotiate a contract after playing a good season or two. What happens when they stink up the joint for a season or two? Is Ahmad Carroll going into GM Ted Thompson's office and asking for a pay cut? No, he's going to continue to "steal." But have a breakthrough season and these guys come running through the door like William Henderson bulls through a linebacker. There's no stopping them.

This leads me to Packers first-round pick A.J. Hawk. The fifth player selected in the draft is expected to make an impact from Day 1, be a stud for years and help the Packers get back to respectability. Nonetheless, Hawk has done nothing in the NFL, yet. However, when he signs his contract, he's likely going to make Harris' hair stand, and that's saying something. Last year's fifth pick, Tampa Bay's Carnell Williams, signed a five-year, $30 million deal, which included a $13 million signing bonus. Hawk's deal will be similar, meaning another defensive player will be making more money than Harris, who throughout his Packers career has been a quality player. Harris may be underpaid in regards to others in his profession, but nobody forged his signature.

[MJZiggy]

Wonder if this guy realizes that Harris is reportedly not upset by Woodson's deal. It's Kampman's that has his feathers ruffled. I don't know if he will be bothered by Hawk's deal or not assuming that he will be paid what the going rate is for players drafted in his position. Does anyone have any information that would tell us whether PackerReport.com is a credible source or not?

[Partial]

He'll be in camp with a smile on his face. Remember how excited he was when we signed woodson? He was quoted saying that teams are screwed because they are going to have to throw at one of them. This is just a ploy for more money and more media attention. It'll blow over.

[Rastak]

Wonder if this guy realizes that Harris is reportedly not upset by Woodson's deal. It's Kampman's that has his feathers ruffled. I don't know if he will be bothered by Hawk's deal or not assuming that he will be paid what the going rate is for players drafted in his position. Does anyone have any information that would tell us whether PackerReport.com is a credible source or not?


Why would he care about Kampman's deal? It wasn't THAT rich and it's a different market? I would think Woodson's deal might irritate him some but why Kampman?

[MJZiggy]

I don't know, but that's what the word is...

[Rastak]

I don't know, but that's what the word is...


That's interesting. Kind of a head scratcher actually........

[ny10804]

This is probably what Alshinard is thinking: the kitchen's open, but I ain't gettin' no cookie.

[NewsBruin]

Is Ahmad Carroll going into GM Ted Thompson's office and asking for a pay cut? No, he's going to continue to "steal."

No, but TT may do that to Carroll or a higher-paid veteran.

I'm not saying either side is right to change terms, and a team has the leverage to make a player play for less (rather than risk being cut). But it is harder than heck for a player to get the money "back" if he agrees to restructure his contract after a bad year.

[the_idle_threat]

Welcome to the forum, NewsBruin! Do you still post much at JSonline?

[Bretsky]

Welcome to the forum, NewsBruin! Do you still post much at JSonline?

Yes, Welcome to Packerrats.

I still lurq there, but I don't think anybody posts there much. Seems that they get about 10 posts a day, and five of them are off topic.


Cheers,
B

[NewsBruin]

Hey, guys, it's good to see some familiar names. I still view the threads there, but that's a board that's trying to run itself into the ground.

This place looks very encouraging, especially the thoughtful comments and research the posters put in here. I was leery of going to one board for news and another for comments, but I'm just impressed with Packerrats so far.

And all apologies for my first thread being one of my sore spots and an unpopular opinion among fans. I just dislike the NFL contract structure on all sides. I understand the reason a club can cut a player any week it wants to and only be on the salary cap hook for the remainder of bonus money (because players get hurt and banged-up every week). It bites that clubs can say "Look, we need more money to sign guys who've never taken the field, so we're going to pay you less. If you don't like it, look for 31 other teams to take you on their roster."

There are times when I'm just a selfish jerk. If my boss said, "I'm going to cut your salary by a third to three-quarters to add another employee fresh out of college," I don't know if I'd be thrilled to go along with it.

I think the solution (and the end of my griping) would be to have honest contracts that do more than put a bunch of money into agents' pockets, and maybe some concessions by the NFL and NFLPA that would lead to X percentage of a veteran player's contract guaranteed, but not included in the salary cap if he were cut (so that if a $1,000,000 player were cut, then he could get 30% of the remaining salary to start the next stage of his life). Either that or a minimum a team could re-sign a player for, based on his previous contract.

But first and foremost, I'm a Packer fan. I want to see the best for my family's team, and I want them to build the framework that leads to long-term, honorable success.

Go Pack Go!

[Patler]

It bites that clubs can say "Look, we need more money to sign guys who've never taken the field, so we're going to pay you less. If you don't like it, look for 31 other teams to take you on their roster."

I think the solution (and the end of my griping) would be to have honest contracts that do more than put a bunch of money into agents' pockets, and maybe some concessions by the NFL and NFLPA that would lead to X percentage of a veteran player's contract guaranteed, but not included in the salary cap if he were cut (so that if a $1,000,000 player were cut, then he could get 30% of the remaining salary to start the next stage of his life). Either that or a minimum a team could re-sign a player for, based on his previous contract.


Welcome NewsBruin.

I'm not sure that the problem is as bad as you might think it is. First, it is really only the first round picks that make huge money. Look at Collins, Middle of the 2nd round and he signed for 5 years at around $3.5 to $4.0 million total. It looks like only $820,000 was guaranteed and paid in the first year, with another bonus this year of about $1 million. Still, 5 years at around $800,000 per year average is only about the minimum of a 10 year veteran.

Actually, I believe there are some guarantees for veterans who are waived after the start of the season. I'm not sure where it starts, or how much it is and I believe some of it is picked up from the league salary pool, kind of like for the veterans who sign for the league minimum.

[PackerPro42]

I think Hawk should be paid that much, that way he wants to stay in Green Bay if they don't do well again. Plus Harris is like 31 years old. He just isn't worth that much money any more.

[NewsBruin]

Shamrockfan, I don't think there's going to be a problem this year, not with our salary cap. And it's not directed toward any one player, even though this is a Hawk thread. AJ is one of those players I want well compensated and in a green jersey for the length of his career.

Every year, most teams will cut or restructure veterans when they're signing the rookie class through training camp.

I'm really not that far out of college, myself, but I've always had that image of a veteran wanting to say, "So why should this be my problem?"

[NewsBruin]

I think there are two provisions:

Vested veterans (including TO) will get paid the length of their season if they make the final roster out of training camp. I believe this counts 100% on the salary cap, even after they're cut.

Veteran players only cost a certain perentage of their contracts against the cap. I believe this only kicks in when they're paid minimum or near-minimum. Still, I'd prefer someone wiser than me tell me whether this is accurate or just my wishful thinking.

[Patler]

I think there are two provisions:

Vested veterans (including TO) will get paid the length of their season if they make the final roster out of training camp. I believe this counts 100% on the salary cap, even after they're cut.

Veteran players only cost a certain perentage of their contracts against the cap. I believe this only kicks in when they're paid minimum or near-minimum. Still, I'd prefer someone wiser than me tell me whether this is accurate or just my wishful thinking.

The second of your scenarios is the simpler one. A vested veteran who signs for the league minimum with not more than a $25,000 signing bonus nd not more than $5,720 in workout bonus only counts one-half of his salary against the cap. Another good aspect for the team is that the league "bonus" pool picks up half of the salary, the team doesn't pay it directly.

The vested veteran's salary gurantee to me is a bit less clear as to how much is guranteed and how much counts against the cap; and even when it applies.

[Guiness]

NB - good to see here. You'd disappeared from JSO some time ago as I recall, but were a pretty regular poster there for a while.

Hope you stick around here - best Packer talk on the .net

[GBRulz]

I don't see how Harris will be ticked about Hawk's deal anymore than other players who aren't making 6 mil a year. If I read correctly, that is about the area in which he'll sign for based on last years #5 pick.

do I agree with the contracts these rookies get, hell no, but that's another topic altogether!

[woodbuck27]

I don't see how Harris will be ticked about Hawk's deal anymore than other players who aren't making 6 mil a year. If I read correctly, that is about the area in which he'll sign for based on last years #5 pick.

do I agree with the contracts these rookies get, hell no, but that's another topic altogether!

I'm hoping that Al Harris does as his agent last said. Get's to TC and flat out plays his butt off for us and then, he gets his needs for a raise considered. Based on a solid performance or he gets a value added incentive clause, that will give him more on strictly a performance basis.

[GBRulz]

I just don't like the trend as of recently where a player signs a long-term deal, then 2 years later someone is making more than them and they want more money.

Perhaps there needs to be more incentive based contracts out there.

[woodbuck27]

"Perhaps there needs to be more incentive based contracts out there." GBMichele

Het GB . We all need incentives. I'm drinkin' a few right now. :mrgreen:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Het GB . We all need incentives. I'm drinkin' a few right now. :mrgreen:

Every time Woody makes a post, he slams down another cold one.

[Fosco33]

Negotiations with A.J. Hawk are not expected to be easy. If the last three years are any indication, don't expect Hawk to be in camp on July 28. The Packers' last three No. 1 picks all missed practices while their deals were being finalized. -- PackersNews.com

[ranks66]

[quote="NewsBruin"]Hey, guys, it's good to see some familiar names. I still view the threads there, but that's a board that's trying to run itself into the ground.

This place looks very encouraging, especially the thoughtful comments and research the posters put in here. I was leery of going to one board for news and another for comments, but I'm just impressed with Packerrats so far.

And all apologies for my first thread being one of my sore spots and an unpopular opinion among fans. I just dislike the NFL contract structure on all sides. I understand the reason a club can cut a player any week it wants to and only be on the salary cap hook for the remainder of bonus money (because players get hurt and banged-up every week). It bites that clubs can say "Look, we need more money to sign guys who've never taken the field, so we're going to pay you less. If you don't like it, look for 31 other teams to take you on their roster."

There are times when I'm just a selfish jerk. If my boss said, "I'm going to cut your salary by a third to three-quarters to add another employee fresh out of college," I don't know if I'd be thrilled to go along with it.

I think the solution (and the end of my griping) would be to have honest contracts that do more than put a bunch of money into agents' pockets, and maybe some concessions by the NFL and NFLPA that would lead to X percentage of a veteran player's contract guaranteed, but not included in the salary cap if he were cut (so that if a $1,000,000 player were cut, then he could get 30% of the remaining salary to start the next stage of his life). Either that or a minimum a team could re-sign a player for, based on his previous contract.

But first and foremost, I'm a Packer fan. I want to see the best for my family's team, and I want them to build the framework that leads to long-term, honorable success.

Hey Bruin...

This is the place to be, I just go back to read about Tex (Sniffer) and his stupid comments once in a while