PDA

View Full Version : WHAT ABOUT NOW ? PACKERS 7.7 MILLION BELOW CAP



Bretsky
08-02-2006, 11:54 PM
Fiscal responsibility: Packers' salary cap in good shape
By BOB McGINN
bmcginn@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Aug. 2, 2006
Green Bay - Cash isn't the problem. Finding players worthy of receiving it is.

With every player on the roster now under contract, the Green Bay Packers still are $7.751 million under their adjusted salary cap of $103.954 million and have no major appropriations scheduled before the end of the year.

"We feel comfortable," general manager Ted Thompson said Wednesday. "We spend a lot of time working and trying to manage that."

Making the Packers' financial position even stronger is the fact there isn't even one player among the 13 scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent in March that at this point fits the break-the-bank, absolutely-must-re-sign category.

Running back Ahman Green, defensive tackle Kenderick Allen and linebacker Ben Taylor are the only starters on the list. However, there's no telling if Green's surgical thigh will hold up and neither Allen nor Taylor currently is much more than a nominal starter.

Tight ends David Martin and Donald Lee are in the second year of two-year deals and defensive end Kenny Peterson is playing for a restricted tender. Of the 10 others headed for unrestricted status, all are in the midst of one-year contracts that expire at season's end.

There are five players headed for restricted free agency but perhaps just one, center Scott Wells, might conceivably attract a substantial offer from the club in the next few months.

Thompson acknowledged that he's constantly thinking about whom to extend next. Although defensive tackle Cletidus Hunt represented a brutal miscalculation by Mike Sherman, the Packers generally have fared well deciding which players to re-sign early.

"As we've shown in the past, we'll always look to be pro-active if the right situation arises to extend a player prior to the end of the season," vice president of player finance Andrew Brandt said.

Cornerback Al Harris wasn't bashful in June with his request for more money even though his contract doesn't expire until after the 2009 season. Linebacker Nick Barnett won't become unrestricted until after the '07 season but if he keeps improving the club might approach him in the near future.

"It's got to make sense to the players and it's got to make sense to the Packers," Thompson said. "Sometimes it takes two to tango."

Both coach Mike McCarthy and Thompson have seen players in the past perform to a higher level when a new contract is in the offing. Hunt was an example of that when he had his finest season in 2002, then signed a six-year, $25.35 million deal three months later to stay in Green Bay.

"Motivation comes in many different forms," McCarthy said. "I definitely think it's a form of it. There truly is a business side of (pro football) and you need to respect that."

The Packers have a healthy cap situation for several reasons, not the least of which is their status as a 4-12 team. There have been times in the last 12 months when Thompson had trouble finding players deserving of the team's largess. Thompson pinched pennies during 2005 free agency, too.

Last winter, the Packers were so well off financially that they were able to adopt the unusual strategy of front-loading the contracts of cornerback Charles Woodson, defensive end Aaron Kampman and defensive tackle Ryan Pickett.

Because of their enormous cap room, the Packers structured deals that put Woodson second on the team behind Brett Favre in 2006 cap salary at $6.709 million, Kampman third at $6.005 million and Pickett sixth at $5 million. In all, the three players were guaranteed a stunning $28.4 million this season.

As a result, all three players actually will count substantially less ($7.73 million) against the cap in 2007 than they are now. Woodson's cap number slips to $3.488 million in 2007, Pickett's to $2.5 million and Kampman's to $4 million.

"We've spent a good amount of salary cap this year to protect any future downside," Brandt said. "But, fortunately, we have flexibility going into the 2006 season."

The Packers' cap space would increase significantly if Favre doesn't come back in '07. In that event, his $11 million base salary would be stricken and just $1.2 million, the final unamortized portion of his bonus money, would count against the team's cap in '07.

A total of 22 players are counting $1 million or more against the Packers' cap, and already four of them won't play a down.

"It's crying over spilled milk," Thompson said. "That's past. I couldn't even tell you who those dollars are tied to."

The aforementioned Hunt, who ranks eighth among cap salaries at $3.6 million, accounts for almost 50% of the team's "dead money" total. He's followed by wide receiver Terrence Murphy ($1.18 million), who was forced to retire in April because of a spinal condition; and linebacker Na'il Diggs ($912,500); fullback Nick Luchey ($550,001), defensive tackle Donnell Washington ($177,500) and safety Mark Roman ($175,000), all of whom were released in the last 11 months.

Traded to Denver in April, wide receiver Javon Walker still counts $855,000 against Green Bay's cap.

The only two players on the Packers' injured reserve list, backup tackles Adrian Klemm and Kevin Barry, rank 16th and 17th against the cap. Klemm counts $1.7 million; Barry counts $1.556 million.

Green Bay was able to carry over $1.954 million in cap space from the end of 2005. Nine teams found means to carry over more, led by Minnesota at $7.6 million.

woodbuck27
08-03-2006, 12:04 AM
Great !!

Go and get Jerry Porter out of Oakland purgatory Ted Thompson.

Get the lift that Brett Favre really needs for us to win. He's given enough to OUR team. So, give something back Ted Thompson !

What is out there today (for the remainder of 2006) that will possibly help us more? This is a no brainer

GO PACKERS !

Bretsky
08-03-2006, 12:06 AM
Figured this article could spur some old thoughts. I've said all along TT didn't do enough in FA knowing the cap will probably go up again next year. The TT fanatics will preach fiscal responsibility and praise him, but I find it hard to believe that it does us good eating the money.

HarveyWallbangers
08-03-2006, 12:09 AM
This article was actually encouraging to me. They will be way under the cap again next year. I think Thompson hesitated to throw big money at FAs that would help now because he probably know this team is a legit championship contender. However, next year they might be and he might have very few holes to fill. If the Packers show vast improvement in 2006, he'll be in a position to sign 2 or 3 big-time FAs next year to put the finishing touches on a legit championship caliber team.

woodbuck27
08-03-2006, 12:09 AM
Figured this article could spur some old thoughts. I've said all along TT didn't do enough in FA knowing the cap will probably go up again next year. The TT fanatics will preach fiscal responsibility and praise him, but I find it hard to believe that it does us good eating the money.

B.

What do you feel about a prospect of Jerry Porter in Green Bay?

RashanGary
08-03-2006, 12:09 AM
The Packers are going to be very well off next off season. If Favre retires, they will have more money then they know what to do with. They might even have more than they had this off season.

The team is getting stronger. We won't have to worry about exceedign the cap for quite some time.

GrnBay007
08-03-2006, 12:11 AM
However, next year they might be and he might have very few holes to fill. If the Packers show vast improvement in 2006, he'll be in a position to sign 2 or 3 big-time FAs next year to put the finishing touches on a legit championship caliber team.


Who knows.......TO might be available again next season!

:razz: :D :razz: :D

HarveyWallbangers
08-03-2006, 12:11 AM
Ain't no way in hell we are trading for Porter. That would require giving Porter the type of contract we didn't give Walker. What kind of message to the team? If you are disgruntled player, play your contract out. If you are another team's disgruntled player, we'll bring you in and give you big bucks.

Bretsky
08-03-2006, 12:12 AM
But I think we all knew we were going to be way under next year after reviewing the way he frontloaded the salaries of his free agents this year. Even with those frontloads, we still have 7.7MIL. Had TT signed Woodsen to a more traditional contract with a signing bonus and used that money, he really could have stacked some depth on this year's team with youthful talent.

Partial
08-03-2006, 12:12 AM
This article was actually encouraging to me. They will be way under the cap again next year. I think Thompson hesitated to throw big money at FAs that would help now because he probably know this team is a legit championship contender. However, next year they might be and he might have very few holes to fill. If the Packers show vast improvement in 2006, he'll be in a position to sign 2 or 3 big-time FAs next year to put the finishing touches on a legit championship caliber team.

couldn't have said it better myself

Bretsky
08-03-2006, 12:15 AM
Figured this article could spur some old thoughts. I've said all along TT didn't do enough in FA knowing the cap will probably go up again next year. The TT fanatics will preach fiscal responsibility and praise him, but I find it hard to believe that it does us good eating the money.

B.

What do you feel about a prospect of Jerry Porter in Green Bay?


MIXED

He's a head case who is injured way too much. On the other hand I think Driver, Porter, and Jennings would give us three legitimate talents at a position where we severely lack NFL caliber starting talent.

Being a win now guy, I'd favor getting him.

But I would not give up a 1st or 2nd round pick due to the character risks that come with Porter.

And TT is married to those draft picks. I'd say the chances of TT trading a pick for Jerry Porter is slim to none.

RashanGary
08-03-2006, 12:36 AM
This article was actually encouraging to me. They will be way under the cap again next year. I think Thompson hesitated to throw big money at FAs that would help now because he probably know this team is a legit championship contender. However, next year they might be and he might have very few holes to fill. If the Packers show vast improvement in 2006, he'll be in a position to sign 2 or 3 big-time FAs next year to put the finishing touches on a legit championship caliber team.

I'll third this.

woodbuck27
08-03-2006, 12:42 AM
Figured this article could spur some old thoughts. I've said all along TT didn't do enough in FA knowing the cap will probably go up again next year. The TT fanatics will preach fiscal responsibility and praise him, but I find it hard to believe that it does us good eating the money.

B.

What do you feel about a prospect of Jerry Porter in Green Bay?


MIXED

He's a head case who is injured way too much. On the other hand I think Driver, Porter, and Jennings would give us three legitimate talents at a position where we severely lack NFL caliber starting talent.

Being a win now guy, I'd favor getting him.

But I would not give up a 1st or 2nd round pick due to the character risks that come with Porter.

And TT is married to those draft picks. I'd say the chances of TT trading a pick for Jerry Porter is slim to none.

For you too Harvey.

In a realistic sense I agree B. TT will not give up high draft picks as he plans on a future developed with his plan and won't get side tracked.

This thing about Jerry Porter's character is being overblown from what I'm reading and to compare us and the situation we had with Javon Walker and Oakland and Porter isn't a fair comparison. The situations are different.

Walker wanted more money. Porter doesn't like Art Shell's way of running Art Shells ship. Porter had to lose that one and Javon at least, had a chance of remaining a Packer.

He didn't want to remain a Packer "in truth", because he felt under appreciated, but rather it came down to greed. Not the case with Jerry Porter, as he signed a nice contract last year, I believe.

Patler
08-03-2006, 12:46 AM
Figured this article could spur some old thoughts. I've said all along TT didn't do enough in FA knowing the cap will probably go up again next year. The TT fanatics will preach fiscal responsibility and praise him, but I find it hard to believe that it does us good eating the money.

As I know you know, GB will not "eat the money". Any leftover cap space will be used to sign players at the end of the season, or will be pushed forward into 2007, just like the 2005 excess was pushed onto the 2006 cap.

The more that I study how teams manage the cap, I think the most improtant thing is to not spend money just because you have it. The important thing is to have the cap space available to sign the player you really want to have, not to sign a free agent just because you have the space to do so.

Like it or not, GB is in a rebuilding mode. That means a lot of young players will be kept the next few years. They could easily have a few years back to back in which 3, 4, 5 or more starters of significance will have expiring contracts. It is important to plan now so the space is available to keep the important ones. That is how a playoff roster is built, developing a strong and deep roster, then picking up a few key FAs to feel needs.

Throwing too much money around now could hamstring you 2 or 3 years down the road when you really are building for a playoff run.

PaCkFan_n_MD
08-03-2006, 12:48 AM
I started a topic about this a while back about how next year we don't have many big money free agents and how we will have tons of money. This is very good news pack fans. If only brett was like 32...............

the_idle_threat
08-03-2006, 12:49 AM
Article says Scott Wells will be a RFA. If he plays well, I hope we extend him so that we don't have another KGB moment next offseason.

woodbuck27
08-03-2006, 12:54 AM
Figured this article could spur some old thoughts. I've said all along TT didn't do enough in FA knowing the cap will probably go up again next year. The TT fanatics will preach fiscal responsibility and praise him, but I find it hard to believe that it does us good eating the money.

As I know you know, GB will not "eat the money". Any leftover cap space will be used to sign players at the end of the season, or will be pushed forward into 2007, just like the 2005 excess was pushed onto the 2006 cap.

The more that I study how teams manage the cap, I think the most improtant thing is to not spend money just because you have it. The important thing is to have the cap space available to sign the player you really want to have, not to sign a free agent just because you have the space to do so.

Like it or not, GB is in a rebuilding mode. That means a lot of young players will be kept the next few years. They could easily have a few years back to back in which 3, 4, 5 or more starters of significance will have expiring contracts. It is important to plan now so the space is available to keep the important ones. That is how a playoff roster is built, developing a strong and deep roster, then picking up a few key FAs to feel needs.

Throwing too much money around now could hamstring you 2 or 3 years down the road when you really are building for a playoff run.

Very well explained Patler. One more player will do little to change things alot, I expect anyway.

We may already have all we need to play respectably, and if we catch a few breaks, play very well.

GO PACKERS !

Creepy
08-03-2006, 09:09 AM
Had GB had this money in 2005 (no way with Sherman), then GB could have resigned Wahle and possibly Rivera. GB has players going into their final year and now has the money to extend or resign using this years money to help offset the costs for future years.

This allows GB to actually retain good players and not be cap restricted next year. An example is Barnett, say GB decides to keep him and move him outside, they have to extend his contract or he is a FA next year. GB uses some of the extra cash this year to re-sign/extend him. Put the heavier load of the contract on the 2006 year thus saving space on the future cap. No sense in blowing it all on Porter, who may or may not be the receiver GB needs.

As for Porter, lets see, he couldn't beat out Brown or Rice and both were older than dirt. Moss came in and he couldn't beat him. So far Porter has shown to be a fair to above average #2 receiver. GB need not spend big money on him and that doesn't include the draft choice/choices that Davis will want.

wist43
08-03-2006, 09:24 AM
Here's a thought... extend Walker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, my bad... I forgot, TT flushed him!!!!

wist43
08-03-2006, 09:27 AM
Article says Scott Wells will be a RFA. If he plays well, I hope we extend him so that we don't have another KGB moment next offseason.

Wells would have to improve dramatically to justify an extension... I expect he'll sign the minimum tender.

That said, we need him to step up and play well.

CaliforniaCheez
08-03-2006, 10:26 AM
Who could get extensions?

Green Jury is out on injury, age and long term health
Gardner Is the price right?
Ken Peterson Hasn't shown enough to be a priority
Dave Martin Will he even be with the team?
Boerigter Has to prove he is worth it
Taylor Could be a good value
Donald Lee Should be a good value
Cole You always need a big guy in the middle
Cundiff Has to earn it
Wells A draft choice or free agent will cost more.
Jenkins Worth it

Wells, Jenkins, Taylor, Lee are the best candidates.

MJZiggy
08-03-2006, 10:29 AM
You forgot Ryan. :wink:

Creepy
08-03-2006, 10:52 AM
I believe Wells is the starting center right now. GB let Flanagan go and decided on keeping Wells. Now if he plays up to the stnadards they want, he will be a significant re-sign. With the extra cap money GB can extend his contract and place a large portion onthe 06 money, thus not screwing up the future cap.

Walker was not goingto stay in GB. he burned his bridges long before he was traded. He whined last year abouta new deal, and in all of that TT was the smarter. Had he gibven the big bonus & contract we would have had nothing for 2005 and now hoping he would be back 100% for 2006. Alos, GB did not have the money for him or for Wahle or Rivera. So why do you think we had the cash to fix it? Shermy screwed the cap up, TT has fixed so that GB can now re-sign our own good players and pick up FA that will help teh team next year.

red
08-03-2006, 05:20 PM
one thing to remember about the amount of cap space that we have for next year is that, I think, hawk is scheduled to have his big cap hit next year . i think he gets an 11 million dollar bonus.

patler can clear this up

this is good news about the cap this year, its twice as much as what i saw yesterday, or the day before, and it does give us some room to make a big move or two yet

now porter and maybe leilie enter the mix. i didn't think we had that cap room to seriously think about bringing them in. they would both help the team on the field, and maybe the problems would go away once they get their new contracts. who knows. one of the other threads gave a link that shows the team is interested in porter, but not at his current asking price of a 1st rounder. maybe if he becomes a big enough problem for the raiders they would be willing to just get rid of him for a lower price


i wouldn't give up more then a 3rd round pick for him though

maybe we could send fergy and a 3rd or 4th rounder out there for porter?