PDA

View Full Version : Arrington



HarveyWallbangers
04-11-2006, 10:44 PM
Arrington has issues to tackle
Packers' prospects, Favre, money are key factors
By TOM SILVERSTEIN
tsilverstein@journalsentinel.com

Before anyone gets too excited about the possibility of free-agent linebacker LaVar Arrington joining the Green Bay Packers, consider the variables at play.


Arrington wants to play for a winner; the Packers were 4-12 last season.

Arrington wants to know whether Brett Favre is going to retire; the Packers still don't know the quarterback's plans.

Arrington wants a big contract; the Packers have plenty of salary cap room but don't think they should have to pay considerably more than what the market bears.

So although Arrington's visit to the Packers' facility Sunday night and Monday created quite a buzz, it didn't signify a deal is imminent. In fact, this might be only the early stages of a long process that drags out until after the draft April 29 and 30 and perhaps into training camp.

What is clear is that both sides appear serious about examining a marriage that would bring the 27-year-old, three-time Pro Bowl selection to Green Bay.

"There has to be interest from both sides if there's a visit," Arrington's agent, Kevin Poston, said Tuesday. "There were a number of other teams who were interested in him and he chose not to visit. He's realistic. To him, he's not a guy who believes in wasting his time."

Initially, it looked as if Arrington's visit was a concession to Favre, who during a news conference Saturday at his charity golf tournament said he thought the Packers needed to make "a statement" in free agency. But Poston confirmed what the Journal Sentinel reported Monday, that Arrington's visit was arranged well before Favre made his comments.

Poston said the two sides had been talking for a while and that Arrington was actually scheduled to visit last week, but had a conflict with a charity event he was hosting. His visit would have coincided with a visit by free-agent cornerback Charles Woodson, another client of Kevin Poston's and his brother, Carl.

"If they were flying in LaVar and Woodson based on that (Favre's comments) and not to get better, then it's something they would have to discuss," Poston said. "But if we didn't believe they were serious we wouldn't be wasting our time."

During his visit, Arrington asked the Packers if he could talk to Favre, Poston said. Arrington thought that it was important to know whether the future Hall of Fame quarterback was coming back for another season or if there was anything he should know about playing in Green Bay.

Poston said Arrington had not spoken to Favre as of Tuesday afternoon but was still interested in touching base with him.

"I think he would want to know if he's going to play," Poston said. "LaVar is a serious player. He wants to know if this guy is going to return. If so, what do you see for this team and if not what do you think about playing here?"

Poston said it was important for Arrington to land with a team that was willing to pay the price for winning.

"How many guys are playmakers?" Poston said. "How many can change the game? That's what he and Charles can do."

Poston didn't discount the possibility that both Arrington and Woodson could land with the Packers, but he made it clear that neither would be undersold. The free-agent market has been picked through and it's the opinion of many personnel officials that it's going to be difficult for the Postons to get top dollar for their clients.

It could take as much as $14 million in upfront money to get Arrington and $10 million to get Woodson, but the number of suitors for both isn't great and it might be hard for them to hit their numbers. Arrington has drawn interest from the New York Giants, Jacksonville, Cincinnati and Miami, while Woodson's only other serious suitor is Tampa Bay.

"The timetable (for getting a deal done) is when it's right," Poston said. "People say the money has dried up. Not for stars it hasn't.

"I'm not saying they'll wait all day long. But it's when you have an average player, that's when it's difficult. But when you have a Pro Bowl player, they speak for themselves. Both of those guys are impact players."

GBRulz
04-11-2006, 10:53 PM
This is where we've been spoiled over the past several years...players wanted to come play here because of Favre and plus we were a winning organization. If TT thinks he can lure players simply because of the GB packers history - he really is in for a rude awakening.

Patler
04-11-2006, 10:55 PM
If there is any truth in this article about Arrington's concerns, those who say Favre is not hurting the Packers, or makng TT's job more difficult are wrong.

The really sad thing is, for the first time ever, I find myself hoping the FAs do NOT call Favre as an ambassador of the Packers. I do not think Favre would help, only hurt.

Deputy Nutz
04-11-2006, 10:57 PM
That is sort of what I felt about the whole Arrington situation. Although I still think that Arrington will play where the money was, otherwise why not sign with New England, or Pittsburg?

Deputy Nutz
04-11-2006, 10:59 PM
This is where we've been spoiled over the past several years...players wanted to come play here because of Favre and plus we were a winning organization. If TT thinks he can lure players simply because of the GB packers history - he really is in for a rude awakening.

This franchise is still dedicated to winning football games, instead of just putting money in the owners pocket. This team will be a winner again in less time than you think, as long as TT makes the smart personel moves.

MJZiggy
04-11-2006, 11:02 PM
Are you thinking he's making smart personnel moves?

Bretsky
04-11-2006, 11:10 PM
Are you thinking he's making smart personnel moves?

Smart or not, so for he's only making safe moves

Deputy Nutz
04-11-2006, 11:35 PM
Yes I think he is. He's not putting all of his money in one kettle, he is spreading it all over the house especially in a year that is a bit crappy for free agents. Really you have to look at what you are spending money on.

Harlan Huckleby
04-11-2006, 11:43 PM
I'm Ok with TT, I get the build-thru-the-draft notion.

But it is still fun to give him crap.

gbpackfan
04-12-2006, 02:17 AM
I don't mind making safe moves but it WOULD NOT KILL THE PACKERS FUTURE to make ONE BIG SPLASH. Im not saying you turn into the Redskins, but signing ONE BIG FA would get the fans and Brett excited again.

Partial
04-12-2006, 02:28 AM
I don't know if you sign the players until you're really close to be competitive.

That, or you sign them now and front-load for the next 3 years, then give them 3 for vet min

Tarlam!
04-12-2006, 03:27 AM
He needs 11 million to sign rooks.

I dunno if the balance would allow him to sign both, but that sure would be spectacular on the defensive side of the ball. All we would need would be a mauler on DE and we'd be a contender. Look at what da Bears did with a stop gap QB and a #2 ranked defense.

MadtownPacker
04-12-2006, 04:21 AM
Look at what da Bears did with a stop gap QB and a #2 ranked defense.

First round playoff loss? Think Sherman had those figured out.

Tarlam!
04-12-2006, 04:41 AM
Funny Mad, lol, but they when was the last time we had a first round bye? We all knew they were gonna choke, so I am not at all surprised by that. But, their fans had a shitload more to brag about than we did...

MadtownPacker
04-12-2006, 04:59 AM
Funny Mad, lol, but they when was the last time we had a first round bye? We all knew they were gonna choke, so I am not at all surprised by that. But, their fans had a shitload more to brag about than we did...

The last SuperBowl appearance.

The only thing the bear fans can brag about is sweeping the Packers. Had they split the games I would say the bears had accomplished nothing. But those 2 games where like the SB to them.

HarveyWallbangers
04-12-2006, 10:18 AM
He needs 11 million to sign rooks.

Why would he need $11M? I haven't seen that, but San Francisco had more picks last year and the #1 pick, and only had to shell out around $7M.

Tarlam!
04-12-2006, 10:25 AM
He needs 11 million to sign rooks.

Why would he need $11M? I haven't seen that, but San Francisco had more picks last year and the #1 pick, and only had to shell out around $7M.

My memory is not what it used to be, but I thought I read that figure somewhere. But as I am the forum's football illiterate, you're probably right!

swede
04-12-2006, 10:30 AM
I don't mind making safe moves but it WOULD NOT KILL THE PACKERS FUTURE to make ONE BIG SPLASH. Im not saying you turn into the Redskins, but signing ONE BIG FA would get the fans and Brett excited again.

I'll buy that.

swede
04-12-2006, 10:36 AM
Arrington and woodson having the same agent makes for interesting dynamics.

Would you guess that Woodson is the one least likely to make the premium bucks he wants? And if so, would you try to get him signed first?

Or is Arrington the difference maker and we just make sure we land him at whatever it takes?

I like the idea of getting Arrington and taking Vernon Davis at #5. This team might get better in a big hurry.

CyclonePackFan
04-12-2006, 10:37 AM
11M for rookies? Way too high. I think 6M is the average figure to sign the rooks, but it depends on how much Reggie Bush gets paid, and if we trade to Denver and wind up with 2 first-rounders that'll push the number up somewhat.

Deputy Nutz
04-12-2006, 11:23 AM
I think teams need to clear 7 million of cap room before a certain date to sign their rookies. I think it is right before the draft.

Pack0514
04-12-2006, 11:37 AM
I dont know if this has been brought up anywhere else but what do you guys think of this?

Packers | Favre's retirement could make team spend money
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:31:26 -0700

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre's retirement could be a financial disaster, but in a different kind of way for the team. With his $3 million roster bonus and $7 million in salary, Favre would make $10 million this year if he plays. The Packers would save $10 million of cash if he doesn't, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, but that doesn't include draft choices or any other free agent signings. Not having Favre would take the payroll down to $66 million. With the new collective bargaining agreement, teams must have a minimum cash payroll of $85.5 million, meaning the Packers would have to spend $19.5 million just to make the minimum. With the players remaining as free agents, the Packers would be hard pressed to spend the money they would need to.

Patler
04-12-2006, 11:37 AM
The league assigns an amount to each team, depending on what draft spots they have. It can vary significantly from one team to another.

The total league-wide "rookie pool" was adjusted each year under the old agreement, and was established originally in relation to the salary cap calculations.

Since the salary cap went up so much this year, I think we can expect a significant jump in the rookie pool as well. Rookie negotiations will be interesting. In the past, the total values usually followed a slight increase over the contract signed by the player last year in the same draft spot. That may not be the case this year, with the salary cap having increased so dramatically. Just as with FAs this year, there may be some "rogue" values for a few rookies. it will settle out over a few years.

HarveyWallbangers
04-12-2006, 11:46 AM
Man, you gotta be patler. Right?

I promise I won't hold it against you.

:D

Rastak
04-12-2006, 11:48 AM
The league assigns an amount to each team, depending on what draft spots they have. It can vary significantly from one team to another.

The total league-wide "rookie pool" was adjusted each year under the old agreement, and was established originally in relation to the salary cap calculations.

Since the salary cap went up so much this year, I think we can expect a significant jump in the rookie pool as well. Rookie negotiations will be interesting. In the past, the total values usually followed a slight increase over the contract signed by the player last year in the same draft spot. That may not be the case this year, with the salary cap having increased so dramatically. Just as with FAs this year, there may be some "rogue" values for a few rookies. it will settle out over a few years.

You seem to be a knowledgable fellow on cap matters. Also note the minimum cap numbers go sky high next year (per profootballtalk.com).....that will be interesting if team like GB and Arizona have huge amounts of free cap space next year.

woodbuck27
04-12-2006, 11:48 AM
I dont know if this has been brought up anywhere else but what do you guys think of this?

Packers | Favre's retirement could make team spend money
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:31:26 -0700

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre's retirement could be a financial disaster, but in a different kind of way for the team. With his $3 million roster bonus and $7 million in salary, Favre would make $10 million this year if he plays. The Packers would save $10 million of cash if he doesn't, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, but that doesn't include draft choices or any other free agent signings. Not having Favre would take the payroll down to $66 million. With the new collective bargaining agreement, "teams must have a minimum cash payroll of $85.5 million, meaning the Packers would have to spend $19.5 million just to make the minimum. With the players remaining as free agents, the Packers would be hard pressed to spend the money they would need to.


"The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, " fr. article above


I question that figure as being too low, according to the Packer Salary Info. I posted yesterday ( see thread ) would make this figure slightly above
$84 million not $76 million .

Now, some people are suggesting that the Packers would have an additional $10 million if Brett Favre were to suggest/agree to deferring that amount, and taking a few hundred G's this Season as payment for services; but eventually the Packers get caught up in that one down the road.

HarveyWallbangers
04-12-2006, 11:58 AM
I question that figure as being too low, according to the Packer Salary Info. I posted yesterday ( see thread ) would make this figure slightly above 84 million not $76 million .

Now, some people are suggesting that the Packers would have an additional $10 million if Brett Favre were to suggest/agree to deferring that amount, and taking a few hundred G's this Season as payment for services; but eventually the Packers get caught up in that one down the road.

It wasn't a suggestion. The $76M figure was reported if Favre was cut. Seems reasonable since it's also been reported that cutting Favre would gain the Packers $7-8M in cap space.

I'm not sure what you are saying about the payment to Favre?