F/A JENKINS UPDATE

[TopHat]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/PKR01/702220584/1058&located=RSS


Packers to talk with Jenkins today about deal BY Pete Dougherty

The Green Bay Packers have until March 1 to tender restricted free-agent Cullen Jenkins a contract offer but are continuing negotiations this week to sign the valuable fourth-year player to a long-term deal before then. One of Jenkins' agents, Brian Levy, said Wednesday the Packers haven't told him what restricted contract tender they will make, though it's almost a given it will be either the new second-round tender or a first-round tender. Levy probably won't find out until next week, but he's scheduled to meet with Andrew Brandt, the team's vice president of player finance, at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis this week to continue discussing a long-term deal. "We're going to sit down with them (today)," Levy said. Jenkins is a restricted free agent whose move to defensive end for the last four games last year was a significant factor in the Packers' defensive improvement in the season's final month. That, plus his ability to move to defensive tackle on passing downs, has made him an offseason signing priority for the Packers. Jenkins finished last season with 6½ sacks and 48 tackles, splitting time at defensive tackle and end, and if the Packers put the minimum tender of $850,000 on him, he'd draw great interest in restricted free agency. That tender would allow the Packers to match any offer he signed with another team or receive a draft pick in the round he was selected as compensation. But Jenkins was undrafted, so the Packers would get nothing in return. Last year, Minnesota found a loophole in such signings that makes it almost impossible for the original club to match an offer. A team can include a clause, for instance, that would guarantee Jenkins' entire contract if he played, say, four games at Lambeau Field in the first season of the deal. If the Packers matched that, they'd then have to guarantee Jenkins' entire contract if he played four games at home that season. That's why the Packers surely are debating whether to put a second-round or first-round tender on Jenkins. The second-round tender, which was added as part of the NFL's collective-bargaining agreement extension from last year, is cheaper for the Packers than the first-round tender — it guarantees Jenkins a $1.3 million salary for 2007 — and would force another team to give up a second-round draft pick to sign him. The first-round tender is more costly ($1.85 million) but would land them a first-round draft pick if he signed with another club. Both tenders' draft-pick compensation might be costly enough to dissuade another team from signing Jenkins, so the second-round tag appears more likely, but Jenkins' strong play late last year might intrigue a team or two to consider parting with a second-round pick for him. In the meantime, the Packers and Levy are expected to continue negotiating a possible long-term contract, for which the Packers are well positioned to do with almost $25 million in salary-cap space. Two defensive ends who like Jenkins just finished their third seasons in the NFL recently signed lucrative long-term deals, though that doesn't mean Jenkins is in line for contracts at their level, because both are better pure outside pass rushers, which is a more highly valued skill.


VIEW: "It looks like he should get between $8 million and $11 million in guaranteed money, over the course of about a 6-year deal. Here are some facts on the TENDER rules, and i would say put a 1st rd tender on him for $1.85 million. that's less than some stiffs on our team will make, plus it will make him work and play hard again to cash in: THE Packers surely are debating whether to put a second-round or first-round tender on Jenkins. The second-round tender, which was added as part of the NFL's collective-bargaining agreement extension from last year, is cheaper for the Packers than the first-round tender — it guarantees Jenkins a $1.3 million salary for 2007 — and would force another team to give up a second-round draft pick to sign him. The first-round tender is more costly ($1.85 million) but would land them a first-round draft pick if he signed with another club. Both tenders' draft-pick compensation might be costly enough to dissuade another team from signing Jenkins, so the second-round tag appears more likely, but Jenkins' strong play late last year might intrigue a team or two to consider parting with a second-round pick for him."

[wist43]

They need to tag him on the high end...

If he hits the market as a RFA w/o the threat of giving up at least a 1st, then he'll more than likely be gone - or, some team will structure a contract that will make it difficult for GB to match, and in doing so, it would hurt the Packers cap more than if they just went ahead and did the right thing to begin with.

Jenkins is a solid, young, productive defensive linemen with upside... the Packers need to get him signed.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

They need to tag him on the high end...

If he hits the market as a RFA w/o the threat of giving up at least a 1st, then he'll more than likely be gone - or, some team will structure a contract that will make it difficult for GB to match, and in doing so, it would hurt the Packers cap more than if they just went ahead and did the right thing to begin with.

Jenkins is a solid, young, productive defensive linemen with upside... the Packers need to get him signed.`

But would you rather you a second round pick or Jenkins? I don't think I'd be that mad if a team took him from us for a second or a frist.

[red]

8 to 11 million in guaranteed money?

that seems like a lot to me

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

8 to 11 million in guaranteed money?

that seems like a lot to me

It is a lot, as a matter of fact its a hell of a lot. So what if he's played good against four lousy teams, that doesn't merit a contract like that. Don't get me wrong I think has a lot of potential, but not for that money. I would rather a high draft pick than sign a guy to a huge deal without really proving his worth.

[wist43]

Jenkins is certainly worth that type of contract...

8-11 million in guarenteed money really isn't unreasonable... and, no, at this point, I don't think I'd take a 1st rounder for him.

Jenkins is a very solid defensive lineman, and he's effective at both DE and DT... he's easily their best interior rusher, very stout at holding the point when he's at end - very good player. I think Jenkins is as good as Kampman.

If Jenkins hits the open market with the minimum tender he will attract a lot of attention. If he hits the market with the 1st tag, I'd bet he'd still attract attention.

[BlueBrewer]

If the difference between getting a 1st or a second is paying him $550000 more, then " pay the man" as Teddy KGB would say.

[ND72]

8-11 million in garunteed money, I'm guessing would be over 4-5 years....that's not a lot of money (well, to us it is :) )

[red]

8 to 11 million in guaranteed money?

that seems like a lot to me

It is a lot, as a matter of fact its a hell of a lot. So what if he's played good against four lousy teams, that doesn't merit a contract like that. Don't get me wrong I think has a lot of potential, but not for that money. I would rather a high draft pick than sign a guy to a huge deal without really proving his worth.

thats exactly how i feel

8-11 million is what top free agents get. 4 games IMO, doesn't make you a top tier free agent

i was thinking more like 5 million over 5 or 6 years

[Partial]

Jenkins is certainly worth that type of contract...

8-11 million in guarenteed money really isn't unreasonable... and, no, at this point, I don't think I'd take a 1st rounder for him.

Jenkins is a very solid defensive lineman, and he's effective at both DE and DT... he's easily their best interior rusher, very stout at holding the point when he's at end - very good player. I think Jenkins is as good as Kampman.

If Jenkins hits the open market with the minimum tender he will attract a lot of attention. If he hits the market with the 1st tag, I'd bet he'd still attract attention.

8-11 mil over 6 years. That is nothing. AJ Hawk is getting an 11 million dollar bonus this year plus like 5 mil for his annual salary this year.

Chuck woodson has 38 million guaranteed of 6 years.

[the_idle_threat]

I agree with Wist on this one. We need to either get him signed, or lay down the 1st-round tender. He's not an All-Pro game changer, but he's very solid and I think we would have a difficult time replacing him.

$8 to 11 million of total guaranteed money over a 5 or 6 year deal is nothing close to top-tier money. We're not talking $8-11 million per year ...

Kabeer's contract, signed in 2003, had $13.25 million (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=130700) in guaranteed money.

Chad Clifton's contract, signed in 2004, had $11 million (http://www.rotowire.com/football/player.htm?ID=2427) in guaranteed money.

On one hand, Clifton and Kabeer might have been considered more valuable players to the team at the time these deals were signed, but on the other hand, they were signed before the enormous salary cap increases of the past couple of years.

If $11 to 13 million was appropriate 3 or 4 years ago for a starting Left Tackle or Defensive End, then 8 to 11 million dollars in today's cap dollars is very reasonable for a guy who will play a lot of downs between DE and DT, starting many games at the end position.

[prsnfoto]

Jenkins is certainly worth that type of contract...

8-11 million in guarenteed money really isn't unreasonable... and, no, at this point, I don't think I'd take a 1st rounder for him.

Jenkins is a very solid defensive lineman, and he's effective at both DE and DT... he's easily their best interior rusher, very stout at holding the point when he's at end - very good player. I think Jenkins is as good as Kampman.

If Jenkins hits the open market with the minimum tender he will attract a lot of attention. If he hits the market with the 1st tag, I'd bet he'd still attract attention.

8-11 mil over 6 years. That is nothing. AJ Hawk is getting an 11 million dollar bonus this year plus like 5 mil for his annual salary this year.

Chuck woodson has 38 million guaranteed of 6 years.

HUH

Woodsen got all his money up front last year the rest of the way he is not guaranteed anything anymore, you're right about Hawk he gets bling this year and then 3.5 or so a year the rest of his contract.

[Packnut]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

[wist43]

Jenkins has been around for a few years now, and when given the opportunity, he has produced...

He's gotten bigger and stronger every year, he works hard, he's young, he's quick... as a full time starter, I think he's still got more upside.

Jenkins is the very definition of the type of young guy you look to extend b/4 you have to... if you wait until he's eligible for FA, you face the prospect of either having to pay top $$$, or losing him.

By being proactive, and signing him a year early, you're able keep him cheaper over the length of the contract, than if you waited the extra year. Being proactive in this way is a smart way to do business in the NFL.

Signing Jenkins now, a year b/4 he's eligible for FA, is a no-brainer, IMO.

[red]

i'm with you packnut

this guy went from signing a very modest close to minimum contract to 8-11 million up front in just 4 games

if we give him that kind of money, and he shows up and does nothing, showing the last 4 games were just a freak. then we're stuck with a KGB type of problem, where we'd like and need to get rid of the guy, but the cap hit would be to much for us to cut him

tag him at the highest level. and if during the season he continues to look good. then give him that money. i don't see his value going up much from where he thinks it should be, even if he does have a good season

1 thing to add. woodson, and KGb were both pro bowlers when they got that big money (i think kgb had made a pro bowl by then). and hawk was the #5 overall pick. they shouldn't be compared, and if you do, jenkins shouldn't be anywhere close to those guys

pickett got a 4 year 14 million dollar deal with 5 million up front, for a proven solid nfl vet. no way should jenkins get more then that at this point IMO

[the_idle_threat]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

I certainly see your point. But if Jenkins has an Aaron-Kampman-in-2006 kind of season, which I think is very possible now that more blocking attention will be shifted over to Kampman's side, we will have a top-tier unrestricted free agent on our hands. Only now do we have some leverage to negotiate.

Many on this forum have advocated taking big chances on free agents, oftentimes when their former teams have very good reason to let them go (*cough* Lavar Arrington *cough**cough* Eric Johnson *cough*) Given what Cullen Jenkins has shown in terms of work ethic and improvement so far, why not take the chance on him instead?

[red]

Jenkins is the very definition of the type of young guy you look to extend b/4 you have to... if you wait until he's eligible for FA, you face the prospect of either having to pay top $$$, or losing him.

By being proactive, and signing him a year early, you're able keep him cheaper over the length of the contract, than if you waited the extra year. Being proactive in this way is a smart way to do business in the NFL.

Signing Jenkins now, a year b/4 he's eligible for FA, is a no-brainer, IMO.

i disagree

a young guy that has produced at a high level for a couple years is the definition of the young guy you want to lock up before he hits the market

jenkins had only proven to be a decent back up DT before the last for game of this season. he's a major gamble at this point. he could either be very good, making the money he's suppose to, or he could be nothing more then a backup DT making 40 million with a PRSB so high we can't dump him, that put the best 4 games of his life together in a row right before payday

[TopHat]

SEE F/A WATCH UPDATES.

[red]

carlyle holiday looked good the last game too

we mine as well throw 50 million at him too

and instead of trading samkon, we should have given him 80 million after what he did in 2005

and abdul hodge, i mean come on, you guys saw family night. we need to lock him up for the next 10 years right now

and what about underwood, he loked great in training camp, 15 mill up front is more then fair in todays market for the talent he showed

[Tony Oday]

Sign him take the chance!

[LaFours]

carlyle holiday looked good the last game too

we mine as well throw 50 million at him too

and instead of trading samkon, we should have given him 80 million after what he did in 2005

and abdul hodge, i mean come on, you guys saw family night. we need to lock him up for the next 10 years right now

and what about underwood, he loked great in training camp, 15 mill up front is more then fair in todays market for the talent he showed

All very good points...TT get these guys locked up long term. And get Gado back so we can sign him long term as well.

[Partial]

I agree with Wist on this one. We need to either get him signed, or lay down the 1st-round tender. He's not an All-Pro game changer, but he's very solid and I think we would have a difficult time replacing him.

$8 to 11 million of total guaranteed money over a 5 or 6 year deal is nothing close to top-tier money. We're not talking $8-11 million per year ...

Kabeer's contract, signed in 2003, had $13.25 million (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=130700) in guaranteed money.

Chad Clifton's contract, signed in 2004, had $11 million (http://www.rotowire.com/football/player.htm?ID=2427) in guaranteed money.

On one hand, Clifton and Kabeer might have been considered more valuable players to the team at the time these deals were signed, but on the other hand, they were signed before the enormous salary cap increases of the past couple of years.

If $11 to 13 million was appropriate 3 or 4 years ago for a starting Left Tackle or Defensive End, then 8 to 11 million dollars in today's cap dollars is very reasonable for a guy who will play a lot of downs between DE and DT, starting many games at the end position.

Right, I think people are having a difficult time distingushing between 6 years versus 1 year.

If he was only given guaranteed money over the 6 years, he'd get between 1.5-1.8 million per year.

Lets say that is a base figure.

1.5-1.8 guaranteed per year. Tack on 2.5 mil per year in terms of actual non-guaranteed salary, and you have a 4 million per year player.

I suspect he'll get about 4.0-4.5 mil per year.

So, he'll get 1.5 per year guaranteed averaged out (TT will likely frontload it) plus a non-guaranteed 3.0 per year.

Make sense?

I don't get what the problem is with this. This is your standard solid vet salary. Probably even a little bit below that.

[Partial]

Jenkins is the very definition of the type of young guy you look to extend b/4 you have to... if you wait until he's eligible for FA, you face the prospect of either having to pay top $$$, or losing him.

By being proactive, and signing him a year early, you're able keep him cheaper over the length of the contract, than if you waited the extra year. Being proactive in this way is a smart way to do business in the NFL.

Signing Jenkins now, a year b/4 he's eligible for FA, is a no-brainer, IMO.

i disagree

a young guy that has produced at a high level for a couple years is the definition of the young guy you want to lock up before he hits the market

jenkins had only proven to be a decent back up DT before the last for game of this season. he's a major gamble at this point. he could either be very good, making the money he's suppose to, or he could be nothing more then a backup DT making 40 million with a PRSB so high we can't dump him, that put the best 4 games of his life together in a row right before payday

Red, you do understand at 9-11 million guaranteed over 6 years equates to less than the 1-year tender they'll offer him for RFA is, right?

Come on now, you're more sensible than that. He'll get about 4-4.5 mil a year total compensation, and for a young guy who played so well the last 4 weeks, despite perhaps not performing the rest of his time in the league, is pretty standard.

Most guys whom aren't stopgaps that are hitting their prime age like Jenkins make that kind of money. And if they don't make that kind of money, they hold out for more money and start causing problems.

You know this, though.

[red]

i don't care about the 2 million this year. i care about the 11 million dollar signing bonus. if he does turn out to be a dud, we have a guy making 4 to 5 million a year that we have to get rid of, but will hit with an 8 million or so cap hit if we have to get rid of him next offseason

and he's not a guy i think you should frontload, you don't eat a quarter of our available cap room on a guy that has had 4 good games in his career

if you frontload his deal. say 4 million signing bonus and 6 million roster bonus this year. plus his salary. you're looking at him counting 8 million against our cap this year. for 4 good games

a total signing bonus of 11 million is no good at all, you're looking at 2 million a year in PRSB. again horrible for an unproven guy

you think 4-5 million a year is ok for him? until the last 4 games he had proven to be no better then a backup dt worth a little more the the vet minimum. he has 4 good games, and now you guys think he's one of the top DE's in the nfl

[Partial]

i don't care about the 2 million this year. i care about the 11 million dollar signing bonus. if he does turn out to be a dud, we have a guy making 4 to 5 million a year that we have to get rid of, but will hit with an 8 million or so cap hit if we have to get rid of him next offseason

and he's not a guy i think you should frontload, you don't eat a quarter of our available cap room on a guy that has had 4 good games in his career

if you frontload his deal. say 4 million signing bonus and 6 million roster bonus this year. plus his salary. you're looking at him counting 8 million against our cap this year. for 4 good games

a total signing bonus of 11 million is no good at all, you're looking at 2 million a year in PRSB. again horrible for an unproven guy

you think 4-5 million a year is ok for him? until the last 4 games he had proven to be no better then a backup dt worth a little more the the vet minimum. he has 4 good games, and now you guys think he's one of the top DE's in the nfl

No, he's not near the best DE in the NFL. Not even top 30. Thats why he isn't being paid like a premiere guy. He is more than just a stopgap guy, for sure, though, and you have to pay him and if you don't give him some money now you know he'll hold out for more in two or three years.

[red]

Right, I think people are having a difficult time distingushing between 6 years versus 1 year.



right, and i think people have a difficult time realizing that it was bone headed stupid moves like you guys wanted to do that put us in cap hell in the first place a couple years ago, forcing us to get rid of half our good players

this is something sherman would do. "oh, he showed a flash, lock him up long term"

[Partial]

Corey Williams would get 3.5-4 mil per year. Jenkins is better than Corey Williams. Players progress and you pay them. Caps go up and salaries get bigger. No biggie.

[red]

jenkins wants kampman money

and he hasn't proven to be anywhere near as good as the pro bowl kampman

kampman, 5 year 25 million, 11 million in bonus money

jenkins is not kampman at this point

give him the one year tender, give him the biggest 1. he counts 2 million. no big deal. if he flops this year, you don't lose much. if he proves to be the real deal, and can do it for more then 4 games. then you pay him. you take the risk out of it

kampman had shown that he's worth that kind of money for more then a year before he got it, almost 2 years. jenkins has flashed for a few games and shown like he MIGHT be worth that kind of money

[Partial]

jenkins wants kampman money

and he hasn't proven to be anywhere near as good as the pro bowl kampman

kampman, 5 year 25 million, 11 million in bonus money

jenkins is not kampman at this point

give him the one year tender, give him the biggest 1. he counts 2 million. no big deal. if he flops this year, you don't lose much. if he proves to be the real deal, and can do it for more then 4 games. then you pay him. you take the risk out of it

kampman had shown that he's worth that kind of money for more then a year before he got it, almost 2 years. jenkins has flashed for a few games and shown like he MIGHT be worth that kind of money

Kampman got his contract before a big year, though. He was up-and-coming in 2005. He exploded this year. In fact, the situation was quite similiar to Kampman's.

[the_idle_threat]

Red, I think you're underselling Jenkins' impact to the team. He's 26 years old and entering his prime. Since he made the team in 2004, he has never been a bottom-of-the-roster backup player. For the past three seasons, he's been the team's best interior pass rusher. He started 6 games as a "rookie" in 2004, 12 games in 2005, and 5 games in 2006. He's been pretty durable, although he missed some time in 2006 which caused the defensive staff to delay their plan to install him at DE in leiu of KGB. When they finally got the chance to make that move in week 14, it paid off handsomely.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether signing him now is worth the risk. There is risk in any long-term signing, and certainy this would be no exception.

Your outright dismissal of the other point of view is obnoxious, and frankly, it's insulting.

[wist43]

Jenkins is not a 4 game wonder... he has been solid for a few years now.

Sherman should have been starting him at end two years ago... He's been Green Bay's best interior rusher since he got here. It's not his fault that multiple coaching staffs were so clueless that they couldn't find a way to get him on to the field more.

Bottom line is, Jenkins is damn good player and he has more upside - I wouldn't take a low 1st rounder for him.

[Packnut]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

I certainly see your point. But if Jenkins has an Aaron-Kampman-in-2006 kind of season, which I think is very possible now that more blocking attention will be shifted over to Kampman's side, we will have a top-tier unrestricted free agent on our hands. Only now do we have some leverage to negotiate.

Many on this forum have advocated taking big chances on free agents, oftentimes when their former teams have very good reason to let them go (*cough* Lavar Arrington *cough**cough* Eric Johnson *cough*) Given what Cullen Jenkins has shown in terms of work ethic and improvement so far, why not take the chance on him instead?

My thought was give him the high 1 year offer and at least let him play 4 or 5 games and prove he's worth the big money. Then you can negotiate the big deal with him. The Packers would still have some leverage since Jenkins would have to worry about a serious injury ruining that big check. Not to mention waving a HUGE signing bonus check in his face. This way, everyone ends up happy.

With KGB taking up all that dead money, we can't afford another mistake like that.

[red]

wist, you just want them to sign him at a big deal so you can have something else to bitch about in a year or so

actually idle, i am being reasonable, and you guys are just pissed because i won't agree with you about this.

you said yourself, he's been solid in his career, i agree. solid but nothing special until the last 4 games. 8-11 million is the pay that someone special gets

and kampman got his contract after a huge 2005 season partial, he just follwed it up with another one

theres a ton of risk involved here, and i want to cut a lot of that risk out by just slapping the high tender on him

but that type of thinking is obnoxious and insulting

[red]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

I certainly see your point. But if Jenkins has an Aaron-Kampman-in-2006 kind of season, which I think is very possible now that more blocking attention will be shifted over to Kampman's side, we will have a top-tier unrestricted free agent on our hands. Only now do we have some leverage to negotiate.

Many on this forum have advocated taking big chances on free agents, oftentimes when their former teams have very good reason to let them go (*cough* Lavar Arrington *cough**cough* Eric Johnson *cough*) Given what Cullen Jenkins has shown in terms of work ethic and improvement so far, why not take the chance on him instead?

My thought was give him the high 1 year offer and at least let him play 4 or 5 games and prove he's worth the big money. Then you can negotiate the big deal with him. The Packers would still have some leverage since Jenkins would have to worry about a serious injury ruining that big check. Not to mention waving a HUGE signing bonus check in his face. This way, everyone ends up happy.

With KGB taking up all that dead money, we can't afford another mistake like that.

exactly

[Partial]

wist, you just want them to sign him at a big deal so you can have something else to bitch about in a year or so

actually idle, i am being reasonable, and you guys are just pissed because i won't agree with you about this.

you said yourself, he's been solid in his career, i agree. solid but nothing special until the last 4 games. 8-11 million is the pay that someone special gets

and kampman got his contract after a huge 2005 season partial, he just follwed it up with another one

theres a ton of risk involved here, and i want to cut a lot of that risk out by just slapping the high tender on him

but that type of thinking is obnoxious and insulting

8-11 is NOT the amount a special player gets. A special player, even one that is a shadow of himself and maybe top 10 at his position, gets 11 million per year on a 5-6 year old contract, and would get about 15 million a year today.

4-5 mil a year is nothing. Special players get that much * 3.

[Partial]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

I certainly see your point. But if Jenkins has an Aaron-Kampman-in-2006 kind of season, which I think is very possible now that more blocking attention will be shifted over to Kampman's side, we will have a top-tier unrestricted free agent on our hands. Only now do we have some leverage to negotiate.

Many on this forum have advocated taking big chances on free agents, oftentimes when their former teams have very good reason to let them go (*cough* Lavar Arrington *cough**cough* Eric Johnson *cough*) Given what Cullen Jenkins has shown in terms of work ethic and improvement so far, why not take the chance on him instead?

My thought was give him the high 1 year offer and at least let him play 4 or 5 games and prove he's worth the big money. Then you can negotiate the big deal with him. The Packers would still have some leverage since Jenkins would have to worry about a serious injury ruining that big check. Not to mention waving a HUGE signing bonus check in his face. This way, everyone ends up happy.

With KGB taking up all that dead money, we can't afford another mistake like that.

exactly

Ok, but that is in a dream world. Say he has a great 3-4 game stint next year. TT approaches him and says "Cullen, we'd like to lock you up for 6 years. We're thinking 11 mil guaranteed money at around 5 million gross compensation per year".

You do realize that Jenkins response will be this:
"You had your chance at that last offseason. I'm going to test free agency. You double it and i'll be a Packer. It's time to see just how much I am worth, especially with the cap going up each year and all and the abundance of teams with cap room!"

[the_idle_threat]

My thought was give him the high 1 year offer and at least let him play 4 or 5 games and prove he's worth the big money. Then you can negotiate the big deal with him. The Packers would still have some leverage since Jenkins would have to worry about a serious injury ruining that big check. Not to mention waving a HUGE signing bonus check in his face. This way, everyone ends up happy.

With KGB taking up all that dead money, we can't afford another mistake like that.

Your plan is reasonable. The big risk there is that he plays so well that he decides to play out the year at the tender and test the market in 2008 as an unrestricted free agent. Then we have to decide whether we're going to tag him or let him get top dollar as one of the top free agents at his position.

Right now, he's a restricted free agent, so we have bargaining power. If he will sign for something akin to the Kampman deal, then it's worth locking him up. After all, he's been on the team for 3 years and he's started more than 20 games. He has not sat on the bench as a career backup until the last 4 games of 2006. What more is he going to show us that he hasn't already?

In today's cap dollars, a KGB-type deal would be 40 or 50 million dollars with a 15-20 million dollar signing bonus. If that's what Jenkins wants right now, then I agree we should tag him and make him play out his current deal. But if he's willing to be reasonable and sign a 5 year deal for $20-25 million with a signing bonus of $8 to 10 million, it would be a steal for a starting defensive end.

[Partial]

My thought was give him the high 1 year offer and at least let him play 4 or 5 games and prove he's worth the big money. Then you can negotiate the big deal with him. The Packers would still have some leverage since Jenkins would have to worry about a serious injury ruining that big check. Not to mention waving a HUGE signing bonus check in his face. This way, everyone ends up happy.

With KGB taking up all that dead money, we can't afford another mistake like that.

Your plan is reasonable. The big risk there is that he plays so well that he decides to play out the year at the tender and test the market in 2008 as an unrestricted free agent. Then we have to decide whether we're going to tag him or let him get top dollar as one of the top free agents at his position.

Right now, he's a restricted free agent, so we have bargaining power. If he will sign for something akin to the Kampman deal, then it's worth locking him up. After all, he's been on the team for 3 years and he's started more than 20 games. He has not sat on the bench as a career backup until the last 4 games of 2006. What more is he going to show us that he hasn't already?

In today's cap dollars, a KGB-type deal would be 40 or 50 million dollars with a 15-20 million dollar signing bonus. If that's what Jenkins wants right now, then I agree we should tag him and make him play out his current deal. But if he's willing to be reasonable and sign a 5 year deal for $20-25 million with a signing bonus of $8 to 10 million, it would be a steal for a starting defensive end.

20ish. 25 might be pushing it.

[Packnut]

Well, I guess it all comes down to what he's asking for. Since we don't have that info, it's all a mute point right now.

[the_idle_threat]

wist, you just want them to sign him at a big deal so you can have something else to bitch about in a year or so

actually idle, i am being reasonable, and you guys are just pissed because i won't agree with you about this.

you said yourself, he's been solid in his career, i agree. solid but nothing special until the last 4 games. 8-11 million is the pay that someone special gets

and kampman got his contract after a huge 2005 season partial, he just follwed it up with another one

theres a ton of risk involved here, and i want to cut a lot of that risk out by just slapping the high tender on him

but that type of thinking is obnoxious and insulting

Red, the following posts are obnoxious and insulting:


carlyle holiday looked good the last game too

we mine as well throw 50 million at him too

and instead of trading samkon, we should have given him 80 million after what he did in 2005

and abdul hodge, i mean come on, you guys saw family night. we need to lock him up for the next 10 years right now

and what about underwood, he loked great in training camp, 15 mill up front is more then fair in todays market for the talent he showed




Right, I think people are having a difficult time distingushing between 6 years versus 1 year.



right, and i think people have a difficult time realizing that it was bone headed stupid moves like you guys wanted to do that put us in cap hell in the first place a couple years ago, forcing us to get rid of half our good players

this is something sherman would do. "oh, he showed a flash, lock him up long term"

What is reasonable about these posts, red?

[red]

who's in the dream world? who the hell makes 15 million a year in the nfl

i think you're confusing real contracts with the giant fake back loaded contracts that say they're 5 years but they're really 2 year deals, like what whale had

players rarely ever see a huge amount of that contract money. it doesn't look like TT backloads too bad. jenkins would likely see all of his contract. he would never see a 7 year 50 million dollar deal with 25 million coming in the last two years. thats not a real contract. its really a 5 year 25 million dollar deal. and thats what the big players sign



and honestly partial. i'd rather hold off for half a season and see if he is the real deal, then pay him more then what we would have to pay now. i wouldn't mind that. you pay a little more, but the overall risk is lower. i have no problem with that. another few million spread over 5 or 6 years is no big deal to find out if the player is really as good as you think

[wist43]

$3-4 million doesn't have to be "the real deal"... he just has to be a solid contributor.

And by any measure, especially after taking into account his upside, I think Jenkins meets that criteria.

As Partial has been saying, the $$$ we're talking about isn't exhorbitant... I don't view signing Jenkins as a risk - solid guy. It would seem that even TT agrees with this position, as they have begun discussions on a contract.

If TT thought of Jenkins as "just a guy" he would simply slap the minimum tender on him and not look back... or for that matter, simply take your approach, slap him with the 1st round tender, and not even bother to talk about an extension.

[Partial]

who's in the dream world? who the hell makes 15 million a year in the nfl

i think you're confusing real contracts with the giant fake back loaded contracts that say they're 5 years but they're really 2 year deals, like what whale had

players rarely ever see a huge amount of that contract money. it doesn't look like TT backloads too bad. jenkins would likely see all of his contract. he would never see a 7 year 50 million dollar deal with 25 million coming in the last two years. thats not a real contract. its really a 5 year 25 million dollar deal. and thats what the big players sign



and honestly partial. i'd rather hold off for half a season and see if he is the real deal, then pay him more then what we would have to pay now. i wouldn't mind that. you pay a little more, but the overall risk is lower. i have no problem with that. another few million spread over 5 or 6 years is no big deal to find out if the player is really as good as you think

So, you'd rather likely lose a player then pay him what he deserves/decent wage today, but will look like nothing in 3 years?

[red]

$3-4 million doesn't have to be "the real deal"... he just has to be a solid contributor.

And by any measure, especially after taking into account his upside, I think Jenkins meets that criteria.

As Partial has been saying, the $$$ we're talking about isn't exhorbitant... I don't view signing Jenkins as a risk - solid guy. It would seem that even TT agrees with this position, as they have begun discussions on a contract.

If TT thought of Jenkins as "just a guy" he would simply slap the minimum tender on him and not look back... or for that matter, simply take your approach, slap him with the 1st round tender, and not even bother to talk about an extension.

i don't think we're talking about 3 to 4 million a year wist. if we were talking around 3 i wouldn't have much of a problem with this. i think we're talking about 5 to 6 million a year average with that kind of bonus. thats where i think you can run into problems

if he only proves to be a solid player, and we're a few years down the road. and we're saying, you know, he's not bad, but he's not worth what we're paying him, and we could really use that money to upgrade his position.

how easy would it be to cut him?

if its a 11 million dollar or so signing bonus, we might have a problem cutting him. then we're kind of stuck with him, like we are now with kgb. and if you give it to him all up front,, say he counts 8 or 9 million against this years cap, and he turns out to be nothing, then you just wasted a lot of money

thats why i say wait for a little while longer, to make sure. even if it costs you a little more

the only way i wouldn't mind 11 million in bonus money is if, we did something like a 4 million signing bonus, maybe a or 3 million dollar roster bonus this year with a minimum salary. about a 4.5 million cap hit this year. then like a 3 million dollar roster bonus next year, so if he doesn't look like he deserves that money next year, we can cut him and fix the problem. or if he does play at a high level, we keep him at about a 4.5 million dollar cap hit.

theres your 11 million dollar bonus money, its not all guaranteed, but you get it all in the first two years. after that his salary would go up, but if he's playing well you keep him, no problem. and if he doesn't deserve his salary you can cut him with a fairly small cap hit

that i wouldn't mind

5 year deal. 25 million, 11 million bonus money(5 million signing bonus, 6 million in roster bonuses)

2007

base salary- 750,000
prsb - 1,000,000
roster bonus- 3,000,000
total cap hit- 4.75 million

2008

base salary 750,000
prsb- 1,000,000
roster bonus- 3,000,000
total- 4.75

2009

base salary-3,000,000
prsb- 1,000,000
total- 4,000,000

2010

base 4,000,000
prsb-1,000,000
total - 5,000,000

2011

base- 5,500,000
prsb-1,000,000
total- 6,500,000

now thats a pretty low risk contract. that pays the guy well if he deserves it, and allows you to cut him if he doesn't deserve it

[the_idle_threat]

I can agree with that. We'll see what happens.

[wist43]

In the 3 years he has been in a Packer uniform, what has has he done that would give you the slightest hint that he could be cut???

Everything points to paying this guy... and, as we've been saying, it's not like we're looking at a high end contract. You said you thought we were looking at $5 + million... I doubt we're talking that kind of money.

3-4 is much more likely, and at that number, I have no problem... 5-6??? Yes, that's too much for now... but, if he comes out gang busters, and we don't pay him now, then yes, we're probably looking at 5-6.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If the price is too high, tag him at a first round tender. If it's in the $10M guaranteed range, sign him long-term. Like others have said, this guy isn't a 4 game wonder. That's just when they decided to move him to DE, and he really took off, but he was a solid pass rusher at DT (our best pass rushing DT) for the last couple of years.

[Fosco33]

If the price is too high, tag him at a first round tender. If it's in the $10M guaranteed range, sign him long-term. Like others have said, this guy isn't a 4 game wonder. That's just when they decided to move him to DE, and he really took off, but he was a solid pass rusher at DT (our best pass rushing DT) for the last couple of years.

Damn right!

[pbmax]

I can't see Jenkins as a starter on a quality D line, unless the other three were world beaters.

I love his pass rush on the inside and his motor. He made KGB look pitiful with the way he held up to the run after moving to end. And it looked like he had the moves for a decent pass rush off the corner.

But on a number of occasions he just got steamrolled by the tackle in run D. And his pass rush seemed less effective after the first two weeks at end.

I would prefer him not to get starter money. But he is consistent, versatile and hustles. At tackle, his pass rush is the best on the Pack. I would understand if he got a long term deal with near starter money. The cap takes another huge jump next year so, like Kampman's deal, it might look like a steal after a year.

[RashanGary]

I'd put the 2nd round tender on him and see how it plays out. One of four things could happen.

1. Teams could offer decent deals but nothing over the top becuase they know they are already giving up a valuable pick and likely core player along with the big contract. In that case, Jenkins takes the best low ball offer and we match it.

2. Some team gives up a butt load for him and throws in a poison pill. We take the 2nd round pick and go forward.

3. Nobody bites and Jenkins realizes his value is lower than he thought and we sign a long term really good deal.

4. Nobody jumps and Jenkins stays patient and plays out his tender, risking injury but taking a chance he makes alot more in the UFA market.

[RashanGary]

When it's all said and done I'd expect 5 years 20 million with 9 up front.

[Patler]

Wow. All I can say is "wow"!

12 months ago half the people here thought it was crazy if Kampman was offered more than $2 million/year. Now they want to give Jenkins 4- 5 million.

Jenkins has shown FLASHES, not consistency at all. He was considered a liability at DT in the run game, which is why he never got more playing time than he did. Yes, he looked like he was better then KGB those last four games at DE, BUT it was only four games. His career stats look like Kampman's for 2005 alone, the year before he signed.

Kampman showed much, much more in potential and actual production in his first three years than Jenkins has, yet Kampman was tendered for his 4th year and was still signed longterm for his 5th. GB should do the same thing with Jenkins.

Jenkin's value is what it was December 1. Four games didn't make it go up by a factor of three.

What the tender cost is doesn't really matter for 2007. GB can afford it. What they can't afford is having him be in 2009 what KGB is now.

[Bretsky]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/PKR01/702220584/1058&located=RSS


Packers to talk with Jenkins today about deal BY Pete Dougherty

The Green Bay Packers have until March 1 to tender restricted free-agent Cullen Jenkins a contract offer but are continuing negotiations this week to sign the valuable fourth-year player to a long-term deal before then. One of Jenkins' agents, Brian Levy, said Wednesday the Packers haven't told him what restricted contract tender they will make, though it's almost a given it will be either the new second-round tender or a first-round tender. Levy probably won't find out until next week, but he's scheduled to meet with Andrew Brandt, the team's vice president of player finance, at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis this week to continue discussing a long-term deal. "We're going to sit down with them (today)," Levy said. Jenkins is a restricted free agent whose move to defensive end for the last four games last year was a significant factor in the Packers' defensive improvement in the season's final month. That, plus his ability to move to defensive tackle on passing downs, has made him an offseason signing priority for the Packers. Jenkins finished last season with 6½ sacks and 48 tackles, splitting time at defensive tackle and end, and if the Packers put the minimum tender of $850,000 on him, he'd draw great interest in restricted free agency. That tender would allow the Packers to match any offer he signed with another team or receive a draft pick in the round he was selected as compensation. But Jenkins was undrafted, so the Packers would get nothing in return. Last year, Minnesota found a loophole in such signings that makes it almost impossible for the original club to match an offer. A team can include a clause, for instance, that would guarantee Jenkins' entire contract if he played, say, four games at Lambeau Field in the first season of the deal. If the Packers matched that, they'd then have to guarantee Jenkins' entire contract if he played four games at home that season. That's why the Packers surely are debating whether to put a second-round or first-round tender on Jenkins. The second-round tender, which was added as part of the NFL's collective-bargaining agreement extension from last year, is cheaper for the Packers than the first-round tender — it guarantees Jenkins a $1.3 million salary for 2007 — and would force another team to give up a second-round draft pick to sign him. The first-round tender is more costly ($1.85 million) but would land them a first-round draft pick if he signed with another club. Both tenders' draft-pick compensation might be costly enough to dissuade another team from signing Jenkins, so the second-round tag appears more likely, but Jenkins' strong play late last year might intrigue a team or two to consider parting with a second-round pick for him. In the meantime, the Packers and Levy are expected to continue negotiating a possible long-term contract, for which the Packers are well positioned to do with almost $25 million in salary-cap space. Two defensive ends who like Jenkins just finished their third seasons in the NFL recently signed lucrative long-term deals, though that doesn't mean Jenkins is in line for contracts at their level, because both are better pure outside pass rushers, which is a more highly valued skill.


VIEW: "It looks like he should get between $8 million and $11 million in guaranteed money, over the course of about a 6-year deal. Here are some facts on the TENDER rules, and i would say put a 1st rd tender on him for $1.85 million. that's less than some stiffs on our team will make, plus it will make him work and play hard again to cash in: THE Packers surely are debating whether to put a second-round or first-round tender on Jenkins. The second-round tender, which was added as part of the NFL's collective-bargaining agreement extension from last year, is cheaper for the Packers than the first-round tender — it guarantees Jenkins a $1.3 million salary for 2007 — and would force another team to give up a second-round draft pick to sign him. The first-round tender is more costly ($1.85 million) but would land them a first-round draft pick if he signed with another club. Both tenders' draft-pick compensation might be costly enough to dissuade another team from signing Jenkins, so the second-round tag appears more likely, but Jenkins' strong play late last year might intrigue a team or two to consider parting with a second-round pick for him."


Great stuff; thanks for posting.

I've noted this before and I'll note it again. I think it would be idiotic to tender him for anything less than a first. We have the extra money; so make sure another team doesn't run his cost up. If I was one of the best teams in the NFL I might make a run at Jenkins for a late 2nd round draft pick. We do not want that to occur; that's why you tender him with a 1st

[Bretsky]

Wow. All I can say is "wow"!

12 months ago half the people here thought it was crazy if Kampman was offered more than $2 million/year. Now they want to give Jenkins 4- 5 million.

Jenkins has shown FLASHES, not consistency at all. He was considered a liability at DT in the run game, which is why he never got more playing time than he did. Yes, he looked like he was better then KGB those last four games at DE, BUT it was only four games. His career stats look like Kampman's for 2005 alone, the year before he signed.

Kampman showed much, much more in potential and actual production in his first three years than Jenkins has, yet Kampman was tendered for his 4th year and was still signed longterm for his 5th. GB should do the same thing with Jenkins.

Jenkin's value is what it was December 1. Four games didn't make it go up by a factor of three.

What the tender cost is doesn't really matter for 2007. GB can afford it. What they can't afford is having him be in 2009 what KGB is now.

For the record I was all for the Kampman Deal.

And I'd be all for the Jenkins deal if TT and the coaches feel his value is there. Jenkins is not a Cledius Hunt; he's a hard worker and high effort guy.

That being said, I'd think his value would fall in the 3.5 Million-4 Million a Year Range at this point

[Patler]

I agree they should tender him at the first round level. The difference in cost is peanuts with the salary cap where it is. Heck, it they are really confident in him, show an act of faith and give him the 1st and 2nd round tender. It would make him happy, still protect the Packers and be a nice prelude to a longterm deal, IF he proves to be worth it.

[RashanGary]

Wow. All I can say is "wow"!

12 months ago half the people here thought it was crazy if Kampman was offered more than $2 million/year. Now they want to give Jenkins 4- 5 million.

Jenkins has shown FLASHES, not consistency at all. He was considered a liability at DT in the run game, which is why he never got more playing time than he did. Yes, he looked like he was better then KGB those last four games at DE, BUT it was only four games. His career stats look like Kampman's for 2005 alone, the year before he signed.

Kampman showed much, much more in potential and actual production in his first three years than Jenkins has, yet Kampman was tendered for his 4th year and was still signed longterm for his 5th. GB should do the same thing with Jenkins.

Jenkin's value is what it was December 1. Four games didn't make it go up by a factor of three.

What the tender cost is doesn't really matter for 2007. GB can afford it. What they can't afford is having him be in 2009 what KGB is now.


Good point. If you throw the 1st on him then nobody jumps and Jenkins either takes a long term discounted deal or plays it out till he gets to UFA.

I'm sort of a risk taker, so I want to put he 2nd on him and hope teams low ball him. If they don't low ball him and they give him a butt load then you take the 2nd.

Either way works. Worste case scenario is going balls out to make sure this guy is a Packer for life. Good grief. It's Cullen Jenkins. A 2nd round pick is fair strait up and that's not taking into consideration the cap relief if he really did get an offer big enough that we won't match.

[Patler]

I'm all in favor of making him play for the tender, even the top tender. Postpone the risk for another year.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Jenkins has had many GOOD games, but only 4 GREAT games. Those games came against 3 of the worst offenses in the league and one that wasn't trying. Yep pay the guy 30 million.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm with Wist and Partial on this one. Jenkins is clearly on the upswing and keeping him on the team is a necessity at this point.

His signing really poses minimal risk from a financial standpoint. Take a look at the Packers cap situation. They are swimming in cap room, not just this year, but they are set for years to come. Where is the big financial risk here? He's clearly shown he's better than KGB and if we can keep him for less than we paid KGB, it only makes sense.

Lock him up for 5-6 years, so the kid you have confidence in him, watch him succeed.

[Patler]

Lock him up for 5-6 years, so the kid you have confidence in him, watch him succeed.

How did that work with KGB? He showed much more value than Jenkins when he signed his contract.

How much would you have been willing to pay Jenkins on December 9, 2006?

[Bretsky]

Is Jenkins really in a position to demand that much money annually yet ?

Put a First Round Tender on him.

Then offer him a fair deal now or sign him for the year and see how he develops.

[MJZiggy]

Wasn't the deadline for that yesterday? Or was that just franchise tags and stuff like that?

[PackerPro42]

When a player is a RFA there is a maximum to how much you can offer him, with that maximum comes a specific tender. When a team is interested in the player, they can offer him whatever they want plus the tender the team has set. After you find a team that is willing to place the tender on him and give him a generally large contract, the Packers can either chose to match the offer or take the tender in exchange for him.

So when you guys are saying that Jenkins is demanding so much money, it's incorrect because he doesn't have a say so into the amount of money he gets until another team offers him a contract.

[wist43]

KGB is a good case in point...

He got OVER-paid, b/c Sherman was too cautious and underestimated his value on the restricted market, and tagged him too low. Those of us arguing to lock him up now, in effect, are arguing that we DO NOT overpay him.

Jenkins doesn't have much leverage right now... even if they tender him at the 1st round rate, he'd still only be getting a 1 year deal - the logic goes that these guys haven't been paid big yet, they don't have lifetime security, a blown out knee later... these guys will take a discounted contracted against their potential payday on the open market a year down the line.

It would seem that those of you arguing against signing him simply don't see his value... trust me, if he hits the RFA market for anything less than the 1st round tender - he will be signed by another team to an offer sheet. He may even receive an offer if they tender him at the 1st round rate.

Jenkins was mishandled and misused under Sherman, but his potential was there for anyone to see... he's the quickest DL the Packers have, he's quick, has good speed - he's got a lot of value, and teams will pay for him.

[red]

Wow. All I can say is "wow"!

12 months ago half the people here thought it was crazy if Kampman was offered more than $2 million/year. Now they want to give Jenkins 4- 5 million.

Jenkins has shown FLASHES, not consistency at all. He was considered a liability at DT in the run game, which is why he never got more playing time than he did. Yes, he looked like he was better then KGB those last four games at DE, BUT it was only four games. His career stats look like Kampman's for 2005 alone, the year before he signed.

Kampman showed much, much more in potential and actual production in his first three years than Jenkins has, yet Kampman was tendered for his 4th year and was still signed longterm for his 5th. GB should do the same thing with Jenkins.

Jenkin's value is what it was December 1. Four games didn't make it go up by a factor of three.

What the tender cost is doesn't really matter for 2007. GB can afford it. What they can't afford is having him be in 2009 what KGB is now.

finally, backup. others that don't think he's been an all pro his whole career

where they hell were you yesterday morning?

i don't ever see him being an elite DE, demanding big money. i see him as possibly being a solid starter, not much more

IMO, he wants solid starter money right now, and i don't think we've seen enough to know if he is there yet.

give him the tender like i've been saying, and let him play this year. if he does well for maybe the first 6 or 8 games, then give him that solid starter money he wanted. i don't think he's going to set the world on fire, so his value shouldn't go up that much, if any

and to whoever said, who cares we can afford it. if we make a bunch of careless moves like i think this would be right now, and some of these players turn out to not be worth the money and we have to cut them, you'd see our cap situation go down the drain really fast

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

KGB is a good case in point...

He got OVER-paid, b/c Sherman was too cautious and underestimated his value on the restricted market, and tagged him too low. Those of us arguing to lock him up now, in effect, are arguing that we DO NOT overpay him.

Jenkins doesn't have much leverage right now... even if they tender him at the 1st round rate, he'd still only be getting a 1 year deal - the logic goes that these guys haven't been paid big yet, they don't have lifetime security, a blown out knee later... these guys will take a discounted contracted against their potential payday on the open market a year down the line.

It would seem that those of you arguing against signing him simply don't see his value... trust me, if he hits the RFA market for anything less than the 1st round tender - he will be signed by another team to an offer sheet. He may even receive an offer if they tender him at the 1st round rate.

Jenkins was mishandled and misused under Sherman, but his potential was there for anyone to see... he's the quickest DL the Packers have, he's quick, has good speed - he's got a lot of value, and teams will pay for him.

Well if thats true, then I say let a team have him for a first. The frist round is deep this year and you could get an awesome player with that pick.

[wist43]

If Jenkins had been a 1st round pick last year, and he had put up the numbers he did, and showed the upside that he did, all of you would be singing his praises and what a great pick he was.

At some point you have to put a name to the value of a draft pick...

[Lurker64]

I'm not sure if this case is analogous to the KGB one. All indications are that Thompson is a much better evaluator of football playing talent than Sherman is. Since TT has seen a hell of a lot more of Jenkins than I have, he's probably a much better judge of how much he's worth. Sherman showed that he was more than willing to throw a pile of money at a player whose playing ability (as opposed to measurables) is questionable. Thompson has not.

If TT has seen enough of Jenkins in liminal football stuff to determine that his performance in the last four games is an honest indication of his potential, then he probably deserves a bit more money than most of us are willing to throw at him (since we're fans.) If he hasn't, then Jenkins probably won't get as much (from us) as he wants or alternatively, we'll get some draft picks.

But as to how much he should get paid? I have no idea, I don't know the guy, I've only seen him on the football field. I don't yet have a good sense about whether that player is who he is all the time, or if he was just playing with his head on fire for a stretch last year.

*edit: you saw nothing*

[Scott Campbell]

I saw nothing.

[Packnut]

Well, now we know he wants a shorter term contract so he can hit the market 1 more time. As hard as I try to understand the pay him side, I still believe it would be a terrible move to pay a guy on what ifs and may-be. 4 games does not a career make.

The over-riding factor is that the system in place regarding RFA's is there to protect the team. The Packers would be foolish not to use the system cause the players sure the hell do when it's to there advantage.

1 more important point to consider which I believe makes this a no-brainer. Right now, neither side has a clue as to what would be a fair contract. His own agent says it's hard to figure out starter money with nothing in the past to base it on. So let's say the Packers pay him a middle of the road deal now and he picks right up where he left off. We all know how these guys are. He's gonna want to re-negotiate after the 2007 season. Why risk going through that?

The problem is NO ONE has a clue as to what his real worth is. Only way to find out is to let the guy PROVE himself. Then give him a fair deal that Jenkins will be happy with. Hey, if the guy gets 15 sacks and holds up against the run for a full season, I have no problem giving him Kampman money.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Lock him up for 5-6 years, so the kid you have confidence in him, watch him succeed.

How did that work with KGB? He showed much more value than Jenkins when he signed his contract.

How much would you have been willing to pay Jenkins on December 9, 2006?
I knew I shouldn't have typed that last sentence as I figured people would rather focus on that and ignore the rest of the post.

We're not talking about what he would have made on 12/9/06 and I'm not getting involved in a hypothetical argument like that.

Also, it is assumed that he will get an 11M signing bonus, that is the MAX from an opinion in the article. Since that is what the naysayers are going with, I will only go with the 8M bonus on a 6 year deal as that was also the number given in the article, that is an extremely manageable cap figure, especially given the Packers very flush cap situation. 8M is a very good bargain for a player with Jenkins' upside.

If one is willing to put the 1st round tender on him and guarantee him 1.85M in salary, one must think he is very valuable and is going to start. If that is the case, why would one not pay him a relatively reasonable salary for a starting DE with a multi-year deal?

[Packnut]

Lock him up for 5-6 years, so the kid you have confidence in him, watch him succeed.

How did that work with KGB? He showed much more value than Jenkins when he signed his contract.

How much would you have been willing to pay Jenkins on December 9, 2006?
I knew I shouldn't have typed that last sentence as I figured people would rather focus on that and ignore the rest of the post.

We're not talking about what he would have made on 12/9/06 and I'm not getting involved in a hypothetical argument like that.

Also, it is assumed that he will get an 11M signing bonus, that is the MAX from an opinion in the article. Since that is what the naysayers are going with, I will only go with the 8M bonus on a 6 year deal as that was also the number given in the article, that is an extremely manageable cap figure, especially given the Packers very flush cap situation. 8M is a very good bargain for a player with Jenkins' upside.

If one is willing to put the 1st round tender on him and guarantee him 1.85M in salary, one must think he is very valuable and is going to start. If that is the case, why would one not pay him a relatively reasonable salary for a starting DE with a multi-year deal?


His agent wants a 3 or 4 year deal which would cut that signing bonus down.

[red]

a 3 year deal with a 5 or 6 million dollar SB i have no problem with

i think that would be resonable

[woodbuck27]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

He is developing with upside. If we can get him wrapped now, why give him a season to reach his best market potential and possibly lose him to a very high bid ? There's too many questions and developmentle time with the first and second round compensatory pick.

I say sign him ASAP.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Everybody points to KGB's signing. Well, he was pretty solid for a number of years. His production went down when they started playing him 80% of the snaps. $5M/year for a good pass rusher isn't ridiculous. I'd venture to guess that if they cut him right now, KGB could get close to what he's getting paid.

To me Jenkins, like Kampman, would be a safe signing. He's not the type to rest on his laurels. He was undrafted, and he's always carried that chip on his shoulder. He works hard, he's young yet, he has plenty of improving to do yet. If he's asking for $8M/year (which I highly doubt), then first or second round tender him, and see how he does. He could become a lot more expensive after this upcoming season though. If he demands are reasonable, then sign him long-term. I see guys like Robert Geathers and E.J. Henderson got $5M/year with $10M signing bonus, and he seems about in that range.

BTW, Jenkins may have done it against bad teams, but he played RE, so he went up against solid LTs in those games. McKinnie, Backus, Tait, and Jennings may not be elite, but it wasn't like he was going up against stiffs, rookies, or backups.

[TopHat]

INTERESTING!

[TopHat]

http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=2&c=621234&ssf=1&RequestedURL=http%3a%2f%2fpackers.scout.com%2f2%2f 621234.html

Sydney Speaks! Let's be careful with Jenkins by Sidney SC

PackerReport.com's Harry Sydney offers his thoughts on how the Green Bay Packers should handle defensive end Cullen Jenkins.

[Partial]

Wow. All I can say is "wow"!

12 months ago half the people here thought it was crazy if Kampman was offered more than $2 million/year. Now they want to give Jenkins 4- 5 million.

Jenkins has shown FLASHES, not consistency at all. He was considered a liability at DT in the run game, which is why he never got more playing time than he did. Yes, he looked like he was better then KGB those last four games at DE, BUT it was only four games. His career stats look like Kampman's for 2005 alone, the year before he signed.

Kampman showed much, much more in potential and actual production in his first three years than Jenkins has, yet Kampman was tendered for his 4th year and was still signed longterm for his 5th. GB should do the same thing with Jenkins.

Jenkin's value is what it was December 1. Four games didn't make it go up by a factor of three.

What the tender cost is doesn't really matter for 2007. GB can afford it. What they can't afford is having him be in 2009 what KGB is now.

finally, backup. others that don't think he's been an all pro his whole career

where they hell were you yesterday morning?

i don't ever see him being an elite DE, demanding big money. i see him as possibly being a solid starter, not much more

IMO, he wants solid starter money right now, and i don't think we've seen enough to know if he is there yet.

give him the tender like i've been saying, and let him play this year. if he does well for maybe the first 6 or 8 games, then give him that solid starter money he wanted. i don't think he's going to set the world on fire, so his value shouldn't go up that much, if any

and to whoever said, who cares we can afford it. if we make a bunch of careless moves like i think this would be right now, and some of these players turn out to not be worth the money and we have to cut them, you'd see our cap situation go down the drain really fast

If he was elite he'd get 2-3x the amount we are suggesting. We are merely opposing another KGB-esque misjudgement as Wist said.

[red]

can you name one nfl player who has ever signed a 5 year 75 million dollar deal? like you suggest the elite players make

john abraham signed a 6 year 45 million dollar deal last year. averages 7.5 million a year.

for a proven top teir elite DE
pat williams just a couple months ago became one of, if not the highest paid DT ever with a 7 year 50 million dollar deal. averages just over 7 million a year

both were young guys that had already been to the probowl, both are elite players at their positions

5 million a year for jenkins right now is just too much for me

jenkins, we think, wants about what kampman got last year, but when kampman got that deal he had shown a whole hell of a lot more IMO then jenkins has at this point

[HarveyWallbangers]

Pat Williams is 34 years old. Hardly young. John Abraham was coming off serious injuries, and was hardly considered elite. 5y, $75M is overboard, but considering what some of these guys got before the salary cap increased the last couple of years, it's only a matter of time before a DE gets over $10M/year.

Defensive ends

Jason Taylor, Miami: $9,464,625
Simeon Rice, Tampa Bay: $9,200,000
Richard Seymour, New England: $8,979,000

[red]

Pat Williams is 34 years old. Hardly young. John Abraham was coming off serious injuries, and was hardly considered elite. 5y, $75M is overboard, but considering what some of these guys got before the salary cap increased the last couple of years, it's only a matter of time before a DE gets over $10M/year.

Defensive ends

Jason Taylor, Miami: $9,464,625
Simeon Rice, Tampa Bay: $9,200,000
Richard Seymour, New England: $8,979,000

kevin williams, my bad

darren howard, the 5th highest paid DE. has a 6 year 30 million dollar deal he did last off season. which is the same per year that people that jenkins should get

the other of the top 10 averaged about 6.5 to 8 million a year for the deals they did

and i go back to kampman, 5 year 25 million last season. people already knew the cap was going way up. and kampman had already been a starter for a full year and had proven himself by putting up good numbers

IMO jenkins contract should be less then what kampman got, a good amount lower

and kampman is only one year older then jenkins. last year (the year before he got his big contract) kampman had 6.5 sacks and 81 tackles. this year jenkins had the same amount of sacks, but 50 less tackles

[PackerPro42]

How many times do I have to say this, Jenkins doesn't get to decide what he gets. He's a RFA.

[pbmax]

I don't remember too many people insisting Kampman come in only at $2 million per. But remember, most of those discussions came while the CBA was being negotiated. And it took a huge jump last year.

If you had taken a poll of Kampman's worth after the CBA but before the contract, everyone's estimate of his value would have increased.


Wow. All I can say is "wow"!

12 months ago half the people here thought it was crazy if Kampman was offered more than $2 million/year. Now they want to give Jenkins 4- 5 million.

Jenkins has shown FLASHES, not consistency at all. He was considered a liability at DT in the run game, which is why he never got more playing time than he did. Yes, he looked like he was better then KGB those last four games at DE, BUT it was only four games. His career stats look like Kampman's for 2005 alone, the year before he signed.

Kampman showed much, much more in potential and actual production in his first three years than Jenkins has, yet Kampman was tendered for his 4th year and was still signed longterm for his 5th. GB should do the same thing with Jenkins.

Jenkin's value is what it was December 1. Four games didn't make it go up by a factor of three.

What the tender cost is doesn't really matter for 2007. GB can afford it. What they can't afford is having him be in 2009 what KGB is now.

[pbmax]

As others have suggested, it isn't an evaluation of Jenkins talent that might lead you to tender him higher than KGB, its a ploy.

If the first round tender (or the first and a third) keeps teams from negotiating with him, his long term price will be lower.

As wist correctly recalls, KGB was overpaid not because of a failure of evaluation, but a failure to tender him high enough. He then attracted offers and drove up his price.

If somebody named Anti-Polar Bear were here, we could point out to him again that this was another manifestation of Sherman's salary cap mismanagment. He was so tight against the cap in each year that his tenders were always dangerously low. He also just about lost Na'il Diggs this way.


I'm not sure if this case is analogous to the KGB one. All indications are that Thompson is a much better evaluator of football playing talent than Sherman is. Since TT has seen a hell of a lot more of Jenkins than I have, he's probably a much better judge of how much he's worth. Sherman showed that he was more than willing to throw a pile of money at a player whose playing ability (as opposed to measurables) is questionable. Thompson has not.

[Partial]

Pat Williams is 34 years old. Hardly young. John Abraham was coming off serious injuries, and was hardly considered elite. 5y, $75M is overboard, but considering what some of these guys got before the salary cap increased the last couple of years, it's only a matter of time before a DE gets over $10M/year.

Defensive ends

Jason Taylor, Miami: $9,464,625
Simeon Rice, Tampa Bay: $9,200,000
Richard Seymour, New England: $8,979,000

kevin williams, my bad

darren howard, the 5th highest paid DE. has a 6 year 30 million dollar deal he did last off season. which is the same per year that people that jenkins should get

the other of the top 10 averaged about 6.5 to 8 million a year for the deals they did

and i go back to kampman, 5 year 25 million last season. people already knew the cap was going way up. and kampman had already been a starter for a full year and had proven himself by putting up good numbers

IMO jenkins contract should be less then what kampman got, a good amount lower

and kampman is only one year older then jenkins. last year (the year before he got his big contract) kampman had 6.5 sacks and 81 tackles. this year jenkins had the same amount of sacks, but 50 less tackles

That is simply salary. Not compensation. Look at singing bonus, roster bonus and annual salary.

[red]

Pat Williams is 34 years old. Hardly young. John Abraham was coming off serious injuries, and was hardly considered elite. 5y, $75M is overboard, but considering what some of these guys got before the salary cap increased the last couple of years, it's only a matter of time before a DE gets over $10M/year.

Defensive ends

Jason Taylor, Miami: $9,464,625
Simeon Rice, Tampa Bay: $9,200,000
Richard Seymour, New England: $8,979,000

kevin williams, my bad

darren howard, the 5th highest paid DE. has a 6 year 30 million dollar deal he did last off season. which is the same per year that people that jenkins should get

the other of the top 10 averaged about 6.5 to 8 million a year for the deals they did

and i go back to kampman, 5 year 25 million last season. people already knew the cap was going way up. and kampman had already been a starter for a full year and had proven himself by putting up good numbers

IMO jenkins contract should be less then what kampman got, a good amount lower

and kampman is only one year older then jenkins. last year (the year before he got his big contract) kampman had 6.5 sacks and 81 tackles. this year jenkins had the same amount of sacks, but 50 less tackles

That is simply salary. Not compensation. Look at singing bonus, roster bonus and annual salary.

no, thats not just simply salary. thats the whole thing

i looked up the contracts of all of the top 10 highest paid DE's on that list

thats total contract divided by amount of years

[Patler]

I don't remember too many people insisting Kampman come in only at $2 million per. But remember, most of those discussions came while the CBA was being negotiated. And it took a huge jump last year.

If you had taken a poll of Kampman's worth after the CBA but before the contract, everyone's estimate of his value would have increased.



Even before the CBA was finalized, it was known that the cap would be at least in the mid to upper 90s, most were saying about $96-98 million range. Finalization of the CB increased the calulations for the cap and took it even higher.

There were plenty who argued Kampman should get only $2-3 million, even AFTER he was signed, because I remember arguing with several that the figure they suggested was barely more than the average salary of an NFL player.

[Scott Campbell]

Wasn't he originally signed as a street Free Agent? If they tender him and get a first in compensation, that wouldn't be such a bad thing. If they overpay him based on 4 games, and he starts drawing comparisons to Joe Johnson, that would be a very bad thing.

[RashanGary]

I think he's pretty good. I have no problem with a long term deal that is somewhere in the range of an average NFL starter.

[Patler]

When a player is a RFA there is a maximum to how much you can offer him, with that maximum comes a specific tender. When a team is interested in the player, they can offer him whatever they want plus the tender the team has set. After you find a team that is willing to place the tender on him and give him a generally large contract, the Packers can either chose to match the offer or take the tender in exchange for him.

So when you guys are saying that Jenkins is demanding so much money, it's incorrect because he doesn't have a say so into the amount of money he gets until another team offers him a contract.

From the time he becomes a free agent, he is free to negotiate with any team he wants until June 1. During that time period, the only difference between an RFA and a FA is that if the previous team makes a qualifying tender offer before the start of free agency, they retain a right of first refusal for the RFA, with possible compensation if they don't match, depending on the size of the qualifying tender.

There is no maximum on what GB can offer Jenkins at this time, which is why they are discussing a possible long term deal. BUT, to retain his RFA rights they will have to make a qualifying tender offer in time.

Jenkins has a say in it and can "demand" whatever he wants. After all, they call them contract "negotiations" for a reason, He can 'demand" a long term deal for whatever he wants from GB or another team. He can refuse to play for GB for the tender if he wants to. The only thing he can't do is sign an offer sheet from another team and then refuse to play for GB if they match it after GB has tendered him.

[RashanGary]

The Packers have alot of leverage here with the tenders and RFA status. There is no reason that we shouldn't have as the worste case;

A. A 1st round pick for Jenkins
or
B. A pretty good player on a 1 year 1.9 mil *or whatever* deal



I'm beginning to come around to Patlers *1 year deal* concept. The only way we get burned is by signing him long term and him not panning out. The other two options are very low risk.

If Jenkins wants a long term deal; make it discounted. 3 mil per year is not a big risk for a player like Jenkins. If he wants 5 years 15 with 5 up front; GREAT. If not; give him the tender and make him play for under 2 adn risk injury. There is no reason to go overboard here. Taht would be a Shermanesque move.

[Patler]

I'm beginning to come around to Patlers *1 year deal* concept. The only way we get burned is by signing him long term and him not panning out. The other two options are very low risk.

If Jenkins wants a long term deal; make it discounted. 3 mil per year is not a big risk for a player like Jenkins. If he wants 5 years 15 with 5 up front; GREAT. If not; give him the tender and make him play for under 2 adn risk injury. There is no reason to go overboard here. Taht would be a Shermanesque move.

To be honest, I'm not totally against a long term deal, so long as:

1. If it is for more than 3 years, the signing bonus is small so as not to impact future cap years significantly if he isn't what was expected. They can have roster bonuses, salaries, etc. for whatever they want, because if he is no longer deemed worth it you just let him go.

1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

2. If it is a 2 or 3 year contract, I don't care what they do it for. I will simply assume it is what they see his present value as. Since it has no long term effect, I really don't care.

I simply don't want to see situations like Joe Johnson and Cletidus Hunt where the player proved in his first year after signing that he was paid too much, but had to be kept around because of the cap implications. They can avoid those situations with the terms of the contract.

All in all, the RFA tender system is a decent situation now, since the salaries have been raised. The player is paid pretty well, and the team is given a 4th year for an "upstart" like Jenkins to prove himself. I'm not completely sold on Jenkins just yet. I doubt he would ever have made it as an every down DT, he was not very consistent against the run. However, he could have been a decent member of a rotation as the Packers have used. Perhaps he can be an every down player at DE, but I sure want to see more than just 4 games before investing too much guaranteed money in him. The RFA tender seems tailor made for his situation from the team's perspective. Since it is only one year, I would have no problem with them putting the highest tender on him if they want to avoid losing him.

[TopHat]

"Green Bay defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins is mulling whether to accept a four-year contract extension from the Packers or accept being tendered as a restricted free agent. Jenkins has been offered a deal worth approximately $16 million, according to a source. That includes roughly $7 million in guarantees. The deal is not a premium offer because of injury concerns. Jenkins has a chronically bad ankle and has had a shoulder injury during the first three years of his career after being an undrafted free agent. Although Jenkins might opt for the security of the deal, the flip side is that it could quickly become outdated with the expected growth of contracts around the NFL. That could leave Jenkins underpaid by the third and fourth years of the deal."

[LL2]

"the flip side is that it could quickly become outdated with the expected growth of contracts around the NFL. That could leave Jenkins underpaid by the third and fourth years of the deal."

That's the risk you take. For crying out loud though, $7 mil in guaranteed money would be more that enough to take care of me for the rest of my life!

[TopHat]

JS Online

Defensive end Cullen Jenkins remained optimistic Friday that his agent will negotiate a long-term contract with the Green Bay Packers in the six days left before the start of restricted free agency. “I have no reason not to believe that,” Jenkins said. “It should get done. But either way, I’m going to be a Packer.” Agent Brian Levy reportedly has been meeting with team negotiator Andrew Brandt at the NFL combine. General manager Ted Thompson said he would like to complete a multi-year deal, but the fact that Jenkins said he hadn’t even talked to Levy in several days indicated that the two sides probably weren’t close. If agreement cannot be reached, the Packers have until Thursday to submit a qualifying offer to Jenkins. This year, teams have four possible tenders, one more than in the first 14 years of restricted free agency. The Packers won’t give Jenkins the lowest tender of $850,000 because he entered the league as a free agent and a team trying to sign him wouldn’t owe the Packers any draft-choice compensation. Their other options are the new second-round tender, which is worth $1.3 million; the first-round tender, worth $1.85 million; and the first- and third-round tender, which is worth about $2.3 million and would effectively remove Jenkins from the market. “Every player wants the security of a longer deal,” Jenkins said. “It will probably be a long week.” Favre’s schedule: When Brett Favre undergoes ankle surgery, and a source close to Favre said the date could come as early as next week, the Packers expect he will need eight to 10 weeks of rehabilitation time. “We’re shooting for the May 18 minicamp,” coach Mike McCarthy said. Deep respect:Marty Schottenheimer, who gave McCarthy his first job in pro coaching, might figure in Green Bay this season in a consulting role. “I think that’s something that could be visited down the road,” McCarthy said. “He’s the best football coach I’ve ever had the opportunity to work with.” Schottenheimer, 63, was fired last week as coach of the San Diego Chargers.

[Bretsky]

this is great news with Jenkins

I expected the 3.5-4 Mil range to be about where things would end up at

Thanks for posting the info

[wist43]

The Packers have alot of leverage here with the tenders and RFA status. There is no reason that we shouldn't have as the worste case;

A. A 1st round pick for Jenkins
or
B. A pretty good player on a 1 year 1.9 mil *or whatever* deal



I'm beginning to come around to Patlers *1 year deal* concept. The only way we get burned is by signing him long term and him not panning out. The other two options are very low risk.

If Jenkins wants a long term deal; make it discounted. 3 mil per year is not a big risk for a player like Jenkins. If he wants 5 years 15 with 5 up front; GREAT. If not; give him the tender and make him play for under 2 adn risk injury. There is no reason to go overboard here. Taht would be a Shermanesque move.

The problem with the one year deal is - it's a one year deal.

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

[RashanGary]

this is great news with Jenkins

I expected the 3.5-4 Mil range to be about where things would end up at

Thanks for posting the info

A. Eats up cap space and takes some pressure of us being forced to waste money on an inflated FA market.

B. He may not be the perfect DE or the perfect DT but he's the type of utility guy that finds himself playing very effectively in whatever position hes throw into; be it a pass rushing DT or a run stopping DE in certain situations. He might not be every down at one position but he finds his way on the field.



I agree B,


I sort of have a vision of us finding a superstud DE and having something like this;

Superstud/Jenkins
Williams/Jenkins
Pickett/Jolly
Kampman/Montgomery

Even if Jenkins isn't a starter and he's makin 4 mil; who cares. If he plays 70% of the snaps, your getting your money's worht and he's so versitile taht he can do that even if he doesnt' start.

If this move goes down, it buys us tiem from having ot fill the DE position and gives us the flexibility and depth to be GREAT on the D-line if we do find someone else.

[RashanGary]

EDIT: In response to Wist

That worked out just GREAT with Harris didn't it?

No, I agree Wist......It's a fine line. Regardless; it's tough for us to lose here. Either Jenkins takes an early big pay day at a discount, he plays for a cheap one year deal or we get a pick. It's really hard to F this up.

It sounds like that 7 mil up front will be just enough to get his name to paper.

[pbmax]

I remember hoping he'd come in for no more than four mil per. But after the cap went over $104 million and every DE was making $5 mil or better, it was clear the Packers hit the sweet spot. Even better, he played like he had a one year deal this year. And the deal was seriously front loaded. All around, this was a plumb barring injury this year.


Even before the CBA was finalized, it was known that the cap would be at least in the mid to upper 90s, most were saying about $96-98 million range. Finalization of the CB increased the calulations for the cap and took it even higher.

There were plenty who argued Kampman should get only $2-3 million, even AFTER he was signed, because I remember arguing with several that the figure they suggested was barely more than the average salary of an NFL player.

[Bretsky]

this is great news with Jenkins

I expected the 3.5-4 Mil range to be about where things would end up at

Thanks for posting the info

A. Eats up cap space and takes some pressure of us being forced to waste money on an inflated FA market.

B. He may not be the perfect DE or the perfect DT but he's the type of utility guy that finds himself playing very effectively in whatever position hes throw into; be it a pass rushing DT or a run stopping DE in certain situations. He might not be every down at one position but he finds his way on the field.



I agree B,


I sort of have a vision of us finding a superstud DE and having something like this;

Superstud/Jenkins
Williams/Jenkins
Pickett/Jolly
Kampman/Montgomery

Even if Jenkins isn't a starter and he's makin 4 mil; who cares. If he plays 70% of the snaps, your getting your money's worht and he's so versitile taht he can do that even if he doesnt' start.

If this move goes down, it buys us tiem from having ot fill the DE position and gives us the flexibility and depth to be GREAT on the D-line if we do find someone else.


That looks pretty good, but where is KGB ?

Are you writing him out of the lineup ?

I'm not so sure TT is giving up on him; he can be a good pass rushing DE and with all the cap room we have it's OK to overpay a few...........as long as his last name is not Ferguson :lol:

[pbmax]

It was designed that way, and Sherman admitted as much after the singing. Both parties knew what it meant.


1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

[pbmax]

If front loaded as TT has done with Pickett, Kampman and to a lesser extent, Woodson, I would be fine with this.


"Green Bay defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins is mulling whether to accept a four-year contract extension from the Packers or accept being tendered as a restricted free agent. Jenkins has been offered a deal worth approximately $16 million, according to a source. That includes roughly $7 million in guarantees. The deal is not a premium offer because of injury concerns. Jenkins has a chronically bad ankle and has had a shoulder injury during the first three years of his career after being an undrafted free agent. Although Jenkins might opt for the security of the deal, the flip side is that it could quickly become outdated with the expected growth of contracts around the NFL. That could leave Jenkins underpaid by the third and fourth years of the deal."

[Patler]

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

The problem is that "locking -up" a player early doesn't really work anymore. The minute the player feels he is undervalued, the whinning starts, Then, you lose them like Walker or McKenzie, or have to redo their deals like Harris and Driver. In the long run, I don't think the teams really save anything anymore, and infact it may cost them more because they paid more than they had to initially, or they pay more than he is worth later on. Teams don't get away with paying a lot less than a player is worth other than SOMETIMES in their rookie contracts.

A few years ago I felt the same way, sign them early and get a good deal. But, players' agents have caught on. Now, I am more in favor of saving when you can now.

[RashanGary]

Oh yeah, for right now; KGB is in, but in my vision; we replace him with a superstud.

[Patler]

It was designed that way, and Sherman admitted as much after the singing. Both parties knew what it meant.


1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

What Sherman intially said he would do, but never did, was work on a new contract early. For Wahle's situation, I thought it was good at the time, because the Packers were almost certain to lose him back then even. What aggravated the heck out of me was that Sherman never took the second step a year or two later to renegotiate out from under the huge roster bonus that was due in 2005. Some expected it as early as the next off-season. Even Wahle mentioned once about signing a cheap deal to help out the team, and then never hearing from them again about renegotiating. The time to keep Wahle was in 2003 or 2004.

[the_idle_threat]

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

The problem is that "locking -up" a player early doesn't really work anymore. The minute the player feels he is undervalued, the whinning starts, Then, you lose them like Walker or McKenzie, or have to redo their deals like Harris and Driver. In the long run, I don't think the teams really save anything anymore, and infact it may cost them more because they paid more than they had to initially, or they pay more than he is worth later on. Teams don't get away with paying a lot less than a player is worth other than SOMETIMES in their rookie contracts.

A few years ago I felt the same way, sign them early and get a good deal. But, players' agents have caught on. Now, I am more in favor of saving when you can now.

This isn't new. A decade ago, Leroy Butler went to Ron wolf and had his deal redone when the market went up and he was outplaying his deal. I remember how it went down at the time.

Because of new deals signed by other players in free agency, there were constant stories in the paper about how Butler was underpaid. The reporters would ask him about it and he kept saying he'd honor his contract. But the talk didn't stop; every time a reporter got within 10 feet of Butler the reporter would stir up shit about him being underpaid, until finally Butler changed his mind and met with Wolf to get his deal sweetened. I remember being pissed at the reporters at the time because it seemed to be a non-story (both Butler and the team were happy with Butler's existing deal) that became one because the reporters thought Butler should feel he was being underpaid and disrespected, and they kept on him about it until they convinced him to request more money.

In any case, when players are signed to a team-friendly deal and the deal is later sweetened, the new deal still ends up being pretty team-friendly from what I've seen. They can throw in a few million extra, like they did with Driver or with Harris this year, and the guy is still not breaking the bank like he would if he had an unrestricted free-agent type deal.

[Patler]

But that's just it, you don't save any money because you have to "sweeten" it. I'm mostly only talking about RFAs or rookies with a couple years left. Your options seem to be:

1. pay a lower contract now, and then a higher one next year; or
2. negotiate a contract higher this year than option 1, but maybe less next year than option 1. Then, have to sweeten it in year 3 or 4.

The long and short is do what works for this player now, but don't go into option 2 thinking that somehow signing a player early will save you money. Less and less is that the case.

[the_idle_threat]

But that's just it, you don't save any money because you have to "sweeten" it. I'm mostly only talking about RFAs or rookies with a couple years left. Your options seem to be:

1. pay a lower contract now, and then a higher one next year; or
2. negotiate a contract higher this year than option 1, but maybe less next year than option 1. Then, have to sweeten it in year 3 or 4.

The long and short is do what works for this player now, but don't go into option 2 thinking that somehow signing a player early will save you money. Less and less is that the case.

IMO, your logic is flawed in this case, Patler, because you're not looking at the whole picture. For a RFA (who would be an ascending player entering his prime) option 2 is very likely to save a team money over option 1. Let's look at those two options again.

Option 1) Give the restricted free agent the one-year tender, and negotiate the long-term contract during or after that year as the player is just about to become an unrestricted free agent. Assuming the player plays well in that season and the team still wants him, the team pays a low contract (the tender) in year one, and then a very high contract in years 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. because the player has the leverage of unrestricted free agency to jack up the terms of the long-term contract.

Option 2) Lock the player into a long-term deal asap, assuming the sides can agree on a reasonable deal, which is presumably much lower than the long-term deal in Option 1 above. The player is paid more in year 1 than under Option 1, but is paid less in years 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. because the deal was negotiated without the immediate threat of unrestricted free-agency. If the player outperforms the deal, the team can sweeten the deal, but it has leverage because the player is under contract, so the sweetened deal will not have to break the bank. When Driver and Harris got their extensions, neither was given an outlandish amount, and in fact I would argue that both are still relatively underpaid compared to other receivers and corners, respectively, with similar production. Yet both players are happy with their extensions. Everybody wins.

The idea is to get the player locked in at a reasonable rate before he gets close enough to the madness that is unrestricted free agency that he can use it as a bargaining tool. Sweetening a deal after the fact does not cost as much as letting a player negotiate a long-term deal on the eve of free agency, especially now when teams are flush with cash and the market is bare because even ordinary players are getting the Franchise tag.

[Patler]

You said the same exact thing as I did. The only difference between us is that you think the difference in the two contracts will be much greater than I think they will be. The bigger the difference for year two in option 1 and option 2, the sooner the team has to sweeten the deal and the more "sugar" will have to be added.

Harris is a great example. He played ONE season under his new contract before he started to complain (signed during the season in 2004, played during 2005 and started whinning in the off-season between 2005 amd 2006). So the Packers paid more in 2004 because his deal was increased for 2005 and got two seasons of "lower' pay according to your scenario. Plus, I'm not sure McKenzie is all that "cheap" compared to what he would have signed for if allowed to hit free agency. He is only useful to a team that lets him play as the Packers do. He would be a horrible mismatch for a team that plays a softer, less physical coverage.

[pbmax]

That's what I remember as well. But Sherman was too close to the cap to make it a short term friendly contract reorg or extension. We didn't have enough room to front load any roster bonuses to make it more palatable in the long run. And all parties knew what was destined to happen.

If Sherman had retained his GM position, Wahle might have gotten a huge signing bonus on a long contract, but that would have pushed the day of reckoning even further back.

While it doesn't work in Favre's immediate favor, I prefer TT's approach. But I understand why Sherman was more short term.

What I have always wondered, was if the public pressure from Favre (retire/not retire) kept Sherman in this mode or if he boxed himself into it without being pushed.



It was designed that way, and Sherman admitted as much after the singing. Both parties knew what it meant.


1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

What Sherman intially said he would do, but never did, was work on a new contract early. For Wahle's situation, I thought it was good at the time, because the Packers were almost certain to lose him back then even. What aggravated the heck out of me was that Sherman never took the second step a year or two later to renegotiate out from under the huge roster bonus that was due in 2005. Some expected it as early as the next off-season. Even Wahle mentioned once about signing a cheap deal to help out the team, and then never hearing from them again about renegotiating. The time to keep Wahle was in 2003 or 2004.

[pbmax]

I think you can still sign early and save. The plurality of players will never need to be redone and will be replaced. The good ones (Walker pre-injury, Driver, Harris, Seymour, Brady) can more easily be accomodated since they have demonstrated value even after their second contract. If there were regrets (like after Walker's snit and injury) then you let them walk.





One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

The problem is that "locking -up" a player early doesn't really work anymore. The minute the player feels he is undervalued, the whinning starts, Then, you lose them like Walker or McKenzie, or have to redo their deals like Harris and Driver. In the long run, I don't think the teams really save anything anymore, and infact it may cost them more because they paid more than they had to initially, or they pay more than he is worth later on. Teams don't get away with paying a lot less than a player is worth other than SOMETIMES in their rookie contracts.

A few years ago I felt the same way, sign them early and get a good deal. But, players' agents have caught on. Now, I am more in favor of saving when you can now.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Jenkins salary was $425K last year. That was his highest paid year.

The 7 million guaranteed is over 16 years worth of his previous salary.

The 16 million over 4 years is full value of his contract is worth over 37 times last season's salary or an annual increase of over 941%.

At DE Strahan makes 7.2 mil(single season sack record, pro bowl etc.) KGB's cap # is 5.4 million.
At DT Pickett's cap # including incentives is 4.9 million
Rod Coleman in Atlanta is 4.4 million

Compare with Pro Bowl player Aaron Kampmann's 4 year 21 million deal last year with almost 11 million guaranteed at this link.
www.jsonline.com/story...?id=407991

Tell your boss that you don't want 9.4 times the salary you were paid last year.

[BooHoo]

9.4 times my salary sounds good to me. :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jenkins salary was $425K last year. That was his highest paid year.

The 7 million guaranteed is over 16 years worth of his previous salary.

The 16 million over 4 years is full value of his contract is worth over 37 times last season's salary or an annual increase of over 941%.

At DE Strahan makes 7.2 mil(single season sack record, pro bowl etc.) KGB's cap # is 5.4 million.
At DT Pickett's cap # including incentives is 4.9 million
Rod Coleman in Atlanta is 4.4 million

Compare with Pro Bowl player Aaron Kampmann's 4 year 21 million deal last year with almost 11 million guaranteed at this link.
www.jsonline.com/story...?id=407991

Tell your boss that you don't want 9.4 times the salary you were paid last year.

So what? Old numbers. He's going to get what the market leads him to get.

Let's say you and two co-workers (who were no better than you) all had your contracts up. The company was really doing well and made a huge profit. You were happy to negotiate a salary double what you made before. Then, you found out that one co-worker tripled his salary and the other quadrupled his salary. You probably wouldn't be real happy. His agent is there to make sure he gets fair market value.

[cpk1994]

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

Remember, though, that the big reason for KGB's big contract was because Mike Sherman put too low of a tender on him and the Eagles jumped in with a rediculous contract offer which he matched. They had to give him the money because of Shermans boneheaded move.