Packers calculate $4 million benefit

[HarveyWallbangers]

Notes: Packers calculate $4 million benefit
By BOB McGINN

Green Bay - Taking advantage of loopholes in National Football League rules, the Green Bay Packers have removed $4 million from their 2007 salary cap but will receive credit for that same amount on their 2008 salary cap.

On Oct. 23, one day after Krause was promoted from the practice squad, vice president Andrew Brandt and agent Buddy Baker negotiated the deal.

Most of it was a standard one-year contract, giving Krause the minimum base salary of $510,000. Considering that he missed seven weeks, his cap charge was $300,000.

However, the deal also gave Krause an incentive clause for performance on special teams. Worth $4 million, the clause is payable only if a miracle were to happen and Krause blocked more than six punts and also played an extreme number of snaps on special teams.

Krause isn't even playing on the punt-block team and isn't a core player on special teams.

Under NFL rules, however, the Packers were able to designate the $4 million under the "likely to be earned" incentive category. Therefore, it was charged immediately against their current cap.

At the time, the Packers had about $11.9 million of cap space. Now, after the $4 million reduction plus the addition of Krause and wide receiver Koren Robinson, the Packers are $7.39 million beneath the cap.

After the season, the Packers will have the $4 million incentive that wasn't earned by Krause to show league officials. That amount will be debited back against their cap and added to their adjusted cap for 2008.

The Packers are trying to use some of their remaining cap space on a contract extension for tight end Donald Lee. No doubt, the team is considering whether to make a move on defensive tackle Corey Williams, their other top player headed for unrestricted free agency.

But if the Packers have a substantial amount of cap room left by the end of the league year, it is expected they'll make other financial maneuvers to ensure that it is credited onto their adjusted '08 cap.

[Brohm]

Brandt is one of the best in the business.

[Rastak]

This is pretty common. The Vikings pushed something like 10 mil into next year using the same device.

[4and12to12and4]

We NEED to resign Williams. I don't want to lose any of our defensive lineman. Suddenly you've got guys winded at the end of the game like all these other teams, and that's why we are 6-1. Because in the 4th quarter, crunch time, our trench is better than yours.

[LL2]

It great to see Brandt and TT push the money to next year when the Packers will have around 30 million in cap room, but I doubt TT will even spend half of it.

[Bretsky]

Notes: Packers calculate $4 million benefit
By BOB McGINN

Green Bay - Taking advantage of loopholes in National Football League rules, the Green Bay Packers have removed $4 million from their 2007 salary cap but will receive credit for that same amount on their 2008 salary cap.

On Oct. 23, one day after Krause was promoted from the practice squad, vice president Andrew Brandt and agent Buddy Baker negotiated the deal.

Most of it was a standard one-year contract, giving Krause the minimum base salary of $510,000. Considering that he missed seven weeks, his cap charge was $300,000.

However, the deal also gave Krause an incentive clause for performance on special teams. Worth $4 million, the clause is payable only if a miracle were to happen and Krause blocked more than six punts and also played an extreme number of snaps on special teams.

Krause isn't even playing on the punt-block team and isn't a core player on special teams.

Under NFL rules, however, the Packers were able to designate the $4 million under the "likely to be earned" incentive category. Therefore, it was charged immediately against their current cap.

At the time, the Packers had about $11.9 million of cap space. Now, after the $4 million reduction plus the addition of Krause and wide receiver Koren Robinson, the Packers are $7.39 million beneath the cap.

After the season, the Packers will have the $4 million incentive that wasn't earned by Krause to show league officials. That amount will be debited back against their cap and added to their adjusted cap for 2008.

The Packers are trying to use some of their remaining cap space on a contract extension for tight end Donald Lee. No doubt, the team is considering whether to make a move on defensive tackle Corey Williams, their other top player headed for unrestricted free agency.

But if the Packers have a substantial amount of cap room left by the end of the league year, it is expected they'll make other financial maneuvers to ensure that it is credited onto their adjusted '08 cap.


GOSH NOW I SEE WHY WE AVOIDED ALL THAT SPENDING. GOOD TO SEE WE'RE USING ALL OF THAT CAP SPACE UP ALL SO WISELY :lol: :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm cool with this. Soon our best players will be coming up on FA. Keep pushing that money back. I'd rather keep the corps of the team together over blowing my wad on FAs. (Most of which haven't come close to panning out.) Take care of your own. That's a recipe for success in the NFL. See Indianapolis and Pittsburgh.

[Rastak]

Kind of interesting from PFT.com



PACKERS CAP SHENANIGANS THE CAUSE OF THE GOODELL MEMO?

Several readers have been trying to help us figure out the catalyst for the Friday memo from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell requiring all owners to submit a weekly statement in which they expressly state that they authorize any new contracts or renegotiations, and that they have read the documents.

Some of our readers thought that the e-mail might have been caused by the Antonio Bryant situation. Bryant has sued the league to block the imposition of discipline under the substance-abuse policy, and the paperwork and media reports suggest that Bryant was and/or is poised to sign with another team. But since the new procedure applies only to new contracts and not to mere negotiations, the Bryant case most likely isn't the reason for the change.

A couple of other readers have raised a much more intriguing possibility. Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently reported that, on October 23, the Green Bay Packers recently signed tight end Ryan Krause from their practice squad. His one-year contract with a prorated base salary of $510,000 also included a $4 million "likely to be earned" incentive that kicks in only if Krause blocks more than six punts over the balance of the season.

It would be quite an impressive feat, especially since Krause doesn't play on the punt block team.

Because these types of incentives are characterized under the CBA as "likely to be earned," the cap charge applied when the deal was signed. If/when Krause doesn't earn the incentive, the money gets pushed into the next cap year.

It's a fairly common device. Earlier this year, the Vikings used the tactic to push $13.2 million in 2007 cap money into 2008 when extending the contract of defensive tackle Pat Williams.

But the NFL Players Association isn't keen on the practice, since it essentially takes money out of the pockets of the players and pushes it into a future cap year. "What you don't want is all that money taken out of the pool for other players who might get contract extensions during the season," a union source told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports in September.

Our guess? After the Krause contract was reported, the union went bonkos. The league office looked into the situation, and Packers president Bob Harlan (since there's no specific owner of the publicly-held team) said that he didn't know that the front office had pulled of the cap maneuver. So, as a result, the league office has decided to intercept any future efforts by owners to rely upon the "I don't know nothing" defense by requiring all of them to affirmatively state that they are aware of any new contracts, and that they have read them.

[Bretsky]

Kind of interesting from PFT.com



PACKERS CAP SHENANIGANS THE CAUSE OF THE GOODELL MEMO?

Several readers have been trying to help us figure out the catalyst for the Friday memo from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell requiring all owners to submit a weekly statement in which they expressly state that they authorize any new contracts or renegotiations, and that they have read the documents.

Some of our readers thought that the e-mail might have been caused by the Antonio Bryant situation. Bryant has sued the league to block the imposition of discipline under the substance-abuse policy, and the paperwork and media reports suggest that Bryant was and/or is poised to sign with another team. But since the new procedure applies only to new contracts and not to mere negotiations, the Bryant case most likely isn't the reason for the change.

A couple of other readers have raised a much more intriguing possibility. Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently reported that, on October 23, the Green Bay Packers recently signed tight end Ryan Krause from their practice squad. His one-year contract with a prorated base salary of $510,000 also included a $4 million "likely to be earned" incentive that kicks in only if Krause blocks more than six punts over the balance of the season.

It would be quite an impressive feat, especially since Krause doesn't play on the punt block team.

Because these types of incentives are characterized under the CBA as "likely to be earned," the cap charge applied when the deal was signed. If/when Krause doesn't earn the incentive, the money gets pushed into the next cap year.

It's a fairly common device. Earlier this year, the Vikings used the tactic to push $13.2 million in 2007 cap money into 2008 when extending the contract of defensive tackle Pat Williams.

But the NFL Players Association isn't keen on the practice, since it essentially takes money out of the pockets of the players and pushes it into a future cap year. "What you don't want is all that money taken out of the pool for other players who might get contract extensions during the season," a union source told Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports in September.

Our guess? After the Krause contract was reported, the union went bonkos. The league office looked into the situation, and Packers president Bob Harlan (since there's no specific owner of the publicly-held team) said that he didn't know that the front office had pulled of the cap maneuver. So, as a result, the league office has decided to intercept any future efforts by owners to rely upon the "I don't know nothing" defense by requiring all of them to affirmatively state that they are aware of any new contracts, and that they have read them.




Kind of funny when you think about it; behind closed doors TT thinking of ways to fudge contracts to he can push more numbers into this year and free up cap space for the future.

Oh well, sounds like he'll need to find the next loophole to work through

[RashanGary]

This sounds like BS. I don't believe the league is pissed about this. It's not taking away from the players at all. That money has to eventually be spent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sounds like typical B.S. from Florio. He really hasn't come through much--since some initial successes that got him noticed.

[Rastak]

Sounds like typical B.S. from Florio. He really hasn't come through much--since some initial successes that got him noticed.



So where did you first hear of the memo from the league office? I didn't hear of it anywhere but at PFT. I think you're a bit bitter there Harv!

[retailguy]

This sounds like BS. I don't believe the league is pissed about this. It's not taking away from the players at all. That money has to eventually be spent.


Not so sure I agree with you. While I'm sure everyone looks the other way for moving some money, the Packers are moving LOTS this year. Remember how pissed the NFL got over the Hutchinson deal? Maybe too much, is too much. $4 mill for 6 blocked punts for a guy not on the punt team? A little blatent, don't you think?

There could be some merit to this.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sounds like typical B.S. from Florio. He really hasn't come through much--since some initial successes that got him noticed.

So where did you first hear of the memo from the league office? I didn't hear of it anywhere but at PFT. I think you're a bit bitter there Harv!

It would be interesting to see how often Florio is wrong. I'm guessing many more times than not. I don't care for his kind of journalism. Throw everything out there to get attention (to make him more money). The fact he's a Vikings and takes cheap shots at Favre makes me more likely to call him. Bitter? Over what? Somebody should review Florio's rumors on here.

Didn't you yourself brag about the Vikings ($10M) and other teams doing this type of thing?

Yeah, the NFL got real pissed at the Hutchinson deal. So much so that they didn't even close the poison pill loophole.

Funny!
http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=1107&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=florio

[retailguy]

Harv,

don't you find it strange that no one else has done a deal like that since? I think there was some truth to the rumors about warnings from the NFL office.

Maybe I'm wrong, in any event, I don't understand why you posted a link to that thread. What were you pointing out?

[Rastak]

Sounds like typical B.S. from Florio. He really hasn't come through much--since some initial successes that got him noticed.

So where did you first hear of the memo from the league office? I didn't hear of it anywhere but at PFT. I think you're a bit bitter there Harv!

It would be interesting to see how often Florio is wrong. I'm guessing many more times than not. I don't care for his kind of journalism. Throw everything out there to get attention (to make him more money). The fact he's a Vikings and takes cheap shots at Favre makes me more likely to call him. Bitter? Over what? Somebody should review Florio's rumors on here.

Didn't you yourself brag about the Vikings ($10M) and other teams doing this type of thing?

Yeah, the NFL got real pissed at the Hutchinson deal. So much so that they didn't even close the poison pill loophole.


Oh chill out. You shouldn't get so upset at people who don't share the same teams you follow. I know he's wrong alot, it's a blog as far as I'm concerned. He's got alot of contacts and he's funny. He does unearth some interesting stuff....he's not exactly Arrigo you know. He's far more popular than you'll likely admit.

Now on to my bragging. If I was bragging then YOU were bragging about the 4 mil and I guess it was 13 mil and not 10 on the Vikings side. I wasn't ripping the Pack at all by posting that PFT stuff and I'm not ripping them for shifting 4 mil either. As I said, it's a common tool. There was a very interesting memo sent out by the league and I merely posted Florio's speculation because it concerned the team this board is dedicated to.

As for the Hutchinson thing, I'm guessing the league was FAR more pissed about that than having a practice squad guy having LTBE incentives.
Although that poison pill was NOT the first one. I can understand why the NFL doesn't like it at all. They really should have closed that loophole of sorts.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The problem with him is that he's mostly been wrong when it comes to his Packers information.

Do a search on "Florio" on this site, and you can see how often he's been wrong regarding the Packers. Really, most of them have been embarrasingly wrong.

There's a good chance he's wrong again.

[Rastak]

The problem with him is that he's mostly been wrong when it comes to his Packers information.

Do a search on "Florio" on this site, and you can see how often he's been wrong regarding the Packers. Really, most of them have been embarrasingly wrong.

There's a good chance he's wrong again.


Yea, in this case it's one of those "who cares" deals because it's entirely speculation. This was one of his items that didn't register anything with me, I only posted it because it concerned Green Bay. Plus, I doubt this claim could ever be proven by anyone. This was definately in the editorial speculation realm.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Oh chill out. You shouldn't get so upset at people who don't share the same teams you follow. I know he's wrong alot, it's a blog as far as I'm concerned. He's got alot of contacts and he's funny. He does unearth some interesting stuff....he's not exactly Arrigo you know. He's far more popular than you'll likely admit.

Here's what I don't get about you, Rastak. Florio is the king of cheap insults (especially at Favre's expense). You'll defend him in every thread that somebody insults him. Yet, you hate that kind of stuff. You get your panties in a bunch when somebody calls the Purple the Viqueens. Yet, I'm supposed to lighten up when I just point out that Florio is basically a tabloid sports writer and is often wrong.

[Rastak]

Oh chill out. You shouldn't get so upset at people who don't share the same teams you follow. I know he's wrong alot, it's a blog as far as I'm concerned. He's got alot of contacts and he's funny. He does unearth some interesting stuff....he's not exactly Arrigo you know. He's far more popular than you'll likely admit.

Here's what I don't get about you, Rastak. Florio is the king of cheap insults (especially at Favre's expense). You'll defend him in every thread that somebody insults him. Yet, you hate that kind of stuff. You get your panties in a bunch when somebody calls the Purple the Viqueens. Yet, I'm supposed to lighten up when I just point out that Florio is basically a tabloid sports writer and is often wrong.


The dude ripped Mike Tice every single day. EVERY DAY. Do you have any idea how pissed I'd be when I'd hear "meathead" every friggen time he mentioned the Vikes? But how pissed was I really? Not that much because we was funny and did come up with some good stuff. He's actually been pretty complimentary of Favre lately. Actually, since you don't read it how do you know what he says about Favre on a day to day basis? :wink:

I get pissed about Viqueens about as much as people get pissed about Fudge Packers. Seems silly to throw out names when discussing football. I would also note neither one of us usually does that. :)


Anyway, I like the site. That's why I defend it. Even when he was/is ripping the Vikes (he doesn't go light on Chilly either) I enjoy his stuff.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You know I don't like the Viqueens and Fudgepackers stuff either. I don't like his site. I wonder how much you'd like it if Dave Sinikin was the guy running it.
:D

Anyways! He's often wrong, so quoting him means nothing to me. You're right that I wouldn't know if he's writing good things about Favre. What would that be 10 positive to 500 negative now?
:D

Maybe Paul Allen (of P.A. & Dubay) is rubbing off on him. He's on their show weekly, and P.A. is a huge Favre pimp.

[RashanGary]

He said his readers have been "speculating" and they came up with this. He said "our guess" is this and this happened.

He really has no clue. He's just tossing around random speculation. He said as much.

Like Ras said; other teams have been doing this for a long time. The Packers did it last year on a smaller scale but the Vikings do it regularly on a larger scale. This isn't some scheme to get the Packers for rolling money ahead. Who knows what it is, it could be a very simple "non conspiracy" reason for tightening the reigns.

This is just BS. He has a rumor site, so he's allowed to throw this kind of stuff to the wall.

[esoxx]

Hopefully they won't use this gimmick every year to push money back. If there's players out there via UFA or via trade (with a bigger contract to assume) that would be a good acquisition for this team, I assume the trigger will be pulled instead of smoke and mirrors cap pushing.

Let's not forget two of our best defensive players were acquired via UFA in '06.

[Guiness]

As for the Hutchinson thing, I'm guessing the league was FAR more pissed about that than having a practice squad guy having LTBE incentives.
Although that poison pill was NOT the first one. I can understand why the NFL doesn't like it at all. They really should have closed that loophole of sorts.

I've said it before - I don't understand AT ALL why the league has not (at least publicly) done something about that loophole, and I don't understand why no one else has used it (except Seattle, of course, with Burleson).

The only thing I can guess is that the league told all of the owners Don't anyone effin' dare. Unlike baseball, where the league can't actually do much in the way of controlling the owners, that might actually work in football.

[Bretsky]

Hopefully they won't use this gimmick every year to push money back. If there's players out there via UFA or via trade (with a bigger contract to assume) that would be a good acquisition for this team, I assume the trigger will be pulled instead of smoke and mirrors cap pushing.

Let's not forget two of our best defensive players were acquired via UFA in '06.


Assuming TT is doing this for free agency or a trade to take a risk; a scary assumption :lol:

[Rastak]

You know I don't like the Viqueens and Fudgepackers stuff either. I don't like his site. I wonder how much you'd like it if Dave Sinikin was the guy running it.
:D



If he was as funny as Florio I'd be cool with it. hey, I listen to Dave on Saturdays with Trent Tucker and sometimes Packer preview is on in the backhround waiting for the Vikes pregame. He's cool. Florio's writing for the Sporting news now as a side note, in addition to his PFT.com site.

[4and12to12and4]

You know, I've gotta say that the last two years, I was pissed that TT didn't spend every dime we had, cuz it always seemed like he was pissing away money, but if you look at it correctly, he saves just enough to be able to keep the guys we have. The extra money we have now will undoubtedly end up in the pockets of players we have now that need new contracts. That's better than the way the Redskins use their money.

[The Leaper]

There could be some merit to this.

So change the rule.

WTF is a memo going to do? Didn't Goodell learn anything from his little "memo" about video taping the opposition which the Patriots clearly ignored?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Like I expected, it appears the infamous memo had nothing to do with the Krause signing--since now the Packers have done the same thing with Lee's contract.


Lee's deal has cap affects
By TOM SILVERSTEIN

Green Bay - The Green Bay Packers nailed down a potential unrestricted free agent and moved some valuable salary cap room from this year to next with the signing of tight end Donald Lee to a contract extension.

Lee's four-year, $11.88 million contract eats up $4.295 million worth of salary cap room in 2007, in part because incentives worth $1.7 million were added to the contract. If those so-called "likely to be earned" incentives aren't earned, the salary cap room they take up will carry over to next season.

According to a source with NFL salary information, Lee has to block six punts and play on 65% of the snaps on special teams this season to earn the incentives. Given that he doesn't play on special teams and won't be blocking a punt any time soon, it's virtually guaranteed the $1.7 million of salary cap room will be moved to next year.

The Packers have already pushed almost $6 million of cap room into next year using this tactic.

Such "dummy" incentives are used by teams that have a considerable amount of salary cap room left near season's end. The Packers now have a little over $3 million left under the cap this year.

Lee's contract is structured such that it will pay him $2 million on top of his $595,000 base salary this year, a $1 million roster bonus in March, and base salaries of $1.6 million in '08, $1.8 million in '09, $2.0 million in '10 and $2.2 million in '11. In addition, he will earn $10,000 for every game he is on the 45-man game day active list, beginning next season.

Lee also can earn a bonus of $125,000 each year for taking part in a set minimum of off-season workouts.

[Rastak]

Like I expected, it appears the infamous memo had nothing to do with the Krause signing--since now the Packers have done the same thing with Lee's contract.


Lee's deal has cap affects
By TOM SILVERSTEIN

Green Bay - The Green Bay Packers nailed down a potential unrestricted free agent and moved some valuable salary cap room from this year to next with the signing of tight end Donald Lee to a contract extension.

Lee's four-year, $11.88 million contract eats up $4.295 million worth of salary cap room in 2007, in part because incentives worth $1.7 million were added to the contract. If those so-called "likely to be earned" incentives aren't earned, the salary cap room they take up will carry over to next season.

According to a source with NFL salary information, Lee has to block six punts and play on 65% of the snaps on special teams this season to earn the incentives. Given that he doesn't play on special teams and won't be blocking a punt any time soon, it's virtually guaranteed the $1.7 million of salary cap room will be moved to next year.

The Packers have already pushed almost $6 million of cap room into next year using this tactic.

Such "dummy" incentives are used by teams that have a considerable amount of salary cap room left near season's end. The Packers now have a little over $3 million left under the cap this year.

Lee's contract is structured such that it will pay him $2 million on top of his $595,000 base salary this year, a $1 million roster bonus in March, and base salaries of $1.6 million in '08, $1.8 million in '09, $2.0 million in '10 and $2.2 million in '11. In addition, he will earn $10,000 for every game he is on the 45-man game day active list, beginning next season.

Lee also can earn a bonus of $125,000 each year for taking part in a set minimum of off-season workouts.


Hardly proof but the memo was about owners signing off on contracts, not sure how it applies here. Actually, I wasn't sure how it applied when Florio originally posted it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

In addition, he will earn $10,000 for every game he is on the 45-man game day active list, beginning next season.

This is one thing I haven't seen other teams use as much as the Packers have, and I like it.

[Rastak]

In addition, he will earn $10,000 for every game he is on the 45-man game day active list, beginning next season.

This is one thing I haven't seen other teams use as much as the Packers have, and I like it.


Yea, I haven't seen it much either and from the team's perspective it's great. I wonder if it will catch on. It seems to me they've been using it with extensions for guys having more than one year left....so I can see how a guy might agree to it since he doesn't have as many options.