BLOG FROM JOHN CLAYTON--FUNNY--$$ Does NOT CARRY OVER TT

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-11-2006, 09:51 PM
Bretsky

BLOG FROM JOHN CLAYTON--FUNNY--$$ Does NOT CARRY OVER TT

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre's retirement could be a financial disaster, but in a different kind of way for the team. With his $3 million roster bonus and $7 million in salary, Favre would make $10 million this year if he plays. The Packers would save $10 million of cash if he doesn't, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, but that doesn't include draft choices or any other free agent signings. Not having Favre would take the payroll down to $66 million. With the new collective bargaining agreement, teams must have a minimum cash payroll of $85.5 million, meaning the Packers would have to spend $19.5 million just to make the minimum. With the players remaining as free agents, the Packers would be hard pressed to spend the money they would need to.
04-11-2006, 09:55 PM
MJZiggy

Man are we going to have a big team...Cutdowns will be a beast! Maybe Driver will finally get his payday. I think I'll draft a letter...
04-11-2006, 09:57 PM
Bretsky

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJZiggy

Man are we going to have a big team...Cutdowns will be a beast! Maybe Driver will finally get his payday. I think I'll draft a letter...

Can the Dragons play the Packers every week ?
04-11-2006, 10:00 PM
MJZiggy

Not hardly. I need my Madden people to help me with the schedule before I can tell you.
04-11-2006, 10:02 PM
HarveyWallbangers

If this is true, how can the Packers not make a big frontloaded offer to Woodson and Arrington? NFL Channel just reported that the Packers did indeed offer Woodson a contract, but they said it wasn't even in the ballpark of what he is seeking.
04-11-2006, 10:06 PM
Bretsky

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarveyWallbangers

If this is true, how can the Packers not make a big frontloaded offer to Woodson and Arrington? NFL Channel just reported that the Packers did indeed offer Woodson a contract, but they said it wasn't even in the ballpark of what he is seeking.

NO surprise there on the lowball offer; I truly think TT is assuming Favre returns. Does he truly want him back ? That's another debate. But how is TT going to get to 85MIL if Favre leaves ? Probably by siging multiple cheap players to short term deals......I'd guess.
04-11-2006, 10:07 PM
KYPack

Re: BLOG FROM JOHN CLAYTON--FUNNY--$$ Does NOT CARRY OVER TT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bretsky

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

OK

This is a great example of how screwed up ESPN is.

We would not save $10 mil vs the cap if Brett retires.

We'd save 10 mil in cash outlay if Brett quits. but we would take a cap hit of 4,833,333 in the rest of Brett's pro-rated signing bonus. So our cap shortfall would only be 5.2 million. That means the total payroll would be around 71 mil. I don't think the league minny of 82 mil is a problem in any way, shape, or form.

Another non-existant ESPN SCOOP!

The only time I like Clayton is when Sean Salsbury makes fun of the little geek.
04-11-2006, 10:07 PM
HarveyWallbangers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bretsky

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarveyWallbangers

If this is true, how can the Packers not make a big frontloaded offer to Woodson and Arrington? NFL Channel just reported that the Packers did indeed offer Woodson a contract, but they said it wasn't even in the ballpark of what he is seeking.

NO surprise there on the lowball offer; I truly think TT is assuming Favre returns. Does he truly want him back ? That's another debate. But how is TT going to get to 85MIL if Favre leaves ? Probably by siging multiple cheap players to short term deals......I'd guess.

I don't think that would help because only the 45 (or so) highest paid players count against your cap.
04-11-2006, 10:10 PM
MJZiggy

No wonder they're taking to Arrington.
04-11-2006, 10:11 PM
Bretsky

KY,

Clayton indicated teams have to have a "minimal cash payroll". Could that be different from the salary cap figure and be exclusive of the dead cap hits ? Just wondering.
04-12-2006, 12:26 AM
Patler

Re: BLOG FROM JOHN CLAYTON--FUNNY--$$ Does NOT CARRY OVER TT

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYPack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bretsky

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

OK

This is a great example of how screwed up ESPN is.

We would not save $10 mil vs the cap if Brett retires.

We'd save 10 mil in cash outlay if Brett quits. but we would take a cap hit of 4,833,333 in the rest of Brett's pro-rated signing bonus. So our cap shortfall would only be 5.2 million. That means the total payroll would be around 71 mil. I don't think the league minny of 82 mil is a problem in any way, shape, or form.

Another non-existant ESPN SCOOP!

The only time I like Clayton is when Sean Salsbury makes fun of the little geek.

Wasn't there also an article on JSonline a few weeks back that indicated Rodgers gets a big increase if he becomes the starter? That article implied there was only a small difference if Favre plays or if he doesn't , because of Rodgers increase and the fact the Packers would have to pay a few million or so to an experienced veteran and a third QB.
04-12-2006, 01:46 AM
MadtownPacker

Sounds like the Polar Bear is gonna have to spend some major feddy. Woodson and Lavar? Then everyone will love TT until next year.
04-12-2006, 02:32 AM
Partial

If I were TT and I had 19 million left, i'd try and sign those two guys to extremely front loaded contracts for 3 years, then keep them for 3 years for practically nothing. That way, you can add more players when you're closer to the championship.
04-12-2006, 02:39 AM
Patler

If they stay at #5, their 1st round picck will have a lot of guaranteed money. Instead of a signing bonus over 4 or 5 years, give him a roster bonus so it all counts this year.

There will be lots of ways to get to the minimum. In season renegotiations for players like Green, Davenport, Cole, Peterson, Lee, Wells, Jenkins, etc, etc. could also happen.
04-12-2006, 04:54 AM
Tarlam!

Problem I see with front loading contracts is in the back part, if a player is a pro bowler, you setting yourself up for a hold out situation.

Say we pay Arrington what he wants, but we take the bulk in this year. What's to stop him from holding out in year 3 of his contract?
04-12-2006, 08:13 AM
KYPack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bretsky

KY,

Clayton indicated teams have to have a "minimal cash payroll". Could that be different from the salary cap figure and be exclusive of the dead cap hits ? Just wondering.

No Brets, I believe this is the cap figure, not cash spent each year It's based on the shared rev. A team must spend a minimum of 56% (I'm guessing from memory here, Patler come back!) of the rev on player salaries, measured by the cap figure. I thought our min was 82 mil, ESPN is saying 85, I think that figure is wrong. The min is set by the CBA.

Here's another thing Clayton and the goofs don't seem to know. Under the old system, the Minimum Team Salary (MTS) was set at 56%. If a team did not allocate at least 56%, then the players on the team roster for that year will be directly paid the shortage.

I dunno if the new wsystem incorporated that MTS requirement.
04-12-2006, 08:15 AM
Rastak

Quote:

Originally Posted by shamrockfan

If they stay at #5, their 1st round picck will have a lot of guaranteed money. Instead of a signing bonus over 4 or 5 years, give him a roster bonus so it all counts this year.

There will be lots of ways to get to the minimum. In season renegotiations for players like Green, Davenport, Cole, Peterson, Lee, Wells, Jenkins, etc, etc. could also happen.

You can't, you'd use up the entire rookie pool and couldn't sign anyone else.
04-12-2006, 08:36 AM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastak

Quote:

Originally Posted by shamrockfan

If they stay at #5, their 1st round picck will have a lot of guaranteed money. Instead of a signing bonus over 4 or 5 years, give him a roster bonus so it all counts this year.

There will be lots of ways to get to the minimum. In season renegotiations for players like Green, Davenport, Cole, Peterson, Lee, Wells, Jenkins, etc, etc. could also happen.

You can't, you'd use up the entire rookie pool and couldn't sign anyone else.

That's the point, use up the entire rookie pool. Often teams do no come close to using the entire alloted amount for rookies, so they can use it on other veterans. The Packers will have a high allotment because of their draft position, and can simply make sure the rookies' contracts use up that amount.

They can then proceed during the year to resign a player or two in his last contract year to reach the minimum player payments amount, if necessary.
04-12-2006, 09:21 AM
beakerman

Maybe he is planning on redoing a bunch of core players contracts, and keeping some headway incase some of the guys with 1 year offers pan out so he has money to give them extensions, frontloaded, to decrease future cap value
04-12-2006, 01:16 PM
woodbuck27

I'll add this to the pot:

SALARY FLOOR MOVES UP

One of the most overlooked issues during the recent negotiations regarding the money that will be used to fund the salary cap under the new CBA was the salary floor -- i.e., the minimum money that each team must spend on player salaries in a given year.

In 2006, the minimum is 84 percent of the maximum. Based on a salary cap of $102 million, this means that every team must spend at least $85.68 million in 2006.

Coincidentally, the maximum per-team expenditure in 2005 was $85 million.

Come 2006, the minimum bumps up to 90 percent. With the salary cap expected to be at least $109 million, the floor moves to a whopping $98.1 million.

This reality sheds further light, in our opinion, on the Magooish attacks launched by Bills owner Ralph Wilson against the new deal. Wilson argues that a salary formula based on total football revenues earned by all teams increases the player costs of small-market teams, since the big money earned by high-revenue clubs is pushing the numbers higher for the franchises that earn less money.

And it also helps us understand Wilson's boasts that he's not afraid of the uncapped year. With no salary cap, there's also no salary floor, allowing the low-revenue teams to pay as little as they want.

I have posted about this but I believe that John Clayton's ESPN article on the Packers current salary being at $76 million, is bogus.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page