Packers weighing contract options for Grant

[The Leaper]

Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

There is no reason for Grant to accept that...and if you lowball him like that, good luck signing him in the future.

Giving him a 4 year deal at $2M a year is fair based on what he's shown so far. If you aren't fair to your players, the word gets out that your organization is cheap. Since Green Bay already fights an uphill battle based on climate and city size, you don't want to look like cheap asses as well.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

There is no reason for Grant to accept that...and if you lowball him like that, good luck signing him in the future.

Giving him a 4 year deal at $2M a year is fair based on what he's shown so far. If you aren't fair to your players, the word gets out that your organization is cheap. Since Green Bay already fights an uphill battle based on climate and city size, you don't want to look like cheap asses as well.

Even a 4 year deal worth 2 mil a year is to low. I say give him a 5 year deal worth about 15 mil with a small signing bonus. That would keep him with us until he's about 30, about the time when ou should be looking for a new back.

[The Leaper]

Even a 4 year deal worth 2 mil a year is to low.

I disagree...not when the guy has 2 more years remaining on a puny contract. Green Bay holds the leverage, and they shouldn't overpay based on 8 games of performance.

Besides, Grant won't want a lengthy deal...he's not going to get maximum dollar after a half season of play. He wants a chance to prove himself and get another opportunity at a huge payday down the road...but still also secure his financial future now. Getting $2M a year plus a signing bonus will do just that.

[Guiness]

He's got next year and the year after before he's even restricted and if he were restricted, we'd still have the leverage of tenders.


A 4 year deal is basically only adding on a year to what we already own him for. It would amount to a big gift, really. I could see doing something after next year, but even then it would have to be somewhat discounted.


Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

After next year, I'd consider a 5 year deal to lock him up through his prime.

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

So I like your idea - offer him around a million for this year, and sign him to a 4 or 5 year deal after that. I like the guy a lot, but also think we need to see him on his second go-around the league before he gets big bucks.

[RashanGary]

This year, one year deal @ 1 mil. (I'll up it just so he feels good making a million.



Next year sign a 5 year, 15 million dollar deal.



Really, the Packers could have him for three years at about $300,000 per year. That's 1 million after three years. With the deal I'm suggesting, he gets an additional 15 million for the fourth and fifth years. Really, it's a fair deal for him because he gets a lot more up front when he signs next year as opposed to risking the next three years of injury for peanuts. It's a good deal for us because it locks him up through his prime at a reasonable rate. Everyone wins.

If we just fork up a bunch of money now and don't even extend him longer than we have him, it's sort of silly. There has to be some compramise as in, we'll give you some early and you take that security in exchange for not getting max dollar in three years. Not "We'll give you a bunch more money for nothing". That's not compromise. That is stupid on the Packers part.

[The Leaper]

This year, one year deal @ 1 mil. (I'll up it just so he feels good making a million.

Why would you offer him a one year deal for $1M when you have him under contract for less for TWO more years?

Grant wants financial security, just as any of us do. $1M is not financial security after taxes and agents get through pilfering it.

Besides, that offer would be a slap in the face to Grant.

[The Leaper]

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

It gives them TWO more years.

And it gives them the opportunity to include incentives that will keep Grant motivated and happy...and I like the voidable year because it is another carrot for Grant.

Or do you want another McKenzie incident?

$2M a year is hardly a lot in today's NFL. With a 53 man roster, that is about the AVERAGE amount a player is going to count against the cap. It is enough to ensure Grant financial security when combined with a similar sized signing bonus.

[Partial]

I am telling you, it will be very similiar to Fast Willie's deal. Maybe slightly more.

[RashanGary]

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

It gives them TWO more years.

YOu don't know what you are talkign about, Leaper.

[The Leaper]

I am telling you, it will be very similiar to Fast Willie's deal. Maybe slightly more.

I doubt more. Parker was entering the last year of his deal when he signed the extension. Grant still has two more years under contract at this point, which gives him less leverage. Parker also was the 7th leading rusher in the AFC in the year prior to the deal...and had a full season of evidence that he was a capable starter, plus some reliable time as a reserve behind Bettis.

[The Leaper]

YOu don't know what you are talkign about, Leaper.

You are the one offering a one year deal for $1M.

[RashanGary]

The Packers have next year, the year after and then a restricted year where they can put a 1st and 3rd tender on him. No team will bid.

If the Packers wanted to be ass holes, Grant could get $1,000,000 (before taxes and agent) over the next three years. Almost nothing. The agent pretty much said they have all of the leverage.

The 4 year deal you propose helps Grant, but does nothing for us. We're better off waiting one more year and then locking him up for 5 (which is three more years than what we have him).

As far as 1 mil next year being an insult, Grant is an undrafted 1st year player who's only had success for 8 games. It's hardly an insult to require a player to get a years worth of production before getting a big contract. I don't agree with one single point you've made, Leaper. Not one and not even close on most of them.

[RashanGary]

It gives them TWO more years.

No, this is Grants first accrued year toward free agency (see above artical). To become an unrestricted free agent, you need four years accrued (see current NFL CBA). Grant has three more years before he is there and that is undebatable.

As far as unrestricted free agency goes, it's essentially a free year for us because we can put the 1st and 3rd tender on him. He'll go no where.

[RashanGary]

If the Packers wanted to, they could have him for three more years (almost free) and then let him go in free agency (aquiring a compensitory pick). Grant will 28 years old at that time (two years before RB's lose value and drop off).

Anything we give him right now is nothing but a big gift to him. He's played well for 8 games. Giving him 4 times what we have to after 8 games is hardly an insult and signing him to a 5 year deal next year helps him a lot and if we like him it helps us a lot too because we get him till he's 30. Your deal is rediculous. Just using common sense I can pretty much gaurantee that nohting even remotely close to what you suggested will come true.

[Partial]

Yeah, but consider the potential ramifications of not paying a guy what he is worth. I'm hope TT isn't in the market of being a dick to players.