Packers weighing contract options for Grant

[The Leaper]

Elite backs do it all, run, catch and block. Backs that are great runners, but not good blockers or receivers become two down backs and are worth less than a more complete back. Right now Grant is a two-down back because of his shortcomings, not because they had a very good third down back to use in his place. Levens and Bennett may not have been as good of runners, but were very good in the passing game, both receiving and blocking. Since Grant is more one-dimensional, I put him at their level and not the Ahman Green level.

I absolutely agree Patler. Grant has plenty still to prove IMO before you give him a break-the-bank deal that would be necessary to wrap the guy up until he's 30 years of age.

[The Leaper]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year.

Of course he won't.

He wouldn't sign for 5/15 right now.

NFL players consider free agency a huge deal. They don't sign 5 year deals unless they break the bank. $15M is not breaking the bank.

You have 3 choices with Grant, from the Packer's perspective:

A. Keep the status quo, give Grant one more year to prove himself, and hopefully sign him to a monster deal next year when he does. This option may be viewed negatively by both Grant and future FAs looking at Green Bay. Grant deserves some kind of payday now...and everyone knows it.

B. Sign him to a modest deal which allows Grant that FA window in 3 years if he proves himself. This guarantees that Grant has the chance to make elite money if he proves himself, but also shields the Packers from having to eat a huge contract if he never becomes elite.

C. Sign him to a monster deal right now...which basically will eliminate Grant's chances to get a FA deal, so it will be long term and COSTLY. I doubt Grant accepts a 5 year deal under $25M in value. He knows he has a chance to pocket that much money in a signing bonus alone if he has a window to the FA market in 2-3 years after a productive run.

I'd pick B myself. Give him what will be in essence a 3 year deal if he proves himself...$10M total value, at least half guaranteed. That would be a huge payday right now for the kid...yet would give him another chance at an ever bigger payday in 2-3 years if he continues to progress like we hope he will. He's not even proven over 16 games yet...I'm not willing to cough up $30M for him yet. Most big money deals for RBs also tend to be busts. I'd rather keep him at a modest price for a few more years.

If you choose C, you better be ready to cough up an $8M+ signing bonus and a contract value of $30M+. He's not going to forgo free agency until he is 30 years of age for a song.

[vince]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year.

Of course he won't.

He wouldn't sign for 5/15 right now.

NFL players consider free agency a huge deal. They don't sign 5 year deals unless they break the bank. $15M is not breaking the bank.

You have 3 choices with Grant, from the Packer's perspective:

A. Keep the status quo, give Grant one more year to prove himself, and hopefully sign him to a monster deal next year when he does. This option may be viewed negatively by both Grant and future FAs looking at Green Bay. Grant deserves some kind of payday now...and everyone knows it.

B. Sign him to a modest deal which allows Grant that FA window in 3 years if he proves himself. This guarantees that Grant has the chance to make elite money if he proves himself, but also shields the Packers from having to eat a huge contract if he never becomes elite.

C. Sign him to a monster deal right now...which basically will eliminate Grant's chances to get a FA deal, so it will be long term and COSTLY. I doubt Grant accepts a 5 year deal under $25M in value. He knows he has a chance to pocket that much money in a signing bonus alone if he has a window to the FA market in 2-3 years after a productive run.

I'd pick B myself. Give him what will be in essence a 3 year deal if he proves himself...$10M total value, at least half guaranteed. That would be a huge payday right now for the kid...yet would give him another chance at an ever bigger payday in 2-3 years if he continues to progress like we hope he will. He's not even proven over 16 games yet...I'm not willing to cough up $30M for him yet. Most big money deals for RBs also tend to be busts. I'd rather keep him at a modest price for a few more years.

If you choose C, you better be ready to cough up an $8M+ signing bonus and a contract value of $30M+. He's not going to forgo free agency until he is 30 years of age for a song.

You may be right Leaper. What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

[MJZiggy]

Well, I get the feeling that for the moment it's a moot point, as the person responsible for handling the contracts just quit. That probably means that unless M3's deal was just about finished, it's not getting done for a while yet either.

[vince]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year.

Of course he won't.

He wouldn't sign for 5/15 right now.

NFL players consider free agency a huge deal. They don't sign 5 year deals unless they break the bank. $15M is not breaking the bank.

You have 3 choices with Grant, from the Packer's perspective:

A. Keep the status quo, give Grant one more year to prove himself, and hopefully sign him to a monster deal next year when he does. This option may be viewed negatively by both Grant and future FAs looking at Green Bay. Grant deserves some kind of payday now...and everyone knows it.

B. Sign him to a modest deal which allows Grant that FA window in 3 years if he proves himself. This guarantees that Grant has the chance to make elite money if he proves himself, but also shields the Packers from having to eat a huge contract if he never becomes elite.

C. Sign him to a monster deal right now...which basically will eliminate Grant's chances to get a FA deal, so it will be long term and COSTLY. I doubt Grant accepts a 5 year deal under $25M in value. He knows he has a chance to pocket that much money in a signing bonus alone if he has a window to the FA market in 2-3 years after a productive run.

I'd pick B myself. Give him what will be in essence a 3 year deal if he proves himself...$10M total value, at least half guaranteed. That would be a huge payday right now for the kid...yet would give him another chance at an ever bigger payday in 2-3 years if he continues to progress like we hope he will. He's not even proven over 16 games yet...I'm not willing to cough up $30M for him yet. Most big money deals for RBs also tend to be busts. I'd rather keep him at a modest price for a few more years.

If you choose C, you better be ready to cough up an $8M+ signing bonus and a contract value of $30M+. He's not going to forgo free agency until he is 30 years of age for a song.

You may be right Leaper. What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for paying him off now just to lose him in his prime.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

[The Leaper]

You may be right Leaper. What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Favre's $10M cap number will be gone as soon as he retires. That is a huge chunk of coin that will be available by the time we need to resign Grant again, so I don't see how you can so easily discount our ability to re-sign him if he proves himself.

Again, my take on a 4 year deal with a voidable year that in essence makes it a 3 year, $10M deal...but looks much better in the press at 4 years, $15M+.

Year 1: $1M salary + $3M bonus - $1.75M cap number in 08
Year 2: $2.5M salary - $3.25M cap number in 09
Year 3: $3.5M salary - $4.25M cap number in 10
Year 4: $5.5M salary (voidable)

I think this is a fair contract for both sides...it gives Grant financial security now as opposed to his current deal, and it gives the Packers a good working relationship with Grant while not breaking the bank until we KNOW Grant is a top 5 back.

A long term deal just won't be cheap. I suppose you throw something out there and see what Grant is looking for...but I'm assuming his agent's advice would be to ignore any long term deal that did not set him up financially for life (meaning $20M+ in relatively guaranteed money...bonus plus first 3 years salary while high cap number discourages release).

[Patler]

What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

Now is also the best opportunity to make a big cap mistake, too, committing much too much money to a player that doesn't end up earning it. I am actually a big fan of Grant, even when he was at ND. But his history is odd. He was "the man" at ND as a sophomore, gaining over 1000 yards. The next season he quickly became the forgotten man playing second fiddle to Julius Jones who came back after a year suspension. Jones was playing into shape, was not stellar early by any means, but unseated Grant. The next year Grant was second fiddle to a true freshman, Darius Walker. Then this year he was #5 with the Giants, a team that knew him well.

Before I would commit significant guaranteed money to him, I would make him play at least the first half of next year.

Grant has no bargaining power. Giving him anything more than what is required right now after the small exposure he has had is really a gift. Giving him a few million in guaranteed money and the chance to earn more for the next three years is generous.

The chance that he will be in a break the bank situation as a free agent 3 years from now is probably a lot less than the chance he will be just a decent back affordable by the Packers. Besides they can always renegotiate agin next year, if he deserves it.

Getting him for a "bargain" on a long term contract wouldn't last anyway. If he is a top 5 back and is paid like top 15, he will be disgruntled and demand renegotiation. "Bargains" rarely last more than a year or two.

I say give him a nice raise, like a lower first round draft choice, but why risk more when you don't have to?

[vince]

What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

Now is also the best opportunity to make a big cap mistake, too, committing much too much money to a player that doesn't end up earning it. I am actually a big fan of Grant, even when he was at ND. But his history is odd. He was "the man" at ND as a sophomore, gaining over 1000 yards. The next season he quickly became the forgotten man playing second fiddle to Julius Jones who came back after a year suspension. Jones was playing into shape, was not stellar early by any means, but unseated Grant. The next year Grant was second fiddle to a true freshman, Darius Walker. Then this year he was #5 with the Giants, a team that knew him well.

Before I would commit significant guaranteed money to him, I would make him play at least the first half of next year.

Grant has no bargaining power. Giving him anything more than what is required right now after the small exposure he has had is really a gift. Giving him a few million in guaranteed money and the chance to earn more for the next three years is generous.

The chance that he will be in a break the bank situation as a free agent 3 years from now is probably a lot less than the chance he will be just a decent back affordable by the Packers. Besides they can always renegotiate agin next year, if he deserves it.

Getting him for a "bargain" on a long term contract wouldn't last anyway. If he is a top 5 back and is paid like top 15, he will be disgruntled and demand renegotiation. "Bargains" rarely last more than a year or two.

I say give him a nice raise, like a lower first round draft choice, but why risk more when you don't have to?

A big risk is giving 5/35 to Ced Benson, or 6/52 to Reggie Bush, or 5/34 to Ronnie Brown, or 6/40 to Adrian Peterson - none of whom had played ONE DOWN against the defensive beasts of the NFL before signing big long-term contracts.

Ryan Grant is no more a risk than any of the backs on the list above. We've all seen with our own eyes what he can do in the NFL. How is it that people put more stock into ancient history about which they have little or no context or relevant information than the most recent and highly relevant information possible that they see with their own eyes?

Ryan Grant HAS PROVEN HIMSELF in the NFL. He's not a whim and a prayer of a college standout. He was clearly a victim of circumstance in New York. The Giants regime has a bias for thick punishing backs. I can't speak for what the Notre Dame staff thought they had in Julius Jones or Darius Walker at the time, but I can speak for what the Green Bay Packers KNOW they have in Ryan Grant. Given one opportunity, he's absolutely grabbed it by the balls and owned the running back position for this team.

Every contract is a risk. But in this case there's even more risk on the other side of the equation. If you don't lock him down, you risk losing him in the middle of his prime, and all that has to happen for that risk to come to fruition is for him to continue to do what he has already PROVEN at the NFL level that he can do. The risk is that he gets seriously hurt while under an even bigger contract than he could be signed at now. Watch how much financial "risk" the team has to take on in two or three years in order to keep him.

Also, with regard to him wanting to renegotiate if he outplays a new contract, I'd much rather be negotiating a restructure or extension with him locked up than with him on the verge of free agency.

[Patler]

Some would have argued that Samkon Gado had proven himself, too.

My point is simply that you don't have to take much risk at all with Grant, so why do it?

[Rastak]

I gotta side with Patler on this one. There's no reason to rush anything. What is this big fear of having to pay market value at some point? I don't 100% understand the bargin obsession. The Packers are in excellent cap shape and when Favre comes off the books someday they will be in even better shape. History is full of one year wonders and running backs are a torn up knee away from the scrap pile. Now for the record I like Grant, seems to fit the system and I don't think he's a one year wonder but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[vince]

Those that argued Samkon Gado had a future with the Packers would have been wrong, obviously. Samkon Gado was a 4.7 40 guy who averaged a full yard per carry less than Grant. He looked like he was running in cement shoes, particularly when the ZBS came to town. Grant on the other hand, fits what the Packers want to do like a glove.

You say why take the risk with Grant when you don't have to. I agree. You say you aren't taking risk with Grant, but I say you're wrong. You are ignoring the future risk and only thinking about the immediate risk. The future risk is much, much bigger. You let him go into free agency, you're risking millions upon millions upon millions, and you're risking having to lock him up THEN to a contract that would likely take him beyond his prime - another significant risk.

And Ras, I am convinced that having players, particularly at high-profile, high-cost positions, to outplay their contracts is absolutely key to achieving consistent success in the salary cap era. Football injuries are so unpredictable, you need better depth throughout the roster than the rest of the league to consistently win. That requires maintaining cap flexibility to maintain a deep roster throughout.

In my opinion, teams taht pay "market prices" for players on the backside of their careers consistently, find themselves having to scramble every year just to maintain competitiveness. Then, when injuries come during the year, they're screwed.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the exchange.

[Patler]

Those that argued Samkon Gado had a future with the Packers would have been wrong, obviously. Samkon Gado was a 4.7 40 guy who averaged a full yard per carry less than Grant. He looked like he was running in cement shoes, particularly when the ZBS came to town. Grant on the other hand, fits what the Packers want to do like a glove.

You say why take the risk with Grant when you don't have to. I agree. You say you aren't taking risk with Grant, but I say you're wrong. You are ignoring the future risk and only thinking about the immediate risk. The future risk is much, much bigger. You let him go into free agency, you're risking millions upon millions upon millions, and you're risking having to lock him up THEN to a contract that would likely take him beyond his prime - another significant risk.

And Ras, I am convinced that having players, particularly at high-profile, high-cost positions, to outplay their contracts is absolutely key to achieving consistent success in the salary cap era. Football injuries are so unpredictable, you need better depth throughout the roster than the rest of the league to consistently win. That requires maintaining cap flexibility to maintain a deep roster throughout.

In my opinion, teams taht pay "market prices" for players on the backside of their careers consistently, find themselves having to scramble every year just to maintain competitiveness. Then, when injuries come during the year, they're screwed.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the exchange.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be suggesting that they either give Grant a big contract now or lose him in three years. I think you can give him a moderate short-term contract now along the lines I suggested earlier, and still re-sign him sometime between now and three years from now if it seems prudent to do so. If you get him at a long term bargain now, he will want to renegotiate later anyway. so you are no further ahead than with a short term deal anyway.

[vince]

I'm suggesting that the Packers keep negotiating leverage on their side through his prime at the lowest possible cost. That is how to minimize the risk in this situation, IMO. That places the Packers much further ahead down the road, PARTICULARLY if/when there's a renegotiation of his contract.

The most likely thing to expect from Grant is for him to continue to produce in the ballpark of what he did this year running the ball. And as a first year player who will enjoy the benefits of having a full offseason with the team and coaching staff to get better in the passing game and in protection, to improve in those areas. He has the work ethic, demeanor and consistency to do all of that. If I were GM, and had to project the future, that's what I would be projecting.

Sure there's a risk he will uncharacteristically drop off. That would be inconsistent with what we know about him. There's also a risk (and it's a bigger one, IMO) that he'll continue on his current path.

I'm advocating for holding negotiating leverage throughout Grant's prime years in order to minimize their risk throughout that time.

[The Leaper]

And Ras, I am convinced that having players, particularly at high-profile, high-cost positions, to outplay their contracts is absolutely key to achieving consistent success in the salary cap era.

Don't tell that to the Colts.

[The Leaper]

I'm advocating for holding negotiating leverage throughout Grant's prime years in order to minimize their risk throughout that time.

That is nearly impossible to do if the player is performing at a high level. If he isn't getting paid market value, he's going to be pissed off.

As we've seen with McKenzie and Walker, it doesn't pay to have cheap ass deals if the player wants something more. Suddenly, your cheap ass deal isn't cheap...because your player is a distraction and locker room cancer.