Packers weighing contract options for Grant

[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. That's pretty cheap. He can be had for 5 years, $15 mil this year perhaps, but I think the risk of the price going up after another season is significant.

Vince, thats what am scared of. What if he gets 1400+ this year? Good luck trying to sign him then. Give him a long term deal now thats pretty cheap and if he out plays that then upgrade it. The Eagles always do this. Once they see a player is good they sign him long term while he's still cheap.

That's the quandry Vince - a 'what if' scenario. So you have to look at the other side...what if he runs for 800-900ish yards? Then you've got a guy being overpaid...unless you can get him to sign w/o a big signing bonus so that you can cut him later if he doesn't live up to it.

MD - I like that idea, and it's workable, partially because the Pack has shown a willingness to redo the deals - as I mentioned above with DD and Kamp. So something that gives him some money now, guarantees a decent salary...but he has to trust the Pack to give him the money if he deserves it.

Anyways, I see this discussion is a moot point now - there's another thread about him getting a deal that I'm anxious to read!

Right, which is what the GM has to do when making these decisions. I'm looking at what I've seen thus far and what I know of him and projecting another solid year for Grant next season. If defenses key on Grant, that bodes well for the Packers explosive passing attack. If defenses key on the pass or stay balanced, that bodes well for Grant. Obviously, they'll do a little of all of the above. Either way, I see another strong offensive performance for this team next year, with Grant being a key contributor all year long. That tells me that now is the time to get him at his cheapest over the long haul.

[RashanGary]

Right, which is what the GM has to do when making these decisions. I'm looking at what I've seen thus far and what I know of him and projecting another solid year for Grant next season. If defenses key on Grant, that bodes well for the Packers explosive passing attack. If defenses key on the pass or stay balanced, that bodes well for Grant. Obviously, they'll do a little of all of the above. Either way, I see another strong offensive performance for this team next year, with Grant being a key contributor all year long. That tells me that now is the time to get him at his cheapest over the long haul.

Show me a contract idea (I know it's hard to project), but show me one and I'll show you why I think it won't help us keep him cheaper.

[vince]

If he wants to play hardball after this season, let him find out if he can stay healthy for two more full years and then send him packing at age 28 to get a big one if he makes it that long. On top of that, if he's as good as he thinks he is he'll fetch us a 3rd round compensitory on the way out.

The Packers have all of the cards right now. Every single card. There is no need to go jumping the gun right now. Wait one year, then sign him to a decent long term deal two years early. If he's not willing to take a discount two years early then just use up the best years of his career and let him go. It won't come to that though. His agent knows who has the cards now and he'll know who has the cards next year too.

It would be different if he racked up 2500 yards in three years but he racked up 900 yards in three years. The only way I'd consider locking up Grant right now is if it was 6 years with some up front and then another big bonus after two years. There is no need to panic with him right now. Worst case, we have him for ages 26,27 and 28, then he leaves as he's turning 29. Big deal, hardly the end of the world.

The fact that the Packers hold the cards means that now is the time to play those cards. You don't hold them until Grant gets four of a kind and beats you later. It's not about the Packers panicking. They're not panicking. In my opinion, they'd be smart to sign him now for cheap.

I know you agree that the key to success is about getting productive players on your team for the long haul at less than their market value. I believe that, for the long haul (through his prime), Ryan Grant will never be cheaper than he is now.

And to say that it took him three years to rack up 900 yards is ridiculous. Not to belabor the obvious, but Grant didn't play his first two years after being undrafted out of Notre Dame, which I know you're well aware of. In the first 12 games he's played, he racked up 1186 yards. He's on pace to rush for 4,744 yards in his first three years worth of games. That means he's more than 5 times the player you are attempting to insinuate he is for some reason.

[vince]

Right, which is what the GM has to do when making these decisions. I'm looking at what I've seen thus far and what I know of him and projecting another solid year for Grant next season. If defenses key on Grant, that bodes well for the Packers explosive passing attack. If defenses key on the pass or stay balanced, that bodes well for Grant. Obviously, they'll do a little of all of the above. Either way, I see another strong offensive performance for this team next year, with Grant being a key contributor all year long. That tells me that now is the time to get him at his cheapest over the long haul.

Show me a contract idea (I know it's hard to project), but show me one and I'll show you why I think it won't help us keep him cheaper.

5 years for $15 mil.

[RashanGary]

OK,

If we don't give him a deal until free agency, we keep him for three years for a total of one million dollars. With that in mind, we could give him 14 million dollars over the final two years and still be at the 15 million you just suggested. You think he's going to demand a contract bigger than 7 million per year at age 29? If so, I see your point. If not, we just dumped a shit load of money when we absolutely didn't have to.


I could see a 6 year, 16 million dollar deal with a nice bonus upon signing (to lure him in) and a nice bonus after 3 years (to limit our initial risk).

This way we keep him for an extra three years beyond what we have him and keep him until he turns 30.


Honestly, I'd be perfectly content keeping him for peanuts and letting him fly at age 29. Hopefully we'll have a young set of legs by then but if we want to lock him up, then it would have to be longer than two extra years for 14 extra million..

[RashanGary]

I think the place we are differing is that you are looking at is as getting a good running back for 3 mil per year. You're not taking into consideration that we already have the same one for .333 million per year for three years and that same guy will be 26 next year, making him 29 when our hold on him is over.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you are seeing quite how bad his situation is. Any thing the Packers do right now is a big favor. 5 years 15 mil is nice, but it's not nearly as nice as three years 1 mil.

[vince]

OK,

If we don't give him a deal until free agency, we keep him for three years for a total of one million dollars. With that in mind, we could give him 14 million dollars over the final two years and still be at the 15 million you just suggested. You think he's going to demand a contract bigger than 7 million per year at age 29? If so, I see your point. If not, we just dumped a shit load of money when we absolutely didn't have to.


I could see a 6 year, 18 million dollar deal with a nice bonus upon signing (to lure him in) and a nice bonus after 3 years (to limit our long term risk).

This way we keep him for an extra three years beyond what we have him and have him until he turns 30.


Honestly, I'd be perfectly content keeping him for peanuts and letting him fly at age 29. Hopefully we'll have a young set of legs by then but if we want to lock him up, then it would have to be longer than two extra years for 14 extra million. Three years 17 (like I suggested) even seems high.

What I think is more likely at the age of 28 (his first year of UFA, right in the height of his prime...) IF the Packers do what you are espousing is that he signs a 6 year $50 mil contract with someone. Hopefully, the Packers would have someone to fill his shoes, because that's where they would be caught between a rock and a hardplace. The temptation at that point is to give him a Shaun Alexander type deal (8/64 mil) and watch him drag the team's competitiveness down because he's a serious drag on the cap long after he's productive.

I say we sign him now and keep him through his prime - with a possible one or two year extension on the deal I'm espousing, if he's willing... Then sign him for less or let him go at THAT point when he's 30 or 31 - not when he's 28, in the middle of his prime, and a UFA.

Edit: Also, your assumptions are incorrect. We can't keep him the next three years for $1 mil. Here's the MINIMUM it will cost with a projected 15% increase each year in the minimum salaries, consistent with the cap increase...

2008 ERFA 2nd YEar Player... $500,000
2009 ERFA 3rd Year Player... $674,000
2010 RFA - 1st and 3rd Tender... $3.2 mil.

[MJZiggy]

You guys are nuts. You treat your players with respect. It's hard enough to attract big name players to a frozen hamlet, and you wanna give the team the reputation for lowballing it's players on top of it. The only reason this team had a run game this season is named Ryan Grant. By the end of the season, opposing teams knew he was there and were attempting to gameplan for him. Holmgren said it and look where it got him. This is the player you take care of and make sure that when the deal you give him is up, you're the first team he looks to. (See Corey and the "hometown discount") You don't take advantage of him so that he goes off and makes Tampa a better team in a few years.

[RashanGary]

Nobody ever suggested signing him as an unrestricted free agent in the heart of his prime. I suggested giving him a mil now so he doesn't work for peanuts and then giving him a 5 year deal next year. If he doesn't want a discount next year, then just ride him out for two more years.

2007 - 2008 season Grant was 25

2008-2009 season Grant will be 26
2009-2010 season Grant will be 27
2010 - 2011 season Grant will be 28

20011-2012 season we lose Grant and he's 29

If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken. I'm not knocking Grant, I just think you wanting to make sure we have him into his 30's right now is sort of silly considering we already have him through a RB's real prime (Age 23-Age 29). We can just use him and let him go with nothing. I don't want to do that, but I don't want to give him 15 extra millino right now for two extra years. That's not a great deal.

I'm perfectly OK with letting him go after his current situation expires. It won't come to that though. The logic I am using right now is the same exact logic that will again leave us with every single card next year.

[Guiness]

I think we all see - it's a ridiculous situation. There really is very little reason on the face of it for the Packers to do anything - Grant is over a barrel so bad, because of his age and the fact that he only has one accrued season, that the only thing he can really do it hold out. A 29-30yr old running back who hasn't seen him payday is screwed.

Having said that, I don't see the Packers doing that to him. It would be nasty, I don't think they're a nasty organization, and I don't want to be the fan of one. However, I also don't want to be the fan of a stupid organization. There's a reason the CBA is set up so a team has a player for a few years before they have to pay him - it's just that it doesn't work 100% of the time, and this is one of those times it doesn't.

btw - the other thread I mentioned simply told us the Pack doesn't need to sign Grant for 2 more years! *shakes fist at KY*

I was actually kind of happy to see that, because a 2yr deal made no sense at all. A one year or a 5 yr does, but not a 2 or 3.

[vince]

Nobody ever suggested signing him as an unrestricted free agent in the heart of his prime. I suggested giving him a mil now so he doesn't work for peanuts and then giving him a 5 year deal next year. If he doesn't want a discount next year, then just ride him out for two more years.

2007 - 2008 season Grant was 25

2008-2009 season Grant will be 26
2009-2010 season Grant will be 27
2010 - 2011 season Grant will be 28

20011-2012 season we lose Grant and he's 29

If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken. I'm not knocking Grant, I just think you wanting to make sure we have him into his 30's right now is sort of silly considering we already have him through a RB's real prime (Age 23-Age 29). We can just use him and let him go with nothing. I don't want to do that, but I don't want to give him 15 extra millino right now for two extra years. That's not a great deal.

I'm perfectly OK with letting him go after his current situation expires. It won't come to that though. The logic I am using right now is the same exact logic that will again leave us with every single card next year.

Grant was 24 this year. He turned 25 in December, so your years are one year off.

Also, I'll repost the edit from above just so you don't miss it.

Also, your assumptions are incorrect. We can't keep him the next three years for $1 mil. Here's the MINIMUM it will cost with a projected 15% increase each year in the minimum salaries, consistent with the cap increase...

2008 ERFA 2nd YEar Player... $500,000
2009 ERFA 3rd Year Player... $674,000
2010 RFA - 1st and 3rd Tender... $3.2 mil.

That's 4.3 mil MINIMUM that it will cost to keep Ryan Grant for the next three years.

[vince]

Nobody ever suggested signing him as an unrestricted free agent in the heart of his prime. I suggested giving him a mil now so he doesn't work for peanuts and then giving him a 5 year deal next year. If he doesn't want a discount next year, then just ride him out for two more years.

2007 - 2008 season Grant was 25

2008-2009 season Grant will be 26
2009-2010 season Grant will be 27
2010 - 2011 season Grant will be 28

20011-2012 season we lose Grant and he's 29

If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken. I'm not knocking Grant, I just think you wanting to make sure we have him into his 30's right now is sort of silly considering we already have him through a RB's real prime (Age 23-Age 29). We can just use him and let him go with nothing. I don't want to do that, but I don't want to give him 15 extra millino right now for two extra years. That's not a great deal.

I'm perfectly OK with letting him go after his current situation expires. It won't come to that though. The logic I am using right now is the same exact logic that will again leave us with every single card next year.

Grant gets a better hand to play with every year until he reaches 30. Sign him now until then (and give him his props for a job well done this year) at the cheapest possible rate over that timeframe.

[RashanGary]

I see your point, Vince. I didn't know the minimum salaries. I'm sure Grant and his agent would be extatic. I thought Grant played well. If Thompson really believes he's the real deal (and I do trust Thompson's judgement) then I'd be OK with the deal you suggested. I'd want to see 6 million of it come in the final two seasons though, just so we can cut him if something bad happens. It's a risk that we don't have to take right now, so I'd rather keep that risk down.

[RashanGary]

I still think there was relevance behind my thoughts, but I think there is more to yours than I initially saw so "I was wrong".

Not completely wrong, but wrong enough to say I see your point. I won't go back on Leapers though. His was a 4 year deal with a voidable year. That was just a big fat present.

[vince]

I still think there was relevance behind my thoughts, but I think there is more to yours than I initially saw so "I was wrong".

Not completely wrong, but wrong enough to say I see your point. I won't go back on Leapers though. His was a 4 year deal with a voidable year. That was just a big fat present.

Yeah, JH. Your thoughts definitely hedge against injury or non-productivity. It all goes back to projecting the future. My money would defintitely be on more of what we saw this year. I see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't expect that for at least the next 5 years. Signing him now also for less also leaves money readily available for another big back if they go with more of a two-back attack down the road.