Packers odds and ends

[packers11]

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/Ryeguy812/143217

Packers odds and ends

Mar 23, 2008 09:35 PM |

Though the Packers haven't been very active in the free agent market they haven't been dormant in signing and working on contracts. A few notes

Ryan Grant wants more money.
That's a no-brainer, but his agent is suggesting that he might not sign the one-year tender for a 2nd year player the Packers are going to offer him. The Press-Gazette is reporting that Grant will join the team for off-season workouts and mini camps, but he won't sign the deal (worth $370,000) and thus won't report to training camp this summer. This situation is still young and can still be remedied with no feelings hurt. TT has the cards in his favor financially speaking because Grant can't become a free agent until 2010 and he'll be 28 by then. However, Grant was arguably the best runnings back in the NFC last season and the Packer offense will suffer if he isn't a part of it. The Pack have the room under the cap to sign Grant to a medium sized, 3-year deal and they should get it done. Like I said, this situation can be remedied before feelings get scorned and guys force a trade to Denver and their careers go on tilt (sorry, had to get a Javon Walker jab in there )

Speaking of one-year deals...
The Packers re-upped with Atari Bigby for a one-year 445,000 dollar contract. This keeps Atari under contract and Bigby's agent expects the Packers to offer a longer term contract later on, possibly during training camp is he can stay healthy. It makes sense to sign Bigby to a long-term deal. He was a young productive player on that defense and TT likes keeping his young, core guys under contract and in the mix. However, Aaron Rouse did play well in a back-up role last season and he'd come cheaper (albeit not by much) than Bigby. Another situation to watch.

Quick hits:
Nick Barnett looks to have cleared up his legal problems. HE pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct charges in exchange for having the criminal charges dropped. He'll pay a fine and has already attended mandated anger management courses. He should not face suspension from the NFL because the charges are no longer criminal.
The Packers resigned Jon Kuhn and Tory Humphrey. Humphrey has done enough to impress the Packers coaching staff even though he missed all last season with a broken ankle. Kuhn filled in admirably at fullback when he was needed and contributed on special teams as well. Terms of both deals were not apparent.
Backup CB Frank Walker signed with the Ravens. This isn't a huge loss for the Packers as Walker was pretty much a 6th CB and lost out to younger guys on the team when it came to playing time. He did get a nice little pay raise from the Ravens, so good for him.
Finally, the Packers have made contact with Brady Poppinga's agent about a contract extension. He is set to become an unrestricted free agent next season. With Brandon Chillar having signed for started-like money, it'll be interesting to see what they offer Poppinga and to see if he feels slighted because they brought in someone to compete for his job.

Things to watch for:
Back-up QB search
Brett Favre actually submitting his retirement papers
Contract statuses of Grant and Bigby

[red]

they need to sweeten the deal for grant by quite a bit IMO

we have the cap room we need to burn, and he's head and shoulders better then anything else we have on the roster

give him a decent 3 year deal, frontloaded before this has any chance to get ugly

this is classic tight wad ted. we have two very young players that showed potential, and are starters, and it looks like he's going to try and get by with paying them less then what you would pay some vet scrub to fill a roster spot

[Scott Campbell]

I agree. It's time to pay Grant.

[Lurker64]

I have no doubt that if the choice is "Pay Grant at least as much as Brandon Jackson or have him not play for us" Ted will pay him as much as Jackson. Thompson has a history of making sure guys get paid when they handle this the right way (e.g. Al Harris last year).

[RashanGary]

If they are to do anything, I'd think 5 years would be the minimum, but I'd rather go 6. I think two criteria have to be met:

1 - Grant gets a few mil up front to secure himself in case of injury

2 - It's a long term deal so we get his prime in exchange for the up front cash but also gives us the peace of mind of not losing and arm and a leg if he goes down to injury. He just doesn't have the leverage to force a potential franchise crippling contract.


It has to be mutual and this is the only way I can think of that isn't completely one sided. A three year deal is just a gift, with nothing in return for our generousity. We have him for three years anyway. If he wants to retire that's his only other option. Buisness is buisness. He has to give up something long term to get the short term benefit. Most things have a give and take to them.


This is a 6 year 23.5 million dollar deal that I think is realistic. It's good for Grant and has the potential for being good for us long term so there is a motivation for each side.

Year 1: 3 mil roster bonus, $500,000 base
Year 2: 2 mil base
Year 3: 3 mil base
Year 4: 4 mil base
Year 5: 5 mil base
Year 6: 6 mil base

[The Leaper]

I think the Grant deal will have to be a 5 year deal that includes voidable years based on performance to give both sides what they want. Green Bay locks him in long term, but Grant has the opportunity to play out of it and grab a monster deal if he becomes a top tier NFL RB.

[LL2]

I think the Grant deal will have to be a 5 year deal that includes voidable years based on performance to give both sides what they want. Green Bay locks him in long term, but Grant has the opportunity to play out of it and grab a monster deal if he becomes a top tier NFL RB.

If I was Grant I'd be looking to go this route too. I'd prefer a 3 yr deal, then that gives Grant to sign a secure-my-retirement type of deal.

[sepporepi]

I think 3 years doesn't make sense.

Either two (RFA afterwards) or at least 5 years.

[run pMc]

It might make more sense to think of it from Grant's perspective instead of playing armchair GM and say "I'd give him...". Who says Grant would take a modest 3 year contract? Both sides gotta agree on a long term deal...although I agree right now TT holds the cards since Grant's an RFA.

You don't want an unhappy starting RB in your locker room, though.

[red]

i was thinking about it from grants side. thats where the 3 years came from

face it, tt is probably not going to give him a lot of money, its just not his style
in three years he can be an unrestricted FA

he'll still be very young, it might be an uncapped year, so if he's any good, he'll cash in for a huge payday

the longer he's tied up in a contract (5 or 6 years) the older he will be when he hits the open market. the older a RB is the less likely he is to get a huge deal no matter how good he is

plus if he proves he's the real deal after this year, you can lock him up long term for big money next offseason

[wist43]

I'll be suprised if TT offers anything to Grant...

Grant came on board for a 6th, he lanquised on the bench for half the season, and hasn't played a full season - he seemed fairly durable, but you never know how a players body will react after the 12th game as opposed to the 8th.

Besides, TT is cheap, and if a player is slotted to make a given salary I don't see running to open up the checkbook.

[The Leaper]

Besides, TT is cheap, and if a player is slotted to make a given salary I don't see running to open up the checkbook.

Then why did he pay Harris and Driver when he didn't have to?

[Scott Campbell]

Besides, TT is cheap,.............

I thought we had finally put that myth to bed.

[Gunakor]

they need to sweeten the deal for grant by quite a bit IMO

we have the cap room we need to burn, and he's head and shoulders better then anything else we have on the roster

give him a decent 3 year deal, frontloaded before this has any chance to get ugly

this is classic tight wad ted. we have two very young players that showed potential, and are starters, and it looks like he's going to try and get by with paying them less then what you would pay some vet scrub to fill a roster spot

No, only sign him to a 2 year deal. When that 2 year contract is up he'll be a RFA, which means we can offer him a higher RFA tender at that time. Then if another team makes an offer we have the option of matching the offer to keep Grant in Green Bay or letting him go and recieving 1 or 2 day one draft picks as compensation. It opens up more options to us. Suppose there is a super studly RB in the draft a couple years from now that we could get and lock up long term at a young age with a pick we recieve as compensation for Grant. Instead of a studly 27/28 year old that we could have for 3 or 4 years, we'd have a studly 22/23 year old that we could have for 6+ years. If not we could just match the offer and keep Grant. But to keep that option available to us we can't sign Grant to anything longer than a 2 year contract right now, otherwise he wont become a RFA for us - he'll go straight to UFA and we'd get nothing.

[Scott Campbell]

Grant to anything longer than a 2 year contract right now, otherwise he wont become a RFA for us - he'll go straight to UFA and we'd get nothing.

I wouldn't mind tying him up for 5. But I agree with you. Hell no to 3 years. Probably no to 4 years.