PFW on new contract for Ryan Grant

[motife]

March 26, 2008
New deal for Grant hardly a stretch

On coincidentally the same day that Brandon Chillar signed a new deal with the Packers, PFW asked Chillar’s agent, Alan Herman of Sportstars Inc., just how far down the road he envisioned a new contract for fellow client Ryan Grant. With the Packers having cap money to burn — more than $35 million including the cap charge for Brett Favre, who at this writing had yet to turn in his retirement papers — and Grant coming off a breakthrough campaign in which he was one of the league’s most dynamic running backs the second half of the season, Herman confirmed that it hardly takes a genius to connect the dots. “From all the rhetoric that I’ve seen about the Packers preferring to take care of their own before they reach free agency, and also looking at what Ryan accomplished last year, I would like to think the timing is right to get something done for a significant period of time,” Herman told PFW. At this writing, the Packers had yet to officially open talks with Herman, who the day after talking to PFW told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that Grant would not sign his $370,000 minimum tender for an exclusive-rights player with only one accrued season in the NFL. Grant is planning on full-scale involvement in the Packers’ spring offseason program, however, and while team insiders believe there could be some pretty lively discussions at some point between the Packers and Grant’s agents over the actual value of a running back who has been an elite performer for only half a pro season, the odds still seem pretty strong that a new deal will be struck later this offseason. Said Herman: “Ryan absolutely loves Green Bay — the team and the players — and we plan on fostering as good a working relationship with the Packers as possible toward reaching a long-term agreement that will benefit both sides.”

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like his agent's attitude. I hope Ryan shares the sentiment.

[Fritz]

I'd kinda hope they could do a one or two year deal so we can see if Grant can hold up over a whole season.

[3irty1]

Sounds like a good agent to deal with. Does he have anymore superstars we can buy?

[Gunakor]

I'd kinda hope they could do a one or two year deal so we can see if Grant can hold up over a whole season.

I hope it's only a 2 year deal so that he'll hit RFA at the end of the contract. As I've said in another thread, that would open up more options to us. If Grant turns out to be a one hit wonder it won't end up hurting the team too badly, if he turns out to be average or a little above average we could let him sign with another team and recieve a middle or upper round draft pick as compensation, and if he turns out to be elite we can resign him to a very lucrative 4 or 5 year contract ourselves.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd kinda hope they could do a one or two year deal so we can see if Grant can hold up over a whole season.

I hope it's only a 2 year deal so that he'll hit RFA at the end of the contract. As I've said in another thread, that would open up more options to us. If Grant turns out to be a one hit wonder it won't end up hurting the team too badly, if he turns out to be average or a little above average we could let him sign with another team and recieve a middle or upper round draft pick as compensation, and if he turns out to be elite we can resign him to a very lucrative 4 or 5 year contract ourselves.

They don't have to pay him big money now. He doesn't have the leverage. I think that's the point. They could lock him long-term at a relative bargain if he turns out to be a stud. If you sign him for two years and then he becomes a stud, then you'll have to pay MUCH more for him.

Of course, with how players want to renegotiate deals (and teams are able to cut players at any time) it probably doesn't matter.

Whatever they decide to do works for me. They won't have to give him huge money, so I have no problem with a solid long-term deal. Kind of similar to Ahman Green in that they signed him to his first deal the year after they traded for him. He looked good, but was a one year wonder. They ended up getting Ahman for a handful of years at below average market value.

If they decide to make him prove that it wasn't a one year wonder, I'm okay with that also. They have his rights for a couple of more years, so it's not like he'd be able to walk next year.

[vince]

Of course, with how players want to renegotiate deals ... it probably doesn't matter.

I'd say I agree with everything you said here, except for this. If Grant continues to perform as he did last year (which I expect him to), it makes a huge difference in who has negotiating leverage (and how much of it they have) depending on whether the player who wants to renegotiate is locked up for the next three years, or whether he is on the brink of free agency. If I'm a GM (or a fan who is interested in the team's success), I'd much prefer to have the player locked up and under an extended-term contract.

[packrat]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

[vince]

Exactly. There are also other ways that the team would hedge their bet against injury and/or poor performance. "Pay-as-you-go" weekly roster and off-season workout bonuses being two that the Packers have been using lately...

Weekly Roster Bonuses

The Green Bay Packers have turned to weekly roster bonuses as a new way to reward big-contract players but help protect the club financially against injury or a major dropoff in performance.

Your Moment of Zen

Brandt stressed that it really comes down to how they, over the past 2-3 years, have transitioned how they structure contracts. "Pay as you go" is a term being thrown around lately. And this is what they mean by that.

They are no longer building "signing bonuses" into contracts. They felt this sent the wrong message to the athletes. A signing bonus only pays them, literally, for signing the document. After that point there is no incentive to continue to earn that normally huge amount of money they were just given. In essense, if created complacency.

So instead what they have done is worked exclusively with workout and roster bonuses. This is where availability and accountability come into major play.

Accountability: With the workout bonuses they are trying to create incentive for all of the players to be here from March-June. This is the time that MM says they "get the most work done", and makes training camp a much more fruitful experience for everybody involved.

As evidenced by this past year they were also able to keep their players fresh through training camp-even giving Wednesdays off, which led to a fast start.(for the past 3-4 years before MM was here there was a constant struggle at the beginning of the year, but they always finished strong to stay in playoff contention. It seemed to really put some undo pressure on everyone though because they were always trying to catch back up.) This was a big goal for MM when he came in..and especially last year when he already was 1 year into his program.

We also saw a very nice increase in offseason player activity in GB because of these incentives, which most of us feel did lead to a very closely-knit team this year and directly correlated with the success they had.

Availability: We can all see how important gameday availability is. If you don't have the players you need it's tough to accomplish what you need to in order to consistently win.

To stress this idea what they have emphasized is bonuses for being on the gameday 45 person active roster. This puts the ball in the players hands for them to do everything they can to make sure that they are on the actives that week. If that means seeking extra treatment, extra film study, extra drills, whatever the player can do to entice the coaches to put them on the 45 for that week.

What this also allows them to do is structure low-middle market value base salaries while giving the player all the opportunities to raise their own value throughout the year. It really puts their value back into the players' hands. If they want to make big $$, be responsible for your actions and you will earn that big $$. But you must earn it while helping this TEAM reach its goals.

In the long run what this is doing is two things.

1-It is keeping the organization fiscally sound. They are not gonna run into the cap hell that many have when they suddenly need to pay $10 million on a signing bonus they gave 3 - 4 years ago, which normally leads to that person being released..and as we saw with Wahle, regrettably released.

2-It helps the GM and coaches to more quickly identify players that they think are going to fit into the culture they are trying to create. When 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year players are not participating in the off season programs and taking advantage of incentives it may provide insight into that persons longterm future in this program. There are obviously exceptions to this: Woodson and Harris are the immediate examples. But what we can say is that these two have proven that they aren't sitting around getting fat and lazy all summer. Harris hasn't missed a game in years and Woodson is simply a gamer. They both are in impeccable shape and have developed regimens that allow them to pick it right up in camp.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Ted's figured out how to deal with players who have outperformed their contracts. And even the one that blew up (Javon Walker), we got a 2nd round pick and ended up working out for the best.

[The Leaper]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it.

That is why you do a 4-5 year deal with voidable years based on performance. Personally, I think that will be the trend as time moves on in the NFL in terms of emerging players. It gives the player a chance at a new deal after a couple strong seasons, but protects the team if the player craps out.

If Grants proves he is an elite RB, he'll get a new deal in 2 years after proving himself...we won't mind paying at that time.

If Grant doesn't prove he is an elite back, the Packers at least have a solid RB locked up for 4-5 years at a reasonable price, or could also dump him and move on without much cap impact.

[Gunakor]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

Grant does not become a UFA in 2 years. He will be RFA in 2 years, which means he does not have the leverage you assume he will have. He doesn't have a choice at that point yet. We offer him a tender, other teams have the option of signing him to an extended contract and offering a draft pick or picks as compensation, and we have the option of matching that offer to keep him in Green Bay. At no point during that process does he have the ability to choose to stay or leave, nor does he have any leverage over the length or dollar amount of that contract. The only choice he'll have is whether to sign it or not, with no assurances that by refusing the contract he'll get a better one.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

Grant does not become a UFA in 2 years. He will be RFA in 2 years, which means he does not have the leverage you assume he will have. He doesn't have a choice at that point yet. We offer him a tender, other teams have the option of signing him to an extended contract and offering a draft pick or picks as compensation, and we have the option of matching that offer to keep him in Green Bay. At no point during that process does he have the ability to choose to stay or leave, nor does he have any leverage over the length or dollar amount of that contract. The only choice he'll have is whether to sign it or not, with no assurances that by refusing the contract he'll get a better one.

You're not getting my point. Whether it's 2 or 3 years, I'm saying that signing him to a short-term deal may not be the best option. If you can lock him into a 5 year deal at a good rate, like we did with Ahman, then that could be the right move. If Thompson thinks he's the real deal, then lock him up. It's up to Thompson and his staff to evaluate him and make the right decision though. Your point about him being an RFA in 2 years and a UFA in 3 years only tells me that it won't take much to lock him into a long-term deal because he has little leverage.

I'm cool with either option, but I don't think you can just say that he doesn't have any leverage, so just give him the short-term deal. It might be in the best interest to the team to lock him up to an affordable deal with a front-loaded contract. It might be better to pay a little now (when we have cap room) and make the contract more affordable in the future then low-ball him and then have to pay more (when we might not have that same cap room).

[Gunakor]

The trouble with "locking him in" with a long term contract, is that if he outplays it, he is going to want to renegotiate it, and if he doesn't live up to it, then the Pack is going to have to try to renegotiate it. Better to do a two year deal that buys peace, burns some of the big cap room now, and both sides can reevaluate in two years.

Not really. If they do their job and evaluate him properly, then giving him a long-term, front-loaded contract may be the best thing--if they think he is for real. The front-loaded part would protect them if he's a one year wonder. They'd be able to cut him without much of a cap strain. If they sign him to a long term contract and he does well, they'd still come out ahead if he wanted to renegotiate--because it would take a lot of his leverage away. If he kicks ass and becomes a UFA in two years, they'd have little leverage (just the threat of the franchise tag).

If they sign him long term, I think that would signal that they think he's the real deal.

Grant does not become a UFA in 2 years. He will be RFA in 2 years, which means he does not have the leverage you assume he will have. He doesn't have a choice at that point yet. We offer him a tender, other teams have the option of signing him to an extended contract and offering a draft pick or picks as compensation, and we have the option of matching that offer to keep him in Green Bay. At no point during that process does he have the ability to choose to stay or leave, nor does he have any leverage over the length or dollar amount of that contract. The only choice he'll have is whether to sign it or not, with no assurances that by refusing the contract he'll get a better one.

You're not getting my point. Whether it's 2 or 3 years, I'm saying that signing him to a short-term deal may not be the best option. If you can lock him into a 5 year deal at a good rate, like we did with Ahman, then that could be the right move. If Thompson thinks he's the real deal, then lock him up. It's up to Thompson and his staff to evaluate him and make the right decision though. Your point about him being an RFA in 2 years and a UFA in 3 years only tells me that it won't take much to lock him into a long-term deal because he has little leverage.

I'm cool with either option, but I don't think you can just say that he doesn't have any leverage, so just give him the short-term deal. It might be in the best interest to the team to lock him up to an affordable deal with a front-loaded contract. It might be better to pay a little now (when we have cap room) and make the contract more affordable in the future then low-ball him and then have to pay more (when we might not have that same cap room).

I do understand your point, but you don't understand where I am coming from. What if Grant is NOT the future at RB for this franchise? You automatically assume that this guy is going to regularly pump out 1500 yards per season for the rest of his career. What if he doesn't? Then we have a long term PROBLEM to deal with.

If he hits RFA and hasn't panned out for us like we'd have liked, some other team might be willing to give him a shot. Depending on the RFA tender we offer him, any team signing him at that time would be obligated to compensate us with one or more draft picks. I'm not talking about the money it would cost us should he turn out to be elite. I'm talking about getting something back for him if he doesn't. If he makes it all the way to UFA then we don't have any possibility of getting something for him. It's about options, and there are more options available to us if we don't let him hit UFA after his contract is up. I'd like to have every option available in 2 years since we don't know for certain what Grant's future holds. If he doesn't pan out for us but in a couple years some other team is willing to give him a shot and will offer us a 4th round pick as compensation, that's alot better than him not panning out and us releasing him 3 years down the road and getting nothing for him.

If in 2 years he proves himself to be worthy of a top 5 RB salary then he should rightfully get it. I'd rather lowball him NOW and pay him the big contract he deserves if and when he earns it than sign him long term now and have him grumbling in the locker room in a few years about how he's one of the best in the league but not making elite money. If he proves himself to be in the class of an LT then he should be making comparable money. If not then we won't give it to him. But let him prove that one way or the other first.