PFW on new contract for Ryan Grant

[RashanGary]

I just think it's a year too early with him. He only has 9 or 10 good games in the NFL. Next year is when conversations should heat up. If it is done now I think it should be a long deal with very little of the money coming up front (but just enough to get him to sign) and most of the money coming later.

Essentially it should be a way to lock him up for a long time at a cheap upfront price and fair prices down the road. We get the prime of his career for below market value. He gets more money up front (but not a ton). It's the only win/win I can think of, but I think it can be a lot better for both sides if they wait one more year. It's just too premature right now. Last year was his first year on an NFL 53. He's a 2nd year player. He should play one more like Harrell, Jones and the other 2nd year guys.

The worst thing the Packers can do is give him a 2 year deal that gives him the security to sneak closer to UFA. The urgency he has right now (being broke) and will have for the next three years (if we so choose) is the most powerfull card we have. Do NOT give that up. No, no. Anything that gets done is going to be a deal with the devil where he gives up his only card (the rest of his earning potential or the rest of his prime in other words). The agent knows it. That's why he's bantering that around. It's the only thing they have. Green did it. If the RB pans out he loses alot, but it does give the early security against injury. I think you, gunkor, are entirely missing the point. It's a buisness. A two year deal for more money is a gift with nothing in return. No thanks. How about a win/win and how about wait a year while we're at it because Grant has nothing now and he'll have nothing next year either.

[sharpe1027]

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.

If he isn't the real deal after two years and they need the cap space, they cut him. As long as they are smart about the contract, the cap hit should be minimal. However, if he is the real deal and he hits the open market because they don't lock him up now, they either lose an elite back or they end up paying through the nose to keep him. A simple exercise in risk-reward analysis, IMO.

[Gunakor]

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.

If he isn't the real deal after two years and they need the cap space, they cut him. As long as they are smart about the contract, the cap hit should be minimal. However, if he is the real deal and he hits the open market because they don't lock him up now, they either lose an elite back or they end up paying through the nose to keep him. A simple exercise in risk-reward analysis, IMO.

This isn't about cap space. We are perfectly healthy salary wise. We could afford LT's salary if LT was in our backfield. If Grant emerges as the next LT, we could afford to pay him like the next LT.

Again, he would not be hitting the open market in 2 years. He'd be an RFA, which means other teams can offer him a contract but all Green Bay would have to do at that point is simply match the offer and he remains a Packer. If Grant is worth paying through the nose for - meaning he continues to produce at nearly LaDanian Tomlinson pace - then he should be making nearly LT salary and Green Bay should be the team paying it to him. If he doesn't, it gives us the possibility of getting something back for him if another team signs him. This is what people don't seem to be understanding about where I'm coming from.

Your arguement is that we should lock up Grant long term now because he IS the real deal. My arguement is that we should approach this cautiously, considering Grant has only had 8 or 9 good games in his entire career. If Grant is signed to a 5 year deal and flops, yeah we can just release him and the cap hit won't be too great. If Grant is signed to a 2 year deal and flops, other teams that are willing to sign him would have to offer Green Bay compensation for it. 5 year deal means we are assured of getting absolutely nothing in return for releasing him, 2 year deal leaves open the possibility that we could get something back. That's my point.

Assume nothing. Grant is still unproven as far as I'm concerned. The whole RFA/UFA issue aside, I don't think he's worth a 5 year deal anyway. He should be treated as an unproven back until he proves himself over a longer period than half a friggin season. He deserves more than the 370k tender he's been offered, only because any player being asked to carry the ball 300+ times a year should make more than 370k. But lets not take this too far.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This isn't about cap space. We are perfectly healthy salary wise NOW.

Fixed. I don't believe the cap will continue to go up like it has. Eventually, it will level off (for a little while at least). Have you seen who is coming up for a contract in the next 2-3 years?

Your arguement is that we should lock up Grant long term now because he IS the real deal. My arguement is that we should approach this cautiously, considering Grant has only had 8 or 9 good games in his entire career.

That's not my argument. My argument is that it might be prudent to lock him up. It depends on how they evaluate him. If they think he's on his way to being an elite RB, then lock him. It will be cheaper now than later.

Plus, the chemistry on this team is fantastic. Part of the reason for that is they've shown that they'll reward their own guys for doing well. I don't think we need to play hard-ball just because we have leverage. He isn't going to get big money, and there's little risk in signing him to a fair, front-loaded contract.

On the other hand, if they think this season was a fluke, then they can just wait it out. I think we'll know a lot about what the Packers think about Grant by what they do with this contract.

[sharpe1027]

Again, he would not be hitting the open market in 2 years. He'd be an RFA, which means other teams can offer him a contract but all Green Bay would have to do at that point is simply match the offer and he remains a Packer.

This I know.

If Grant is worth paying through the nose for - meaning he continues to produce at nearly LaDanian Tomlinson pace - then he should be making nearly LT salary and Green Bay should be the team paying it to him. If he doesn't, it gives us the possibility of getting something back for him if another team signs him. This is what people don't seem to be understanding about where I'm coming from.

This I understand. However, what precludes them from getting something in return for him if they sign him to a long term deal? If he has any value, they can swing a trade, but that assumes he has value. If he doesn't have value, they won't get anything regardless.

Your arguement is that we should lock up Grant long term now because he IS the real deal.

No it is not. I never said anything close to that.

My arguement is that we should approach this cautiously, considering Grant has only had 8 or 9 good games in his entire career. If Grant is signed to a 5 year deal and flops, yeah we can just release him and the cap hit won't be too great. If Grant is signed to a 2 year deal and flops, other teams that are willing to sign him would have to offer Green Bay compensation for it. 5 year deal means we are assured of getting absolutely nothing in return for releasing him, 2 year deal leaves open the possibility that we could get something back. That's my point.

I still say your "cautious" approach is more risky than my approach. What exactly did San Diego get for Turner? They pretty much followed your model.

[sharpe1027]

Assume nothing. Grant is still unproven as far as I'm concerned. The whole RFA/UFA issue aside, I don't think he's worth a 5 year deal anyway. He should be treated as an unproven back until he proves himself over a longer period than half a friggin season. He deserves more than the 370k tender he's been offered, only because any player being asked to carry the ball 300+ times a year should make more than 370k. But lets not take this too far.

There is no need to give him a HUGE mega contract with loads of guranteed money. If they sign him now they have some significant leverage and should be able to sign him to a decent contract that does not hurt the Packers in the future. If he does not pan out, why would you expect some other team to give up draft picks for him?

[Gunakor]

Assume nothing. Grant is still unproven as far as I'm concerned. The whole RFA/UFA issue aside, I don't think he's worth a 5 year deal anyway. He should be treated as an unproven back until he proves himself over a longer period than half a friggin season. He deserves more than the 370k tender he's been offered, only because any player being asked to carry the ball 300+ times a year should make more than 370k. But lets not take this too far.

There is no need to give him a HUGE mega contract with loads of guranteed money. If they sign him now they have some significant leverage and should be able to sign him to a decent contract that does not hurt the Packers in the future. If he does not pan out, why would you expect some other team to give up draft picks for him?

You don't think a team would be willing to part with a 4th round pick for a backup RB with 2+ years starting experience that's still in his 20's? I would. I'm not talking about first round pick here. Maybe it isn't even on the first day. The lowest RFA tender compensation is a day 2 pick I think. But it's something more than we'd get if he were simply released.

And again, and again, this isn't about money. It's about the length of the contract. If they want to sign him to a huge mega contract right now that's fine - they can easily afford it. As long as its up in two years.

Besides that, I am in the camp that believes if you prove yourself to be in the elite class of players in this league you should be paid like an elite player. I don't think you should lowball a player until he is over 30 years old. A 2 year deal brings Grant to 28 years old. THAT is when he should be getting his lucrative longer term deal, not after he turns 30. If he proves himself worthy of it, that is.

[sharpe1027]

You don't think a team would be willing to part with a 4th round pick for a backup RB with 2+ years starting experience that's still in his 20's?

I absolutely DO think that a team would trade for a backup RB. But, why would it matter if he is a RFA or under contract? RFA didn't work for Turner...

I would. I'm not talking about first round pick here. Maybe it isn't even on the first day. The lowest RFA tender compensation is a day 2 pick I think. But it's something more than we'd get if he were simply released.

And again, and again, this isn't about money. It's about the length of the contract. If they want to sign him to a huge mega contract right now that's fine - they can easily afford it. As long as its up in two years.

Besides that, I am in the camp that believes if you prove yourself to be in the elite class of players in this league you should be paid like an elite player. I don't think you should lowball a player until he is over 30 years old. A 2 year deal brings Grant to 28 years old. THAT is when he should be getting his lucrative longer term deal, not after he turns 30. If he proves himself worthy of it, that is.

You still don't get it. Any draft pick they can get through RFA process, they can probalby also get through a trade. In both cases, the other team will probalby need to renegotiate Grant's contract. So, I say again, why would you wait to sign him?

One more point, by using the RFA process you effecitively limit what pick you get and don't have a ton of control over where he goes. If you have him under contract you can take the highest bidder and have a say in where he goes (you could even trade for another player, something RFA doesn't allow).

You say your not against giving him big money now...why wouldn't they sign him to a front-loaded contact so that they could hang on to him even if he doesn't end up being an all-star? Instead you'd have them front load a contract that has no back-end...

[Gunakor]

RFA didn't work for Turner because the Chargers didn't let it. San Diego made it clear that they weren't letting him go. Stupid move on thier part IMO. They could have gotten a 1st and a 3rd for him, instead he signs a UFA contract with Atlanta and San Diego gets nothing. How does this help them at all?

I see your point about a trade, but if we trade him we take a cap hit. Whether it's 500k or 5 million, it's still dead money that wouldn't be there if he left in RFA. So it's better in the case that he doesn't pan out as a starter if he simply left as a RFA and we get compensation than if we trade him (likely for about the same pick as the compensation for RFA would be) and take on dead money against our cap.

If he emerges a star then whatever he is worth in 2 years we can easily afford to pay him. With our extremely healthy cap situation right now I don't understand why people are clammoring for a long term deal simply to save money should he become the star people project him to be. If he's a star then we can afford to pay him like one. It's not like it would be a long term deal anyway - in 2 years Grant will be 28 years old. A highly lucrative 4 year deal with gobs and gobs of guaranteed money given to Grant in 2 years time wouldn't hurt the franchise at all, as long as Grant is worth that money.

For crying out loud, we'd have to rework his deal in a couple years anyway should we sign him to a mediocre long term contract now and he blows up in the coming years. That or trade him to a team that is willing to pay him the money he wants. We don't just get him on the cheap forever just by signing him long term now. Players in the NFL don't play out thier contracts if they feel they've outplayed that contract. They hold out, demand trades, cause distractions. So just sign him to a short contract that he can't outplay, then re-evaluate him and pay him what he's worth. We get our star, our star gets his money, morale is good, everyone is happy. What is everyone's objection to this??

[sharpe1027]

Option 1: use the RFA tag.

Advantages:
1. If another team agrees to pay more than the Pack is willing to pay, the Pack gets a pick or two.
2. No cap hit after two years if Grant goes elsewhere.
3. ??

Disadvangates:
1. Only get pick(s) according the the RFA rules
1a. If they use a RFA level that is too high, nobody picks him up and he becomes a FA the next year (see Turner)
1b. If they use a RFA level that is lower than market value, they lose out on value.
2. No control over where Grant goes.
2a. He could go to a division rival.
2b. A team with a late round pick (RFA level doesn't care if it is begining or end of a round) might pick him up.
3. If you want to keep him because he is very good, you have a RB that is only one year away from striking it huge on the open market. This same running back was not given the long term deal he desired earlier. The leverage has shifted significantly from where it is now.

Option 2: sign him now to a front-loaded contract that has little cap impact in future.

Advantages:
1. You have a happy RB in camp.
2. You maintain your image of taking care of your own first.
3. You can trade him at any point for the highest bidder and can deny trades to teams you don't want.
4. If he asks to renegotiate, the PR is better for the team if he is under contract for several more years AND you have significantly more leverage.
5. It is possible that in 3 or 4 years you have a pro-bowl caliber back who counts very little against the cap.

Disadvantages:
1. You may take a small cap hit if he doesn't pan out.
2. He can still hold out in future years.


You decide.

[Gunakor]

Option 1: use the RFA tag.

Advantages:
1. If another team agrees to pay more than the Pack is willing to pay, the Pack gets a pick or two.
2. No cap hit after two years if Grant goes elsewhere.
3. ??

Disadvangates:
1. Only get pick(s) according the the RFA rules
1a. If they use a RFA level that is too high, nobody picks him up and he becomes a FA the next year (see Turner)
1b. If they use a RFA level that is lower than market value, they lose out on value.
2. No control over where Grant goes.
2a. He could go to a division rival.
2b. A team with a late round pick (RFA level doesn't care if it is begining or end of a round) might pick him up.
3. If you want to keep him because he is very good, you have a RB that is only one year away from striking it huge on the open market. This same running back was not given the long term deal he desired earlier. The leverage has shifted significantly from where it is now.

Option 2: sign him now to a front-loaded contract that has little cap impact in future.

Advantages:
1. You have a happy RB in camp.
2. You maintain your image of taking care of your own first.
3. You can trade him at any point for the highest bidder and can deny trades to teams you don't want.
4. If he asks to renegotiate, the PR is better for the team if he is under contract for several more years AND you have significantly more leverage.
5. It is possible that in 3 or 4 years you have a pro-bowl caliber back who counts very little against the cap.

Disadvantages:
1. You may take a small cap hit if he doesn't pan out.
2. He can still hold out in future years.


You decide.

You'd have a happy RB in camp if he were signed to a moderate 2 year deal with the understanding that he has alot to prove yet and at the conclusion of that 2 year deal he can resign for BIG money should he prove himself to be worth it. Option A: A moderate 2 year deal followed by a huge 3 year deal in total would make him 30 million. Option B: A mediocre 5 year deal only makes him 15-20 million, but when thats up he's 31 years old and can't recoup the 10 million he would have made. I think he'd be happier with option A. Even with the alternatives broken down as you have, I'd still rather take him for a shorter term deal right now. It is possible that we could have a pro bowl caliber back demanding a trade in a couple years if we sign him to a front-loaded long term deal.


My other point is that we have plenty of cap space to pay through the nose for this guy in a couple years if he deserves it. We SHOULD be paying through the nose for this guy if he deserves it. We are EXTREMELY healthy salary wise, so the next few years are not the time to be penny pinching and lowballing our stars. I think signing him to a moderate 2 year deal to further evaluate him and then, if deserved, signing him to a blockbuster deal afterwards would do more for our image of taking care of our own than signing him to a mediocre 5 year deal would. As an added bonus, it in no way puts in any kind of a salary situation where we'd have to ask veterans to take pay cuts or release players to come up with the money. We already have it just sitting there.

You said you want a pro bowl caliber RB at a low salary, well that's I guess where we differ. If he IS a pro bowl caliber RB, he should be making pro bowl money. I might feel differently about it if we didn't have so much money to spend right now, but since we do then that's how I feel about it. If we have the money and our guy deserves it, PAY IT TO HIM. That's how you take care of your own.

The pick(s) we'd aquire following RFA rules would still be better than the pick(s) we'd aquire through a trade PLUS the cap hit. If he leaves to go somewhere else as a backup, who cares who he goes to. If he's only worthy of a backup position, let him go to Chicago and back up Cedric Benson. I don't care at that point because he isn't a good enough player to earn a starting spot anyway. Division rival or not, if he's not on the field he can't hurt us. Yeah, I'd take a day 2 pick from a division rival for a guy who isn't going to win a starting spot.

[sharpe1027]

You'd have a happy RB in camp if he were signed to a moderate 2 year deal with the understanding that he has alot to prove yet and at the conclusion of that 2 year deal he can resign for BIG money should he prove himself to be worth it. Option A: A moderate 2 year deal followed by a huge 3 year deal in total would make him 30 million. Option B: A mediocre 5 year deal only makes him 15-20 million, but when thats up he's 31 years old and can't recoup the 10 million he would have made. I think he'd be happier with option A. Even with the alternatives broken down as you have, I'd still rather take him for a shorter term deal right now. It is possible that we could have a pro bowl caliber back demanding a trade in a couple years if we sign him to a front-loaded long term deal.


My other point is that we have plenty of cap space to pay through the nose for this guy in a couple years if he deserves it. We SHOULD be paying through the nose for this guy if he deserves it. We are EXTREMELY healthy salary wise, so the next few years are not the time to be penny pinching and lowballing our stars. I think signing him to a moderate 2 year deal to further evaluate him and then, if deserved, signing him to a blockbuster deal afterwards would do more for our image of taking care of our own than signing him to a mediocre 5 year deal would. As an added bonus, it in no way puts in any kind of a salary situation where we'd have to ask veterans to take pay cuts or release players to come up with the money. We already have it just sitting there.

You said you want a pro bowl caliber RB at a low salary, well that's I guess where we differ. If he IS a pro bowl caliber RB, he should be making pro bowl money. I might feel differently about it if we didn't have so much money to spend right now, but since we do then that's how I feel about it. If we have the money and our guy deserves it, PAY IT TO HIM. That's how you take care of your own.

The pick(s) we'd aquire following RFA rules would still be better than the pick(s) we'd aquire through a trade PLUS the cap hit. If he leaves to go somewhere else as a backup, who cares who he goes to. If he's only worthy of a backup position, let him go to Chicago and back up Cedric Benson. I don't care at that point because he isn't a good enough player to earn a starting spot anyway. Division rival or not, if he's not on the field he can't hurt us. Yeah, I'd take a day 2 pick from a division rival for a guy who isn't going to win a starting spot.

This is frustrating, you continue to jump to conclusions that support your opinion. Nobody said he would get a mediocre contract, but even if he does, they can renegoitate it the same as with RFA, BUT THEY WILL HAVE MORE LEVERAGE.

You argue until you are blue in the face by trying to diminish the positives of my approach all you want. You are still left with nothing gained from your approach other than a cap hit. That can be minimized so that it is a non-factor.

Basically, there are a number of reasons that the RFA is worse (you can debate all you want about how important they all are) and only one reason it is better (cap hit). If you want to be right just to be right, fine, but everything you want to get out of RFA can still be gained by signing him to a longer contract, which is what he wants. You seem to think he would be happier with a short-term contract. Maybe Grant just doesn't know what is good for him. Why don't you call him up and straighten him out?

[Gunakor]

Dude, we can get everything and more from him if we break this up into 2 seperate contracts that we could get if we signed him to one long one. Will you acknowledge the possible disadvantages to one long term deal? He either will or wont be worth more money in a couple years than he's due to get this year. We should decide then what to do with him. Why the hell should we make the committment and sign him to a long term deal right now if WE DONT KNOW IF HE IS WORTH THE DAMN THING?! Forget about cap space, either this year or years down the road. We have enough room under the cap to pay market value for Grant should he earn the right to be a Packer for life. If he is worth 8-10 million dollars per year then we should be paying him 8-10 million dollars per year. We can afford it. So stop making your point about having a pro bowl back at a low cost because cost isn't important.

Forget the UFA/RFA thing and just focus on what he's worth to us right now then. Right now he isn't worth more than a 2 year deal regardless what state of FA he enters at the end of it. He's UNPROVEN. He hasn't yet EARNED the right to sign a long term deal. He is just as likely to turn out to be a bust as he is to turn out to be a star. I could give you many. MANY reasons why a long term deal isn't a wise move for him right now. Your point revolves around your assumption that he is DEFINITELY going to be a pro bowl back, and that we could have the future pro bowl back for a very low cost. It's not guaranteed that he'll even be worth the front-loaded portion of that contract THIS year. Which is why it's wise to wait a couple years to determine both the length AND price of his lengthy deal.

Just give him enough to play now, and tell him if he wants to be a Packer for life and if he wants to make the big bucks then he has to prove it over a longer duration of time than 9 games. The only thing he earned last year IMO is the right to demand more than the 370k tender that Green Bay is required to offer him to retain his services. I do think that he should be making more than that. But 900 yards in 9 games for your CAREER does not give you the right to demand a 4 or 5 year deal. No effing way. Not in this league.

He hasn't earned a long term deal so he doesn't deserve one and shouldn't get one. That's how I feel about it. A 2 year deal leaves more options (and better options) open than a 1 year deal does which is why I press the 2 year deal so hard. He hasn't earned 3 or more years yet and that's why I argue the whole long term deal issue so hard.

Really, it isn't about RFA or UFA or money or any of that. It's about making that committment before you know what you are getting in return. I don't like the idea of releasing or trading players still under contract - I mean, what does that do to an image of a team if they make a 5 year committment to a player but only honor 2 years of it?? The player feels slighted and the team takes a cap hit. Nobody wins.

We got all up in arms a few seasons ago when Javon Walker held out while he was still under contract. We cheered Brett Favre for chewing him out over how he should play out his contract. Don't you think General Managers should be held to the same standard on the contract issue as players? How would signing Grant to a 5 year deal now and cutting him in 2 years when he doesn't pan out possibly help our image?

My point is that he isn't worth a long term deal and hasn't earned one. Hopefully in this post I've said that enough times that you understand what my point is. But just in case, I'll say it one more time.

RYAN GRANT HAS NOT EARNED AND IS NOT WORTH A LONG TERM DEAL.

Whatever benefits you list to signing him long term do not outweigh the fact that he has not earned one yet. So we'll just disagree I guess. Peace.

[sharpe1027]

A long term deal means nothing if it does not contain guaranteed money for the final years.

There, I just refuted your entire argument.

[Gunakor]

A long term deal means nothing if it does not contain guaranteed money for the final years.

There, I just refuted your entire argument.

From my previous post:

"We got all up in arms a few seasons ago when Javon Walker held out while he was still under contract. We cheered Brett Favre for chewing him out over how he should play out his contract. Don't you think General Managers should be held to the same standard on the contract issue as players?"


Please answer this question as pertains to your idea of releasing Grant with multiple years left on his contract. Try not to contradict yourself.