PFW on new contract for Ryan Grant

[sharpe1027]

The contract can be structured based upon performance and they probalby would not need to cut him. However, if they did cut him, he would be free to sign as a free agent with any team for whatever price he can get. I don't see how that is unfair.

The Walker situation was about his specific situation and about how he and his agent handled it. Nobody complained when Driver or Barnett got an extensions, yet they were both still under contract.

Besides, Grant doesn't want a 2 year deal. He should be well aware of what would happen if he doesn't produce down the road.

Anything else?

[Gunakor]

We don't know what Grant wants, so how can you say he doesn't want a 2 year deal? All he has said is that he won't sign the 370k tender that was offered to him and that he wants to be a Packer for life. If he was told that the team would not sign him to a long term deal without first seeing him perform over the course of a full season against defenses that weren't routinely dropping 7 men into coverage, I'm sure he'd sign the shorter deal and use it to better prove himself. Remember, he is an ERFA right now, so if he doesn't agree to our terms then he doesn't have a job. So we tell him he has to prove himself first, and when he does then we pay him what he earns. Hell, at least see what the kid can do against defenses that stack the box to stop the run as opposed to dropping into coverage to stop Favre.

This arguement has gotten very simple from both perspectives. Let me break it down for you from each perspective as I understand it:

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. As far as I can tell that is the ONLY advantage to signing him long term, and everything you've said comes back to us paying less for his services than we would if we had to rework a new contract. Is that the gist of what you're getting at? If not then I apologize for this rant as I do not know what you are looking to accomplish by signing him long term.

I on the other hand want to see us paying him EXACTLY what his market value is. If he becomes a pro bowler, I think we should be paying him like one. I think it's incredibly fucked up that some people, while realizing how much goddamn money we are just sitting on under the cap atm, are suggesting that we still underpay one of our stars by signing him to a modest long term deal right now. It's not like he's going anywhere in the next year or two - he won't hit FA until 2010 so until then he's property of the Green Bay Packers. My idea is simply to wait until he is eligible for FA to decide whether or not he should get the opportunity to be here beyond that, and if we decide yes, to pay him every penny he's earned over that 2 year evaluation period.

Yes, I realize that means he may come at a much steeper price tag. That's irrelevant. We can easily afford that steeper price tag if Grant proves himself to be worth that steeper cost. More to the point, if Grant DOES prove himself to be worth that steeper cost then he should get it. And he should get it from Green Bay.

He CAN'T leave Green Bay for 2 years. Given his uncertainties, why would you sign him longer than that? What is it that makes you want to sign him long term right now? I mean, we don't have to so why do it? He's not going anywhere for a couple years, so why the need to sign him long term right now? I know, I know. To save money, right? Sheesh... We don't need to save money any more for crying out loud. We need to SPEND some of it. This would be a very wise way to do so. If Grant doesn't work out, we lose nothing. If he becomes average it only costs us an average contract. If he becomes a star then we can easily afford to pay him a superstar salary.

I'm done here now. If you have already grown a man-crush for Grant and want him to stay in Green Bay forever or risk separation anxiety, so be it. I like the kid but am not convinced he's the RB of the future. I'd like a couple full seasons playing without the Favre threat in the passing game to evaluate him before I make any kind of lengthy committment to him. I'm out now. Peace.



P.S. Driver and Barnett were on the last years of thier contracts when the got thier extensions. That's the soonest TT has done that for players. Walker's situation was that he had more than one year left and demanded renegotiations anyway. The situations are not the same.

[sharpe1027]

We don't know what Grant wants, so how can you say he doesn't want a 2 year deal? All he has said is that he won't sign the 370k tender that was offered to him and that he wants to be a Packer for life. If he was told that the team would not sign him to a long term deal without first seeing him perform over the course of a full season against defenses that weren't routinely dropping 7 men into coverage, I'm sure he'd sign the shorter deal and use it to better prove himself.

Hypocritical

Remember, he is an ERFA right now, so if he doesn't agree to our terms then he doesn't have a job. So we tell him he has to prove himself first, and when he does then we pay him what he earns. Hell, at least see what the kid can do against defenses that stack the box to stop the run as opposed to dropping into coverage to stop Favre.

This goal is possible under both strategies.

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost.

I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write.

As far as I can tell that is the ONLY advantage to signing him long term, and everything you've said comes back to us paying less for his services than we would if we had to rework a new contract. Is that the gist of what you're getting at? If not then I apologize for this rant as I do not know what you are looking to accomplish by signing him long term.

Well, if you look at my post showing the advantages, you see the only one of them states "possibly" counting little against the cap. I put possibly in there because they may redo it if he is good enough.

I on the other hand want to see us paying him EXACTLY what his market value is. If he becomes a pro bowler, I think we should be paying him like one. I think it's incredibly fucked up that some people, while realizing how much goddamn money we are just sitting on under the cap atm, are suggesting that we still underpay one of our stars by signing him to a modest long term deal right now. It's not like he's going anywhere in the next year or two - he won't hit FA until 2010 so until then he's property of the Green Bay Packers. My idea is simply to wait until he is eligible for FA to decide whether or not he should get the opportunity to be here beyond that, and if we decide yes, to pay him every penny he's earned over that 2 year evaluation period.

If you want to pay him the open market value, I contend that given the current salary cap situations, you want to overpay for him. Very few quality players are making the open market because teams realize this and don't let it happen.

Yes, I realize that means he may come at a much steeper price tag. That's irrelevant. We can easily afford that steeper price tag if Grant proves himself to be worth that steeper cost. More to the point, if Grant DOES prove himself to be worth that steeper cost then he should get it. And he should get it from Green Bay.

I see, a steep price tag is NOW irrelevant, but before you were saying my idea doesn't fly because they might take a little salary cap hit.

He CAN'T leave Green Bay for 2 years. Given his uncertainties, why would you sign him longer than that? What is it that makes you want to sign him long term right now? I mean, we don't have to so why do it? He's not going anywhere for a couple years, so why the need to sign him long term right now? I know, I know. To save money, right? Sheesh... We don't need to save money any more for crying out loud. We need to SPEND some of it. This would be a very wise way to do so. If Grant doesn't work out, we lose nothing. If he becomes average it only costs us an average contract. If he becomes a star then we can easily afford to pay him a superstar salary.

Using this logic we should sign EVERY player to single season contracts and pay them their fair market value.

I'm done here now. If you have already grown a man-crush for Grant and want him to stay in Green Bay forever or risk separation anxiety, so be it.

Uncalled for, rude and rather amusing given that I never said I was sold on Grant and nothing I said implied it either.

P.S. Driver and Barnett were on the last years of thier contracts when the got thier extensions. That's the soonest TT has done that for players. Walker's situation was that he had more than one year left and demanded renegotiations anyway. The situations are not the same.

My point exactly.[/b]

[Partial]

wow, that guy just did some pwnage

[RashanGary]

Why not wait one more year. Grant's agent will figure out there is nothing gained by not playing. One more year, if Grant has a good year give him a fair 5 year deal at the 2 year early discount.

[Gunakor]

wow, that guy just did some pwnage

Not really. He's basically saying that we can get everything out of a 5 year deal that we could get out of a 2 year deal, i.e. if he doesn't pan out we can get something back and it would cost us little to nothing and if he outplays his contract we can renegotiate at a higher salary. Maybe he's right. But he didn't pwn anybody. He didn't list some huge advantage to a long term deal either. Something about leverage... but then he said it isn't about the cost of the contract either so why then would who has leverage be important. I don't know. I really don't care anymore. I had stopped thinking about it and given up and was going to put this to rest, but then you had to chime in with this...

Just because he broke down my post and answered each part individually doesn't mean he "pwned" anyone. I could do the same thing to him, but why continue this. We obviously fiercely disagree on this topic, and nothing either of us could say would change the other's mind. So why bother.

[sharpe1027]

he said it isn't about the cost of the contract either so why then would who has leverage be important.

We obviously fiercely disagree on this topic.

Lies! Sorry, once again that's just not true.

[sharpe1027]

Why not wait one more year. Grant's agent will figure out there is nothing gained by not playing. One more year, if Grant has a good year give him a fair 5 year deal at the 2 year early discount.

That would be a good plan, but I'm not sure Grant is willing to risk injury while playing for peanuts this year. If they do that, they would probalby have to pay him a pretty good salary this year anyway. It is also a double edged sword, if he does really well, his price tag will go up even more.

It's a bit of a chance anyway you cut it.

[Partial]

Why not offer him 3 mil a year for 3 years instead of worrying about a long-term contract?

Collins is advocating being a cock to a player. That is not a good way to run a franchise.

[SnakeLH2006]

Ok. ok. Just sayin...Why sign the guy to any long term deal? He's basically a rookie and has 3 more years to free agency, right? Give him shit now, and shit next year, then talk in 2010. There was a really good post on here or god forbid it on packerchatters of the 8-10 good players becoming free agents next year that will need new contracts. This topic is void for 2 more years. We'll have to give over 20-25 million in the next year just to keep those guys with new contracts with the 2009 cap figures. Fuck Grant for now. Just draft a dude (we will) if he acts up. Running backs are a dime a dozen. Who's the best in the NFL now? LJ, LD, are they worth major money for attitudes/injuries? NOPE...So cool Joe TT keeps his head and doesn't pay for 2 more year.....you know it will happen, mark my words.

[sharpe1027]

Why not offer him 3 mil a year for 3 years instead of worrying about a long-term contract?

Collins is advocating being a cock to a player. That is not a good way to run a franchise.

They could, but I don't see the harm in offering a two more years. It would seem to be a low risk move with a significant upside if he holds up that long.

As the other poster mentioned, they could also totally low-ball him. I can't arguethat financially it would seem smart, especially over the next few years. I just don't think it takes into consideration long-term effects of having a potential star player being low-balled. I think most players would side with Grant on this one, so it may have more repercussion than just making Grant unhappy.

[Gunakor]

he said it isn't about the cost of the contract either so why then would who has leverage be important.

We obviously fiercely disagree on this topic.

Lies! Sorry, once again that's just not true.

Then why don't you just simply state specifically what it is you hope to gain by signing him to a 5 year deal? Ok ok, I'm sorry if I completely missed your point. Please explain it to me. I had thought it was about keeping Grant on our roster at a minimal cost against the cap, which absoluetly is a good thing as long as Grant doesn't earn a blockbuster deal in the coming years and holds out for better money (ala Javon Walker). You stated that this wasn't your point, so I then assumed that it was about the leverage being on Green Bay's side when it comes to contract negotiations (which you did mention in earlier posts). This apparently is also not true. I'm not trying to be an ass here, I guess I just simply don't understand what, if not those two things, your goal is in signing him long term. Or even if there IS an advantage beyond those two reasons. Is it simply to give Grant what he wants? Is it to appease everyone else in the locker room? I'm lost here...

I think I've made my point clearly, which is that I don't think you offer long term deals to 2nd year players with much to prove. That's the simplest way I can put it. The added bonuses I listed to a 2 year deal are simply that - added bonuses, not the sole reason for doing so. The biggest reason for not signing him long term is that he hasn't even completed a full season in the league yet or shown an ability to gash a defense geared around stopping the run. That is the biggest point I am trying to make. If that is the point you are trying to argue, then we'll never come to an agreement. I'm sorry if I came across as an ass.

[sharpe1027]

Then why don't you just simply state specifically what it is you hope to gain by signing him to a 5 year deal? Ok ok, I'm sorry if I completely missed your point. Please explain it to me. I had thought it was about keeping Grant on our roster at a minimal cost against the cap, which absoluetly is a good thing as long as Grant doesn't earn a blockbuster deal in the coming years and holds out for better money (ala Javon Walker). You stated that this wasn't your point, so I then assumed that it was about the leverage being on Green Bay's side when it comes to contract negotiations (which you did mention in earlier posts). This apparently is also not true.

Wrong, it is partially about leverage. You claimed I stated it was not about the cost of the contract, that was wrong.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I guess I just simply don't understand what, if not those two things, your goal is in signing him long term. Or even if there IS an advantage beyond those two reasons. Is it simply to give Grant what he wants? Is it to appease everyone else in the locker room? I'm lost here...

I think I've made my point clearly, which is that I don't think you offer long term deals to 2nd year players with much to prove. That's the simplest way I can put it. The added bonuses I listed to a 2 year deal are simply that - added bonuses, not the sole reason for doing so. The biggest reason for not signing him long term is that he hasn't even completed a full season in the league yet or shown an ability to gash a defense geared around stopping the run. That is the biggest point I am trying to make. If that is the point you are trying to argue, then we'll never come to an agreement. I'm sorry if I came across as an ass.

I can state it very simply (once again): there is very little risk to signing him to a 5 year deal, and there are several benefits to doing so.

I would like to point out that your earlier argument was all about how the RFA would allow the Packers to get a few picks for Grant. I think I showed quite clearly that a 5 year deal is a better way to get picks for Grant if they don't want to keep him. That alone should be sufficient as it was pretty much your only reason in support of RFA originally.

Now you simply say you don't give him a long term deal because he hasn't played enough. On the surface it seems like common sense. But as I've tried to explain (and have yet to be given any reason I am wrong), there is little risk in signing him to a longer deal.

So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.

[Gunakor]

[quote="sharpe1027"]

Then why don't you just simply state specifically what it is you hope to gain by signing him to a 5 year deal? Ok ok, I'm sorry if I completely missed your point. Please explain it to me. I had thought it was about keeping Grant on our roster at a minimal cost against the cap, which absoluetly is a good thing as long as Grant doesn't earn a blockbuster deal in the coming years and holds out for better money (ala Javon Walker). You stated that this wasn't your point, so I then assumed that it was about the leverage being on Green Bay's side when it comes to contract negotiations (which you did mention in earlier posts). This apparently is also not true.

Wrong, it is partially about leverage. You claimed I stated it was not about the cost of the contract, that was wrong.

"Gunakor wrote:

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. "


"I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write. "

If it IS about the cost of the contract, then what did you mean when you posted this? This post makes it sound like you aren't concerned with the cost of his contract...

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I guess I just simply don't understand what, if not those two things, your goal is in signing him long term. Or even if there IS an advantage beyond those two reasons. Is it simply to give Grant what he wants? Is it to appease everyone else in the locker room? I'm lost here...

I think I've made my point clearly, which is that I don't think you offer long term deals to 2nd year players with much to prove. That's the simplest way I can put it. The added bonuses I listed to a 2 year deal are simply that - added bonuses, not the sole reason for doing so. The biggest reason for not signing him long term is that he hasn't even completed a full season in the league yet or shown an ability to gash a defense geared around stopping the run. That is the biggest point I am trying to make. If that is the point you are trying to argue, then we'll never come to an agreement. I'm sorry if I came across as an ass.

I can state it very simply (once again): there is very little risk to signing him to a 5 year deal, and there are several benefits to doing so.

I would like to point out that your earlier argument was all about how the RFA would allow the Packers to get a few picks for Grant. I think I showed quite clearly that a 5 year deal is a better way to get picks for Grant if they don't want to keep him. That alone should be sufficient as it was pretty much your only reason in support of RFA originally.

And I have stated that the reference to RFA was simply an added bonus to a 2 year deal, but that is not the sole reason to sign him for 2 years. I said that you might be right (read a few of my posts ago) that we could get the same thing by signing him to a 5 year deal. I just don't think he's worth a 5 year contract right now, so regardless of the picks we could or could not get I do not think a 5 year deal is necessary. Again, I'll give you the fact that we could get the same or even better picks by signing him long term. I don't think what we'd get in return via RFA would be that much worse than via a trade to necessitate a long term deal. Supposing we could get essentially the same value either way, the tipping point is that IMO Grant does not deserve a 5 year deal - whatever the risk.

Now you simply say you don't give him a long term deal because he hasn't played enough. On the surface it seems like common sense. But as I've tried to explain (and have yet to be given any reason I am wrong), there is little risk in signing him to a longer deal.

You are not wrong. I agree there is little risk. Is there a greater risk in signing him to a short term contract to evaluate him first before signing him beyond that? No. The risk factor cannot prove your theory any more than it can disprove mine. There is little risk either way.

So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.

Because he hasn't earned a 5 year deal IMO. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to our players that all you have to do is play well in half a season to earn a long term contract. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to Grant that we necessarily WANT him to be a Packer for life. That we aren't sure yet, and would like to see more before we make that type of committment. Isn't that reasonable?

[sharpe1027]

You want to see us sign him to a longer term deal so that we can have a pro bowl caliber RB at well below market cost. "


"I already told you once that this is not what I want. Thank you for repeating your mistake and clearly showing that you do not pay attention to what I write. "

[b]If it IS about the cost of the contract, then what did you mean when you posted this? This post makes it sound like you aren't concerned with the cost of his contract...

There is a difference betwen being concerned with the cost of his contract and being well below market cost. For example, over-paying is a concern.

Is there a greater risk in signing him to a short term contract to evaluate him first before signing him beyond that? No. The risk factor cannot prove your theory any more than it can disprove mine. There is little risk either way.

It is called losing him to FAs because once he signs the RFA tender offer and he is guraranteed to be a UFA in one year. If a team offers a RFA tender, the player is guranteed to be a FA the next year if they want.

So please explain why, other than some notion you have about what is right and what is wrong, they should not sign him to a 5 year deal. I've already listed several advantages to the five year deal in my previous posts.

Because he hasn't earned a 5 year deal IMO. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to our players that all you have to do is play well in half a season to earn a long term contract. Because we shouldn't be sending the message to Grant that we necessarily WANT him to be a Packer for life. That we aren't sure yet, and would like to see more before we make that type of committment. Isn't that reasonable?

Reasonable, maybe from your perspective. I don't agree that "sending a message" to our best RB that we don't necessarily want him for more than a year or two is good policy.

"make that type of committment": if you take one single thing away from everything I've said it should be that there is no committment. Good grief man, how many times have people tried to explain that to you? Without counting I think there were 3 or 4 different posters explaining how the contracts can be worked out so that there really is no committment.