PFW on new contract for Ryan Grant

[Gunakor]

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.

Earlier you had said that we'd want to overpay for him, or else some other team that was willing to overpay for him might lure him away. On top of that, overpaying a little bit for him doesn't concern me at the moment because we have plenty of cap room going forward to do it with.

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.

Untrue. Green Bay would offer him a RFA tender, and other teams would have the option of signing him to whatever length of contract they desire, at whatever cost they choose. The tender we offer would dictate the compensation picks they'd have to give us in return, but it doesn't mean that's the only contract other teams can sign him to. Now, if another team does make an offer, Green Bay can simply match that offer to retain his services. If another team offers a 3 year deal and Green Bay matches it, Grant is signed for 3 years. If no other team makes an offer, Grant can sign his one year tender but the team can extend that offer at any time during the season to prevent him from hitting FA. They would do so if he's worth keeping around at that point, or they won't because he hasn't turned out to be what we thought he would be.

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.

That's not the message we'd be sending to him. The message would be "We like you but we aren't 100% convinced yet. Here's a 2 year deal with x money guaranteed. Use these 2 years to prove that you can handle the punishement of a full NFL season, and that you can successfully run the ball against a defense who've gameplanned to stop YOU. Then if you show us that you can handle it, we'll talk about an extention." If he can't man up and accept the fact that 9 good games does not warrant a 5 year deal...

"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.

That's the problem with the NFL. There is no committment. I'll have to simply disagree with you on moral grounds and leave it at that. Of course I understand that this is the way things work in the NFL. It doesn't make it right. But we won't argue this one, because it is essentially an argument of the way things are vs. the way things should be. That arguement will go on forever with no way of stopping it. But you know where I'm coming from now. To me a contract, put simply, is a committment in writing. I already know you disagree and why, so don't bother typing it out.

[sharpe1027]

Your rather long explanation of RFA is interesting but not on point at all.
What I said was that a player offered a RFA tender is guaranteed to be a free agent next year if they choose. I fully realize that there are other options for that player, but if they want they simply sign the tender and in one year they are an UFA and there is nothing the Packers or any other team can do about it.

You have some personal issues with signing a player to a five year deal even though it doesn't hurt the team, fine. Seriously though, if this was your point, why did it take you so many posts where you argued a bunch of other unrelated reasons for using RFA before you said so? Heaven forbid you acknowledge that someone else's idea may be better than yours.

[sharpe1027]

Earlier you had said that we'd want to overpay for him, or else some other team that was willing to overpay for him might lure him away.

I just read this. Stop saying what you think I said, I'm tired of correcting you. If you are going to comment on what I said please quote it ootherwise you are just making stuff up to prove yourself right.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.

[twoseven]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JGpajGj07BU&feature=related

[Partial]

You think Grant would sign for 5 year for peanuts? I don't. He'll sign for 2 or 3 and get enough to live comfortably if he gets hurt, but he won't sign long term. No way.

[sharpe1027]

You think Grant would sign for 5 year for peanuts?

No.

[sharpe1027]

I say you guys have a gunfight at high noon tomorrow. 10 paces.

I'm your huckleberry.

[Gunakor]

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.

There's your quote.

[RashanGary]

You think Grant would sign for 5 year for peanuts? I don't. He'll sign for 2 or 3 and get enough to live comfortably if he gets hurt, but he won't sign long term. No way.

I guarantee you are wrong. He will not get a 2 or 3 year deal. He'll either play for a one year small deal close to the tender or he'll sign a long one for less than he's worth. There are no other options. Fact. I think he'll play for the one year tender.

[run pMc]

2 years...5 years...who cares? GB has the cap room, right?

Seriously, as long as he signs his tender and shows up for camp, I'm not going to worry. TT isn't the only GM to prove that RBs can be discovered almost as easily as they are replaced.

[The Leaper]

Grant will get a 4-5 year deal...with voidable years based on performance/playing time. It is the only deal that makes sense for both sides. GB gets a happy, motivated RB. Grant gets some financial security, and a chance for a big payday in 2 years if he plays well.

[sharpe1027]

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.

There's your quote.[/quote]

I said that you (Gunkar) essentially want to over pay for him because you want open market pricing. Most FAs don't live up to the super huge contracts. I did not say that the Packers would intentionally overpay. That is just stupid.

[sharpe1027]

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.

There's your quote.

I said that IF you (Gunkar) want open market pricing you essentially want to overpay. Most FAs don't live up to the super huge contracts. I did not say that it would be wise for the Packers to intentionally overpay. That is just stupid and doesn't make any sense in the context of what I wrote including the very next sentence.

[Gunakor]

So does this mean that YOU (Sharpe) want to sign him to a contract BELOW market value? I don't get it. What is the COST that you'd like to sign him at? Market value? Below market value? Slightly above market value? Which is it?

I have stated several times that I don't think it's fair to RYAN GRANT to sign him to anything below market value. His market value now is not the same as it is going to be in a couple years. Sure we could sign him long term now and renegotiate later, but how is that any different than signing him to 2 seperate contracts? A bit more salary perhaps, but why does that matter. You are not understanding the fact that we are SO far below the cap that we can afford to do it either way with no reprecussions. Slightly overpaying for his services would not concern me AS LONG AS HE HAS EARNED IT. We have more than enough money to do so. This doesn't mean overpay him no matter what. The large chunk of money I'd give him isn't guaranteed up front right now. It wouldn't be included in the first contract. It would be the carrot I'd be dangling in front of him in the form of a potential contract extention. But he has to EARN it first.

Both of us have made our points on this issue, and it seems that the risks and rewards would generally be the same either way. There is no huge advantage or huge risk in either of these scenarios. The only major difference then is the message we are sending. You want to send the message to Grant that we want him long term, and I think that's a bit premature. I'd like to see more of him before I would send a message like that. Again, what I would tell him is that I'd be willing to sign him to a shorter term deal right now and re-evaluate him based on what he does during that contract. I would tell him up front that I'd be more than willing to talk about an extention should he earn one. That isn't telling him he can't be here longer. It's telling him that if HE wants to be here longer he can, but he has to show us that WE want him here longer as well. That WE aren't convinced yet. That's a reasonable message, unless you are convinced after 9 games that he's the real deal. I am not.