RB Ryan Grant optimistic about new contract

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.

[Rastak]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.

Maybe you could explain why he would in his right mind do a 7 year deal unless it was blockbuster in up front money?

[Gunakor]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.

Long term deals aren't always in the best interest of the players either. Sure it provides security, but then you have to deal with Brian Urlacher scenarios where the pay scale increases much faster than the escalators in the contract. Now you have holdouts because rookies coming out of the draft immediately make more money than the veteran who signed that long term deal.

Specifically as relates to RG's contract situation, I am worried about one of these scenarios if we were to sign him for 5+ years at a modest price and he outplays that contract in year 2. We all know TT's stance on negotiating new contracts with players that have multiple years on thier contract. I'd feel better with a shorter contract that he probably won't outplay, or at least he'd be happy with until the final year of the contract.

People whine about how much more money it would cost us at that time, and while I acknowledge that the price would be much higher, I still don't see the problem. We have more than enough money to offer RG a new contract in a 2 or 3 years, at whatever price he's worth at that time. Something I feel we'd have to do anyway should we sign him for 5+ years, but the chances of a holdout or other type of distraction are much less if we only sign him for 2 or 3.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Adam Vinitiari, Rod Smith - just to name a few.

C'mon, Justin. That is ludicrous. Patler's point was IMPACT.

Warner didn't have an immediate impact, he was a backup his first year with the Rams. And, if not for Green's injury doesn't play the following year.

Gates: 24 receptions his rookie year. That ain't much of an impact.

Rod Smith: 22 receptions combined for his first 2 years...that is an impact? Yikes.

Vinatieri: Um, he wasn't an impact player in 96 when he was a rookie. Not unless you wanna consider his impact on the Packers and desmond's return in the super bowl. He was about the same type of kicker as Dave Rayner.

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.

Maybe you could explain why he would in his right mind do a 7 year deal unless it was blockbuster in up front money?

First of all, security--from his point of view, in case he did end up a lot more mediocre than I'm thinking;

Secondly, I would assume there would be a large amount of guaranteed money if not actual bonus up front. With the Packers current cap surplus, some form other than a bonus might work better.

Sweeten the pot with big money up front. Then keep it low in the middle years, but sharply larger in the end.

Example: 7 years, $35 million: $10.5 million bonus ($7 million of it roster bonus or whatever that counts right away), $1.5 million the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, $3.5 m 4th, $4.5 m 5th, $6 m 6th, $8 million 7th year. That would be $9 million against the cap the first year, $2 million each the 2nd and 3rd. $4 million the 4th, $5 million the 5th, $6.5 million the 6th, and $8.5 million the 7th.

That should be plenty of incentive for him to stay and play all 7 years, while still giving the Packers the ability to cut him before the 6th or 7th if he fades.

The last time I was dreaming up detailed deals like this was when Javon Walker wanted to get a deal a year early. Hopefully this will work out better than that did.

Signing him for just 2 or 3 years would mean we would have the horrible decision in 2 or 3 years of paying him way past his prime or losing him while he still had several good years left. 6 or 7 now is ideal.

[Guiness]

Re: RG

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.

I do like that spin Patler, and it makes a good point...I would have no problem if he were to get a deal similar to what BJack has. He has shown us at least that much, so I can't see the Pack having a problem with that.

Why is he bound to play for whatever the team offers? I guess those that are thinking a little more my way say he is bound because the alternative is to see if Safeway is hiring. When it comes right down to it, if the Pack, for whatever reason, won't budge, he has to sign if he wants to play in the NFL, doesn't he?

We haven't heard anything about his demands. I hope he's not looking for top flight money

I do, however, think those that are saying if we offer him a deal, it should be for 5 yrs, to offer some tangeable benefit to the team...like the Ahman deal did.

[Patler]

Re: RG

Why is he bound to play for whatever the team offers? I guess those that are thinking a little more my way say he is bound because the alternative is to see if Safeway is hiring. When it comes right down to it, if the Pack, for whatever reason, won't budge, he has to sign if he wants to play in the NFL, doesn't he?

The same can be said for any player who is not an URFA, yet time and time again we see players who refuse to sign the contracts tendered. Even tagged players refuse to sign, as Bubba did. The have no alternative either. Now in the end, often the tagged players sign their tenders just before the start of the season; and if the Packers were not to budge, Grant might have to too.

What Grant is banking on, and I think he is correct about, is that the Packers want him enough to pay him more than a minimum wage contract. Why wouldn't they? The only question is can the two sides find a common ground?

[woodbuck27]

A lot of good points made on this issue.

First, Bubba Franks was a similar situation....sort of. We transitioned him with a one year tender and had his rights. Difference is that Bubba put in 5 productive seasons with us and worked his ass off every offseason. Another point about that...Bubba signed a longer deal worth LESS than the one year tender. He gave something up for the longer deal. That is all I ask that RG be expected to do. Paying him more just cuz he played well with nothing in return to the franchise isn't a "fair" compromise.

Second, someone said "why should he be punished for being overlooked in the draft". He wasn't "overlooked", he couldn't even cut it as a full time starter for his college team. The situation was not "out of his control" as someone put it, it was very much in his control and he failed to excel.

Third, someone asked who has more potential, BJack or Grant. Truth is, I THINK grant, but honestly can't say. How about we give BJack 1 year on the practice squad and another 2 years to adjust to NFL speed then compare them on equal footing. The difference at this point is that BJack was contributing in his rookie year already, Grant never really contributed to an NFL team until week 8? last year. When BJack is 25 and has a few years under his belt we can compare them.

Last point was TD for denver. Denver has shown a propensity to pay guys way prematurely I admit and I don't want to follow their model. TD had 1100+ yards as a rookie in 14 games started and was given a 5 year 6.8Million contract before the next season....I have no clue how that compares to todays cap situation or his contract at the time or years til FA or anything, but they did give him a deal after one year so point taken.

MY point on all this goes as follows. RG can't even talk to another team until 2011 (3 seasons) and we are obligated to pay him ABOUT 2.2 Million in that time. Any deal we work out would have to be MINIMUM 5 years to be fair to the packers. Assuming (big assumption) that top Backs make about 6 million at that time with the new collective bargaining that would mean he deserves about 6+6+2.$2 or 14.2 million for a 5 year deal.

He is a good citizen, hopefully talented as he looks. If I were GM I would offer him 15 Million for 5 years with about 3.5 garaunteed for this season. That would be a fair deal, and if TT offers that he think he should get a BIG deal) so his best course of action is probably to tell RG to pound sand. Anyway I hope it works out.

Excellent proposal but would RG's agent recommend 5 Yr's?

From TT's perspective. I'd go with $2 M - $2.5 tops and the gurantees now on a two year deal.

TT should not be seeing this as a situation that straps him in for the future. Rather this as something he'll treat as unique or ''that was then and this is now''.

[bobblehead]

Re: RG

He doesn't really have the opportunity to get more than the minimum, he lost that opportunity when he couldn't put together a good enough college career to be drafted. Grant is effectively under contract, the year 3 minimum tender contract of an undrafted FA. And finally I'm sure he would like a nice 3 year contract with a modest bonus ect, since he isn't a FA for 3 seasons that would work out nice for him, packers pay now when they don't have to and he still hits FA on queue. Again, he has to GIVE something as well, like 2 years worth of his FA time.

In regards to him not being like rhett....yes he is in this way. Young guy who has done very little (rhett did more) who can't afford to throw away the starters job and piss off the franchise cuz they might just move on without you and you never will get your payday and you will find out you really weren't that great (rhett never got 1000 with baltimore).

Now that being said I believe RG is the real deal, but again, he has to put in another 10 games or so THIS season before he starts asking for things, or else we might just move on and his career will basically be cut WAY short since he can't go anywhere else yet.

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.

There is a huge difference in my opinion between a guy like Rhett (or Javon Walker) who signed a decent contract, was paid at a level for one who is expected to produce and is expected be a good player, who than refuses to honor his contract and holds out; and a guy like Grant, who has no contract and is offered the bare minimum that any player like him has to be offered. Rhett (and Walker) were paid good money. Grant has not been and has not been offered that.

Once Grant signs, he loses any bargaining power that he has. He is then completely at the mercy of the Packers as to any renegotiated contract. The only real bargaining power he has is when he is not under contract.

Why should Grant have to sign the same contract that Joe Toledo did? Grant has shown more potential than Joe Toledo

Here is the problem with your logic. No player is EVER under obligation to play. Even a signed contract doesn't obligate a player to play by your logic, it simply means he can't play for another team. When Sterling Sharpe held out the night before the season opener he had every "right" to sit home and pay a fine instead of play. (although I believe any player who holds out should immediately forfeit any signing bonus recieved on said contract he is holding out on) They are all in the exact same situation as Grant in that their options are to get a job at McD's or play. side note: Favre is under contract, did he not have the right to not play this season?


The NFL's contracts aren't "garaunteed", they can be waived at any time and a player may quit at any time. Again, by your logic if ARod stopped showing up he would be justified since his contract isn't garaunteed and his negotiating power would be that the packers believe in him, need him ect.

The big difference in our viewpoints is that you think a player signs a contract and even if he outplays it he should play it out. I only believe that in regards to a signing bonus.

I believe that when RG decided to pursue an NFL career and didn't get drafted and the packers got his rights he is effectively "under contract" for 5 years of service, the team is developing him and investing in him under the assumption he will play out the 5 years at the prescribed contracts an undrafted FA gets to remain exclusive rights.

Now, all that being said, I agree with you 100% that he has every right to not sign, just as any player has every right to walk away, not play, hold out ect (except where signing bonuses are concerned, they are given under the assumption that you play out the contract and if the team waives the contract you get to keep it, if the player stops playing he should have to repay it.), but you still don't have the right to negotiate or play for another NFL team.

Now, where we disagree(I think) is on what the team should offer. I am ok with giving him the same deal Brandon Jackson got, or even a 5 year 15 with 3 garaunteed. I probably MIGHT even stretch it to 5 at 20 with 2 garaunteed (i'm not up on other RB contracts and factors that might make me go beyond what I think is "fair" for both sides)

The problem with giving him too much is its unfair to guys like Bigby who also had a great run at the end and outplayed that minimum offer, but still signed it. It sets a precedent that withholding service works. What if he signs a big deal, gets banged up and Wynn puts in 8 great games this year, do we then give him a bigger deal? Do we stop developing guys because we might as well just pay the FA price for developed talent since we are gonna pay that price the minute they develope anyway? (Hell, before we are sure he is developed in my opinion).

Again, I believe he is the real deal, but to cave here with him having an 8 game run sends a horrible message to everyone. Alert, put in 8 good games, get a huge payday. Rouse had 3 good games last year. Poppinga has WAY outplayed his rookie deal. Crosby is one of the lowest paid kickers in the league. And don't tell me they are under contract, they have absolutely NO obligation to play in the NFL, and neither did Jevon Walker.

[RashanGary]

I think you make very solid points, bobblehead. I think 1/2 more year would be best, but if Grant wants something now, I think it should be discounted and eliminating his chance of ever making it to UFA below the age of 30.

[bobblehead]

Re: RG

He doesn't really have the opportunity to get more than the minimum, he lost that opportunity when he couldn't put together a good enough college career to be drafted. Grant is effectively under contract, the year 3 minimum tender contract of an undrafted FA. And finally I'm sure he would like a nice 3 year contract with a modest bonus ect, since he isn't a FA for 3 seasons that would work out nice for him, packers pay now when they don't have to and he still hits FA on queue. Again, he has to GIVE something as well, like 2 years worth of his FA time.

In regards to him not being like rhett....yes he is in this way. Young guy who has done very little (rhett did more) who can't afford to throw away the starters job and piss off the franchise cuz they might just move on without you and you never will get your payday and you will find out you really weren't that great (rhett never got 1000 with baltimore).

Now that being said I believe RG is the real deal, but again, he has to put in another 10 games or so THIS season before he starts asking for things, or else we might just move on and his career will basically be cut WAY short since he can't go anywhere else yet.

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.

There is a huge difference in my opinion between a guy like Rhett (or Javon Walker) who signed a decent contract, was paid at a level for one who is expected to produce and is expected be a good player, who than refuses to honor his contract and holds out; and a guy like Grant, who has no contract and is offered the bare minimum that any player like him has to be offered. Rhett (and Walker) were paid good money. Grant has not been and has not been offered that.

Once Grant signs, he loses any bargaining power that he has. He is then completely at the mercy of the Packers as to any renegotiated contract. The only real bargaining power he has is when he is not under contract.

Why should Grant have to sign the same contract that Joe Toledo did? Grant has shown more potential than Joe Toledo

You know I wrote a nice long response to this that didn't go thru about an hour ago...oh well. Let me sum it up this way in short fashion. No player is BOUND to play wether under contract or not, retiring, sitting out ect are always options (see brett favre).

Ryan Grant by virtue of not producing til now is EFFECTIVELY under contract to the packers for 470k. He can choose not to sign it and stay home, so can any player who has signed a contract be it BJack or anyone else. BJack got his contract based on being a second round pick and signed the "slotted" contract, its a cookie cutter deal pretty much. If he outplays that contract you are actually rewarding guys like Grant by saying they aren't under contract because they never impressed anyone enough to get a contract (until now). So RG gets to "hold out" but BJack won't get to if he is a stud?

If every street FA gets to sign a big deal cuz they put together 8 good games teams lose all incentive to develope a player, what is the point, if you work to develope grant then pay him like a FA, might as well skip the developement and sign the FA.

The NFL system is set up the way it is, Grant has NO LEVERAGE that sterling sharpe didn't have before the season opener in '97 ?? The difference is that sterling played a lot more than 8 games, but also outplayed his contract. Jevon Walker greatly outplayed his contract. Ryan Grant has outplayed his year 3 tender. Big deal, he is still exclusive to the Packers for $470k Just like BJackson is exclusive to the packers for who knows how much. Whether or not they actually signed said deal is irrelavent, the choices are, play for the packers or go work at McDonald's.

Is it fair?? I don't know, is it fair to hold the team that rescued you off the scrap heap hostage? Again, I'm not against signing him to a long term deal, but the Packers MUST get something in return like 2 years of his Free Agency bought out. If they don't then there is no point to give him more than the minimum....its called negotiating in good faith. I would like my boss to pay me more than he has to as well, but guess what....

Another problem with this situation is that now you have a guy who does hold his team hostage, do you really wanna give him a longer deal with anything up front? Who is to say he doesn't play out 3 years of it, now he is financially secure so he really has "leverage" and he decides he is 28 and has one last shot at a big contract so he with holds his services again (see Uhrlacher). Now you paid him more than you had to for 3 years and the only thing you got in return was his value and demands went up.

I wouldn't be shocked if TT is shopping him right now, and if our backs in camp impress I wouldn't be surprised to see this get ugly.

The flip side is that if Grant is being reasonable and not asking for too much we could see a longer deal get done, problem is we just don't know what he is asking for at this point, but I would bet anything its a whole lot more than any running back after the first 16 picks got.

[Lurker64]

The way I see it is that the Packer and Grant both want Ryan Grant to play for the Green Bay Packers this year. Grant has very little leverage, but what he can do is offer years of service that would extend into the years where he would ordinarily become a free agent. Assuming Grant is happy here and wants to stay here, and given Thompson's history of giving fair extensions to players who outplay their contracts this is relatively low risk for Grant.

So Grant wants money and the Packers want years, both Grant and the Packers want him to play. I'm pretty sure something will get done.

[mission]

The way I see it is that the Packer and Grant both want Ryan Grant to play for the Green Bay Packers this year. Grant has very little leverage, but what he can do is offer years of service that would extend into the years where he would ordinarily become a free agent. Assuming Grant is happy here and wants to stay here, and given Thompson's history of giving fair extensions to players who outplay their contracts this is relatively low risk for Grant.

So Grant wants money and the Packers want years, both Grant and the Packers want him to play. I'm pretty sure something will get done.

/thread.