Grant deal inching closer

[Scott Campbell]

Grant may be 25 already, but he has less "mileage" than most 25 year old RBs. I think barring injuries, his prime years should last until 31 or 32.

I dunno. It's extremely rare for a RB to be effective past 30, unless he's the 2nd coming of John Riggins.

[the_idle_threat]

Grant may be 25 already, but he has less "mileage" than most 25 year old RBs. I think barring injuries, his prime years should last until 31 or 32.

I dunno. It's extremely rare for a RB to be effective past 30, unless he's the 2nd coming of John Riggins.

I agree. They said the same thing about Ahman Green regarding low milage.

[bobblehead]

As much time and thought as I have put into the Ryan Grant deal I originally said he have to sign a minimum 5 year deal and my opinion was it shouldn't be worth more than 15-17 million. Now that I have looked at what some guys have gotten (still considering Grant has no leverage) I am predicting he will sign for 6 years in the range of 22-25 million...the catch will be that year 6 will be about 6-7 million of that so the packers will have a chance to waive it off if it isn't worth it then. Given his age this could basically get him paid now and give the team all of his expected productive years. I still don't think he gets a ton upfront, maybe 3 million tops.

We'll see if I'm nostradamus or not.

[vince]

Yeah I could see that too bobble. That would be IMO a great deal for the Pack, and a fair deal for Grant, who's in a tough spot.

Grant will obviously want more upfront money in exchange for that contract length, and I think he may get more front-loaded money - say $5-6 mil - just because that'll be important to Grant and our cap situation gives the team the ability to use current dollars in a deal like this - like Woodson's deal.

That's more risk for the team for what some consider to be a marginally proven player, but I think it's a good risk to take with this guy. McCarthy has said one of the best attributes of Grant is his consistency, and he's not only intelligent and has a great team-first attitude, but this guy has proven to be able to find even a small seam in the ZBS and bust through it with unique ability. And he's more likely to get better than worse at this stage of his career.

However, a "pay as you go" contract is the M.O. for the Packers these days, so I think most of the bonus money (say another $6mil or so) will likely be tied to his ongoing roster spot, offseason workout attendance, and on-the-field production, as it should be.

That would give him about an average of $2mil salary, which would probably escalate from almost nothing in year 1 to about $4mil at the end of his contract.

If he continues to produce at a very high level for the next three years or so, the foundation/opportunity to renegotiate in good faith if appropriate - ala Driver - would exist under this scenario. The Packers would then still likely be able to keep a very productive Grant at a relative bargain even then.

[RashanGary]

As much time and thought as I have put into the Ryan Grant deal I originally said he have to sign a minimum 5 year deal and my opinion was it shouldn't be worth more than 15-17 million. Now that I have looked at what some guys have gotten (still considering Grant has no leverage) I am predicting he will sign for 6 years in the range of 22-25 million...the catch will be that year 6 will be about 6-7 million of that so the packers will have a chance to waive it off if it isn't worth it then. Given his age this could basically get him paid now and give the team all of his expected productive years. I still don't think he gets a ton upfront, maybe 3 million tops.

We'll see if I'm nostradamus or not.

I think your close. You added the 6th year, but this is pretty much what I've been saying all along (about 2 months now).

[vince]

JH, I think you're one of the most knowledgeable posters around here (and that says a lot), but if people are going to start laying claim to being "right" about their positions, then others are bound to check the facts... This hasn't been your position "all along."

Here was the first in-depth thread in this forum about the Grant situation...

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=10989&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

...and here is the basis of your position "all along." Granted you've modified it a bit after alot of discourse, and you have wanted to lock him up through his prime years, but you've been clear that you believe the team should hardball Grant while he has little leverage and wait to sign him to a long-term deal until after next year. That's been the basis of disagreement with some, and that's the difference between what the team appears to be doing and what you've been advocating in this situation.

He's got next year and the year after before he's even restricted and if he were restricted, we'd still have the leverage of tenders.

A 4 year deal is basically only adding on a year to what we already own him for. It would amount to a big gift, really. I could see doing something after next year, but even then it would have to be somewhat discounted.

Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

After next year, I'd consider a 5 year deal to lock him up through his prime.

[vince]

With that said, you may still be right if Grant overestimates his current value and a long-term deal is unable to be attained this year.

[RashanGary]

You got me (somewhat), but I still think a year or at least half of one should be given before the deal. If something is to get done now (and it seems like Grant is really showing an urgency), I've been consistant that it has to be long term (5 or more years) and somewhat backloaded. I think I made that quote when you said it was a good idea to lock him up now. I still disagree, but if he's hell bent on making it happen (and he is), I think my history will show that I've always said it had to be long term (as I've always said that was his only leverage) and somewhat backloaded/smallish because the Packers hold the cards

[vince]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.

[RashanGary]

bobble head is echoing exactly what I have. He doens't want to do it right this moment, but if it has to be done, he added all of the stipulations that I've been preaching since this discussion has been brought up. He made it 6 years, I've been saying 5 or more. And I"m still with bobble head that it's about 1 year too soon, but it's being pushed and he is worth it so it might get done.

[vince]

Obviously a legitimate opinion, but at Grant's age and with his intelligence and work ethic, he's not going to lose the skills he has demonstrated or forget how to use them...

Back to my original argument - he's highly likely to be more expensive to lock down next year than this year, so this year is the optimal time to get it done - unless Grant holds firm on demanding a blockbuster deal. So far, his and his agent's comments don't indicate that...

[Scott Campbell]

Just in case anyone wants a reminder of Grant's ability to burst through the line, cut back and turn on the jets, here's a pretty good highlight vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi4NTC8S8nE

Kinda gets you ready for some football.

Some really nice runs there. Pay the man.

[bobblehead]

bobble head is echoing exactly what I have. He doens't want to do it right this moment, but if it has to be done, he added all of the stipulations that I've been preaching since this discussion has been brought up. He made it 6 years, I've been saying 5 or more. And I"m still with bobble head that it's about 1 year too soon, but it's being pushed and he is worth it so it might get done.

JH speaks the truth, we were the two posters on the previous thread saying don't get too carried away, we have to hardball him a bit so the team gets something too. I still wouldn't be upset if TT said "kid, sign the offer, if you get thru 10 good games this season, I promise you a solid 5 year extension."

Now that being said, I know most of the posters/fans even the coaches want RG locked up, that is why I am predicting said 6 year deal that gives him a boost thru his 3 exclusive years, and a solid salary in his FA years, but still a discount than if he went FA. I'm predicting a fairly big year 6 salary that is waivable cuz it allows RG to "save face" and get bigger number while not really exposing the team. Also, 7 million in year 6 of this deal may indeed be a bargain at that time.

[RashanGary]

Sorry if I tried to take credit for your opinion, bobblehead. I just think it's such a good guess that I had some prediction envy there

[sharpe1027]

JH speaks the truth, we were the two posters on the previous thread saying don't get too carried away, we have to hardball him a bit so the team gets something too. I still wouldn't be upset if TT said "kid, sign the offer, if you get thru 10 good games this season, I promise you a solid 5 year extension."

If they are going to do that I would hope that they at least give him a raise for the year. He's worth alot more than $250,000 to the Packers, everyone can agree on that. They aren't going to signing more FAs and have alot of cap space.