Salary Cap Managment (Andrew Brandt vs. Russ Ball)

[SnakeLH2006]

we never should have let brandt go, i can't remember what team picked him up but obviously they were smarter than us...

Maybe he is taking a break? It's ignorant to make an assumption as to why he isn't employed by the NFL any longer. None of us have any idea.

pfft maybe he is my cousin and i talk to him all the time.... its ignorant for you to assume that I don't have inside information on the topic

Have you been reading Joe Arrigo's blogs again?

[Partial]

we never should have let brandt go, i can't remember what team picked him up but obviously they were smarter than us...

Maybe he is taking a break? It's ignorant to make an assumption as to why he isn't employed by the NFL any longer. None of us have any idea.

pfft maybe he is my cousin and i talk to him all the time.... its ignorant for you to assume that I don't have inside information on the topic

Ok. Seem's awfully childish to me, but whatever.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

we never should have let brandt go, i can't remember what team picked him up but obviously they were smarter than us...

Maybe he is taking a break? It's ignorant to make an assumption as to why he isn't employed by the NFL any longer. None of us have any idea.

pfft maybe he is my cousin and i talk to him all the time.... its ignorant for you to assume that I don't have inside information on the topic

Ok. Seem's awfully childish to me, but whatever.

well, if anyone knows childish it would be you.

[Noodle]

Interesting topic. Without knowing crap (but when has that stopped me or anyone else on this board), I'm guessing Brandt had much more discretion on structuring contracts when Shermy was both GM and HC. No way Shermy could sweat the details, so Brandt got to be the man.

But while I've been a fan of Brandt's it's not like everything he did was gold. I'm guessing he had something to do with the past Packer practice of back-loading the crap out of contracts, leading to situations like having to let Wahl go.

Remeber, we were living close to the cap edge under the Shermy/Brandt era. Now we have a lot more room, though I for one do not think that is a good thing.

Whoever is in charge, I wish we could get some deals done sooner. We all knew Grant was coming back, and it did no one -- no one -- any good to have him out of camp. I'd rather be a couple mil closer to the cap with my no. 1 RB signed, happy, and in camp, than to stretch it out to save a few bucks.

[Partial]

Interesting topic. Without knowing crap (but when has that stopped me or anyone else on this board), I'm guessing Brandt had much more discretion on structuring contracts when Shermy was both GM and HC. No way Shermy could sweat the details, so Brandt got to be the man.

But while I've been a fan of Brandt's it's not like everything he did was gold. I'm guessing he had something to do with the past Packer practice of back-loading the crap out of contracts, leading to situations like having to let Wahl go.

Remeber, we were living close to the cap edge under the Shermy/Brandt era. Now we have a lot more room, though I for one do not think that is a good thing.

Whoever is in charge, I wish we could get some deals done sooner. We all knew Grant was coming back, and it did no one -- no one -- any good to have him out of camp. I'd rather be a couple mil closer to the cap with my no. 1 RB signed, happy, and in camp, than to stretch it out to save a few bucks.

This is a really good posts. Two very valid points.

[bobblehead]

I disagree about grant. You always gotta look at how a contract affects a team as well as the camp. If they get too carried away I almost garauntee some other player feels disrespected and starts grousing.

[NewsBruin]

It depends on what kind of effect you want on the team. I don't think we need a bunch of players bowing and scraping in hopes that the Contract Extension Fairy might just leave 3 extra years under their pillows while they're asleep. Hell, I don't think it's remotely realistic. Maybe it leads to better chemistry in the lockerroom and confidence on the field if they see their teammates get a fair starting point, rather than lowballed at negotiation time.

Grant performed well, and since it was for a short time, he has a contract with some up-front cash, base-level security, challenging incentives, and few (if any) guaranteed dollars. If he performs well enough to earn his incentives, then I'm satisfied with that salary. If he's mediocre, he doesn't get paid much. If he out-and-out sucks or becomes a headcase, we can cut him without any salary-cap obligations beyond that week. Can't get much better than that for our side.

I'll have to pull up other RB's salaries, but I don't think Grant got anything near top-five money on the low end of his contract, possibly not even top five for this offseason. He does have the opportunity to get more cash if he rushes for more yards than anyone rushed for in 2007.

If another player demands better money, then let him show his numbers. The Packers can listen and weigh the facts without being obligated to do a darn thing for mediocre production.

It's a weird thing on this board: A lot of us love the Packers, but as cheaply as possible. It's like we pride ourselves on shorting players or holding them hostage to our loyalty. A big criticism about a middle-high-profile deal to Grant was that we didn't "have" to offer it to him, not whether it was deserved, or even whether it was the right thing, but what could the Packers get away with. That philosophy, if extended to the whole roster, is going to have a worse effect on the pro athletes we're trying to attract and keep. Shoot, of all the dumbass things my employer does, at least it doesn't try to snow me that I'm only loyal if I accept basement-level deals and consider myself lucky to have my job.

I think we're better off giving a guy a fair deal, and doing it early enough to not be a distraction, even when we don't "have" to. I think for the folks who are nursing more injuries than they let on and know they're always one blown knee or concussion away from never playing another down, loyalty is shown in the contract offers.