Harrell

[Patler]

Negotiating a injury settlement - Jack Bechta - National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ettlement.html

Brings back memories of the Matt O'Dwyer and Cletidus Hunt situations. !

[Patler]

What are you talking about? We pretty much agree.

sorry, wishful thinking. Was hoping for a nerd fight.

So which one is Waldo and which one is me?

Besides, I like to think of us as Renaissance Men, not nerds! Of course, a chant of "Renaissance Man fight! Renaissance Man fight!" doesn't sound as good as "Nerd fight! Nerd fight!" does it?

[Tarlam!]

[quote="Patler"]

What are you talking about? We pretty much agree.

sorry, wishful thinking. Was hoping for a nerd fight.

So which one is Waldo and which one is me?

Besides, I like to think of us as Renaissance Men, not nerds! Of course, a chant of "Renaissance Man fight! Renaissance Man fight!" doesn't sound as good as "Nerd fight! Nerd fight!" does it?

Do we have a Renaissance Rat already? If not, maybe Waldo could use it.

[Sparkey]

PUP list this jbro, then if he isn't at 100% put him on IR. Don't just cut him lose as he's dirt cheap anyway.

They need to figure out wtf is with this dudes back.

Good point. It's a back. They always take a long time to heal up - if ever.

From experience, they never heal up. It is always there, one wrong move from hurting it. It sucks for GB and for Harrell. By all accounts, the guy is a hard worker and when healthy, is immensely talented.

[Waldo]

Read this on a JSO chat last week:

Q: Rich, LA - Hi Greg, if Justin Harrell Plays sparingly because of injury in the preseason and is ineffective, do you cut him?

A: Greg A. Bedard - No, because there's no point. Re-evaluate after the season and post-draft and free agency. No point in cutting him now. It's going to cost you the same.

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/53180967.html

The kid's worked hard and I would have loved to see him be able to succeed. Rather reminds me of Terrence Murphy a few seasons back.

....there are times that Bedard proves that he just doesn't get the game. He needs an editor or adviser half the time to filter his dumb or incorrect statements.

If he were cut today, a little over 4M in bonus payments would accelerate to the 2009 cap, and since he passed his physical and would be cut for injury reasons, his 640K salary/RB would still have to be paid. It would cost the team ~4.7M to cut him this year.

Were he placed on IR, 1 year of his bonus amortization and his salary count toward the cap. About 1.7M. Since there is no cap next year, if he is not recovered, he can be cut with no cap effects and the team owing him no money.

In other words, Bedards statement that it costs the same is not true. It is 3M cheaper to keep him than cut him, 3M is a good amount of money useful for extending players, and can be pushed forward by front loading.

Aren't you mixing cap impact and cash outlays?
The cap effect is as you describe. It differs depending on when he is released.
The cash cost to the team is the same either way. The bonus has been paid already. The 2009 salary due is the same either way, if it is a career ending injury. The 2010 payments will not be paid either way.

The $3 million savings you mentioned is a paper savings against the 2009 salary cap, it is not a savings in payments made by the Packers. The Packers paid it and Harrell got it already.

There is an accounting difference, but not a cost difference.

It is a paper difference. But it just so happens that we have a lot of FA's to sign in a short period of time. The more cap space the better.

Even if we don't do extra contracts, that 3M is space to convert signing bonus into roster bonus, thus limiting the future impact of money paid this year.

[Patler]

It is a paper difference. But it just so happens that we have a lot of FA's to sign in a short period of time. The more cap space the better.

Even if we don't do extra contracts, that 3M is space to convert signing bonus into roster bonus, thus limiting the future impact of money paid this year.

But if there is no cap next season as you suggested in your early post, it doesn't matter. Just sign them all after the 2009 season ends if you are out of cap space. That seems to be the direction they are headed anyway. It was reported that the Packers have had little to no discussions with any of their FAs-to-be after signing Jennings.

Besides, if there is no new agreement, a lot of those free agents for the Packers will become restricted free agents instead.

(Perhaps you didn't mean "convert" as in changing bonuses already paid. If you meant that for future negotiations, you can ignore this next paragraph.)
I don't believe that you can convert signing bonuses already paid to roster bonus. You can guarantee a roster bonus, thus converting it to a signing bonus impact, spreading it out over the remaining life of the contract. If you could convert a signing bonus to a roster bonus, there would be no need to go through the likely-to-be-earned bonus scams that teams do near the ends of seasons to roll cap space forward.

There also might be reason to try and get as much already committed costs as possible into 2009. Several have suggested that in a new CBA/Salary cap agreement, everyone will start from zero. No 2009 space will be rolled into the new cap via unearned likely-to-be-earned bonuses. However, all actual player costs will apply against the new cap if not previously applied against a previous cap. If that is the case, it might be better to have all of Harrell's costs in 2009 and nothing in 20010, and to otherwise use up all that they can in 2009. It will lessen how much is applied when the salary cap "starts over".

[rbaloha1]

Whatever Harrell's salary cap number is its small. Agree with the injury reserve.

Thank goodness for Raji and Jenkins return. Jolly is looking good and probably solidified his role.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Negotiating a injury settlement - Jack Bechta - National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ettlement.html

Brings back memories of the Matt O'Dwyer and Cletidus Hunt situations. !

Forgot all about Hunt. Where did he waste his career after GB? McDonalds?

[Waldo]

It is a paper difference. But it just so happens that we have a lot of FA's to sign in a short period of time. The more cap space the better.

Even if we don't do extra contracts, that 3M is space to convert signing bonus into roster bonus, thus limiting the future impact of money paid this year.

But if there is no cap next season as you suggested in your early post, it doesn't matter. Just sign them all after the 2009 season ends if you are out of cap space. That seems to be the direction they are headed anyway. It was reported that the Packers have had little to no discussions with any of their FAs-to-be after signing Jennings.

Besides, if there is no new agreement, a lot of those free agents for the Packers will become restricted free agents instead.

(Perhaps you didn't mean "convert" as in changing bonuses already paid. If you meant that for future negotiations, you can ignore this next paragraph.)
I don't believe that you can convert signing bonuses already paid to roster bonus. You can guarantee a roster bonus, thus converting it to a signing bonus impact, spreading it out over the remaining life of the contract. If you could convert a signing bonus to a roster bonus, there would be no need to go through the likely-to-be-earned bonus scams that teams do near the ends of seasons to roll cap space forward.

There also might be reason to try and get as much already committed costs as possible into 2009. Several have suggested that in a new CBA/Salary cap agreement, everyone will start from zero. No 2009 space will be rolled into the new cap via unearned likely-to-be-earned bonuses. However, all actual player costs will apply against the new cap if not previously applied against a previous cap. If that is the case, it might be better to have all of Harrell's costs in 2009 and nothing in 20010, and to otherwise use up all that they can in 2009. It will lessen how much is applied when the salary cap "starts over".

By convert I was talking about new contracts, the only real difference between signing bonus and roster bonus is the cap effects.

That is true that there will be no cap next year. But it has to be assumed that there will be a cap when there is a new CBA. It is hard to predict what the rules will be for the new cap and how it relates to the uncapped year, but it is a safe play to just operate as if there is a cap. Because of the way the organization runs and its finances, a cap system makes sense for them anyway, as it is somewhat of a rolling average of player costs over a few year period.

Though it does make sense to take advantage of the uncapped year for structure to make as much money cap accountable that year by things like big salaries and whatnot. But if they take the big salary route, they can't sign the guys until after this season when they have no contract, an extension is subject to the maximum salary inflation of the uncapped rules, a new contract isn't.

[Patler]

By convert I was talking about new contracts, the only real difference between signing bonus and roster bonus is the cap effects.

That is true that there will be no cap next year. But it has to be assumed that there will be a cap when there is a new CBA. It is hard to predict what the rules will be for the new cap and how it relates to the uncapped year, but it is a safe play to just operate as if there is a cap. Because of the way the organization runs and its finances, a cap system makes sense for them anyway, as it is somewhat of a rolling average of player costs over a few year period.

Though it does make sense to take advantage of the uncapped year for structure to make as much money cap accountable that year by things like big salaries and whatnot. But if they take the big salary route, they can't sign the guys until after this season when they have no contract, an extension is subject to the maximum salary inflation of the uncapped rules, a new contract isn't.

I kind of thought that's what you meant by "convert".

I'm not convinced that there will not be a cap next year. I'm not convinced that they won't have a new CBA in place to avoid the uncapped year. I'm not convinced that either side wants to risk what might happen if they let things go that far. Sometimes people become stubborn to their own detriment, and that could happen here. But I tend to think that each side will realize they have a lot to lose, and will get it fixed.

There is an interesting side story to all this too, I think. For the first time last season the owners and players should have become aware that what fans are willing to spend is not a limitless amount. This couldn't have happened at a better time to hopefully inject some common sense reality into their discussions for a new relationship.