Any Noise about a Potential Hawk Trade?

[Partial]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

I was implying banking on the unproven rook exclusively.

[Lurker64]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

I was implying banking on the unproven rook exclusively.

Nobody has him starting, either Wells or Spitz will start. Counting on an unproven backup at a position where backups don't usually play? Not that risky.

[Partial]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

I was implying banking on the unproven rook exclusively.

Nobody has him starting, either Wells or Spitz will start. Counting on an unproven backup at a position where backups don't usually play? Not that risky.

Don't usually play if someone doesn't get hurt, sure. No reason to get rid of Wells for a what, 6th round pick at best? That's just silly.

[Lurker64]

Don't usually play if someone doesn't get hurt, sure. No reason to get rid of Wells for a what, 6th round pick at best? That's just silly.

I'd give up Wells for a 6th round pick in a heartbeat. That's one round higher than we got him in, and we've gotten some good players in the sixth round under Thompson (Michael Montgomery, Johnny Jolly, Korey Hall, Desmond Bishop, and Mason Crosby were sixth round picks by Thompson that are still on our roster; Tyrone Culver is still on the roster in Miami; Craig Bragg sucks.)

[Partial]

Don't usually play if someone doesn't get hurt, sure. No reason to get rid of Wells for a what, 6th round pick at best? That's just silly.

I'd give up Wells for a 6th round pick in a heartbeat. That's one round higher than we got him in, and we've gotten some good players in the sixth round under Thompson (Michael Montgomery, Johnny Jolly, Korey Hall, Desmond Bishop, and Mason Crosby were sixth round picks by Thompson that are still on our roster; Tyrone Culver is still on the roster in Miami; Craig Bragg sucks.)

Who cares when we got him? He could be a solid starter and first rate backup at two different positions. This team is in win now mode. Get rid of Wells and an injury to the guard spot or center spot could derail the season.

I think it's debateable that some of those are good players. Glad to see you back pedaling on Bishop, the guy you've basically thought was horrible for a long time now. Dude is going to be solid in this D.

[Lurker64]

Glad to see you back pedaling on Bishop, the guy you've basically thought was horrible for a long time now. Dude is going to be solid in this D.

I never said he was horrible. I simply said that his limitations meant that he shouldn't be considered an every down linebacker, nor should he start. Is he a valuable member of the team? Absolutely. Should he be on the field in some packages? Absolutely. My opinion on Bishop hasn't changed.

[Patler]

The JSO started this. Here is an exchange I had with Bedard on twitter:

Waldo56 - People need to stop with this trade AJ nonsense. There is a 7M dead cap hit if he is traded. It ain't happening.

Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard Does McGinn understand the concept of a dead cap hit? TT ain't going to flush 7M down the toilet to trade Hawk.

Greg_A_Bedard - People have been asking about this. By my calculations, it wouldn't cost the Packers much to trade/cut A.J. Hawk, believe it or not.

Greg_A_Bedard - $11.85 mill of his $15 mill guaranteed was paid in an option bonus and it's not amortized. In fact, Hawk won't see the 2011 year of his deal

Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard Option bonuses are amortized Greg. Roster bonuses are not. An option bonus is a signing bonus not paid at signing.

Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard By my calculations Hawk has a hair over 7M in amortized bonus remaing.

Greg_A_Bedard - @Waldo56 I don't think so. It was guaranteed. But I could very well be wrong. I'm waiting for an answer from my smarter colleagues.

Greg_A_Bedard - @Waldo56 was correct @TomSilverstein says it would cost Packers an additional $6.9 mill to cut/trade Hawk this yr. #iAmAnIdiot #packers

Greg_A_Bedard - Don't see that happening. But next year, when there's no cap and he's due a $10 mill base in '11? That's more likely.

Waldo;

I agree with your facts, but disagree with your opinion about how those facts will impact TT. That doesn't mean that I think he will trade or release Hawk, I doubt that will happen. But, the salary cap impact alone would not prevent TT from doing it, if he thought it was a good deal to do so.

TT has shown little tendency to make decisions based on cap impact since the cap situation with the Packers has improved. Hunt and KGB had significant "dead money" impacts. Dead money on a current cap is not necessarily a bad thing, it means additional cap space in a future year or years. It's not as if it is an additional charge against the cap, its just a change of when the charge occurs.

It's difficult right now to assess how the CBA situation affects a GM's thinking, since there is the possibility of "resetting" all caps if agreement is reached on a new salary cap. An intervening uncapped year can change things, too. If there is no cap going forward, dead money this year means nothing. If there is a resetting of all teams cap situations, it might be a very good thing to clear Hawk from the books before then, it would give more salary cap space in those future years.

If TT thinks he has players that will give him what Hawk does this year, and if he expects not to have Hawk on his roster in a couple years anyway; if someone were to offer the Packers a needed player and/or a relatively hick draft pick; TT could very well look at it as getting something for nothing.

That said, I will be mildly surprised, but not shocked if Hawk is traded. I expect he will open the season as a starter in GB.

[Dabaddestbear]

As much as I like to make fun of AJ Pigeon, he is by far you guys most solid all around LB. He will never be a superstar LB, or even an exciting player to watch. But he always seems to be in the right place to make the tackle. He doesnt get washed up in the wrong hole as much as Barnett, and doesn't overrun plays as much as Poppinga(spelling?). needless to say, if you guys do get rid of him, as a Bears fan I will be happy, knowing it will only take away a solid asset on your team.

[Patler]

As much as I like to make fun of AJ Pigeon, he is by far you guys most solid all around LB. He will never be a superstar LB, or even an exciting player to watch. But he always seems to be in the right place to make the tackle. He doesnt get washed up in the wrong hole as much as Barnett, and doesn't overrun plays as much as Poppinga(spelling?). needless to say, if you guys do get rid of him, as a Bears fan I will be happy, knowing it will only take away a solid asset on your team.

I agree, but at some point his salary may exceed his value by more than can be tolerated. Hawk has not been the impact player hoped for, nor has he been the player he seemed on his way to becoming as a rookie. I'm not sure what happened. He had a quickness or suddenness to his game that was gone last year, perhaps due to the injuries. But I haven't seen any indication of it returning this year, although there isn't much of a sample to review yet in '09.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I concentrated on the LBs when rewatching the first half of the game yesterday, and Hawk was very stout against the run. He had a bad play in coverage, but so did Chillar. Hawk isn't going to be traded. I haven't even seen much to him becoming a situational player. Chillar and Bishop will get some playing time, but early in the season it may be at the expense of Barnett. People make it sound like he's going to suddenly be playing 1/3 of the snaps. He rarely came out of the last game. He's going to play a lot more than a few on here are predicting.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

Scott Campbell, you suck.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I concentrated on the LBs when rewatching the first half of the game yesterday, and Hawk was very stout against the run. He had a bad play in coverage, but so did Chillar. Hawk isn't going to be traded. I haven't even seen much to him becoming a situational player. Chillar and Bishop will get some playing time, but early in the season it may be at the expense of Barnett. People make it sound like he's going to suddenly be playing 1/3 of the snaps. He rarely came out of the last game. He's going to play a lot more than a few on here are predicting.

+1 Harv.

I don't see Hawk being traded at all. He's been a stalwart of the defense since he came here and has proven that he's a very good player. I find it amusing that people will rip him for not making plays when he was part of a defensive scheme that didn't put him in the position to make said plays and they rip the hell out of that coordinator for the scheme.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

Scott Campbell, you suck.

This was entirely appropriate, provoked and well deserved. I'd like to encourage everyone to behave more like this.

[Scott Campbell]

Waldo;

I agree with your facts, but disagree with your opinion about how those facts will impact TT. That doesn't mean that I think he will trade or release Hawk, I doubt that will happen. But, the salary cap impact alone would not prevent TT from doing it, if he thought it was a good deal to do so.

I thought that was part of the point in staying so far under the cap. It allows you to shed players without having to wait until you can push the cap hit out into future years.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

Scott Campbell, you suck.

This was entirely appropriate, provoked and well deserved. I'd like to encourage everyone to behave more like this.

THought you'd get a good chuckle out of that