Packers expected to cut Hawk when CBA done

[packers11]

https://www.rotoworld.com

The Packers are expected to waive ILB AJ Hawk if the sides don't agree to a restructured contract before a new CBA is finalized.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "negotiations have gotten nowhere." Hawk played over 90 percent of Green Bay's defensive snaps in 2010, but they can't afford to pay his $10 million salary for 2011. If the sides are able to come to a new agreement, Hawk would battle Nick Barnett ($5.5 million salary) for one starting job. The loser might lose his roster spot entirely

[Lurker64]

I have a really hard time believing that Hawk's representation are unwilling to reach a deal on an extension. Regardless though, deadlines force action and "unwilling to budge" is probably just a play for leverage in the final accounting since there is currently no deadline.

Whenever a new CBA gets done, if there is to be free agency in that year, there will assuredly be a grace period built in between "the start of the new CBA" and "the beginning of free agency" to allow teams to to put their affairs in order, figure out the rules of the new deal, and negotiate with their players who would be free agents, which generally didn't occur due to CBA uncertainty.

[get louder at lambeau]

That would suck to lose Hawk. Bishop, Barnett, and Chillar would be decent for depth, but Hawk would still be missed, IMO. I want him and Bishop, with Chillar mixed in.

Even if they cut him, I wouldn't count the Packers out as a frontrunner to sign him back up in FA. His agent might just want to test the waters to set the market price. Doesn't mean the Packers won't pay it.

[MadScientist]

Similar to the Jenkins situation, with the amount the Packers have already committed, it will be hard to come up with an agreement without knowing what the CBA will be. I do want Hawk to be back, because the defense was much better with him calling things.

[Tony Oday]

Get rid of Barnett instead

[Smidgeon]

First, in JS, Hawk says the following:

"I would love to be back with Green Bay next year," Hawk told NFL Netword. "I don't know if that's going to happen with how my contract is structured and everything that's going on. I would hope that they would try to work something out, but we'll see. If not, hopefully somebody else will give me a shot."

Now, to me, that doesn't sound like someone unwilling to budge or make a deal to stay in Green Bay (it could, but that's not how I read it).

Next, I still find it difficult to take seriously reports of Barnett and Hawk battling it out for one starting position since they don't play the same position. John Kuhn isn't battling Brandon Jackson for a spot on the team. Morgan Burnett isn't battling Sam Shields for a starting role. And neither is Barnett battling Hawk, unless one of them changes positions first.

[bobblehead]

Get rid of Barnett instead

Easy to say, but Barnett is signed for 2 more years to the contract we all want Hawk to sign. Barnett is also only 29 and historically equal or better than Hawk when healthy. The most likely outcome is bye bye hawk.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Barnett is also only 29 and historically equal or better than Hawk when healthy. The most likely outcome is bye bye hawk.

Barnett is 29 with two major injuries in the last two years. He's an old 29. Hawk is younger and MUCH more durable. As far as him being better than Hawk, I'm not sure. I know the Packers defense was better when Hawk was QB'ing them.

BTW, the title of the article is misleading. It should read "Packers expected to cut Hawk when CBA done, if sides are unable to restructure contract." Which really isn't new news to any of us.

[Tony Oday]

If they get rid of Hawk the damn GB Packers owe me a jersey for Mason and I damn it!

[RashanGary]

First, in JS, Hawk says the following:

"I would love to be back with Green Bay next year," Hawk told NFL Netword. "I don't know if that's going to happen with how my contract is structured and everything that's going on. I would hope that they would try to work something out, but we'll see. If not, hopefully somebody else will give me a shot."

Now, to me, that doesn't sound like someone unwilling to budge or make a deal to stay in Green Bay (it could, but that's not how I read it).

Next, I still find it difficult to take seriously reports of Barnett and Hawk battling it out for one starting position since they don't play the same position. John Kuhn isn't battling Brandon Jackson for a spot on the team. Morgan Burnett isn't battling Sam Shields for a starting role. And neither is Barnett battling Hawk, unless one of them changes positions first.

I disagree. They play different but similar positions. Hawk could play either position. So can Bishop. Bishop is paid as a starting LB and he's the best ILB we have. He'll be in there. Chillar is reasonably paid, plays ST's and is versatile on defense. He'll be on the team. Now it comes down to whether we want to pay 6 mil to Barnett and 7 mil to Hawk (he'll likely be overpaid because hes on a SB winner and he was a high profile draft pick that some scouts probably loved and never let go of that love).

I'd rather have Hawk, but if his salary demands get unreasonable, I could see Ted letting him go. I hope it doesn't go that way. I hope teams don't see Hawk as the difference maker he's not.

Sometimes the last RB spot goes to FB or RB. Sometimes the last TE/FB spot goes to the best of that position. Similar positions battle it out all of the time. OL, DL. In thsi case it's the most similar position of any in football. Those two are fighting it out. I'm hoping for Hawk.

[Smidgeon]

I disagree. They play different but similar positions. Hawk could play either position. So can Bishop. Bishop is paid as a starting LB and he's the best ILB we have. He'll be in there. Chillar is reasonably paid, plays ST's and is versatile on defense. He'll be on the team. Now it comes down to whether we want to pay 6 mil to Barnett and 7 mil to Hawk (he'll likely be overpaid because hes on a SB winner and he was a high profile draft pick that some scouts probably loved and never let go of that love).

I'd rather have Hawk, but if his salary demands get unreasonable, I could see Ted letting him go. I hope it doesn't go that way. I hope teams don't see Hawk as the difference maker he's not.

Sometimes the last RB spot goes to FB or RB. Sometimes the last TE/FB spot goes to the best of that position. Similar positions battle it out all of the time. OL, DL. In thsi case it's the most similar position of any in football. Those two are fighting it out. I'm hoping for Hawk.

How do we know Bishop can play Hawk's position? I don't recall ever hearing he was practicing there. From what I've picked up, there are different responsibilities and techniques required for the two positions. Hawk probably wouldn't be that good in Barnett's position because he isn't as quick-twitch as would be required. Of course, I could be characterizing the positions incorrectly in my head...

[gbgary]

dumb article.

[King Friday]

I think Hawk likes it in Green Bay, and would prefer to remain there if they pay him CLOSE to market. I'm not sure either side really knows what the market is right now. Basically, this will work out as follows:

1. Packers will cut Hawk to not get stuck with the $10M salary.
2. Hawk will be able to test the market and see what other teams might offer him.
3. Hawk's agent likely will come to Thompson and tell him what AJ would need to stay in Green Bay.
4. Thompson either says yes or no.

Nothing will happen before the CBA is signed.

[mission]

I think the Pack will just do what the Jets are doing with a lot of their vets. They'd save about 2.5 in bonus money even if they resigned him for 10 mil the first year if I'm correct. If I had to wager, I'd still say he ends up a Packer.

[Lurker64]

I'm pretty sure you could write the exact same story replacing "A.J." with "Reggie", "Packers" with "Saints", "Green Bay" with "New Orleans", and "Hawk" with "Bush".

Not entirely sure what Nick Barnett would have to do with the other story, or why the Journal-Sentinel would be reporting on it, though.