HAWK TO BE RESIGNED

[Guiness]

Since Hawk is not a FA is the Packers' habit to not discuss contract details ($$$) still in play?

That's the detail that everyone wants to know. 5 years for how much?

I saw that elsewhere.

How is he not an FA? He was released. No waivers this time of year?

[Patler]

Wow that's great!

Bye bye Barnett?

It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Otherwise signing both Bishop and Hawk this year to starters money wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[mmmdk]

Glad Hawk is locked up & ready to go!

[Fritz]

5 year 50 million!

That would be hilarious.

[bobblehead]

It sure seems that way, doesn't it? Otherwise signing both Bishop and Hawk this year to starters money wouldn't make a lot of sense.

I think we keep Barnett to be honest unless we have cap issues. He has earned his contract and you can't have too much talent. He is also a cheerleader for the city of GB from what I have seen. I think they all stay and play...chillar too for that matter. Besides, we have proven this year that depth is in fact important.

[RashanGary]

With Hawk putting his house up for sale and some of the comments through the season and suggestion he should be traded to somebody who wants him (early in teh year when he wasn't playing alot). . . . I thought Hawk and his agent would be seeking max dollar. This shows me they're probably not looking for max dollar and the Packers got really fair with him (I'm guessing 7m/year).

IT's a little more than he's worth IMO, but he's a leader, durable and a good player. He's the guy I would most want starting, I just thought UFA was going to get in the way here.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Depth seems much less important with Bishop and Hawk as starters. Hawk has never missed a game and Bishop is stout and looks like somebody who will be hard to get out of the lineup.

[hoosier]

Does anyone know enough about Hawk's contract to explain why they decided to cut him before re-signing him? Couldn't they have just torn up the old contract or redone it without cutting him?

[get louder at lambeau]

(I'm guessing 7m/year).

Yesterday, right before they cut him, I guessed they would sign him up to a 5 year, $35 million contract, and you said it sounded more like wishful thinking. Less than 24 hours later, and a 5 year contract is announced, and you're guessing that it's for EXACTLY the amount I guessed. Where's the "Pat myself on the back" smiley when you need it?

As a matter of fact, where are any of the smileys when you need them on this newfangled forum?

[pbmax]

Does anyone know enough about Hawk's contract to explain why they decided to cut him before re-signing him? Couldn't they have just torn up the old contract or redone it without cutting him?

Might have been a ploy, but given they signed a deal the next day, probably not. The Packers probably wanted to protect themselves by filing the paperwork relieving them of the $10 million hit a day early rather than wait until today. That way, the only item up in the air would be the new contract, not the old. So if things drag, the team is not twisting in the wind.

Doing it a day early also lets them alert Hawk and agent to the move as one step in the negotiations rather than making it seem like an abrupt 11th hour end.

[pbmax]

Silverstein says that cutting Hawk then doing a new deal allowed them more flexibility than simply redoing and extending his last contract. And I think he has a good point; there are limits about what can be modified in an existing contract when its extended. For instance, the 30% rule (limiting base salary increases to 30% increase each year) and similar. So the cut might have been procedural all along.

[Fritz]

So is it official?

[RashanGary]

Yesterday, right before they cut him, I guessed they would sign him up to a 5 year, $35 million contract, and you said it sounded more like wishful thinking. Less than 24 hours later, and a 5 year contract is announced, and you're guessing that it's for EXACTLY the amount I guessed. Where's the "Pat myself on the back" smiley when you need it?

As a matter of fact, where are any of the smileys when you need them on this newfangled forum?

I thought Hawk would be seeking max deal (8+ is what I figured he'd garner on the UFA market). I hope the Packers didn't go that high here and I don't picture him taking less.

But yeah, I was dead wrong. I didn't think Hawk wanted to be here. I thought he wanted max$$

[Tony Oday]

I was with a bunch of Viking buddies and they all said..."well looks like the Vikes have a FA to pursue." That was damn funny

[wist43]

No way is Hawk worth a max deal... he's not worth $7M a year either - if that's what they're going to pay him, then I'm not on board with it. Hawk is JAG.