"Tough Cap Calls Are Ahead"

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-face-turnover-thanks-to-salary-cap-bn8ga4v-188152951.html

Thi article just seems to clarify what we've been discussing here

[Joemailman]

After Rodgers the next 5 guys in terms of salary cap hit are players who are either considered to be the downside of their careers (Woodson, Pickett), or players who underperformed their contract (Finley, Williams, Hawk). In the next year or so, The Packers may well be back to being the youngest team in the NFL. This team is going to look very different in the near future.

[rbaloha1]

T. Williams should be looked at as a possible trade/release.

[RashanGary]

It seems only logical that big contracts have the greatest affect on a salary cap situation as they take up much of the salary space.

There are players, special ones, that change the landscape of a team. Those players tend to get paid. The important thing going forward is that our big money is spent on players well worth their weight in gold.

You can see, looking at that list, there are contracts from the outside observer that appear to be out of sync with what the player is worth. We also have superstar players who are being well underpaid. Like everyone is saying. Change is absolutely on the horizon.

In a year from now, even a few months from now, I have a feeling if we look at a similar list, it will be far more in sync with the value of the players under big contracts.

Getting that in line will assure us of having our best players for some time to come. There is always going to be pressure to replenish the role players and depth of the team. There will always be pressure to replace falling stars with rising stars.

But looking at only one aspect, the aspect of how money is distributed at the top, there appears to be solutions, not a damning problem.

Losing solid players isn't fun. Losing really good players (Jennings) really isn't any fun. Losing Clay Matthews isn't an option. Replacing Jennings with Cobb is doable. Replacing Matthews with Perry is almost unimaginable.

Tough decisions do loom, but in itself, they don't present an unmanageable problem. It does, however, put pressure on the Packers front office to find quality players, including star players at or near the rate of the NFL's elite. To be elite, you have to perform elite. That is what Thompson is paid for and that is what is expected of him. If he's great, we're a SB favorite for years to come. If he's not good enough, we won't be elite, and he will eventually lose his job on the Packers terms, not his.

[red]

wow, our most worthless player is our 19th highest paid player

i can see how to save a quick million by doing what we should have done each of the last 4 seasons and finally get rid of bush

[red]

finley can go. he's the 3rd highest paid TE in the NFL, and he played nowhere near that level. even towards the end of the season when he was player "better", he was far from elite

its disappointing that we would only save 2.25 million by getting rid of hawk. almost makes it not worth cutting him after you bring in someone else to replace him. really bad contract there

i'm starting to come around to the idea of trading tramon. he's really regressed and isn't worth his pay, plus we already have some young guys that are just as good if not better. what kind of trade value do people think he's worth?

[sharpe1027]

I doubt that other teams would give up much for Tramon after this past year. Just by shopping him around, the Packers would be confirming that they think he is washed up.

[Joemailman]

wow, our most worthless player is our 19th highest paid player

i can see how to save a quick million by doing what we should have done each of the last 4 seasons and finally get rid of bush

He's our most worthless player only if you think special teams don't matter. He's a bargain compared to some of the guys higher on the list.

[sharpe1027]

They have some decisions, but can cut some cap without loosing too much.

Guys that can be cut without a much loss in production on the field:

Saturday can't justify 4.6 Mil.
Kuhn is tough to justify at 2.35 Mil.
With the all new young players on D, Bush won't be missed too much at 1.78 Mil.

Guys that would probably result in a noticeable loss in production, but that appear overpaid:
Finley is not an 8.7 Mil player.
T. Will is tough to justify at 8.5 Mil.
Hawk is a starter, but not a good value at 7.0 Mil.
Pickett is not a good value at 6.7 Mil.

I can't believe that they only have about a hundred thousand dollars in dead money. That is impressive.

[Guiness]

lol @ Shakey's $234 hit! Why does Datko still show up as dead money, he's still with the team, right? I guess even if you re-sign a player to the PS, it still counts as being released.

There are certainly some tough decisions when you look at 4 of the 5 top paid players. I'll take the dark horse, and say I wouldn't be surprised if Hawk was the one of those four who stays at his current salary. It's bad, but not brutal, and with all the injuries we've had, he's been a steady starter. Maybe that hypobaric chamber is useful after all.

If the money is there, I think they pay Woodson. He may not be quite worth that money, but he still brings a lot to the table.

The other two are the harder decisions. Both young players who, at times, have shown a lot. If they perform up to potential, they are absolutely worth the money.

In Tramon's case, it's not obvious at all why he hasn't been playing up to expectations. Was he not fully healed from that injury? It's been pretty close to two years, will he be the same again? I'm particularly surprised by his number, I thought it was a more team friendly deal. I remember when it got done, there was a lot of talk that as a UDFA, and with RFA tenders, etc, they couldn't kept him at a low salary for a while. I know they signed him long term, but I didn't realize he was one of the top paid players. Doesn't seem like he was good enough for long enough to get that deal.

[Guiness]

They have some decisions, but can cut some cap without loosing too much.

Guys that can be cut without a much loss in production on the field:

Saturday can't justify 4.6 Mil.
Kuhn is tough to justify at 2.35 Mil.
With the all new young players on D, Bush won't be missed too much at 1.78 Mil.

Guys that would probably result in a noticeable loss in production, but that appear overpaid:
Finley is not an 8.7 Mil player.
T. Will is tough to justify at 8.5 Mil.
Hawk is a starter, but not a good value at 7.0 Mil.
Pickett is not a good value at 6.7 Mil.

I can't believe that they only have about a hundred thousand dollars in dead money. That is impressive.

I think you're wrong on Bush. He's been as advertised, a force on ST, and I think he would be missed and tough to replace. Maybe they expected/hoped he'd grow into a player who got some snaps with the defense, but I doubt they're unhappy with what they've gotten out of him.

Hawk may not be a good value at 7 million, but how does he look for the 2.25 he'll count against the cap? If they've got the room (and they seem to) they might prefer to absorb the hit this year though.

[sharpe1027]

I think you're wrong on Bush. He's been as advertised, a force on ST, and I think he would be missed and tough to replace. Maybe they expected/hoped he'd grow into a player who got some snaps with the defense, but I doubt they're unhappy with what they've gotten out of him.

Hawk may not be a good value at 7 million, but how does he look for the 2.25 he'll count against the cap? If they've got the room (and they seem to) they might prefer to absorb the hit this year though.

I'm on the fence with Bush. He's been good on special teams, but I'm not convinced that replacing him with someone else would really make that much difference.

I think Hawk counts 7 million against the cap and (I think) they would save 5.4 million cap space if they cut him.

[Tony Oday]

I think Pickett is worth it because look at the line and tell me how good we are at drafting and developing big men.

[Guiness]

I'm on the fence with Bush. He's been good on special teams, but I'm not convinced that replacing him with someone else would really make that much difference.

I think Hawk counts 7 million against the cap and (I think) they would save 5.4 million cap space if they cut him.

If they want to push the hit back by cutting him after June 1. From the article:

Because Hawk has two years left on his contract with $3.2 million of prorated signing bonus to absorb, the net gain is only $2.25 million. If the Packers waited until after June 1 to cut him, they could push the $3.2 million to 2014 and get the full relief of Hawk's $5.45 million salary.

Another interesting number is Newhouse. We're all clamoring for his replacement, and hope that guy is on the roster, but he's the incumbent starter...making $600K protecting the franchise!

[sharpe1027]

If they want to push the hit back by cutting him after June 1. From the article:

I think the article is partly wrong. Hawk has 1.6/year in prorated signing bonus cap hit from his 8 million dollar singing bonus (8 million / 5 years = 1.6 million). If they cut him after June 1 first, 1.6 million will count this year and the remaining 1.6 million carries into the next year. Basically, they would save 3.8 (5.4 - 1.6) this year and still have 1.6 million in dead money next year.

I could be wrong.