Packers Want Jackson "AT THEIR PRICE"

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-want-stephen-jackson-at-their-price-m094ll8-197710241.html

cuz.......this is how we roll

[woodbuck27]

Peyton Hillis visiting Green Bay and Stephen Jackson visiting Atlanta (rumour).

mmmmm

Picture an inflated balloon as 'our hopes'.

Picture a man holding a pin.

Picture that 'that man' is Ted Thompson.

What happens to that balloon?

[RashanGary]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...197710241.html


cuz.......this is how we roll

I don't know why we wouldn't give him market value, honestly. The market is said to be down this off-season. I believe Jackson when he says he'd like to play in GB. Not just because he said it, but because he dropped AR's name when he said it. You're kind of letting another guy you respect know how you feel and I think most guys are honest when they do that.

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

If we can pay Finley and Tramon 8M-9M/year each, I don't know why we couldn't play Jackosn the same. 30 or not, he's a great player.

At this point, I'll be pretty darn disappointed if we don't get him unless he gets some off the charts deal and i highly, highly, highly doubt that will happen. Nothing else is getting in the way.

[pbmax]

Well, Rotoworld thinks market value is 3 years and $12 million, so until someone spends money, we are all just guessing. But don't fall for the hype.

But each of you is reading Silverstein like he is reporting actual news, instead of simply repurposing known facts. Thompson is cautious and cheap and does not like to overbid himself once he makes an offer. Not will he telegraph an offer unless he thinks it will land a player.

This is what Silverstein knows in his tiny heart to be true and every story about every player acquisition must be told through that lens. Especially when his Packer sources aren't telling him squat. It also used to be true that Spoon believed Thompson never traded up, but we don't talk or write about that anymore.

Tom also isn't telling you that all his information about Steven Jackson and the Packers is coming directly from Eugene Parker; and is the player's side trying to start a bidding war between the Packers and the Falcons. And by floating the possibility of the Packers losing Jackson because of a too low bid, Tom is carrying Eugene's water for him. Message board and Twitter panic is just the extra zing of mob fury. No one can say whether reports are true that Jackson would prefer Atlanta, which renders Green Bay's offer moot.

Same dynamic is happening with Eugene's other Packer UFA Greg Jennings. Suddenly today Jennings was seriously considering the Packers theoretical offer after finding himself with no visits scheduled. To consider that offer, according to PFT, he must turn down a theoretical offer from the Vikings.

[woodbuck27]

I don't know why we wouldn't give him market value, honestly. The market is said to be down this off-season. I believe Jackson when he says he'd like to play in GB. Not just because he said it, but because he dropped AR's name when he said it. You're kind of letting another guy you respect know how you feel and I think most guys are honest when they do that.

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

If we can pay Finley and Tramon 8M-9M/year each, I don't know why we couldn't play Jackosn the same. 30 or not, he's a great player.

At this point, I'll be pretty darn disappointed if we don't get him unless he gets some off the charts deal and i highly, highly, highly doubt that will happen. Nothing else is getting in the way.

Yup. The rumour is that the RAMS were going to make him a system RB and offer him about half of the $7 million$ he was slated to make this coming season. So TT has that and makes sure that his agent gets the message that he's wanted in Green Bay and some emphasis on that, with a decent offer of say $13.5 -15 million$ over three years.

Then I look at it another way and maybe it's out to lunch?

If you could trade Jermichael Finley straight up for Stephen Jackson?

Would you do it?

The difference in what Stephen Jackson can be contracted for and what Jermichael Finley will be paid in 2013 is about equivalent to the cost of E D-S and Sam Shields.

Now .... would you take this trade? E D-S, Sam Shields and Stephen Jackson for Jermichael Finley?

[swede]

Well, Rotoworld thinks market value is 3 years and $12 million, so until someone spends money, we are all just guessing. But don't fall for the hype.

But each of you is reading Silverstein like he is reporting actual news, instead of simply repurposing known facts. Thompson is cautious and cheap and does not like to overbid himself once he makes an offer. Not will he telegraph an offer unless he thinks it will land a player.

This is what Silverstein knows in his tiny heart to be true and every story about every player acquisition must be told through that lens. Especially when his Packer sources aren't telling him squat. It also used to be true that Spoon believed Thompson never traded up, but we don't talk or write about that anymore.

Tom also isn't telling you that all his information about Steven Jackson and the Packers is coming directly from Eugene Parker; and is the player's side trying to start a bidding war between the Packers and the Falcons. And by floating the possibility of the Packers losing Jackson because of a too low bid, Tom is carrying Eugene's water for him. Message board and Twitter panic is just the extra zing of mob fury. No one can say whether reports are true that Jackson would prefer Atlanta, which renders Green Bay's offer moot.

Same dynamic is happening with Eugene's other Packer UFA Greg Jennings. Suddenly today Jennings was seriously considering the Packers theoretical offer after finding himself with no visits scheduled. To consider that offer, according to PFT, he must turn down a theoretical offer from the Vikings.

This is good "take a deep breath" post.

It suggests, though, that Silverstein tells his kids to eat their vegetables or it is likely, though not confirmed, that the Easter Bunny will come down the chimney and eat their goldfish if they don't.

[pittstang5]

The Steven Jackson hype is pretty cool. I heard early rumors that the Packers might be interested, but thought they were just rumors.

I'd like him in GB and I'm starting to get to the point that if he doesn't sign with the Pack, I might be a little disappointed. But if Atlanta is involved, ouch. Money aside - Playing 8+ games inside as opposed to the winter elements in GB? I can definitely understand Jackson not getting out of Atlanta.

[pbmax]

This is good "take a deep breath" post.

It suggests, though, that Silverstein tells his kids to eat their vegetables or it is likely, though not confirmed, that the Easter Bunny will come down the chimney and eat their goldfish if they don't.

Yeah, I was kind of hard on him. And I suspect if you wrote the same article with some input from the Packers, it would still read similarly in its details. Mutual interest, a Packer offer lower than they would prefer, remaining interest in Falcons, have patience.

But the headline (which Silverstein doesn't write) and the tone suggest EDIT: panic over Thompson's choices :EDIT and that is by design. It gives the agent a friendly read while adhering to the basic facts, just by coloring the story with here we go again.

A far better article would attempt to determine what the offer might be, what they are looking for and how close Atlanta is to coming in a Parker/Jackson's number. If they knew the strength of Jackson's preference, that would seal the deal. In a way, Thompson's preferred method of PR (silence) hurts him here. Truth is, as wist points out elsewhere, the Packers probably cannot afford a deal too good for Jackson to pass up. And that is why the Falcons are still in it. Possibly similar to Woodson or Pickett.

[Smeefers]

I don't think Jackson and Woodson are close. Remember, Wood was coming off a broken thigh bone. He was a malcontent and he didn't receive a single offer near to what green bay gave him. I also have a hard time comparing Jackson to Pickett because Pick was coming off a great season, first time as an UFA. He was young and had a ton of gas left in the tank. We got him for a bargain for some unknown reason (3 years, 14 mil) and he's been nothing but solid since he's come here.

Jackson is on the wrong side of 30 and probably only has a year or two left. The most important thing is this: He's highly saught after and TT usually doesn't play in that market. He may be better than anything out there, but who would you rather have? Steve Jackson for or Eddie Lacy? Or maybe Monte Ball. We don't know the plans of the pack They could be going after Shoene Green, Reggie Bush, Mendenhall, Woodhead... gosh, there's just so many good backs out there. There's no reason to rush this.

I would absolutely love it if we picked up Jackson, but I'll tell you what. As long as I can remember, the Pack has never picked up someone I'd love to have.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't know why we wouldn't give him market value, honestly. The market is said to be down this off-season. I believe Jackson when he says he'd like to play in GB. Not just because he said it, but because he dropped AR's name when he said it. You're kind of letting another guy you respect know how you feel and I think most guys are honest when they do that.

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

If we can pay Finley and Tramon 8M-9M/year each, I don't know why we couldn't play Jackosn the same. 30 or not, he's a great player.

At this point, I'll be pretty darn disappointed if we don't get him unless he gets some off the charts deal and i highly, highly, highly doubt that will happen. Nothing else is getting in the way.

No way you pay $7M/year for Steven Jackson. I loves me some Ted Thompson. Why do people think it's a bad thing for our GM to want guys at his price?

His way has led to contending football for several years and with the ability to still sign guys like Rodgers and Matthews when their contracts are up.

[pbmax]

I don't think Jackson and Woodson are close. Remember, Wood was coming off a broken thigh bone. He was a malcontent and he didn't receive a single offer near to what green bay gave him. I also have a hard time comparing Jackson to Pickett because Pick was coming off a great season, first time as an UFA. He was young and had a ton of gas left in the tank. We got him for a bargain for some unknown reason (3 years, 14 mil) and he's been nothing but solid since he's come here.

Jackson is on the wrong side of 30 and probably only has a year or two left. The most important thing is this: He's highly saught after and TT usually doesn't play in that market. He may be better than anything out there, but who would you rather have? Steve Jackson for or Eddie Lacy? Or maybe Monte Ball. We don't know the plans of the pack They could be going after Shoene Green, Reggie Bush, Mendenhall, Woodhead... gosh, there's just so many good backs out there. There's no reason to rush this.

I would absolutely love it if we picked up Jackson, but I'll tell you what. As long as I can remember, the Pack has never picked up someone I'd love to have.

I thought of Pickett not because of age or contract, but a FA with two teams interested who do not seem prepared to break the bank to knock the other guy out of the negotiations.

I thought of Woodson as a guy who had one firm offer and could not get another in the same ballpark despite REALLY wanting to (Tampa).

[red]

eugene parker seems like a little bitch trying to make a market for his guys were there isn't one

this is starting to feel like the whole randy moss fiasco where we were just used

[Smeefers]

I thought of Pickett not because of age or contract, but a FA with two teams interested who do not seem prepared to break the bank to knock the other guy out of the negotiations.

I thought of Woodson as a guy who had one firm offer and could not get another in the same ballpark despite REALLY wanting to (Tampa).

Fair enough. I wasn't really thinking along those lines.

Usually when people bring up those two, they just want to point out how free agency can work. I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying that those kinds of deals don't come around every offseason. I think that's easily enough pointed out by saying "when's the last time it happened." TT is constantly looking for those kinds of deals. It's why he snatched up Koren Robinson and Anthony Hargrove. Some times things just don't pan out like you'd hoped though.

[Pugger]

The Steven Jackson hype is pretty cool. I heard early rumors that the Packers might be interested, but thought they were just rumors.

I'd like him in GB and I'm starting to get to the point that if he doesn't sign with the Pack, I might be a little disappointed. But if Atlanta is involved, ouch. Money aside - Playing 8+ games inside as opposed to the winter elements in GB? I can definitely understand Jackson not getting out of Atlanta.

What kind of cap does Atlanta have? I thought I read somewhere that they are tight up against it so they might not be able to sign Jackson even if they wanted to.

[Bossman641]

No way you pay $7M/year for Steven Jackson. I loves me some Ted Thompson. Why do people think it's a bad thing for our GM to want guys at his price?

His way has led to contending football for several years and with the ability to still sign guys like Rodgers and Matthews when their contracts are up.

Because winning the offseason is exciting