$25 million man?

[Fritz]

In baseball, the stars dominate without a cap and it helps drive the baseline for everyone else (except perhaps new draftees) through arbitration which broadly tries to compare like for like. So a pitcher with a brand new record deal helps anyone who can use it as a point of reference.

In football, the players never got the complete, functional transmission system and had to accept a cap to get what they did. Agents drive new highs and agents get the most leverage with QBs and high draft picks. The NFLPA just gave away the draft pick leverage in the last CBA.

I am sure there are multiple ways to alter the balance (higher minimums?) but its a tough spot. The NFLPA was never as effective as the MLBPA and the baseball owners made football owners look like Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton.

The NFLPA did twice before propose going to a "let us distribute the pot of money model" scheme but owners, agents AND QBs hated that deal.

If Rodgers and Matthews end up eating up 30% of the cap, two things become clear:

1. BJ Raji is as good as gone. Notice that he's no longer being mentioned when it comes to talk of re-signing players.

2. Getting CHEAP young talent will be crucial to the Packers' success. To that end, I've been doing some research, and I think the kid on the right could fill that role for the Pack at the safety spot. He's a big hitter.

[pbmax]

Not likely much difference if it is only a four year contract as they are reporting. Hard to play significant games in a contract that short, and not have it so transparent that it would be laughable.

I had not read its a four year deal. If so, that leaves little room for monkey shines.

So I will hope its all guaranteed money.

[pbmax]

Agreed. I think you can include WRs in the list of positions for which salaries seem to be under re-evaluation, although for WRs I think it is overdue.

Until recently, many of the highest paid players had salary cap impacts of around 15%, and their teams could work in several other players who were paid about half as much as the most expensive players. With one guy getting 20% of the cap, or two getting 1/3 of it, the others will have to be pretty cheap.

There is a bit of a squeeze going on from both ends, which may last a couple years yet, until new broadcast contracts kick in and the salary cap goes up. The cap has been flat for a couple years, but minimum salaries for all players have gone up. So even the cheapest players are getting a larger portion of the cap. Now, with a huge increase in the portion of the cap given to the Packers highest paid players, there is pressure on everyone below the top to push it toward the bottom, which itself is rising.

I am anxious to see the terms for Rodgers and Matthews if and when they happen. We might see some of the cap impact pushed out into the later years when cap limits are expected to rise.

There was a recent writeup by Silverstein that suggested Matthews contract might already be done in basic terms and they were simply waiting to be sure Rodgers deal was going to fit with it.

[Patler]

There was a recent writeup by Silverstein that suggested Matthews contract might already be done in basic terms and they were simply waiting to be sure Rodgers deal was going to fit with it.

That would maybe give some credence to the $15M rumors that get tossed around for Matthews.
If true, it gives me pause to think of them having $40M tied up in two players when the salary cap is about $130M. Hopefully there will be substantial increases soon, or it will be difficult to retain very many others. Raji, Finley, Shields in the next year, etc,

[woodbuck27]

It makes perfect sense for Ted Thompson to lock up Rodgers now before the going price for elite QB's goes up any more. Joe Flacco getting 20M per year means that Rodgers, the NFL's best QB, will get more. By signing Rodgers to an extension, he gets to set the price instead of letting other teams determine what the price will be. What will Rodgers' value be if Jerry Jones signs Romo for 25 million (Just to use an example).

Check.

[woodbuck27]

"Worth it" can have so many different implications, that I am not sure if I agree or disagree with you. From the business side, to generate fan excitement and all the associated income that comes with it, an identifiable star, especially a QB, is very important. From the football side and the goal of winning Super Bowls, I don't believe investing that much of all available resources in one or two players (if Matthews gets what we expect) is a good idea.

If the Packers really do invest 1/3 of their salary cap in just two players, they will be in a new era with respect to the rest of the roster. There will be a lot of useful players who will leave for salary cap reasons. Hopefully, they can keep the pipeline full with players on their first contracts. I wouldn't be as concerned, but the recent departures of McKenzie and Dorsey, and to a lesser extent Schneider, has totally revamped that area of their operation. Will they be as good as they were in identifying available talent? Better? Worse? Time will tell us.

Your getting this right Patler.

I want to place this LINK here because it looks at the CAP and a teams loyalty to veteren players of star (former star) quality, given the current tight salary cap restrictions.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9092135/nfl-mailbag-tight-salary-cap-squeezes-loyalty

Loyalty gets sqeezed by tight cap

Teams not willing to spend extra to retain their veteran leaders

Originally Published: March 24, 2013

By John Clayton | ESPN.com

The argument over Aaron Rodgers (Clay Matthews III) and their star status to the Green Bay Packers. Their by all accounts, proposed combined approximate $40 million$ cost to the current $123.9 million$ Salary Cap. Should be confined to a matter of simple math and common sense.

That, in terms of managing the Packer roster fairly.

In this post I'm not even going to chip in with anything BJ Raji. I'm seeing his status and future with the team differently as things currently stand. I have to see more off season developments before I can factor BJ Raji into this picture.

It gets simple in terms related to immediate and impending highly predictable impact :

Two players equals 3.8% of the roster.

$40 million$ equals *32.3% of the CAP.

Let's remove $7 million$ for the rookie class (8 players on our roster). **5.65% of the CAP.

* + ** = 37.95 % of the CAP for 10 roster spots.

43 roster spots (if money was devided evenly) get $1,788,372$ each.

Two players average $20 million$ each Vs 43 players averaging $1.78 million$ each.

Is that Green Bay Packer locker room going to be a very happy place?

After another loss to a non pretender:

"Gee Aaron... you really earned your money today".

When the best of the rest are eligible for free agency. Are they seriously hoping to remain in Green Bay?

What is going to be the overall quality of the team if Ted Thompson does miss on any future draft with this 'new model'?

Arn't the Green Bay Packers going to be merely a farm team? It's best roster players fodder for other NFL teams?

As Patler points out. The Green Bay Packer Organization chart has been hit heavily over the past recent years; with noteables now leading other NFL organizations. Take pause to think about that ...the implications of that.

Add this in.

You know this for yourselves and it's not to rub anything in. In the past two seasons the Green Bay Packers playoff record stands at 1W-2L.

After all of that. The bottom line:

Will signing two players to a combined salary CAP extention of $40 million$ offer any better gurantees? Will that move offer potential failure?

Ted Thompson cannot bite on any ... "Well ... Joe Flacco got whatever" crap. Ted Thompson has to prove to me that he's not only his own man..... but.... 'the MAN'.

GO PACKERS !

[Fritz]

Your getting this right Patler.

I want to place this LINK here because it looks at the CAP and a teams loyalty to veteren players of star (former star) quality, given the current tight salary cap restrictions.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9092135/nfl-mailbag-tight-salary-cap-squeezes-loyalty

Loyalty gets sqeezed by tight cap

Teams not willing to spend extra to retain their veteran leaders

Originally Published: March 24, 2013

By John Clayton | ESPN.com

The argument over Aaron Rodgers (Clay Matthews III) and their star status to the Green Bay Packers. Their by all accounts, proposed combined approximate $40 million$ cost to the current $123.9 million$ Salary Cap. Should be confined to a matter of simple math and common sense.

That, in terms of managing the Packer roster fairly.

In this post I'm not even going to chip in with anything BJ Raji. I'm seeing his status and future with the team differently as things currently stand. I have to see more off season developments before I can factor BJ Raji into this picture.

It gets simple in terms related to immediate and impending highly predictable impact :

Two players equals 3.8% of the roster.

$40 million$ equals *32.3% of the CAP.

Let's remove $7 million$ for the rookie class (8 players on our roster). **5.65% of the CAP.

* + ** = 37.95 % of the CAP for 10 roster spots.

43 roster spots (if money was devided evenly) get $1,788,372$ each.

Two players average $20 million$ each Vs 43 players averaging $1.78 million$ each.

Is that Green Bay Packer locker room going to be a very happy place?

After another loss to a non pretender:

"Gee Aaron... you really earned your money today".

When the best of the rest are eligible for free agency. Are they seriously hoping to remain in Green Bay?

What is going to be the overall quality of the team if Ted Thompson does miss on any future draft with this 'new model'?

Arn't the Green Bay Packers going to be merely a farm team? It's best roster players fodder for other NFL teams?

As Patler points out. The Green Bay Packer Organization chart has been hit heavily over the past recent years; with noteables now leading other NFL organizations. Take pause to think about that ...the implications of that.

Add this in.

You know this for yourselves and it's not to rub anything in. In the past two seasons the Green Bay Packers playoff record stands at 1W-2L.

After all of that. The bottom line:

Will signing two players to a combined salary CAP extention of $40 million$ offer any better gurantees? Will that move offer potential failure?

Ted Thompson cannot bite on any ... "Well ... Joe Flacco got whatever" crap. Ted Thompson has to prove to me that he's not only his own man..... but.... 'the MAN'.

GO PACKERS !

If you're Aaron Rodgers and you sign a contract for that kind of coin, you'd better be ready to be booed off the field every time you miss a throw or stand around and take a sack.

[smuggler]

I hope it's a 10 year deal with a big lump signing bonus so that we can play the money games that the other clubs do (In Rodgers case, anyhow) and not screw our cap to the tune of 40% on the two players.

[ThunderDan]

As Patler points out. The Green Bay Packer Organization chart has been hit heavily over the past recent years; with noteables now leading other NFL organizations. Take pause to think about that ...the implications of that.

Add this in.

You know this for yourselves and it's not to rub anything in. In the past two seasons the Green Bay Packers playoff record stands at 1W-2L.

After all of that. The bottom line:

Will signing two players to a combined salary CAP extention of $40 million$ offer any better gurantees? Will that move offer potential failure?

Ted Thompson cannot bite on any ... "Well ... Joe Flacco got whatever" crap. Ted Thompson has to prove to me that he's not only his own man..... but.... 'the MAN'.

GO PACKERS !

What Packers led an other organization in 2012?

Matt Flynn, Scott Wells, Darren Colledge?

Who will lead in 2013? Maybe Jennings if he stays healthy? Maybe Woodson if he get's picked up?

Why pick two seasons? Why not three? Then we are 5-2 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl Championship.


So you moan about losing all of these players that are leading other teams but than moan about keeping Arod and CMIII. I don't get it. I think TT has a much better handle on this team than either you or I. Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations?

[Patler]

What Packers led an other organization in 2012?

Matt Flynn, Scott Wells, Darren Colledge?

Who will lead in 2013? Maybe Jennings if he stays healthy? Maybe Woodson if he get's picked up?

Why pick two seasons? Why not three? Then we are 5-2 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl Championship.


So you moan about losing all of these players that are leading other teams but than moan about keeping Arod and CMIII. I don't get it. I think TT has a much better handle on this team than either you or I. Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations?

I think he was referring to my comment about losing Dorsey, McKenzie and Schneider. How will that affect the Packers ability to identify and acquire good, young and CHEAP talent to fill out the roster?

[ThunderDan]

I think he was referring to my comment about losing Dorsey, McKenzie and Schneider. How will that affect the Packers ability to identify and acquire good, young and CHEAP talent to fill out the roster?

It was so deep in his post that if that was the connection I didn't get it.

I think even with a lot of change in the front office Mark Murphy and Ted Thompson make a pretty good pair. And with all the other team's poaching our up-and-coming execs I would guess a lot of the bright talent would want to be groomed in GB to get jobs elsewhere.

When I was a golf pro I took an assistant's job at PGA West simply because with that on my resume I would at least have a door opened for me anywhere else I wanted to go.

[woodbuck27]

What Packers led an other organization in 2012?

Matt Flynn, Scott Wells, Darren Colledge?

Who will lead in 2013? Maybe Jennings if he stays healthy? Maybe Woodson if he get's picked up?

Why pick two seasons? Why not three? Then we are 5-2 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl Championship.


So you moan about losing all of these players that are leading other teams but than moan about keeping Arod and CMIII. I don't get it. I think TT has a much better handle on this team than either you or I. Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations?

"So you moan about losing all of these players that are leading other teams but than moan about keeping Arod and CMIII. I don't get it. I think TT has a much better handle on this team than either you or I. Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations?" ThunderDan

If your going to run with the dogs you better be able to bark like a dog.

Let's you and I get down to the brass tacks of your re-post to me. You want to get 'your corner store schoolyard junk fix' on me? You had better grow up fast; realize that's not going to happen.

Your not going to paint me in any corner where I don't belong. So do you want to proceed? That's not anything I would advise.

You don't even have to respond to the remainder of this post. I'll remind you that 'discretion is the better part of valour'.

" So you moan about losing all these players that are leading other teams "[/I]? ThunderDan

What are you talking about?

I'll call you out and bullshit on that, Thunderdan.

This piece of 'Drama Queen' crap from you, Thunderdan.

" Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations? " ThunderDan

Is there any news out there that anything of the sort is imminent? If there is please post that. I'm positive such news would be intriguing.

GO PACK GO !

[ThunderDan]

"So you moan about losing all of these players that are leading other teams but than moan about keeping Arod and CMIII. I don't get it. I think TT has a much better handle on this team than either you or I. Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations?" ThunderDan

If your going to run with the dogs you better be able to bark like a dog.

Let's you and I get down to the brass tacks of your re-post to me.

Where I 'moan about losing all these players that are leading other teams'?

What are you talking about?

I'll call you out and bullshit on that, Thunderdan.

So let me get this straight, I'll ask question by question so I understand your answers.

Are you not complaing that TT spent to much on ARod?

Are you not complaing about using so much of the cap on CMIII and ARod?

If we use the money for ARod and CMIII don't we have to let other guys go?

Maybe I am mistaken when I read your posts because you have so many different articles inbedded in them.

[ThunderDan]

This piece of 'Drama Queen' crap from you, Thunderdan.

" Would you moan some more if we let ARod and CMIII go when they are leading other organizations? " ThunderDan

Is there any news out there that anything of the sort is imminent? If there is please post that. I'm positive such news would be intriguing.

GO PACK GO !

On this thread weren't you complaining about TT paying ARod $25M? That that is too much for one player?

If we don't pay Arod doesn't it make sense that another team would sign him?

[ThunderDan]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/91...ording-sources

The rumor is the deal is close and Aaron Rodgers will become the highest paid player in NFL history. It's being reported that his contract extension will come in at 4 years and $100,000,000$ (that's alot of zeros).

If this is true? What is the real price to the Green Bay Packers and Packer fans? If this is true will we sensably shout BRAVO Ted Thompson? If this is true can we associate it with anything approaching the definition of intelligence?

OK this is simply a stupid rumor? Ted Thompson cannot be so stupid to pay out that much percentage of the Packers CAP for one man. I dont believe this rumor is true. It cannot be true on any level of logic.

It's simply a rumor, so ignore it.

This is your first post in this thread. Am I confused or are you confused?