Arrington

[HarveyWallbangers]

He needs 11 million to sign rooks.

Why would he need $11M? I haven't seen that, but San Francisco had more picks last year and the #1 pick, and only had to shell out around $7M.

[Tarlam!]

He needs 11 million to sign rooks.

Why would he need $11M? I haven't seen that, but San Francisco had more picks last year and the #1 pick, and only had to shell out around $7M.

My memory is not what it used to be, but I thought I read that figure somewhere. But as I am the forum's football illiterate, you're probably right!

[swede]

I don't mind making safe moves but it WOULD NOT KILL THE PACKERS FUTURE to make ONE BIG SPLASH. Im not saying you turn into the Redskins, but signing ONE BIG FA would get the fans and Brett excited again.

I'll buy that.

[swede]

Arrington and woodson having the same agent makes for interesting dynamics.

Would you guess that Woodson is the one least likely to make the premium bucks he wants? And if so, would you try to get him signed first?

Or is Arrington the difference maker and we just make sure we land him at whatever it takes?

I like the idea of getting Arrington and taking Vernon Davis at #5. This team might get better in a big hurry.

[CyclonePackFan]

11M for rookies? Way too high. I think 6M is the average figure to sign the rooks, but it depends on how much Reggie Bush gets paid, and if we trade to Denver and wind up with 2 first-rounders that'll push the number up somewhat.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think teams need to clear 7 million of cap room before a certain date to sign their rookies. I think it is right before the draft.

[Pack0514]

I dont know if this has been brought up anywhere else but what do you guys think of this?

Packers | Favre's retirement could make team spend money
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:31:26 -0700

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre's retirement could be a financial disaster, but in a different kind of way for the team. With his $3 million roster bonus and $7 million in salary, Favre would make $10 million this year if he plays. The Packers would save $10 million of cash if he doesn't, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, but that doesn't include draft choices or any other free agent signings. Not having Favre would take the payroll down to $66 million. With the new collective bargaining agreement, teams must have a minimum cash payroll of $85.5 million, meaning the Packers would have to spend $19.5 million just to make the minimum. With the players remaining as free agents, the Packers would be hard pressed to spend the money they would need to.

[Patler]

The league assigns an amount to each team, depending on what draft spots they have. It can vary significantly from one team to another.

The total league-wide "rookie pool" was adjusted each year under the old agreement, and was established originally in relation to the salary cap calculations.

Since the salary cap went up so much this year, I think we can expect a significant jump in the rookie pool as well. Rookie negotiations will be interesting. In the past, the total values usually followed a slight increase over the contract signed by the player last year in the same draft spot. That may not be the case this year, with the salary cap having increased so dramatically. Just as with FAs this year, there may be some "rogue" values for a few rookies. it will settle out over a few years.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Man, you gotta be patler. Right?

I promise I won't hold it against you.

[Rastak]

The league assigns an amount to each team, depending on what draft spots they have. It can vary significantly from one team to another.

The total league-wide "rookie pool" was adjusted each year under the old agreement, and was established originally in relation to the salary cap calculations.

Since the salary cap went up so much this year, I think we can expect a significant jump in the rookie pool as well. Rookie negotiations will be interesting. In the past, the total values usually followed a slight increase over the contract signed by the player last year in the same draft spot. That may not be the case this year, with the salary cap having increased so dramatically. Just as with FAs this year, there may be some "rogue" values for a few rookies. it will settle out over a few years.

You seem to be a knowledgable fellow on cap matters. Also note the minimum cap numbers go sky high next year (per profootballtalk.com).....that will be interesting if team like GB and Arizona have huge amounts of free cap space next year.

[woodbuck27]

I dont know if this has been brought up anywhere else but what do you guys think of this?

Packers | Favre's retirement could make team spend money
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:31:26 -0700

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre's retirement could be a financial disaster, but in a different kind of way for the team. With his $3 million roster bonus and $7 million in salary, Favre would make $10 million this year if he plays. The Packers would save $10 million of cash if he doesn't, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, but that doesn't include draft choices or any other free agent signings. Not having Favre would take the payroll down to $66 million. With the new collective bargaining agreement, "teams must have a minimum cash payroll of $85.5 million, meaning the Packers would have to spend $19.5 million just to make the minimum. With the players remaining as free agents, the Packers would be hard pressed to spend the money they would need to.

"The Packers have a payroll of around $76 million, " fr. article above


I question that figure as being too low, according to the Packer Salary Info. I posted yesterday ( see thread ) would make this figure slightly above
$84 million not $76 million .

Now, some people are suggesting that the Packers would have an additional $10 million if Brett Favre were to suggest/agree to deferring that amount, and taking a few hundred G's this Season as payment for services; but eventually the Packers get caught up in that one down the road.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I question that figure as being too low, according to the Packer Salary Info. I posted yesterday ( see thread ) would make this figure slightly above 84 million not $76 million .

Now, some people are suggesting that the Packers would have an additional $10 million if Brett Favre were to suggest/agree to deferring that amount, and taking a few hundred G's this Season as payment for services; but eventually the Packers get caught up in that one down the road.

It wasn't a suggestion. The $76M figure was reported if Favre was cut. Seems reasonable since it's also been reported that cutting Favre would gain the Packers $7-8M in cap space.

I'm not sure what you are saying about the payment to Favre?