Packers re-sign Shields, 4 year $39 million

[red]

That seems to be right, I have since found a couple places that mentioned the $1M/year, and I have somewhat of a recollection of that. But he never really played much for them. Didn't he end up on IR the first year he signed with them? He played only in spots the next couple years.

i think he played part of the year in 2006. yup, turns out he broke his arm in late november and went on IR

he then re-signed in 07 for 1.1 million for a year, he was 38 or 39 by then

Junior Seau's contract with New England doesn't include a signing bonus.
The one-year pact can be worth $1.1 million if Seau reaches incentives that add $100,000 to his $1 million base salary. He gets $500,000 guaranteed for making the roster, even if he lands on injured reserve during the season.
Source: Boston Globe
Tue, May 22, 2007 04:26:00 PM

then he retired again, but came back late in the 08 season when the pats needed him due to other injuries

then kinda retired again, only to resign with the pats during the 09 season, when he was 40

[pbmax]

people keep saying that the jones deal isn't a bad deal for a starter (2.5 to 4.5 million a year)

no its not a bad deal, FOR A STARTER. and thats where the problem comes in. jones should not be a starter, and he's never shown that he could be a starter imo. at best he is a decent backup, and backup LB's should not be making 4 million dollars a year, they should be guys on rookie deal, or vets making closer to the minimum

yes, we can easily get out of the deal, and i think we should, because 4 million this year for a backup quality guy is way too much imo

But that is the entire point of his deal. He was expected to start and did start. He was young, reasonably productive, though in the middle of a position change on his first full FA contract and so wasn't likely to be signed for the vet minimum. T2 doesn't just hand money out to be kind. That was what they judged the market at. They have gotten it right with some (JJones) and wrong with others (Wells).

You know he had little leverage because the minute a better players shows up (or the need to cash for Aaron, Clay, Morgan or Sam) he can get the boot because his contract contains no provisions making his release tough even in its first year. He just did not improve as expected. He isn't helping as much as he should, but he is not an anchor on the future of the defense.

Its got to be a unique case for Thompson to sign a vet to a smaller deal. While rebuilding he got Walker, when remaking the LB corp he got Chillar and when trying to store up a pass rush, he signed Merling and Hargrove.

[Packman_26]

The thing is, lots of the Jones contract is a sunk cost. Cutting him isn't going to bring it back. According to Overthecap.com, they would save 1.925 million by cutting him. That's the only relevant number in discussing his roster spot. Could the Packers sign another player for less than $2 million per year that would have more value? Possible but I don't think it's a slam dunk by any means. He's no world beater but he's serviceable with starting experience, can play numerous positions, and is a known quantity.
It's a completely different argument than if he should be a starter or not.

[pbmax]

Silverstein today characterized the BJones signing as a poor one, while generally praising Thompson's overall FA contract agreements.

Says they panicked about the ILB position. Question I have, if he isn't retained, who would start? Is Lattimore a starting caliber ILB?

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/249201491.html

[red]

But that is the entire point of his deal. He was expected to start and did start. He was young, reasonably productive, though in the middle of a position change on his first full FA contract and so wasn't likely to be signed for the vet minimum. T2 doesn't just hand money out to be kind. That was what they judged the market at. They have gotten it right with some (JJones) and wrong with others (Wells).

You know he had little leverage because the minute a better players shows up (or the need to cash for Aaron, Clay, Morgan or Sam) he can get the boot because his contract contains no provisions making his release tough even in its first year. He just did not improve as expected. He isn't helping as much as he should, but he is not an anchor on the future of the defense.

Its got to be a unique case for Thompson to sign a vet to a smaller deal. While rebuilding he got Walker, when remaking the LB corp he got Chillar and when trying to store up a pass rush, he signed Merling and Hargrove.

interesting you brought up chillar, i forgot about him. chillar IMO, was a bit better the jones, but not by much

chillar signed in 2008 for a 2 year, 5.2 million dollar deal. then resigned in in 2009 for 4 years, 22.65 million

he was cut in 2011

neither were full time starter material, both got paid like starters, but jones deal looks pretty modest compared to what we threw at chillar

why the hell did we give chillar all that money?

ps, who's walker? i'm having a brain fart

[red]

Silverstein today characterized the BJones signing as a poor one, while generally praising Thompson's overall FA contract agreements.

Says they panicked about the ILB position. Question I have, if he isn't retained, who would start? Is Lattimore a starting caliber ILB?

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/249201491.html

honestly, when lattimore has played, i've been impressed

so, maybe he could start instead of jones. i would think our second ILB next to hawk isn't currently on the roster. and as soon as that guy is found, jones and his 4 million dollar cap number will be out the door soon after, because 4 million is too much to pay your backup ILB imo

[red]

The thing is, lots of the Jones contract is a sunk cost. Cutting him isn't going to bring it back. According to Overthecap.com, they would save 1.925 million by cutting him. That's the only relevant number in discussing his roster spot. Could the Packers sign another player for less than $2 million per year that would have more value? Possible but I don't think it's a slam dunk by any means. He's no world beater but he's serviceable with starting experience, can play numerous positions, and is a known quantity.
It's a completely different argument than if he should be a starter or not.

yes, but you can't just look at this year. we would free up 1.925 million this season, but also free up all of the 4.67 million next year

if we waited to cut him until next season,then we only save 3.67 million

[Packman_26]

yes, but you can't just look at this year. we would free up 1.925 million this season, but also free up all of the 4.67 million next year

if we waited to cut him until next season,then we only save 3.67 million

I don't think you should made decisions like that based on saving 2 million this year and an extra 1 million in 2015 (over the option of cutting him next offseason), especially for a team like the Packers that have so much cap flexibility. They should make those decisions based solely on keeping the best players. That is a benefit teams like the Cowboys don't have.
Maybe things change next year and the Packers have drafted CJ Mosley to start, signed a Defensive End and a Safety and they will need the 3.67 million to sign Cobb, Nelson, and Bulaga. In that case it makes sense, but given the information we currently have I don't see the justification.

[Bretsky]

I've said it many times regarding free agency; it's ok to overpay slightly if they are good players. You just don't want to overpay the crappy ones. That's why deep down I'm fine with Sam Shields and never have been with Brad Jones

[pbmax]

I've said it many times regarding free agency; it's ok to overpay slightly if they are good players. You just don't want to overpay the crappy ones. That's why deep down I'm fine with Sam Shields and never have been with Brad Jones

No wonder the underwriters worry about you. #RiskRatio

[pbmax]

We'll get some context on Shields soon, looks like:

Jason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora 1m
Corner market continues to constrict - the Colts nearing a deal with Vontae Davis. Every expectation it will get done Monday

[Bretsky]

No wonder the underwriters worry about you. #RiskRatio

Most underwirters don't get it; if they want to make good decisions they should give far more weight to the credit than what shows up on paper. Just pick the right people. It's not all about the numbers.

[red]

We'll get some context on Shields soon, looks like:

Jason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora 1m
Corner market continues to constrict - the Colts nearing a deal with Vontae Davis. Every expectation it will get done Monday

well, we did just set the market, so i would guess the shields deal is gonna look about right after all the others get paid

[Brandon494]

I've said it many times regarding free agency; it's ok to overpay slightly if they are good players. You just don't want to overpay the crappy ones. That's why deep down I'm fine with Sam Shields and never have been with AJ Hawk

fixed

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1986073-green-bay-packers-sign-sam-shields-to-a-39m-deal-too-much-or-just-right

What do you think of the Sam Shields deal?:

The Packers paid too much: 33.8%

The contract was perfect = 16.5%

The contract was a little high, but Shields is worth every penny = 49.7%