AJ Dillon injury

[sharpe1027]

You can't really cook the books with guaranteed money. Backloading can be okay if you can cut ties before the big payouts hit. Seems to be the sticking point here.

[KYPack]

You can do it a little bit. Kenny Clark's cap hit is about 6M in 2020.About 7M in 2021. After that it's over 20M. Rodgers will go from 21M in 2020 to 37M in 2021. But if you overdo it you end up like the Saints who have 13 guys who will have a cap hit over 10M in 2021.

Sure, you have to shuffle the contract amounts around to fit the teams cap strategy. Take Clark's contract. His overall deal is worth 70 mil. Half of that is guaranteed. And the cap hits for the next two seasons are smaller. After those two years, the "funny money" portion of the deal kicks in. If this deal is allowed to ride to maturity, Clark will no longer be on the roster in the 2023 season. Many things can take place prior to that season.

In Jones case, the Pack offered AJ a "back loaded" deal. He rejected it. The true value of a long term deal is the guaranteed money. The plan the FO offered Jones was light in the guaranteed portion. You can hardly blame Jones for turning it down.

[Fritz]

I really don't blame any of these guys for turning down contracts. Well, maybe some of the elite QB's who see the contract as somehow demonstrating the size of their dick. I mean,couldn't Rodgers get by on a couple mill less a year? But most of these guys, they get one or two contracts, and it's a dog-eat-dog world. One injury, one play, and it's all over. It's not the like NFL has ever taken care of its players from the past or anything. The players are meat to them. So I don't blame Jones.

I do think the guy really wants to be in GB. I hope they get something done for him and for Linsley. I'd hate to have to choose between them.

[sharpe1027]

Fritz, yep. I don't blame someone for playing by the rules and getting the best deal they can for themselves. Sometimes, the best deal is the one with the most $, sometimes other factors are very important.

The reality is that Jones can likely make more money with another team. If that's more important to him, the Packers will never sign him. I don't blame either party.

[texaspackerbacker]

Backloading contracts does NOT work. That's funny money. The player and the agents analyze the contracts by their real worth and value.

Dillon practiced today and the coach is optimistic he will play on Sunday. The extra day may have helped Fritz!

It absolutely DOES work - anytime, but especially in this unique time when the salary cap is going down. The smart teams will do this; Hopefully the Packers are one of those. The players get paid big when the salary cap bounces back, and you know it's gonna go back up a helluva lot more than it goes down because of this supposed crisis. Players will do this because they recognize their real value, yes, but it is their real value compared to everybody else, and they're all in the same boat, cap-wise. Players also, in most cases anyway, want to keep a winning team together, and they value that above anything else. Maybe an agent thinks otherwise, but he is nothing more than an employee of the player.

[KYPack]

The Pack made the back load offer. Jones turned it down. Now that he is represented by Rosenhaus, there is NO way they will take an offer that is light on guaranteed money. Back loading is a club in the bag, but can't be the whole strategy.

[bobblehead]

Bottom line is this. Ride him hard the next 2 games. Win an owl. Throw him a party and wish him well. Let him get paid. Good for him. He played his rookie deal without holding out so he deserves to hit FA. But we don't have the space, nor should we pay a RB that kind of money.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Pack made the back load offer. Jones turned it down. Now that he is represented by Rosenhaus, there is NO way they will take an offer that is light on guaranteed money. Back loading is a club in the bag, but can't be the whole strategy.

I read 3 articles about Jones turning down the offer. There was not a word about back loading or terms other than to say the issue was guaranteed money. Guaranteed money is not inconsistent with back loading. In fact, the primary way to keep the cap number low in the short term is with a big bonus. The articles said the talks were ongoing. I'd say there is still plenty of reasons for optimism.

[smuggler]

Guaranteeing the money means it no longer matters where the money is in the contract because you're 100% going to pat it. If you're backloading contacts because to don't have near-term cap space, then that's fine. If you're like the Iggles and you're backloading because you don't ever intend to pay the last two years, then guaranteed money 100% matters. But then, for some players, the AAV is about reapect and status more than it is about actual compensation. In AJo's case, he's interested in actually being paid as much as possible. So he may not care if the AAV is top-5 as long as the guaranteed money is nice enough. The question is this: If you sign AJo to a 5-year deal, are you okay if the team pays the whole thing. If you say yes, know that your answer in 5 years will most likely be different.

[texaspackerbacker]

Example: $100 million for 5 years - $35m bonus, salary of $2m, 13m, 15m, 17m, 19m in years 2-5. That would be $9 million against the cap the first year and 20, 22, 24, and 26 in years 2-5. This is not an example of what smuggler was talking about with the Eagles. It's something that ought to be acceptable to the player, and it certainly works for the team, given the unique cap situation.

[GB-Brandon]

LOL!!!! And I’m the Insane one!!!!!

[Upnorth]

Example: $100 million for 5 years - $35m bonus, salary of $2m, 13m, 15m, 17m, 19m in years 2-5. That would be $9 million against the cap the first year and 20, 22, 24, and 26 in years 2-5. This is not an example of what smuggler was talking about with the Eagles. It's something that ought to be acceptable to the player, and it certainly works for the team, given the unique cap situation.

You are just using this as an example. Not advocating for this contract right? Because 20 mill aav for a rb is insane.

[GB-Brandon]

Guaranteeing the money means it no longer matters where the money is in the contract because you're 100% going to pat it. If you're backloading contacts because to don't have near-term cap space, then that's fine. If you're like the Iggles and you're backloading because you don't ever intend to pay the last two years, then guaranteed money 100% matters. But then, for some players, the AAV is about reapect and status more than it is about actual compensation. In AJo's case, he's interested in actually being paid as much as possible. So he may not care if the AAV is top-5 as long as the guaranteed money is nice enough. The question is this: If you sign AJo to a 5-year deal, are you okay if the team pays the whole thing. If you say yes, know that your answer in 5 years will most likely be different.

Probably in even 3 years. Great Kid. Let someone else be the victim of the “Over-Pay.”

[sharpe1027]

Example: $100 million for 5 years - $35m bonus, salary of $2m, 13m, 15m, 17m, 19m in years 2-5. That would be $9 million against the cap the first year and 20, 22, 24, and 26 in years 2-5. This is not an example of what smuggler was talking about with the Eagles. It's something that ought to be acceptable to the player, and it certainly works for the team, given the unique cap situation.

This could be exactly what they offered in terms of structure. It's a negotiation, and regardless of structure, there's a point at which it no longer makes sense for the team. In almost every case, a player can make more on the open market. It only takes one team to put a higher value on the player.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but you can't sign everyone in every situation.

[George Cumby]

^ Like Kentucky says: "You can't keep them all."