Official Packers Offseason/Free Agency Thread

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I don't think anybody said Zadarius is a bad investment. With no cap, I'd keep him in a second as he's a great pass rusher. We've got plenty of reserves in GB is we're not considering the cap.

If he's healthy Minnesota got a deal for his talents. But with a salary cap, we had to let him go.

I’m with ole Tex on this and that.

Mien zuruck seems to be getting better, but last year, I flipped burgers through months of mild back pain. How many inexcusable absence did I miss? Zero; I am tougher than Brett Favre. But suppose I missed a tons of workdays. What do you think woulda happened? Even at $7.25/hr, they woulda terminated me.

The NFL ain’t any different from any other place. The unproductive bee always gets terminated from the hive. Z’s zuruck rendered him unproductive last season. Hence, his termination from the Packers. The Packers, with respect to the current cap, coulda paid Z $14M/yr if that’s what they desired. Cook the fucking cap. But if McDonald’s won’t pay an unproductive worker $7.25/hr, what makes you think the Packers would pay Z $14M a year?

[Upnorth]

I’m with ole Tex on this and that.

Mien zuruck seems to be getting better, but last year, I flipped burgers through months of mild back pain. How many inexcusable absence did I miss? Zero; I am tougher than Brett Favre. But suppose I missed a tons of workdays. What do you think woulda happened? Even at $7.25/hr, they woulda terminated me.

The NFL ain’t any different from any other place. The unproductive bee always gets terminated from the hive. Z’s zuruck rendered him unproductive last season. Hence, his termination from the Packers. The Packers, with respect to the current cap, coulda paid Z $14M/yr if that’s what they desired. Cook the fucking cap. But if McDonald’s won’t pay an unproductive worker $7.25/hr, what makes you think the Packers would pay Z $14M a year?

z had more snaps than bak last year. We kept bak.
You cook the cap guys don't appear to apply logic to your evidence pieces.
The future money we spend today does have negative consequences. Sometimes the team feels it is worth it (like bak) so.etimes they don't see it that way (like z). I mean taken to an extreme we could keep everybody this year and add a ton but can we even field a team in a year or two?
Current choices have future implications.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

If I didnnt have to worry about cap room I would definitely have z and mvs. Plus I would actively be lookiing at available dt and ot right now. Plus I would get Julio and fuller and Landry. Because why not? We have top 10 cash flow. Stupid to not get these guys.

Also the Raiders niners and patriots have the 3 highest ticket revenues so they should have the best free agents becausecap doesn't matter.
Or dallas and the giants.

But that's not how it really works.

You Canadians still worship the Queen of England, so y’all must still be using the metric system. No wonder you ain’t got a fucking clue how the NFL really works. Yes “ain’t” is an American word. It came from the hill folks - who then introduced it to the Blacks - upon their devolution from the classy and sophisticated Brits. I ain’t no hill folk, nor am I Black, but decided to start using “ain’t” after seeing Tarantino’s Django Unchained.

Anyways, there’s this thing in the NFL called revenue sharing. If Bezos makes it rain and pays the NFL $10 billion a year. Assuming my math ain’t fucked, each team gets $312.5M. The players get 48% of that sum. In other words, each team gets, at the minimum, $150M to spend on players in a given season. Note that Bezos ain’t the only one feeding the NFL. Bottom line is, ain’t matter that the Packers’ “owners” are a bunch of middle-class folks like Bobble; not billionaires like Jerry Jones.

Revenue sharing allows the Packers to compete for players with the Cowfuckers. The cap, in the modern era, merely serves as an excuse for the Jerry Jones of the NFL to cut labor expenses. I mean, a dollar more Jones has to pay a player is a dollar less he takes home.

As a wise man once said, so long as cash flow keeps a-flowing, the cap can always be cooked.

[run pMc]

what makes you think the Packers would pay Z $14M a year?

Z's cap hit was $28M, the cap savings by cutting him was closer to 14 or 15M.

If there is no cap, what does Russ Ball do? If he cooks the cap, why does it need to be cooked? Answer: because it had limits, and you can't indefinitely outflank limits.

Also: that $24M in dead cap space they have this year is over 11% of their cap, meaning they are really working with ~88% of normal cap space to sign FA or their own players

[Upnorth]

You Canadians still worship the Queen of England, so y’all must still be using the metric system. No wonder you ain’t got a fucking clue how the NFL really works. Yes “ain’t” is an American word. It came from the hill folks - who then introduced it to the Blacks - upon their devolution from the classy and sophisticated Brits. I ain’t no hill folk, nor am I Black, but decided to start using “ain’t” after seeing Tarantino’s Django Unchained.

Anyways, there’s this thing in the NFL called revenue sharing. If Bezos makes it rain and pays the NFL $10 billion a year. Assuming my math ain’t fucked, each team gets $312.5M. The players get 48% of that sum. In other words, each team gets, at the minimum, at $150M to spend on players in a given season. Note that Bezos ain’t the only one feeding the NFL. Bottom line is, ain’t matter that the Packers’ “owners” are a bunch of middle-class folks like Bobble; not billionaires like Jerry Jones.

Revenue sharing allows the Packers to compete for players with the Cowfuckers. The cap, in the modern era, merely serves as an excuse for the Jerry Jones of the NFL to cut labor expenses. I mean, a dollar more Jones has to pay a player is a dollar less he takes home.

As a wise man once said, so long as cash flow keeps a-flowing, the cap can always be cooked.

Tv revenues ain't the only revenues available to teams. That's why the packers are a have team not a have not. Our tickets are above average. Our stadoum capacity is above average. Our stadium is sold out. Hence cash flow positive. If the cap ain't 'real' there are only a couple teams who beat us in cash. But a team with less cash flow won the last 2 Super bowls. If you can ingnore the cap and build the team you want and not have consequences then fuck it lets get us some of them free agents. Ain't no thang

[Anti-Polar Bear]

z had more snaps than bak last year. We kept bak.
You cook the cap guys don't appear to apply logic to your evidence pieces.
The future money we spend today does have negative consequences. Sometimes the team feels it is worth it (like bak) so.etimes they don't see it that way (like z). I mean taken to an extreme we could keep everybody this year and add a ton but can we even field a team in a year or two?
Current choices have future implications.

Back maladies tend to linger, even with surgery. A tear in a knee can be surgically repaired. Bak and Z: apples and oranges.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Z's cap hit was $28M, the cap savings by cutting him was closer to 14 or 15M.

If there is no cap, what does Russ Ball do? If he cooks the cap, why does it need to be cooked? Answer: because it had limits, and you can't indefinitely outflank limits.

Also: that $24M in dead cap space they have this year is over 11% of their cap, meaning they are really working with ~88% of normal cap space to sign FA or their own players

I’m using numbers from Z’s recent deal with the Queens. According to spotrac, the 3 year deal averaged $14M a year. $3.3M cap hit in 22!

Let’s be real here, the only reason we’re chatting about “dead money” in part and the cap as a whole is because the cap got fucked by the “aberration.” Not even the NFL’s highly paid, Ivy League-educated team of economists could forecast the aberration. Packers had to cook the cap a tons for the “Last Dance.” Hence, the increase in dead money this year. Things being normal, upnorth would be like, cutting Z is akin to Thompson cutting Wahle - unnecessary.

If the Packers needed more cap space this year, they could always cook the cap further. Sure, all things being equal, the ‘24 cap might show something like a dead money of $60M. But all ain’t gonna be equal. Bezo’s gonna make it rain. Some contracts will expire and some will get extended or renewed. And who’s to say the Packers can’t cook the cap in ‘24?

[texaspackerbacker]

You ain't wrong, APB hahahaha, either about the apples to oranges thing or the NFL income stream, which of course translate to cap or the "aberration". Assuming your 48% to the players thing comes from the CBA, it's required to. Even with the small market and all, though, I'm not so sure the Packers are all that radically on the receiving end of revenue sharing. A sold out stadium every game, massive money from NFL logo gear, etc., I would think they are at least in the mid range among teams bringing in money.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tv revenues ain't the only revenues available to teams. That's why the packers are a have team not a have not. Our tickets are above average. Our stadoum capacity is above average. Our stadium is sold out. Hence cash flow positive. If the cap ain't 'real' there are only a couple teams who beat us in cash. But a team with less cash flow won the last 2 Super bowls. If you can ingnore the cap and build the team you want and not have consequences then fuck it lets get us some of them free agents. Ain't no thang

Every team in the NFL has positive cash flow - thanks to revenue sharing. Despite the cap being ever present, every team was able to compete for Deshaun Watson’s service. Proof? The Saints are supposedly in a cap hell - thanks Brees - yet they were a legitimate player for Watson.

Haves and have nots are determined by QBs, not the fucking cap.

[RashanGary]

The cap can only be cooked so far. They are almost out of contracts to rework and extensions to dole out.

Hence they made some business decisions and moved on from a few good players.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think anybody said Zadarius is a bad investment. With no cap, I'd keep him in a second as he's a great pass rusher. We've got plenty of reserves in GB is we're not considering the cap.

If he's healthy Minnesota got a deal for his talents. But with a salary cap, we had to let him go.

I didn't say he IS a bad investment for the Packers. They probably got their money's worth out of him. I said he will be a bad investment for the Vikings and would have been for the Packers if we paid enough to keep him. He's an injury waiting to happen.

No, we didn't need to let him go for the cap. If it's true his cap hit for the Vikings is only $3+ million, we easily could have done that.

[Joemailman]

I didn't say he IS a bad investment for the Packers. They probably got their money's worth out of him. I said he will be a bad investment for the Vikings and would have been for the Packers if we paid enough to keep him. He's an injury waiting to happen.

No, we didn't need to let him go for the cap. If it's true his cap hit for the Vikings is only $3+ million, we easily could have done that.

Z's cap hit if the Packers kept him was going to be 28 million, because the Packers cooked the cap last year to keep him on the team.

[texaspackerbacker]

Of course we could have restructured him, probably for about the same as the Vikings got him for, but it wouldn't have been wise given his back injury history.

Speaking of the Vikings, did I miss a comment somewhere in here? Or didn't poor Chandon Sullivan merit even a mention - signing with them. $2-3 million on a one year deal, I liked him and was sort of hoping we'd keep him too, but that seems like a bit much to pay him hahahahaha.

[Upnorth]

Of course we could have restructured him, probably for about the same as the Vikings got him for, but it wouldn't have been wise given his back injury history.

Speaking of the Vikings, did I miss a comment somewhere in here? Or didn't poor Chandon Sullivan merit even a mention - signing with them. $2-3 million on a one year deal, I liked him and was sort of hoping we'd keep him too, but that seems like a bit much to pay him hahahahaha.

Very solid #4 CB. Great for depth. But could he play st well? If not that maybe why we let him walk.

[Fritz]

Very solid #4 CB. Great for depth. But could he play st well? If not that maybe why we let him walk.

As others have commented, it looks like the organization has woken up to the idea that fixing ST requires not only an experienced, expert ST coach, but also players who are more than spare part backups on offense or defense.

I don't know if Sullivan played ST - I suppose as a fan I ought to have known. I did like him as a depth guy, but probably they figure they can get Shemale Jean Claude Van Damme from last year to take that on, and play ST.