PREDICT JORDAN LOVE'S NEXT CONTRACT

[Joemailman]

REAL QUESTION; Did Gutebag make a huge error not just jumping on the extension early May before these other deals hit.

Guessing a 4 year at 205 could have been nailed down as the first one

How do you know he wasn't working on it? It takes 2 to make a deal.

[Fritz]

How do you know he wasn't working on it? It takes 2 to make a deal.

At a certain point, with numbers sky high like they are for QB's, you wonder what the heck is the difference - besides the obvious mathematical difference - between 52 mill a year and 55? He won't have to deny his future children meals because he didn't get that extra three mill a year. It's already going to be generational wealth.

So what is it? I'm guessing it's just the idea that you are seen as one of the two or three best in the league since you have a contract that reflects that.

Or I suppose it could be they're haggling over the length, but again, even if the Packers get, say, five years, it's not unheard of that after year three, when Love will have been surpassed by other contracts, that he'll threaten to sit out or whatnot.

This is all a little bit nuts.

[Joemailman]

At a certain point, with numbers sky high like they are for QB's, you wonder what the heck is the difference - besides the obvious mathematical difference - between 52 mill a year and 55? He won't have to deny his future children meals because he didn't get that extra three mill a year. It's already going to be generational wealth.

So what is it? I'm guessing it's just the idea that you are seen as one of the two or three best in the league since you have a contract that reflects that.

Or I suppose it could be they're haggling over the length, but again, even if the Packers get, say, five years, it's not unheard of that after year three, when Love will have been surpassed by other contracts, that he'll threaten to sit out or whatnot.

This is all a little bit nuts.

I think what they're likely negotiating is the structure of the contract, especially guaranteed money. The Packers typically want guaranteed money paid up front. They don't like to guarantee future base salaries.

Of course, some people think a deal is already basically done and they're just waiting for the eve of training camp to announce it.

[bobblehead]

REAL QUESTION; Did Gutebag make a huge error not just jumping on the extension early May before these other deals hit.

Guessing a 4 year at 205 could have been nailed down as the first one

Guessing based on what??

[bobblehead]

Point 1: None of us have a clue what has held this up or what either side has offered or asked for.

Point 2: To Fritz question about the difference. Remember that if you make 55 Million you will likely immediately hand over 20M for taxes. Not that 35M isn't still silly money, but the extra 3 million looks bigger as a percentage. And if you can get it, why wouldn't you. If I were in Loves seat I would probably take 45M and insist I get to choose a FA of choice. When said FA is gone/cut/whatever I get to choose another. I never had a problem with Rodgers wanting Cobb back, I had a problem with him demanding absolute top $$ and wanting to also play GM. You want Cobb, pay him out of your salary.

[Fritz]

I think what they're likely negotiating is the structure of the contract, especially guaranteed money. The Packers typically want guaranteed money paid up front. They don't like to guarantee future base salaries.

Of course, some people think a deal is already basically done and they're just waiting for the eve of training camp to announce it.

Being ignant in this area, I don't understand - if you were the player, why wouldn't you want more guaranteed money up front? Like, could the Packers front-load the contract so it averages 53 mil or 55 mil a year, but pays more initially? Make it four years so it's not a huge discrepancy between year one and year four?

[bobblehead]

Being ignant in this area, I don't understand - if you were the player, why wouldn't you want more guaranteed money up front? Like, could the Packers front-load the contract so it averages 53 mil or 55 mil a year, but pays more initially? Make it four years so it's not a huge discrepancy between year one and year four?

Most contracts, and the packers are no different have low base early, large late. This way they can get out of a deal after x years. Goes like this roughly.

20M signing, 5 years deal. Salaries of 2M, 4M, 6M, 15M, 20M. Cap hits spread the signing so player is counting 6, 8, 10, 19, 24. But if the player is cut after 3 years the last 8M that isn't accounted for is accelerated depending on cut date, it can be 8M on year 4 (no player), or still 4M each year with no player. The team didn't "overpay" the guy, player got 32M for 3 years. Even though the contract when signed averaged over 13M per year, he actually ended up making 10.6 per year. Thats why what we read is sort of garbage until you see details.

Player signed for 150M for 3 years. 20M bonus, base of 5/5/120M....well, you know he never plays that 3rd year. In reality he got a 2 year 30M deal. Furthermore he will count for 6.6M in year 3 long after he is gone.

This is crude, and there are tricks to be played with workout bonuses, roster bonuses etc. Bottom line though, the cap is real. EVERY dollar spent eventually is accounted for. If you kick the can down the road and another team didn't, you are handicapped when it comes to signing a new player (or signing your own).

[NewsBruin]

Most teams, and the Packers for A-Rod, would give the player the minimum salary on the first year, under the assumption that he's swimming in a lap pool o' cash from the signing bonus. The team can use that season's low cap amount to sign or extend other players. I don't think I've ever seen a team give a signee a minimum salary in a later year when, say, 3 other high-coat players' contracts would come due. I guess that's something no player's agent would ever agree to without extra consideration.

The thing with the guaranteed salaries, I think, is that it has a one-way limiting factor on the team. If a player outplays his salary based on whatever the market (his stats vs other QBs and any spikes in a season's salary cap), he can always start grousing behind-the-scenes for a rework. But if every team finds out that Jordan gets the yips under 7-man blitzes and find a strategy that he can't recover from, the Packers still owe him those future-year salaries. High guaranteed salaries gives a player more control over trades (because he can agree to convert salary to bonus to lessen the cost for the receiving team, if he wants to) and some extra time to latch onto another team if he get released (like A-Rod had those early triggers for his next season's salary). It seems to me that a lot of players just want a guarantee that they'll be playing somewhere more than they want to just cash in and cash out.

But if you're not someone's starting QB, you're a lot less likely to clean up on insurance and shaving commercials, so that's one more check in the "ensure longevity" column.

When Superstar QBs can get those guarantees put into their contracts, it becomes a super-rare occasion that they get outright cut (looking at you, Russel Wilson).

[texaspackerbacker]

Most contracts, and the packers are no different have low base early, large late. This way they can get out of a deal after x years. Goes like this roughly.

20M signing, 5 years deal. Salaries of 2M, 4M, 6M, 15M, 20M. Cap hits spread the signing so player is counting 6, 8, 10, 19, 24. But if the player is cut after 3 years the last 8M that isn't accounted for is accelerated depending on cut date, it can be 8M on year 4 (no player), or still 4M each year with no player. The team didn't "overpay" the guy, player got 32M for 3 years. Even though the contract when signed averaged over 13M per year, he actually ended up making 10.6 per year. Thats why what we read is sort of garbage until you see details.

Player signed for 150M for 3 years. 20M bonus, base of 5/5/120M....well, you know he never plays that 3rd year. In reality he got a 2 year 30M deal. Furthermore he will count for 6.6M in year 3 long after he is gone.

This is crude, and there are tricks to be played with workout bonuses, roster bonuses etc. Bottom line though, the cap is real. EVERY dollar spent eventually is accounted for. If you kick the can down the road and another team didn't, you are handicapped when it comes to signing a new player (or signing your own).

Another "Yes, But' post for you, bobblehead. You described very well what happens most of the time on contracts, even with numerical examples. BUT, the Packers are in a situation now that they don't really need to do that. The purpose of what you described, of course, is what you do to mitigate/manipulate/defeat/work within the salary cap. The Packers are in good enough shape, though, that they can afford a bigger hit in the first year or two and don't need to backload it too much. There will probably still be a big bonus, but not so much for the usual reason - lessening the early cap hit. It will probably be because Love in his first huge contract will probably want a huge chunk of cash,

[bobblehead]

Another "Yes, But' post for you, bobblehead. You described very well what happens most of the time on contracts, even with numerical examples. BUT, the Packers are in a situation now that they don't really need to do that. The purpose of what you described, of course, is what you do to mitigate/manipulate/defeat/work within the salary cap. The Packers are in good enough shape, though, that they can afford a bigger hit in the first year or two and don't need to backload it too much. There will probably still be a big bonus, but not so much for the usual reason - lessening the early cap hit. It will probably be because Love in his first huge contract will probably want a huge chunk of cash,

a) no they are not able to absorb 40 million in first year cap hit for love. Not even close
b) the reason they do it this way is 2 fold. First, Love can crow that his salary averages more than it really does if the latter years will never be played out. Second, it protects the team from being locked in for 5 years, which is a mistake Bruin made above. NFL salaries are not guaranteed. The signing bonus is, but not the salaries. If a player is cut after year 3 his year 4 salary won't be paid. QBs are a little different in that the monster deals make it harder to move on from earlier, but as the packers proved with Rodgeres, Bak, and Campbell, cutting a player before that big base salary hits is sort of baked in.
c) teams will NOT frontload a contract probably ever again because of guys like Antonio Brown who will take the big signing bonus, play the first couple years then become assholes so the team never sees the "bargain" years. Teams put the big contracts in back so THEY have control...sort of like Aaron Jones. He got paid for his years, but the biggest years they first renegotiated, then cut him so as to not pay it.

[bobblehead]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/understanding-nfl-contracts-and-why-trevor-lawrence-s-isn-t-a-record/ar-BB1oVwBu?ocid=BingNewsSerp

"Lawrence signed a five-year extension, meaning he is now under contract for seven more years, with $142 million of “true” guarantees—rock solid money that is sure to be paid—and another $58 million of other guarantees that convert to true guarantees at a later date." - so the reported 200million guaranteed isn't actually 200M. Its 142M.

"the annual average of $55 million for Lawrence’s extension years is much higher than the annual average for his overall contract with the Jaguars. The overall contract has an annual average of $43 million. Not that there’s anything wrong with making $43 million a year; but it is certainly not $55 million a year." - so lawrence is playing 2 more years on his rookie deal BEFORE those numbers kick in. That means 2 more years for the cap to increase and other QBs to sign deals.

"One-year cash:

Lawrence will make $39 million in the first year of his contract. That is last among all recent quarterback contracts, far behind Goff ($80.6 million), Jackson ($80 million), Cousins ($62 million), Jones ($46 million) and Burrow ($45 million).

Two-year cash:

Lawrence will make $76.5 million over the first two years of his contract. That is last among all recent quarterback contracts, far behind Jackson and Burrow ($111 million), Goff ($98 million), Watson ($92 million) and Cousins ($90 million).

Three-year cash:

Lawrence will make $114 million over the first three years of his contract. That is last among all recent quarterback contracts, far behind Jackson ($155 million), Goff ($153 million), Burrow ($146 million), Watson ($138 million) and Herbert ($133 million).

Four-year cash:

Lawrence will make $155 million over the first four years of his contract. That is last among all recent contracts, far behind Jackson ($207 million), Goff ($193 million), Burrow ($181 million), Jones ($160 million) and Herbert ($157 million)." - so lawrence isn't anywhere near Burrow money to be honest...not locked in anyway. The team could cut him in 4 years, take a hit and not pay out the 2 big base years in the extension.

edit: My big conclusion here is that Jackson (who negotiated his own deal) killed it. He is a very average QB in the playoffs, yet he is making more cash in the next 4 years than anyone. One thing the author didn't cover though....will Jackson ever see that year?

[texaspackerbacker]

a) no they are not able to absorb 40 million in first year cap hit for love. Not even close
b) the reason they do it this way is 2 fold. First, Love can crow that his salary averages more than it really does if the latter years will never be played out. Second, it protects the team from being locked in for 5 years, which is a mistake Bruin made above. NFL salaries are not guaranteed. The signing bonus is, but not the salaries. If a player is cut after year 3 his year 4 salary won't be paid. QBs are a little different in that the monster deals make it harder to move on from earlier, but as the packers proved with Rodgeres, Bak, and Campbell, cutting a player before that big base salary hits is sort of baked in.
c) teams will NOT frontload a contract probably ever again because of guys like Antonio Brown who will take the big signing bonus, play the first couple years then become assholes so the team never sees the "bargain" years. Teams put the big contracts in back so THEY have control...sort of like Aaron Jones. He got paid for his years, but the biggest years they first renegotiated, then cut him so as to not pay it.

Your a) Not "40 million", but when extreme cap manipulation is needed, they get the first year down to the bonus proration plus maybe a million or so. The Packers don't need to do that and probably won't do that. $15 or 20 or so probably is very doable.

your b) correct

your c) mostly correct, but QBs might still have that simply because there is probably less chance of injury or attitude problems like Antonio Brown.

[bobblehead]

QBs don't have that. Not anymore. No one does. Teams simply won't expose themselves to the risk. Every contract starts out with smaller base that goes up in subsequent years.

[NewsBruin]

Second, it protects the team from being locked in for 5 years, which is a mistake Bruin made above. NFL salaries are not guaranteed. The signing bonus is, but not the salaries.

Kicks dirt.

I was wrong about Russell Wilson. The Broncos' cap hit came from his signing bonus and 2024 salary (offset by the veteran minimum that the Steelers will pay him). I thought Rodgers' final Packers contract always had him one season further guaranteed, but that might have just been the tine between the Super Bowl and the upcoming season.

NFL contracts can be fully guaranteed; it's just that no team wants to be the one to fart in church and do it. I remember reading like 10 years ago, there were three distinctions for salary guarantees (or releasing): skill, injury, and cap. If someone can get all three, that season is considered "fully guaranteed."

Currently, Kirk Cousins has had two multi-year fully guaranteed contracts (Minnesota and Atlanta), because he was a free agent with multiple suitors and was considered safe enough to last for a few years. Deshaun Watson is also fully guaranteed for 5y/$230M because both he and the Texans had leverage and the Browns are a thirsty clown factory of sadness.

[texaspackerbacker]

QBs don't have that. Not anymore. No one does. Teams simply won't expose themselves to the risk. Every contract starts out with smaller base that goes up in subsequent years.

Of course that's the way contracts are structured. But there is doing it to the extreme, which a cap-strapped team might need to do to retain a star player, and there is just mildly increasing things over time. The Packers are NOT cap-strapped, and they won't take it to the extreme.