F/A JENKINS UPDATE

[RashanGary]

The Packers have alot of leverage here with the tenders and RFA status. There is no reason that we shouldn't have as the worste case;

A. A 1st round pick for Jenkins
or
B. A pretty good player on a 1 year 1.9 mil *or whatever* deal



I'm beginning to come around to Patlers *1 year deal* concept. The only way we get burned is by signing him long term and him not panning out. The other two options are very low risk.

If Jenkins wants a long term deal; make it discounted. 3 mil per year is not a big risk for a player like Jenkins. If he wants 5 years 15 with 5 up front; GREAT. If not; give him the tender and make him play for under 2 adn risk injury. There is no reason to go overboard here. Taht would be a Shermanesque move.

[Patler]

I'm beginning to come around to Patlers *1 year deal* concept. The only way we get burned is by signing him long term and him not panning out. The other two options are very low risk.

If Jenkins wants a long term deal; make it discounted. 3 mil per year is not a big risk for a player like Jenkins. If he wants 5 years 15 with 5 up front; GREAT. If not; give him the tender and make him play for under 2 adn risk injury. There is no reason to go overboard here. Taht would be a Shermanesque move.

To be honest, I'm not totally against a long term deal, so long as:

1. If it is for more than 3 years, the signing bonus is small so as not to impact future cap years significantly if he isn't what was expected. They can have roster bonuses, salaries, etc. for whatever they want, because if he is no longer deemed worth it you just let him go.

1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

2. If it is a 2 or 3 year contract, I don't care what they do it for. I will simply assume it is what they see his present value as. Since it has no long term effect, I really don't care.

I simply don't want to see situations like Joe Johnson and Cletidus Hunt where the player proved in his first year after signing that he was paid too much, but had to be kept around because of the cap implications. They can avoid those situations with the terms of the contract.

All in all, the RFA tender system is a decent situation now, since the salaries have been raised. The player is paid pretty well, and the team is given a 4th year for an "upstart" like Jenkins to prove himself. I'm not completely sold on Jenkins just yet. I doubt he would ever have made it as an every down DT, he was not very consistent against the run. However, he could have been a decent member of a rotation as the Packers have used. Perhaps he can be an every down player at DE, but I sure want to see more than just 4 games before investing too much guaranteed money in him. The RFA tender seems tailor made for his situation from the team's perspective. Since it is only one year, I would have no problem with them putting the highest tender on him if they want to avoid losing him.

[TopHat]

F/AS WATCH: POSSIBLE JENKINS EXTENSION

"Green Bay defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins is mulling whether to accept a four-year contract extension from the Packers or accept being tendered as a restricted free agent. Jenkins has been offered a deal worth approximately $16 million, according to a source. That includes roughly $7 million in guarantees. The deal is not a premium offer because of injury concerns. Jenkins has a chronically bad ankle and has had a shoulder injury during the first three years of his career after being an undrafted free agent. Although Jenkins might opt for the security of the deal, the flip side is that it could quickly become outdated with the expected growth of contracts around the NFL. That could leave Jenkins underpaid by the third and fourth years of the deal."

[LL2]

Re: F/AS WATCH: POSSIBLE JENKINS EXTENSION

"the flip side is that it could quickly become outdated with the expected growth of contracts around the NFL. That could leave Jenkins underpaid by the third and fourth years of the deal."

That's the risk you take. For crying out loud though, $7 mil in guaranteed money would be more that enough to take care of me for the rest of my life!

[TopHat]

PACKER WATCH UPDATE

JS Online

Defensive end Cullen Jenkins remained optimistic Friday that his agent will negotiate a long-term contract with the Green Bay Packers in the six days left before the start of restricted free agency. “I have no reason not to believe that,” Jenkins said. “It should get done. But either way, I’m going to be a Packer.” Agent Brian Levy reportedly has been meeting with team negotiator Andrew Brandt at the NFL combine. General manager Ted Thompson said he would like to complete a multi-year deal, but the fact that Jenkins said he hadn’t even talked to Levy in several days indicated that the two sides probably weren’t close. If agreement cannot be reached, the Packers have until Thursday to submit a qualifying offer to Jenkins. This year, teams have four possible tenders, one more than in the first 14 years of restricted free agency. The Packers won’t give Jenkins the lowest tender of $850,000 because he entered the league as a free agent and a team trying to sign him wouldn’t owe the Packers any draft-choice compensation. Their other options are the new second-round tender, which is worth $1.3 million; the first-round tender, worth $1.85 million; and the first- and third-round tender, which is worth about $2.3 million and would effectively remove Jenkins from the market. “Every player wants the security of a longer deal,” Jenkins said. “It will probably be a long week.” Favre’s schedule: When Brett Favre undergoes ankle surgery, and a source close to Favre said the date could come as early as next week, the Packers expect he will need eight to 10 weeks of rehabilitation time. “We’re shooting for the May 18 minicamp,” coach Mike McCarthy said. Deep respect:Marty Schottenheimer, who gave McCarthy his first job in pro coaching, might figure in Green Bay this season in a consulting role. “I think that’s something that could be visited down the road,” McCarthy said. “He’s the best football coach I’ve ever had the opportunity to work with.” Schottenheimer, 63, was fired last week as coach of the San Diego Chargers.

[Bretsky]

this is great news with Jenkins

I expected the 3.5-4 Mil range to be about where things would end up at

Thanks for posting the info

[wist43]

The Packers have alot of leverage here with the tenders and RFA status. There is no reason that we shouldn't have as the worste case;

A. A 1st round pick for Jenkins
or
B. A pretty good player on a 1 year 1.9 mil *or whatever* deal



I'm beginning to come around to Patlers *1 year deal* concept. The only way we get burned is by signing him long term and him not panning out. The other two options are very low risk.

If Jenkins wants a long term deal; make it discounted. 3 mil per year is not a big risk for a player like Jenkins. If he wants 5 years 15 with 5 up front; GREAT. If not; give him the tender and make him play for under 2 adn risk injury. There is no reason to go overboard here. Taht would be a Shermanesque move.

The problem with the one year deal is - it's a one year deal.

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

[RashanGary]

this is great news with Jenkins

I expected the 3.5-4 Mil range to be about where things would end up at

Thanks for posting the info

A. Eats up cap space and takes some pressure of us being forced to waste money on an inflated FA market.

B. He may not be the perfect DE or the perfect DT but he's the type of utility guy that finds himself playing very effectively in whatever position hes throw into; be it a pass rushing DT or a run stopping DE in certain situations. He might not be every down at one position but he finds his way on the field.



I agree B,


I sort of have a vision of us finding a superstud DE and having something like this;

Superstud/Jenkins
Williams/Jenkins
Pickett/Jolly
Kampman/Montgomery

Even if Jenkins isn't a starter and he's makin 4 mil; who cares. If he plays 70% of the snaps, your getting your money's worht and he's so versitile taht he can do that even if he doesnt' start.

If this move goes down, it buys us tiem from having ot fill the DE position and gives us the flexibility and depth to be GREAT on the D-line if we do find someone else.

[RashanGary]

EDIT: In response to Wist

That worked out just GREAT with Harris didn't it?

No, I agree Wist......It's a fine line. Regardless; it's tough for us to lose here. Either Jenkins takes an early big pay day at a discount, he plays for a cheap one year deal or we get a pick. It's really hard to F this up.

It sounds like that 7 mil up front will be just enough to get his name to paper.

[pbmax]

I remember hoping he'd come in for no more than four mil per. But after the cap went over $104 million and every DE was making $5 mil or better, it was clear the Packers hit the sweet spot. Even better, he played like he had a one year deal this year. And the deal was seriously front loaded. All around, this was a plumb barring injury this year.

Even before the CBA was finalized, it was known that the cap would be at least in the mid to upper 90s, most were saying about $96-98 million range. Finalization of the CB increased the calulations for the cap and took it even higher.

There were plenty who argued Kampman should get only $2-3 million, even AFTER he was signed, because I remember arguing with several that the figure they suggested was barely more than the average salary of an NFL player.

[Bretsky]

this is great news with Jenkins

I expected the 3.5-4 Mil range to be about where things would end up at

Thanks for posting the info

A. Eats up cap space and takes some pressure of us being forced to waste money on an inflated FA market.

B. He may not be the perfect DE or the perfect DT but he's the type of utility guy that finds himself playing very effectively in whatever position hes throw into; be it a pass rushing DT or a run stopping DE in certain situations. He might not be every down at one position but he finds his way on the field.



I agree B,


I sort of have a vision of us finding a superstud DE and having something like this;

Superstud/Jenkins
Williams/Jenkins
Pickett/Jolly
Kampman/Montgomery

Even if Jenkins isn't a starter and he's makin 4 mil; who cares. If he plays 70% of the snaps, your getting your money's worht and he's so versitile taht he can do that even if he doesnt' start.

If this move goes down, it buys us tiem from having ot fill the DE position and gives us the flexibility and depth to be GREAT on the D-line if we do find someone else.

That looks pretty good, but where is KGB ?

Are you writing him out of the lineup ?

I'm not so sure TT is giving up on him; he can be a good pass rushing DE and with all the cap room we have it's OK to overpay a few...........as long as his last name is not Ferguson

[pbmax]

It was designed that way, and Sherman admitted as much after the singing. Both parties knew what it meant.

1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

[pbmax]

Re: F/AS WATCH: POSSIBLE JENKINS EXTENSION

If front loaded as TT has done with Pickett, Kampman and to a lesser extent, Woodson, I would be fine with this.

"Green Bay defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins is mulling whether to accept a four-year contract extension from the Packers or accept being tendered as a restricted free agent. Jenkins has been offered a deal worth approximately $16 million, according to a source. That includes roughly $7 million in guarantees. The deal is not a premium offer because of injury concerns. Jenkins has a chronically bad ankle and has had a shoulder injury during the first three years of his career after being an undrafted free agent. Although Jenkins might opt for the security of the deal, the flip side is that it could quickly become outdated with the expected growth of contracts around the NFL. That could leave Jenkins underpaid by the third and fourth years of the deal."

[Patler]

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

The problem is that "locking -up" a player early doesn't really work anymore. The minute the player feels he is undervalued, the whinning starts, Then, you lose them like Walker or McKenzie, or have to redo their deals like Harris and Driver. In the long run, I don't think the teams really save anything anymore, and infact it may cost them more because they paid more than they had to initially, or they pay more than he is worth later on. Teams don't get away with paying a lot less than a player is worth other than SOMETIMES in their rookie contracts.

A few years ago I felt the same way, sign them early and get a good deal. But, players' agents have caught on. Now, I am more in favor of saving when you can now.

[RashanGary]

Oh yeah, for right now; KGB is in, but in my vision; we replace him with a superstud.