Packers PASS on Free Agency--JS

[Packnut]

Salary Cap

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

[wist43]

"Overpaying", or stretching the cap are allowable actions in certain situations...

The Packers are not close to a title, but they are close to loosing the best chance they'll likely have for the next decade, i.e. they still have Favre.

After Favre leaves, we will be subjected to 2-3 years of Rodgers proving he can't play, then the endless parade of Trent Dilfer's, Jeff Garcia's and Jake Plummer's.

Why not try to flesh out the roster as long as Favre is here??? Loosing Green was definitely a step in the wrong direction...

To me, it doesn't make any sense to let Green walk over length of contract, i.e. a potential dead cap weight of a couple million in years 3 and 4... So what!!!!!!! What is a couple of million in dead cap money in a few years when they're not going to be contenders anyway???

[Patler]

Re: FA

How is it a good plan when you take into effect the "franchise QB syndrome". As far as less debt in the future, debt is the American way and the NFL is no different than real life! :P

Many of the football teams that have faltered when their franchise quarterback retired were the ones that had precarious cap situations involving their quarterbacks. Several had large signing bonuses tied up in their quarterbacks that hit the cap years immediately following retirement. The Packers have been very smart in not structuring Favre's contract, and resisting restructuring it to have that effect.

As for winning while he's here, that window past several years ago, in my opinion. I do not believe Favre gives the Packers any more chance to win than an average, decent quarterback. He is no longer a difference maker.

[Patler]

Re: Salary Cap

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

The salary cap has always been based on league revenues.
The salary cap has always increased.
At times it increased percentage wise more than this year, and as much as last.
Teams still manage to get themselves in bad cap situations, as the Packers did under Sherman.

It has happened, it does happen and it will continue to happen.

[Packnut]

Cap

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

[Packnut]

Re: Salary Cap

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

The salary cap has always been based on league revenues.
The salary cap has always increased.
At times it increased percentage wise more than this year, and as much as last.
Teams still manage to get themselves in bad cap situations, as the Packers did under Sherman.

It has happened, it does happen and it will continue to happen.

It has been a pleasure to debate this subject with you this a.m. You sir, even though we dis-agree are a class act!

[Patler]

Re: FA

Yes, but the problem with your way is who's to say what is over-paying? Woodson was over-paid based on his injury history and age was'nt he? According to your point of view, he should not have been signed. Yet, he proved to be a valuable player last season.

As I suggested, overpaying is an individual assesment by each team. A player may have more value to one team than to another. I'm glad you brought up Woodson. I almost used him as an example myself. He had more value to the Packers than to a lot of other teams, which justified the Packers contract for him.

However, just because one player had a high value to the Packers doesn't mean the Packers should get into a bidding war for every player that addresses a need they have. The fact is, to be successful, every team has to have some players and even some starters who are underpaid relative to their abilities and the salaries that others make. GM's are paid to make the decisions as to which players to underpay. Overpaying for significant team improvement might be justified, overpaying for marginal improvement is not.

It's the value of the player to the team, not necessarily his "market value" that good GMs function on.



would Sun.

[Patler]

Re: Salary Cap

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

The salary cap has always been based on league revenues.
The salary cap has always increased.
At times it increased percentage wise more than this year, and as much as last.
Teams still manage to get themselves in bad cap situations, as the Packers did under Sherman.

It has happened, it does happen and it will continue to happen.

It has been a pleasure to debate this subject with you this a.m. You sir, even though we dis-agree are a class act!

Thanks! You as well.

The key is to disagree without being disagreeable!

[Scott Campbell]

It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them.

I think this hits on the core of Thompson's philosophy.

[Patler]

Re: Cap

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

Those cap dollars will get used eventually. Let's wait to see how they are used before we get too concerned about not signing someone in March.

[cpk1994]

Re: Cap

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

You forgot about the money that will be spent on this years draft picks.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree that we should have looked at a couple of guys, but the rookie pool will be, what, about $4M. Also, the Packers are looking to extend Corey Williams, and he'll probably get a deal relatively similar to the deal Cullen Jenkins signed. That leaves little money for signing guys later in the offseason and to potentially take on Randy Moss's restructured contract.

[Guiness]

Interesting tack HW - he's saving the money for Moss. I guess that's possible, but aside from the 100 rumor threads, there's not much to give credence to that.

Patler, I generally agree with you, but I've got to say I'm not keen on what TT is doing (or not doing) here. I have trouble believing that there was nothing, NOTHING out there that could help the Pack. I'm baffled by the tied purse strings.

Maybe there is something yet to come. I hope so.

[Patler]

Patler, I generally agree with you, but I've got to say I'm not keen on what TT is doing (or not doing) here. I have trouble believing that there was nothing, NOTHING out there that could help the Pack. I'm baffled by the tied purse strings.

Clearly there were players that could help the Packers. But they cost more than TT wanted to pay. I'm happy to let it play out, and see what he does do with the money. He has managed to use almost all of it before the end of each season so far, and I assume he will again this year too. He really has had very little to "roll forward" the last two seasons.

[red]

TT can have things his way

but if he just continues to sit on his ass and the teams money with all the holes we have, and if we do worse or not improve at all next year

then this should be TT's last year

because like what others have said, once favre goes this team is only getting worse

we have 6 or 7 needs this year, with more coming in the following years (driver, harris, woodson, clifton, maybe taucher, maybe pickett, moss if we do get him).

TT is not going to be able to fill those holes just through the draft. you either have to trade some picks for players like mcgahee (which he will never do), or pick up some decent guys on the FA market, which he also won't do because every single NFL player is overpaid in his tiny head.

TT still thinks this is 1999

if 1.25 a year was way more then he was willing to pay, then what the hell was he willing to pay for an nfl starter? the league minimum? because thats about the only amount that would be a lot less then what he got