GB's new take on roster bonuses - a question

[Patler]

I'm tired of the old threads, so I'll start another new one!

As we have discussed, starting with Woodson's contract, the Packers have included "per game" bonuses for many of their players, so the player gets the bonus only if he is on the active roster. It protects against injuries. I believe this was included in Well's and Driver's contracts, and I'm sure it was in Harris' extension. Perhaps Jenkins', too. I think a couple of the rookies last year had it too.

Has anyone heard of any other team doing this? I think this is an ingenious way to handle large bonuses. I will be surprised if others don't follow.

[packers11]

I think this was brilliant in woodson's case... If they didn't do that, I think he would have sat a couple games when he was hurt... We need Woodson on the field 100% of the time, (especially last year, there was one to step up to the #2 spot after him)...

Woodson played his first 16 games since 2001... Impressive ... VERY impressive... I think it had to do the with the incentives... (Ill give T.T. props on this one...)

[Fritz]

Mebbe that's why D. Martin didn't even bother giving Green Bay a chance to re-sign him...

[Bretsky]

Mebbe that's why D. Martin didn't even bother giving Green Bay a chance to re-sign him...

that's a good one

[Patler]

Mebbe that's why D. Martin didn't even bother giving Green Bay a chance to re-sign him...

that's a good one

I agre! Hadn't thought of that myself.

[Guiness]

Ok though, let's look at the flip side of it. Will it cause a player to hide an injury for fear of being ruled out, and causing himself a more serious problem?

I know there's something to be said for playing hurt, but you also have to know when to sit down.

[MJZiggy]

That's true enough, Guiness, but I wonder if he'd be more likely to use it with players that perhaps have a history of little dings than with the Favrian types who you can't drag off the field...

[red]

Re: GB's new take on roster bonuses - a question

I'm tired of the old threads, so I'll start another new one!

As we have discussed, starting with Woodson's contract, the Packers have included "per game" bonuses for many of their players, so the player gets the bonus only if he is on the active roster. It protects against injuries. I believe this was included in Well's and Driver's contracts, and I'm sure it was in Harris' extension. Perhaps Jenkins', too. I think a couple of the rookies last year had it too.

Has anyone heard of any other team doing this? I think this is an ingenious way to handle large bonuses. I will be surprised if others don't follow.

so is this a likely to be earned bonus?

so lets say the guy misses 10 games, dose the next years cap increas but that 10 game bonus amount?

[Patler]

Re: GB's new take on roster bonuses - a question

I'm tired of the old threads, so I'll start another new one!

As we have discussed, starting with Woodson's contract, the Packers have included "per game" bonuses for many of their players, so the player gets the bonus only if he is on the active roster. It protects against injuries. I believe this was included in Well's and Driver's contracts, and I'm sure it was in Harris' extension. Perhaps Jenkins', too. I think a couple of the rookies last year had it too.

Has anyone heard of any other team doing this? I think this is an ingenious way to handle large bonuses. I will be surprised if others don't follow.

so is this a likely to be earned bonus?

so lets say the guy misses 10 games, dose the next years cap increas but that 10 game bonus amount?

Yes, I'm quite certain it is. The full amount of the bonus counts against the cap in the year it will be earned, and any part not earned is added to the cap for the following season.

[Rastak]

Re: GB's new take on roster bonuses - a question

I'm tired of the old threads, so I'll start another new one!

As we have discussed, starting with Woodson's contract, the Packers have included "per game" bonuses for many of their players, so the player gets the bonus only if he is on the active roster. It protects against injuries. I believe this was included in Well's and Driver's contracts, and I'm sure it was in Harris' extension. Perhaps Jenkins', too. I think a couple of the rookies last year had it too.

Has anyone heard of any other team doing this? I think this is an ingenious way to handle large bonuses. I will be surprised if others don't follow.

I'll be honest, I haven't heard of it with any other team but it's a very smart thing to do. I'm surprised agents have agreed to it. I would think only a guy either trying to prove himself or a guy with no other offers would do it.

[Lurker64]

Re: GB's new take on roster bonuses - a question

I'll be honest, I haven't heard of it with any other team but it's a very smart thing to do. I'm surprised agents have agreed to it. I would think only a guy either trying to prove himself or a guy with no other offers would do it.

Well, if the team offers an alternative of a roster bonus of X per season or a roster bonus of (X+Y)/16 per game (where Y is sufficiently large) most players would probably take the second option. There's apparently a large trend of "players trying to get the largest number in their contracts" even if a lot of that money only shows up if unusual things happen.