Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barnett Contract Extension Update

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barnett Contract Extension Update

    Barnett talks moving slowly
    But linebacker expects to get a deal

    By TOM SILVERSTEIN, Journal Sentinel

    Anyone who knows linebacker Nick Barnett knows he's not a patient guy.

    He wants the season to start right away, he wants this to be the year the Green Bay Packers rank No. 1 in defense and he'd like to win a Super Bowl.

    And, oh yeah, one other thing: He'd like a big, fat contract.

    On the former, Barnett finds it hard to wait. On the latter, he is letting things work themselves out.

    Barnett has been a regular at the Packers' off-season conditioning program, choosing to take a different route than cornerback Mike McKenzie and wide receiver Javon Walker did when money became an issue with the Packers. He figures not preparing for the upcoming season will hurt him regardless if he has a new contract when the season begins.

    "I want it to get done; it's on my mind, but not that much," Barnett said after a workout at the Packers' facility. "I don't really have a problem waiting a year and then going to free agency. There's the benefit of that vs. what I would get right now."

    Barnett and his agent, Chuck Price, both think the linebacker has outperformed his rookie contract, which was essentially worth $6 million over five years, and calls for him to be paid $1.95 million in 2007. The former first-round pick has led the team in tackles three of his four seasons, finishing second behind rookie A.J. Hawk last season.

    He has been both durable and consistent, starting all but two games in four seasons, and compiling more than 600 tackles during that time. The only thing lacking from his game has been game-changing plays, which separate great players from good ones.

    In 62 games, he has seven interceptions, eight sacks, one forced fumble and one touchdown.

    Still, the Packers have high regard for what Barnett does in their defense and are sincerely interested in locking him up through a long-term deal. The two sides have been talking off and on, but discussions have heated up recently with the draft serving as an artificial deadline to get something done.

    "We're having conversations," Price said. "It's too early to tell whether he'll have a new deal or he'll be a free agent next year. We'll see where it goes."

    Barnett, 25, would like to go where some other free-agent linebackers have gone this off-season, which is a signing bonus of around $10 million to $20 million. New England's Adalius Thomas, who received $20 million in guaranteed money from the Patriots, stands at the high end and Kansas City's Napoleon Harris, who received $7.5 million to sign, lies at the low end.

    In the middle are Miami's Joey Porter (around $13 million guaranteed) and Washington's London Fletcher ($10.5 million in bonuses). Also factored in are deals signed a year ago by St. Louis' Will Witherspoon and Washington's Andre Carter ($9 million in bonuses) and Seattle's Julian Peterson ($13.5 million in bonuses).

    The Packers probably want to know if they'll have Barnett on board before they go into the draft so they can cross linebacker off their wish list. In turn, Barnett would like to get a deal done before the draft so he can be sure he's in the team's plans beyond this year.

    "I believe there has been positive progress," Barnett said. "But until we get closer to the ballpark for both of us, then I'll start getting happy. But I'm happy with the progress. I'm not trying to force their hand and they're not trying to force mine. It's been a good process; it's just I would like it to be done."

    As Barnett waits, he has attempted to put all his energy into getting ready for the 2007 season. The Packers have all 11 defensive starters back from last year and are hoping to see young players such as defensive tackle Johnny Jolly, cornerback Will Blackmon, safety Charlie Peprah and linebacker Abdul Hodge take big steps this off-season.

    All but two veterans on defense - cornerbacks Al Harris and Charles Woodson - are attending the off-season program, which Barnett considers a good sign. He has tried to take on a leadership role, figuring that if others see him at work they'll know he's serious about this season.

    "A lot of guys come up to me and say, 'Man, they haven't done nothing for you yet?' and I just say, 'Don't worry about that, just worry about being the No. 1 defense and that stuff will come.'"

    Barnett said he hadn't dwelled on general manager Ted Thompson's unwillingness to utilize the free-agent market beyond nickel back Frank Walker because he doesn't think the defense needs any help. He said he was trusting Thompson to find someone to replace departed running back Ahman Green and fill various other needs on offense.

    "It's hard to throw money at players you don't know," Barnett said of free agency. "I'm sure Ted's going to work it out. (Vernand) Morency is a great back, and I can see them doing something in the draft. We'll see what happens."
    "There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson

  • #2
    Re: Barnett Contract Extension Update

    Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
    Barnett talks moving slowly
    But linebacker expects to get a deal

    By TOM SILVERSTEIN, Journal Sentinel

    "A lot of guys come up to me and say, 'Man, they haven't done nothing for you yet?' and I just say, 'Don't worry about that, just worry about being the No. 1 defense and that stuff will come.'
    If this is truly his attitude and approach then awesome. I think he’s somewhere between above average and great. I think it would be fair to give him guaranteed money between 10 – 15 mil. I definitely think he’s worth keeping. Locking up Barnett (and Williams) allows the Pack to know they will be solid with the front seven for a good 3-5 years. Letting him go into next season without a new deal would be a HUGE risk by TT and some team desperate for a better than average LB will pay him an obscene amount of money.

    Comment


    • #3
      If there's a guy you want to give an extension to, Ted, it's this guy.
      "I've got one word for you- Dallas, Texas, Super Bowl"- Jermichael Finley

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BallHawk
        If there's a guy you want to give an extension to, Ted, it's this guy.
        I agree, if he's not signing free agents, he better sign our own.
        Draft Brandin Cooks WR OSU!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by PaCkFan_n_MD
          Originally posted by BallHawk
          If there's a guy you want to give an extension to, Ted, it's this guy.
          I agree, if he's not signing free agents, he better sign our own.
          Amen to both of those statements!

          Comment


          • #6
            Money

            I agree that Thompson need's to get this deal done. However, my reasoning is not because he deserves the big money. It's because we have nothing better to replace him. Barnett is an above avg LB but by no means is he in the same class with some of the names being mentioned.

            Has he ever made a game changing play? I sure can't remember one. I just can't see giving a 10 mil signing bonus to a guy who makes the majority of his tackles on his side of the line. Also, he's no where near a guy like Urlacher when it comes to pass coverage.

            Yeah, he says all the right things but that does'nt translate to great play on the field. If Hodge would have shown anything, I think Barnett's bargaining power would be limited, but since Hodge tanked, no choice but to pay. Still, Thompson does have some leverage and should stress the risk associated with Barnett getting injured this season and ruining that huge pay-day that Nick is looking for.

            I believe a 7-8 mill signing bonus is more than fair.

            Comment


            • #7
              Give him a decent duration like 3-5 years, and a modest up front bonus like 6-11 mil to show him the love. But then also add the opprtunity to make more $$$ based on production - particularily big, game changing plays like INT's, TD's, fumbles and fumble recoveries, and sacks as well as tackles for loss etc, etc.

              The Packers have had a bit of success with the production based contracts (IE: Woodson). This keeps the football players heads in the game where it should be. I really love the production based pay model because it is a truly win/win for the player and the organization and I strongly believe that we will see a migration of many NFL teams moving toward this kind of contract. Pay for play. The highest producers get more $$$. No one can cry and whine about how their "underpaid" or "undervalued" or "I outperformed my contract" with this type of model.

              Now - go get it done TT!
              "Everyone's born anarchist and atheist until people start lying to them" ~ wise philosopher

              Comment


              • #8
                Barnett, 25, would like to go where some other free-agent linebackers have gone this off-season, which is a signing bonus of around $10 million to $20 million.

                I thought Barnett was quoted as saying he isn't looking for a deal to break the bank? I agree with Packnut about his lack of game changing plays. However, he is the best we have and we need to keep him. TT needs to get this deal done. I wonder though if he isn't planning on waiting until he sees what kind of progress Hodges makes though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  He doesn't want a huge deal is my guess, but he probably wants a good amount of it guaranteed. Thank god Adalius Thomas took a small 5 year, 36 mil deal that we can use as leverage.

                  A good amount of the contract is guaranteed, but the overall amount is not that high. I think we could do something similiar for Barnett since he missed what, one game so far? Doing that would also keep his cap number nice and low.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CaptainKickass
                    Give him a decent duration like 3-5 years, and a modest up front bonus like 6-11 mil to show him the love. But then also add the opprtunity to make more $$$ based on production - particularily big, game changing plays like INT's, TD's, fumbles and fumble recoveries, and sacks as well as tackles for loss etc, etc.

                    The Packers have had a bit of success with the production based contracts (IE: Woodson). This keeps the football players heads in the game where it should be. I really love the production based pay model because it is a truly win/win for the player and the organization and I strongly believe that we will see a migration of many NFL teams moving toward this kind of contract. Pay for play. The highest producers get more $$$. No one can cry and whine about how their "underpaid" or "undervaluse" or "I outperformed my contract" with this type of model.

                    Now - go get it done TT!
                    Woodson et al have not had production based contracts, just availability based contracts. Their bonuses are related to being on the game day roster, regardless of how they perform. A similar bonus structure for Barnett would have little impact.

                    The only one that had a legitimate performance based contract was Green. His bonus was based on yards from scrimmage.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Patler
                      Originally posted by CaptainKickass
                      Give him a decent duration like 3-5 years, and a modest up front bonus like 6-11 mil to show him the love. But then also add the opprtunity to make more $$$ based on production - particularily big, game changing plays like INT's, TD's, fumbles and fumble recoveries, and sacks as well as tackles for loss etc, etc.

                      The Packers have had a bit of success with the production based contracts (IE: Woodson). This keeps the football players heads in the game where it should be. I really love the production based pay model because it is a truly win/win for the player and the organization and I strongly believe that we will see a migration of many NFL teams moving toward this kind of contract. Pay for play. The highest producers get more $$$. No one can cry and whine about how their "underpaid" or "undervaluse" or "I outperformed my contract" with this type of model.

                      Now - go get it done TT!
                      Woodson et al have not had production based contracts, just availability based contracts. Their bonuses are related to being on the game day roster, regardless of how they perform. A similar bonus structure for Barnett would have little impact.

                      The only one that had a legitimate performance based contract was Green. His bonus was based on yards from scrimmage.
                      There goes smarty pants setting the record straight again! :P

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Patler
                        Woodson et al have not had production based contracts, just availability based contracts. Their bonuses are related to being on the game day roster, regardless of how they perform. A similar bonus structure for Barnett would have little impact.
                        Patler - You can split hairs about the terminology difference between "performance" and "availability" all you want but the point is still the same:

                        The concern with Woodson coming to GB was his "injury prone" title and missing time on the field. Woodson's contract was such that he earned more by being on the field on game day, as well as bonuses for production - like making the pro bowl for example. He was nicked up for a bunch of games last year and yet he somehow kept "finding" a way to get back on the field because he knew his opportunity for bigger $$$ depended on it.

                        All I'm saying here is let's take that "overall concept" (Big picture here) and apply it to Barnett's contract.

                        He's been dependable and reliable - tough to argue that.

                        What's missing?

                        "Game changing plays"

                        Give him a contract with a bonus in the "ballpark" of other players at his position and tenure, but stack it with motivational bonuses tied to the teams desire for him to achieve more "Game changing plays".

                        This will set him up to be motivated to do whatever he needs to do to get up to that level. If his production stays the same, then the Packers got that type of player for an at market value. Win/win.
                        "Everyone's born anarchist and atheist until people start lying to them" ~ wise philosopher

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My point is that the Packers have NOT used performance based contracts, like you suggested. Green was the only one, and it makes some sense for a runningback who had been injured. I would be surprised to see a linebacker accept a contract with any substantial part of his income tied to any stat other than tackles. Thats what LBs do, they tackle people. Barnett has no deficiency in that area.

                          What are you going to do, offer him $500,000 per interception or forced fumble? I think that is a bit unworkable. The differences between "good" and "average" can be just a couple. It certainly can't be a subjective standard, like "game changing". Who would decide if his interception in the 2nd quarter was "game changing" or not when they win by 1?

                          Urlacher had 0 sacks, 3 interceptions and 1 forced fumble in 2006.
                          Barnett had 2 sacks, 2 interceptions and 0 forced fumbles in 2006.
                          On what criteria do you reward Urlacher and not Barnett, if Urlacher makes the plays you want Barnett to make?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Patler
                            Who would decide if his interception in the 2nd quarter was "game changing" or not?
                            Based on your rhetoric - I'm thinking you would be the perfect candidate to devise just such a plan Patler.

                            And by your own admission - the Pack has employed both the situational and performance based contracts. There have been other teams in the league who also have.

                            Furthermore - If there was anyone who could sweat the details and ensure that there were no potential interpretation flaws - that would certainly also be you.

                            As an exercise - Why don't you take off your "static knowledge" cap and put on your "creative thinking" cap to come up with something that might just suit both of our points - or, more to the point - Barnett and the Pack?

                            I'll prime the engine for you too:

                            How about as a starter - you run the average of the top 5 MLB's in each "big play" category for the entire NFL at his position for....oh I don't know.... let's say the previous 3 years.

                            Then - you design escalating bonuses for attaining that threshold and then of course bump it up for exceeding the threshold.

                            Lets say (pulling numbers out of my ass here) a 250k bonus for achieveing it and then - I actually kind of liked your target of 500k - for exceeding the highest of those previous 3 years. That way when he does make those "1 or 2 plays" that are exactly the difference between average and great, he can pocket an extra mil or 2 and not feel cheated. The Pack get's that extra 10% effort and hustle out of him that's been keeping him stuck with the label of "good" rather than "excellent".

                            I'm no accountant - but there seems to be plenty of flexibility regarding cash bonus for elite production. If my feeble mathematical mind and apparent lack of contractual knowledge can devise such an outline, then certainly Patler can do the dillegence to make it into something easily digested.

                            Can you live up to it Patler?

                            Will you use your power for good?...........or for Awesome!?
                            "Everyone's born anarchist and atheist until people start lying to them" ~ wise philosopher

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Just a minor detail here, but what if we give him a new, wonderful, big play based contract and he gets so wound up in trying to make the spectacular interception or forced fumble, that he blows tackling the guy with the ball? Doesn't it then become big play or blown coverage? And the times he does make the big play make him earn the escalators in the contract.
                              "Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X