Packers reward Tauscher by reworking his contract

[Scott Campbell]

It indicates they really felt his contract was grossly inadequate.

Ted Thompson said that it is an unusual enviornment with the CBA changing so drastically. It sounded like he was trying to do what is fair for the players in light of the changes.

He's not giving them the current UFA market value but he's upping it to a point where they are not getting hurt by the circumstances so much.

It is still unusual to get nothing for the team in return.

I think they got something in return. Look how the deal was structured.

In both 2007 and '08, Tauscher will receive roster bonuses of $1.3 million. In '08, he will get a workout bonus of $200,000.

The roster bonuses were structured the same each year, with Tauscher getting $600,000 for being on the 45-man active roster for the opener and then $700,000, divided into payments of $43,750, for each of the remaining 16 weeks that he's on the active roster.

This deal is holdout insurance for the Packers.

[Scott Campbell]

The original contract appears to be the exceptionally rare exception to the rule that Sherman grossly overpaid people.

[Patler]

It indicates they really felt his contract was grossly inadequate.

Ted Thompson said that it is an unusual enviornment with the CBA changing so drastically. It sounded like he was trying to do what is fair for the players in light of the changes.

He's not giving them the current UFA market value but he's upping it to a point where they are not getting hurt by the circumstances so much.

It is still unusual to get nothing for the team in return.

Unusual but not unprecedented.

Yup, that's what I said, unusual, not unheard of or unprecedented; but I can't recall the last time the Packers did it. Nor can I think of an example from another team, although I suspect that there probably are.

Who have the Vikings done it with?

[RashanGary]

It is still unusual to get nothing for the team in return.

Yeah. About the only thing they get is the fostering of good will in the lockerroom. It might help fuel more positive and loyalty based discussions at the negotiation table.

The big picture concept of fitting talent under the cap is easy to grasp, IMO. Everyone has the same amount of money. The goal is to get more talent for your money than the next guy. The details are easy to get lost in, but everything gets tied back to this basic concept.

Getting guys to sign underpaid contracts to avoid injury is a very obvious way to fit more talent under the cap. However, it seems that guys start to feel a little betrayed and get a gereral sense that loyalty does not exist. They begin to look for a way out. If the team is going to be all buisness and ignore the personal aspect of doing buisness, then the team member might feel that it's best to just get the hell out of town at the highest ticket price. Guys like Green who were underpaid their whole career might feel the urge to get to the UFA market where he can do the smart buisness decision and go to the highest bidder. We raped him short term, but he left us long term. I'm not so sure the screwing him over short term was the best decision with the big picture in mind. Sure, it's part of the buisness, but a guy leaving to the highest bidder without early discussions is also part of the buisness.

Decisions like this might not be great for the short term salary cap health, but it might be good for the long term by building good will at the negotiation table in the long term. Maybe if we had paid Green a little more over the last 5 years that he would have been willing to stay here for the next two. Maybe there is some big picture thought here instead of just seeing the short term gain.

I slopped this together. I'm not a great communicator. Hopefully the concept that I'm trying to get accross, gets across. I think it might explain why this type of decision could be good for buisness and good for the people involved.

[Patler]

Guys like Green who were underpaid their whole career might feel the urge to get to the UFA market where he can do the smart buisness decision and go to the highest bidder. We raped him short term, but he left us long term. I'm not so sure the screwing him over short term was the best decision with the big picture in mind. Sure, it's part of the buisness, but a guy leaving to the highest bidder without early discussions is also part of the buisness.

Decisions like this might not be great for the short term salary cap health, but it might be good for the long term by building good will at the negotiation table in the long term. Maybe if we had paid Green a little more over the last 5 years that he would have been willing to stay here for the next two. Maybe there is some big picture thought here instead of just seeing the short term gain.

I think your view on Green is overly harsh. Green may have been underpaid at times, and cumulatively for his time in GB may have been a little underpaid, but not a lot. In terms of cap value, Green was #7 among RBs in 2003, #6 in 2004 and #5 in 2005 behind only James, Tomlinson, Alexander and Johnson. Its hard to argue he was too much underpaid when he was in the top 10 for 3 consecutive years. However. some of the others had one or two elite years of income, when they were well-above the others. Green never had. That's what he rolled the dice for this time.

In 2006, I think the Packers were more than fair to pay him over $2 million when he was coming back from an injury that really no one knew much about.

[MadtownPacker]

This is not a bad move at all. It shows that loyalty and hard work are rewarded. Maybe this will help the Pack start looking more appealing to FAs.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't look at the structure, but I doubt it didn't benefit the Packers at all. Anybody know the structure of his old contract? Maybe his old contract would get expensive in the next two years, and this pushes more money into this year (when we have money). Considering that the Packers lost $2M in cap space, that's probably exactly what it is. Also, it looks like it's worth more money--only if Tausch continues to perform. Nothing wrong with that. Gives him more incentive, and makes him more likely to give the Packers a hometown discount when he does become a FA. I see nothing wrong with rewarding your own. This type of thing gets around the league, and the players will know that the organization rewards its players.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Guys like Green who were underpaid their whole career...

Underpaid is a relative term...

"Back in the days [Dave] Robinson was playing, he said there wasn't the big money there is today.

"When I was drafted,'' said Robinson, "Vince (Lombardi, who was the GM and coach) gave me a choice of signing a no-cut contract for $12,000 or a no-guarantee contract for $15,000. I took the $15,000 and made the team. I found out later that Ray Nitschke -- who was the league MVP the year before -- was only getting $12,000. The next year, Ray went to Vince with all his numbers and asked for $14,500. But Vince gave him $16,000. Ray found out it was because of what I had signed for and he told me: 'I like you, kid.' In those days, we had to work in the off-season because we didn't make that much money playing football. I worked at a beer distributorship in the off-season and later became a partner in it after I retired from football.

"By the time we got to Super Bowl I, I was making $35,000 a year and the check we got for winning that game ($20,000) nearly doubled my salary for the year. On my last contract, my base was $81,000.''

(from Tricities Sports.com)

[Patler]

I didn't look at the structure, but I doubt it didn't benefit the Packers at all. Anybody know the structure of his old contract? Maybe his old contract would get expensive in the next two years, and this pushes more money into this year (when we have money). Considering that the Packers lost $2M in cap space, that's probably exactly what it is. Also, it looks like it's worth more money--only if Tausch continues to perform. Nothing wrong with that. Gives him more incentive, and makes him more likely to give the Packers a hometown discount when he does become a FA. I see nothing wrong with rewarding your own. This type of thing gets around the league, and the players will know that the organization rewards its players.

According to the articles I've seen, it is all new money and only part of it is based on him being on the active roster each game. Much of it is an initial season roster bonus, the first one of which has already been earned this year.

[CaliforniaCheez]

This is a situation that wasn't allowed to fester. The agent handled it the right way. The Packers have the money and the cap room. Tauscher is just the kind of guy you want on the team.

McGinn didn't beat the drum for his favorite guy, Coston. He only mentioned Moll.

Tauscher's deal was made right after his injury and was at a bit of a discount in 2002.

I think this is really a good deal for the Packers even without an extension.
There is some good politics in doing this deal and being perceived as fair to a nice guy who perfoms and doesn't complain.

He is a heck of a lot better than Mr. low back pain whom he replaced.

[4and12to12and4]

I have written a lot of posts saying we screwed Green, but as I remember some past games, I do remember he lost some big games for us by fumblong the football, the biggest, the playoff game against the Rams, three fumbles. Didn't he lose the Saints game last year on a goal line fumble? That kept us out of the playoffs ultimately. So, I'm backtracking on my stance on him. He got what he deserved. He will be injured before the end of the season, IMO. But then again i guaranteed Moss would suffer a career ending injury against the Chargers, so what the hell do I know?