Expiring Contracts and Guys Packers Need to Re-sign

[vince]

Signing exclusive rights FA's to longer than one-year deals is done all the time, particularly with draft picks. I never once said we should sign him this week, as has been wrongly asserted.

Things could change between now and the offseason when the issue will most likely come up. I don't think they will. We have much more to go on with Bigby than we do with a draft pick. In my opinion, he's a player, and I believe he'll continue to be a player.

Signing talented football players to multi-year deals is how you get value, and signing value is how you ultimately win Super Bowls.

Is it risky? All signings are. But it's better to be wrong with a young up-and-comer that you can sign cheap relative to his talent level than an old free agent that you overpay for even if he performs.

People who don't believe or understand what they see on the field might say it is risky, and why take the risk... People like Ted Thompson who know talent when they see it and understand that you trust your evaluations would say that's how you build a winning franchise. But GMs better be right more often than not, and eventually, they need to hit the jackpot.

I believe Bigby has the potential to be a stalwart contributor to a tough and physical defense that dictates games. That's what I see. There's no reason for me to believe he won't continue to display those skills, short of debilitating injury. He may never be Brett Favre or Reggie White, but he's got jackpot talent.

Bigby could be a flash in the pan. I don't think he will be. His game is very different than Marques Anderson's ever was - even when he had some picks and fumble recoveries that year.

Atari Bigby is fundamentally sound, a punishing tackler, has a nose for the ball, forces the action, and possesses the attitude, will, and intangibles that it takes to be a winner. Time will tell whether I'm right or wrong about that, and we'll see what Thompson's conclusions are most likely during next offseason.

[RashanGary]

Signing talented football players to multi-year deals is how you get value, and signing value is how you ultimately win Super Bowls.

I agree mostly.

You HAVE to get value or your roster will never be better than the next guy. If everyone is paying the same, nobody will be able to afford more talent than anyone else. It's a very simple concept that I'm amazed isn't more widely accepted.

However. The Packers have this year and next year before Bigby is even a restricted FA. If they sign him now, there is a risk that he's not as good as he looks. There is also a risk that he grossly outperforms his deal, at which point he'll get renegotiated anyway. There is no way to completely screw a player because they have just enough weight to make it ugly if you shaft them too bad. There is also something to be said for not treating guys like shit. Thompson has reupped a few guys (nothing over the top), but just enough to have a trusting, happy lockerroom. Shafting guys out of 20 million dollars because they were dumb enough to sign early brings more ugly than it does good IMO. PLayers do have some say and that kind of thing will make players just want to leave (the way Green did after getting shafted for years)

If they wait untill his restricted year, they should still be able to get him at a discount that is good for both the player and the team. Bigby won't get disgusting amounts of money as a restricted FA. He'll get good money, but nothing over the top unless we let him hit UFA.

My opinion of getting value is drafting well, using the fringe markets well, cutting losses early and making sure to use the RFA and "get mine slightly early" markets instead of the UFA market. The UFA market is doom unless it's used sparingly or timed perfectly. Screwing guys over also has a certain level of doom to it. AGain, slightly underpaying is OK. They know it's a buisness, but completely ripping them off (like Green) just makes guys want the quickest ticket out of town or worse, hold outs (which turns to lockerroom turmoil which turns to 2007 Bears).

[Patler]

Screwing guys over also has a certain level of doom to it. AGain, slightly underpaying is OK. They know it's a buisness, but completely ripping them off (like Green) just makes guys want the quickest ticket out of town or worse, hold outs (which turns to lockerroom turmoil which turns to 2007 Bears).

Are you suggesting the Packers treated Green unfairly?
Please explain what you mean.

[RashanGary]

For a 5 year span, I thought Green was maybe the top back in the league. He got 17.5 Mil over 5 years when guys like Favre were getting 10 mil per year.

[Patler]

For a 5 year span, I thought Green was maybe the top back in the league. He got 17.5 Mil over 5 years when guys like Favre were getting 10 mil per year.

Pay for QBs is a bit different than pay for RBs.

In 2002 Green was #13 in pay for RBs.
In 2003 he as #7 among RBs.
In 2004 he was #6 (behind only Faulk, James, Tomlinson, Lewis and Barber)
In 2005 he was #5 (Behind James, Tomlinson, Alexander and Rudi Johnson)

In 2006 they guaranteed about 1.5 and gave him the chance to earn about twice that with incentives. He ended up at about 2.3 coming back from an injury that many thought might be career ending. He tried to shop himself and no one was interested.

Maybe he was worth a little more than he got, but I think it is a huge stretch to suggest the Packers ripped him off.

[RashanGary]

In 2001 he was 27th. Over the course of that 5 year span (of his GB contract) (in which he was the most productive back in the league), his average salary was 11th best. Hardly worthy of his performance.

He ultiamtely got paid by Houston, but he was very close to finishing his career grossly underpaid in relation to RB's of his era. I would have left too, honestly.

[Patler]

In 2001 he was 27th. Over the course of that 5 year span (of his GB contract) (in which he was the most productive back in the league), his average salary was 11th best. Hardly worthy of his performance.

He ultiamtely got paid by Houston, but he was very close to finishing his career grossly underpaid in relation to RB's of his era. I would have left too, honestly.

In 2001 he was still playing under his rookie contract that he signed with Seattle. He did nothing in Seattle in 1998 and 1999 to deserve anything else. He had a nice year in 2000 in GB, but that certainly wasn't going to get him anything special in those days. Teams routinely made players play out their rookie deals. So of course he was a bit underpaid for his 2001 performance. He hadn't really earned anything more yet.

When he signed his GB contract prior to 2002, at the time it was a very good contract for a RB. It had a low first year cap value to help the Packers out, but when he was in the top 7 for all running backs for 3 consecutive years he was certainly treated fairly. And they were more than fair with him in 2006.

[RashanGary]

The 5 mil signing bonus on his 5 year deal came in the 2001 year. That was teh first year of his 5 year deal, 2005 being the last. 2006 was a one year deal and 2007 he was gone.

His average was 11th (over the 5 yr deal), far below how he performed.

[Patler]

The 5 mil signing bonus on his 5 year deal came in the 2001 year. That was teh first year of his 5 year deal, 2005 being the last. 2006 was a one year deal and 2007 he was gone.

His average was 11th (over the 5 yr deal), far below how he performed.

It was really only a four year deal. His salary in 2001 was his salary from his rookie contract, which still had a year to go. The Packer contract he signed added only four years to his existing contract. For those four additional years the Packers gave him 18 million dollars. He was given a $5 million signing bonus and a $1 million roster bonus the next year. That's not a bad deal for those times.

For several years Green was the third highest paid Packer behind only Favre and Sharper. Then he became the second highest paid. He was treated fairly. Not lavishly, but fairly.

[4and12to12and4]

He wasn't treated fairly because he was earning less than what he was accomplishing on the field his last two seasons before his injury and the year before his injury he was QUIETLY asking for a renogotiation and we blew him off, he subsequently got the major injury with no contract left, and was screwed. But, we should've already resigned him for at least three more years by then for approx. 15 million, to be fair to him before his injury as his contract was running out. We didn't and then paid him shit for a year making him prove he still had something left, and then Houston lost their minds. That part is not our fault, but, he should've already had a new contract two years prior. We did it for Al Harris. We didn't for Green or Javon. But they're both injured again anyways, right, so maybe TT knows what he's doing.

[MJZiggy]

Remember, we did it for Harris (and now Driver) a couple years LATER than Ahman's and Walker's situations. TT had not had much time on the job at that point and I think as he went along, he learned a lesson or two and a willingness to work on contracts as a reward for good performance and leadership is something he learned after these two situations occurred. You may want to criticize the initial moves, but at least give him credit for learning a better way to go about things.

[Patler]

He wasn't treated fairly because he was earning less than what he was accomplishing on the field his last two seasons before his injury and the year before his injury he was QUIETLY asking for a renogotiation and we blew him off, he subsequently got the major injury with no contract left, and was screwed. But, we should've already resigned him for at least three more years by then for approx. 15 million, to be fair to him before his injury as his contract was running out. We didn't and then paid him shit for a year making him prove he still had something left, and then Houston lost their minds. That part is not our fault, but, he should've already had a new contract two years prior. We did it for Al Harris. We didn't for Green or Javon. But they're both injured again anyways, right, so maybe TT knows what he's doing.

TT once said he looks at redoing a contract when top performers on the team are not in the top half of pay for players in their positions. Green was paid within the top 7 running backs for the last three years of his contract (#7, #6 and #5). In the second year of his Green Bay contract he was the 7th highest paid running back and went up each year after that. Why would or should the Packers redo that contract? It is hard to argue that most of the ones above him shouldn't have been. He was the 2nd or 3rd highest paid guy on the team during that time. What more should he have expected?

"paid him shit" for one year? You're kidding, right? The guy had an injury that no one knew if he could come back from or not. He tried to shop himself, and reportedly was told he would get a minimum wage contract, perhaps with incentives. The Packers offered him much more than that. So long as he got out of training camp, he was guaranteed $1.5 million, even if he blew-out the surgical repair in week 1. Plus, with incentives they gave him the chance to earn much more. I thought the Packer offer, under the circumstances, was very fair.

Running a football team is a business on a very fixed budget. Anything you give one player is taken away from another player. Through out much of Green's time the Packers were a decent team with other guys that deserved decent pay too. Not everyone can be the top paid at their position.

[Carolina_Packer]

It's a good/bad thing for a GM to not get caught up in sentimentality of previous years' service for a player with an expiring deal. Obviously if they still have it, then it's good to lock them up to a longer-term deal at somewhat of a discount with a little more guaranteed money for the player; win/win.

TT didn't get sentimental with Green, and I think that was a good move. I really enjoyed Ahman as a Packer and he did some incredible things, including being humble and low-key about his contract dealings. He was never a prima-donna, and if he was ever unhappy about his deal, he certainly handled it within his own camp, and that's commendable. Bully for him that he got the deal he did with the Texans. But, TT made a personnel decision that said Ahman was no longer in the core group of players that will make-up the highest percentage of player contacts. I think it was a wise move, going forward.

Green's situation was tricky. He was popular. He worked hard and did some great things for the team and handled himself well professionally. If he would have resigned him to the type of deal that Houston gave him, TT would be getting killed for the relative production we'd be getting from Green over the life of the contract (I'm predicting). He doesn't resign him and certain other people kill him for not having locked him up prior to his injury. Ah the life of a GM. It's not like he said, "Screw you, Ahman. Don't let the door hit you..." He placed a value on his services going forward, but it wasn't the stupid money he got from Houston. Again, good for Green and good for TT. Sometimes you have to part amicably.

[The Leaper]

In 2001 he was 27th. Over the course of that 5 year span (of his GB contract) (in which he was the most productive back in the league), his average salary was 11th best. Hardly worthy of his performance.

I think the questions over his ball security woes are what held back his salary numbers early in his career. He also decided to take the security of a 5 year deal over taking a chance on a shorter deal, and did so before he had proven himself as an elite RB.

I don't see how you can fault the Packers on this one. They gave a guy a deal before he was proven that ultimately made him one of the top 5 or 6 paid RBs in the league a few years down the road. Had Ahman been a free agent in 2004, he would've gotten the moon. That is just how it works in the NFL. To get paid at most positions, you have to be in the right place at the right time.

To blame his pay scale on the Packers is illogical IMO. Both sides worked out a fair deal at the time they made it, and both sides lived up to it. WTF are you whining about?

[Patler]

In 2001 he was 27th. Over the course of that 5 year span (of his GB contract) (in which he was the most productive back in the league), his average salary was 11th best. Hardly worthy of his performance.

I think the questions over his ball security woes are what held back his salary numbers early in his career. He also decided to take the security of a 5 year deal over taking a chance on a shorter deal, and did so before he had proven himself as an elite RB.

I don't see how you can fault the Packers on this one. They gave a guy a deal before he was proven that ultimately made him one of the top 5 or 6 paid RBs in the league a few years down the road. Had Ahman been a free agent in 2004, he would've gotten the moon. That is just how it works in the NFL. To get paid at most positions, you have to be in the right place at the right time.

To blame his pay scale on the Packers is illogical IMO. Both sides worked out a fair deal at the time they made it, and both sides lived up to it. WTF are you whining about?

All good points, Leaper. The comments and concerns at the time, as expressed in the Journal/Sentinel:

As nice as it is for the Packers to lock up a promising performer like Green, 24, there is still considerable risk in handing over a large amount of money to a guy who has been successful for just one season. The Packers had the luxury of waiting to see how Green performed this year before finalizing their strategy, but they chose to act now and purchase at a price they felt would ultimately go up.

The deal Green received doesn't match the seven-year, $41.25 million deal ($10 million signing bonus) Eddie George received from Tennessee last summer or the five-year, $32 million deal ($10.5 million signing bonus) Corey Dillon received from Cincinnati this spring.

But it does come close to the six-year, $25.5 million deal ($7 million signing bonus) Tiki Barber received from the New York Giants in March. Thus, it puts him in the upper tax bracket among NFL running backs.

The risk, of course, is that Green could become the fumbler he was in Seattle before Mike Holmgren jettisoned him to Green Bay in a one-sided trade for cornerback Fred Vinson. The Packers are betting on him holding onto the ball the way he did last season when he only fumbled six times (lost four) in 336 touches.

Green led the team in receptions with 76, but there are still doubts about whether he has the natural ability to be a consistent receiving threat. He must also prove he can carry the burden of being the lead man in the backfield, especially with Levens still around.