Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The TT Conundrum: FA, Fair Market Valuations & Cap Space
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 792
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheBitzMan wrote:
driftwood wrote:


back to miami to reunite with philbin?

the dolphins & raiders both need a starting CB & both have familiarity with sammy

the possibility of losing sammy would have been much easier to deal with if House decided not to schit the bed this season

out of all the defensive players that had bad years, i think House was probably the one that hurt the most in terms of future plans with this team

going into 2013 our CB's were loaded with talent (TW, Sammy, House, Hyde, CH)... now TW is entering a super inflated contract year, sammy is a UFA, house is MIA, CH is coming off a lost season, & hyde might be a safety by the start of 2014

12 months literally flipped that whole position group upside down


From Zach Kruse: The #Packers took Davon House 23 spots ahead of Richard Sherman in 2011 and Morgan Burnett 62 spots ahead of Kam Chancellor in 2010.

Granted Chancellor wouldnt be as good playing next to the Doctor but in hindsight we missed on Sherman by just that much. House and Sherman graded out similarly can't really fault TT for taking House. Amazing how these things play out. Wonder if Sherman was even on his radar.

I hope Shields is back. Personally I would pay him even if it means not being able to extend Jordy/Cobb/Bulaga. Rodgers is getting paid to make everyone better as he does. We need to fix the D and losing one of the best players isnt the way to do it. Rather not tie up a large amount of our cap in weapons for Rodgers and let the D continue to regress by losing its cornerstones.

My guess is Shields gets $8 mil per year. The amount we originally slotted for Raji.


It would be interesting to know if Aaron Rouse and his failure played into that at all. Rouse was roughly the same size and speed of Chancellor and came from the same program. Ideally, that has no affect in future decisions, but being that Rouse was cut the season leading into that draft it does beg the question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 2270
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbens06 wrote:
Tongue-Splitter wrote:
Why is there this pervading sense that Shields is going to test the open market? Do people forget completely about the Franchise Tag? Just because we don't use it every year doesn't mean we won't use it this year if Shields gets anywhere close to the open market. We all know his value, and surely so does Thompson and Company. They're not going to let him get away without getting something in return this year. Considering he could land a second round pick, we're not going to give that up for the possibility of a third round pick next year.


The tag number will be about $11 million for cornerbacks in 2014, so TT might not want to put all of that money into Shields if a deal does not look imminent. For example, we used it on Pickett, but we also extended him fairly quickly after we placed it on him. The tag allowed us to negotiate exclusively with him for an extended period of time. However, if Shields and the Packers are still really far apart the question might be does TT want to commit that much money to a player that might/probably only be there for one more season. There is a good chance TT might say goodbye to Shields in that scenario and use the money earmarked for him to get others, maybe Raji, back or extend guys that are scheduled for free agency next year, like Nelson or Cobb.

On a side note it is interesting that we have a few guys that the franchise tag would be ideal for to retain for that extra year, but the cost of the tag for any one of those guys is probably too high to actually use on anyone. Arguably we could see the tag applied to Shields (about $11 million), Raji (about $9 million), Finley, assuming he is healthy/cleared (other tightends it would be around $6 million which would be good, but he gets 120% of his final year making it about $10.5 million).


I certainly hope GB can sign Shields before the FA open market opens. If he hits the open market, a young cover corner with speed and ball skills will be a sought after commodity. TT will make a fair offer and negotiate within a range he feels is appropriate for that player and the longer term view of the team/cap considerations. BUT if the plaer/agent think they can get more, then FA open market might be what happens. It takes 2 to tango.

Raji is an example of a player getting a supposed good/great offer, but if he no longer wants to play in GB or in the defensive 3-4 scheme/system, then he very well will be playing somewhere else next year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 792
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
rbens06 wrote:
Tongue-Splitter wrote:
Why is there this pervading sense that Shields is going to test the open market? Do people forget completely about the Franchise Tag? Just because we don't use it every year doesn't mean we won't use it this year if Shields gets anywhere close to the open market. We all know his value, and surely so does Thompson and Company. They're not going to let him get away without getting something in return this year. Considering he could land a second round pick, we're not going to give that up for the possibility of a third round pick next year.


The tag number will be about $11 million for cornerbacks in 2014, so TT might not want to put all of that money into Shields if a deal does not look imminent. For example, we used it on Pickett, but we also extended him fairly quickly after we placed it on him. The tag allowed us to negotiate exclusively with him for an extended period of time. However, if Shields and the Packers are still really far apart the question might be does TT want to commit that much money to a player that might/probably only be there for one more season. There is a good chance TT might say goodbye to Shields in that scenario and use the money earmarked for him to get others, maybe Raji, back or extend guys that are scheduled for free agency next year, like Nelson or Cobb.

On a side note it is interesting that we have a few guys that the franchise tag would be ideal for to retain for that extra year, but the cost of the tag for any one of those guys is probably too high to actually use on anyone. Arguably we could see the tag applied to Shields (about $11 million), Raji (about $9 million), Finley, assuming he is healthy/cleared (other tightends it would be around $6 million which would be good, but he gets 120% of his final year making it about $10.5 million).


I certainly hope GB can sign Shields before the FA open market opens. If he hits the open market, a young cover corner with speed and ball skills will be a sought after commodity. TT will make a fair offer and negotiate within a range he feels is appropriate for that player and the longer term view of the team/cap considerations. BUT if the plaer/agent think they can get more, then FA open market might be what happens. It takes 2 to tango.

Raji is an example of a player getting a supposed good/great offer, but if he no longer wants to play in GB or in the defensive 3-4 scheme/system, then he very well will be playing somewhere else next year.


I agree I think that a scenario that he hits the market and comes back to our deal, a la Jones, is very unlikely. I like to think that Shields wants to come back here, but it does scare me that he/Rosenhaus may want to test the market first. With some teams like Oakland, Jacksonville, Seattle (May not fit their style to a T, but with Browner potentially out and the Schneider connection), and Cleveland having a ton of cap space he could get a pretty high offer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HokieHigh


Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 1864
Location: Blacksburg
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbens06 wrote:
TheBitzMan wrote:
driftwood wrote:


back to miami to reunite with philbin?

the dolphins & raiders both need a starting CB & both have familiarity with sammy

the possibility of losing sammy would have been much easier to deal with if House decided not to schit the bed this season

out of all the defensive players that had bad years, i think House was probably the one that hurt the most in terms of future plans with this team

going into 2013 our CB's were loaded with talent (TW, Sammy, House, Hyde, CH)... now TW is entering a super inflated contract year, sammy is a UFA, house is MIA, CH is coming off a lost season, & hyde might be a safety by the start of 2014

12 months literally flipped that whole position group upside down


From Zach Kruse: The #Packers took Davon House 23 spots ahead of Richard Sherman in 2011 and Morgan Burnett 62 spots ahead of Kam Chancellor in 2010.

Granted Chancellor wouldnt be as good playing next to the Doctor but in hindsight we missed on Sherman by just that much. House and Sherman graded out similarly can't really fault TT for taking House. Amazing how these things play out. Wonder if Sherman was even on his radar.

I hope Shields is back. Personally I would pay him even if it means not being able to extend Jordy/Cobb/Bulaga. Rodgers is getting paid to make everyone better as he does. We need to fix the D and losing one of the best players isnt the way to do it. Rather not tie up a large amount of our cap in weapons for Rodgers and let the D continue to regress by losing its cornerstones.

My guess is Shields gets $8 mil per year. The amount we originally slotted for Raji.


It would be interesting to know if Aaron Rouse and his failure played into that at all. Rouse was roughly the same size and speed of Chancellor and came from the same program. Ideally, that has no affect in future decisions, but being that Rouse was cut the season leading into that draft it does beg the question.


Methinks the rover position that both Rouse and Chancellor excelled in while at Tech did not translate to Dom's defense how he thought it would. Both were gifted playmaking athletes with big frames and decent ball skills. It takes a lot of proper pieces around those guys to make that set work though. IMO the fit was the issue and I would still take Burnett over Chancellor in this D.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 7201
Location: @_G_Tom
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RashaanSalaami wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
I think you've got a couple guys coming back that won't be and a couple guys overpaid totaling about 3 Million in excess. And I'd bet that there is an additional 3 Million in veterans that will be replaced by cheaper players--street free agents and rookies with very low value deals.

50/50 on keeping Tramon myself. This day and age of rollover cap has me thinking he's completely gone--with the money being spent on our own guys later.

Also not sure I'd offer EDS more than 2 Mil. Not sure you can pay out that much to the OL between the 5 of them. Ideally you have 2 of them in Rookie deals. With Bulaga's deal expiring soon, not sure the EDS commitment isn't also a step away from Bulaga and his health issues.


Do you have any specific contracts in mind? Maybe I just open up a competition-like thread to see what people guesstimate these FAs will get just for the hell of it.

I do understand the sentiment with EDS and the future of the OL. It's even more of a concern considering how our resources could be allocated. Generally, you want the tackles making the big bucks and the interior OL a little cheaper, but the way we have it now, we have 2 well-compensated guards and a center that may be paid like an above average starter. I'm not sure that's where he is, but it's hard to just lose that guy after the chemistry our line had by the end of the year. With Bulaga's contract coming up, it'll be interesting to see if that factors in. Considering he finished two seasons on the IR, I'm not sure if that'll be as big a compensating factor though.

EDS, Flynn, Neal, Wilson, Pickett, Francois.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 7135
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shields is coming back before anybody else. If they have to tag him they will. You don't let a good-great player walk just for the heckuva it. Shield being back is not even a question, move on to next guy. Heck it goes against the strategy of Ted not getting free agents. You gotta sign your own.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 792
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kampman74 wrote:
Shields is coming back before anybody else. If they have to tag him they will. You don't let a good-great player walk just for the heckuva it. Shield being back is not even a question, move on to next guy. Heck it goes against the strategy of Ted not getting free agents. You gotta sign your own.


I would tend to agree, except for the cost of the tag. At some point the money shelled out for the value of the player is not right. If we take a look at the cap and say we have roughly $27 million in cap space, removing $5 million for our draft class we are left with about $22 million in cap space. If we tag Shields it cost about $11 million, or half of the amount of money we have to spend to retain our players. That very well could be the difference of 3-4 players that have been solid players for us. Those 3-4 now have to be replaced with either less talented or less experienced players. Additionally, what if the extra money we have to spend on Shields because of the tag forces us to loose either, or both, Cobb and Nelson next offseason? I agree that Shields should be the top priority and everything needs to be done to try and retain him, but there also comes a time where the money needed to keep him just becomes too much. I know there are other ways we can gain some more cap room, cutting Williams and/or Bush, but I do not think it is as simple as saying Shields is back no matter what, even if that means tagging him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group