Something that isnt always obvious but around 30 the drops seem to increase. Welker I believe had a large amount last year, Driver too. TO I remember always having a large amount of them. Wayne I dont recall if he drops many or not.
OFFICIAL GREG JENNINGS TALK
- Thread starter ivo610
- Start date
Something that isnt always obvious but around 30 the drops seem to increase. Welker I believe had a large amount last year, Driver too. TO I remember always having a large amount of them. Wayne I dont recall if he drops many or not.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Here's the source of the rumor, the Rapaport tweet:
"Interesting to hear the#Packers are still considering franchising Greg Jennings. Thought that ship had sailed. Apparently not."
Twitter is ever so convenient...you don't have to explain yourself...not enough bytes doncha know. "Heard" from whom, exactly? If TT were asked about it at the Combine, the expected response would be, "the best player available...err...oh...a different question?...uh...we've not made a decision yet." And a decision has not been made because it is not March 12.
Jennings will enter FA. If the market turns out to be poor for him, TT might make a relatively cheap short-term offer.
And for every 200 tag-and-trade possibilities that are mentioned maybe 1 comes to fruition. Has there even been one since Cassel in 2009? Trades are rare enough to start with; tag-and-trade is just too risky unless you, a trade partner and the player want to break some rules. Besides, what would we get for him in trade? In FA we'll get a 3rd. rounder if he's a 16 game starter somewhere.
"Interesting to hear the
Twitter is ever so convenient...you don't have to explain yourself...not enough bytes doncha know. "Heard" from whom, exactly? If TT were asked about it at the Combine, the expected response would be, "the best player available...err...oh...a different question?...uh...we've not made a decision yet." And a decision has not been made because it is not March 12.
Jennings will enter FA. If the market turns out to be poor for him, TT might make a relatively cheap short-term offer.
And for every 200 tag-and-trade possibilities that are mentioned maybe 1 comes to fruition. Has there even been one since Cassel in 2009? Trades are rare enough to start with; tag-and-trade is just too risky unless you, a trade partner and the player want to break some rules. Besides, what would we get for him in trade? In FA we'll get a 3rd. rounder if he's a 16 game starter somewhere.
It's not a very "enforced" rule, if they tried to do it now, there's some existing precedent for it not have being enforced. So I don't think the rule aspect is a very big deal of it. We did do this exact thing with Corey Williams in 2008, tagging him and then trading him to the Browns for a 2nd.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Tagging and trading is not against the rules. Making a deal before applying the tag is illegal.
I don't recall the Williams situation, but if he was tagged with the idea that it would be OK to keep him if they could not trade him, then no rule was broken. Paying Jennings tag money presents problems.
Given the infrequency with which tag and trade is done might indicate the rule is effective. While not enforced in the past, you'd rather not be the guy who's made an example of.
I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the way that it is written, any tagging done with the clear intent of trading, not keeping the player, is technically against the rules. Again though, that's not enforced. Probably because it would be pretty easy to say we were intending on keeping Jennings and then things changed after the tag was applied.
I don't remember the Williams situation exactly, just that they did tag him in 2008, and traded him shortly thereafter to the Browns for a 2nd rounder.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
I have no idea if that is in fact a rule; it would be unenforceable so it does not come into play.
I was speaking of the rules that prohibit:
(1) negotiating a trade before tagging and
(2) the player negotiating a deal with a prospective new team before tagging.
These rules make tag and trade risky and thereby prohibitive.
If the rules are being followed, the tagging team will have no idea they can execute a trade. If they fail to do so, they're stuck with a player they'd rather not keep (otherwise they would not be contemplating the trade in the first place) who carries a very large 1 year cap hit.
Even if rule (1) is broken and an interested trade partner is identified, the team who seeks to acquire the player is taking on a big risk. They have not idea if they'll be able sign the guy to a long term contract on desirable terms without breaking rule (2). To eliminate the risks, you'd need to have the player involved, making a handshake contract deal with the acquiring team.
I suspect the few tag and trade deals that actually get executed fall into two categories:
1. The team tagging the player intended to keep him, hoping the tag will pressure the player to come down in his demands under a long term deal. Then the player does not capitulate and the team seeks a trade.
2. The aforementioned rules are broken. The Cassel tag and trade looks suspicious given Belichick's track record with rules and prior relationships with KC management. Or it might have been just insurance until Brady had an all clear.
Do nothing, and you're looking at a 3rd. round pick if Jennings stays healthy and is productive for his new team. You'll not do much better in a trade.
Why is it assumed, though, that we will get a 3rd for Jennings?
It is weighted against any FA acquisitions that we make. Any signings next month in free agency such as S. Jackson would probably nullify that compensation or at least reduce it.
It is weighted against any FA acquisitions that we make. Any signings next month in free agency such as S. Jackson would probably nullify that compensation or at least reduce it.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Even so, with no FA compensation, the risks remain unmitigated, unless rules are broken.
Yes picking up Jackson would wipe out any compensation more than likely. Still, Jackson voided a contract that would have paid him $7 mil next season. The Packers will not come close to matching that in a 1 year deal, or a multi year deal.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
He voided the contract because STL told him he would cut him if he exercised the option. They would have said it lot nicer than I did, but the message would have been the same.
That $7 mil would not have been guaranteed unless SJax made it to the opening day roster. That was not going to happen.
SJax will not be getting anything close to $7 mil for 2013, and I'm sure he's under no delusions.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
It does not appear to be TT's style.
I have not seen any reports where the team said they were going to void his contract or any on what contract expectations he has.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
I did not say STL would void his deal...that's not the right concept. The option to void is SJax's, not the team's. I said that if SJax exercised HIS option, then the team would release him.
STL has made it fairly clear they'd like to move on by offering him in trade last year. 30 year old high mileage backs who have lost some quickness in the hole don't get $7 mil if the team can help it. And in this case, that $7 mil would push STL over the cap barring any other moves.
So, it stands to reason, STL would tell SJax they would not honor the option year so he won't have any misconceptions as to the team's intent. That way he can void the deal without making everybody involved look like idiots.
The only other possibility is STL and SJax get together on a modest contract before 3/12. That doesn't seem to be happening.
http://www.oregonlive.com/nfl/index.ssf/2013/02/steven_jackson_to_cut_ties_wit.html
It doesn't outright say they were going to cut him, but pretty strongly implies that they weren't about to pay him $7M this year. They are already talking about a new deal, and it isn't because Jackson thought he can get more than $7M in free agency. This next link suggests 2 years/$9M is probably about the best he'll do, and that seems about right. Jackson isn't going to sniff $7M a season.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ential-teams-for-st-louis-rams-steven-jackson
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
2 year / $9 mil seems a bit high. Maybe $7 mil. I believe this is the year aging stars and capable starters (B/high C level) will get a bit of a surprise. There's not a lot of cap to go around while elite player pay keeps rising.
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
Back to the topic. I think teams have until tomorrow to tag a guy. We'll know about Jennings then.
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
Jennings didn't get the tag. Didn't think he would.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/no-franchise-tag-for-greg-jennings-market-next/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/04/no-franchise-tag-for-greg-jennings-market-next/
The Drew
The Drew Cave
He isnt going to get the money he wants... I hope he swallows his ego and comes back to reality and play for a contender in the Packers!
SpartaChris
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 3,024
- Reaction score
- 671
Jason Wilde is saying the team has been talking to Jennings for a while and offered him a deal somewhere in the $10 Million a year range. https://twitter.com/espn_nfcnblog/status/311631342058225665
98Redbird
Cheesehead
Geez, 10 million a year... I don't know that he's worth that honestly. And I'm a huge Jennings fan.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
I don't want him for $10M/year either. They can waive Finley to make it fit this season along with a sizeable signing bonus, but what will the cap consequences be for years 2-whatever?
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
I wonder if he sold his house?
NelsonsLongCatch
Cheesehead
I thought the story was that the Packers offered him $10M/year "a while ago"... I bet he wishes he just shut his mouth and took the money
Similar threads
Staff online
-
Poppa San* Team Owner *
