2022 Salary Cap Riddle/Thread/Discussion

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
I read through a bit, but not this whole thread. My apologies if someone else did this already. I broke down what I think needs to happen to keep Rodgers and Adams.

If the Packers can re-sign Adams and extend Rodgers they will likely lose the following players unless they renegotiate for league minimums.

Offense: Lazard, Cobb, MVS, EQ, Tonyan, Lewis, Nijman, Patrick, Kelly

Defense: Campbell, Douglas, Sullivan, both Smith Bros, Lowry, Lancaster, King, & Burks

ST: Crosby

If this were to happen the Packers would have the following depth chart.

Offense:

QB: Rodgers, Love, Benkert
RB: Jones, Dillon, Taylor, Hill
WR: Adams, Amari Rodgers, Winfree
TE: Deguara, Davis, Dafney
LT: Bahktiari
LG: Runyan(Jenkins)
C: Myers
RG: Newman
RT: Turner
Backup Oline: Braden, Hansen, Van Lanen

Defense:
Dline: Clark, Slaton
OLB: Gary, Garvin, Galeai
MLB: Barnes, Mcduffie
CB: Alexander, Stokes, SJC
S: Savage, Amos, Black, Davis, Scott

Special Teams
K: Kicker to be named later
P: Bojorquez

Draft Picks in Rd 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 7, 7

A lot of holes would need to be filled with the draft or undrafted free agents. Maybe a few flyers like Douglas who have bounced around for a while.
Rodgers already said that he doesn't want to be part of a rebuild and that is probably a rebuild.

I don't know if he will soften his stance on that or it was just a hint that if the Packers don't re-sign Davante, he is gone.

The first and #1 decision that the Packers must decide on is Rodgers and the chips will fall from there.
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
695
Reaction score
250
Sorry some of this was wrong - below is as of a couple days ago the only Packers with 2022 contracts (they did add the PS guys to this yesterday).
Yeah, my list is different. It is projections of players cut and kept. But whatever, not going to make a big deal. Just wanted to chat offseason football as painful as it is.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
Yeah, my list is different. It is projections of players cut and kept. But whatever, not going to make a big deal. Just wanted to chat offseason football as painful as it is.

Sorry didn't present or appear it was projections - I'm following it more so with that.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
One pitfall that I thought of with trading for 2023 draft pics and it was the same one that made it less appealing to trade him right after this years draft. Whatever team you send him to, he should improve quite a bit. So all those future picks you receive could get diluted quite a bit. Versus trading for this year's picks, knowing exactly where each pick lies in each round.

Quite true, the additional pick the Dolphins have in the 2023 first round is controlled by the Niners FYI
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
2,088
Rodgers already said that he doesn't want to be part of a rebuild and that is probably a rebuild.

I don't know if he will soften his stance on that or it was just a hint that if the Packers don't re-sign Davante, he is gone.

The first and #1 decision that the Packers must decide on is Rodgers and the chips will fall from there.
I know the FO means well with recent statements through Matt. However I can’t help by speculate that part of these public gestures about keeping Rodgers have several motivations.
One is that this isn’t the time to start a war with our QB. If he leaves we’d like to be on amicable terms. Which means the statements mean nothing more than we will make an attempt to keep him (big whoop who wouldn’t?). Placating Rodgers in a trade scenario Avenue is a bi-product of those statements. We don’t need to create a stalemate in a large scale business transaction, so to speak. We have to present a deal that enables the full team objective. and it’s going to take a velvet hammer as they say in the business world.

The only way I see this working out is if our FO is able to use increased contract years (through guaranteed) to convince Rodgers to take less per annual average. Trading long term security (risk) for a more team friendly monetary value. Also the Adams contract would more than likely have to be addressed simultaneously and we all know his contract is a biggie. Those combined would setup up a legitimate plea to offer a deal that otherwise might seem insulting.

If Rodgers doesn’t want a rebuild? Then it’s up to him to take a longer deal (but with less average yearly)
and possibly a higher % guaranteed (later contract out) as a perk. That enables Russ n Co to balance the books by providing our team with “known” financial variables with a 4-5 year outlook. It’s a time when the future league Cap increases should catch up with monies we pushed forward
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
I know the FO means well with recent statements through Matt. However I can’t help by speculate that part of these public gestures about keeping Rodgers have several motivations.
One is that this isn’t the time to start a war with our QB. If he leaves we’d like to be on amicable terms. Which means the statements mean nothing more than we will make an attempt to keep him (big whoop who wouldn’t?). Placating Rodgers in a trade scenario Avenue is a bi-product of those statements. We don’t need to create a stalemate in a large scale business transaction, so to speak. We have to present a deal that enables the full team objective. and it’s going to take a velvet hammer as they say in the business world.

The only way I see this working out is if our FO is able to use increased contract years (through guaranteed) to convince Rodgers to take less per annual average. Trading long term security (risk) for a more team friendly monetary value. Also the Adams contract would more than likely have to be addressed simultaneously and we all know his contract is a biggie. Those combined would setup up a legitimate plea to offer a deal that otherwise might seem insulting.

If Rodgers doesn’t want a rebuild? Then it’s up to him to take a longer deal (but with less average yearly)
and possibly a higher % guaranteed (later contract out). That enables Russ n Co to balance the books by providing known financial variables with a 4-5 year outlook.
I just don't see how both Rodgers and Adams can stay in Green Bay and the Packers avoid a rebuild, or at least a mini one. Yes, both Rodgers and Adams can still get paid, extended and secured with deals that lower the cap hit in 2022. However, that is still a massive cap hit we need to make up for, fix issues and sign players. Let's put it this way, I don't think their is a hat magical enough to pull enough rabbits out of it to keep the 21 roster in tact. Especially, when you consider Douglas, Campbell, Amos and both Smiths.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
I just don't see how both Rodgers and Adams can stay in Green Bay and the Packers avoid a rebuild, or at least a mini one. Yes, both Rodgers and Adams can still get paid, extended and secured with deals that lower the cap hit in 2022. However, that is still a massive cap hit we need to make up for, fix issues and sign players. Let's put it this way, I don't think their is a hat magical enough to pull enough rabbits out of it to keep the 21 roster in tact. Especially, when you consider Douglas, Campbell, Amos and both Smiths.

Oh you could do it for one year, by pushing just insane amounts of money into 2023 and 2024...and probably one or two big cuts (Z Smith being one). It would make our potential cap issues FAR FAR worse in the future years than we are even facing now...but if you commit to Rodgers for 2022 you're doing it with nothing being held back and future of the franchise damned type thing.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
2,088
I guess what I’m saying in layman’s term is: if you wanna keep the band together then the band needs to part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I just don't see how both Rodgers and Adams can stay in Green Bay and the Packers avoid a rebuild, or at least a mini one. Yes, both Rodgers and Adams can still get paid, extended and secured with deals that lower the cap hit in 2022. However, that is still a massive cap hit we need to make up for, fix issues and sign players. Let's put it this way, I don't think their is a hat magical enough to pull enough rabbits out of it to keep the 21 roster in tact. Especially, when you consider Douglas, Campbell, Amos and both Smiths.
I agree. It’s an animal. I will not disagree with that. It would likely send 3-4 key players out to pasture similar to the move we made with Linsley. Call it Linsley X 3

As Someone pointed out. It would rely heavily on early production from draft picks. No more “high ceiling” draft selections that need time to adapt. You’d have to go after “high floor” draftees that can translate to the NFL tomorrow.
Along with Bargain Bin FA types. Which we have been very crafty at in the recent past.

That’s why you head me gripe, all this debt makes me nervous for our teams future. We needed this season, we’re on the CapHell mountain downslope now.

Take a stab at Rodgers, but be aggressive. I kinda want him to say no. I believe in this Staff from a personnel acquisition perspective. Let’s rebuild now. We can get creative and Love would be merely a sideshow in comparison to options we have.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
Oh you could do it for one year, by pushing just insane amounts of money into 2023 and 2024...and probably one or two big cuts (Z Smith being one). It would make our potential cap issues FAR FAR worse in the future years than we are even facing now...but if you commit to Rodgers for 2022 you're doing it with nothing being held back and future of the franchise damned type thing.
The more I think about this, the more I am back to how I felt before this last season, plus I have this season to back it.

If THIS band is about to be disbanded, because the music has gotten so expensive to make and it isn't making it the to big show, which it seems is important to most (not really me), then why keep the band together? Not to mention that keeping it together, prevents you from starting up a new band now, as well as severely limits your future funds to finance said new band.

It also feels like you have to pay a few of the band members so much money, that you end up having to fire the road crew to afford the band and then who sets everything up?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
The more I think about this, the more I am back to how I felt before this last season, plus I have this season to back it.

If THIS band is about to be disbanded, because the music has gotten so expensive to make and it isn't making it the to big show, which it seems is important to most (not really me), then why keep the band together? Not to mention that keeping it together, prevents you from starting up a new band now, as well as severely limits your future funds to finance said new band.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Correct...in my long write up on that other thread I don't really share my personal stance, but I believe we truly have hit the end of the road we've been driving on presently. If we stay on this road there are essentially no more exits ahead...time for him to go left and we go right - a nod of the caps to each other and a fond farewell granted, cuz damn we've had some amazing times.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,743
Reaction score
1,056
The more I think about this, the more I am back to how I felt before this last season, plus I have this season to back it.

If THIS band is about to be disbanded, because the music has gotten so expensive to make and it isn't making it the to big show, which it seems is important to most (not really me), then why keep the band together? Not to mention that keeping it together, prevents you from starting up a new band now, as well as severely limits your future funds to finance said new band.

It also feels like you have to pay a few of the band members so much money, that you end up having to fire the road crew to afford the band and then who sets everything up?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
All this band talk should get you banned. Or maybe banded or at least on the run.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
3,897
Reaction score
868
I guess what I’m saying in layman’s term is: if you wanna keep the band together then the band needs to part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I agree. It’s an animal. I will not disagree with that. It would likely send 3-4 key players out to pasture similar to the move we made with Linsley. Call it Linsley X 3

As Someone pointed out. It would rely heavily on early production from draft picks. No more “high ceiling” draft selections that need time to adapt. You’d have to go after “high floor” draftees that can translate to the NFL tomorrow.
Along with Bargain Bin FA types. Which we have been very crafty at in the recent past.

That’s why you head me gripe, all this debt makes me nervous for our teams future. We needed this season, we’re on the CapHell mountain downslope now.

Take a stab at Rodgers, but be aggressive. I kinda want him to say no. I believe in this Staff from a personnel acquisition perspective. Let’s rebuild now. We can get creative and Love would be merely a sideshow in comparison to options we have.
It doesn’t really make me all that nervous…. I expect this team to suck for a while if/when Rodgers is gone. I really don’t care of they go 1-17 or 6 -11… both are bad. Personally… I’d like to see a complete all in right now go for it for 1-2 more years and then pay the price big time… be in cap hell for a couple years while we start over. I have no interest at all in all this talk about value for draft picks trades…. whatever … I expect to suck for a while anyway… Our best chance is with retaining Rodgers and pretty much everyone else for one more year… future costs can be made up pretty quickly if you are willing to accept the fact that you have to suck big time for a year or two while you pay up.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
It doesn’t really make me all that nervous…. I expect this team to suck for a while if/when Rodgers is gone. I really don’t care of they go 1-17 or 6 -11… both are bad. Personally… I’d like to see a complete all in right now go for it for 1-2 more years and then pay the price big time… be in cap hell for a couple years while we start over. I have no interest at all in all this talk about value for draft picks trades…. whatever … I expect to suck for a while anyway… Our best chance is with retaining Rodgers and pretty much everyone else for one more year… future costs can be made up pretty quickly if you are willing to accept the fact that you have to suck big time for a year or two while you pay up.

I thought that is what we just did....now you are wanting to do it again?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
If Rodgers is willing to play why not. If he’s not… well the it’s time to start sucking lol.

Only way they should "go all in", is if Rodgers is back AND they can actually go all in. Poor Russ, I bet he is burning the Midnight Oil, trying to keep this band together.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Attachments

  • white-boy-dancing-beds-are-burning.gif
    white-boy-dancing-beds-are-burning.gif
    126.2 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:

AKCheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
285
I think Rodgers and the Packers both know it’s not going to happen. The real issue is does Rodgers want to play next year and how cooperative is he going to be in helping Green Bay decent compensation, which I dont see as being NEARLY what has been bandied about UNLESS Rodgers says “yeah I’ll play for these three teams”… I don’t expect that, I expect he’ll eventually say “I want to go HERE and only HERE” which reduces Green Bays leverage immensely.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
2,088
It doesn’t really make me all that nervous…. I expect this team to suck for a while if/when Rodgers is gone. I really don’t care of they go 1-17 or 6 -11… both are bad. Personally… I’d like to see a complete all in right now go for it for 1-2 more years and then pay the price big time… be in cap hell for a couple years while we start over. I have no interest at all in all this talk about value for draft picks trades…. whatever … I expect to suck for a while anyway… Our best chance is with retaining Rodgers and pretty much everyone else for one more year… future costs can be made up pretty quickly if you are willing to accept the fact that you have to suck big time for a year or two while you pay up.
I propose you take that to the board of directors. Don’t change a word it’s a thing of truth and beauty to the core :roflmao:
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
27,021
Reaction score
4,843
Location
Madison, WI
I think Rodgers and the Packers both know it’s not going to happen. The real issue is does Rodgers want to play next year and how cooperative is he going to be in helping Green Bay decent compensation, which I dont see as being NEARLY what has been bandied about UNLESS Rodgers says “yeah I’ll play for these three teams”… I don’t expect that, I expect he’ll eventually say “I want to go HERE and only HERE” which reduces Green Bays leverage immensely.

I wouldn't let your personal opinion of Rodgers, cloud things up too much. Eventually, both sides give a bit and work out something that is favorable for both.
 

wallsthotshot

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
34
Reaction score
8
Not sure if this idea has been addressed. I caveat it with - I would like to see the team find a way to run it back... (with some ST, and by Rodgers doing a TB12-type deal for his teammates.)

But say they can't and 'have to' trade 12 and 17.. to Denver.

Is this crazy?
1. Sign Mariota on a prove it/stopgap deal.
2. Get from Denver:
Round 1: Own pick
Round 2: Own pick
Round 2: From Los Angeles Rams
And next year #1
And?...

3. Draft Matt Corral with #9.

4. Among Carrol, Marotta, Love - See who is best for the LaFleur system.

5. This provides cap space to keep Lazard, draft capital to draft WRs+TE (goodness) around a strong OL and run game; potentially retain key parts of the D we'd otherwiselose, and ???

I have not reviewed the cap implications and possibilities, nor the latest of what we may get from DEN (including a player back).

Though, for the fun of it... thoughts?
 

wallsthotshot

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
34
Reaction score
8
Doubt he meant that, but you can make the hit in 2022 far less than the average per year salary, loading up subsequent years more
Indeed i meant that if they were to extend, they potentially could free up cap room for '22. If I am not mistaken this has been addressed by people well-versed in the cap.
 

wallsthotshot

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
34
Reaction score
8
It doesn't make any sense for the Packers to trade Bakhtiari as it would either result in an additional cap hit for the 2022 season or they would have to pay him his roster bonus of $9.5 million which is due on March 20. Therefore it wouldn't make any sense to wait after June 1st to trade him either.



No, I don't have a Twitter handle I use to post information like that. You need to come here to benefit from my wisdom :roflmao:



As soon as the Packers trade Bakhtiari they aren't on the hook for any guaranteed money which will be paid after that point. They would take a massive amount of dead money counting against their cap at some point though.
Agreed btw I was wrong about the 'trade Bak' to get room in '22 It indeed makes it worse. A restructure could buy room for '22 but make for cap issues later.
 

Poppa San

The Rapture can't come soon enough
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
11,273
Reaction score
1,541
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
But say they can't and 'have to' trade 12 and 17.. to Denver.

Is this crazy?
1. Sign Mariota on a prove it/stopgap deal.
2. Get from Denver:
Round 1: Own pick
Round 2: Own pick
Round 2: From Los Angeles Rams
And next year #1
And?...
DA17 is a free agent. There is no trade option unless it's a tag and trade.
Without DA17 in the package, there are not 2 #1s and 2 #2s +.
Why sign a stopgap vet when Denver might throw Drew Lock?
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
13,914
Reaction score
2,119
I would not extend BahkT. We can't do anything with him this next year anyway. It's going to be a play and earn it, or can't play because knee isn't right. If he's healthy, he's still good. I saw enough in the Detroit game to know he's still far better than anything else we're going to put on the field. But if he doesn't play, why would I extend more money out? If by some chance he can't play again next year or is severely limited for some reason, we have an out and cut our losses.

It' one thing to extend guys like Jaire who are in your 3+ year plan and is very likely to be 100% next season than it would be to commit more future money to a guy that has missed the last season and a half and is still having problems in his knee.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
8,823
Reaction score
2,031
I would not extend BahkT. We can't do anything with him this next year anyway. It's going to be a play and earn it, or can't play because knee isn't right. If he's healthy, he's still good. I saw enough in the Detroit game to know he's still far better than anything else we're going to put on the field. But if he doesn't play, why would I extend more money out? If by some chance he can't play again next year or is severely limited for some reason, we have an out and cut our losses.

It' one thing to extend guys like Jaire who are in your 3+ year plan and is very likely to be 100% next season than it would be to commit more future money to a guy that has missed the last season and a half and is still having problems in his knee.

I agree on Bakh - moving more back would just make him harder to move from in future, not a smart call.
 

wallsthotshot

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
34
Reaction score
8
DA17 is a free agent. There is no trade option unless it's a tag and trade.
Without DA17 in the package, there are not 2 #1s and 2 #2s +.
Why sign a stopgap vet when Denver might throw Drew Lock?
Not a fan of Lock and his contract #. Also, tag and trade DA (if it can be done) was an assumption in what I shared. Moves to make it possible under the cap would be needed but I suspect could work. If even, trade one, knowing you will tag and trade the other in essentially the same deal. Trading 12 means you could tag 17 I suspect... so... work out the process. If that is happening under good terms, suspect 12, 17 and DEN would oblige. And the Pack gets their picks. I'd rather have Carrol, the picks, and Mariota on a prove it than Lock.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top