AJ Hawk haters.....

[HyponGrey]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/07/a-j-hawk-will-get-almost-11-million-in-2011/

So we just have to suffer through this year?!

 

[ivo610]

Keep Jennings dump Hawk.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Signing bonuses are guaranteed cash payments to the player, but are prorated over the term of the contract for cap purposes. However, when you cut a guy, all of the remaining signing bonus not already prorated to prior years counts against the cap in the year you cut him.

In the Hawk example, the $8 mil signing bonus is prorated at $1.6 mil per year for the 5 years.

So, had Hawk been cut this past off season, the $6.4 mil balance of the signing bonus (4 years x $1.6 mil) would have counted against the 2012 cap. Keeping him in 2012 counts $6.55 mil against the cap ($4.95 mil in salary/other bonuses + 1.6 mil in prorated signing bonus).

Cutting Hawk in 2012 would have cost more from a cap standpoint than keeping him, when you add in the cost to pay a roster replacement. Given this fact, his roster spot was never in doubt for this 2012. And when you know there's no way you can get rid of a guy, there's no point is saying anything but good things about him.

In 2013, the cap cost to cut him will be $4.8 mil (3 x $1.8 mil) vs. cap cost to keep of $7.05 mil ($5.45 mil salary/other bonus + $1.6 mil prorated signing bonus). Cutting still looks somewhat prohibitive.

That's why the piece talks about Hawk's vulnerability after 2013.

 

[TJV]

Yes, the damage from the Hawk deal is done because he's already received all of his signing bonus and because IMO his yearly salaries are way too high for his level of performance. I agree with everything in HardRightEdge's post above except that cutting Hawk looks prohibitive money and cap-wise in 2013. As soon as the cap hit for cutting a player is lower than the cap hit of keeping him a player the team wants to get rid of should be cut. In Hawk's example as I said the $8M has already been spent and it'll will apply to the cap one way or another (all at once or year by year). But the Packers can save the $5.45M AND lower their cap number in 2013 by cutting or trading Hawk (his salary would made a trade unlikely though).

But IMO here's the problem with this line of thought: The Packers front office and coaching staff like Hawk one hell of a lot more than many of us do. I hope their faith in him is justified this season and it will get a very good test right out of the gate on Sunday.

 

[ivo610]

Yes, the damage from the Hawk deal is done because he's already received all of his signing bonus and because IMO his yearly salaries are way too high for his level of performance. I agree with everything in HardRightEdge's post above except that cutting Hawk looks prohibitive money and cap-wise in 2013. As soon as the cap hit for cutting a player is lower than the cap hit of keeping him a player the team wants to get rid of should be cut. In Hawk's example as I said the $8M has already been spent and it'll will apply to the cap one way or another (all at once or year by year). But the Packers can save the $5.45M AND lower their cap number in 2013 by cutting or trading Hawk (his salary would made a trade unlikely though).

But IMO here's the problem with this line of thought: The Packers front office and coaching staff like Hawk one hell of a lot more than many of us do. I hope their faith in him is justified this season and it will get a very good test right out of the gate on Sunday.

Trade hawk? You think a team would give us a left handed football for him?

 

[HyponGrey]

If Hawks weight loss turns him into the player I know he can be, and he shows up to play this first game, instead of being the same dude I saw in preseason and most years past, I will post an official apology for all the years of beratement, ridcule, and ire. I will wish him all the best with his new team, because he would then be too erratic for my liking.

 

[HyponGrey]

Trade hawk? You think a team would give us a left handed football for him?

I remember that! Good times...

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, the damage from the Hawk deal is done because he's already received all of his signing bonus and because IMO his yearly salaries are way too high for his level of performance. I agree with everything in HardRightEdge's post above except that cutting Hawk looks prohibitive money and cap-wise in 2013. As soon as the cap hit for cutting a player is lower than the cap hit of keeping him a player the team wants to get rid of should be cut. In Hawk's example as I said the $8M has already been spent and it'll will apply to the cap one way or another (all at once or year by year). But the Packers can save the $5.45M AND lower their cap number in 2013 by cutting or trading Hawk (his salary would made a trade unlikely though).

But IMO here's the problem with this line of thought: The Packers front office and coaching staff like Hawk one hell of a lot more than many of us do. I hope their faith in him is justified this season and it will get a very good test right out of the gate on Sunday.

The reason I said a cut after 2012/before 2013 looks "somewhat" prohibitive is because of the unknowns with respect to how Hawk might rebound, availability of a replacement and the cost of replacement.

Let's say Hawk has an OK season, even if not at the level of a $7 million dollar man....just a reliable, middle-of-the-road type of year. From a cap standpoint, you'd have to find a replacement of equal ability for 2013 at a cap cost of $1.6 mil or less. "OK" performance out of a vet ILB at that cost-to-keep vs. cost-to-cut spread gets you to "somewhat" prohibitive. How Bishop recovers would also be a factor. How much playing time the youngsters see this season would also be a factor.

That said, if Hawk puts up another year like last season ("not OK") the equation changes, and the move is no longer prohibitive. I for one expect better play out of him than last year, but I'm not holding my breath for a return to 2010 form...that would be an unexpected surprise.

 

[TJV]

We're "getting into the weeds" a bit here but I'm not sure why you mentioned "less than $1.6M". The cap savings from waiving Hawk next year would be $2.25M if your numbers are correct ($7.05M - $4.8M) and I believe they are. Also for some teams only the cap constraints matter because they have billionaire owners backing up their payrolls, but for the Packers the actual savings of $5.45M matter too with regard to extending Rodgers, Matthews, Raji, etc. In either case, I think its likely Hawk's replacement is on the roster for less than $1M: Lattimore, Francois, maybe Manning with a year of experience. And if Bishop returns healthy, Smith could pair with him inside. But again, the "fly in the ointment" is the Packers value Hawk more than many of us do.

 

[HardRightEdge]

We're "getting into the weeds" a bit here but I'm not sure why you mentioned "less than $1.6M". The cap savings from waiving Hawk next year would be $2.25M if your numbers are correct ($7.05M - $4.8M) and I believe they are. Also for some teams only the cap constraints matter because they have billionaire owners backing up their payrolls, but for the Packers the actual savings of $5.45M matter too with regard to extending Rodgers, Matthews, Raji, etc. In either case, I think its likely Hawk's replacement is on the roster for less than $1M: Lattimore, Francois, maybe Manning with a year of experience. And if Bishop returns healthy, Smith could pair with him inside. But again, the "fly in the ointment" is the Packers value Hawk more than many of us do.

The answer to your first question is bad math on my part. The figure is $2.25 mil as you said. That would not materially change my point using the incorrect $1.6 mil figure.

As to the second point ($5.45 mil cash money savings), as surprising as it seems, cash money payouts, taken in isolation, are a lot less important to teams than cap layouts, and it does make some sense.

This will be even more to the point going forward...while everybody is aware of the cap maximum, there is also a cap minimum which creates a narrow band within which the cap is managed under the new CBA. It's not like you can run well under the cap one year to store up cash money in order to unload it in a future year on a bunch of signing bonuses.

Further, when you consider that all actualized cap $'s represent current or past cash payments, over time the discipline of the cap by itself imposes player cash payroll discipline.

Cap affects aside, I believe the Pack's unique ownership structure makes cash issues a matter of less concern than with many private owners. For several private owners, the team is their primary business and an important source of personal income. Cash money is extracted to pay themselves (owners and employed family) salaries and dividends. The Packers have no such cash extractions.

Or another way to look at is that the "dividend" paid to Packer shareholders (of which I am one) is "winning".

Or let's look at the recent stock issuance. What did it generate in free cash? $70 mil was it? When you think about that a bit it amounts to issuing a perpetual bond with a 0% coupon. What private owner could do that? Or consider what it actually is...equity dilution that none of the preexisting owners could care less about. What other ownership group would look at it that way?

In the 2010 uncapped year, the Pack carried the one of the highest player cash outlays in the league...I believe it was something on the order of $160 mil including benefits...top 3 in the league if I recall correctly. That followed on the previous year when the team generated an operating profit of something like $10 mil minus $5 mil in write downs on land for net $5 mil. I'm working from memory on these numbers, but I believe they are pretty close.

I don't think many owners who make their living at this, or who at least expect the team to be a reasonably well performing profit generator, would make the kind of payroll commitment the Pack made in 2010 coming off that poor of a profit year. This past year, under the cap and with the post-SB windfalls, the Pack's operating profit was quite healthy...I believe $43 mil was the recently reported figure. With the new seats and the new TV contracts, cash should not be an issue for the foreseeable future given the cash spending constraints over time that are a byproduct of the cap.

It is also worth noting that because Green Bay is a small market franchise, many think it must be in the lower ranks in the league in terms of financial performance. That would be a misconception. As of 2010, the Pack was in the middle of the league in revenue and ticket prices. With the new seats, and to the extent the SB/contender windfalls persist, the Pack should be moving into the upper 1/3 in revenues and profits if not already there.

In short, if you can fit Rodgers under the cap, or anybody else for that matter, the cash won't be an issue.

 

[TJV]

In short, if you can fit Rodgers under the cap, or anybody else for that matter, the cash won't be an issue.

We disagree on the importance of the Packers cash reserve vs. every other team in the league. Yes, the Packers don’t pay dividends on their stock, don’t have to support an ownership family, and the team can raise a great deal of money from stock offerings. But the proceeds of those sales must be kept separate from other team funds and can only be used for NFL approved expenditures like stadium renovation; they cannot be used for front office – or more important - players salaries.

Remember when Harlan was going door to door to get taxpayer support for the stadium renovation? Here’s a quote from a June, 2000 story in Sports Business Daily:

“What's alarming is how fast we are slipping. Five and six years ago, we were in two Super Bowls and were ninth in league revenues, but teams with new stadiums are jumping all over us." Harlan predicts that without a renovated stadium, the team's cash reserves will be depleted by 2005. "Then we are into negative cash reserves," he said. "It all revolves around stadium issues. Other than the television money, the stadium is the next best source of revenue.”

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2000/06/20000605/No-Topic-Name/Packers-Play-The-Poverty-Card.aspx Harlan may have been guilty of exaggeration but there’s no question the Packers were headed in the wrong direction, fiscally.

The Packers are in a great financial position currently but as other teams build new stadiums there’s a danger the Packers will slip down the league revenue rankings again. Every other team can sell its franchise – Forbes 2012 list values the Jaguars franchise - #32 on the list - at $770M. Every other team can receive a cash infusion from its ownership. Every other team can sell an ownership interest for an infusion of cash. So the latest Lambeau renovation adding seats wasn’t a “luxury”, it was a necessity as are the Packers efforts to continue to build a commercial destination around Lambeau Field. Forbes reports the Cowboys (valued at $2.1B) had $100M+ more in operating income than any team in the league last season. Daniel Snyder’s use of UFA like a fantasy football team owner is only possible because of his non-football related deep pockets.

Almost every other team can afford to make mistakes in paying large signing bonuses to manipulate the cap and not worry about cash reserves. Only the Packers franchise is in trouble if their cash reserves are depleted. So yes, short-term salary cap constraints are the biggest concern vis keeping the core of the team in place. But medium- and long-term the Packers have to jealously guard their cash reserves because it’s unrealistic to expect the team to stay in contention for a title in perpetuity. Their margin for error regarding cash expenditures is smaller than any other NFL team’s.

 

[HardRightEdge]

We disagree on the importance of the Packers cash reserve vs. every other team in the league. Yes, the Packers don’t pay dividends on their stock, don’t have to support an ownership family, and the team can raise a great deal of money from stock offerings. But the proceeds of those sales must be kept separate from other team funds and can only be used for NFL approved expenditures like stadium renovation; they cannot be used for front office – or more important - players salaries.

Remember when Harlan was going door to door to get taxpayer support for the stadium renovation? Here’s a quote from a June, 2000 story in Sports Business Daily:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2000/06/20000605/No-Topic-Name/Packers-Play-The-Poverty-Card.aspx Harlan may have been guilty of exaggeration but there’s no question the Packers were headed in the wrong direction, fiscally.

The Packers are in a great financial position currently but as other teams build new stadiums there’s a danger the Packers will slip down the league revenue rankings again. Every other team can sell its franchise – Forbes 2012 list values the Jaguars franchise - #32 on the list - at $770M. Every other team can receive a cash infusion from its ownership. Every other team can sell an ownership interest for an infusion of cash. So the latest Lambeau renovation adding seats wasn’t a “luxury”, it was a necessity as are the Packers efforts to continue to build a commercial destination around Lambeau Field. Forbes reports the Cowboys (valued at $2.1B) had $100M+ more in operating income than any team in the league last season. Daniel Snyder’s use of UFA like a fantasy football team owner is only possible because of his non-football related deep pockets.

Almost every other team can afford to make mistakes in paying large signing bonuses to manipulate the cap and not worry about cash reserves. Only the Packers franchise is in trouble if their cash reserves are depleted. So yes, short-term salary cap constraints are the biggest concern vis keeping the core of the team in place. But medium- and long-term the Packers have to jealously guard their cash reserves because it’s unrealistic to expect the team to stay in contention for a title in perpetuity. Their margin for error regarding cash expenditures is smaller than any other NFL team’s.

I think it's a question of emphasis and degree. The way you present the matter sounds more like Major League Baseball, and the Royals trying to compete with the Yankees under the soft salary cap.

If Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder or the Krafts could spend limitless sums on player payroll and just pay a "tax" to the other teams as the Yankees do, I'd agree with the slant of your presentation. It just doesn't work that way in the NFL. The flexibility that "the rich guys" have amounts to about $3.5 mil extra cap per year in vet incentive payments, but at the same time they have to pay a "tax" anyway to the poor teams under the new revenue sharing agreement. They can "borrow" $3 mil from future cap, but that's just borrowing...and a drop in the bucket compared to the borrowing that is done with signing bonuses. Check out the following, which also describes the salary floors going forward:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/25/the-cba-in-a-nutshell/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...g-plan-features-tax-on-highest-earning-teams/

There might be a misunderstanding about the "magic" of Snyder's past free agent signings. There is no magic. It is pay me now or pay me later so far as the cap is concerned.

If Snyder or the like wants to unload a ton of cash on star players over a short period of a few seasons, his team income will allow him to pay those signing bonuses. Granted. But the cap hit comes later as those prorated signing bonuses accumulate against the cap. There is wall. As those deferred cap hits accumulate, the ability to spend more cash on more signing bonuses eventually hits that cap wall. It gets a lot worse when the signings blow up and you end up cutting guys with cap hits coming after they're gone...they call it "dead cap money", the absolute worst habit to get into in managing the cap. Cutting Hawk might save cash, but it creates dead cap space. He'll be given the benefit of the doubt until the dead cap money becomes more manageable provided he plays OK, even if not great.

Having excess cash to pile on free agents is a short term strategy, not a benefit to the rich. It's a "win now" move, or at least a "stay competitive now" move. It presents no long term cap advantage.

If you think about how the cap works, over time, all cash paid counts against the cap sooner or later and all cap hits are for cash already paid (or to be paid in the current season). Develop-from-within and sign-your-own isn't a poor man's necessity...it's the best and most risk averse approach to sustained competitiveness. When the offensive or defensive leader retires, you might make an exception.

In other words, cap vs. cash expenditures can diverge for short periods, a few seasons, but over the long run they equalize.

I just checked the recent updated Forbes list which puts the Pack at #10 in valuation, tied for #8 in revenue, and #13 in operating profit. I thought they'd hit the top 1/3 this season with the new seats. Turns out they are already there. And they will stay there for some time to come. Team revenue comes substantially from ticket sales and associated revenue (concessions, parking) and of course the shared TV revenue. Then you have the merchandising gravy which moves up and down with winning and losing. At what point would you expect the Packers to not sell out? They get the TV money regardless.

That leaves the questions of the development of an entertainment/destination district and a new stadium somewhere down the line. The dollars involved here are so large that saving $5 mil cash here or there by cutting a player is inconsequential...if the byproduct is dead cap money and you make a habit of it you're going to eventually find yourself cap constrained and uncompetitive. In any case, all but a few markets could undertake such projects without significant push back from the taxpayers.

The Packers are not rich, but they are not poor, and they are better off than most. Since our dividend is "winning", the cap controls everybody's payroll expenditures, and sellouts make Packer profitability guaranteed, player payroll will not be an issue for the foreseeable future.

Lastly, the fact we went up to the top of the league in payroll in the uncapped year, well over the old cap, indicates management does not share your concerns.

 

[TJV]

I didn’t mention “magic” regarding Snyder and in every business endeavor I know of, having excess cash is an advantage: Teams with virtually unlimited cash reserves can overcome big money free agent mistakes. What happens if the league loses the “concussion” case against the retired players? What if it’s a huge award? The Packers will reduce their cash reserve to pay their share while every other team has another source of that payment. There are limits to how much Lambeau can be expanded. As other teams build new stadiums ala the Cowboys and the cap increases, the Packers’ will have to be more creative than others to keep up. And what if there’s a multi-year period in which they aren’t competitive on the field? What happens to merchandise sales? IMO thinking that the Packers will always be competitive financially contributed to the position they were in before the major Lambeau renovation Harlan headed. IMO it’s analogous to those who thought housing prices would always increase in 2005.

I'll give you the last word on this if you want it. (Not because I'm angry, just because I've presented my side of this and the point of diminishing returns has been reached IMO – this last comment is not directed at HardRightEdge, but to others who in the past have misinterpreted it.)

 

[Crazy Packers Fan]

I used to hate Hawk but the way he stepped up in Barnett's place in 2010 was remarkable - he was wearing the special helmet and that can't be an easy job. Of course last year the defense was the worst in NFL history, so the jury's out on him again. If he comes back with a solid year this year - doesn't have to be spectacular - I'll be happy.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I thought it was time to revisit this thread. He had a real good game yesterday and has had a very good season. Also, has showed up for work every Sunday. Taking off my hater hat.

 

[bozz_2006]

From what I've seen over the last, what, 6(?) seasons, is that when guys start going down, Hawk steps up. But when those big names get healthy and get back in, Hawk kind of seems to wilt. Like he defers leadership of something.

But he's a great interim leader; when things are starting to get hairy and someone, ANYONE, needs to rise to the occasion, AJ rises to te occasion. But it sort of takes a crisis to get his best. I have no doubt he'll finish out this year very strong, but I'm hoping he can carry that to next season as well.

 

[ivo610]

He may very well play his entire career in GB. Will be interesting to see what his legacy is. Yesterday was as good of a game as I ever saw him play.

I'm still hatin tho

 

[Vltrophy]

Are you watching the same AJ hawk I am?

I'd trade him for a fruit roll up.

A.Js been having a decent season. He may not be the best but he's not the worst

 

[Chicocheese]

I have never been a Hawk hater. In fact, in 2006 I was DYING to get his Topps Chrome auto, but I pulled a Mario Williams instead =/

Anyways, it is REALLY hard for me to get to HATE a Packer. I don't even hate Brett Favre...I am disappointed but I am getting over it.

Also...is it just me or does Hawk seem to be a "Sampson in reverse"? By that, I mean he cut his hair and is now playing a LOT better than previous.

 

[AmishMafia]

Don't hate, just don't understand. He was a better athlete than Matthews coming out of college, and slightly bigger. He has (or appears) to have the attitude and dedication necessary for success.

Everything is there, all the ingredients for an impact player. Yet, he just does okay.

I hope this last game is the start of what many of us where expecting all along.

 

[Vltrophy]

Didn't Hawk have 2 sacks yesterday

 

[longtimefan]

yes he did....

He only had 2 coming into the game

 

[GreenBlood]

Of course last year the defense was the worst in NFL history,

No it wasn't. Not even close.

 

[GreenBlood]

Also...is it just me or does Hawk seem to be a "Sampson in reverse"? By that, I mean he cut his hair and is now playing a LOT better than previous.

LOL I thought you were talking about Ralph Sampson. I think you mean "Samson."

 

[GreenBlood]

Don't hate, just don't understand. He was a better athlete than Matthews coming out of college, and slightly bigger. He has (or appears) to have the attitude and dedication necessary for success.

Everything is there, all the ingredients for an impact player. Yet, he just does okay.

He leads the team in tackles year in and year out. I think that's a little more than okay.