Are we overvaluing our own and undervaluing free agents?

[adambr2]

After reading HRE's somewhat gloomy outlook on our salary cap picture for 2018, when I look at what Thompson and Ball have done internally and look at the free agent market, I can't help but wonder -- are we overpaying our own players, sometimes significantly, and undervaluing free agents?

Typical conventional wisdom says you'll overpay in free agency, and that's logical. Every team has the opportunity to bid.

Yet I look at the contracts given to guys like Casey Hayward (3 years, $15M), Micah Hyde (5 years, $30M), and JC Tretter (3 years, $16.75M). These are not overpays. They're far from overpays. Yet our own bids internally on similar or even worse players exceed these amounts, at least on a per year basis.

Burnett has already been making over $6M a year for a long time, and his contract was signed over 4 years ago. Linsley received about 50% more money than Tretter got in free agency from the Browns, both for 3 years.

The Packers have three wide receivers among the 18 highest paid in the league, and in the case of Nelson and Adams, both were signed prior to free agency.

Adams' contract puts his annual value at 4th in the NFL, behind receivers such as Julio Jones with far more established resumes, and despite his concussion history.

Does anyone really believe that Corey Linsley would have received almost 9M per season on the open market? Is anyone really convinced that Davante Adams would have topped 14.5M per year in free agency? Isn't the point, for a team, of signing a pre-free agency extension to receive some sort of light discount in exchange for the security of the long-term contract and the avoidance of the uncertainty of the market? If you're going to overpay the market anyway, what is the point of even offering an early extension?

I'm not saying this as an anti-Thompson post. I fully realize that there are times this has worked to our advantage, such as with David Bahktiari (though he's still one of the top earners at tackle, of course). I'm just saying, it could be argued that one of the reasons we aren't very active in free agency, is because we are quite active internally -- perhaps sometimes unnecessarily and to a fault.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Always easy to look back and say, we should have or could have, but nobody has that kind of crystal ball. Had Hayward or Hyde flopped, they would just be an asterix in here and maybe brought up occasionally as an example of good moves on TT's part. I'm sure someone has a list of such players that we held our ground and let them walk. Lacy immediately comes to my mind.

Than you have the level of players that are on the tail end of what now appears to be an overpaid contract. Matthews, Cobb and Nelson are currently 3 of those players. When Nelson and Matthews signed, I don't remember a lot of belly aching or screaming on posters part. Cobb, there was some, but many recognized the market dictated what the Packers had to pay to keep Cobb.

Really the only way around being spot on with contracts is less guaranteed money, a lot of incentives....let the player earn the money each time he steps onto the field.

I doubt heavy incentive contracts will ever happen in the NFL, but until they do, you are always going to see guys being over or underpaid.

 

[XPack]

Does anyone really believe that Corey Linsley would have received almost 9M per season on the open market? Is anyone really convinced that Davante Adams would have topped 14.5M per year in free agency?

I would say, yes to both.

Linsley is 8th highest paid center and I think it's at par with how he's ranked amongst other centers. Plus his chemistry with Rodgers makes him more valuable.
Adams has the talent and teams will pay for potential. His injury concerns just means he's get a shorter time contract...not a reduced value one.

 

[adambr2]

Always easy to look back and say, we should have or could have, but nobody has that kind of crystal ball. Had Hayward or Hyde flopped, they would just be an asterix in here and maybe brought up occasionally as an example of good moves on TT's part. I'm sure someone has a list of such players that we held our ground and let them walk. Lacy immediately comes to my mind.

Than you have the level of players that are on the tail end of what now appears to be an overpaid contract. Matthews, Cobb and Nelson are currently 3 of those players. When Nelson and Matthews signed, I don't remember a lot of belly aching or screaming on posters part. Cobb, there was some, but many recognized the market dictated what the Packers had to pay to keep Cobb.

Really the only way around being spot on with contracts is less guaranteed money, a lot of incentives....let the player earn the money each time he steps onto the field.

I doubt heavy incentive contracts will ever happen in the NFL, but until they do, you are always going to see guys being over or underpaid.

Understood, but that's a little different than what I'm asking. I'm asking more if we are overestimating the market for the guys we want to keep (and thus overpaying to keep them), while underestimating the potential impact and cost benefit of certain free agents that we're passing on because of the comfort level we have with our own.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Understood, but that's a little different than what I'm asking. I'm asking more if we are overestimating the market for the guys we want to keep (and thus overpaying to keep them), while underestimating the potential impact and cost benefit of certain free agents that we're passing on because of the comfort level we have with our own.

IMO, you answered your own question with that last bit. There are a lot of intangibles us as fans have to guess at when it comes to valuing one of our own or one of the others. There is some definite value in information beyond stats of a player. I think a team probably has and uses as much of that information that they have on their own guys, to either place more or less value on a player. With players outside the organization, some of those answers may just be best guesses and error on the side of caution or optimism, depending on the guy doing the evaluation.

1. How does the player fit into the Packer system/team?
2. Any undisclosed injuries?
3. Does the player want to be in Green Bay?
4. Is there a better and cheaper fit available?
5. Locker room character?

I'm sure people can come up with a lot more intangibles than that, but for fans, it seems like a guessing game as to what a current player or potential free agents value should be. We already know that TT seemed to place a higher value on his own guys, it will be interesting to see how Gunt does with that.

 

[Dantés]

Hyde and Hayward look like FA bargains in retrospect because their play with their new teams was far better than anything Dom Capers ever got out of them. The money they received was pretty fair based on what they had done up to that point in Green Bay. They are bargains now because of what they've done since the contracts were signed.

As for Tretter, he was discounted because it was unclear whether he was ever actually going to stay healthy long enough to put all or most of a season together. He went on the PUP in August of his rookie year and wasn't activated until December. He spent the first two months of 2014 on IR. And then in 2016, he played 7 games and was then done for the season.

This is not to say that Linsley has a perfectly clean track record as far as health goes. But his ten missed starts in four years pales in comparison to Tretter's issues. My sense is also that he's the superior player of the two, but I'm not going to pretend to pay enough attention to center play to be dogmatic about that.

I think most would agree that Nelson's contract has proven a worthy investment given the production he's returned over the life of it. He got paid 4 year, 39M in 2014. He put up 2,776 yards and 27 touchdowns in the two years after the deal was signed. I'm going to call foul on anyone who factors in the final stats from the Brett Hundley year. In his five games with Rodgers last year, he was still producing at a rate that comes out to 80/928/19 if extrapolated over a full season. It's true that he's starting to lose some of his ability here at the end of the contract, but GB has also put themselves in a position to cut him with over 10M in cap savings if they see fit.

Cobb has been overpaid for a long time because the contract he signed was commensurate with his performance in the years preceding it. When he signed, he was coming off a 91/1287/12 campaign and reportedly turned down more money to stay in Green Bay. He's never touched that production since, and thus he's never really lived up to the contract. People debate the reason why. I personally believe that the spat of nagging injuries he's dealt with robbed him of some of his explosive playmaking ability. But regardless, his contract was fair for his production and he was only 25 years old at the time. I don't think anyone could have seen the drop-off coming. The team is also in a position to save over 9M against the cap if they cut him at this point.

On the WR position as a whole, Nelson, Cobb, and Adams only overlap contract-wise for one season. It's a little bit misleading to highlight the fact that they have three of the highest paid wide receivers on one roster. While true, they really have the last years of two old contracts overlapping with the first year of a new contract. Even if they elected to keep all three and not renegotiate, they're pretty much fine given that all that money comes off the books in 2019. Had they allowed a great, homegrown talent in Adams to walk simply because his new deal has to coexist with Nelson's and Cobb's for one season (if they actually keep both players), Packer fans, Rodgers, and McCarthy would have rightly been outraged.

Adams and Linsley's deals look huge right now (and they are big, no doubt) in part because all new deals are going to look too big to fans as the salary cap continues to rise. Here are the increases going back to 2012:

2012: 120M
2013: 123M
2014: 133M
2015: 143M
2016: 155M
2017: 167M
2018: Predicted between 174 and 178M

So you take a guy like Alex Mack, arguably the best center in the league, and look at his deal (5/45) and think that Linsley's numbers are too close (3/25) given that Mack's the superior player. However, since Mack signed that deal, there is approximately ~13% more pie to be sliced up. So if he signed that same deal today, it would be more like 50-51M and the disparity between Linsley and Mack would be better represented in the dollars.

As more young players come off rookie deals and sign extensions in this current cap climate, deals like the ones we gave Adams and Linsley will show themselves to be much more reasonable than they look now.

 

[Jed12]

Hyde and Hayward look like FA bargains in retrospect because their play with their new teams was far better than anything Dom Capers ever got out of them. The money they received was pretty fair based on what they had done up to that point in Green Bay. They are bargains now because of what they've done since the contracts were signed.

As for Tretter, he was discounted because it was unclear whether he was ever actually going to stay healthy long enough to put all or most of a season together. He went on the PUP in August of his rookie year and wasn't activated until December. He spent the first two months of 2014 on IR. And then in 2016, he played 7 games and was then done for the season.

This is not to say that Linsley has a perfectly clean track record as far as health goes. But his ten missed starts in four years pales in comparison to Tretter's issues. My sense is also that he's the superior player of the two, but I'm not going to pretend to pay enough attention to center play to be dogmatic about that.

I think most would agree that Nelson's contract has proven a worthy investment given the production he's returned over the life of it. He got paid 4 year, 39M in 2014. He put up 2,776 yards and 27 touchdowns in the two years after the deal was signed. I'm going to call foul on anyone who factors in the final stats from the Brett Hundley year. In his five games with Rodgers last year, he was still producing at a rate that comes out to 80/928/19 if extrapolated over a full season. It's true that he's starting to lose some of his ability here at the end of the contract, but GB has also put themselves in a position to cut him with over 10M in cap savings if they see fit.

Cobb has been overpaid for a long time because the contract he signed was commensurate with his performance in the years preceding it. When he signed, he was coming off a 91/1287/12 campaign and reportedly turned down more money to stay in Green Bay. He's never touched that production since, and thus he's never really lived up to the contract. People debate the reason why. I personally believe that the spat of nagging injuries he's dealt with robbed him of some of his explosive playmaking ability. But regardless, his contract was fair for his production and he was only 25 years old at the time. I don't think anyone could have seen the drop-off coming. The team is also in a position to save over 9M against the cap if they cut him at this point.

On the WR position as a whole, Nelson, Cobb, and Adams only overlap contract-wise for one season. It's a little bit misleading to highlight the fact that they have three of the highest paid wide receivers on one roster. While true, they really have the last years of two old contracts overlapping with the first year of a new contract. Even if they elected to keep all three and not renegotiate, they're pretty much fine given that all that money comes off the books in 2019. Had they allowed a great, homegrown talent in Adams to walk simply because his new deal has to coexist with Nelson's and Cobb's for one season (if they actually keep both players), Packer fans, Rodgers, and McCarthy would have rightly been outraged.

Adams and Linsley's deals look huge right now (and they are big, no doubt) in part because all new deals are going to look too big to fans as the salary cap continues to rise. Here are the increases going back to 2012:

2012: 120M
2013: 123M
2014: 133M
2015: 143M
2016: 155M
2017: 167M
2018: Predicted between 174 and 178M

So you take a guy like Alex Mack, arguably the best center in the league, and look at his deal (5/45) and think that Linsley's numbers are too close (3/25) given that Mack's the superior player. However, since Mack signed that deal, there is approximately ~13% more pie to be sliced up. So if he signed that same deal today, it would be more like 50-51M and the disparity between Linsley and Mack would be better represented in the dollars.

As more young players come off rookie deals and sign extensions in this current cap climate, deals like the ones we gave Adams and Linsley will show themselves to be much more reasonable than they look now.

What he said!!

 

[LambeauLombardi]

I've been saying this for about a year now. I said Nick Perry getting that much was comical, Bennett (free agent) was a good player but a player in the back part of his career getting that much per year was a joke, and Adams and Lindsley just got grossly overpaid. At the time I felt like Cobb, Jordy, Bulaga, and Clay were great extensions. I was indifferent on the Burnett extension. However due to pressure from fans and the media Ted has had to think he's had to pay certain guys because he was tired of people calling him cheap. It kind of started to me last offseason when they gave Perry and Bennett those deals.

We can nitpick moves TT has made (including not keeping Woodson at a discount), but prior to 2016 the only big mistake he made was not firing Capers after the 2012 season (and that necessarily doesn't have anything to do with the player salary situation). A lot has changed to me over this past year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I suppose Jared Cook being signed for one-year, $3.6 million contract was a dumb move in 2016? Oh wait, he had a pretty good year and then signed a 2 year $10.6M deal with the Raiders, a year older. I'm surprised people aren't blasting TT for not locking him into a 5 year deal.

I don't get this 1 sided "logic" of looking at Free Agents and resigns. Thompson was an idiot for letting Hayward and Hyde walk but he is an even bigger idiot when he doesn't let guys like Perry walk? Just who do you sign and don't sign with that kind of thinking?

With using hindsight negative "performance evaluations", when has TT or any GM not made incorrect moves?

 

[OldSchool101]

Always easy to look back and say, we should have or could have, but nobody has that kind of crystal ball. Had Hayward or Hyde flopped, they would just be an asterix in here and maybe brought up occasionally as an example of good moves on TT's part.

I normally agree with that. I don't know about everyone else but this year is the exception to the rule. TT made multiple glaring mistakes and needed to be called out. Those were just 2 examples in 1 season but there were several more that were almost worse in 2017. Peppers and Cook

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I normally agree with that. I don't know about everyone else but this year is the exception to the rule. TT made multiple glaring mistakes and needed to be called out. Those were just 2 examples in 1 season but there were several more that were almost worse in 2017. Peppers and Cook

Again, those are "evaluations" being conducted based on hindsight. Peppers had a really solid 2017 for the Panthers, TT and the Packers didn't think he would be worth the money. Cook was asking too much, TT didn't flinch and thought he found a better and cheaper alternative in Marty B and it didn't pan out, but they weren't unrealistic expectations. Had Perry repeated what he did in 2016 and Bennett became a valuable weapon for AR, this conversation wouldn't be about them.

Decisions have to be made without a crystal ball. Nick Perry had a really solid 2016, we desperately needed help at OLB, so you let him walk?

I really doubt any GM worth their salt doesn't look ahead as much as they possibly can and try to determine how each player and his contract will play out. But to hold their feet to the fire when some don't, isn't looking at the Sport and the decisions that have to be made in "real time" in a realistic way.

 

[Mondio]

I suppose Jared Cook being signed for one-year, $3.6 million contract was a dumb move in 2016? Oh wait, he had a pretty good year and then signed a 2 year $10.6M deal with the Raiders, a year older. I'm surprised people aren't blasting TT for not locking him into a 5 year deal.

I don't get this 1 sided "logic" of looking at Free Agents and resigns. Thompson was an idiot for letting Hayward and Hyde walk but he is an even bigger idiot when he doesn't let guys like Perry walk? Just who do you sign and don't sign with that kind of thinking?

With using hindsight negative "performance evaluations", when has TT or any GM not made incorrect moves?

The Hayward and Perry ones kill me. Similar circumstances in terms of potential, flashes and injury and production. The only difference one saw his play decrease in a contract year and saw 2 rookies perform at a pretty high level along with Sam Shields and was deemed expendable. NOBODY said **** when he wasn't re-signed. Perry on the other hand, had his best year in a contract year, stayed relatively healthy and we had nobody behind him and a Edge rusher market that was pretty bleak with Perry being a top 2 or 3 guy so we were in a tough position. Sign him and roll with it, or don't and have nobody else really behind him.

Looking back sure, Hayward excelled, let me have him back and Perry was hurt and in and out all year, again. let him walk It's one thing to recognize when a decision didn't work. Those 2 obviously hurt us. Would never argue it didn't, but for the love of Pete, at least be able to understand the circumstances and the thought process that goes into making decisions.

and sure Peppers would have been nice to have. Maybe we didn't make him an offer, maybe his agent said, don't bother, he's going home. and regardless, had we signed him what makes you think he has that sort of season here? he obviously benefited from being on the Carolina defense rather than GB's? He had more sacks than he ever had with us and he wasn't even a starter for them. I'm not convinced he would have had more than 6 or maybe 7 with GB as a best case scenario considering his past performance here.

 

[Dantés]

Even with hindsight, I'm glad they didn't let Perry walk. His inconsistency might be maddening at times, but having him is a lot better than the alternative.

 

[OldSchool101]

Again, those are "evaluations" being conducted based on hindsight. Peppers had a really solid 2017 for the Panthers, TT and the Packers didn't think he would be worth the money. Cook was asking too much, TT didn't flinch and thought he found a better and cheaper alternative in Marty B and it didn't pan out, but they weren't unrealistic expectations. Had Perry repeated what he did in 2016 and Bennett became a valuable weapon for AR, this conversation wouldn't be about them.

Decisions have to be made without a crystal ball. Nick Perry had a really solid 2016, we desperately needed help at OLB, so you let him walk?

I really doubt any GM worth their salt doesn't look ahead as much as they possibly can and try to determine how each player and his contract will play out. But to hold their feet to the fire when some don't, isn't looking at the Sport and the decisions that have to be made in "real time" in a realistic way.

The vast majority of opinion is based on hindsight. If weren't allowed to discuss past decisions based on their outcome we'd have little to talk about. I do think it needs to be tempered on the criticism but we all do it

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Even with hindsight, I'm glad they didn't let Perry walk. His inconsistency might be maddening at times, but having him is a lot better than the alternative.

Agree and maybe the lesson to learn is "don't let your other options get so thin, that you have to resign a guy no matter what the cost." We are seeing that play out with Matthews and possible with Cobb and Jordy.

I would say right now that was my one big issue with Ted. He let positions get too thin with developmental guys and if those guys don't work out, where do you turn? He at least tried to cover some of those deficiencies on the defense this past year with a some FA signings.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The vast majority of opinion is based on hindsight. If weren't allowed to discuss past decisions based on their outcome we'd have little to talk about. I do think it needs to be tempered on the criticism but we all do it

I think if you are going to use hindsight to evaluate the overall job someone does, that if fine. But if you are going to do that, you need to look at all the decisions that person made....including the good ones and take into consideration the information and situation at the time the decision had to be made.

 

[Dantés]

The vast majority of opinion is based on hindsight. If weren't allowed to discuss past decisions based on their outcome we'd have little to talk about. I do think it needs to be tempered on the criticism but we all do it

Right, but if you're going to be fair in criticizing the decision makers, you should be able to demonstrate why it was reasonable to see any given decision as the wrong one on the front side of the decision.

Like-- one could really fairly say that Hyde should have been kept without referring to his play in Buffalo. He was a solid, versatile player and leader in a defensive backfield that needed plenty of help. Allowing that to walk away made little sense. To me, that's fair criticism, whereas citing how much better he's played since leaving is more hindsight analysis.

 

[Mike McCarthy]

Yes

 

[Poppa San]

Hyde, Hayward, and Tretter were slotted to be backups in GB. The penciled in starters were recently signed, younger or cheaper. They weren't going to receive starter / top backup type money in GB. They went elsewhere for that and a chance to start. It was reported at the time Lacy went someplace that was more devoted to a running game for roughly the same money GB offered. Cook wanted more money than Bennett signed for. After that he signed with Oakland for less than he wanted from GB. Peppers IMO fell into the year too early rather than too late area. The one's TT (over) paid to keep were starters without backups ready to go. At the time, who could step in to replace Bakh, Jordy, Cobb, Matthews, Perry, Bulaga, Shields without a significant drop off in performance? This season Adams and Linsley hit that spot.

 

[Half Empty]

It's a very fine line on the backups. If they're adequate, fine. If they're not worthy, we end up like this year. If they're really good, we run into the problem above. Brings out the old curmudgeon in me, longing for the old days before free agency, unions, salary cap, and, hence, rotating rosters.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's a very fine line on the backups. If they're adequate, fine. If they're not worthy, we end up like this year. If they're really good, we run into the problem above. Brings out the old curmudgeon in me, longing for the old days before free agency, unions, salary cap, and, hence, rotating rosters.

I have a feeling if the NFL didn't have salary caps or revenue sharing......the Packers wouldn't last long or at minimum, would find it very hard to compete. I used to be a Baseball/Brewer fan, but got sick of seeing the Yankees and the Dodgers spending more money on a couple of players than the Brewers were able to spend on their entire roster.

 

[Half Empty]

Very possible, but my understanding is that the Packers are very comfortable when visiting the bank. And, many of these factors play off of each other. If there was no salary cap, but there also wasn't free agency, the deeper pocket owners couldn't just buy their players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Free Agency, IMO has kept the NFL alive and interesting, as has the salary cap. Technically, Free Agency started in 1947 but the Unrestricted free agency we see today didn't begin until 1992. When I read back on how players were treated prior to 1947, it reminds me of "slave labor". Once a player was on a team, they were stuck, unless the team decided to trade or cut them.

 

[Half Empty]

No question about the second part, first sentence is hard to know. I loved the 'play for us or find something else to do' concept. Also was much able to relate when players had to work in the off season.

 

[SoonerPack]

Hyde and Hayward look like FA bargains in retrospect because their play with their new teams was far better than anything Dom Capers ever got out of them. The money they received was pretty fair based on what they had done up to that point in Green Bay. They are bargains now because of what they've done since the contracts were signed.

As for Tretter, he was discounted because it was unclear whether he was ever actually going to stay healthy long enough to put all or most of a season together. He went on the PUP in August of his rookie year and wasn't activated until December. He spent the first two months of 2014 on IR. And then in 2016, he played 7 games and was then done for the season.

This is not to say that Linsley has a perfectly clean track record as far as health goes. But his ten missed starts in four years pales in comparison to Tretter's issues. My sense is also that he's the superior player of the two, but I'm not going to pretend to pay enough attention to center play to be dogmatic about that.

I think most would agree that Nelson's contract has proven a worthy investment given the production he's returned over the life of it. He got paid 4 year, 39M in 2014. He put up 2,776 yards and 27 touchdowns in the two years after the deal was signed. I'm going to call foul on anyone who factors in the final stats from the Brett Hundley year. In his five games with Rodgers last year, he was still producing at a rate that comes out to 80/928/19 if extrapolated over a full season. It's true that he's starting to lose some of his ability here at the end of the contract, but GB has also put themselves in a position to cut him with over 10M in cap savings if they see fit.

Cobb has been overpaid for a long time because the contract he signed was commensurate with his performance in the years preceding it. When he signed, he was coming off a 91/1287/12 campaign and reportedly turned down more money to stay in Green Bay. He's never touched that production since, and thus he's never really lived up to the contract. People debate the reason why. I personally believe that the spat of nagging injuries he's dealt with robbed him of some of his explosive playmaking ability. But regardless, his contract was fair for his production and he was only 25 years old at the time. I don't think anyone could have seen the drop-off coming. The team is also in a position to save over 9M against the cap if they cut him at this point.

On the WR position as a whole, Nelson, Cobb, and Adams only overlap contract-wise for one season. It's a little bit misleading to highlight the fact that they have three of the highest paid wide receivers on one roster. While true, they really have the last years of two old contracts overlapping with the first year of a new contract. Even if they elected to keep all three and not renegotiate, they're pretty much fine given that all that money comes off the books in 2019. Had they allowed a great, homegrown talent in Adams to walk simply because his new deal has to coexist with Nelson's and Cobb's for one season (if they actually keep both players), Packer fans, Rodgers, and McCarthy would have rightly been outraged.

Adams and Linsley's deals look huge right now (and they are big, no doubt) in part because all new deals are going to look too big to fans as the salary cap continues to rise. Here are the increases going back to 2012:

2012: 120M
2013: 123M
2014: 133M
2015: 143M
2016: 155M
2017: 167M
2018: Predicted between 174 and 178M

So you take a guy like Alex Mack, arguably the best center in the league, and look at his deal (5/45) and think that Linsley's numbers are too close (3/25) given that Mack's the superior player. However, since Mack signed that deal, there is approximately ~13% more pie to be sliced up. So if he signed that same deal today, it would be more like 50-51M and the disparity between Linsley and Mack would be better represented in the dollars.

As more young players come off rookie deals and sign extensions in this current cap climate, deals like the ones we gave Adams and Linsley will show themselves to be much more reasonable than they look now.

Man that was good, bro. Well thought out and well executed. Kudos.