Compensatory Picks Announced

[Deleted member 6794]

Ahh, then your day is pretty much done. I'm in Houston, so plus 7 hours I would guess puts you somewhere in the UK ?
Unless someone beats me to it, I was thinking of looking over every team's roster to see who may have a glut at NT or ILB, and might be interested in a trade. Not that I think it'll happen, just out of curiosity.

I'm living in Austria which is another hour ahead of the UK.

I think the Patriots could be interested in trading Jerod Mayo but with him being the highest paid ILB in the league there's no way the Packers would and should make a deal like that.

 

[fanindaup]

There's no guarantee though that any of the ILBs fitting the Packers needs will be available at the time Thompson picks. While Hawk and Jones were primarily released based on performance the $7.25 million in cap savings factored into it as well.

In my opinion the circumstances indicate the cap savings was a secondary consideration. TT could've kept both Hawk and Jones while signing Cobb, Bulaga and the draft picks and not damaged the cap for the future. Therefore, in both cases the logical deduction is TT believes the odds are the replacement for both is currently on the roster, in the draft or otherwise available and keeping Hawk and Jones around would've stunted the learning curve of their replacement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In my opinion the circumstances indicate the cap savings was a secondary consideration. TT could've kept both Hawk and Jones while signing Cobb, Bulaga and the draft picks and not damaged the cap for the future. Therefore, in both cases the logical deduction is TT believes the odds are the replacement for both is currently on the roster, in the draft or otherwise available and keeping Hawk and Jones around would've stunted the learning curve of their replacement.

Well, without releasing Hawk and Jones the Packers would currently have $14 million in cap space. The team will need an additional $3.4 million for their draft picks, practice squad players and #52 and #53 on the roster.

That would result in $10.6 million in cap space with Mike Pennel being the only NT on the roster and Barrington being the only experienced ILB on the roster.

Assuming the Packers won't have as much luck with injuries in 2015 the cap space would actually be pretty tight.

 

[fanindaup]

Unfortunately Wimm that doesn't prove your assumption the cap was one of two primary factors. The fact there is one experienced ILB is irrelevant, since TT is willing to start rookies or second year players. I'm speculating TT plans to resign both Raji and Guion. Both will come cheap. Raji only cost the pack $4 mil last year on a prove-it deal and was hurt all year. He won't get more than that on the open market and may have nowhere else to go. Most teams weren't hot for him in the first place which is why he came crawling back for half the original contract offer. Guion isn't going to have teams beating down the door for him just after his pot bust so he's likely to come cheap too. You have not given me a valid reason proving salary cap considerations had much if anything to do with the release of Hawk and Jones, so I will continue to believe performance was the primary reason and the cap savings a happy bonus.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Unfortunately Wimm that doesn't prove your assumption the cap was one of two primary factors. The fact there is one experienced ILB is irrelevant, since TT is willing to start rookies or second year players. I'm speculating TT plans to resign both Raji and Guion. Both will come cheap. Raji only cost the pack $4 mil last year on a prove-it deal and was hurt all year. He won't get more than that on the open market and may have nowhere else to go. Most teams weren't hot for him in the first place which is why he came crawling back for half the original contract offer. Guion isn't going to have teams beating down the door for him just after his pot bust so he's likely to come cheap too. You have not given me a valid reason proving salary cap considerations had much if anything to do with the release of Hawk and Jones, so I will continue to believe performance was the primary reason and the cap savings a happy bonus.

Jones did not even play much after the bye. He was essentially the #4 ILB. Whether you want to call that strictly a performance decision, go right ahead. However, if you ignore the cap savings element you're missing a key element in every personnel decision...cost vs. value.

If Jones had been serviceable and not made his "whipping boy" gaffes, he would have been cut anyway...the cap savings exceeds the value of "serviceable" #4.

As for Hawk, he signed with Cincinnati for 2 years, $3.25 million...the value of that contract was less than the Packers one year cap savings. He's expected to be a backup. He was signed for injury insurance. They might also see value in having him around to play "Burfict whisperer" in the position room. Marvin Lewis knows his way around a defense; you'd be ill advised to question him signing Hawk.

With only one ILB (excluding Matthews) on the roster who's ever taken an NFL snap, and with Thompson showing zero interest in bringing in a vet, it would have been prudent to keep Hawk under a similar deal for the precise reasons Cincinnati signed him. Perhaps Thompson cut him because because Hawk refused to renegotiate.

There's yet another factor at play. All of the non-core players that you can point to as the primary "goats" from the Seattle game are now gone, Hawk and Jones among them. The expendable demons of the defensive and special teams collapse that otherwise would be haunting the locker room have been exorcised. Or put less delicately, the stink of collapse has been symbolically fumigated.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Unfortunately Wimm that doesn't prove your assumption the cap was one of two primary factors. The fact there is one experienced ILB is irrelevant, since TT is willing to start rookies or second year players. I'm speculating TT plans to resign both Raji and Guion. Both will come cheap. Raji only cost the pack $4 mil last year on a prove-it deal and was hurt all year. He won't get more than that on the open market and may have nowhere else to go. Most teams weren't hot for him in the first place which is why he came crawling back for half the original contract offer. Guion isn't going to have teams beating down the door for him just after his pot bust so he's likely to come cheap too. You have not given me a valid reason proving salary cap considerations had much if anything to do with the release of Hawk and Jones, so I will continue to believe performance was the primary reason and the cap savings a happy bonus.

As I've mentioned in an early post in this thread there's no doubt that Hawk and Jones were primarily released based on their performance.

The moves gave the Packers some more flexibility with the cap though, so the savings the moves created factored into the decision as well.

Let's wait and see how much cap space the Packers would have been able to roll over into 2016 without these moves.

 

[fanindaup]

HRE - You bring up a valid point about the ghosts of the NFC Championship game and the exorcism. Not one I had considered. However, had AJ the value he once did he would still be a Packer.

Wimm - of course it's about cost vs. value. That is my point. I think we all know Jones was a weak link. Hawk had renegotiated one contract already. Don't you think if the idea was to save some money TT would have offered to match the Bengals and bring Hawk back for less as that insurance policy? I even postulated that as a possibility in the 'Jones released' thread. Obviously, he does not believe AJ is an asset any longer, or not a valuable one.

Therefore, it was about performance, primarily. That has been my only point. Originally I started out making a joke about how many posters here (not me necessarily) have been screaming Hawk sucks for years now. Go back and look. They all finally got their collective wish.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Wimm - of course it's about cost vs. value. That is my point. I think we all know Jones was a weak link. Hawk had renegotiated one contract already. Don't you think if the idea was to save some money TT would have offered to match the Bengals and bring Hawk back for less as that insurance policy? I even postulated that as a possibility in the 'Jones released' thread. Obviously, he does not believe AJ is an asset any longer, or not a valuable one.

Hawk will count $1.85 million towards the Bengals cap in 2015 if he makes the team. I would have been disappointed if Thompson would have offered him a similar contract.

 

[fanindaup]

Oh and

Hawk will count $1.85 million towards the Bengals cap in 2015 if he makes the team. I would have been disappointed if Thompson would have offered him a similar contract.

That probably made my point better than anything I've said. If he's not worth having around at a bargain basement price than why have him on the roster at all?

PS I will go on second guessing Marvin Lewis as long as you feel free to second guess Ted Thompson. Either one has more football experience than either one of us. If we aren't allowed to second guess football people, why do we have this forum?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That probably made my point better than anything I've said. If he's not worth having around at a bargain basement price than why have him on the roster at all?

Paying Hawk $1.85 million doesn´t qualify as a bargain. I would have expected a team to take a gamble on him for close to the veteran´s minimum.

 

[fanindaup]

Considering league veteran minimum is just under $1 mil I would still consider that a low offer. Since you don't think Hawk is worth that much you are questioning Marvin Lewis' ability to judge defenses, or perhaps Lewis thinks AJ may be better suited to playing the middle in a 4-3 to which I hear the Bengals are contemplating a switch while TT thinks AJ has less value as the MLB in a 3-4. Either way Hawk by your estimation isn't worth the $1.85 mil to the Packers so why would TT keep him around? How could he if the Bengals were offering more than he was worth to the team by your own declaration?

Today B/R is reporting the Packers have offered BJ Raji a one year deal worth less than $2 million. I'd consider that a bargain as well.

Essentially I have to believe TT knows more than I do about the situation and I have to trust ultimately that he's going to be right more often than I am when I disagree with him. I'm not saying you or I or anyone else can't disagree with TT, but history has been on his side more often than not.

The evidence in this case points to the conclusion that TT believes better options are available, or he wouldn't have gutted the position.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Considering league veteran minimum is just under $1 mil I would still consider that a low offer. Since you don't think Hawk is worth that much you are questioning Marvin Lewis' ability to judge defenses, or perhaps Lewis thinks AJ may be better suited to playing the middle in a 4-3 to which I hear the Bengals are contemplating a switch while TT thinks AJ has less value as the MLB in a 3-4. Either way Hawk by your estimation isn't worth the $1.85 mil to the Packers so why would TT keep him around? How could he if the Bengals were offering more than he was worth to the team by your own declaration?

I'm not sure you'e actually read one of my posts as I've stated repeatedly that I was in favour of releasing Hawk based on his lack of performance.

Just as a side note the Bengals have played a 4-3 since Marvin Lewis took over.

 

[fanindaup]

"Whoosh" Passes open hand over head. I have read your posts. You have stated you were in favor of releasing Hawk. So have I. I guess the difference is you keep insisting he was released also due to salary cap savings, and I've said salary likely had little if anything to do with it. You were just crying about how the Packers didn't have an "experienced" NT and said there was no way they would get an "experienced" NT and ILB with the roughly $10 mil they would've had left if they had resigned Hawk. You've also insisted TT should have kept Hawk as an insurance policy and decried the lack of "experienced" ILBs on the team.

I've been confident TT has a plan and doesn't give a rat's behind whether there is an "experience" anything on the team and that better options are available. Signing Raji and Guion yesterday to contracts worth, depending on incentives are at most valued at $6 mil. indicates to me TT has had a plan all along, and it didn't include AJ.

All this over something I said as a joke.

Whatever dude. I'm done arguing this tiny minute point with you since you can't seem to let it go. I have better things to do.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I guess the difference is you keep insisting he was released also due to salary cap savings, and I've said salary likely had little if anything to do with it. You were just crying about how the Packers didn't have an "experienced" NT and said there was no way they would get an "experienced" NT and ILB with the roughly $10 mil they would've had left if they had resigned Hawk.

After re-signing Guion and Raji the Packers would have approximately $4.65 million in available cap space if they hadn´t released Hawk and Jones, not a lot of wiggle room. Once again I don´t expect the team to have as much luck with injuries as last year, so Thompson will need some cap space to bring in replacements as well. It´s really not that tough to realize the cap savings factored into releasing both of them. The defense is still lacking an experienced ILB.

You've also insisted TT should have kept Hawk as an insurance policy and decried the lack of "experienced" ILBs on the team.

There were other posters in favour of bringing back Hawk for cheap, I wasn´t one of them though.

 

[TJV]

In my opinion the circumstances indicate the cap savings was a secondary consideration.

As I've mentioned in an early post in this thread there's no doubt that Hawk and Jones were primarily released based on their performance. … so the savings the moves created factored into the decision as well.

These two posts look to me like they are making similar points. Both say performance was the primary factor and cap savings were secondary, or factored in as well. So fanindaup, not sure how you turned this into:

Unfortunately Wimm that doesn't prove your assumption the cap was one of two primary factors.

Beyond that you seem to disagree with your “secondary consideration” post:

You have not given me a valid reason proving salary cap considerations had much if anything to do with the release of Hawk and Jones, so I will continue to believe performance was the primary reason and the cap savings a happy bonus.

Again you posted cap savings were a secondary consideration would seem to have something to do with it.

Also, while you say you’ve read his posts, you inflated what he posted about cap savings to “one of two primary factors – something he never posted and you seem to be confusing captainWIMM’s positions with HRE’s. It was HRE who was in favor of Hawk returning in a backup role as insurance. I looks to me like CaptainWIMM has more reason to post "'Whoosh' Passes open hand over head." Not a big deal, just say'n.

And while of course Thompson has a plan and it's evident it didn't include Hawk or Jones, his plan was in flux depending upon circumstances. For example, how would the cap look if either Williams or House hadn't received the deals they were offered and one of them returned to the Packers? Raji and Guion would in all likelyhood still have been signed.

 

[adambr2]

You have not given me a valid reason proving salary cap considerations had much if anything to do with the release of Hawk and Jones, so I will continue to believe performance was the primary reason and the cap savings a happy bonus.

What? The two go hand in hand. If Hawk and Jones were minimum salary players, their role last year as depth and role players wouldn't be that much of an issue going forward and of course more consideration would have been given to keeping them around. Obviously, you don't pay $8M or whatever it is to 2 ILB's that do not have a starting role going forward. Of course salary is part of the consideration. Just because they can afford it doesn't mean they should pay for it. I could come up with $250 for my cell phone bill every month if I had to. It wouldn't make it a good idea.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Can I just say that I don't understand people that say Thompson doesn't want to sign free agents like Brandon Spikes because "he doesn't want to lose compensatory picks" next year. This isn't aimed at anyone here (tbh I haven't read much of this discussion) but how does sacrificing a position THIS year so that you can get the last pick in the fifth round make any sense? I mean, I'm not saying Thompson is sacrificing any positions but I can't imagine him sitting there and thinking, "well, Spikes would certainly make our team better and he would be cheap but, man, I REALLY want the 176th pick in next year's draft so I'm just gonna let this year's team suffer". I'm sure there are other reasons Thompson hasn't signed anyone but I can't believe the allure of pick 176 is on that list of reasons.

 

[Vrill]

Can I just say that I don't understand people that say Thompson doesn't want to sign free agents like Brandon Spikes because "he doesn't want to lose compensatory picks" next year. This isn't aimed at anyone here (tbh I haven't read much of this discussion) but how does sacrificing a position THIS year so that you can get the last pick in the fifth round make any sense? I mean, I'm not saying Thompson is sacrificing any positions but I can't imagine him sitting there and thinking, "well, Spikes would certainly make our team better and he would be cheap but, man, I REALLY want the 176th pick in next year's draft so I'm just gonna let this year's team suffer". I'm sure there are other reasons Thompson hasn't signed anyone but I can't believe the allure of pick 176 is on that list of reasons.

Honestly, if we signed Spikes, it would most likely only be for a 1 year deal and he'd walk next off season when a team offers him a better deal. A comp pick would be here for the long haul to develop (or start if he surprises) - So I can understand TT's philosophy. Now, I'm not saying its the right way to go about things, nor am I taking up for TT here....but I am just saying that I understand what TT is doing and why.

One thing that I do agree with TT on, is not overpaying for other teams FA's unless its a slam dunk ala Revis.

Our Packers are never in cap hell for a reason. TT knows how to manipulate the salary cap better than anyone and hes always looking toward the future.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Honestly, if we signed Spikes, it would most likely only be for a 1 year deal and he'd walk next off season when a team offers him a better deal. A comp pick would be here for the long haul to develop (or start if he surprises) - So I can understand TT's philosophy. Now, I'm not saying its the right way to go about things, nor am I taking up for TT here....but I am just saying that I understand what TT is doing and why.

Thompson even said in a recent interview that compensatory picks don't factor into his approach about free agency.

Spikes would improve next year's team and by signing him to a one-year deal the Packers could be in line for another compensatory pick for losing him in free agency.

 

[Vrill]

Speaking of Spikes, is he even getting any offers from anyone? Much less us? He's still out there.....

 

[PikeBadger]

Speaking of Spikes, is he even getting any offers from anyone? Much less us? He's still out there.....

And his market value slowly diminishes day by day unless he's in active negotiations with some team. Time and patience are part of the FA market game. Some teams don't use it to their advantage.

 

[PackerDNA]

Last I read about Spikes, the Vikings were considering him but decided to sign someone else , citing Spikes asking for too much money.

 

[Vrill]

Well, Spikes most likely wants a multi-year contract. A lot of teams are probably only offering him a 1 year deal..........