Currently 18.6 mil cap space??? Still?

H

HardRightEdge

Guest
It's obvious the Packers have to keep Rodgers but $30 million a season is too much but it would be fair to make him the highest paid player in the league.
That kinda depends on how long the extension would reach. If they're looking to make this a long term extension, the theoretical "last contract", it could come close to that high. Much depends on the structure of the deal and the long term projection of the cap. A mediocre QB contract now was an elite QB contract just a few years ago.

The Packers don't want their franchise quarterback to be pissed off though.
That would be the case. Though the situation is different from the Brees situation, the point is the same. NO franchised Brees for a 3rd. third time, NO claimed it was only twice in interpreting an obscure rule, Brees won in arbitration. As a result, he got 44% raise. Brees haggling with the Saints over money year after year has not served the franchise well.

The Packers exercised the fifth year option on Clinton-Dix, meaning he's under contract for the 2018 season and his salary is already included in the numbers you posted.
I forgot about that. That option could be re-negotiated into a long term contract before next season.

The Packers have a reserve fund of approximately $275 million, I don't think a lack of cash is the reason for Thompson not having signed another free agent or two.
The gas station/motel quip was a joke, kinda sorta.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
After this season the key FA's are: House, Burnett, D. Adams, L. Taylor and Linsley. I'm guessing all will be due significant raises, so TT/Ball have their work cut out for themselves holding the younger core together.

AR is currently 5th highest paid QB in the league (per year avg. of $22mil)... it'll only take a 1 year extension (through 2020 season) at $37Mil to make him #1 on that list. This could easily be fit into the cap situation with a 2020 base salary of $24Mil and $3.25Mil/yr. prorated to each year. I'm sure there's a more creative way to structure this to minimize the hit where they need cap space (in year 2018 or 2019?).

I'm guessing TT will be more active grabbing a few hidden gems at cut down to 53 at positions needing more talent or depth (OLB, CB, ILB, OG/OC) or where injuries hit during preseason. He'll go through the season with $8-$10Mil as usual after a couple of extensions and/or signings.
 
Last edited:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
...the caps goes up every year. nothing to see here. ;)
I'm not sure you can assume that without examining the TV contracts which are not a matter of public record. Consider the following:

1) 70% of the TV money goes toward the cap.

2) TV ratings for the 2016 Olympics fell short of those for the 2012 games. The networks refunded advertiser money. Did that flow back to the IOC having to rebate the networks? I can't find any info on that, but it would not be surprising that payment for the content would be in some way dependent on ratings. Will 2020 ad rates and IOC payments be flat to lower? I think you can bet on it.

3) NFL TV ratings were down markedly last season:

https://www.recode.net/2017/2/4/14508632/nfl-tv-ratings-down-moffettnathanson

It's interesting to note that the Packers/Cowboys playoff game ratings set a record for the divisional playoffs being a notable exception.

A couple of things may be going on. First, the presidential campaign drew a lot attention; politics remain elevated in the schema of national pastimes. A second problem may be that while marquis match-ups with national fan bases will draw eyeballs as with Cowboys/Packers, perhaps the lesser match-ups are skipped over to go track fantasy scoring, particularly with the rise in fantasy wagering. Who wants to watch a Sunday Jets/Bills match-up when there's money on the line elsewhere which requires flipping from one real-time box score to another?

Despite the decline in ratings, the cap went up meaningfully this year. If ratings do not recover, would cap increases of that magnitude persist? Surely not. Networks cannot keep paying more and more for the same or declining eyeballs.

4) It's kinda interesting that overthecap.com has penciled in a base cap number of $178 mil for 2018, an $11 mil bump, business as usual. sportrac.com, however, is using $168 mil for 2018, a scant $1 mil bump. Does sportrac know something overthecap does not?

5) If anybody thinks last year's TV ratings are not on the minds of cap managers in longer term planning, that's probably a mistake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That kinda depends on how long the extension would reach. If they're looking to make this a long term extension, the theoretical "last contract", it could come close to that high. Much depends on the structure of the deal and the long term projection of the cap. A mediocre QB contract now was an elite QB contract just a few years ago.

It's possible the Packers end up paying Rodgers an average of $30 million per season if the quarterback continues to play for another seven years but I hope they structure it in a way to limit his cap hit while he's active. I don't mind the contract resulting in a massive amount of dead money counting against the cap in the following season once #12 retires as that will most likely be a rebuilding season anyway.

It's kinda interesting that overthecap.com has penciled in a base cap number of $178 mil for 2018, an $11 mil bump, business as usual. sportrac.com, however, is using $168 mil for 2018, a scant $1 mil bump. Does sportrac know something overthecap does not?

I don't believe spotrac has any inside information but it seems to me they don't speculate on future numbers like OTC does.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
It's possible the Packers end up paying Rodgers an average of $30 million per season if the quarterback continues to play for another seven years but I hope they structure it in a way to limit his cap hit while he's active. I don't mind the contract resulting in a massive amount of dead money counting against the cap in the following season once #12 retires as that will most likely be a rebuilding season anyway.
I doubt it will be as much as $30 mil but it could come close. $27-28 mil maybe. Carr and Stafford are in contract years and might top Luck's $24.6 mil. Cousins is playing under a second franchise tag at $23.9 mil. There may be a waiting game to see what happens with these guys. That said, relative to paying a place holder like Glennon $15 mil per year with Trubisky in the wings (they hope) or the Browns trade for a busted Osweiler and a 2nd. round pick, $30 mil looks quite reasonable.

I highly doubt Thompson/Ball are going to put a dead cap poison pill into Rodgers contract for their successors.

I don't believe spotrac has any inside .information but it seems to me they don't speculate on future numbers like OTC does.
You're probably right. I did more checking and the 70% TV revenue going to the cap I mentioned before, which I recall from around the time of the CBA negotiations. It's actually 55%, with the cap set at roughly 45-47% of total revenue under a complicated formula.

Further, even when TV ratings were better in 2015, the networks break even on ad revenue if they are not broadcasting the Super Bowl, with ESPN taking a bloody beating on ad revenue. Where they make their money is carriage fees from the cable companies. And there's a major hard-to-quantify value to cable companies in paying up to carry NFL games that does not apply to a periodic property such as the Olympics: NFL coverage is an anchor against cable cutting, or on the other side of the same coin, a subscriber acquisition cost in the case of DirecTV.

So, even with a 10% decline in ratings, the decline in ad revenue is not the primary consideration to the networks so long as the cable carriage fees are locked in. If the NFL is waning somewhat in popularity, which will take another year to evaluate, the cap probably won't be impacted much until the TV contracts come up for renewal.

So, if we're to assume $10 mil bumps in the cap continuing apace for the next few years, how do we account for Thompson squirreling away cap? Probably a combination of:

1. The free agent second contracts butting up against an already high 2018 cap commitment on the books. Thompson's bigger contracts (Rodgers, Matthews) have had a pay-as-you-go look to them. Even with Nelson, Cobb and Perry, where the first year has a relatively low cap number, the remaining years start to go flattish in terms of cap. Thompson/Ball just don't mortgage the future to get over the top. A rule of thumb seems to be cap savings by year 3 in the event of a Shields-type event.

2. Rodgers and maybe Clinton-Dix renegotiated before 2018.

3. Maybe Thompson had his eye on a couple of other free agents, looking to add one more such as an OLB, but the prices came in above a disciplined top number, then the players and time ran out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
575
Let's get this ball rolling.
Aaron is signed through Ted's expected departure date. Why should unca teddy give a rat's *** to what Aaron wants. Aaron can't do diddly squat about it except sulk.

pretty sure he could hold out and theyd have to give him whatever he wanted
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,894
Location
Madison, WI
pretty sure he could hold out and theyd have to give him whatever he wanted

Maybe it is just me, but AR doesn't seem like the "holding out" kind of guy.

Does Aaron want and deserve more money? I would guess yes on both of those. But Aaron is a smart enough guy, as well as a guy that puts a lot of emphasis on the team winning that I think what he and the Packers eventually work out will ultimately be favorable to both sides.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I don't think Rodgers is that type of guy either, he'll be taken care of and he knows it. I also don't think Thompson and Ball will give whatever any player wants either, not even Rodgers.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,894
Location
Madison, WI
I don't think Rodgers is that type of guy either, he'll be taken care of and he knows it. I also don't think Thompson and Ball will give whatever any player wants either, not even Rodgers.

Agreed. I think we have seen that stance several times with the Packers and veterans. Basically a "here is what we are willing to pay you, take it or leave it." It is probably a lot easier to do that when you aren't talking about replacing your franchise QB, but I just don't see this getting ugly with AR and the Packers. Aaron is under contract for 3 more seasons, so the leverage is on the Packers side right now. Ultimately, I think the media and fans will make a bigger deal out of this than necessary and a new deal will get done at some point, quietly and professionally.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I highly doubt Thompson/Ball are going to put a dead cap poison pill into Rodgers contract for their successors.

As I've mentioned before I would be absolutely fine with a massive amount of dead money counting against the cap during the 2024 season as long as lowering Rodgers' cap hit during the seasons he plays increases the chances of fielding a championship team over the next seven seasons. Thompson's successor will have sufficient time to deal with the ramifications of a contract like that.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
As I've mentioned before I would be absolutely fine with a massive amount of dead money counting against the cap during the 2024 season as long as lowering Rodgers' cap hit during the seasons he plays increases the chances of fielding a championship team over the next seven seasons. Thompson's successor will have sufficient time to deal with the ramifications of a contract like that.
With that line of thinking, though, you would have been OK with Sherman blowing-up the cap with an outrageous Favre deal for incoming TT to deal with? I certainly hope TT doesn't extend AR with a cap-killing deal, there are reasonable methods (base salaries of $26-$35Mil/yr so that if cut or retires no cap ramifications), IMHO.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
With that line of thinking, though, you would have been OK with Sherman blowing-up the cap with an outrageous Favre deal for incoming TT to deal with? I certainly hope TT doesn't extend AR with a cap-killing deal, there are reasonable methods (base salaries of $26-$35Mil/yr so that if cut or retires no cap ramifications), IMHO.

The Packers paying Rodgers base salaries of $26 million or more would significantly hamper their ability to field a competitive team around him. I aould rather prefer the front office to keep his cap hit in check while he's still playing and take a massive amount of dead monsey after he retires for one season which will most likely be a rebuilding year anyway.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The Packers paying Rodgers base salaries of $26 million or more would significantly hamper their ability to field a competitive team around him. I aould rather prefer the front office to keep his cap hit in check while he's still playing and take a massive amount of dead monsey after he retires for one season which will most likely be a rebuilding year anyway.
Yeah, but they are not going to do that.
 
OP
OP
G

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
The Packers paying Rodgers base salaries of $26 million or more would significantly hamper their ability to field a competitive team around him. I would rather prefer the front office to keep his cap hit in check while he's still playing and take a massive amount of dead money after he retires for one season which will most likely be a rebuilding year anyway.
Packers are a small town franchise. Blue collar. We don't have a multi billionaire to buy a new stadium to bring us out of a dark time. Mortgaging the future isn't how GB does things...
Now with the new rules and such, GB might be perfectly fine. But the 70s and 80s should be a reminder of how bad things can get when you don't look to the future with today's decisions...

I'm OK with Thompson and the next GM to keep 10 rookies a year so that we can have our hall of fame field General.... and not risk the future of the franchise.....
 
OP
OP
G

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
The Packers paying Rodgers base salaries of $26 million or more would significantly hamper their ability to field a competitive team around him. I aould rather prefer the front office to keep his cap hit in check while he's still playing and take a massive amount of dead monsey after he retires for one season which will most likely be a rebuilding year anyway.

Also, 26 mil seems very very optimistic. Considering there's about 25 teams league wide ,who would slam $30 on the table in the blink of an eye. If ever given the chance for #12 to be their qb......
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,894
Location
Madison, WI
Packers are a small town franchise. Blue collar. We don't have a multi billionaire to buy a new stadium to bring us out of a dark time. Mortgaging the future isn't how GB does things...
Now with the new rules and such, GB might be perfectly fine. But the 70s and 80s should be a reminder of how bad things can get when you don't look to the future with today's decisions...

I'm OK with Thompson and the next GM to keep 10 rookies a year so that we can have our hall of fame field General.... and not risk the future of the franchise.....

Don't kid yourself, the "Multi Billionaire" NFL owners aren't the ones having to pay for the stadiums.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...tlanta-san-diego-minnesota-los-angeles-033116

Also, I don't think it really had a lot to do with money that the Packers floundered in the 70's and 80's, I think that was more of a problem with management and talent. Financially, the Packers are a very sound franchise and overpaying a player(s) isn't going to put them in financial straits. However, it could put them into a cap situation that handcuffs them from fielding a competitive team due to not having enough cap money to spend on other talent.
 
OP
OP
G

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Don't kid yourself, the "Multi Billionaire" NFL owners aren't the ones having to pay for the stadiums.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...tlanta-san-diego-minnesota-los-angeles-033116

Also, I don't think it really had a lot to do with money that the Packers floundered in the 70's and 80's, I think that was more of a problem with management and talent. Financially, the Packers are a very sound franchise and overpaying a player(s) isn't going to put them in financial straits. However, it could put them into a cap situation that handcuffs them from fielding a competitive team due to not having enough cap money to spend on other talent.
And the city of Greenbay Wisconsin doesn't have the population to pay for a new stadium like all the other big city markets do.... besides a billionaire owner who could buy the stadium outright if they wanted to bad enough...

Also , Greenbay is cold. Small. Many do not want to play here... And without a legit chance to win the Superbowl every year because of a hall of fame qb. They won't play here...

We are not above another 20 year slump.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,894
Location
Madison, WI
And the city of Greenbay Wisconsin doesn't have the population to pay for a new stadium like all the other big city markets do.... besides a billionaire owner who could buy the stadium outright if they wanted to bad enough...

The City of Green Bay, as well as Brown County seemed to pay for a good portion of all the 2003 updates to Lambeau and in doing so became the No. 1 city in taxpayers payments for stadiums per capita.

http://watchdog.org/68010/green-bays-no-1-in-taxpayers-paying-for-sports-stadiums/

Again, I don't think cap decisions with AR or any other player revolve around needing a new stadium or really anything other than being cap smart. Now if the Cap did not exist, the Green Bay Packers might eventually find themselves in financial straits trying to stay competitive.
 
OP
OP
G

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
The City of Green Bay, as well as Brown County seemed to pay for a good portion of all the 2003 updates to Lambeau and in doing so became the No. 1 city in taxpayers payments for stadiums per capita.


http://watchdog.org/68010/green-bays-no-1-in-taxpayers-paying-for-sports-stadiums/

Again, I don't think cap decisions with AR or any other player revolve around needing a new stadium or really anything other than being cap smart. Now if the Cap did not exist, the Green Bay Packers might eventually find themselves in financial straits trying to stay competitive.
GB put up $300 mil if I remember right. For the lambeau field renovations...

New stadiums cost 4X that amount now days......

Fixing up a old stadium is blue collar, frugal, old school way of doing things....I love that about our team!
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Packers are a small town franchise. Blue collar. We don't have a multi billionaire to buy a new stadium to bring us out of a dark time. Mortgaging the future isn't how GB does things...
Now with the new rules and such, GB might be perfectly fine. But the 70s and 80s should be a reminder of how bad things can get when you don't look to the future with today's decisions...

I'm OK with Thompson and the next GM to keep 10 rookies a year so that we can have our hall of fame field General.... and not risk the future of the franchise.....

The Packers have made at least $10 million in net profit over the past few years mostly exceeding $40 million. The team wouldn't mortgage the franchise's future by spending a ton of money to assure Rodgers will never play for another team.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
Even If Aaron Rodgers did want 30 mil a year? You give it to him. No other player in the NFL is more important to his team than #12. If you wanna be honest? it's because of Rodgers TT still even has a job as a GM.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,262
Reaction score
5,661
In answer to the initial ? The best way to keep Aaron's yearly cap hit reasonable is to sign him to a long contract. Many smart agents contemplating player retirement year's understand the value of longer contracts because as they approach the athletes shelf life..their value diminishes.
There are only a modest number of QBs in this league that I would even consider Structuring a mid-long term deal with once they near mid 30s
I 100% believe (barring an unforseeable catastrophic injury) that Aaron will be highly productive until he is 40+ years old.
In the meantime we need to balance that with achieving short term goals of winning a Championship, which encompasses forming a Championship level Defense. We are very possibly 1-2 more stellar Defensive players (or 1-2 more years) away from achieving that goal.
It is becoming harder and harder each season to be patient with Dom. If I was his boss he'd have this season and maybe next to put our Defense back on the map and it wouldn't be a secret to him either id be very candid about it.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
In answer to the initial ? The best way to keep Aaron's yearly cap hit reasonable is to sign him to a long contract. Many smart agents contemplating player retirement year's understand the value of longer contracts because as they approach the athletes shelf life..their value diminishes.

Most agents and players want to get as much guaranteed money as possible because even by agreeing to a long term deal doesn't assure the team not releasing the player before the expiration of the contract.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
Personally, I have zero issues with players asking for market value for their services. It seems to me that's what almost everyone does in every other field.


I don't really have a problem with it either but it doesn't make me think very highly of him if it hampers the team. Then when they come along and start talking about how its a team game I just tune them out because it sure wasn't when you were negotiating your contract, then it was all about you ... Excuse me, it was all about YOUR FAMILY.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Latest posts

Top