David Bakhtiari signs 4 yr contract ext

[Deleted member 6794]

And now we know the details of the contract which protects the Packers in the last two years in case he loses effectiveness due to injury. The only way the Packers lose in this deal is if Bakhtiari never plays as well as he has in the first three years or if he suffers a catastrophic injury between now and the end of the 2018 season. All in all it appears to me to be a fair contract for both sides.

Another scenario in which the Packers would lose in this deal is if Spriggs proves to be capable of playing on the same level as Bakhtiari. In that case the team would spend an additional $32 million in cal space for the same production.

I'll be surprised if Lang gets an extension any time soon if at all. I think they are waiting to see if he can be replaced adequately.

Well, that could turn out to be problematic before the start of free agency next offseason as the team currently doesn't have a single backup on the roster best suited to play guard.

Something to keep in mind is that Lang and Bulaga will likely be the next two linemen to be replaced.

I highly doubt Thompson will release Bulaga next offseason as the move would result in $4.8 million of dead money counting against the cap.

 

[Sky King]

Is there any reason to ignore that the exact terms were not three picks traded for one?

Wait for it. Wait for it...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, we all know that the Packers aren't immune to injuries and it's possible to still make the playoffs if you have backups capable of holding down the fort. It's how we won it all in 2011.

It's also possible that Spriggs and Hundley had slipped to a point far below where the Packers had them graded and boarded (much like Matthews). Thompson still gets at least his 7 picks regardless of moving up. I tend to prefer the trade back moves, but I'm just an amateur and am not looking at the Packers draft board (but it would be very educational to see it once).

I fully understand the importance of having quality backups across the roster and would have been absolutely fine with drafting both Hundley and Spriggs if the Packers hadn't traded up to select them.

As a draft and develop team giving up five picks for two backups at positions none of them even gets rotational snaps is waste of assets though. Matthews is a poor example as he was drafted to start in week 1.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Is there any reason to ignore that the exact terms were not three picks traded for one?

Wait for it. Wait for it...

The Packers traded the 57th, 125th and 248th pick to the Colts to move up to the 48th to select Spriggs. I'm no expert but nevertheless quite sure that are three picks the team gave up.

 

[Sky King]

The Packers traded the 57th, 125th and 248th pick to the Colts to move up to the 48th to select Spriggs. I'm no expert but nevertheless quite sure that are three picks the team gave up.

Ta da!

 

[Sky King]

No swapped picks?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ta da!

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[PikeBadger]

Another scenario in which the Packers would lose in this deal is if Spriggs proves to be capable of playing on the same level as Bakhtiari. In that case the team would spend an additional $32 million in cal space for the same production.

no way to really know that though. Spriggs isn't going to get the chance to prove that unless Bakhtiari gets hurt. My guess is that they will start getting him work at RT in practice as well this season.

Well, that could turn out to be problematic before the start of free agency next offseason as the team currently doesn't have a single backup on the roster best suited to play guard.

Possibly. Right now. In 4 months they may think they have that guy ready to step in and be the starter in 2017 though. The two 2016 draft picks have clearly expanded their options. Barclay and Linsley returning to good health would be very useful.

I highly doubt Thompson will release Bulaga next offseason as the move would result in $4.8 million of dead money counting against the cap.

agree.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Possibly. Right now. In 4 months they may think they have that guy ready to step in and be the starter in 2017 though. The two 2016 draft picks have clearly expanded their options. Barclay and Linsley returning to good health would be very useful.

The Packers might try different players at one of the guard spots during the season but there's no doubt in my mind none of the current backups is best suited to play the position.

 

[Half Empty]

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

I think I do, but only if one doesn't consider our 2nd to have been given up to get the better 2nd. Don't know how one can do that, but the "no swapped picks?" comment sure looks that way.

 

[bigbubbatd]

So the Packers lost a total of 3 picks in those deals. One to the Colts was almost the last pick in the draft as was the one to the Patriots for Hundley. So we can say 3 picks but two of those are almost the equivalent of undrafted fas. Honestly it is hard to see those picks as incredibly big losses. The 4th rounder is a loss.

Did TT really give up much to get those players? Two late 7th rounders which seem covered by some solid udfas this year and last. A 4th can be argued but really that doesn't strike me as a lot

 

[PikeBadger]

So the Packers lost a total of 3 picks in those deals. One to the Colts was almost the last pick in the draft as was the one to the Patriots for Hundley. So we can say 3 picks but two of those are almost the equivalent of undrafted fas. Honestly it is hard to see those picks as incredibly big losses. The 4th rounder is a loss.

Did TT really give up much to get those players? Two late 7th rounders which seem covered by some solid udfas this year and last. A 4th can be argued but really that doesn't strike me as a lot

Imo, the 7th round player pool is humongous. Using a late 7th round pick as trade fodder is a good tactic. My suspicion is that there was a significant gap between Spriggs and other available tackles, and Thompson felt that the Bears were about to pick Spriggs.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Packers might try different players at one of the guard spots during the season but there's no doubt in my mind none of the current backups is best suited to play the position.

I really have no idea what the RG candidates will look like by September of 2017.

 

[Half Empty]

Neither does WIMM, hence the "current" caveat in his post.

 

[PackerDNA]

Bak's cap number for 2017- $6.171M
for 2018- $11.2M

Forgot to note, numbers are from www.overthecap.com.

 

[Sky King]

I think I do, but only if one doesn't consider our 2nd to have been given up to get the better 2nd. Don't know how one can do that, but the "no swapped picks?" comment sure looks that way.

You're on the right track. The Colts had a net gain of two picks and the Packers had a net loss of two picks.

 

[PikeBadger]

Bak's cap number for 2017- $6.171M
for 2018- $11.2M

Very team friendly structured contract. The large base salary numbers in 19 and 20 provides the team good flexibility either for or against the player as the future situation dictates.

 

[JK64]

Without inside information, there is no way to for sure say Spriggs was taken to replace Bahk or if Thompson saw Spriggs as an opportunity he couldn't pass up.

Also, just because Spriggs doesn't start now, doesn't mean he won't in a year or two or play a prominent role as a backup if someone gets hurt.

Yeah, it's not like the oline Tackles have been a pillar of health in the past. I think it is good to have a quality backup at tackle. I don't want to see Bak go down for some reason and then watch some lousy backup do his best imitation of a turnstile.

 

[Half Empty]

You're on the right track. The Colts had a net gain of two picks and the Packers had a net loss of two picks.

So, the fact that the Pack moved up in the second round, which was the whole reason for the trade, doesn't count because each team still had a pick. Think we could find some trade partners where we could "swap" a 7th for a 1st? No change in total number of picks for either club, so it would be an even exchange.

 

[JK64]

Another scenario in which the Packers would lose in this deal is if Spriggs proves to be capable of playing on the same level as Bakhtiari. In that case the team would spend an additional $32 million in cal space for the same production.

Do you really believe TT would let a scenario like this happen? TT, if nothing else has been very good at handling the cap.

Right now, Spriggs provides QUALITY backup and not just some lousy ham and egger. Later, Spriggs could be Bulaga's replacement.

 

[Pkrjones]

TT felt it was a necessary move to get a high-end LT prospect. It was feared/thought that the Bears would've taken Spriggs with pick 49 so TT moved in front of them. With Barclay's struggles last season after ACL injury in '14 TT was attempting to assure an adequate OT on the roster. Why do we need to dissect and parse this move... too many good OL's (or potentially good) is a better situation than trotting-out a known turnstile back-up (Newhouse, post-injury Barclay).

 

[RRyder]

You're on the right track. The Colts had a net gain of two picks and the Packers had a net loss of two picks.

So they traded 3 picks for 1......

 

[RRyder]

TT felt it was a necessary move to get a high-end LT prospect. It was feared/thought that the Bears would've taken Spriggs with pick 49 so TT moved in front of them. With Barclay's struggles last season after ACL injury in '14 TT was attempting to assure an adequate OT on the roster. Why do we need to dissect and parse this move... too many good OL's (or potentially good) is a better situation than trotting-out a known turnstile back-up (Newhouse, post-injury Barclay).

The point is that trading up that high for a player just for depth purposes is a strange move in the least as a move like that is a signifyer that they intend for the player selected to make a impact on the team regardless of the health of surrounding players.

(Also I know alot of people hated Newhouse but are we really acting like he wasn't a backup quality player now?)

 

[Half Empty]

Newhouse was barely backup quality, and the problem is that he was a starter.

 

[Sky King]

So they traded 3 picks for 1......

They didn't give-up three picks though, and that's what some posters have been saying.