Does anyone think Gute will pull off a big trade?

[Pokerbrat2000]

In my scenario, I dumped both Nelson's and Cobb's salaries. Two highly paid receivers and a cheap rookie is an appropriate allocation for an offense that lives and dies on the pass.

It's a financially doable scenario from the Packer side. I just don't think Miami would be interested in Cobb under his current deal.

Cutting both Jordy and Cobb to sign one guy would definitely be doable, but if that were to happen, I would think you would want to sign at least one more mid range FA WR along with a high draft pick. As we have seen over the last several years, keeping the top 3 guys healthy for an entire season just doesn't happen. Adams, Landry and a rookie might sound nice on paper, but who plays if the rookie struggles or one of the top 2 gets hurt? I hope Allison can step up in 2018, but beyond him, we have nothing at WR.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Cutting both Jordy and Cobb to sign one guy would definitely be doable, but if that were to happen, I would think you would want to sign at least one more mid range FA WR along with a high draft pick.

Nope, just the high pick. This team cannot afford to buy depth. A two year plan is required.

 

[RRyder]

he hasn't done anything bad. he's a maturing player, going into the 4th year of his rookie deal with a 5th year option (so that means he'd be cheap for the next two seasons), he's a top 5 cb, a shutdown cb, and he's not close to being in his prime yet. i thought we were in win now mode. again...not a good sign.

You have zero clue of what he' done. In fact none of us really know. But when there's a, as u say, shutdown CB with two years left on his rookie deal and a whopping two teams showed interest in him in the trade market it points to him being a head case of epic proportions.

You seem to be missing that

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Didn't we already agree that nobody is going to be very interested in Cobb?

True, I forgot about that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I hope that the Packers can renegotiate their contracts, my fallback with Matthews, Cobb and Nelson is the fact that yes they are potentially all being overpaid but there are some things that soften that blow.

1. All 3 are long time vets with the Packers and know the system.
2. We currently do not have better options on the team and going FA or rookie to replace them has no guarantees.
3. Any one, two or all 3 of them could have a stellar year and even if it's not a Pro Bowl type of year, they will be starters and decent contributors.
4. If any of the 3 finish their contract, letting them walk in 2019 potentially gives us a compensatory pick.

Sure we can save a few million dollars with each guy, when you consider what it's going to cost to replace them, but how sure are we that their replacements are going to be better or worth that savings? We saw what happened when the Packers let Cook walk and replaced him with Mo Bennett. All 3 of these guys are known commodities and contrary to what some think, all 3 are actually capable of having an upside.

I don't believe any Packer fan in their right mind is advocating for the team to outright release Matthews, Nelson or Cobb. If Gutekunst would be able to acquire Landry that would change the situation at wide receiver though.

 

[PackerDNA]

If they go into the season with the same cap totals at WR, then we've got the wrong guy at GM.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Didn't we already agree that nobody is going to be very interested in Cobb?

There would be interest, just not with this contract. He's not a $10 million rent-a-player.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If they go into the season with the same cap totals at WR, then we've got the wrong guy at GM.

They won't, one way or the other.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't believe any Packer fan in their right mind is advocating for the team to outright release Matthews, Nelson or Cobb.

"right mind" being the operative words here I have read several people allude to the need to do just that, as well as the wild notion of trading one of them. I don't see any of them getting outright cut, until a replacement is found.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There would be interest, just not with this contract. He's not a $10 million rent-a-player.

All 3 players will have interest from other teams, if they are outright cut. But just like we are seeing around the league, there isn't a whole lot of interest in trading for veteran players on the wrong side of high end contracts. If their decisions were motivated only by money, all 3 guys are probably better off just sitting pat and forcing the Packers to cut them, so they can choose the new team and contract they will play under.

 

[HardRightEdge]

But just like we are seeing around the league, there isn't a whole lot of interest in trading for veteran players on the wrong side of high end contracts.

Except for the occasional QB, there really isn't much interest in trading for vet players with big contracts regardless of age or performance. When you add what you give up in decent picks or players to the contract assumed, the deal becomes prohibitive.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Except for the occasional QB, there really isn't much interest in trading for vet players with big contracts regardless of age or performance. When you add what you give up in decent picks or players to the contract assumed, the deal becomes prohibitive.

Toss in the fact that teams see the same "type" of player available via Free Agency with a "clean slate" to negotiate with and trades just stop making much sense.

What are the values of the compensatory picks the Packers could eventually pick up for the 2020 draft if they let all 3 players end their current contracts in Green Bay and sign in Free Agency with another team?

 

[HardRightEdge]

What are the values of the compensatory picks the Packers could eventually pick up for the 2020 draft if they let all 3 players end their current contracts in Green Bay and sign in Free Agency with another team?

Not much since comp picks are awarded primarily based on the free agent contract. And they could be offset by any moderate free agents signed by the Packers with the liberated cap space.

On the one hand, fans desperately clinging to these aging and declining players advocate negotiating down current year salaries in some kind of extension well below their last contract average pay. On the other hand, one cannot expect other teams to pay more than that in free agency.

This obsession with comp picks is a remnant of Thompson-think, bumping up the odds of finding players in low rounds who can play from very low odds to better low odds. It's small ball. They are consolation prizes. 3rd. rounders are nice, but to get one of those you have to lose a player getting $10 mil per year from somebody else and you have thereby lost impact. When you get to the bottom of the 4th. round and below the odds of finding impact players are quite low.

The key is getting good value out of the picks you have whether it is 7 or 12, and loading up on 5th., 6th. and 7th. round picks does not bend the odds much.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Toss in the fact that teams see the same "type" of player available via Free Agency with a "clean slate" to negotiate with and trades just stop making much sense.

There's an additional problem with trades in that the ones made available are frequently in the last year of their contract. You don't know where you're going to end up with that player after one season.

I suggested earlier a scenario where a contract extension/renegotiation is reached in advance of the trade. I'm not sure that is even legal in the NFL since it never seems to happen...a case where a guy is traded and new contract is immediately announced.

 

[sschind]

I don't believe any Packer fan in their right mind is advocating for the team to outright release Matthews, Nelson or Cobb. If Gutekunst would be able to acquire Landry that would change the situation at wide receiver though.

There are plenty of fans advocating that. I've seen post saying cut any one or even all three of them. Whether they are in their right minds is another thing.

 

[sschind]

"right mind" being the operative words here I have read several people allude to the need to do just that, as well as the wild notion of trading one of them. I don't see any of them getting outright cut, until a replacement is found.

Sorry Poker, should have read all the posts before making mine.

 

[gbgary]

You seem to be missing that

i'm not missing anything. i said he is a maturing player that really hasn't done anything bad and is not close to being in his prime. the rams realized that. they're clearly in win now mode.

 

[RRyder]

i'm not missing anything. i said he is a maturing player that really hasn't done anything bad and is not close to being in his prime. the rams realized that. they're clearly in win now mode.

If the first two things you bolded were true there's about a .000001% chance he would've been on the trade block in the first place.

Litteraly two teams were interested. Do you really think 29 other teams were just like "we don' want a cheap pro bowl CB" or just maybe he's an absolute nightmare to deal with and has been doing things that haven't been made public? You don't get to just pass over it by saying he's "maturing". Some guys are just nutjobs.

The fact that Dorsey wanted no part of adding a Pro Bowl player, on his rookie deal, who he himself drafted when he has more then a few picks should be all u need to tell you steering clear might just be the best action

Hell his "business decisions" quote today should be enough to make people wary all on it's own but even then it's hard to believe that he was traded simply because he didn't want to tackle

 

[HardRightEdge]

There are plenty of fans advocating that. I've seen post saying cut any one or even all three of them. Whether they are in their right minds is another thing.

I am most certainly in my right mind and I could easily see 2 out of 3. But nobody in this organization has the balls to dump the underperforming cap represented by those 3 players.

Then there's Bulaga whose legs have been through the ringer.

Anybody for four?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

"right mind" being the operative words here I have read several people allude to the need to do just that, as well as the wild notion of trading one of them. I don't see any of them getting outright cut, until a replacement is found.

I would definitely be interested in trading one of them for a younger and cheaper player in return. Unfortunately other teams won't agree to a deal like that.

I suggested earlier a scenario where a contract extension/renegotiation is reached in advance of the trade. I'm not sure that is even legal in the NFL since it never seems to happen...a case where a guy is traded and new contract is immediately announced.

A team could definitely sign a player before trading him but that would only make sense by not including a signing bonus in the deal as otherwise the prorated portion of it would count against their salary cap. As far as I know a club acquiring a player isn't allowed to negotiate with him before the move has been finalized.

I am most certainly in my right mind and I could easily see 2 out of 3. But nobody in this organization has the balls to dump the underperforming cap represented by those 3 players.

The Packers definitely shouldn't release any of them before having added an adequate replacement to the roster.

 

[Mondio]

I am most certainly in my right mind and I could easily see 2 out of 3. But nobody in this organization has the balls to dump the underperforming cap represented by those 3 players.

Then there's Bulaga whose legs have been through the ringer.

Anybody for four?

I do not think we will dump all 4, but Im not convinced Bulaga makes it out of camp on GB's roster. I like him, he's always willing to play hard, but his body never lets him. It's a shame and all that, but I do not want to pay him millions to sit in the training room again. I would expect Jordy, Cobb to have better years, though i'm not sure "both" will still be here and If Matthews is healthy again like last year (and no I don't think he's been as injured as Bulaga over the years) He will at least come close to earning his money. It's what you're going to pay anybody with his credentials to come to your team anyway. I'm more inclined to give him a chance to earn it yet again in a new defense. I think he might surprise some people.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A team could definitely sign a player before trading him but that would only make sense by not including a signing bonus in the deal as otherwise the prorated portion of it would count against their salary cap.

Which would explain why sign-and-trade never happens.

 

[sschind]

A team could definitely sign a player before trading him but that would only make sense by not including a signing bonus in the deal as otherwise the prorated portion of it would count against their salary cap. As far as I know a club acquiring a player isn't allowed to negotiate with him before the move has been finalized.

I seem to recall a few years back it was mentioned that something like this was not legal. Not a sign and trade perhaps as I think it had something to do with free agency and the tags but it was said that even though it is technically illegal it does happen occasionally and no one says anything. The Packers actually did it with one of their players I think.

I think you are right about the acquiring club can't negotiate unless the trading team says its OK. The Dolphins have given Landry permission to seek a trade so I think that would involve negotiating a new contract with the potential trading partner. If permission is not given the acquiring club would have to either accept the terms agreed to or they would have to let the trading team know their demands and negotiate through them. IMO this would be deceptive and shouldn't be allowed. Example I'm Randall Cobb and unbeknownst to me the packers have approached Cleveland (or vice versa) with a trade proposal involving me. Cleveland says OK but only if you can get him to sign a 4 year extension for 20 million dollars. The Packers approach me and make the offer and I, being the good guy I am and wanting to stay in Green Bay, agree to it. I sign and two days or two weeks or whatever it's announced I have been traded to Cleveland. Now it would be difficult to prove but in a case like that I think its obvious the new contract terms were set by Cleveland and I may not have accepted those terms with them. That's the sort of thing I would think is deceptive and should not be allowed.

Of course like you said for the Packers to make this deal they would be smart not to include a signing bonus so if such a deal would be proposed without one it would immediately raise a red flag.

 

[Poppa San]

Im not convinced Bulaga makes it out of camp on GB's roster.

I am fairly confident he won't be on the 53. I have low expectations of him being able to practice during camp. I'd wager a goodly sum of M&M's he isn't off the PUP list.

 

[Croak]

I'm still suspicious about his Gute's role; and here is more evidence; "Murphy said Thompson was back in Green Bay breaking down film and writing reports for Gutekunst, who earlier in the offseason indicated that Thompson would travel to Indianapolis this week." http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-...wn-here-ted-thompsons-absence-felt-at-combine So TT still has his hands quite deeply in the pie.