1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Favre retirement would provide salary-cap windfall

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Greg C., Jan 6, 2007.

  1. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Here's an article from the Press Gazette. It's further proof that the Packers are in good shape financially. Favre is earning about what he deserves, and if he retires virtually all of his pay will immediately disappear from the salary cap:

    Posted January 6, 2007
    Favre retirement would provide salary-cap windfall
    By Pete Dougherty
    pdougher@greenbaypressgazette.com

    If quarterback Brett Favre retires this offseason, the Green Bay Packers will pick up $9.6 million of room on their healthy 2007 salary cap.

    The Packers are believed to be close to $25 million under the 2007 cap, though that number will go down slightly when they make contract tenders to their restricted and exclusive-rights free agents, and even further if they sign any players to long-term deals before the start of free agency in March.

    If Favre retires, the Packers' judicious handling of his contract the last several years would result in only $1.4 million in "dead" money against their cap, according to a source with access to NFL Players Association salary data. That number would go down to $600,000 in "dead" money in 2008 if he plays in 2007 and then retires.

    The Packers' pay-as-you-go approach with Favre stands in contrast, for instance, to the Tennessee Titans, who had to eat more than $9 million in cap space after trading franchise quarterback Steve McNair before the season.

    "Obviously, we all hope (Favre) continues to play," said Andrew Brandt, the Packers' vice president of player finances. "Hopefully, we've managed the cap to be prepared for when he eventually does retire."

    For the last several years, the Packers have refrained from restructuring Favre's contract on a yearly basis to clear salary-cap room for the short term. So, Favre has only $1.4 million of prorated roster bonuses remaining for the combined 2008-10 seasons, when his contract runs out.

    His salary for next season is $11 million. If he retires, the Packers will clear that base salary from their books but add the $1.4 million in accelerated signing bonus, for a net gain of $9.6 million on their 2007 cap. If Favre plays in 2007 and then retires, the Packers will clear his $12 million base salary from their 2008 cap and pick up only $600,000 in accelerated bonus, for a net gain of $11.4 million.

    General Manager Ted Thompson has plenty of cap room to work with this year, and having extra room from Favre's retirement doesn't mean Thompson will go on a major spending spree in free agency. But it would allow him and Brandt to go even further in front-loading contracts to save money on future caps, much like they did last year with the signings of defensive end Aaron Kampman and free-agent cornerback Charles Woodson.

    Kampman and Woodson received a combined $8 million in roster bonuses last year, which counted against the 2006 cap but not future caps, like signing bonuses would have.

    This offseason, the Packers will be trying to re-sign defensive lineman Cullen Jenkins, and perhaps extending the contracts of cornerback Al Harris and linebacker Nick Barnett, as well as pursuing free agents from other teams.

    (P.S. I can't figure out how to post a link. Apparently it's like some sort of secret handshake. Or maybe the instructions are somewhere on this site but I'm overlooking them. I couldn't find them in Forum FAQ.)
     
  2. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    While I understand the cap saving concept for future years, I also understand that it limits the team w/ what they can do in FA NOW while Favre and the Core Vets are around.

    Clearly, this year's team would have benefited greatly w/ an additional playmaker or two. Likewise, much of any money they mortgage for the future few years can essentially be made up when Favre hangs it up.

    I really can't understand how so many can get so excited about protecting the future when clearly the future is now. TT/GB are wasting playoff opportunities that we aren't likely to see again for quite sometime.

    Once again, it's now wonder Favre has a hard time deciding whether to come back or not each year.
     
  3. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    :thumbsup:

    Good Post...

    TT acts as if he's got all the time in the world....

    What if Favre retires this year and the Packers go 4-12 with Aaron Rodgers at the helm...Does TT get fired....???

    Hey TT...in case you haven't noticed..you're on the clock..

    (Tick Tock..Tick Tock..Tick...)
     
  4. DakotaT

    DakotaT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +0
    Can you elaborate a little on these two statements?
     
  5. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well thanks! Truely, I can't see how any true Packer Fan could see it any other way. Certainly, TT could go too far (Sherman), but I don't think one or two additional players is going to do that?

    We need an NFL ready OG to help make the run game go and have for 3 years now. Surely, we could afford to get one legitimate OG and let the rookies and young guys compete for the other spot. They've all but admitted all are too weak to perform @ a high level in this league week in and week out. One off season....3 or 4 months.....isn't all of a sudden turn these 3 into thick OL.

    Likewise, everyone knows the TE position needs to be addressed as well as the SS spot. Franks and Manule were hugh disappointments this season and really hurt our chances each weak.
     
  6. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    If Ted is on the clock, that can be said about everyone. He is entering the third year of his five year contract.

    On the clock, :roll:
     
  7. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    978
    Ratings:
    +86
    I posted this on the Packersnews.com website under the story...I find this a bit hard to believe but...Pete Dougherty forgot one free agent to mention when spending money: Ahman Green. I would think Green is next in the pecking order to throw money at. Yet he failed to mention it.
    I hope this is a reporter's slip of the mind and not some insider info about not trying to resign Green. The Packers need to draft another back(Morency is a good third down back) but they need the heir-apparent to Green to come on board this next season.
    The McCarthy offense is built around a sledgehammer back and to think that anyone can do it is simply wrong.
     
  8. packedhouse01

    packedhouse01 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +1
    Having all that money and being so far under the on the salary cap doesn't mean anything if you don't spend the money judiciously on keeping your own best players and in signing the free agents that will fill the holes on your team. I've never believed in over paying for marginal talent. That's one of the reasons Sherman lost his job. The truly great GM's seem to have knack for knowing who has that perfect combination of talent and heart. Ron Wolf in the early to mid 90's had that feel for the game and he consistently picked up free agents who had just enough in their tank, but who were also guys with good character, to add to the those great Packer teams. Ted Thompson has to prove that he can make those judgments too if he hopes to be viewed as one of the greats.
     
  9. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Certainly...

    I really don't get a sense of urgency for winning with TT and the Packers at all...

    It is very well possible that if Favre retires, this team could be .500 or below for a few years to come...if they are a .500 team in the 5th year of TT's contract, what do you do?

    Do you extend it, hoping that TT comes through or do you decide that 5 years has been enough and it's time to go in another direction..??

    That is the risk you take when trying to build primarily throught the draft and not using FA much....

    This year will be THE pivitol year in judging TT, imo...
     
  10. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I have to agree. Although we did seem to try an rush with Sherman and we just went in the wrong direction faster so maybe this is the better way.
     
  11. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    We had a sense of urgency for five years with Mike Sherman, and what did we have to show for it? A bunch of early playoff exits and a declining talent base. History has shown that it's best to show some patience when building a team. I expect the team to be a legitimate contender in 2008, or Thompson's job is on the line. I don't think the future is now. And I don't want the Packers to be like the Vikings or Redskins, always chasing after free agents and making a big splash in the off-season, then going belly-up in the regular season.
     
  12. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Patience from American sports fans?!?! Riiiiiiiiiiight

    (Im American, but I am aware of America's obsession with fast results)
     
  13. Drich318

    Drich318 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +0
    yes it would, but we want Favre still. He is a great asset to this team, and he would greatly assist our desires to make the playoffs. PLus we already have plenty of salary cap room to resign, and/or give contract extensions to Harris, Barnett, Jenkins, Green, and still sign a big name free agent or two and sign all our draft picks.
     
  14. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    One of the reasons it is necessary to keep the position we are in is to be able to do what has to be done if Rodgers does not turn out to be the guy.

    Putting all our marbles in the FA basket to obtain playmakers is very risky if it pans out you don't have a QB to get them the ball.

    Now I hope Rodgers works out. But if he doesn't we better be able to go out and buy us a QB. TT is not going to payroll us out of that option.
     
  15. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good point. Look what the Saints have been able to do by opening the vault for Drew Brees this year. (Though things haven't worked out quite so well for the Dolphins.)
     
  16. packerfan1245

    packerfan1245 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    721
    Ratings:
    +0
    We need Green back. NEED.
     
  17. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Again..no middle ground..

    Either TT's going to bankrupt the Packers with FA or he shouldn't spend a dime!

    I don't understand the extremes in some thinking here...
     
  18. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I think he spent more than a dime on Charles Woodson, Aaron Kampman and Donald Driver.
     
  19. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    shhhhhhhhhh, dont ruin his flow
     
  20. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Resigning your guys don't count. :kickcan:

    I think if GB has another off season like he did last but instead of overhauling the defense getting at least one legit offensive target we'll be pretty good next year assuming Favre returns.
     
  21. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    If Favre retires we can't expect a winning season.
     
  22. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yes, if Favre retires we would have a boatload of money to spend. But to me, that would be like having all the money in the world, but being stranded on a deserted island. Without Favre at the helm, the Packers would flounder. Look around the NFL. How many decent QB's do you see? How many teams have gone through QB after QB TRYING to find a half decent one? Even at this late stage in his career, he's still better then most out there. I WISH they would have gone after Brees when he was available. We would have had someone that could come in and play. I don't see anyone on the roster that gives me alot of hope. Will Rodgers pan out? I don't know.
     
  23. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    But why waste $$$ on signing a legit FA target Porky, if we don't know if Favre is going to retire...especially on one that Aaron Rodgers may not be able to control in the locker room..???

    Pretty soon starts the hostage talk...wait for it. :kickcan:
     
  24. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Charles Woodson, Ryan Pickett were not 'our' guys until we signed them, :).
     
  25. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well I'm talking a TE. I think we need a TE to open things up for Driver, Jenning, and when Robinson returns. I don't care who our QB is. TE's this year were by far the worse position on the field and it needs to be upgraded.
     

Share This Page