Finley: a Packer for life?

[SpartaChris]

could you provide a link to where it says he took a pay cut? I cant seem to find one. Also is restructuring the same as a pay cut?
I have a hard time believing Hawk was offered more from another team the day he was cut. He is still extremely overpaid.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/02/packers-cut-a-j-hawk/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/03/a-j-hawks-deal-is-done/

So not a pay cut in the traditional sense. They cut him to avoid paying him the guaranteed money and then re-signed him to a lower valued contract. To me it's essentially a pay cut, but potato, potato I guess.

 

[ivo610]

I would like to point out that this is PURE SPECULATION and you have absolutely no knowledge of Ryan Grants thought process when he is meeting with his agents and signing his contract.

Now you're speculating

 

[okcpackerfan]

Now you're speculating

It's not speculation to say you are not ryan grant, his agent, or in the front office of the green bay packers.

 

[ivo610]

It's not speculation to say you are not ryan grant, his agent, or in the front office of the green bay packers.

you said I have no knowledge, not that I wasnt grant, his agent, or a packers front office member.

 

[okcpackerfan]

you said I have no knowledge, not that I wasnt grant, his agent, or a packers front office member.

who else would have that knowledge?

 

[ivo610]

who else would have that knowledge?

The same type of person that would tell you about the stock sale before the season. BOOM.

 

[okcpackerfan]

I am done with this back and forth though, no reason to continue piling on ivo, enough people in this thread already have done that.

I think finley is a great asset and a very valuable player to our offense that enables us to create numerous mismatches. If the price is right I think we need to keep him for as long as we can.

 

[ivo610]

Someone said the JS had an article about him this week about how much more mature he is now and it's an off perception from the media. I haven't seen it or read about it though.

 

[TJV]

Here’s my recollection of the Hawk negotiations. I don’t care enough to research it so take it with a grain of salt. Hawk was due $11M and the Packers waived him so they wouldn’t have to pay it. They did so after they came to an agreement on his extension, which included (I believe a little) more than $11M in guaranteed money. I disagree with ivo610; a few players have taken pays cut to stay in what they viewed as favorable situations (thus the term “home team discount”). However, that is by far the exception to the rule. But IMO there is no way Hawk can be characterized as having taken a pay cut. He got his guaranteed money, just not in the contract it was originally placed. My recollection is Gilbert Brown and LeRoy Butler, for example, both took pay cuts to stay with the Packers. Grant’s situation is “iffy” IMO because we don’t know what the market for him coming off a significant injury was. And if a player isn’t turning down the realistic expectation of more money with another team, I don’t think that counts against ivo610’s point.

- - - - -

Finley a Packer for life? I don’t care too much about that but I really want him to be a Packer for the next several years. Thompson’s way is to extend the contracts of core players the year before their contract is up. I don’t have a question the Packers would want to extend him, but this thread is evidence some Packers fans do. Some seem to think Finley talks too much and/or is too selfish and therefore isn’t team oriented enough. Some may even believe he’s overrated. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I don’t agree with either point. Here’s what McCarthy had to say in March of this year on the subject of whether or not Jermichael is a team guy:

Finley also has been willing to speak his mind on a variety of subjects, including how it's best to utilize him. "See, Jermichael publicly and when he's in the building is not the same," said McCarthy. "His persona and some of the things he does with his messaging is not the guy that we work with. He's a team guy that wants the football and (will do) whatever it takes to win."

LINK to March, 2011 jsonline article.

Some might say, ‘well what’s the coach gonna say?’ My answer to that is McCarthy could have used “coach speak” to avoid saying much of anything about Finley. Instead he clearly goes out of his way to endorse Finley’s behavior in the locker room.

From the same article regarding whether he’s overrated:

"I love that kid, man," McCarthy said. "He's so competitive, and he loves to play football. He makes us a better football team. Not just because of his ability and his uniqueness, but also his competitive spirit. We missed him from a competitive standpoint. That guy loves to perform. Every day. In everything we do."

“I love that kid”, “a team guy”, “so competitive”, “uniqueness”, “whatever it takes to win”. Those quotes don’t help the Packers in negotiations but IMO they confirm the “secret” is out – they want Finley back as most would expect.

There’s another reason to extend him: In addition to his motivation as explained by McCarthy and his physical gifts which create mismatch nightmares for defenses, Jermichael Finley is going to be 25 years old in April. He is about to enter what should be the apex of his career: He should get even better.

So how do they get a deal done? The leverage the Packers have is offering guaranteed money for a longer-term contract which mitigates Finley's risk of the possibility of a career threatening injury. The first point of leverage Finley has is the deadline for using this season’s cap room for part of his guaranteed money. I’m sure Thompson and company would love not only to get it done, but also to “use up” almost all of the rest of this season’s cap in doing so. I’m not sure if the new CBA imposes a deadline regarding teams’ ability to extend a franchise-tagged player in-season; if it does, that’s Finley’s next point of leverage sometime next season. But even if Finley plays for the franchise tag next season, while he gets a significant guaranteed payday, he also takes a significant risk: The possibility of injury would still hang over him until he got a longer-term deal in place. Of course both sides incur risk: If the Packers agree to big guaranteed money on a longer-term contract, they risk his motivation waning and the injury risk shifts more towards the team.

BTW, IMO the important numbers in a player’s contract are the guaranteed money and usually just the first three years of salary. Usually beyond three years the team can afford to waive the player and take the cap hit if need be. IOW the team can avoid paying the salary in the “out years”, either by waiving or trading the player or renegotiating the contract. It looks to me like teams attempt to salve the egos of players by adding “out years” money they never intend to pay.

If they franchise tag number for TEs is $5M, that really helps the Packers in these negotiations. They can guarantee Finley three or more times that in a longer-term deal. If Finley has a long NFL career this won't be his last contract, so "Packer for life" is overstating it IMO. But I strongly favor him being a Packer for quite a while longer.

 

[greenandgold]

Hawk took a pay cut? when? He just signed a 5 year contract.

Grant would have been cut if he didnt take a pay cut. He didnt do it bc he loved the team, he did it bc he didnt think he could do better $ wise.

Wasn't Hawk released and then they reconstructed his contract and he made less money? I'm not sure Grant would have been gone, either.

So basically you're trying to tell me they were stupid for taking less money? That everybody is just a greedy so and so?

 

[ivo610]

Wasn't Hawk released and then they reconstructed his contract and he made less money? I'm not sure Grant would have been gone, either.

So basically you're trying to tell me they were stupid for taking less money? That everybody is just a greedy so and so?

Not saying that at all. Saying its almost always about the money. Players almost never go places or stay places due to something other than money. Same thing I have said the whole time. I thought that was pretty clear, not sure why you had to try and twist it. Nothing wrong with it being about the money, always put yourself and your family first. The organization sure as hell wont always put you first.

 

[ivo610]

Taking a pay cut to keep your job is smart. Becoming a FA with a possible non guaranteed contract is scary. If your going to take a pay cut it most likely means you wont get that $ on the open market. I view taking a pay cut to keep your job differently than taking a pay cut to help out the team. And I dont believe I remember a case where a player took a pay cut for the team, they merely reconstructed their contract, which is nice of them but in many situations helps you get a lump sum.

 

[Chicocheese]

I just think we should keep the guy. He makes for great mismatches, and has matured a ton! I also wonder what kind of deal will be made with Rodgers? He is due for renegotiations this off season or after next season, right?

 

[Bogart]

I say we could trade him for a good linebacker or something.

I know folks like Finley, and I did too, but his dropped passes, and that one in the endzone today, can we really depend on him in the playoffs? That's what worries me. Is the ball going to slip out of his hands on 3rd down and long? Is the ball going to bounce right out of his hands and get intercepted? The guy really scares me.