Gutekunst Presser 3/2/2021 - Takeaways

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,366
Reaction score
1,023
Items he spoke to:
  1. We may never know just how serious we were about Watt, side stepped any true discussion on the topic.
  2. The Franchise Tag is on the table for Aaron Jones.
  3. Believes while restrictions exist and is away of the fiscal restraints, if the right guy is out there they'll be active...but did say a lot of that depends on what happens with their in house guys up.
  4. They want as much playing time as possible for Love this preseason - which makes sense given he never played a single game Pre or Regular last year.
  5. "He's under contract, so we certainly expect him to be back" when talking about Preston Smith. But moments prior he said something touch more cryptic - "Preston's played a lot of really good football for us and certainly we'd like to have him back next year." IMO this says they want to restructure minimum....and discussions are happening.
  6. Appears a Linsley return is just not in the cards.
  7. The type of players needed on the defense doesn't change with Joe Berry hire.
  8. Void of Jamaal Williams name....unless I missed it when making notes.
  9. Acknowledged the struggle and challenge scouting players that opted out in 2020 and just the limited reps by others to observe.
Packers.com has the 15 minute interview.
 
Last edited:

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,366
Reaction score
1,023
And we now know what that we didn't before? :)

I would isolate my biggest takeaways that appears Preston isn't going anywhere despite his cost being way above what it should be and the most obvious way to make it under the cap (wherever it washes out at) AND I'd say the fact the Franchise Tag was spoken as a true possibility in a way that makes it seem quite possible.

The other items I think were mere confirmations of known things.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
13,234
Reaction score
1,621
Preston's play improved last year to the point I didn't think he was a likely cut option anymore. Not that I think he's earning all of it, a lot of money is already sunk and while there is some savings, there are a lot of fairly productive snaps to replace and we could easily spend about the same trying to replace and get less.

So far he's definitely earned 1 year, definitely did not half a year and redeemed himself some for half a year though not entirely. I think he's a good guy and player. I'd give him the chance to earn it again because cutting him leaves us precariously thin at the position and I don't see a young guy just replacing him and I think they want all 3 on the field when they can so I don't see him as just being an expensive part time player either.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,366
Reaction score
1,023
Again the largest reasoning for me was never about his play necessarily, but the immense cost savings vs than the weight of play production but also a BIG factor was whom of possible cuts have a replacement on the roster?

Preston offers the largest tax cap savings of a player that we have a guy immediately behind him on the roster that hasn't been playing up to their contract. Unless I'm overlooking someone there just isn't another easier option.

Now sure perhaps we are going to push the can down the road and hope the escalating cap keeps us from catastrophe like the Saints presently face, but that is gonna take most likely an Adams extension, a restructure of all or many of:

Amos - Estimates depending on structure is $2.7M-4.3M saved
Turner - $2.3-$3.6M
Z Smith - $7.4-11.8 if they maybe add a year/extension

The issue is for me you're merely kicking the "penalties" of the contract to be cashed in later...BUT I do trust Ball and his wizardry with contracts.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,273
Reaction score
1,649
Now sure perhaps we are going to push the can down the road and hope the escalating cap keeps us from catastrophe like the Saints presently face, but that is gonna take most likely an Adams extension, a restructure of all or many of:

Amos - Estimates depending on structure is $2.7M-4.3M saved
Turner - $2.3-$3.6M
Z Smith - $7.4-11.8 if they maybe add a year/extension

The issue is for me you're merely kicking the "penalties" of the contract to be cashed in later...BUT I do trust Ball and his wizardry with contracts.

Once again, as mentioned in several other threads, the Packers restructuring Rodgers' contract, saving $16 million of cap space, should be a no-brainer in my opinion.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,366
Reaction score
1,023
Once again, as mentioned in several other threads, the Packers restructuring Rodgers' contract, saving $16 million of cap space, should be a no-brainer in my opinion.

I didn't put it because I hadn't seen the amount you quoted, and didn't want to put down inaccurate amount.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
130
I think what nobody is considering with Preston is that not only is he still going to get paid a sizeable chunk of his contract after being cut is that there's a hole in the defense that has to be filled by a player that likely won't be found until 2022. Sure you can plug Gary in but what about when Gary plays in a 3-point stance? Who lines up for that OLB spot? Garvin? Ramsey? I do want them to get more opportunities but the flexibility of the defense changes quite a bit in Preston's absence.

Barry's scheme is also about sending 4 guys but disguising who they are. Our best 4 pass rushers also seem to be our only 4 pass rushers in Z, Preston, Gary, and Clark. We don't really get much in that department from Lowry and Lancaster, and the jury is still out on Keke.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,366
Reaction score
1,023
Preston is merely the largest contract and savings with an immediate succession plan already on the roster.

I 100% get the argument our front 7 is better with than without - however that is never the reason a player gets cut when the cap is the issue.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,273
Reaction score
1,649
I think what nobody is considering with Preston is that not only is he still going to get paid a sizeable chunk of his contract after being cut is that there's a hole in the defense that has to be filled by a player that likely won't be found until 2022.

Just for the record, if the Packers cut Preston before the start of the new league year they don't owe him any money.
 

ARPackFan

So...what's your point?
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
521
Reaction score
103
Location
Arkansas
Unless I'm missing something, explain the $8M in dead money?
The remaining two years of the signing bonus (already paid)?

Yes - Preston Smith would be owed the remaining prorated bonus of $8M still owed to him. His cap hit for 2021 if he is on the roster the 3rd day of the league year is $16M. He would have to be cut before March 19 to avoid the $4M roster bonus. A roster bonus forces the team to make a decision instead of dragging it out into the FA period.
 

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,768
Reaction score
1,262
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
Preston Smith would be owed the remaining prorated bonus of $8M still owed to him.
He isn't "owed" anything. He already has that. Prorated bonus is an accounting gimmick similar to cost averaging. Depreciation kind of works that way also. Some accounting guru will be along before next season to verify or clarify my bleacher seats interpretation. I will not include how the money is actually given to the players as some type of deferred salary for tax reasons is possible. Something like an annuity. That kind of info is sometimes buried in the Packers annual report to stockholders and the press picks up on it.
 

ARPackFan

So...what's your point?
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
521
Reaction score
103
Location
Arkansas
Semantics. You are right that he already earned the money but with respect to the the cap that money is prorated over the term of the contract. If you really want to have some fun, try reading through the CBA - Article 13, section 6 (ii) Acceleration (of player contracts). I'm still fuzzy as to what it actually says.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
24,200
Reaction score
3,473
Location
Madison, WI
Semantics. You are right that he already earned the money but with respect to the the cap that money is prorated over the term of the contract. If you really want to have some fun, try reading through the CBA - Article 13, section 6 (ii) Acceleration (of player contracts). I'm still fuzzy as to what it actually says.
Semantics but in this case (if Preston is cut) He didn't really "earn" all of the money in my opinion, since he didn't play out his full contract. But as some have said, he has already been paid this money because it was upfront guaranteed contractual money.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
130
As a person who decided that law school was not for him, I have no desire to read the CBA or even Preston's individual contract for that matter. However, if he still counts for $8M of the salary cap while playing for somebody else, that's all that does matter in my opinion.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
24,200
Reaction score
3,473
Location
Madison, WI
As a person who decided that law school was not for him, I have no desire to read the CBA or even Preston's individual contract for that matter. However, if he still counts for $8M of the salary cap while playing for somebody else, that's all that does matter in my opinion.

We can all "thank" Sports agents and the apparent limited pool of top talent for people getting paid millions of dollars for work, that in most cases hasn't even commenced before they cash their big bonus and guaranteed money checks. While I understand injuries and a limited window of opportunity, I also understand the principles of insurance, workman's comp and having to learn a new job to make ends meet.

I love the sport, hate the economics of it.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,273
Reaction score
1,649
However, if he still counts for $8M of the salary cap while playing for somebody else, that's all that does matter in my opinion.

The Packers saving $8 million of cap space by releasing Preston for next season is the most relevant number at this point though.

Gutekunst will have to decide if that is enough warranting to replace him with a potentially less talented player.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
4,568
Reaction score
359
It had occurred to me a while back that may be a couple of off seasons ago when Gute signed the Smith brothers and company, that was him going all in.
I think they'll be ready and do the best they can, but I don't see them doing anything like that article showing how they could save 71 million.
They'll need to make every move and draft pick count
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
449
We can all "thank" Sports agents and the apparent limited pool of top talent for people getting paid millions of dollars for work, that in most cases hasn't even commenced before they cash their big bonus and guaranteed money checks. While I understand injuries and a limited window of opportunity, I also understand the principles of insurance, workman's comp and having to learn a new job to make ends meet.

I love the sport, hate the economics of it.

The one thing people like you can never answer is where you would like the money to go. I’m more than positive you wouldn’t want those rich, greedy, owners to get all of it...so where, pray tell, should the money go?
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
278
Don't know about people like Brat, but my problem is that the money shouldn't be there in the first place. First is the direct contributions by Joe or Jane Fan (forgive me, WIMM, but here I'm talking about something with a receipt or charge). Why any person/family without the necessary means will voluntarily waste cash on going to the game (at today's prices for tickets, parking, food, et. al.) or buying memorabilia or subscribing to pay-for-view is beyond me. I realize that the TV contracts are really the basis for the obscene numbers, and I continue to find it difficult to accept that, in 2021, traditional advertising is worth what it costs. Lots to discuss there, but I sort of have to agree with Gary, in that, once the money has been paid to the league/teams, it's not going to be distributed to anyone outside, so there isn't a good answer to where the money should go.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
449
Don't know about people like Brat, but my problem is that the money shouldn't be there in the first place. First is the direct contributions by Joe or Jane Fan (forgive me, WIMM, but here I'm talking about something with a receipt or charge). Why any person/family without the necessary means will voluntarily waste cash on going to the game (at today's prices for tickets, parking, food, et. al.) or buying memorabilia or subscribing to pay-for-view is beyond me. I realize that the TV contracts are really the basis for the obscene numbers, and I continue to find it difficult to accept that, in 2021, traditional advertising is worth what it costs. Lots to discuss there, but I sort of have to agree with Gary, in that, once the money has been paid to the league/teams, it's not going to be distributed to anyone outside, so there isn't a good answer to where the money should go.

If y’all don’t like the money, quit watching. That’s really the best/only option. Advertisers and companies (ESPN, NBC, Fox) are willing to pay oodles of money because there is a guaranteed large customer base. I don’t really love the amount of money out there either, but hey, they pull in A LOT of money.

There’s an argument that teams could/should lower prices so that the average fan can actually go to a game without spending a fortune, but at the same time, it’s a business.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
24,200
Reaction score
3,473
Location
Madison, WI
but my problem is that the money shouldn't be there in the first place.

Agree, this is the first of several layers and why I stated that I "hate the economics of the game". This whole argument of "well the money is there, why shouldn't they just keep doubling up on profits?", isn't really the issue. It is as you stated "why is the money there in the first place?" Why can Sports industries completely bilk its fan base and in turn make thousands of owners, players, coaches, etc. instant millionaires? Of course I would be outraged at owners making billions and workers making peanuts, so put that crap argument to bed too. Solutions? Really no good ones unless everybody says "enough is enough" and stops watching.

I'm not a church going person, but what if all of a sudden churches said "hey, we have a captive audience here, lets across the board start charging $20 per person to attend mass". How long would that last? If it lasted, maybe $40 next year? Where would the money go?

People are pissing and moaning about the push to make the minimum wage $15/hr yet I bet some of those same people think its cool how much money the NFL has to play with.

Better discussion for another thread.
 

GleefulGary

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
449
It’s amazing how much somebody can talk about the “economics” of it, when they don’t understand economics very well.
 

Latest posts

Top