Moves that would help the EFENSE.

D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Agree with keeping Peppers one more year at a good price and trading Clay.

There's no reason to keep Peppers for another season.

There is no reason to cut Matthews. The Packers currently have $8.75M in cap space. Peppers $10.5M comes off the books at the end of the year.

The Packers don't have a ton of space for next offseason. It would be smart to renegotiate Matthews contract as he doesn't perform up to it at all.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
The Packers don't have a ton of space for next offseason. It would be smart to renegotiate Matthews contract as he doesn't perform up to it at all.

What do you consider "a ton"? Between current cap space and Peppers coming off of the books, the Packers are looking at $18M+ and that's not including the yearly cap rise. And not to repeat myself, but the Packers do not have young players who are going to command big contracts any time soon. Sure, the Packers aren't looking at $50M in cap space like the Chicago Bears, but the Packers have a much better team than the Bears. The Bears have one playmaker on the team.

Regarding your second sentence, it's always "smart to renegotiate" contracts. It is ideal to have every player playing for the lowest amount possible. The question is whether or not the player wants to negotiate.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
What do you consider "a ton"? Between current cap space and Peppers coming off of the books, the Packers are looking at $18M+ and that's not including the yearly cap rise. And not to repeat myself, but the Packers do not have young players who are going to command big contracts any time soon. Sure, the Packers aren't looking at $50M in cap space like the Chicago Bears, but the Packers have a much better team than the Bears. The Bears have one playmaker on the team.

That's not the way the salary cap works. The Packers currently have 37 players under contract for next season counting $139.2 million towards the cap. With the salary cap expected to raise to $166 million in 2017 the team will have $36.7 million of cap space ($10 million of rollover from this season included). HRE has repeatedly done a good job of explaining why that isn't a ton.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
That's not the way the salary cap works. The Packers currently have 37 players under contract for next season counting $139.2 million towards the cap. With the salary cap expected to raise to $166 million in 2017 the team will have $36.7 million of cap space ($10 million of rollover from this season included). HRE has repeatedly done a good job of explaining why that isn't a ton.

Just to be clear, I know that "that's not the way the salary cap works". I wasn't doing a full analysis of the salary cap, just pointing out current cap space + cap space gained when Peppers leaves.

Back to my original question, what do you consider "a ton of cap space"?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Just to be clear, I know that "that's not the way the salary cap works". I wasn't doing a full analysis of the salary cap, just pointing out current cap space + cap space gained when Peppers leaves.

Back to my original question, what do you consider "a ton of cap space"?

Peppers contract expiring doesn't result in additional cap space. There's not an easy answer to your question as it depends on a team's pending free agents. With the Packers having several holes to fill $36.7 million isn't a ton to work with.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
Just to be clear, I know that "that's not the way the salary cap works". I wasn't doing a full analysis of the salary cap, just pointing out current cap space + cap space gained when Peppers leaves.

Back to my original question, what do you consider "a ton of cap space"?

Apparently, more than 36.7 mil. :)
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top