Packers free agent rumors?

[RRyder]

Gotta love people still bringing up the Lynch trade as if we didn't win the SB that year without him on the assumption that we would have not only still won it all that year had we made the trade but also that we would have also won it the next year when we had a historic great offense and a historically bad defense held us back and then that we might have won it all if we had him in one of the other years since even though it's an argument that nobody can prove.

Let it go

 

[HardRightEdge]

Gotta love people still bringing up the Lynch trade as if we didn't win the SB that year without him on the assumption that we would have not only still won it all that year had we made the trade but also that we would have also won it the next year when we had a historic great offense and a historically bad defense held us back and then that we might have won it all if we had him in one of the other years since even though it's an argument that nobody can prove.

Let it go

I believe that broke the forum record for "longest coherent sentence without punctuation." Downright Proustian.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again, you're arguing from a false premise.

Ted did try to try to trade for Moss. We reportedly had a deal worked out with the Raiders, but Ted wanted Moss to sign a 2 year deal in the restructure. Moss balked. As that was required to make the trade happened, it got stuck. The Pats then offered a similar deal to the Raiders, but were fine with a 1 year contract for Moss. As great as Moss ended up playing, I see why Ted wanted a 2 year deal--the Pats had to shove a pretty big pile of money at Moss the next year.

Again, all reports are that we DID offer a 4th for Lynch. Sadly, Seattle, by virtue of being a worse-record team that ALSO offered a 4th, made the Bills a better offer. We would have had to offer a 3rd. In hindsight, that would probably have worked out. At the time, I can understand walking away.

Information is power. Or at least it can make us seem more knowledgeable. That is one aspect of being a fan I have to keep reminding myself of. While I may think I have all the information on something relating to the Packers, chances are, I probably don't. TT seems to hold his hand pretty tight to the vest and most of the information we become privy to seems to be media/fan speculation or hear say. To further complicate things, even when you do have a lot of the information, you can bet TT is probably looking at it in a whole different way then most.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Something I always try to keep in mind with signing your own FA is that their value can be higher to their own team, call it a vested interest of developing that player for X amount of years. They are a known commodity that know the system they are in, as well as the system knows them. Take Starks for an example. Did we overpay him? Probably at first glance and probably in comparison to what other teams may have paid him. But Starks knows the Packers offense and Rodgers and the Packers coaching staff know what he can and can't contribute. So you have to place some value on that. Signing someone like Forte, while attractive on the surface, there are some unknowns. How will he fit in to the offense? How long will it take him to learn the playbook and read his own offensive line. Will he and Rodgers click? What is he like in the locker room? etc.

I'm sure there is no hard fast rule on figuring out this value and it no doubt decreases as a position requires less knowledge of the system (kicker for example), but it has become very obvious to me that TT places a fair amount of value on keeping a known commodity on the team. As long as that player still fits into the teams plans.

I don´t buy into overpaying for a team´s own free agents being a smart approach. I´m convinced that the importance of a veteran being familiar with a system is completely overblown as players that have been in the league for several years are more than capable of learning a scheme within an offseason. At some point teams will get into cap trouble when spending too much money on players not performing up to their contract, no matter if it´s used on own players or for guys from other teams.

Meanwhile, the Packers continue to be consistent. We'll be a double digit win team once again barring injures to our main core. If we stay healthy, we are easily a 12-13 win team that contends for home field advantage.

There´s no doubt the Packers will once again make the playoffs if they stay relatively healthy. It´s disappointing that the team hasn´t been able to get back to the Super Bowl for five years running while having the best quarterback in the league though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don´t buy into overpaying for a team´s own free agents being a smart approach. I´m convinced that the importance of a veteran being familiar with a system is completely overblown as players that have been in the league for several years are more than capable of learning a scheme within an offseason. At some point teams will get into cap trouble when spending too much money on players not performing up to their contract, no matter if it´s used on own players or for guys from other teams.

I wasn't advocating for overpaying for a teams own free agent at all. Where we disagree is the idea that all thing being equal, IMO a player could have more value to its current team then another team simply due to the players familiarity with the team/system as well as the system being familiar with the player. While I agree with you that most players, if given enough time, should be able to learn a new system, but that still doesn't always translate to what that player will do on the field. How often have we seen a free agent under perform with a new team? Is this because he didn't fully learn the system or the system turned out to not be right for him?

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I wasn't advocating for overpaying for a teams own free agent at all. Where we disagree is the idea that all thing being equal, IMO a player could have more value to its current team then another team simply due to the players familiarity with the team/system as well as the system being familiar with the player. While I agree with you that most players, if given enough time, should be able to learn a new system, but that still doesn't always translate to what that player will do on the field. How often have we seen a free agent under perform with a new team? Is this because he didn't fully learn the system or the system turned out to not be right for him?

Hard not to agree with that.

I imagine someone will, nonetheless.

 

[Half Empty]

Isn't the flip side of that argument that the player wouldn't (might not) be as valuable to a new team? Shouldn't that mean that the other teams wouldn't up the ante, and the home team should be able to retain that player for less?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wasn't advocating for overpaying for a teams own free agent at all. Where we disagree is the idea that all thing being equal, IMO a player could have more value to its current team then another team simply due to the players familiarity with the team/system as well as the system being familiar with the player. While I agree with you that most players, if given enough time, should be able to learn a new system, but that still doesn't always translate to what that player will do on the field. How often have we seen a free agent under perform with a new team? Is this because he didn't fully learn the system or the system turned out to not be right for him?

I´m a firm believer that a more talented player will perform on a higher level no matter if he´s used to the system or has to learn a new scheme. A lot of free agent signing don´t work out because teams either make mistakes evaluating a player´s talent level or he doesn´t fit a specific system. There are a ton of examples of teams re-signing their own players ending up not delivering the expected results as well.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Isn't the flip side of that argument that the player wouldn't (might not) be as valuable to a new team? Shouldn't that mean that the other teams wouldn't up the ante, and the home team should be able to retain that player for less?

Some players do give a "home-town discount", and Ted has certainly taken advantage of that (Jordy Nelson, for example).

And some players don't. And some just want out (think Greg Jennings).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I´m a firm believer that a more talented player will perform on a higher level no matter if he´s used to the system or has to learn a new scheme. A lot of free agent signing don´t work out because teams either make mistakes evaluating a player´s talent level or he doesn´t fit a specific system. There are a ton of examples of teams re-signing their own players ending up not delivering the expected results as well.

I think we are on the same page when it comes to "more talented players" being able to better adapt to a new system. It is probably what helped to make them a better player. Take Aaron Rodgers for example. He is playing a very complex position at a very complex level, but I have full confidence that he could play at a high level with almost any team. How long would that take though? Just the off season or a few games? If Aaron Rodger was on the open market today, what would his perceived VS. actual value be to the Packers as opposed to the Cleveland Browns?

But if you take a guy like John Kuhn and place a value on him, I think that value is higher to the Packers then it would be for most teams. Also I am not equating "value" with final contracted amount (perceived value). I think that is where we see TT step out of the picture and say "fine, you can have him, your perceived value is higher then ours."

You are also right, many teams make the mistake of over valuing their own players for various reasons. However, this is done even more frequently in the Free agent market IMO. I still contend that a GM's job of determining his own players value is easier then trying to determine the value of another teams player being brought over to his team. Sometimes this value can be higher, as I think it would be in Kuhn's case. John Kuhn has/had become an intricate part of the Packers offense, would he be able to recreate that with another team and QB? Basically, there are 11+ moving parts on the offense and if you took 1 of those parts out and substituted in an equally talented but unfamiliar part, logic would say, things will change.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think we are on the same page when it comes to "more talented players" being able to better adapt to a new system. It is probably what helped to make them a better player. Take Aaron Rodgers for example. He is playing a very complex position at a very complex level, but I have full confidence that he could play at a high level with almost any team. How long would that take though? Just the off season or a few games? If Aaron Rodger was on the open market today, what would his perceived VS. actual value be to the Packers as opposed to the Cleveland Browns?

But if you take a guy like John Kuhn and place a value on him, I think that value is higher to the Packers then it would be for most teams. Also I am not equating "value" with final contracted amount (perceived value). I think that is where we see TT step out of the picture and say "fine, you can have him, your perceived value is higher then ours."

You are also right, many teams make the mistake of over valuing their own players for various reasons. However, this is done even more frequently in the Free agent market IMO. I still contend that a GM's job of determining his own players value is easier then trying to determine the value of another teams player being brought over to his team. Sometimes this value can be higher, as I think it would be in Kuhn's case. John Kuhn has/had become an intricate part of the Packers offense, would he be able to recreate that with another team and QB? Basically, there are 11+ moving parts on the offense and if you took 1 of those parts out and substituted in an equally talented but unfamiliar part, logic would say, things will change.

Kuhn is the rare example of a player only having value to the Packers. With that being said Thompson hasn't overpaid to re-sign him in the past because he's well aware no other team would even offer him a contract.

It seems like once he's afraid some teams could be interested in one of the Packers free agents he tends to dish out too much money to retain them.

Once again, I think knowledge of a system is completely overrated in most cases when talking about veteran NFL players.

 

[jrock645]

In all fairness to the Lynch thing... Yeah we won the SB without him in 2010, but how much could he have changed things in 11 and 12? Yes, the 11 defense was atrocious, but the complete lack of an ability to run the ball despite being dared to do it was just as big of a deal. If the Pack could've run on that two deep safety gameplan the Giants beat them with, things could have gone a lot differently. And I think we all remember how bad the running game was in 12. Yeah, it's in the past and it's done but I get why people still mention it.

 

[Half Empty]

Some players do give a "home-town discount", and Ted has certainly taken advantage of that (Jordy Nelson, for example).

And some players don't. And some just want out (think Greg Jennings).

I was strictly talking in terms of overpaying for one's own free agents. A 'home town discount' to me is a player taking less from his current team, even though he could get more on the open market. What I meant was that he wouldn't get a higher offer because the other teams wouldn't value him as highly as his own. Might be splitting hairs, though, so back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[Jerellh528]

If a player's value is worth more to his own team than other teams, why would his team pay over market value? That is like the opposite of smart decision making.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If a player's value is worth more to his own team than other teams, why would his team pay over market value? That is like the opposite of smart decision making.

To resign the player?

If the Dolphins offer Packer Player X $2M/year and TT sees this player as having a value of $2.5 M to the Packers and signs him for $2.1M. While some may view this as over paying by $100K, it can also be viewed as underpaying by $400K.

Perceived (Market) value can differ from actual value to any given team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

To resign the player?

If the Dolphins offer Packer Player X $2M/year and TT sees this player as having a value of $2.5 M to the Packers and signs him for $2.1M. While some may view this as over paying by $100K, it can also be viewed as underpaying by $400K.

Perceived (Market) value can differ from actual value to any given team.

The problem being that I don't think any other team out there even offered close to as much money as the Packers paid for Perry, Crosby and Starks as well to a lesser extent Guion and Taylor.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The problem being that I don't think any other team out there even offered close to as much money as the Packers paid for Perry, Crosby and Starks as well to a lesser extent Guion and Taylor.

I'm not convinced yet that TT way overpaid and/or didn't have competition from other teams for most of the resigns. We may never know. Crosby, I think you are correct, but we have beat that issue to death for the reasons for and against.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not convinced yet that TT way overpaid and/or didn't have competition from other teams for most of the resigns. We may never know. Crosby, I think you are correct, but we have beat that issue to death for the reasons for and against.

Well, Guion and Crosby were re-signed before any other team was even allowed talking to them.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, Guion and Crosby were re-signed before any other team was even allowed talking to them.

As was Mike Daniels, but that doesn't mean he was overpaid. Like I said, Crosby, it totally looks like an overpay to many. Guion, I think the Packers had inklings over Raji's news and didn't want to risk losing both guys. Starks and Perry, do we know what the highest offer they got from other teams was? Or are we just assuming a lot lower then what the Packers paid? Are we saying the Packers over paid them based on their perceived talent in our opinions or based on what other teams were offering?

While saying we overpaid or underpaid for a players is kind of speculative and subjective without more information, the true test will be what those players do in 2016. Contract signings is never an exact science and you win some and lose some, hopefully in the long run you win more then you lose.

 

[Pkrjones]

Well, Guion and Crosby were re-signed before any other team was even allowed talking to them.

There are "informal discussions" WAY, WAY before teams are allowed to talk... and I'm pretty sure all GM's/scouting staffs are doing it, so the market-value is known to them much sooner than the press guys "leak" stuff.

Goodell should just open things up and stop penalizing those he chooses for premature talks.

 

[PackerDNA]

As was Mike Daniels, but that doesn't mean he was overpaid. Like I said, Crosby, it totally looks like an overpay to many. Guion, I think the Packers had inklings over Raji's news and didn't want to risk losing both guys. Starks and Perry, do we know what the highest offer they got from other teams was? Or are we just assuming a lot lower then what the Packers paid? Are we saying the Packers over paid them based on their perceived talent in our opinions or based on what other teams were offering?

While saying we overpaid or underpaid for a players is kind of speculative and subjective without more information, the true test will be what those players do in 2016. Contract signings is never an exact science and you win some and lose some, hopefully in the long run you win more then you lose.

I don't know- could be wrong- that Perry got offers from other teams.
This has been a point of contention for me and others here. Guion gets signed early for just over $3M per cap wise. It's said they'd made an offer to Rajji, which probably would have been the same or a little more.
Knighton and Hicks go for 4.5M- Knighton for 1 year. Fairley goes for one year with a stretched out signing bonus; cap hit 1.5M.
We were in such a rush for Guion and Rajji when better players could have been had for about the same or less?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We were in such a rush for Guion and Rajji when better players could have been had for about the same or less?

Better players for less money is always nice. I would think that is TT's goal? But the term "better" can be subjective and vary depending on who you are talking to and about. Other factors to consider would be, does that particular player fit into the team TT is building? What is that guys character? Did that player want to play in GB? Basically, there are many things other then stats that go into a full evaluation of a player and I as a fan, have to put my faith in the Packer organization when it comes to evaluating the less obvious things.

 

[PackerDNA]

I'd still take Knighton , Hicks or Fairley over both Guion and Rajji in a heartbeat.

 

[jrock645]

I'd still take Knighton , Hicks or Fairley over both Guion and Rajji in a heartbeat.

ain't that the truth... I still REALLY hope we go DT early in this draft. This defense will never reach it's potential without a true space eating NT to plug up the middle and hold the point.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As was Mike Daniels, but that doesn't mean he was overpaid. Like I said, Crosby, it totally looks like an overpay to many. Guion, I think the Packers had inklings over Raji's news and didn't want to risk losing both guys. Starks and Perry, do we know what the highest offer they got from other teams was? Or are we just assuming a lot lower then what the Packers paid? Are we saying the Packers over paid them based on their perceived talent in our opinions or based on what other teams were offering?

While saying we overpaid or underpaid for a players is kind of speculative and subjective without more information, the true test will be what those players do in 2016. Contract signings is never an exact science and you win some and lose some, hopefully in the long run you win more then you lose.

I truly like the Daniels deal and think Thompson did a fantastic job getting him to sign a moderate contract.

While it's true that projecting a player's impact is a vital part of contract negotiations past performances have to be accounted for as well.

Rotational and backup players should be paid as such and not close to starter money though.

There are "informal discussions" WAY, WAY before teams are allowed to talk... and I'm pretty sure all GM's/scouting staffs are doing it, so the market-value is known to them much sooner than the press guys "leak" stuff.

That would be considered tampering and while I agree that it happens from time to time there's no proof to support every team does it.