Packers release Brad Jones

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Haven't read back far enough to know if this has been mentioned or not, but there's a fly in the ointment regarding Hawk. The Packers can't release him without him taking a physical. Since he had surgery less than a month ago, it's unlikely that could happen anytime soon, almost certainly not by the time free agency begins or his roster bonus is due.
Could be looking at 'one more year', like it or not.

I don´t know where you´ve got the information from but the Packers can release Hawk whenever they want. He could file an injury grievance in that case but IMO he won´t have any chance to win such a claim.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,451
Reaction score
1,507
Don't recall or have time right now, Cap, but I'll track it down for you later. Also, remember that teams -don't know if it still holds true- were unable to just release injured players.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Don't recall or have time right now, Cap, but I'll track it down for you later. Also, remember that teams -don't know if it still holds true- were unable to just release injured players.

I took a look at the CBA and there´s no article in it preventing a team from releasing a player during the offseason because of injury. As I mentioned before the released player could file an injury grievance but IMO there´s no chance he will win such a claim when he was able to play in the team´s last game and would most likely be able to pass a preseason physical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fanindaup

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
188
Reaction score
17
Location
Calumet, Michigan
I know that I keep expecting to hear AJ has been released and I find myself somewhat mystified it hasn't happened yet. I can visualize him in a reserve role but not at his current price tag.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
I know that I keep expecting to hear AJ has been released and I find myself somewhat mystified it hasn't happened yet. I can visualize him in a reserve role but not at his current price tag.

If he was willing to take a pay CUT, not a restructure of any kind, I'd be fine with him back. $1 to $1.5 base with incentives or something like that. At nearly $5 million though not a chance.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
If he was willing to take a pay CUT, not a restructure of any kind, I'd be fine with him back. $1 to $1.5 base with incentives or something like that. At nearly $5 million though not a chance.

Likely to be earned incentives count against the cap though. Because the numbers for LTBE incentives are based on a player´s performance during the prior season it would make it pretty easy for Hawk to earn them as he had only 0.5 sacks and no turnover play in 2014. No, thanks!!!

EDIT: I made a mistake thinking about incentives likely or not likely to be earned. Please take a look at post #85 for an explanation.

Nevertheless I still don´t see the need to bring Hawk back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
Likely to be earned incentives count against the cap though. Because the numbers for LTBE incentives are based on a player´s performance during the prior season it would make it pretty easy for Hawk to earn them as he had only 0.5 sacks and no turnover play in 2014. No, thanks!!!

LTBE?
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
Likely To Be Earned, mentioned it in the first sentence of my previous post.

Ahhhh yes now I see it lol. I see so incentives are based off of previous years performances? And since his performance was so awful last year it wouldn't take much to reach them is what you're saying?
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Ahhhh yes now I see it lol. I see so incentives are based off of previous years performances? And since his performance was so awful last year it wouldn't take much to reach them is what you're saying?

OK, I´m sorry but I´m not capable of explaining it in the correct way so here´s an excerpt out of the CBA explaining it:

Any and all incentive amounts, including but not limited to performance bonuses, shall be included in Team Salary if they are “likely to be earned” during such League Year based upon the player’s and/or Team’s performance during the prior year. In the case of a Veteran who did not play during the prior season, in the event that the NFL and the NFLPA cannot agree as to whether such performance bonus is “likely to be earned,” such disputes shall be referred to the Impartial Arbitrator. Any incentive in year one of a Rookie Contract (as described in Article 7, Section 6) shall be deemed “likely to be earned.” Any incentive within the sole control of the player (e.g., non-guaranteed reporting bonuses, offseason workout and weight bonuses) shall be deemed “likely to be earned.”

I hope that helps.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,488
Reaction score
1,820
Ahhhh yes now I see it lol. I see so incentives are based off of previous years performances? And since his performance was so awful last year it wouldn't take much to reach them is what you're saying?
My guess is that if Hawk was offered an incentive laden contract, it would be NLTBE since he had low production last year.
 

fanindaup

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
188
Reaction score
17
Location
Calumet, Michigan
In any case I think we all agree on the premise of AJ coming back for another year if he agrees to a minimum type deal or telling him to hit the road and take what he can get for an injury settlement or getting outright cut. Otherwise IMHO he's taking up a roster space from someone who is younger, faster and hungrier.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Another reason I don't see PFF as the bible.
It's not uncommon for PFF to give guys an isolated high grade in one season only to have them regress to the mean in the next. I wouldn't put any stock in a players first PFF high grade.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I don´t know where you´ve got the information from but the Packers can release Hawk whenever they want. He could file an injury grievance in that case but IMO he won´t have any chance to win such a claim.
That came from Demovsky's blog the other day.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,087
Reaction score
1,332

I'll take a stab at it.

A likely to be earned (LTBE) incentive is an incentive that a player would have met the year before. Take Randall Cobb for example. If the Packers were to give him a contract with a 1 million dollar incentive if he catches 12 TD passes in 2015 that incentive would be considered LTBE since he caught 12 in 2014 and it would count against the 2015 salary cap. If they make it a 1 million dollar incentive if he catches 15 TD passes in 2015 that would be considered and unlikely to be earned incentive (ULTBE) and would not count against the 2015 cap. If he were to catch 15 TDs in 2015 and earn the 1 million it would be counted against the 2016 salary cap. I think, but I'm not certain, if a player does not reach a LTBE incentive the team receives a cap credit the following year since it was counted in the current year but was not ultimately paid.

That is one reason teams are not as keen on lots of incentives for cap management. A contract with lots of ULTBE incentives is probably not going to be accepted by the player and LTBE incentives count against the cap anyway so the team doesn't gain much. Also, ULTBE incentives can leave the cap for future years up in the air. Lets say you offer your RB 1 million dollars each if he A) leads the league in rushing yards. B) leads in rushing TDs. C) Leads the league in total yards. D) Makes the pro bowl E) wins the MVP. Now if he had done any of those things the year before those incentives would be LTBE and would count against the cap. If he hadn't done any of those things they would be ULTBE and would not count against the cap. However, there is a potential for an extra 5 million to be counted against the cap next year if the player does all 5 of those. Now one would probably be happy to pay your RB an extra 5 million if he were to accomplish these things but that sudden 5 million counted against your cap next year could make things tight.

Every contract is examined by the league to determine if incentives are likely or unlikely to be earned and the LTBE are counted against the cap. After every season all incentives are looked at again to determine if they were or were not earned and actions toward toward the cap are made accordingly. In some cases incentive can be considered LTBE even if the player did not reach them the year before. In Hawk's case even though he only had a half a sack in 2014 I'm guessing the NFL would consider a 1 sack incentive LTBE even though he did not have a full sack 2014. A 5 or even 3 sack incentive would probably be considered ULTBE.

Sorry for the length but I hope it helps. Didn't mean to hijack your posts Captain just trying to help.
 

Curly Calhoun

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,075
Reaction score
519
Thompson thanks Brad Jones for his contributions and dedication to the Packers over the past six years.


Last year, the packers started to address the safety position by first dumping McMillian, then Jennings (M.D.). I believe this is the beginning of addressing the ILB position.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
In any case I think we all agree on the premise of AJ coming back for another year if he agrees to a minimum type deal or telling him to hit the road and take what he can get for an injury settlement or getting outright cut. Otherwise IMHO he's taking up a roster space from someone who is younger, faster and hungrier.

I think a lot of posters on this forum don´t want Hawk back even if he agrees to a minimum deal.

That came from Demovsky's blog the other day.

Thanks, HardRightEdge; I just got in and see you've saved me some time. I got it off a link on the Packers page on www.sportspyder.com .

After taking a look at the CBA I´m quite confident Demovsky messed it up and the Packers can release Hawk whenever they want to.
 

Curly Calhoun

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,075
Reaction score
519
I think a lot of posters on this forum don´t want Hawk back even if he agrees to a minimum deal.



That might be true, but I'm pretty sure posters on this forum don't get a vote in it.

My guess is that A.J. will be asked to restructure once again, he'll agree to it, and come back in a reduced role again next season. That's just a guess, mind you, but one based on his and Ted's history.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
The more time passes and he's not cut, the more likely it is he remains with the team. Even if the ankle was slowing him down, i'm not sure he comes back with enough to make a difference. Maybe they're just hanging on to see how things play out? Maybe they're hanging on out of some respect? let him have surgery, use facilities and doctors to heal, then cut before camp so he can try out for other teams once he's healed?

Who knows at this point. I'd like to see at least 2, hopefully 3 guys NOT on this team already brought in to compete for the ILB position. I don't care if it's thru draft or FA but they all could be upgraded. We could do worse, but not much. Lots of room for improvement with that group.
 

Curly Calhoun

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,075
Reaction score
519
Maybe we'll see a little more of Carl Bradford this year. To this point, he's been a zero; let's hope that changes.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
After taking a look at the CBA I´m quite confident Demovsky messed it up and the Packers can release Hawk whenever they want to.
Have you rethought your original assumption that an injury settlement would be required?

Such a settlement is a product of negotiation between the team and the player and involves by rule a projection of games missed. Would that require a team medical exam as Demovsky noted? Or would an operation for ankle bone spurs with 7 months recovery time be regarded as de facto non-disabling?

In any case, the league year starts March 10. On that date teams must be under the top-51 salary cap and free agency begins. If Hawk is neither released or renegotiated by that date, his full 2015 cap hit will be on the books. That could impact planning for free agent signings, the Packers own or otherwise.

If nothing else, the fact Hawk went in for the operation immediately after the playoffs would indicate he's not contemplating retirement.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top