Possible cap casualties in 2017

[PikeBadger]

Thompson is not really complex imo, just quiet, reserved and somewhat secretive about management process details. He actually does divulge some tidbits of info during his press conferences but overall is quite protective of his knowledge and processes. I actually enjoy the way he handles business and the media. He uses that water bottle like it's a pacifier.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's a sort of d*mned if you can and a d*mned if you can't situation.

These are not the kinds of players who are wildly overpaid as merely adequate performers who hold onto ether their starting positions or at least a roster spot because of dead cap with the handwriting clearly on the wall. (See Hawk and Jones, 2014).

It's a d*mned if you can situation because if the players' performance falls off you may get cap savings by cutting them but then you have to replace that player's past performance that earned that contract in the first place. Keeping the player with a contract negotiated down amounts to the same thing...the performance that earned the contract in the first place is not longer evident.

Unlike many rosters, there simply are no players hanging around on the Packer roster with merely adequate performance, a big 2016 cap hit and a big 2016 dead cap number, while having a big cap number in 2017 with a sharply dropping dead cap number who would be an obvious choice to cut to get a big chunk of cap space.

As for extensions, pushing cap out a couple of years, the candidates are not so obvious. Here are the top 2017 cap hits and the age at which the current contracts expire:

Rodgers: 2019, age 35
Matthews: 2018, age 32
Cobb: 2018, age 27
Shields: 2017, age 29
Nelson: 2018, age 32
Daniels: 2019, age 30
Bulaga: 2019, age 30
Burnett: 2018, age 29

Given the age of most of these players and the uncertainties relating to performance in the years past those contract expirations, with the exception of Rodgers I don't see anybody here who be worth the risk of an extension knowing what we know now.

 

[Mondio]

I would think Shields, but then he has the concussion thing and injury concern. Cobb had a down year, but could rebound and be in consideration after next season. I'd wait and see on Matthews, Nelson, Daniels just signed his, we're not extending him already. Though I think he's a guy that plays cause he wants to beat you. Give him a dollar or 10 million he's going to try and beat you. Bulaga has too much risk from past injury concerns. Burnett? I could see a situation where he is after this year. He hasn't been the superstar playmaker, but since he's been paired with guys not destined to work their way out of the NFL, he's held everything together back there. But as you said above, are any of these guys worth the risk of extension? I'd say definitely not yet.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The question here is not this player or that player, this group or that group. It's 3 factors in combination:

(1) the number of core and key rotational guys entering 2017 FA, unprecedented during the playoff streak

(2) the amount of 2017 cap space consumed by the core and key rotational guys who are not 2017 FA who you'd think you'd want to keep around for that season

(3) the relative lack of core players on cheap rookie contracts come 2017

The 2015 draft was decent, assuming Montgomery and Rollins can stay healthy while fulfilling what is so far fleeting but unproven promise. This 2016 draft and the 2017 draft together will need to produce about a half dozen core and key rotational players to stay in place. If those drafts look more like 2011 or 2012 than what we would hope 2015 eventually reveals (and that is a hope at this stage), don't be expecting a return to the playoffs.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's a sort of d*mned if you can and a d*mned if you can't situation.

These are not the kinds of players who are wildly overpaid as merely adequate performers who hold onto ether their starting positions or at least a roster spot because of dead cap with the handwriting clearly on the wall. (See Hawk and Jones, 2014).

It's a d*mned if you can situation because if the players' performance falls off you may get cap savings by cutting them but then you have to replace that player's past performance that earned that contract in the first place. Keeping the player with a contract negotiated down amounts to the same thing...the performance that earned the contract in the first place is not longer evident.

Unlike many rosters, there simply are no players hanging around on the Packer roster with merely adequate performance, a big 2016 cap hit and a big 2016 dead cap number, while having a big cap number in 2017 with a sharply dropping dead cap number who would be an obvious choice to cut to get a big chunk of cap space.

As for extensions, pushing cap out a couple of years, the candidates are not so obvious. Here are the top 2017 cap hits and the age at which the current contracts expire:

Rodgers: 2019, age 35
Matthews: 2018, age 32
Cobb: 2018, age 27
Shields: 2017, age 29
Nelson: 2018, age 32
Daniels: 2019, age 30
Bulaga: 2019, age 30
Burnett: 2018, age 29

Given the age of most of these players and the uncertainties relating to performance in the years past those contract expirations, with the exception of Rodgers I don't see anybody here who be worth the risk of an extension knowing what we know now.

With Matthews, Cobb, Nelson and Burnett up, 2018 isn't looking much better cap wise.
Again, without trying to oversimplify, look to salary conversations to signing bonuses as the best way to save cap without extentions. For example, next off season take $3M of Rodgers salary and convert to signing bonus. Instant cap savings of $3M, additional cap hit of $1M every season for the remainder of the contract. I know the Packers don't like to do a lot of fooling around with the cap, but they may not have a choice.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, without trying to oversimplify, look to salary conversations to signing bonuses as the best way to save cap without extentions. For example, next off season take $3M of Rodgers salary and convert to signing bonus. Instant cap savings of $3M, additional cap hit of $1M every season for the remainder of the contract. I know the Packers don't like to do a lot of fooling around with the cap, but they may not have a choice.

In my opinion it doesn´t make sense to convert the base salary into a signing bonus without extending a player´s contract as the team wouldn´t spread out the cap hit over more seasons. The example you gave would only result in $2 million of cap savings for next season as the prorated portion of the signing bonus would count against the 2017 cap.

 

[PackerDNA]

In my opinion it doesn´t make sense to convert the base salary into a signing bonus without extending a player´s contract as the team wouldn´t spread out the cap hit over more seasons. The example you gave would only result in $2 million of cap savings for next season as the prorated portion of the signing bonus would count against the 2017 cap.

It seems to me you agree while saying it doesn't make sense.
The point is you save cap without extending aging players ( which would likely involve pay increases also), a legit concern of posters here.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It seems to me you agree while saying it doesn't make sense.
The point is you save cap without extending aging players ( which would likely involve pay increases also), a legit concern of posters here.

No, I´m not agreeing. While a team saves cap space in the short term it doesn´t over the entire length of the contract though. Teams taking that approach mostly end up having serious cap issues down the road.

 

[PackerDNA]

Over the entire length of the contract has built in options, such as the annual $10M cap increase.
The point is freeing up cap room for that particular season. They can get creative, or let the talent drain begin.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Over the entire length of the contract has built in options, such as the annual $10M cap increase.
The point is freeing up cap room for that particular season. They can get creative, or let the talent drain begin.

It doesn´t make sense to clear cap space in the short term that way and therefore only pushing back the issue and increasing the problem to one of the following seasons.

 

[HardRightEdge]

With Matthews, Cobb, Nelson and Burnett up, 2018 isn't looking much better cap wise.
Again, without trying to oversimplify, look to salary conversations to signing bonuses as the best way to save cap without extentions. For example, next off season take $3M of Rodgers salary and convert to signing bonus. Instant cap savings of $3M, additional cap hit of $1M every season for the remainder of the contract. I know the Packers don't like to do a lot of fooling around with the cap, but they may not have a choice.

There's a reason the Packers don't like "fooling around" with pushing cap out into the future. Imagine if they had done that a couple of years back with a bigger problem resulting in 2017.

Besides, $3 mil in additional cap in one season, as in your example, really doesn't solve anything.

If you want to find a solution using Rodgers, you'd want to convince him he should enter into serial renegotiations that would leave him underpaid by $5 - $6 mil per year like Brady:

http://overthecap.com/player/tom-brady/1250/

There's only one answer: accumulate players who outperform their cap hit, and the key to that is accumulating core players still on their cheap rookie contracts.

 

[PackerDNA]

What doesn't make sense is do nothing, let some key players walk, and then we can all complain how another season of Rodgers career has been wasted. HRE, my example would be more than $3M, since it would encompass more than Rodgers.
This is not something I'm absolutely advocating, nor am I putting it forth as the only or even best option, and certainly not as an 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument. I'm only presenting it as one option.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What doesn't make sense is do nothing, let some key players walk, and then we can all complain how another season of Rodgers career has been wasted.

I would be in favor of restructuring some contracts to save some cap space but only if it involves extending core players. Unfortunately Thompson having overpaid for several mediocre players has led to the team being heading towards cap issues next offseason.

 

[PackerDNA]

I would be in favor of restructuring some contracts to save some cap space but only if it involves extending core players. Unfortunately Thompson having overpaid for several mediocre players has led to the team being heading towards cap issues next offseason.

I know it's a lightning rod statement, but I agree.

 

[Ace]

I would be in favor of restructuring some contracts to save some cap space but only if it involves extending core players. Unfortunately Thompson having overpaid for several mediocre players has led to the team being heading towards cap issues next offseason.

Who has he overpaid for? Shields I can see somewhat but what was the alternative? Bulaga just can't seem to get and/or stay healthy so that contract looks like an overpayment I would agree with that. I can't get on board with the Lane Taylor's and Nick Perry's as being classified as "overpaid".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Who has he overpaid for? Shields I can see somewhat but what was the alternative? Bulaga just can't seem to get and/or stay healthy so that contract looks like an overpayment I would agree with that. I can't get on board with the Lane Taylor's and Nick Perry's as being classified as "overpaid".

Just this offseason Thompson hugely overpaid for Perry, Crosby and Starks as well as to a lesser degree for Guion and Taylor.

 

[Ace]

Just this offseason Thompson hugely overpaid for Perry, Crosby and Starks as well as to a lesser degree for Guion and Taylor.

Perry is a 1 year deal has no effect on next year's cap situation. Crosby fine but I have a hard time getting worked up about that. He also appears to have gotten Daniels at a pretty significant bargain, and furthermore Rodgers cap hit is the 11th highest among QB's in the NFL for 2016, and tied for 7th highest in 2017. So it goes both ways. A team with the talent across the board like the Packers was bound to run into situations like this at some point.

 

[tynimiller]

Just this offseason Thompson hugely overpaid for Perry, Crosby and Starks as well as to a lesser degree for Guion and Taylor.

And the worst part? Not all of those were one year and over type bad deals.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Perry is a 1 year deal has no effect on next year's cap situation. Crosby fine but I have a hard time getting worked up about that. He also appears to have gotten Daniels at a pretty significant bargain, and furthermore Rodgers cap hit is the 11th highest among QB's in the NFL for 2016, and tied for 7th highest in 2017.

With the Packers being allowed to roll over unused cap space into next season Perry´s one year deal affects the cap space in 2017 as well. I agree that the deal Daniels was signed to is a pretty moderate one.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What doesn't make sense is do nothing, let some key players walk, and then we can all complain how another season of Rodgers career has been wasted. HRE, my example would be more than $3M, since it would encompass more than Rodgers.
This is not something I'm absolutely advocating, nor am I putting it forth as the only or even best option, and certainly not as an 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument. I'm only presenting it as one option.

There are other options., of course.

But there's only one Belichick who produces consistently outstanding results with FA rent-a-players, refusing to pay up for his own FAs, vet player trades, and a not particularly impactful collection of guys on cheap rookie contracts, while being penalized 2 first round picks in recent years to boot. Thompson will never be that, not even at the margins.

However, I think it goes much deeper than that,. The Murphy business model is focused on developing a lodging/entertainment destination around the stadium. It's a tourism/convention play. A consistent contender supports the model; an all out push for a SB that will require a subsequent retrenching does not.

While I've already stated, I'd support such a push while accepting the likely consequences. The organization, however, will stay the course, unless and until the team stops making the playoffs.

 

[PackerDNA]

There are other options., of course.

But there's only one Belichick who produces consistently outstanding results with FA rent-a-players, refusing to pay up for his own FAs, vet player trades, and a not particularly impactful collection of guys on cheap rookie contracts, while being penalized 2 first round picks in recent years to boot. Thompson will never be that, not even at the margins.

However, I think it goes much deeper than that,. The Murphy business model is focused on developing a lodging/entertainment destination around the stadium. It's a tourism/convention play. A consistent contender supports the model; an all out push for a SB that will require a subsequent retrenching does not.

While I've already stated, I'd support such a push while accepting the likely consequences. The organization, however, will stay the course, unless and until the team stops making the playoffs.

The first bolded part I see as a bug, not a feature.
The second bolded part; if that is seen as job #1 by Murphy, TT and co., then the team and it's fan's would be better served by the above going into fields such as bank and financial management or as real estate developers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just this offseason Thompson hugely overpaid for Perry, Crosby and Starks as well as to a lesser degree for Guion and Taylor.

It's an obvious play to "keep the band together" for a 2016 push. This is as close as you'll get to a one year push under the current regime.

The liabilities past 2016 associated with these players is minimal. Perry is of course on a one year deal. With the others, a 2017 release would yield cap savings above a rookie replacement cost, with the exception of Crosby. Even with Crosby the dead cap is only $150,000 in 2017, though the term of this particular contract indicates a long term view of the player. That bet can, of course, be undone if he has a repeat of the 2012 season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Even with Crosby the dead cap is only $150,000 in 2017, though the term of this particular contract indicates a long term view of the player.

Releasing Crosby next offseason would result in $3.75 million of dead money counting against the cap and an additional $150K in cap hit compared to holding on to him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The first bolded part I see as a bug, not a feature.
The second bolded part; if that is seen as job #1 by Murphy, TT and co., then the team and it's fan's would be better served by the above going into fields such as bank and financial management or as real estate developers.

I agree that the first bolded statement is a bug. Like I've said before, I'd trade a bona fide SB push for a couple of subsequent rebuilding years missing the playoffs. Of course, if you push and fail, you're f*cked, but I'd like to see it.

As for the second bolded part, it's not like they sit around and talk about it or write into a mission statement (which almost never captures the actual mission). It's more culture, and matching the principles to it. As for these guys being better fits in financial management and real estate development, what do you think running a major league sports franchise is all about? You cannot separate the financials from the entertainment spectacle.

 

[PackerDNA]

In the end, it's about winning, which takes care of a big chunk of the bottom line all by itself.