1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Report: packers considering tagging Jennings

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
  2. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    I think this report is much ado about nothing. It's the Packers doing their due diligence and possibly trying to create a trade market for him.
     
  3. 7thFloorRA

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,889
    Ratings:
    +832
    I like that this creates some kind of leverage. Jennings handled this like an amateur. Don't be so obvious about your desire to cash in and leave and then put your house up for sale. At least make teams think they had to compete with the pack for your services.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,931
    Ratings:
    +993
    Im not shocked, in fact. I called this in anotherr thread i created. Why would you ust let the guy walk and try not to get anything for him? Or at least have him one more yr? Just didnt make sense. It also shows that the receiving unit is obviously the most important unit on this offense.
     
  5. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    I don't see a team giving anything worthwhile for him.
     
  6. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    I think it was Mike Florio on the radio this morning talking about what the 9ers could get for Alex Smith and he thinks a 3rd rounder at most and a 4th rounder is most likely - probably from KC. If that's the case - and I have no idea if it is - what do you think the market would be for a 30-year old WR coming off an injury? One that will likely be available on the open market? More importantly if tag-and-trade is the intention, look at the huge risk - Jennings signs the tender and no one trades for him - for the very modest gain.

    Again, if the Packers want to tag and keep him, why not try to negotiate a more cap friendly deal?
     
  7. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Ratings:
    +1,371
    What's worthwhile? To me, a 3rd rounder or better is certainly worthwhile, and I don't see why he wouldn't be worth that. We got a 2nd rounder for Corey Williams when we tagged and traded him a few years ago. Similar caliber WR's the last few years are in the range of a 2nd rounder.

    The worst case scenario is that he isn't traded and he's back on a 1 year/$10M or so deal. I don't see how that's a huge risk. It's only a 1 year deal and then you can let him walk, and it's probably around market value for him. If you can make it work under the cap with the other offseason moves that need to be made, I don't see why it would be a bad thing. Best case scenario we get a 2nd day pick to add to TT's arsenal. Worst case scenario Jennings is back in our offense for 1 year and we don't have to risk a long-term deal for him. Seems win/win to me.
     
  8. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    Remember all the talk about how much Matt Flynn was worth and how the Packers should have tagged and traded him? In hindsight it's lucky Thompson and staff are smarter than Packers fans. The Packers likely would have been stuck paying Flynn a huge amount of money and wasted cap space to carry a clipboard.

    Even though if healthy he'd certainly play a lot, paying Jennings $10M for 2013 would be a big mistake IMO and here's why: Thompson and staff no doubt have mapped out the contracts and cap consequences of extending Rodgers, Matthews, and probably Raji. Erasing Woodson's contract and cap number was probably a big part of that so they could get (probably) Matthews done this cap year. If they spend that money and cap space on Jennings, extending one of those players in the 2013 cap year becomes much more difficult: If the Packers are about $20M under the cap if they pay Jennings $10M, the draftees $3-$4M and want to keep $2-$3M available, their cap situation shrinks substantially.

    If it's true Alex Smith who plays the most important position in football and played well in 2011 and part of 2012 isn't worth more than a 3rd rounder, I don't see how Jennings is worth a 3rd. Those advocating for a tag and trade may be overvaluing Jennings' worth on the market, just as we did Flynn's. Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see the Packers tag and trade Jennings for a 1st rounder. I just don't think they'll get substantially more for him than they'll get in compensation.
     
  9. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Ratings:
    +1,371
    IMO, the Flynn/Jennings situations aren't comparable at all. You're talking about a backup QB vs. a high end starting WR.

    Even if the trade market for Jennings was awful and we only got a 4th for him, that's still value. I believe it was a 4th we used last year to trade back up into the 2nd and draft Casey Hayward.

    I agree that if they tag Jennings, they need to be prepared to carry that cap number for him this year, and if it precludes them from extending Rodgers and/or Matthews, it's inadvisable. But they do have some breathing room at the moment and I'm sure the front office has a firm grip on the situation much better than any of us as to whether or not it is feasible. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But I don't think they would at least be talking about it if they didn't.
     
  10. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,931
    Ratings:
    +993

    Exactly. this is a win/win because at least we have our core of Wr's back at least one more year, and if someone wants #85 they have to trade for him now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    Yeah I don't see the point in trying to tag n trade him for a 3rd rounder when we are most likely going to get that in return with a comp pick.

    $10 mil is a substantial fee. That could be used for Rodgers this season. In addition I don't want 1 of our WRs being paid 3x as much as the others when the other WRs are more than likely going to out perform him.
     
  12. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Ratings:
    +1,371
    That's a fair point about the comp pick. I guess I'd rather have a 3rd this year then next, but we won't be getting that kind of comp pick next year either if we plan on making our own moves in free agency.

    To put it another way, they could almost completely offset the franchise tag price on Jennings by releasing Finley. And I assume they'll keep one of Jennings or Finley for next year. So I don't think in any way that a tag for Jennings is going to prevent them from giving extensions to Rodgers and Matthews, which are likely to be long, mostly back-loaded deals.
     
  13. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    See post # 97 on the Sticky Jennings thread. Merge.
     
  14. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    I like next years draft a little better than this years. If the goal is to acquire a pick, the pick is the same round, but one comes at a risk, then you take the safe bet. Jennings could go all finley on the situation and we have prob on our hands.

    It wont prevent extensions but it gives us the option to sign the extensions this year with their increased cap numbers. Could be appealing to have a big first year in terms of the possibility of $ down the rd.
     
  15. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    Brady took larger upfront money it appears in his extension today but much less money overall than he would command on an open market.

    Props to Brady.
     
  16. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,014
    Ratings:
    +358
    If it comes down to franchising Jennings to keep him here for another year and having to release Finley or keeping Finley and having to let Jennings walk I think it should be clear to stick with Finley. Finley is younger, more dynamic and harder to replace than Jennings.

    If we franchise Jennings he will still only likely stick around for that one more year. By franchising him we are also overpaying him for his production. If we want to keep Jennings around why not just sign him to a contract? It would come much cheaper then the franchise tag.

    I think it would be stupid to release Finley just to keep Jennings around for one more year.

    If the point is to tag him and trade him it's a risky bet that I'll bet Thompson's not willing to make. He never has tagged & traded (even with Flynn) and probably never will. As someone said above the pick we trade him for would most likely be around the same as our comp pick anyway. Stupid and won't happen.
     
  17. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Ratings:
    +1,371
    Its not even clear yet though whether we would even be intending to keep Finley around after next year IF we even keep him for next year. Jennings has proven to be an elite player at his position when healthy, Finley has not. Hes not going to be worth 8 million a year unless he can show for a full season that his issues with drops are behind him.
     
  18. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    ● I brought up the Flynn situation regarding fans expectations of his worth in the league - some Packers fans were thinking he was worth a first rounder and that obviously turned out not to be true.

    ● We really don't know how seriously the Packers are considering tagging Jennings. Perhaps they leaked that so Jennings would feel better about the Packers and if he's disappointed by the offers he gets in UFA he may be more likely to come back to Green Bay. But that's just wild a$$ speculation, my point is (luckily) we don't know what's really going on at 1265. One report that's been linked on this forum says Jennings is looking for $13M-$14M/year. If true, YIKES and good luck.

    ● I agree if they tag and keep Jennings they "have" to get rid of Finley. I think the difference between the two is twofold: First, the players behind each - Jennings is much more "replaceable". Second, Finley is going turn 26 on March 26 (I believe that's about the same time his $3M roster bonus is due, so if we don't know before then…). Jennings will be thirty in September. But I think the first point is more important.

    ● It does appear Brady gave the Pats a home town discount, but I haven't seen the details so I'm not positive. (I remember when Favre would accept more money upfront to help the cap many Packers fans misinterpreted that as him helping the Packers to his own financial detriment, which wasn't the case. BTW, I blame Favre for a lot but not that.) Back to Brady: I heard on the radio this morning that Brady is probably the only NFL starting QB who is the second "earner" in his marriage. Last year he and his wife allegedly made about $76M, the majority of that earned by his model-wife. Good for him for not demanding as much as he could but if any player could afford it…

    ● Swansta3, as mentioned elsewhere, Thompson did tag and trade Corey Williams.
     
  19. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,942
    Ratings:
    +2,241


    Here's a report on the terms of Brady's deal:

    http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2013/02/breaking_down_tom_bradys_contract

    sportrac has the same $ figures, but with an additional $7.2 mil in undefined bonuses in the first 2 years.

    He's getting a fresh new signing bonus of $30 mil, of particular value for any player, particularly a guy his age. If sportrac's bonus values are correct, Brady will take down $40 mil in cash money in the first 2 years of the deal. It's a discount only in the sense that Brees' cash take home in the first 2 years of his deal is $50 mil, but NO was looking at a 3rd. time franchise tag (tag amount + 40%) with a bump to about $22 mil cash and cap hit in 2012. Brees had them over a barrel.

    It is a misconception that players are necessarily giving discounts if the renegotiation is "cap friendly" as in the Favre or Brees or Brady cases; to be cap friendly there must be a big signing bonus, as in these cases, which allows the team to defer the cap hit.

    Getting a big fat wad of cash up front, guaranteed, has great value to individuals in a high risk occupation; it's a trade not a discount.
     
  20. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    I think I just read the signing bonus is actually paid out over the next 3 seasons, I assume in order to not kill the team accounting.
     
  21. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,942
    Ratings:
    +2,241
    I'm seeing that rotoworld is reporting something similar, but with $33 mil guaranteed instead of just the $30 mil signing bonus. Nonetheless, the signing bonus is guaranteed, be it in one check or three. Spreading out the actual cash signing bonus would be a matter of an accounting issue, but not in terms of some obscure technical matter...writing a check for $30 mil might deplete operating cash to imprudent levels. $30 mil is somewhere in the vicinity of the an average NFL team's annual net profit.

    In the final analysis, it's the amount of the signing bonus and guarantees that matter, not the average annual amount of the entire contract.
     
  22. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    IMO it doesn't matter in cases of marquee players. The whole thing could have been 1 check. They aren't cutting Brady. He could take a dump on Krafts desk and it wouldn't change a thing
     
  23. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,942
    Ratings:
    +2,241
    I don't even know what you mean.
     
  24. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,049
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    I mean Brady could have every cent guaranteed. It doesn't matter bc they won't be cutting him.
     
  25. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,942
    Ratings:
    +2,241
    There is a reason every cent isn't guaranteed. If there was no reason it would have been.

    They won't be cutting him in the next 2 years anyway; there would be way too much dead cap money. After that, it will be year-to-year.

    If his performance declines, he gets injured, or the team stops winning...there will be issues by year 3. He'll be 38 by then either way. If they have a bad year and get a high pick...the QB of the future will be drafted...and the beat goes on.

    Or just look to the headlines...Nnamdi's 2 years into his 5 year / $60 mil deal, $25 mil guaranteed. All but $4 mil of the guarantee has been paid out. There's no dead cap hangover beyond the $4 mil still due. He's being renegotiated down...or he'll be sent packing.

    Even the elite of the elite don't get guaranteed more than what teams would pay for the next 2 years of elite performance. And if those 2 years are not elite, and the dead cap hangover is not prohibitive, hard choices might be made, and often are.

    Inglorious ends to stellar careers seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
     

Share This Page