Restructuring of Contracts

[RepStar15]

I think most of us have come to the conclusion that one or more of the following need to agree to a restructure of contract to stay in green and gold next season: Nelson, Cobb, Matthews. I am just curious about how this process works. Will the new GM look to get those contracts restructured before the draft or after? My inclination would say that you wait until the last few weeks of preseason when teams (mostly) have their cap situations figured out and if one of the three want to test the market, it is more likely teams will not dish out the dough. Maybe I am completely off and you want to do it early before those ever so common preseason injuries take away the Julian Edelmans of the team and make Jordy Nelson look more appealing? I do not know, I am just looking for any sort of insider knowledge on if and when we might see these deals get done? I personally, would like to see it before the draft—especially at the WR position.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think most of us have come to the conclusion that one or more of the following need to agree to a restructure of contract to stay in green and gold next season: Nelson, Cobb, Matthews. I am just curious about how this process works. Will the new GM look to get those contracts restructured before the draft or after? My inclination would say that you wait until the last few weeks of preseason when teams (mostly) have their cap situations figured out and if one of the three want to test the market, it is more likely teams will not dish out the dough. Maybe I am completely off and you want to do it early before those ever so common preseason injuries take away the Julian Edelmans of the team and make Jordy Nelson look more appealing? I do not know, I am just looking for any sort of insider knowledge on if and when we might see these deals get done? I personally, would like to see it before the draft—especially at the WR position.

In my opinion it would be best to restructure any or all of those contracts before the start of free agency as that would increase the cap space available to use on veterans from other teams.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's the way it works:

The GM makes an offer which says, "take a pay cut or we're letting you loose". That in itself does not exactly make the the player happy.

If the player thinks the offer is a low ball, then he goes from unhappy to p*ssed off.

If the GM waits until after free agency is well underway, the player gets extra p*ssed off having preferred to be released before teams fill needs. At that point it would look to the player like he's being jacked around.

It's a tricky business, easier said than done, for all parties to be satisfied. That's why it doesn't happen very often.

Throwing signing bonuses at these players to make up the difference and defer the problem is no solution.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not in favor of pushing any money down the road for these guys. Cut them now and try and replace or let them play it out, the money comes off naturally and we have lots of room cap wise and roster wise to replace guys. Restructuring now isn't going to give us big room to sign big impact guys really and it just limits us down the road.

I say cut a WR if you must, but that will only be after draft and some camp probably, but most likely let them all play it out. Make some smaller moves and probably with draft picks to make sure we draft the players we want, give them a year, then make the moves next year. We're not out of it, but we're not exactly poised to win it all this year either. Sure with some luck we could, but I think we really position ourselves for a couple year run if we play our cards right with the situation we're currently in rather than try shifting things around to make this team marginally better this year and suffer for it for the next 3

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

IMO the Packers are somewhat in the driver's seat on all 3 contracts, as far as being able to say to the players "take a pay cut or Adiós", if they do it now. All 3 players are on the last year of a contract that is paying them too much, at least in the the eyes of most of us. Also, the dead cap hit VS the cap savings doesn't warrant keeping any of them. Each player has to think to themselves "if I am cut, where do I end up and what kind of money will I make?" That money plus a little extra for taking a paycut, should be what they target with the Packers on a 1 or 2 year extension.

Now each of the 3 players has one thing in their favor and they know it. The Packers don't have a player currently on the roster that appears to be ready to take their roster spot and produce at the same or higher level. Which is why the negotiations should be done BEFORE Free Agency hits. Play your poker game, see where the chips fall and recover what you lost, with the money you saved in the Free Agent market. If the Packers wait and don't do a thing until after the draft, they may have just handcuffed themselves into having to pay all 3 guys for another year.

Now MM, Pettine and Philbin might be saying to Gut, "we can't live without these guys" and nothing but preparing for their departure in 2019 will be done and that will get done via the draft.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Here's the way it works:

The GM makes an offer which says, "take a pay cut or we're letting you loose". That in itself does not exactly make the the player happy.

If the player thinks the offer is a low ball, then he goes from unhappy to p*ssed off.

If the GM waits until after free agency is well underway, the player gets extra p*ssed off having preferred to be released before teams fill needs. At that point it would look to the player like he's being jacked around.

It's a tricky business, easier said than done, for all parties to be satisfied. That's why it doesn't happen very often.

Throwing signing bonuses at these players to make up the difference and defer the problem is no solution.

I remember this being done a few years back to AJ Hawk. To his credit, he did not raise a stink about it in the media (at least, to my admittedly less-than-perfect recollection). There's definitely to an art to such a negotiation, and this will be a test for the new G.M.

I'd like to keep at least two of the three around, but not at any price. It will be interesting theater to see how this plays out.

 

[gbgary]

you only cut lose if you already have someone better. better is the keyword. don't cut in hopes of signing someone better. sign the guy first and then cut lose.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

you only cut lose if you already have someone better. better is the keyword. don't cut in hopes of signing someone better. sign the guy first and then cut lose.

Agree and I didn't word it very well in my scenario, but yes.....hang on to them until you have a capable replacement signed. However, I do think all 3 players are worth negotiating with BEFORE Free agency hits, to see if you even need to replace them. Kind of sucks for the 3 players, to still be under contract, knowing they may get cut, but not being able to explore the free agent market until that happens. But that is the part that favors the Packers and the players and their agents will have to consider.

 

[sschind]

Here's the way it works:

The GM makes an offer which says, "take a pay cut or we're letting you loose". That in itself does not exactly make the the player happy.

If the player thinks the offer is a low ball, then he goes from unhappy to p*ssed off.

If the GM waits until after free agency is well underway, the player gets extra p*ssed off having preferred to be released before teams fill needs. At that point it would look to the player like he's being jacked around.

It's a tricky business, easier said than done, for all parties to be satisfied. That's why it doesn't happen very often.

Throwing signing bonuses at these players to make up the difference and defer the problem is no solution.

Signing bonuses can be a solution or at least help if the team is seriously interested in keeping the player around for a few more years. If they make a lowball offer obviously they only want the guy if he is cheap so in that case its probably not a good idea but if the Packers want to keep Nelson around for 2 more years after this season converting a few extra million into a signing bonus in exchange for a lower cap hit this year can work out. Yes there is risk that the player won't pan out and you will be stuck with more dead money in 2 years but if done correctly it wouldn't be any more difficult to deal with than the huge cap hit this year.

I should add that the less cap space you have and the more help you need the more sense it makes. If you have plenty of cap space or you don't have a lot of needs it makes less sense as freeing up cap space for improvement this year is the main impetus behind such a move.

That all said I am perfectly fine with cutting all three this year BUT they need to replace them with a high degree of urgency. They can't look at it like "we will cut these guys loose and see what we can get to replace them with" It has to be "we will cut these guys loose and go out and get someone to replace them who is just as good" That probably means free agency.

I'm also fine with letting all three play out their contracts and seeing where things go from there but in that case you also have to look at it as if their departure after this year is a foregone conclusion and they have to look at that as well. This could be FA or the draft.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Here's the way it works:

The GM makes an offer which says, "take a pay cut or we're letting you loose". That in itself does not exactly make the the player happy.

If the player thinks the offer is a low ball, then he goes from unhappy to p*ssed off.

If the GM waits until after free agency is well underway, the player gets extra p*ssed off having preferred to be released before teams fill needs. At that point it would look to the player like he's being jacked around.

It's a tricky business, easier said than done, for all parties to be satisfied. That's why it doesn't happen very often.

Throwing signing bonuses at these players to make up the difference and defer the problem is no solution.

I think the way this will have to work is to cut them. Hope they don't get signed big deals in free agency. And pick them up at new market value a couple weeks later. Not sure what that is, but it's a better option than full current contracts.

I'd personally like to keep Nelson for stability while we find new young wrs. Cobb I can live without. Mathews I can live without. Nelson I'm remembering what happened when he blew his acl, and I'd like to keep him for insurance it doesn't happen again. Hopefully a big time rookie steps in and takes his place sooner than later.

 

[Mondio]

if any of those guys were cut and it wasn't in place before hand like with Hawk, that they'd be signed back for an already agreed upon contract, there's a good chance GB would be bidding against other suitors again to the point they wouldn't be re-signed.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think the way this will have to work is to cut them. Hope they don't get signed big deals in free agency. And pick them up at new market value a couple weeks later. Not sure what that is, but it's a better option than full current contracts.

I'd personally like to keep Nelson for stability while we find new young wrs. Cobb I can live without. Mathews I can live without. Nelson I'm remembering what happened when he blew his acl, and I'd like to keep him for insurance it doesn't happen again. Hopefully a big time rookie steps in and takes his place sooner than later.

You can live without Matthews? Who are you going to replace him with?

 

[mradtke66]

You can't really restructure any of them. It has to be cut and re-sign or extension.

That said, there is one trick available to them that if I understand correctly, would let each of them make their money and keep the cap number low.

The trick is "unlikely to be earned" escalators. As I understand it, if a player earns the unlikely to be earned metric, it doesn't count against the cap unless they hit it. So, give Nelson an 600 yard incentive and 800. He didn't make it last year. If he hits them, maybe he earns close to his current number. Keep the base salary low.

Do something similar for Matthews. 9 sacks?

The downside to both is you'd likely have to extend them in order for them to agree to the deal. Which includes some kind of signing bonus. There's no free lunch here.

Cobb is difficult due to his age. He owns the most leverage. Someone else will give him at least a 1 year deal to prove it and still have time to sign another big contract.

 

[Mondio]

You can live without Matthews? Who are you going to replace him with?

Dontari Poe, duh

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You can live without Matthews? Who are you going to replace him with?

Fackrell, biegel, Gibson, Odom, a rookie, and we are fine.

 

[GleefulGary]

Fackrell, biegel, Gibson, Odom, a rookie, and we are fine.

Lmao. You're kidding, right?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why cut any of them UNTIL you find a replacement? Bring all 3 to the table before free agency starts, see if they are willing to renegotiate their contracts, if they aren't, go into Free Agency, the draft and camp knowing what you need to do. If you find replacements before the final 53, let the cuts begin. Besides workout bonuses, the "big" money doesn't kick in until they make the 53. I think this was the approach they used with Sitton to some extent. They realized Taylor was ready and cut Sitton.

Probably won't be a popular decision with other players, but if they were given a chance to renegotiate and/or earn their spot on the roster, business is business.

 

[sschind]

You can't really restructure any of them. It has to be cut and re-sign or extension.

That said, there is one trick available to them that if I understand correctly, would let each of them make their money and keep the cap number low.

The trick is "unlikely to be earned" escalators. As I understand it, if a player earns the unlikely to be earned metric, it doesn't count against the cap unless they hit it. So, give Nelson an 600 yard incentive and 800. He didn't make it last year. If he hits them, maybe he earns close to his current number. Keep the base salary low.

Do something similar for Matthews. 9 sacks?

The downside to both is you'd likely have to extend them in order for them to agree to the deal. Which includes some kind of signing bonus. There's no free lunch here.

Cobb is difficult due to his age. He owns the most leverage. Someone else will give him at least a 1 year deal to prove it and still have time to sign another big contract.

It only allows them to make their money if they reach the incentive which, if you make them low enough as in the example you gave for Nelson, may not be an issue. As far as the Salary cap is concerned unlikely to be earned incentives don't count against this years cap but if they are reached it counts against next years cap. I think one reason why you don't see a lot of them is teams don't like the uncertainty of not knowing where they stand. You do see some Pro Bowl or all pro incentives occasionally. If Nick Foles' contract included a 10 million dollar bonus if he was voted Super Bowl MVP the Eagles would be in a much tougher spot next year scrambling to find room to fit an extra 10 million under the cap even if they cut or traded him.

You are right that it probably wouldn't be considered a restructure since right now they only have 1 year left. Like you said any reworking of the contract would likely include an extension unless they simply agreed to take less money in 2018 which I don't think will happen. The restructure of the 2018 contract comes in with an extension in that they change the terms of the 2018 numbers. The most frequent change I have heard of is taking part of the salary and converting it to a signing bonus. The advantage to the player is they get a large chunk of money up front instead of waiting it out for the 16 game checks. It may not be much of an incentive for someone who has millions but if they are looking to invest maybe a huge windfall might be enough to convince them. The thing is restructuring of this sort rarely involves the player making less money, it just changes the accounting process and when it is paid. The advantage to the team is obviously a lower cap hit in the first year but it adds to commitment to the player and pushes any dead money out. Like you said there is no free lunch eventually it all has to count.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Lmao. You're kidding, right?

I posted in another topic the stats from last year...
Mathews 657 snaps, 29 tackles, 8 sacks for $15mil...
Fackrell 448 snaps, 20 tackles, and 3 sacks for 750K...

Extrapolated out fackrell matched Mathews stats, minus 3.5 sacks... fackrell was considered by most to be average at best. Yet you consider Mathews unreplacable?

Fackrell and biegel are the guys. Ted luckily see this coming and drafted olb in the 3rd and fourth round the last couple years. If they aren't the guys, they are the place fillers until we find the guy...

And here is a little reality check. The reason teams have that depth where a super star can get injured, and the team absorbs the loss and carries on. Is because they aren't paying guys 15 mil/yr to produce like a mediocre 2nd yr, 3rd rounder..... granted, he is making 11 this year, but it's free and clear, no dead cap.

Here is the problem. Thompson's window closed, and we need to rebuild. You can purge one year and get iti done... Thompson came in and our two pro bowl guards wahle and Rivera got sent to the glue factory, then drafted a qb in the 1st...

Which brings me to my exclamation point. If you don't plan on replacing #12 in the next three years. You better find a lot of cap space in your master plan...imo#12 is in, and the purge is definite.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Dontari Poe, duh

As promising as having a 340 pound Linebacker sounds, I don't think that will work.

 

[Mondio]

I posted in another topic the stats from last year...
Mathews 657 snaps, 29 tackles, 8 sacks for $15mil...
Fackrell 448 snaps, 20 tackles, and 3 sacks for 750K...

Extrapolated out fackrell matched Mathews stats, minus 3.5 sacks... fackrell was considered by most to be average at best. Yet you consider Mathews unreplacable?

Fackrell and biegel are the guys. Ted luckily see this coming and drafted olb in the 3rd and fourth round the last couple years. If they aren't the guys, they are the place fillers until we find the guy...

And here is a little reality check. The reason teams have that depth where a super star can get injured, and the team absorbs the loss and carries on. Is because they aren't paying guys 15 mil/yr to produce like a mediocre 2nd yr, 3rd rounder..... granted, he is making 11 this year, but it's free and clear, no dead cap.

Here is the problem. Thompson's window closed, and we need to rebuild. You can purge one year and get iti done... Thompson came in and our two pro bowl guards wahle and Rivera got sent to the glue factory, then drafted a qb in the 1st...

Which brings me to my exclamation point. If you don't plan on replacing #12 in the next three years. You better find a lot of cap space in your master plan...imo#12 is in, and the purge is definite.

I agree partially on the "purge" but Wahle and Rivera were due big time money and we were in cap trouble. We're not in cap trouble and we're not rebuilding. the "purge" is already built in to the contracts and the plan. We may have a little dip if we don't get some unexpected jumps in young guys or get some help from outside in a big way that isn't expected, but by next season we could be stocked for another multiyear run to with cap space that will be available naturally.

the numbers might be similar, but Fackerell's level of play looks like Matthews with 1 good arm and playing injured. Last year the difference between Matthews and Fackerell was pretty obvious on the field in terms of speed, strength, disruption and overall energy. Matthews is overpaid to a degree, but I also think a lot of those guys were used in a way to cover weaknesses in the scheme with available players rather than use them to their strengths to actually attack an offense. He's still a better than average pass rusher and his speed and effort of backside run support is excellent. Fackerell? I'm not sure what he's really good at. Occassionally he get's leverage with his long body and can get around an edge, but usually he goes nowhere.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Signing bonuses can be a solution or at least help if the team is seriously interested in keeping the player around for a few more years.

A few more years? There's the rub.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Dontari Poe, duh

What did Thompson get capers, first thing, for his new 3-4 defense?that's right. A center piece nose tackle... the 3-4 doesn't work for crap without one. Clark should be destroying otackles one on one while Poe acts as king stump.
You need three guys who can do the work of 4. That's how I see it. Daniels, Poe, Clark are three guys who all need to be double teamed or they win their battles much too consistently, for the offense to work... then swarm...

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I agree partially on the "purge" but Wahle and Rivera were due big time money and we were in cap trouble. We're not in cap trouble and we're not rebuilding. the "purge" is already built in to the contracts and the plan. We may have a little dip if we don't get some unexpected jumps in young guys or get some help from outside in a big way that isn't expected, but by next season we could be stocked for another multiyear run to with cap space that will be available naturally.

the numbers might be similar, but Fackerell's level of play looks like Matthews with 1 good arm and playing injured. Last year the difference between Matthews and Fackerell was pretty obvious on the field in terms of speed, strength, disruption and overall energy. Matthews is overpaid to a degree, but I also think a lot of those guys were used in a way to cover weaknesses in the scheme with available players rather than use them to their strengths to actually attack an offense. He's still a better than average pass rusher and his speed and effort of backside run support is excellent. Fackerell? I'm not sure what he's really good at. Occassionally he get's leverage with his long body and can get around an edge, but usually he goes nowhere.

I like a lot of what you are saying. Bit I read that after Adams, and Lindsey, rookies, ir futures, etc, we have roughly 10 mil left. Total!. That's what Thompson carried over from last year. So unless we are completely done with players acquisitions, we need to find some cap.

I don't think it's wise to empty what little bit carry over Thompson left us in the cush. With a whole list of free agents leaving, we will need to plug some holes...

Now we release the big three, clearing 34 mil, bringing us to 44 mil roughly... give #12 an extension. Plug my in a couple bandaid veterans. And don't look back. That's how I would handle it. Might drop bulaga and pick up Poe too.

Another option I considered was to bring all the guys back to give McCarthy the best chance to win now. If he loses, he is gone. And Greenbay will get a boat load of good comp picks to help rebuild with rookies.... but in this scenario, #12 isn't signed. I don't like that at all.

 

[GleefulGary]

I posted in another topic the stats from last year...
Mathews 657 snaps, 29 tackles, 8 sacks for $15mil...
Fackrell 448 snaps, 20 tackles, and 3 sacks for 750K...

Extrapolated out fackrell matched Mathews stats, minus 3.5 sacks... fackrell was considered by most to be average at best. Yet you consider Mathews unreplacable?

Fackrell and biegel are the guys. Ted luckily see this coming and drafted olb in the 3rd and fourth round the last couple years. If they aren't the guys, they are the place fillers until we find the guy...

And here is a little reality check. The reason teams have that depth where a super star can get injured, and the team absorbs the loss and carries on. Is because they aren't paying guys 15 mil/yr to produce like a mediocre 2nd yr, 3rd rounder..... granted, he is making 11 this year, but it's free and clear, no dead cap.

Here is the problem. Thompson's window closed, and we need to rebuild. You can purge one year and get iti done... Thompson came in and our two pro bowl guards wahle and Rivera got sent to the glue factory, then drafted a qb in the 1st...

Which brings me to my exclamation point. If you don't plan on replacing #12 in the next three years. You better find a lot of cap space in your master plan...imo#12 is in, and the purge is definite.

Yes, and I responded to that, you must've ignored it.

You can't look at defensive impact with just raw stats. You're missing so much.

If you think Fackrell is anything close to what Matthews is, you are insane. Fackrell is awful. I don't care how much you try to extrapolate the sack numbers, watch the tape. The dude sucks.