Tearing it Down

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
1,963
Reaction score
592
Again, GB would be ignorant to force Bakh to be part of a reset/rebuild if he doesn't desire...nor would hanging on to him be looking forward, but instead clinging to be the past.

We survived last year without him, this year for a lot of games...it is only logical for Bakh's future to be on the table as well while he still has proven to be one of the best LT in the game and we are not going to be in contention - you get a decent return for him you grab it asap for the reset/rebuild.

Keeping Bakh is only what our hearts want (I know mine does) however removing emotion and looking for future build it doesn't make a ton of sense at his stage of his career.
Looking at Bahktiari's cap hit is the rational approach. In his case, it may also coincide with the emotional appeal of keeping him around for one more season. I'd be all for moving him if the Packers could get a high draft pick or wouldn't suffer such a huge burden of dead cap costs. The reality is that a trade is not likely so their most rational option is to get some production from their inflated investment.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
Looking at Bahktiari's cap hit is the rational approach. In his case, it may also coincide with the emotional appeal of keeping him around for one more season. I'd be all for moving him if the Packers could get a high draft pick or wouldn't suffer such a huge burden of dead cap costs. The reality is that a trade is not likely so their most rational option is to get some production from their inflated investment.

If you don't think a team in need of a starting LT of his caliber exists sorry I just simply push that aside fervently. His contract isn't by any stretch given what the inheriting team is on deck for with us paying a chunk of it. The team getting him for 2023 and 2024 wouldn't have to pay him much more than $20M which is insanely cheap for a LT of his caliber if he is healthy and present.

Bakh today said he plans and wants to be back next season. I didn't listen to the interview yet but plan to - curios if any mention or hint that that is with or without #12.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
Of course there are teams out there that need a LT. Especially one that can play as well as David. Now, how much are they willing to give up for a guy coming off an injury that kept him out end of '20, pretty much all of '21 and a good chunk of '22 and already into his 30's playing a big boy position? That's the question.

My guess is most want to trade for him like he's a mid grade LT, not an all pro LT. I think it should take pretty good compensation to consider moving on.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
Of course there are teams out there that need a LT. Especially one that can play as well as David. Now, how much are they willing to give up for a guy coming off an injury that kept him out end of '20, pretty much all of '21 and a good chunk of '22 and already into his 30's playing a big boy position? That's the question.

My guess is most want to trade for him like he's a mid grade LT, not an all pro LT. I think it should take pretty good compensation to consider moving on.

Honestly 11 games he gave and all at a VERY high level. So personally the dream is get a 3rd for him that conditionally elevates based on games active. Realistically If I'm a team trading for him I'd consider giving GB a 2023 4th rounder or maybe late 3rd with the 2024 pick being the conditional (start at say a 4th, he is active 75% of games 3rd, more than 90% a 2nd).
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
794
Reaction score
759
Unless the team is just desperate to get his contract off the books ASAP, it feels like one of those situations where his value to the Packers is probably still greater than his value to another interested team...

By that I mean...a "Good deal" (in terms of compensation) for an interested team would probably be a bad deal for us. It would likely present more value for us to simply keep him as he's still a very good player. Like I said, unless we are desperate to start clearing space.
Similarly a "good deal" for us in terms of compensation probably isn't a terribly attractive one for another team; many may be inclined to find a cheaper option, go to the draft, or pay up a bit more for a more favorable situation (age/contract status/health/etc).

Basically the short of it is that it's hard for me to see a Bakh trade that's a clear-cut win for all parties.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
Unless the team is just desperate to get his contract off the books ASAP, it feels like one of those situations where his value to the Packers is probably still greater than his value to another interested team...

By that I mean...a "Good deal" (in terms of compensation) for an interested team would probably be a bad deal for us. It would likely present more value for us to simply keep him as he's still a very good player. Like I said, unless we are desperate to start clearing space.
Similarly a "good deal" for us in terms of compensation probably isn't a terribly attractive one for another team; many may be inclined to find a cheaper option, go to the draft, or pay up a bit more for a more favorable situation (age/contract status/health/etc).

Basically the short of it is that it's hard for me to see a Bakh trade that's a clear-cut win for all parties.

Get ready for such things IF management finally truly steps into and commits to a reset/rebuild whether that is short or long...you don't "win" every deal fiscally. This is purely about building cap space and acquiring draft capital to surge as much young talent and contracts as possible to pull the team out of cap hell and into the future.
 

speakhands

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
88
Reaction score
14
Again, GB would be ignorant to force Bakh to be part of a reset/rebuild if he doesn't desire...nor would hanging on to him be looking forward, but instead clinging to be the past.

We survived last year without him, this year for a lot of games...it is only logical for Bakh's future to be on the table as well while he still has proven to be one of the best LT in the game and we are not going to be in contention - you get a decent return for him you grab it asap for the reset/rebuild.

Keeping Bakh is only what our hearts want (I know mine does) however removing emotion and looking for future build it doesn't make a ton of sense at his stage of his career.

Can you explain Bakh's cap hit significance?
Over the Cap seems to imply that, had we cut him this past offseason, he'd have no more guaranteed money and would be a zero cap hit. But due to not cutting him this past offseason his guaranteed cap hit is like $18 million this year even if we cut him.
Is that correct? Seems like it was a bad move to not try and move him before. Because getting rid of his cap number for 2023 would basically allow the team to keep Lazard and potentially add some more talent elsewhere.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,856
Reaction score
1,766
Location
Northern IL
Can you explain Bakh's cap hit significance?
Over the Cap seems to imply that, had we cut him this past offseason, he'd have no more guaranteed money and would be a zero cap hit. But due to not cutting him this past offseason his guaranteed cap hit is like $18 million this year even if we cut him.
Is that correct? Seems like it was a bad move to not try and move him before. Because getting rid of his cap number for 2023 would basically allow the team to keep Lazard and potentially add some more talent elsewhere.
OTC has zeroed out '22 numbers since the season is over. I'm pretty sure Bakhtiari's dead cap would've been over $42mil had GB cut him prior to '22 season. Not sure if they even could have done so since he was on IR. There is only $6mil cap savings (& $23+ mil dead money) should GB cut or trade Bakhtiari, so wouldn't make much financial sense to move him, IMHO.
 

speakhands

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
88
Reaction score
14
OTC has zeroed out '22 numbers since the season is over. I'm pretty sure Bakhtiari's dead cap would've been over $42mil had GB cut him prior to '22 season. Not sure if they even could have done so since he was on IR. There is only $6mil cap savings (& $23+ mil dead money) should GB cut or trade Bakhtiari, so wouldn't make much financial sense to move him, IMHO.
Okay, thanks. Damn though. Pretty crazy that last year we shed our second highest paid offensive player (who went on to get $28 million per year) and our second highest paid defensive player (who went on to get $14 million per year), added no significant free agents at all, and we're still here in cap hell.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
1,291
Unless the team is just desperate to get his contract off the books ASAP, it feels like one of those situations where his value to the Packers is probably still greater than his value to another interested team...

By that I mean...a "Good deal" (in terms of compensation) for an interested team would probably be a bad deal for us. It would likely present more value for us to simply keep him as he's still a very good player. Like I said, unless we are desperate to start clearing space.
Similarly a "good deal" for us in terms of compensation probably isn't a terribly attractive one for another team; many may be inclined to find a cheaper option, go to the draft, or pay up a bit more for a more favorable situation (age/contract status/health/etc).

Basically the short of it is that it's hard for me to see a Bakh trade that's a clear-cut win for all parties.
He might be worth more now than later as far as compensation.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,224
Reaction score
1,521
Now with more games since this post, season being done and Aaron's presser last night....my reflections are similar to you yet again for the second year I think we should move from Rodgers:

Rodgers needs to retire or we need to trade him - it truly is that simple. If that means we have to behind closed doors tell him Love is our 2023 QB if Rodgers tells them he isn't retiring than so be it.

Players I think we should trade in this reset/tear down:

Bahktiari - there is a chance he retires with knowledge of us entering a rebuild...or I guess he could be agreeable to a trade. His cap numbers are big but he is still a Top 3 LT in many statistics when he played this year and a team could easily with cap space say he is the cornerstone of a SB run in 2023. Are you getting a TON back, probably not, but I could easily see him being the perfect candidate for a conditional pick a team would easily concede a future 2nd or future 1st if they truly get a full season LT play from Bakh (easily).
Jones - if we are entering a rebuild - it just seems like a disservice to him to force him to restructure...if I understand the contract we'd be covering about half his $20M hit for 2023...him at $10M is quite digestible for a team that needs that backfield weapon. He is a special threat which still has a year or two of high production IMO...and this whole fallout runs of 2021 and 2022 merely confirm I never thought we should have paid Jones and not Jamaal...but alas is what it is. Get what you can and go for him.
Preston - I would DESPISE to see him go, but if I'm Gute I and we are entering a reset I am at minimum calling Preston and letting him decide. If he wants to stick it out and help maybe build something special we want him as one of those vets on the defensive side to do it with. If not, his contract is VERY tradeable and he still easily starts for over half the league IMO. It's up to him whether he stays or goes.
Clark - This is a tough one...and depends how DEEP into the waters of reset/rebuild we want to go. Kenny would get sizable return but he is also still young enough to be even more so one of the cornerstones of experience on the defensive side of things. I'd probably give him a courtesy chat like Preston as well honestly.
Campbell - I don't think you get a ton and we don't save hardly anything...he is more tradeable after 2023 or cuttable...I don't see the return worth it for him honestly.
Douglas - I think he might be the safety of this reset/rebuild personally...and like Campbell the savings is minimal but is about $3M so its possible you do it. I don't see more than a Day 3 (most likely late) return on him so I personally say keep.

Resign:

Nixon and Ford....I don't think either are going to cost a lot, they both found success here and I'd bet would love the chance of an elevated role opportunity in the reset/rebuild.

Let Walk:
-Adrian Amos
-Randall Cobb
-Dean Lowry
-Mason Crosby
-Allen Lazard
-Robert Tonyan
-Jarran Reed
-Marcedes Lewis
-Dallin Leavitt
-Eric Wilson
-Justin Hollins
-Yosh Nijman

Pick up the RFAs of Barnes and Davis

Free Agents


We do NOTHING until bargain deal days. This is not the year to spend anything of real substance.
My big frustration is that our " other " D linemen did not really step up when Kenny was doubled. And could we have used Gary last night. One play could have changed the outcome.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Jones - if we are entering a rebuild - it just seems like a disservice to him to force him to restructure...if I understand the contract we'd be covering about half his $20M hit for 2023...him at $10M is quite digestible for a team that needs that backfield weapon.

Taking a look at Jones' current contract, a team acquiring him would have to pay him $16 million next season.

Campbell - I don't think you get a ton and we don't save hardly anything...he is more tradeable after 2023 or cuttable...I don't see the return worth it for him honestly.

The Packers would actually take an additional cap hit by moving on from Campbell.

Jones - Can't afford to keep, unfortunately. Save the $10.4Mil on the cap & let him move on to a bigger payday.

The Packers could afford to keep Jones by restructuring his contract. That wouldn't be smart if they want to enter 2023 as a rebuild year though.

Bakh staying if Rodgers moves on (trade or retire) is something GB needs to allow him to decide. We've got Jenkins and Tom for LT with current roster into 2023 worst case.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with either Jenkins or Tom entering the season as the starter at left tackle.

If you don't think a team in need of a starting LT of his caliber exists sorry I just simply push that aside fervently. His contract isn't by any stretch given what the inheriting team is on deck for with us paying a chunk of it. The team getting him for 2023 and 2024 wouldn't have to pay him much more than $20M which is insanely cheap for a LT of his caliber if he is healthy and present.

For the record, a team acquiring Bakhtiari would be on the hook for $39 million over the next two seasons.

Honestly 11 games he gave and all at a VERY high level. So personally the dream is get a 3rd for him that conditionally elevates based on games active. Realistically If I'm a team trading for him I'd consider giving GB a 2023 4th rounder or maybe late 3rd with the 2024 pick being the conditional (start at say a 4th, he is active 75% of games 3rd, more than 90% a 2nd).

I definitely would prefer to hold on to Bakhtiari instead of trading him for a third rounder.

Okay, thanks. Damn though. Pretty crazy that last year we shed our second highest paid offensive player (who went on to get $28 million per year) and our second highest paid defensive player (who went on to get $14 million per year), added no significant free agents at all, and we're still here in cap hell.

The Packers re-signed some of their own free agents last offseason and extended Rodgers contract though.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
My big frustration is that our " other " D linemen did not really step up when Kenny was doubled. And could we have used Gary last night. One play could have changed the outcome.

See I disagree, Slaton and Wyatt both in the final three games put forth some of their best work and games. Reed was not a slouch at all most of the season. We will lose Reed and Lowry most likely this off season, I wouldn't be shocked one bit if we could see us go after an athletic big man to recoup some of that loss. Slaton and Wyatt both show they could be quite strong moving forward.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
Taking a look at Jones' current contract, a team acquiring him would have to pay him $16 million next season.



The Packers would actually take an additional cap hit by moving on from Campbell.

Yeah I messed up Campbell, but Jones I'm not seeing what you are Capt. Wouldn't we be on the bill for about $9.5M of it?
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
I have no interest in trading David Bakhtiari for a 3rd rounder

Many of us don't...shoot even I who bring it up doesn't want to. However, what many of us have to be able to do is understand and acknowledge IF we reset/rebuild post Rodgers...moves like this - the hard, the unwanted are exactly what you have to do if you have any chance of resetting things quicker.

If Bakh wants to be here post-Rodgers I'm not forcing him out - having a veteran presence like he and say Preston on the Defensive side of things have benefits in a rebuild that are priceless...but it would be mismanagement to ignore the option of trading them away now, because you have to save every penny, get as much draft equity as possible and reset the roster.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
Many of us don't...shoot even I who bring it up doesn't want to. However, what many of us have to be able to do is understand and acknowledge IF we reset/rebuild post Rodgers...moves like this - the hard, the unwanted are exactly what you have to do if you have any chance of resetting things quicker.

If Bakh wants to be here post-Rodgers I'm not forcing him out - having a veteran presence like he and say Preston on the Defensive side of things have benefits in a rebuild that are priceless...but it would be mismanagement to ignore the option of trading them away now, because you have to save every penny, get as much draft equity as possible and reset the roster.
If we move on from Rodgers and have Love with less of an oline than we had this year, no jones, no receivers, no TE's you may as well start some no name QB we pick up this year and save the wear and tear on Love. Our right side sucks, now we want to get rid of our left side too to save 6 million and have to spend 3-6 to replace him with a journyman LT? No thank you.
You get multiple picks, at least 1 high round pick or it's not even a consideration.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
If we move on from Rodgers and have Love with less of an oline than we had this year, no jones, no receivers, no TE's you may as well start some no name QB we pick up this year and save the wear and tear on Love. Our right side sucks, now we want to get rid of our left side too to save 6 million and have to spend 3-6 to replace him with a journyman LT? No thank you.
You get multiple picks, at least 1 high round pick or it's not even a consideration.

LOL how are you getting rid of the entire left side? Jenkins is still there either at guard or tackle. We literally played the entire 2021 season without Bakh and it was not OL play that cost us the three games in the regular season and the one in the playoffs.

If you think forcing Bakh to be here for a post-Rodgers era builds a good respect and relationship with players we just disagree - if Rodgers announces retirement/or we trade him I'm one hundred percent letting Bakh know direction, telling him we want him here if he wants to be here, but if he wants to go elsewhere he has given us more than enough to deserve that....recoup some draft equity, save a little bit and part ways with a player the right way instead of hanging too long or forcing him out.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
LOL how are you getting rid of the entire left side? Jenkins is still there either at guard or tackle. We literally played the entire 2021 season without Bakh and it was not OL play that cost us the three games in the regular season and the one in the playoffs.

If you think forcing Bakh to be here for a post-Rodgers era builds a good respect and relationship with players we just disagree - if Rodgers announces retirement/or we trade him I'm one hundred percent letting Bakh know direction, telling him we want him here if he wants to be here, but if he wants to go elsewhere he has given us more than enough to deserve that....recoup some draft equity, save a little bit and part ways with a player the right way instead of hanging too long or forcing him out.
our offensive line was not good this year. Having to help our tackles all the time limits our offense. Yes we have Jenkins, and a giant gaping hole next to him. and yes it was the OLine that cost us games. It's been a common theme in all of our big games. The difference with David in the line up this year was immediate and obvious. I'm not trading him for a 3rd rounder to save what is going to amount to 2-3 million bucks, tops and leave us with a much worse Oline.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
our offensive line was not good this year. Having to help our tackles all the time limits our offense. Yes we have Jenkins, and a giant gaping hole next to him. and yes it was the OLine that cost us games. It's been a common theme in all of our big games. The difference with David in the line up this year was immediate and obvious. I'm not trading him for a 3rd rounder to save what is going to amount to 2-3 million bucks, tops and leave us with a much worse Oline.

You are purposefully avoiding the discussion I'm posing which happens even in order to trade him. If Bakh comes to management and expresses privately he'd rather not be here without Rodgers and potential rebuild in his final couple years of prime play and wants a chance elsewhere...you're forcing him to stay?

That is the reverse treatment we've heard occur when the organization just ghosted guys rather than have discussions when they hit FA or insulted them with insanely lowball offers that were unreasonable.

It isn't about believing a 3rd is more valuable to Love and GB - it isn't. It is about future rebuild and reset and respecting a few veterans which to me have earned the change to depart if they want instead of be part of it.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
I am not purposefully avoiding the discussion. I"m not trading him for a 3rd rounder. I think this whole friends thing in the NFL is taken a bit too far. David knows the deal. If he really wants out, he can pay back some guaranteed money and I'll think about it. Until then, absolutely not. 1st rounder and something else at minimum. letting him go for a 3rd or 4th does this team no good
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
I am not purposefully avoiding the discussion. I"m not trading him for a 3rd rounder. I think this whole friends thing in the NFL is taken a bit too far. David knows the deal. If he really wants out, he can pay back some guaranteed money and I'll think about it. Until then, absolutely not. 1st rounder and something else at minimum. letting him go for a 3rd or 4th does this team no good

it isn't a "friends" thing. I am not forcing a guy who has been arguably the best LT in our franchise history to play through a rebuild if he doesn't want to be here. The Rodgers friends piece is miniscule in why I'd be talking to him to get his pulse.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
it isn't a "friends" thing. I am not forcing a guy who has been arguably the best LT in our franchise history to play through a rebuild if he doesn't want to be here. The Rodgers friends piece is miniscule in why I'd be talking to him to get his pulse.
he knew the deal when he became the highest paid tackle in the league. We already had Love, he knew what was a possibility. I don't think he has any problems staying and protecting Love. But if he did, then he better be paying some money back and I'll think about it. Otherwise, no, i'm definitely not setting a precedent of paying top tier money and moving on because someone doesn't want to be here because it might get rough. There's a fine line of being respectful and letting the inmates run they asylum. Letting an all pro LT go for so little because it might get rough falls on the later IMO.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,141
Reaction score
5,014
he knew the deal when he became the highest paid tackle in the league. We already had Love, he knew what was a possibility. I don't think he has any problems staying and protecting Love. But if he did, then he better be paying some money back and I'll think about it. Otherwise, no, i'm definitely not setting a precedent of paying top tier money and moving on because someone doesn't want to be here because it might get rough. There's a fine line of being respectful and letting the inmates run they asylum. Letting an all pro LT go for so little because it might get rough falls on the later IMO.

His interview yesterday I agree it for sure appears he is more than comfortable being here next season regardless of direction - which I'd embrace if so. He is also a professional and wouldn't air dirty laundry if he has reservations too. I'd even ink him to a one year extension to make him cheaper honestly if he'd want...don't change his guarantee, maybe even add another couple million guaranteed but spread him out a touch more than it is already.
 
Top