Unsung hero, Russ Ball

[gbgary]

Ball has done a pretty good job of managing the cap.
It might be true that he isn't great at evaluating talent though.

i'll agree...and if he's still here in 2020-21 he, or whoever it is, will be busy restructuring contracts (especially rodgers').
no doubt. that's why i said he needs to stay in his lane. i hope he moves on soon though. i just think there's a 666 birthmark on that guy somewhere. lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

no doubt. that's why i said he needs to stay in his lane. i hope he moves on soon though. i just think there's a 666 birthmark on that guy somewhere. lol

There's no reason for the Packers to move on from Ball. But I guess he's another one you have a disdain for for some odd reason.

 

[Mondio]

why would we move on from Ball? He's pretty good at his job. Nobody batted an eye when Hayward was cut. Locally and nationally they were saying GB was pretty set to move on from him because of the fantastic play of 2 young rookies and Shields. Then we know what happened after that. I don't fault them for Hyde either. Looking back, I wish they would have paid him and traded HaHa when he had a higher value. But at the time, HaHa was a pro bowl player, young, cheap and ascending. ANd we had our investment in Burnett who hadn't yet been slowed by injuries and was playing well and had a contract I don't think we could have just cut bait and run from. IF it was Ball's talking that did the trick, he wasn't wrong in saying we can't pay Hyde starter safety money to be a back up safety and DB. But if you'd like to hold it against him I guess that's your choice.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

This guy has to work magic for the contracts

I don't pretend to know the machinations of front-office economics, or who should rightly get the credit and/or blame for whatever occurs.

I do know, however, that if you endeavor to give someone some praise in these forums, it is quite likely to engender objections from those who just don't like that sort of thing.....

 

[gbgary]

all these nfl cap guys know the same things/techniques. there really aren't that many options for signing guys. gm's, and some owners, set the tone/policy/plan. these guys implement it.

There's no reason for the Packers to move on from Ball. But I guess he's another one you have a disdain for for some odd reason.

we agreed he's not a personnel guy and he's done his actual job well, i made a joke, and you come back with this . i don't have disdain for anyone at 1265. i stated why i'm suspicious of him. i'll let you know when i think someone's earned my disdain.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

we agreed he's not a personnel guy and he's done his actual job well, i made a joke, and you come back with this . i don't have disdain for anyone at 1265. i stated why i'm suspicious of him. i'll let you know when i think someone's earned my disdain.

I have no idea why you're suspicous of Ball as he's responsible for negotiating player contracts and managing the salary cap, in addition to the daily supervision of football-administration departments including equipment, video, corporate travel, player engagement, family programs and fields.

He's not involved in deciding which players the Packers are pursuing.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Lets say there are two possible contract structures on the table that are for the same term, total amount, total guarantees and first year cash money.

Let's say the difference between the two is that one option has a large signing bonus representing most of the cash money up front whereas the other has a smaller signing bonus with a larger first year salary guarantee that represents most of the up front cash.

Which one would the player prefer? It would be the one with the large signing bonus. Why? Because it increases the dead cap from year 2 forward making it more difficult to the cut the player and more likely he will play more years under the contract if performance is not up to expectations.

It does not take a genius to sign players to heavily back-loaded contracts, only a willingness to offer them while assuming greater long term risks. I don't see any reason to believe these calls are in Ball's hands.

 

[gbgary]

i like these contracts in the win-now context. pay them a bunch up front, keep them a year (or two) and get quality play from a good, experienced player, let them go when the dead money is less than their cap hit, and replace them with a rookie contract. it's a wash. or you can keep them if they're outstanding and trade them for good draft picks the way new england does year after year.

 

[gbgary]

I have no idea why you're suspicous of Ball ...

ugh! because he injected himself the personnel decisions when thompson was losing it! it delayed thompson being outed/replaced by a couple of years. again, as long as he stays in his lane...fine.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i like these contracts in the win-now context. pay them a bunch up front, keep them a year (or two) and get quality play from a good, experienced player, let them go when the dead money is less than their cap hit, and replace them with a rookie contract.

The Packers definitely don't plan releasing any of the four free agents signed this week as the cap savings would be marginal while resulting in a huge amount of dead money.

ugh! because he injected himself the personnel decisions when thompson was losing it! it delayed thompson being outed/replaced by a couple of years.

Do you have any proof for that claim???

 

[gbgary]

The Packers definitely don't plan releasing any of the four free agents signed this week as the cap savings would be marginal while resulting in a huge amount of dead money.

of course not...but they could...and i was't talking about the Packers specifically. it's happening all over the league.

Do you have any proof for that claim???

nope. just the discussion on GB radio i heard last year about him on hayword/hyde, the poor drafts soon after, murphy's surprise how bad it got, thompson's “transition into a new role”, mccarthy's threat. murpy's choice of gute.
take it or leave it.

 

[Mondio]

sometimes dots can be connected, sometimes they're just dots. I believe most of these are just dots. I have no doubt Ball may have had some influence, but that influence was nothing more than, this is what their agents are going to get them on the market and this is what it will cost us to keep them. Then Ted decided, Hyde wasn't replacing an already invested in Burnett and Dix was ascending and better already. Why pay starter money to a backup? I'd guess any influence was a "normal" amount in any functioning Cap manager/GM relationship.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers definitely don't plan releasing any of the four free agents signed this week as the cap savings would be marginal while resulting in a huge amount of dead money.

Right, even after 2 years the dead cap on these 4 FAs is still $28 mil.

Gutekunst said, "This is Green Bay, Wisconsin; it is always win now."

Funny thing. That will be true next year and the year after that. If these guys are not good enough to play through 2 years and then 3 years, that prospect gets progressively harder.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

nope. just the discussion on GB radio i heard last year about him on hayword/hyde, the poor drafts soon after, murphy's surprise how bad it got, thompson's “transition into a new role”, mccarthy's treat. murpy's choice of gute.
take it or leave it.

In that case I rather leave it.

 

[longtimefan]

Article in Packers news.com praising Russ Balls magic

 

[scotscheese]

Article in Packers news.com praising Russ Balls magic

or Russ' magic Balls?

 

[gbgary]

the silverstein articles that have come out backed what i heard on Green Bay radio. yes he knows how to manipulate the cap but what nfl capologist doesn't? his interference, and failings, in personnel speak for themselves.

 

[longtimefan]

the silverstein articles that have come out backed what i heard on Green Bay radio. yes he knows how to manipulate the cap but what nfl capologist doesn't? his interference, and failings, in personnel speak for themselves.

Just was my observation a while back.. Some said wasn't special, just tooting my horn

 

[Heyjoe4]

Even with a mountain of star players on cheap rookie deals, like the 2013 Seahawks, it is very difficult for a front office to assess where a team will be with two full seasons and drafts in front of them. Visibility is very poor that far out into the future even if there wasn't an intervening CBA renegotiation.

Look at the things that can happen that can flip the script one way or the other:

• Grand slam drafts vs. bust drafts
• Second year and third year jumps vs. lack thereof
• Career ending injuries
• Performance decline from age or injury or complacency
• Retirements
• High free agency demands for draftees that pan out as they work of their rookie deals (see 2015 Seahawks, from dominance to playoff losses as big second contracts mounted).

Consider a few changes in perspective over the course of one or two Packer seasons using widely held opinions (which I don't necessarily agree with in some cases):

• Sitton goes from Pro Bowl guard to cut in a flash over a contract dispute spilling into the locker room
• Nelson went from 1250 yards / 15 TDs to a declining player abandoned.
• Shields goes from #1 corner to gone in an instant.
• Clinton-Dix goes from Pro Bowl to bum and sent packing mid-season.
• Randall goes from starting corner to cancer.
• Perry goes from big contract to an injured bum and cap casualty.
• Lacy goes from fat and productive to fatter and injured.
• Adams goes from a bum on the bubble to budding stardom.
• Bahktiari goes from mid-round pick to Pro Bowl caliber LT on a cheap rookie deal
• Rodgers goes to IR and a season is lost.
• Cobb and Matthews get big contracts then experience injuries and decline

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more examples of relevance in recent years. Who knows what surprises the next two seasons will hold? The front office view out that far is bound to be opaque. It should also be opaque to commentators.

Yeah it’s hard to look much further than the current year, and there are a lot of “ifs” at that. IF the Smiths and Amos live up to or exceed their pay, all is well. IF that doesn’t happen then each guy who doesn’t produce becomes the equivalent of Perry (or Cobb or Matthews). So it’s a pretty pointless exercise that only works perfectly in hindsight. That doesn’t make Russ Ball a genius, or Gluten for that matter until we see how the FAs, and the rookie class, produce. I hope we can call them geniuses come February of 2020.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just was my observation a while back.. Some said wasn't special, just tooting my horn

It's kinda weird to be tooting your horn over somebody else's prospective opinion, not some confirmatory facts.

The gist of the article is that Ball contracts limit guarateed salaries compared to other teams' contracts (Rodgers being a noted exception), relying instead on signing bonuses as the enticement.

Well, there are no free lunches. Other concessions are made. Let's consider Z. Smith's contract.

$16.5 mil/year. Sure, he's a good player with positional versatility entering his prime. But there does appear to be a concession in total value.

In addition to the $20 mil guaranteed signing bonus, the $9 mil roster bonus on the 5th. year of the 2020 league year is a concession. There isn't any plausible scenario where he would not earn that bonus. Even if you were of a mind to replace him for the paltry $2.5 mil in cap savings you'd have to do it before the 5th. day of the league year, early in the free agency period and long before the draft. Then in 2021 a decision must be made with that $5 mil signing bonus also due on the 5th. day of the league year. Cut him after it comes due and the cap savings is a only $5.75 mil. Taking a retrospective example, Graham's bacon might have been saved this year by his $5 mil roster bonus under a similar structure albeit a smaller contract.

These league year signing bonuses have become a common Ball concession. They function as a deterrent to cutting a guy after FA is in full swing or after the draft where replacements would be found. If you cut him before the signing bonus is due you're operating largely blind.

And it is not like signing bonuses are some kind of free lunch. Building a defense (it doesn't even qualify as a "rebuild" since it has not been good for quite a while) through free agency, without a pile of cap space to start with, necessitates signing bonuses to defer the cap hit. That deferral hits the cap soon and hard in 2020:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

Further, monster guaranteed salaries are going to franchise QBs and guys who put up All Pro years on their rookie contracts and command those guarantees as they enter their primes. We have not had those guys, Rodgers excepted.

The structure of the contracts is less important than deciding which players to sign and then whether they play up to or over those contracts. So far as I can tell, Ball has nothing to do with that, nor the approach to go heavy in FA in an attempt to "win now". Ball's job is to make the cap pieces fit.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I hope we can call them geniuses come February of 2020.

I'd be thinking 2021.

 

[longtimefan]

It's kinda weird to be tooting your horn over somebody else's prospective opinion, not some confirmatory facts.

The gist of the article is that Ball contracts limit guarateed salaries compared to other teams' contracts (Rodgers being a noted), relying instead on signing bonuses as the enticement.

Well, there are no free lunches. Other concessions are made. Let's consider Z. Smiths contract.

$16.5 mil/year. Sure, he's a good player with positional versatility entering his prime. But there does appear to be a concession in total value.

In addition to the $20 mil guaranteed signing bonus, the $9 mil roster bonus on the 5th. year of the 2020 league year is a concession. There isn't any plausible scenario where he would not earn that bonus. Even if you were of a mind to replace him for the paltry $2.5 mil in cap savings you'd have to do it before the 5th. day of the league year, early in the free agency period and long before the draft. Then in 2021 a decision must be made with that $5 mil signing bonus also due on the 5th. day of the league year. Cut him after it comes due and the cap savings is a only $5.75 mil. Taking a retrospective example, Graham's bacon might have been saved this year by his $5 mil roster bonus under a similar structure albeit a smaller contract.

These league year signing bonuses have become a common Ball concession. They function as a deterrent to cutting a guy after FA is in full swing or after the draft where replacements would be found. If you cut him before the signing bonus is due you're operating largely blind.

And it is not like signing bonuses are some kind of free lunch. Building a defense (it doesn't even qualify as a "rebuild" since it has not been good for quite a while) through free agency without a pile of cap space to start with necessitates signing bonuses to defer the cap hit. That deferral hits the cap soon and hard in 2020:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

Further, those monster guaranteed salaries are going to franchise QBs and guys who put up All Pro years on their rookie contracts and command those guarantees as they enter their primes. We have not had those guys.

The structure of the contracts is less important than deciding which players to sign and then whether they play up to or over those contracts. So far as I can tell, Ball has nothing to do with that, nor the approach to go heavy in FA in an attempt to "win now". Ball's job is to make the cap pieces fit.

This isn't a slam, or shade..

But that's a long as responsive answer

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yeah it’s hard to look much further than the current year, and there are a lot of “ifs” at that. IF the Smiths and Amos live up to or exceed their pay, all is well. IF that doesn’t happen then each guy who doesn’t produce becomes the equivalent of Perry (or Cobb or Matthews). So it’s a pretty pointless exercise that only works perfectly in hindsight. That doesn’t make Russ Ball a genius, or Gluten for that matter until we see how the FAs, and the rookie class, produce. I hope we can call them geniuses come February of 2020.

Yeah, like anything else, the farther you look into the future the less visibility you have. Making assumptions looking two years out is always questionable. It is more so now with the CBA expiring after the 2020 season.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I don't pretend to know what's going on behind the scenes at 1265 Lombardi Ave, or who's a genius and who's a villain - I'll leave that to others.

I do know that the Packers as an organization seemed to have the salary cap situation under control, so someone is doing their job well.

Just my two cents.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I do know that the Packers as an organization seemed to have the salary cap situation under control, so someone is doing their job well.

That remains to be seen.

According to overthecap.com, the 2019 cap committments for the top 51 players on the current roster is $176 mil.

The current cap committments for the 49 players currently under contract for 2020 is $185 mil. And when all is said and done, there won't be much cap carryover to 2020. Candidates for cap savings through cuts after this season are pretty limited, Graham and Taylor is about it. Of course if Clark continues doing what he's doing, you'd rather not have him playing on that 5th. year option imbedded in the current 2020 numbers, so that's one place where any cut savings might go.

I'll leave you to also consider the players under contract for 2019 who will be free agents after this season not included in that $185 mil:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2020/all/green-bay-packers/

Anybody can go big in free agency and defer the cap consequences if they make the signing bonuses big enough. Players love signing bonuses in lieu of any other considerations; that's cash in pocket now.

But having the FA acqusitions work out is not really enough. We'll need to be able to look back in a year and the one after and be able to say Gutekunst stacked two and three good drafts, players with high value relative to cheap rookie contracts.

It's not a question of having things "in hand" or not. An aggressive roster building strategy has been applied with its own risks put in play. If it works, it works. If it doesn't there's no room for FA do overs. The roster building strategy dictated the approach to contract structures, not the other way around. The tail does not wag the dog. There's no magic in the contract terms. The magic, or lack thereof, is in Gutekunst's and his staff's hands.