AZpacker posted this http://www.jrn.com/wtmj/wi-sports/g...he-wont-have-it-free-next-year-250253821.html
in chat box
This ties into what I mentioned the other day...
Teams can afford a "big named" FA because they cut players to make cap room.
Ted and co. rather keep everyone then to cut people every year just to be able to afford one FA
in chat box
This year's experience in Packers frugality isn't a philosophy lesson, but an economics lesson.
The money simply isn't there, and definitely won't be for any big-splash long-term deals like what DeMarcus Ware got in Denver.
What do you mean, the money's not there? Don't the Packers have $142 million to spend this year?
Yes, but a monster chunk of it is spoken for by players already signed, as calculated by expert Packers writer and amateur cap-ologist Chris Lempesis of the blog "Ol' Bag of Donuts." (Trust me, cap-ology is a science that's hard to master. I certainly don't belong as a master in that category, and I share amateur status with him.)
According to his numbers:
The Packers still have about a dozen of their own free agents left to sign. This gives them enough money for a few of them, but only a few, and only for one year.
This ties into what I mentioned the other day...
Teams can afford a "big named" FA because they cut players to make cap room.
Ted and co. rather keep everyone then to cut people every year just to be able to afford one FA