Packers Huddle

paco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 17:58

Not even a little from the sounds of it.

That is precisely what has been reported over and over again. It feels credible. That’s the issue.

What does one summize we could get for Adams in a trade? I would think at least a 1, and then probably a lower pick sprinkled in. I would move him now while other FAs are looking for a home and we can improve in the draft. I love Adams. I hope he gets a record deal. But if he wants that much money...i just hope its somewhere else.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 18:56

What does one summize we could get for Adams in a trade? I would think at least a 1, and then probably a lower pick sprinkled in. I would move him now while other FAs are looking for a home and we can improve in the draft. I love Adams. I hope he gets a record deal. But if he wants that much money...i just hope its somewhere else.

No way Aaron would sign off on a trade of Adams.

Realist wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 19:13

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 18:56

What does one summize we could get for Adams in a trade? I would think at least a 1, and then probably a lower pick sprinkled in. I would move him now while other FAs are looking for a home and we can improve in the draft. I love Adams. I hope he gets a record deal. But if he wants that much money...i just hope its somewhere else.

No way Aaron would sign off on a trade of Adams.

he already signed for 150m, he can make cookies with the indegredients we can afford to give him.

I feel if he is really pals with Adams then letting Adams play on a new deal somewhere else instead of the tag would be the very "pal" thing to do.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 19:16

Realist wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 19:13

Drj820 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 18:56

What does one summize we could get for Adams in a trade? I would think at least a 1, and then probably a lower pick sprinkled in. I would move him now while other FAs are looking for a home and we can improve in the draft. I love Adams. I hope he gets a record deal. But if he wants that much money...i just hope its somewhere else.

No way Aaron would sign off on a trade of Adams.

he already signed for 150m, he can make cookies with the indegredients we can afford to give him.

I feel if he is really pals with Adams then letting Adams play on a new deal somewhere else instead of the tag would be the very "pal" thing to do.

I am not familiar with that trait in Aaron.

Rodgers was upset when Cobb and Kumerow were let go. What do you think would happen if the Packers traded Adams?

Adams is part of the deal.

Honestly I would be fine with letting him walk if it weren't for the presumption that letting him walk would be unacceptable to Rodgers.

Fact is, he's our best WR by far. But the other fact is that Rodgers has an extreme over-reliance on him which hurts us when it counts. Plus we'd save all that money.

texas wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 22:00

Honestly I would be fine with letting him walk if it weren't for the presumption that letting him walk would be unacceptable to Rodgers.

Fact is, he's our best WR by far. But the other fact is that Rodgers has an extreme over-reliance on him which hurts us when it counts. Plus we'd save all that money.

Basically no point in saving the money now. We committed to Rodgers, Preston, and others. Pay the man and go for it. Deal with the consequences later.

paco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 22:31

texas wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 22:00

Honestly I would be fine with letting him walk if it weren't for the presumption that letting him walk would be unacceptable to Rodgers.

Fact is, he's our best WR by far. But the other fact is that Rodgers has an extreme over-reliance on him which hurts us when it counts. Plus we'd save all that money.

Basically no point in saving the money now. We committed to Rodgers, Preston, and others. Pay the man and go for it. Deal with the consequences later.

Yep. We all know this is going to get resolved, and they are gonna pay the man his money. We’d just all prefer to cut through the drama, but drama is our brand lately.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2022 10:23

I wouldn’t think so either.

I would believe that Tae wants as much of everything GUARANTEED as early as possible. I’d think that’s how most WRs that are 30 are thinking. The vast majority of 30 year old WRs are going one year at a time and they just don’t get contracts longer than that, usually.

Now I'm seeing some more of the FA deals out there and wondering if every FA, not only the skill position guys, are wanting to get as much guaranteed as possible. If I were a player, I probably would too. But this can only have a negative impact in the long run on the NFL.

Imagine a QB, even an elite one, being guaranteed over $100,000,000 before he even steps on the field.

The new NFL is you throw a sh*t load of signing bonus money at a guy, backload the the crap out of the deal to make the total contract look big, and the result is every contract is effectively a 3 year deal with the face showing 5 years and the player getting cut in Year 4 and the team eating $15 million or more in dead cap.

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 06:31

The new NFL is you throw a sh*t load of signing bonus money at a guy, backload the the crap out of the deal to make the total contract look big, and the result is every contract is effectively a 3 year deal with the face showing 5 years and the player getting cut in Year 4 and the team eating $15 million or more in dead cap.

why wouldn't the teams do this, in the next 5 years the cap will increase as much as 40%, at least thats the predictions I've read, so while we'll be on the books for 50 mil. dead money with Rodgers, those cap increases should lesson the blow, same for other teams that want to retain there best players.

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 06:31

The new NFL is you throw a sh*t load of signing bonus money at a guy, backload the the crap out of the deal to make the total contract look big, and the result is every contract is effectively a 3 year deal with the face showing 5 years and the player getting cut in Year 4 and the team eating $15 million or more in dead cap.

That's been the NFL for a long long time; the Packers just didn't operate the way the rest of the league did under TT.

Gutey has made the shift and our cap health will pay the price. But he needs that ring that TT got in year 4 or 5

I wouldn't be surprised if a deal comes together today and Davante is the one that backs down a bit.


Davante had lots of leverage like a week ago yet with our cap issues, but it appears we will likely be able to sneak in under the cap now even with Davante on franchise tag and not a lot of hurt.

I think he loses a lot of leverage after the new league year as the Packers don't have to make the hard time-sensitive decisions and the option to trade him does become real. At least until we get closer to July 15th or whenever that deadline is for franchise extensions.

Using a rough base of $20 million tag in 2022 and $24 tag in 2023, I'll wager he gets 4 for 96.

texas wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 22:00

Honestly I would be fine with letting him walk if it weren't for the presumption that letting him walk would be unacceptable to Rodgers.

Fact is, he's our best WR by far. But the other fact is that Rodgers has an extreme over-reliance on him which hurts us when it counts. Plus we'd save all that money.

Just reminding everyone about the elephant in the room.

If you want to talk about Rodgers having an “over-reliance” on Tae, then you have to go to the HC too. Even MLF specifically has said that the playbook goes through 17. I don’t see fault in that with this squad. Unless GB gets better than MVS, Cobb, Lazard, and company, you are going to do this. Much as I love those guys, we do need to get better at WR/TE.

As of Thursday morning, I’m thinking that no news on Tae is good news. We still need to cut some funds before we can sign Tae. I’m looking today for the extensions that’ll open the door for Tae’s massive contract.

:-)

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 23:09

As of Thursday morning, I’m thinking that no news on Tae is good news. We still need to cut some funds before we can sign Tae. I’m looking today for the extensions that’ll open the door for Tae’s massive contract.

:-)

We save money this year if we give Tae a new contract. So we can do this any day. But there is also no hurry. I don't expect movement on this any time soon.

Just so I understand, is the tag value for Tae included in our current cap limit? Like, the $ that he would play for this year on the tag is already accounted for?

Or, do we still need to clear space for him?

As we've already extended Cobb and Amos and signed our new punter, who else is left to extend? Jaire?

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2022 09:50

Just so I understand, is the tag value for Tae included in our current cap limit? Like, the $ that he would play for this year on the tag is already accounted for?

Or, do we still need to clear space for him?

As we've already extended Cobb and Amos and signed our new punter, who else is left to extend? Jaire?

Yep. As soon as you tag a player, the tag number counts against your cap, even if he hasn't signed it. So we're carrying a $20-21M charge for Adams right now, and even a megadeal extension would probably reduce that number by a few million