The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
+1.Yoop wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 07:53really, so a player that produces a 1/4 of the offensive production isn't worth what #2 receivers are getting these days, or even a stud slot receiver, it's not a good time to be on a last year of a contract, no position has the bargaining power it normally would have.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 02:37No RB is worth that unless they’re like 2000k rusher like AP was and even then you’ve overspent on a position that you have quality at for peanuts.
with the increase of small ball schemes popping up with us and so many other teams the monetary value of RB's is bound to go up, and if a team has a stud they will pay more to keep them in the future, I wouldn't even think twice to give Jones a 3 year extension at 12 mil per, half guaranteed
I've been thinking about that. I'm genuinely surprised at the deals that have gotten done given this uncertainty, with the exception of Mahomes' deal since that built short-term affordability into the model.
Not at all. Out of everyone that is due a contract, he's at the top. I think you'll see a number of guys walk before Clark's situation gets ugly.Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 15:54Also, anyone else starting to get worried about this Kenny Clark deal turning ugly? I’ve heard for over a year the team wants to get the deal done early. Still no movement on it. Gotta assume the price tag is only going up. Getting him signed may either not be a slam dunk, or doing it may be very painful for other areas of the team.
We could very easily give Clark a 5-year $100 million extension with a $30M signing bonus, an $8 million roster bonus in year 2 that we plan in advance to turn into a signing bonus, and keep his cap number the same in 2020 and low in 2021 before a handful of years in the 18-20 M cap ranger before a basically dummy year at the end that we can keep or extend or releaseTheGreenMan wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:02Not at all. Out of everyone that is due a contract, he's at the top. I think you'll see a number of guys walk before Clark's situation gets ugly.
I echo BF004. I wouldn't touch long-term contracts right now.
And if we do that, just wait for the plethora of articles and folks like Aaron Nagler bragging up how Russ Ball is this "cap genius".YoHoChecko wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:09We could very easily give Clark a 5-year $100 million extension with a $30M signing bonus, an $8 million roster bonus in year 2 that we plan in advance to turn into a signing bonus, and keep his cap number the same in 2020 and low in 2021 before a handful of years in the 18-20 M cap ranger before a basically dummy year at the end that we can keep or extend or releaseTheGreenMan wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:02Not at all. Out of everyone that is due a contract, he's at the top. I think you'll see a number of guys walk before Clark's situation gets ugly.
I echo BF004. I wouldn't touch long-term contracts right now.
Would we still feel good with it and then we don't end up having football? Or, say maybe a half a season is played? Does guys sitting out of football for extended periods of times change our outlook on things? I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here, but the only extension I was expecting was the Mahomes one.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:09We could very easily give Clark a 5-year $100 million extension with a $30M signing bonus, an $8 million roster bonus in year 2 that we plan in advance to turn into a signing bonus, and keep his cap number the same in 2020 and low in 2021 before a handful of years in the 18-20 M cap ranger before a basically dummy year at the end that we can keep or extend or releaseTheGreenMan wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:02Not at all. Out of everyone that is due a contract, he's at the top. I think you'll see a number of guys walk before Clark's situation gets ugly.
I echo BF004. I wouldn't touch long-term contracts right now.
Yeah, I'd feel great about it. Clark's cap number under the 5th-year option is set to be like $7.8 million. Here's just a hypothetical rough draft of what a deal could look like...TheGreenMan wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:31Would we still feel good with it and then we don't end up having football? Or, say maybe a half a season is played? Does guys sitting out of football for extended periods of times change our outlook on things? I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here, but the only extension I was expecting was the Mahomes one.
Roughly 40% of the revenue comes from people in the stadium. All of that is going away for at least this season. Most of those people will watch on TV but later in the year TV revenue will tank as we go into the depression caused by the lockdowns. People simply are not buying the big ticket items that are being advertised on NFL games. Not when 20% of homeowners and renters are already at least 1 month delinquent on their mortgage or rent. Where you gonna watch TV from living in a tent on the streets of Milwaukee and Chicago with all the sports restaurants closed?TheGreenMan wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:31Would we still feel good with it and then we don't end up having football? Or, say maybe a half a season is played? Does guys sitting out of football for extended periods of times change our outlook on things? I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here, but the only extension I was expecting was the Mahomes one.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:09We could very easily give Clark a 5-year $100 million extension with a $30M signing bonus, an $8 million roster bonus in year 2 that we plan in advance to turn into a signing bonus, and keep his cap number the same in 2020 and low in 2021 before a handful of years in the 18-20 M cap ranger before a basically dummy year at the end that we can keep or extend or releaseTheGreenMan wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 11:02Not at all. Out of everyone that is due a contract, he's at the top. I think you'll see a number of guys walk before Clark's situation gets ugly.
I echo BF004. I wouldn't touch long-term contracts right now.
I may be wrong here, but I'm relatively sure that the 40% figure is for total revenue not for shared revenue. Stadium revenue is the primary place where revenues can be secured by the individual team rather than included into the shared pot, which is why owners always want bigger, better, more advanced stadiums. Thus it won't impact the salary cap, nor will it impact the TV deals and viewership that is coming in after the 2021 season.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑19 Jul 2020 12:09Roughly 40% of the revenue comes from people in the stadium. All of that is going away for at least this season.
Local revenues effect a team's cash on hand and ability to pay signing bonuses (and other employees in the organization). But tv money is the shared part.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑19 Jul 2020 15:01I may be wrong here, but I'm relatively sure that the 40% figure is for total revenue not for shared revenue. Stadium revenue is the primary place where revenues can be secured by the individual team rather than included into the shared pot, which is why owners always want bigger, better, more advanced stadiums. Thus it won't impact the salary cap, nor will it impact the TV deals and viewership that is coming in after the 2021 season.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑19 Jul 2020 12:09Roughly 40% of the revenue comes from people in the stadium. All of that is going away for at least this season.
I'm telling you, there is NO DOUBT that the TV deals are going to create a massive spike in the shared revenue and thus the salary cap. None. Zero.
The ONLY question is how big the spike will be--and that has factors such as
- How is viewership looking over the next two years
Not having fans in the stadium this year will not affect the next tv deal. The 2022-2025 cap numbers are going to see a big spike. Anyone saying differently is making things up and/or being an alarmist.
- How do the league and union decide to spread out the revenue loss from this year
Yeah, I'm not worried about cash on hand for these owners, nor our own team. The Packers have a $400 million reserve fund in case of events just like this. The Raiders and Colts are the only teams I've heard any rumors of short supplies of cash in recent years. These owners have deep pockets and are doing fine. Plus, since the Packers have plenty of reserves, if anything it's a competitive advantage.
Considering the new TV deal will probably cover 2022 through 2027, yeah. They absolutely will. 2020 may be a completely lost season and it still will not stop the salary cap from spiking in 2022 and beyond for the next tv deal. Nothing will stop that.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑20 Jul 2020 02:32Do you seriously think the TV networks are going to pay the NFL when no one is buying advertising for NFL games?
I agree with this. And I bet on this outcome at least with my play money. But it just seems like everyday I am wrong.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑20 Jul 2020 02:32Do you seriously think the TV networks are going to pay the NFL when no one is buying advertising for NFL games? Who is going to buy any big ticket item now?
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... cial-time/
I think everyone is seriously underestimating the economic recovery time. Throw in an election in November and the fact that neither cases nor deaths are going down as fast as predicted. Look at what CT is doing, for example - shutdown of almost everything. 10 people is the limit in CT. How can you have a football game when there can be only 10 people in the stadium, including the players?
Well, as someone who is directly involved with advertising in our local market, I can tell you that there is no issue selling NFL right now, and advertising agencies and local businesses are excited that the viewing numbers will be huge if everything starts.go pak go wrote: ↑20 Jul 2020 07:47I agree with this. And I bet on this outcome at least with my play money. But it just seems like everyday I am wrong.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑20 Jul 2020 02:32Do you seriously think the TV networks are going to pay the NFL when no one is buying advertising for NFL games? Who is going to buy any big ticket item now?
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... cial-time/
I think everyone is seriously underestimating the economic recovery time. Throw in an election in November and the fact that neither cases nor deaths are going down as fast as predicted. Look at what CT is doing, for example - shutdown of almost everything. 10 people is the limit in CT. How can you have a football game when there can be only 10 people in the stadium, including the players?
Yes TV Networks are having a hell of a time selling ad space. But TV networks also will literally not have any new content until likely 2021 (like summer to fall). So football would be the only content these networks can provide.
In addition, we are just seeing immense and unprecedented government and Fed Reserve support. They are literally floating this economy. Is it sustainable? Who honestly knows.
But they have been up to this point and perhaps that will likely continue.