Packers Huddle

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2020 15:29

The more I am thinking about the upcoming resigns, the less I am comfortable with Bakhtiarai. We've had the Bak, Linsley, and Bulaga days with liabilities at guard and it has shown. I think last year and this year shows what happens when you don't have liabilities on the OL.

Piggy backing off Bukowski, but if there ever was a unit more dependent on liabilites than star talent, it is the OL. I'd rather do what we can to make sure we have 5 quality, above average at worst starters, with even some quality depth, rather than have the best of the best at one spot at the expense of others.

I totally agree with this and have pretty much been beating this drum all offseason. I want Bak back. I love the guy. But, at $22M, I'm not sure I want to do that deal.

NCF wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2020 16:19

BF004 wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2020 15:29

The more I am thinking about the upcoming resigns, the less I am comfortable with Bakhtiarai. We've had the Bak, Linsley, and Bulaga days with liabilities at guard and it has shown. I think last year and this year shows what happens when you don't have liabilities on the OL.

Piggy backing off Bukowski, but if there ever was a unit more dependent on liabilites than star talent, it is the OL. I'd rather do what we can to make sure we have 5 quality, above average at worst starters, with even some quality depth, rather than have the best of the best at one spot at the expense of others.

I totally agree with this and have pretty much been beating this drum all offseason. I want Bak back. I love the guy. But, at $22M, I'm not sure I want to do that deal.

Completely depends on the number we are talking about.

If we are talking $14 million per year or less....I'd do it.
If we are talking more than $18 million per year...no. Not on a 3rd contract.

In between would depend on how it's structured.

He is definitely older than Tunsil, but also currently better.

I think 21-22 per will be the number.

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2020 16:23

If we are talking $14 million per year or less....I'd do it.
If we are talking more than $18 million per year...no. Not on a 3rd contract.

$14M would get it done in magic land, but back here in reality, $18M is pretty much the floor.

An astronomical number would scare me more than “a third contract”. I mean he’s still young in OL terms. I’m superstitious so not gonna talk about his heath but...you know.

If the number gets up over 20m tho seems like a great candidate for a franchise tag. I pretty much expect him or Jones to get the tag.

Bahk doesn’t want to hear any excuses.

He’s right that other teams always seem to be able to kick the can down the road enough to get deals done.

I believe in 3rd contracts if the contract is not at 2nd contract value. Meaning if the Packers get a break because the player is no longer in his prime.

If Bak is $18 million or higher....we need to go back to the drawing board.

We have restructured a lot of guys and have kicked the can on a lot of guys. At some point there is a limit.

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2020 17:01

I believe in 3rd contracts if the contract is not at 2nd contract value. Meaning if the Packers get a break because the player is no longer in his prime.

If Bak is $18 million or higher....we need to go back to the drawing board.

We have restructured a lot of guys and have kicked the can on a lot of guys. At some point there is a limit.

I understand not wanting to pay him in the 20s, but I don’t think we are near the creativity that can be implemented into making the cap work. Teams every year seem to look out of space, and then magically find ways to sign one more vet at a position of need.

If Russ ball is such the magic man, he could make it work. I guess that’s my point..if there is a number that we just won’t pay...say 20m...fine. But even at 20m if we wanted to, we could do it.

I’m of the philosophy that Rodgers prolly has until the end of his deal at most to win a ring in GB, and I want to keep him loaded with his favorite guys until he leaves. Go all in for these next few years, kick the cap can down the road if we need to, and then rebuild post Rodgers.

Adams and Clark Did Not Practice today. Don't like our chances Sunday if neither play.

As an example:

Six-year extension worth $111 M - $18.5/year.
$54M guaranteed over the first 3 years of the extension
$31 Million due within a week of signing Make that roster bonus due early in the league year for him; hold off the big cap hits until 2023 because we have a lot hitting in 2022.

The last 2-3 years of his deal become year to year as he passes through his early 30s, but we can conceivably keep him the life of the deal if he plays well and if the cap growth assumptions hold true.

Let's say the 2022 cap is 20% than the 2020 cap (after dropping a bit or leveling in 2021). A new tv deal often brings a 20% increase if the gaints aren't spread out, and even when they are, that just increases the growth rate. Then have it grow 6% a year. That's lower than under the current tv deal. Bakh's % of cap virtually doesn't increase more than marginally by the end of his deal.

I know there are a million things that go into contracts, but the basic outlines of the structures and cap implications really are simple; like Bakh said, it you want to, you can do it, to an extent. A lot of it is just balancing the parts of the deal that are actually expected to be paid out versus the parts of the deal that get announced (for instance Kamara's $25M base salary with no dead money on the last year of his deal, making it a 4-year $50M extension, but reprted as 5-year $75 M extension). Just gotta make the agents feel good about the press release and he'll make the player feel respected at his appropriate level of financial value.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2020 16:52

Bahk doesn’t want to hear any excuses.

He’s right that other teams always seem to be able to kick the can down the road enough to get deals done.

Not quite "always", but yes, if we wanna make a few years' SB push, that can certainly be done.

I think we bite the bullet and pay Bak the market rate, push the big cap hit years back. The numbers will hurt our souls, but the thing is, you can help one OT when facing teams with a pair of great pass rushers, you can't help two. A rock of a LT is soooo valuable.

If we don't extend Bak, I take that to mean there's something in his medical that hasn't been made public, something preventing a long-term extension.

It's a give and take. We CAN make it work, but it will also take up space that could overwise be used for other top tier players or roll players. It's not a contract in a vacuum. I love Bakhtiari and want him back, but his quote is very one sided.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 07:59

It's a give and take. We CAN make it work, but it will also take up space that could overwise be used for other top tier players or roll players. It's not a contract in a vacuum. I love Bakhtiari and want him back, but his quote is very one sided.

Another take I settled on is if we are going to bite the bullet and pay top of the market value for Bak, then there really is no incentive for us to do the deal now. What if he gets hurt? What if his play tails off? At this point, the price point can't really go any higher, so there is no real incentive for us to get this done now other than to appease the player. From a practical standpoint, there is no real urgency to continue the extension talks with Bak until after the season.

NCF wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 08:02

Another take I settled on is if we are going to bite the bullet and pay top of the market value for Bak, then there really is no incentive for us to do the deal now. What if he gets hurt? What if his play tails off? At this point, the price point can't really go any higher, so there is no real incentive for us to get this done now other than to appease the player. From a practical standpoint, there is no real urgency to continue the extension talks with Bak until after the season.

The biggest incentive is superficial.

If his agent and by extension Bakhtiari himself want a contract number announced that sounds bigger and worthy of more respect and prestige, then doing it now allows for a new money/new years announcement that is bigger than the actual annual impact of the deal for the team. For instance if the agent is insisting that he be the "highest paid OLineman in the league" putting him at, what, $21M/year? A 5-year $21M extension would actually average out to a 6-year $19.9M deal for us.

Much like that time that Rodgers signed an extension with 2 years left on his deal, and the whole world called it a deal worth $22M per year, but over the 6-year life of the deal, only one year had a cap number above the reported contract average.

At this point, yes, it would be about ego management, but ego management is often how these things get done--and mostly involving the agent's ego more than the player's.

Is it just a consequence of the new covid related practice squad and IR rules that almost all year we have been under the Active roster limit?

Seems to be working fine, just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it before. Usually we are sad we didn’t get to keep a guy or two on the active roster bc of limits. Gotta be something to do with the practice squad limits and rules right?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 09:56

Is it just a consequence of the new covid related practice squad and IR rules that almost all year we have been under the Active roster limit?

Seems to be working fine, just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it before. Usually we are sad we didn’t get to keep a guy or two on the active roster bc of limits. Gotta be something to do with the practice squad limits and rules right?

Yeah. There is just so much more flexibility. Though I have a feeling we will be activating Lovett on the 53 this week. I think you can only elevate from Psquad twice before you need to make them on the roster.

Lovett was activated twice already.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 10:02

Yeah. There is just so much more flexibility. Though I have a feeling we will be activating Lovett on the 53 this week. I think you can only elevate from Psquad twice before you need to make them on the roster.

Lovett was activated twice already.

Agreed; especially with Deguara questionable again.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 08:12

NCF wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 08:02

Another take I settled on is if we are going to bite the bullet and pay top of the market value for Bak, then there really is no incentive for us to do the deal now. What if he gets hurt? What if his play tails off? At this point, the price point can't really go any higher, so there is no real incentive for us to get this done now other than to appease the player. From a practical standpoint, there is no real urgency to continue the extension talks with Bak until after the season.

The biggest incentive is superficial.

If his agent and by extension Bakhtiari himself want a contract number announced that sounds bigger and worthy of more respect and prestige, then doing it now allows for a new money/new years announcement that is bigger than the actual annual impact of the deal for the team. For instance if the agent is insisting that he be the "highest paid OLineman in the league" putting him at, what, $21M/year? A 5-year $21M extension would actually average out to a 6-year $19.9M deal for us.

Much like that time that Rodgers signed an extension with 2 years left on his deal, and the whole world called it a deal worth $22M per year, but over the 6-year life of the deal, only one year had a cap number above the reported contract average.

At this point, yes, it would be about ego management, but ego management is often how these things get done--and mostly involving the agent's ego more than the player's.

You bring this up a lot. Extension of a contract to smooth out the average compensation per year.

What I can't get over though is why does this even matter? I can see how this mattered more when cap couldn't be rolled year to year. So I totally understand if this were 2007...we have $9 million of excess space and we $7 million of it if we don't use it so we extend Bak during the year. Give him upfront money to lower future years pay.

But this ain't 2007 no more. Cap can be rolled year to year so a dollar today added to the cap from a contract is the same as adding a dollar years from now.

I guess what I am getting at is if we make it an "extension" we are averaging the life of the deal by including the current contract years. But it's still new money that is going to draw down the cap regardless. It would just simply make David more expensive and a larger cap hit on us next year and the next 4 years....but it would also have a bigger hit on us this year. I guess I just don't get the excitement of smoothing out the average based on contract years already signed.

Notice Bob McGinn hasn't had much to say lately? I love it when that douchecanoe is silenced.

Once they lose he will be pushing out content every 3 minutes.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 10:40

I guess what I am getting at is if we make it an "extension" we are averaging the life of the deal by including the current contract years. But it's still new money that is going to draw down the cap regardless. It would just simply make David more expensive and a larger cap hit on us next year and the next 4 years....but it would also have a bigger hit on us this year. I guess I just don't get the excitement of smoothing out the average based on contract years already signed.

I mean, those are excellent points.

I think it matters for a couple reasons. The TL:DR version is that given the state of the cap in 21 and 22, I don't think we're going to have much rollover space to utilize, anyway.

But here's the longer version...

First, next year is going to be a league-wide challenge; it doesn't make sense to do an extension now that doesn't account for that and then work on renegotiating deals across the team to squeeze under the cap. So right off the bat, any new deals should be accounting for 2021. There likely won't be much to roll over moving out of 2021 in any circumstance, which brings us to the next point...

Secondly, we're going to get to the point in 2022 where without much rollover in 2021 and with Kenny Clark and Aaron Rodgers seeing boosts, we're going to be operating with the real cap there. Again, we may NEED the space we have, and thus may not be able to roll a lot forward, as it is.

But most importantly, pushing the bigger numbers to the end of the contract in longer extensions outlasts the pro-rated signing bonuses, which can only be spread out for 5 total years. What that means is that the end of the contract carries no dead cap and no guarantees. This is how you can give an agent a headline while still having a more team-friendly functional deal. Doing the deal this year gets you to that no-dead-money phase of the deal a year faster.

And if you think this is overstated, look at Alvin Kamara's recent contract: Does anyone think they're going to take on an $11 million jump in cap hit in 2025, pay him that $25 million in salary and roster bonus, and NOT renegotiate or release him given there is no cap consequence? These are the vanity years of a contract. We don't always do that. As a general practice, it is best to agree to contracts that you plan to be able to carry out the whole way through (good for comp picks, good for your reputation with players, etc).

We didn't do that with Kenny Clark--the extension didn't extend past the dead money years, nor does it have an asymmetrical jump in value at the end. But it's an option. It's a great way to deal with a player or agent who feels like they deserve to be recognized nationally as the highest--or one of the highest--paid players at their position, but who actually is less concerned with getting out of town or actually receiving the excess marginal dollars; that it is more a financial recognition of their stature in the league. Given the comments about the Pro Bowl vs All Pro and such in the past, I think Bakh and his agent would really like to get him recognized as at or near the BEST tackle in the league. But I really don't think a sort of year-to-year option at the end of the deal that may or may not actually take place would make or break it for him. That's just a guess as to the mentality based on some comments.