Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 11:00

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.

For sure. This the best paragraph of your line of thinking and I can totally get on board with that. It absolutely is a win for the organization if we can do that.

The Packers haven't historically done it most of all because I think they have a genuine respect for its players. In the long run, doing deals like these are dirty and quite possibly taking advantage of the stupidity of the player.

I think Kamara is stupid. I mean that was the first thing I thought when I saw his contract. "dude got played big time"

I just always felt the Packers didn't do that and because of that it garnered respect. It's also why I think Aaron Jones is going to have a much for respectable contract than for sure Kamara and maybe more in line with Mixon because smart players know that expensive players have a higher chance at getting cut.

You look at players like Jimmy Graham. Billy Tuner. All these guys did was really set them up to be cut. And does that make sense for them personally? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a hard position to take as both also got good signing bonuses and players bet on themselves and players likely can latch on other teams after being cut.

But I have to think Billy Turner in the end would be a more wealthy man if he was averaging $5 million per year than $8 million per year because he will play the life of his contract far easier at $5.

But back to your Bak situation...I would be totally okay if that's why we do Bak and if that's what is important to them. I will also lose tremendous respect for Bak because he will be stupid too. But I would be happy the Packers keep him under that type of structure for another 3 to 4 years.

I think it depends on what the player wants.

For instance, I think Aaron Jones wants as much money as he can get, but he genuinely would prefer a deal that a) keeps him in Green Bay, and relatedly, b) will allow him to stay through the life of the contract. Aaron Rodgers was the same. While '21 and '22 have huge cap hits, '23 does not (it actually declines significantly). Rodgers signed a deal that he and the team could play all the way through, which is probably why the team's draft pick led to so much soul searching about him not being in charge of that future anymore.

Bakh, I think, based on his comments, wants to feel valued. He believes that the team can basically decide who to keep and who not to keep and make the cap work. He knows they can't keep everyone, but he wants to be prioritized ahead of King and maybe Jones. He wants the team to show him that he is valued as the elite player that he is, and to prioritize keeping him. That arrangement doesn't necessarily HAVE to play all the way out. It can basically guarantee the next 3-4 years will be in Green Bay but include some vanity years at the end.

The real job of the agents and team cap negotiators is to understand those personal dynamics. While I can draw up all the structures I want (and lord knows I do), those are the things I can't know without personal involvement. I can only guess based on vibes and public comments.


Sometimes, players and agents WANT a deal that gives them headlines now--keeps them in the elite category--but forces a decision earlier than the life of the deal; I either get a massive pay raise or you set me free while I'm still young to get another free agent deal with another round of guaranteed money. Flacco comes to mind here. He wasn't stupid. He knew is 6-year deals were 3-year deals and then a team-option, essentially. But it worked for him and for the team to structure it that way.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 10:50

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.

He made sure to give the entire receiving crew a 1 as a rating this week...

I'm surprised our average yards to go isn't even better. Its something I have noticed early on. We have been in a lot of favorable 3rd-down situations and have done a nice job converting even when we are in longer yardage. Even still, its been 3rd and 8 or 3rd and 9 instead of the 3rd and 12 and 3rd and 15's we seem to have put ourselves in more frequently in years past.

3rd and ? are less of a problem now in Lafluers multi look scheme, the reason is on any given down we have more options to use and more impact players to use them, it's why we have 450 plus yards in both games, we are now a marching band of first down getters

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 14:03

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 10:50

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.

He made sure to give the entire receiving crew a 1 as a rating this week...

Cannot stand that dude. That is why I love times like this, he has very little negative to write about. But he always finds something. Like, is it his role to play the villain, or is he just that much of a dick?

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 16:22

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 14:03

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 10:50

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.

He made sure to give the entire receiving crew a 1 as a rating this week...

Cannot stand that dude. That is why I love times like this, he has very little negative to write about. But he always finds something. Like, is it his role to play the villain, or is he just that much of a dick?

one of my fav all time writers, hate to be so disagreable with everyone including you Nick but imo McGinn is usually pretty accurate, we fans just don't like his brutality, and lack of sugar.

I hate to pay for the Atlantic, specially sense I don't read sports writers as much any more, but I sti

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 11:18

I think it depends on what the player wants.

For instance, I think Aaron Jones wants as much money as he can get, but he genuinely would prefer a deal that a) keeps him in Green Bay, and relatedly, b) will allow him to stay through the life of the contract.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Jones.
He comes from a military family and moved around a fair bit including Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, texas and Germany prior to coming to GB. I would think he'd value stability AND the chance to play on a winning team more than just getting "the most" money.

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 16:35

one of my fav all time writers, hate to be so disagreable with everyone including you Nick but imo McGinn is usually pretty accurate, we fans just don't like his brutality, and lack of sugar.

I hate to pay for the Atlantic, specially sense I don't read sports writers as much any more, but I sti

Yeah, and I know a lot of people like to read his stuff. I just hate that no matter what is going on, he will look for the negative in it, or so it seems. If things are going bad, he loves to pile on and get clicks.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 17:05

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 16:35

one of my fav all time writers, hate to be so disagreable with everyone including you Nick but imo McGinn is usually pretty accurate, we fans just don't like his brutality, and lack of sugar.

I hate to pay for the Atlantic, specially sense I don't read sports writers as much any more, but I sti

Yeah, and I know a lot of people like to read his stuff. I just hate that no matter what is going on, he will look for the negative in it, or so it seems. If things are going bad, he loves to pile on and get clicks.

dicks get clicks.

We see it here too. The most popular this forum gets is when the Packers take a sh*t in a prime time game.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 17:09

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 17:05

Yoop wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 16:35

one of my fav all time writers, hate to be so disagreable with everyone including you Nick but imo McGinn is usually pretty accurate, we fans just don't like his brutality, and lack of sugar.

I hate to pay for the Atlantic, specially sense I don't read sports writers as much any more, but I sti

Yeah, and I know a lot of people like to read his stuff. I just hate that no matter what is going on, he will look for the negative in it, or so it seems. If things are going bad, he loves to pile on and get clicks.

dicks get clicks.

We see it here too. The most popular this forum gets is when the Packers take a sh*t in a prime time game.

Yeah, everyone loves to pile on I guess, not just him. When I was young, my grandpa (when he was alive) used to watch the Packers and yell and swear at every game. It is almost as if he enjoyed it more when they failed. He would never miss a play, he was a huge fan, but man that dude loved to hammer on them.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 11:18

Bakh, I think, based on his comments, wants to feel valued.

I'm sure he does, but does a person really feel less valued with $110 Million vs $115 Million ?

There's one more component in all of these negotiations and that's the Franchise Tag, the hammer that the Owners won't ever give up. And in some ways, just having the tag is as valuable as using the tag. For 2021 FAs its a big deal. And that's because the formula used to calculate the tag values has a salary cap component to it. So if the cap goes down, the Franchise Tags go down too.
Here's an example I swiped from The Athletic :

"The wide receiver franchise number is $17.865 million this year. With a $175 million salary cap, the 2021 wide receiver number projects to $15.681 million. That would be a little more than a 12 percent drop from this year."

So the Packers have the "threat" of a lower tag next year as a negotiation tool. Its in Bak's best interest to get a deal done now, because if he can't there's a small, but real possibility that he'd get an OT tag that is 12% less than the 2020 tag. That's a lot of cash. Neither the Packers nor Bak wants that - but just like Bak/agent use the Tunsil deal to boost things up, Russ Ball and team will use the lower 2021 Tag to knock things down

And GB may end up using the lowered RB tag on Aaron Jones if they can't come to an agreement- that buys GB his services in 2020 and 2021 without the long-term commitment that has scuttled so many other RB deals.
.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 16:22

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 14:03

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 10:50

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.

He made sure to give the entire receiving crew a 1 as a rating this week...

Cannot stand that dude. That is why I love times like this, he has very little negative to write about. But he always finds something. Like, is it his role to play the villain, or is he just that much of a dick?

He started to pander to his audience instead of actually reporting, which lead to a preconceived narrative that the team was never going to meet. Thus, he became so negative. His rating of a 1 for all the receivers is just a microcosm of his disdain for us not drafting a receiver. That is his preconception this year, we won't win it all because we didn't draft a WR.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 17:13

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 17:09

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 17:05

Yeah, and I know a lot of people like to read his stuff. I just hate that no matter what is going on, he will look for the negative in it, or so it seems. If things are going bad, he loves to pile on and get clicks.

dicks get clicks.

We see it here too. The most popular this forum gets is when the Packers take a sh*t in a prime time game.

Yeah, everyone loves to pile on I guess, not just him. When I was young, my grandpa (when he was alive) used to watch the Packers and yell and swear at every game. It is almost as if he enjoyed it more when they failed. He would never miss a play, he was a huge fan, but man that dude loved to hammer on them.

haaaaa, thats cause back in the black era many of the fans felt they did have the answers, and eventually Harlan proved them to be right the joint needed a house cleaning, get the non football people from the football related decisions.

I know thats a bit off point, but I can relate with Grandpa, and I think some of it comes from the anger many of us felt after the joy filled and competent years of Lombardi.

BSA wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 19:35

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 11:18

Bakh, I think, based on his comments, wants to feel valued.

I'm sure he does, but does a person really feel less valued with $110 Million vs $115 Million ?

I mean... yes?

I think it comes down to two valuations:

• Within Team: Does the team prioritize keeping me ahead of some of their other free agents who I perceive as less elite, less valuable contributors to the team, even if on some level I want them to get theirs, too

• Within the League: Does the team give me a deal that announces to the league that they believe me to be elite as I perceive myself to be. If I am the best LT in the league, and I have been overlooked in Pro Bowl voting (and made a thing about that), maybe I want the team to re-assert that they value me as the best LT in the league, even if the numbers are superficially inflated

This is not an attitude I love or value as a fan; I don't have a ton of respect for that way of relativism among players, rather than doing what's best for you regardless of what other players and teams have done; and I certainly can't say for sure that's what Bakh is looking for.

BUT, I think it is the predominant feeling among player agents and is the easiest way to demonstrate your value to your client and potential future clients. And I think MOST of these negotiations are mostly, if not completely outsourced to their agents. So I think when you get those true alphas at their position, those small amounts of "financial respect" let's say, do weight heavily even though I disagree that they should.

Everything your saying could be true. That he wants to “feel valued” and wants the numbers to pop and show he is one the highest paid LTs...very possible that is all apart of it.

But I think in addition it could just be that he really does want to stay in GB. But he also wants to make as much money as possible, and these interview responses are strategic and helping him get the message out that he intends to not be giving any “hey you drafted me, I want to retire here” discounts.

I think he likes GB, loves Rodgers, but also knows he is one of the leagues best and wants to cash in one last time, clout aside.

I can’t blame him.

However, in the end if a team shows good effort in getting it done, and offers something in the right ballpark...if the player likes the org the deal usually gets done. But I think he’s letting it be known that those conversations won’t be starting at a low ball number.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 22:03

Everything your saying could be true. That he wants to “feel valued” and wants the numbers to pop and show he is one the highest paid LTs...very possible that is all apart of it.

But I think in addition it could just be that he really does want to stay in GB. But he also wants to make as much money as possible, and these interview responses are strategic and helping him get the message out that he intends to not be giving any “hey you drafted me, I want to retire here” discounts.

I think he likes GB, loves Rodgers, but also knows he is one of the leagues best and wants to cash in one last time, clout aside.

I can’t blame him.

However, in the end if a team shows good effort in getting it done, and offers something in the right ballpark...if the player likes the org the deal usually gets done. But I think he’s letting it be known that those conversations won’t be starting at a low ball number.

I'm not sure I needed to quote you, but it is a direct response... I agree here. I am very clear that I can make a case for certain perpspectives and priorities based on what the player may be looking for, but I am equally clear that I cannot say with any more certainty than a monkey throwing darts how our players and how their agents feel and what the dynamics between those two are.

I am laying out a scenario in which Bakhtari's demands may be heightened due to what feels is a lack of respect on within-team prioritization and lack of financial respect at his position leaguewide. Potentially a worst-case scenario within the realm of feasibility. And then showing that yeah, if needbe, we can do that for him (though my proposed above wouldn't make him the highest paid--we could get there)

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 22:18

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 22:03

Everything your saying could be true. That he wants to “feel valued” and wants the numbers to pop and show he is one the highest paid LTs...very possible that is all apart of it.

But I think in addition it could just be that he really does want to stay in GB. But he also wants to make as much money as possible, and these interview responses are strategic and helping him get the message out that he intends to not be giving any “hey you drafted me, I want to retire here” discounts.

I think he likes GB, loves Rodgers, but also knows he is one of the leagues best and wants to cash in one last time, clout aside.

I can’t blame him.

However, in the end if a team shows good effort in getting it done, and offers something in the right ballpark...if the player likes the org the deal usually gets done. But I think he’s letting it be known that those conversations won’t be starting at a low ball number.

I'm not sure I needed to quote you, but it is a direct response... I agree here. I am very clear that I can make a case for certain perpspectives and priorities based on what the player may be looking for, but I am equally clear that I cannot say with any more certainty than a monkey throwing darts how our players and how their agents feel and what the dynamics between those two are.

I am laying out a scenario in which Bakhtari's demands may be heightened due to what feels is a lack of respect on within-team prioritization and lack of financial respect at his position leaguewide. Potentially a worst-case scenario within the realm of feasibility. And then showing that yeah, if needbe, we can do that for him (though my proposed above wouldn't make him the highest paid--we could get there)

True. If he doesn’t feel like he is being prioritized by the packers, that would affect his relationship with the organization...and thus not incline him to meet the packers somewhere for a win win situation come contract talk time.

He may just feel chapped about everybody else getting paid first, or contacted about being paid first and flip a switch in his head that he will need top dollar in GB, or he will go get top dollar elsewhere.

My guess is we are not near that point with Bahk, that the relationship is not that damaged. But you are right that you never know, and if bahk starts feeling that way even a little...it would not be good for the Packers!

I think another point that may not get as much attention from us fans as it should is the collective desire for players/agents to continually push the limits of these contracts upward as a function of responsibility toward their fellow union mates. I think when players like Brady accept offers that don't necessarily max out their earning potential, it hinders those that follow afterward because it allows teams to use that as bargaining leverage when making low ball offers.

"See, look how Brady took less and allowed the Patriots to build a roster around him and thus create a dynasty."

Something along those lines.

I'm guessing that while we, as fans, appreciate a player of Brady's caliber taking less to help the team, up and coming players and their agents don't appreciate it nearly as much but are basically publicly muted from voicing it. I don't imagine player union leadership look too positively on individual players who willingly leave money on the table, especially on teams that consistently carry cap money over from year to year.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 19:38

Packfntk wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 16:22

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2020 14:03

He made sure to give the entire receiving crew a 1 as a rating this week...

Cannot stand that dude. That is why I love times like this, he has very little negative to write about. But he always finds something. Like, is it his role to play the villain, or is he just that much of a dick?

He started to pander to his audience instead of actually reporting, which lead to a preconceived narrative that the team was never going to meet. Thus, he became so negative. His rating of a 1 for all the receivers is just a microcosm of his disdain for us not drafting a receiver. That is his preconception this year, we won't win it all because we didn't draft a WR.

If you belong to the Athletic why not bring the article where he gives all of our receivers such a low grade, I'am sure we'd all like to read it, I've seen none of this vitriol from him, even so I agree, we should have drafted a receiver, in two games MVS has dropped half the passes thrown to him, same with Sternberger, against better playing defenses then the first two we played those drops could cost us the game.
people hate McGinn because he doesn't provide the ear candy as much as the rest of our beat writers do.

and I've never felt that McGinn panders to his readers, never got that impression in all the years he was a beat writer for us, in fact like you most fans hated his blunt slant on reality