Green Bay Packers News 2023

[BF004]

[BF004]

There is absolutely no difference between our current approach to cap space and the saints approach.

2 teams who aren’t winning a Super Bowl, mortgaging the future to stay average to sell some hope so they can keep butts in the seats

Yeah, not even close.

If Aaron is traded or retired, but including Love’s option, Saints have about $130 MORE in 2024 cap dollars currently allocated than us.

It’s simply a smart accounting gimmick. Every team does it. But we are not doing it like the Saints.

[BF004]

I think its better to create the flexibility and if is the case, just bring the additional cap carryover, basically a neutral move in total but gives you more flexibility and overall takes a lower % of the cap overall a span of years.

It’s only neutral if we don’t use the space. If we use it, we’re borrowing against our future. Not all cleared space will be rolled over. A lot will be spent.

Yea, but also if we don’t do it now, we can’t later. What if we are 7-1 and Jaire or Jones get hurt and we can trade for a player with a higher salary. If we don’t have that flexibility, we can’t do anything.

I don’t know. It’s just the new NFL, just pay attention to the dollars we are actually giving a player, and less about when we are distributing it on the books.

[Pckfn23]

I think its better to create the flexibility and if is the case, just bring the additional cap carryover, basically a neutral move in total but gives you more flexibility and overall takes a lower % of the cap overall a span of years.

It’s only neutral if we don’t use the space. If we use it, we’re borrowing against our future. Not all cleared space will be rolled over. A lot will be spent.

Yea, but also if we don’t do it now, we can’t later. What if we are 7-1 and Jaire or Jones get hurt and we can trade for a player with a higher salary. If we don’t have that flexibility, we can’t do anything.

I don’t know. It’s just the new NFL, just pay attention to the dollars we are actually giving a player, and less about when we are distributing it on the books.

Just no void years for me.

[YoHoChecko]

Yea, but also if we don’t do it now, we can’t later. What if we are 7-1 and Jaire or Jones get hurt and we can trade for a player with a higher salary. If we don’t have that flexibility, we can’t do anything.

I don’t know. It’s just the new NFL, just pay attention to the dollars we are actually giving a player, and less about when we are distributing it on the books.

It's not the new NFL; it's the old NFL come 'round again. And imprudent cap management will bite teams now like it bit teams then. For a while, teams were starting to figure out the cap so much that it felt like it didn't matter. The amount of dead money we're seeing now is starting to really handicap the teams that dabble in it too much. You will always be kicking the can and pushing it out.

Like DrJ said, it's what the Saints started years ago--going all in for their HoF QB's late-career championship pushes. When it doesn't work, you either pay the piper and rebuild/reload or wallow in mediocrity by continuing to do the same thing without that QB contract.

The Packers with Rodgers emulated the Saints with Brees to a tee, right down to the "not getting it done." I want the post-Rodgers Packers to be better than the post-Brees Saints and so I would say, yeah; it's time to stop with void years. They're a great tool when you need them; not a way of life.

[Pckfn23]

[mention]YoHoChecko[/mention]
Absolutely stop the void years. Are these new restructures including void years?

[BF004]

@YoHoChecko
Absolutely stop the void years. Are these new restructures including void years?

I'm not sure, looks like they added 4 void years to Kasien Nixon's contract.

I am honestly not sure what the advantage is to that, I guess if we resign him we can keep the void years spread out. But if we don't resign him, then all the void years come do right away, think it was about $2.5M.

[YoHoChecko]

Look, it's actually simple.

The best, most efficient way to manage a team's cap and talent is to sign players to contracts that you anticipate the player will finish.

Every signing bonus is spread out over the life of the contract because the bonus is compensation for the WHOLE contract, not just for the first year in which it is paid. If you cut a player before the contract finishes and get hit by dead money, then the retroactive $/year of that player's contract is increased. You have now spent more on that player, per year of play, than you agreed to contractually. The cost of that player has gone up for you.

Every single time you use void years, you add dead money. Dead money ALWAYS means paying for player services that are not rendered. Dead money always means that the $/year allocated to that player is more than they have cost you in the past, and usually more than is negotiated in the original contract, though that's not the case if, say, it's terminated after year 3 of a 6+ year contract where the back year was truly a dummy year.


BUT EVEN WITHOUT VOID YEARS, a restructure pushes the cap number in the end of contracts higher and higher. Usually, contracts are structred to be backloaded anyway. This makes it EXCEEDINGLY unlikely that the player will complete the contract. They will be released with a final year or two left, and there will then be dead money (see above) and you lose the shot at comp picks, another reason to let players finish their contracts.

It is totally fine, for the purposes of cash flow and guarantees; or even for the purpose of forcing a decision, to sign SOME contracts that you anticipate needing restructures or having delayed guarantees. But you have to know that in advance and plan accordingly. If you start doing this to every contract you can, you just end up with a ton of dead money at the end of a contract a player can't finish, losing the comp pick, and ultimately paying every player a little more per year of service than you initially bargained for, when you consider actual money paid versus actual years played.

So when you say "look at the money paid, not the year it's accounted for," I AM looking at that. This isn't just moving money around; it's creating dead money and incomplete contracts and higher cost for players. That's just math.

[Pckfn23]

@YoHoChecko
Absolutely stop the void years. Are these new restructures including void years?

I'm not sure, looks like they added 4 void years to Kasien Nixon's contract.

I am honestly not sure what the advantage is to that, I guess if we resign him we can keep the void years spread out. But if we don't resign him, then all the void years come do right away, think it was about $2.5M.

Holy crap. $370k each year. Now for someone like him, I'm ok with it if the intention is to resign. Like Amos I was hoping to resign him to make that void year worthwhile.

[Pckfn23]

Every single time you use void years, you add dead money.

Not necessarily. If the player is re-signed then the void money can be incorporated into the new contact.

[Scott4Pack]

I was hearing one of the talking heads chat the other day about the trend of players having shorter-term contracts. I am wondering that that will dramatically affect “void” years (or vice versa).

[Yoop]

I was hearing one of the talking heads chat the other day about the trend of players having shorter-term contracts. I am wondering that that will dramatically affect “void” years (or vice versa).

Scott this was just discussed in another thread I think.

anyway Team are starting to give Guaranteed contract for 1 or 2 seasons on say a 3 or 4 year deal, with the years past the Guarantee voidable, so ya I think your right.

[YoHoChecko]

Every single time you use void years, you add dead money.

Not necessarily. If the player is re-signed then the void money can be incorporated into the new contact.

Ok that's true, but it still means that you are paying for past performance on the next deal, and that increases the future cost of that player beyond what you're willing to pay/they're able to demand for their present services.

Guys, it's bad business. It makes sense in some occasions. It is used to literally borrow money from your future teams and/or to retain players you can't afford by paying for them after they are gone. It helps to make a BIG push in the short term. But it will always be an inefficient allocation of resources. Sometimes you choose something else over efficiency, but it should not be a modus operendi. It's a strategy that works for certain short-term cicumstances.

[YoHoChecko]

I guess some people view this as disrespectful? Like he's a guy who played for a while and finished his contract and found better offers for his services. It seems pretty nondescript.

[Yoop]

I guess some people view this as disrespectful? Like he's a guy who played for a while and finished his contract and found better offers for his services. It seems pretty nondescript.

money, we don't have enough to bring in a #3, it was the same I think last year with MVS, it's cheaper to use a mid round pick hoping you can get close to that production, if we had the cap room we may have shown some interest.

[go pak go]

I guess some people view this as disrespectful? Like he's a guy who played for a while and finished his contract and found better offers for his services. It seems pretty nondescript.

Yeah. I mean we knew Lazard's market was going to be more than we could afford. So we let him move on.

I think there is some things management needs to do to have the exit go better, but I also think there is a lot of empty complaining by players.

[BSA]

Substantial Performance escalators for Myers and Runyan- huge bonuses (Or is it boni ?)
[/b]

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2023/0 ... 001d9700e

"...the NFL uses an equation relating playing time and salary to benefit players who play a lot of snaps in a season but make lower salaries.
In total, the fund will pay $336 million to NFL players from the 2022 season.

Runyan, a sixth-round pick in 2020, earned the fifth-most at $790,159, while Myers, a second-rounder in 2021, earned $638,041, the 24th most.

These payouts do not affect the salary cap.

Runyan played 1,117 total snaps last season but made only $895,000 in base salary. Myers played 1,141 total snaps last season but made only $913,643 in base salary. The performance payments attempt to bridge the gap between playing time and salary. "


During the pandemic, the owners halted the performance payouts and kept that cash to bridge the revenue gap. Now that its in the past, the performance payouts are back. Pretty big chunk of change for guys on their first contracts. And it doesn't hit the cap.

[Scott4Pack]

I was hearing one of the talking heads chat the other day about the trend of players having shorter-term contracts. I am wondering that that will dramatically affect “void” years (or vice versa).

Scott this was just discussed in another thread I think.

anyway Team are starting to give Guaranteed contract for 1 or 2 seasons on say a 3 or 4 year deal, with the years past the Guarantee voidable, so ya I think your right.

Yeah. At the least I think it might mean that teams will have a harder time keeping players for very long. But the league might not mind that at all as they might want more youthful players.

[Pckfn23]

Every single time you use void years, you add dead money.

Not necessarily. If the player is re-signed then the void money can be incorporated into the new contact.

Ok that's true, but it still means that you are paying for past performance on the next deal, and that increases the future cost of that player beyond what you're willing to pay/they're able to demand for their present services.

Again, not necessarily. Take Nixon for example. His $370k for 4 years can be incorporated into a 2 year vet minimum contract for no additional cost. It would have to be $1.41 Million guaranteed, but as long as the plan is to keep him, it equals put to be the same thing. You are on the right track concerning paying for past performance. The rub comes if/when we don't extend guys. For example, I think it was bad business to not extend Amos for a year or 2 simply because his void was so high.

[BSA]

The best, most efficient way to manage a team's cap and talent is to sign players to contracts that you anticipate the player will finish.

Absolutely.

And in a normal football-business world, that's exactly what GB has done. However, we still have a pandemic to pay for.
You also have a players union, CBA, agents and teams all adding massive variables to the equation and pushing your team to do things they'd rather not. So I don't think GB's philosophy has changed all that much - but the arena we play in has. In a lot of ways. You referenced how things were in yesteryear, where the cap barely mattered. That's absolutely true. And the reason for that blissfulness was a consistently rising cap that allowed for a variety of moves and strategies.

But from 2020 - 2022, the league was in a massive, unprecedented revenue/cap crunch. And they didn't want to eat it all at once
So all parties agreed to borrowing from the future to pay off the huge revenue losses during the pandemic.
That's a HUGE part of why the Packers and many teams are experiencing tightness and less than wonderful roster moves. The cap should have been much higher this year. The NFLPA & owners signed off on the plan;that borrowing is coming home to roost now. Sitting in Russ Ball's office in 2019 - they mapped out the roster/spending/bonuses based on continued consistent growth. Then all hell broke loose.

However, looking forward - the league bosses, GMs,cap guys and agents all see what's coming. The rate of increase will grow substantially as the TV and gambling dollars roll in. More from International too. More local $$ too

So while there's a league-wide puckered sphincter right now, I believe relief is on the way. That's why teams keep pushing so much out now- to alleviate the pandemic crunch and pay for it with future dollars from a rapidly increasing cap. It sucks, but it will be over soon and we'll be back to pay- as- you go and much less concern over cap-strapped moves in Titletown.
.