Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 14:59

is new agent talk where they say "100m guaranteed" and then they say "effectively 70m" and its really 70, or???

I think kind of depends. ‘Fully guaranteed’ essentially means if they cut him tomorrow, he walks away with $70M.

But then he’ll have additional roster bonuses and such he can earn down the road, probably to the tune of an additional $30.

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 15:24

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 14:59

is new agent talk where they say "100m guaranteed" and then they say "effectively 70m" and its really 70, or???

I think kind of depends. ‘Fully guaranteed’ essentially means if they cut him tomorrow, he walks away with $70M.

But then he’ll have additional roster bonuses and such he can earn down the road, probably to the tune of an additional $30.

So that $30m ain’t guaranteed haha

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 16:53

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 15:24

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 14:59

is new agent talk where they say "100m guaranteed" and then they say "effectively 70m" and its really 70, or???

I think kind of depends. ‘Fully guaranteed’ essentially means if they cut him tomorrow, he walks away with $70M.

But then he’ll have additional roster bonuses and such he can earn down the road, probably to the tune of an additional $30.

So that $30m ain’t guaranteed haha

What it usually means is that there is a guarantee trigger that takes place within the time period that guaranteed money would make it almost impossible to not reach. Like "On the fourth day of the league year" in the second year of his contract, a roster bonus or part of salary becomes guaranteed that is not guaranteed at time of signing. It's basically only relevant if, say, you are convicted of vehicular homicide via DUI and go to jail or you retire unexpectedly.

But sometimes it means it's guaranteed for injury only, not guaranteed regardless of the reason the contract ends.

They could do a better job of talking about it, but the wording does have some root in the contract's reality, generally.

So Derek Carr got 4 years, $150 million or $37.5 million/year

Geno Smith just got 3 years, $105 million or $35.0 million/year

Sounds like we're settling into a highish-level veteran QB market rate developing

APB wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 10:02

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 09:49

Saints are still $21 million over the cap, this will be interesting.

The Saints situation is exactly what I'm hoping the Packers organization avoids. They're in a seemingly perpetual state of "chasing a championship" through signing middling FAs and using future cap monies that only result in self-imposed mediocrity (at best) and disappointment.

They should have done two years ago exactly as the Rams are doing this off season: just rip the band-aid off.

It’s interesting because I’ve said in every mock for the past 4 years the Packers need a 2 year plan. The first year should be correcting the cap by dumping bad contracts and then go all in from there.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 17:58

APB wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 10:02

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

06 Mar 2023 09:49

Saints are still $21 million over the cap, this will be interesting.

The Saints situation is exactly what I'm hoping the Packers organization avoids. They're in a seemingly perpetual state of "chasing a championship" through signing middling FAs and using future cap monies that only result in self-imposed mediocrity (at best) and disappointment.

They should have done two years ago exactly as the Rams are doing this off season: just rip the band-aid off.

It’s interesting because I’ve said in every mock for the past 4 years the Packers need a 2 year plan. The first year should be correcting the cap by dumping bad contracts and then go all in from there.

The packers are def on the same plan as the saints until Murphy retires. He ain’t gonna lead a total rebuild and walk out of his job with a couple 4 win seasons. He’s gonna keep the ship artificially afloat and then let it hit an ice berg as he walks out the door.

ahaha aww man, get yo PAWP KOARN readyyy!!!

If I was the Giants, I might think about moving on that if non-exclusive.

Only 2 first round picks. They have 25 this year, and with Lamar, would expect to be a bad first again next year. That's like maybe equivalent of pick 12-15 just guessing?

Could probably swing Daniel Jones to the Raiders, Panthers, Bucs, maybe even Commanders in division and get some draft capital back.

Rich Eisen has said he also heard rumors that if Tua doesn't get a clean bill of health, that the Fish will try to woo Brady out of retirement.

He also said that Philip Rivers reached out to Miami and (after Jimmy G went down with injury-->) SanFran last year.

In need of a vet QB, Baltimore? We know just the guy!

Labrev wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2023 14:10

In need of a vet QB, Baltimore? We know just the guy!

I actually tried a mock last week where I moved Jackson then Aaron to the Ravens.

And they tagged Barkley.

$40M/year for Jones? Gawsh.
$32M/year for Geno. (I am happy for him.)

That pile of cash we owe Rodgers is getting smaller every day.

$40.0 M/year for Daniel Jones
$37.5 M/year for Derek Carr
$35.0 M/year for Geno Smith

All new deals, not extensions; clear, clean averages and summaries. No new money/new deal complications. I really like having baselines like this. This is nice. Obviously the structures and guarantees and such might change the effective values, but it's still really nice to have this many high-end market veteran deals all at once; obvi no HoFers in the group, but still clear market boundaries.

Just sick of the Giants. I have to guess how much Geno’s deal might’ve jacked that up.

The Ravens made an interesting and strategic move with Lamar

Lamar doesn't have an agent, so the NFLPA has been advising him in the background. The NFLPA REALLY REALLYwants to break through the wall and get fully guaranteed deals for everybody - and they're using Lamar as a pawn to further their cause

The Ravens used the tag. So now, IF another team offers the fully guaranteed deal - the blood isn't on the hands of the Ravens front office.
When the Browns did the Watson deal, all of the other owners pitched a fit and gave Haslam lots &%$@ for the move. He's a pariah

So... the Ravens let another franchise be the "bad guy" and all they are doing is matching that deal.
Takes some of the heat off of Baltimore FO and they can say they held the line... as long as they possibly could.