Packers extend Bakhtiari 4 years

RRyder823 · Post #81 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:30 am

WiscSports1 wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
WiscSports1 wrote:
I don't get this perspective? He's not going to get any cheaper and tagging a guy is not a TT move. He rarely ever does it.

This deal is fine. Protect Rodgers at all costs. He's only 24 and clearly getting better. We talk about evaluating Spriggs, but don't forget Bakhtiari was starting as a ROOKIE. He's been that good.

Your making a pretty huge assumption he doesn't come cheaper by waiting. Any kind if injury that keeps him out a week or two lowers his price tag. This is why deals signed this early generally come at a discount because the player is now protected.

The automatic assumption that Bakhtiari would've automatically receive this kind of offer in the offseason is just wrong

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

It's far more likely his price goes up than his price goes down due to injury. He's 24. Premier position in NFL. A very good pass protector.

Waiting to sign him would have been a mistake, imo.

It's far more likely it goes down. Unless you think it's far more likely he makes the Pro Bowl versus him getting any injury that sidelines for a couple weeks.

Hell just letting him talk to teams may have held the price down cause unless you think teams were going to be lining up to make him the highest paid player at his position then making the 3rd highest while taking on the added risk of injury and being locked in when it wasn't needed is a horrible idea.

People assuming he was guaranteed to make this much on the open market are making a huge assumption.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Post #82 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:00 am

LOL @ thinking his price tag on the open market is south of what he got.

RRyder823 · Post #83 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:13 am

ReasonablySober wrote:LOL @ thinking his price tag on the open market is south of what he got.

So I'm your inclined to think a team would've made him the highest paid LT in the league?

Otherwise this comment is just trying to be smart while not actually thinking

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Post #84 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:15 am

RRyder823 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:LOL @ thinking his price tag on the open market is south of what he got.

So I'm your inclined to think a team would've made him the highest paid LT in the league?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

About a day after FA starts, he's not even gonna be in the top ten highest paid LTs. Hell, probably sooner. I can't believe anyone is overly hung up on this.

RRyder823 · Post #85 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:19 am

ReasonablySober wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:LOL @ thinking his price tag on the open market is south of what he got.

So I'm your inclined to think a team would've made him the highest paid LT in the league?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

About a day after FA starts, he's not even gonna be in the top ten highest paid LTs. Hell, probably sooner. I can't believe anyone is overly hung up on this.

Another comment without thinking. Unless of course you think 7 other teams this offseason are handing our 12+ million a year extensions to their guys. But by all means continue on on thinking this wasn't an overpay or that it's a good deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Post #86 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:20 am

RRyder823 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:So I'm your inclined to think a team would've made him the highest paid LT in the league?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

About a day after FA starts, he's not even gonna be in the top ten highest paid LTs. Hell, probably sooner. I can't believe anyone is overly hung up on this.

Another comment without thinking. Unless of course you think 7 other teams this offseason are handing our 12+ million a year extensions to their guys. But by all means continue on on thinking this wasn't an overpay or that it's a good deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Okay.

dietac · Post #87 » by **dietac** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:26 am

The Packers wanted to take advantage of the free cap money this year, so they had to start signing at some point during the season. LT was clearly their top priority, so they wanted to get that done so they know how much they have left for the other FAs. If they sign other guys first, they may run out of cap room and end up losing Bakh and have to settle for someone untested at LT. Maybe they overpaid slightly (I guess time will tell) but they couldn't risk not protecting Rodgers' blind side for the next few years.

chuckleslove · Post #88 » by **chuckleslove** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:29 am

I think this is a slight overpay but he would have almost certainly gotten more on the open market assuming no massive injury this year so I think its pretty absurd to be upset about this.

You have to compare him more to what we would replace him with potentially than to the rest of the league. What the rest of the league has and pays their guys is secondary to me over how our team and Rodgers' blindside would look without him.

emunney · Post #89 » by **emunney** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:42 am

RRyder823 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:So I'm your inclined to think a team would've made him the highest paid LT in the league?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

About a day after FA starts, he's not even gonna be in the top ten highest paid LTs. Hell, probably sooner. I can't believe anyone is overly hung up on this.

Another comment without thinking. Unless of course you think 7 other teams this offseason are handing our 12+ million a year extensions to their guys. But by all means continue on on thinking this wasn't an overpay or that it's a good deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Dude this is less than Eric Fisher got. Less than every other tackle who was extended since the end of last season. Nobody knows where you're getting this top paid LT thing. He's not close. Glenn got 36m guaranteed!

Profound23 · Post #90 » by **Profound23** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:05 am

I agree with those who believe if Bahktiari plays st the same level or better, he would get much more than this.

We debate stuff like this every year. Right now he is one of the top paid. I doubt when the top tackles in FA get paid it will still be an issue.

HKPackFan · Post #91 » by **HKPackFan** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:15 am

This is an overpay. 12MM per year is for the top tackles. I 100% knew Bak was going to get that amount, I just thought someone else was going to pay him.

I'm not mad about the deal, but this is not how I thought they would take care of the oline these past couple of weeks.

Bak IMO was the 3rd or 4th best olineman last year so it's weird he's now one of the top paid players on the team.

The timing is a little weird.

I would have wanted 4 out of the 5 oline guys playing on expiring contracts and auditioning to the packers and the rest of the league, and getting their best efforts.

We can take advantage of that and see how things play out. Does Bak get better and earn a contract with us? How does Spriggs look over the next 6 months, good enough if Bak is too pricey we have confidence in Spriggs? Is Tretter holding up at Center? Lang body holding up? Get 1 last year of a pro bowl guard's talent in Sitton.

Instead we dump Sitton losing his probowl talents with zero compensation, we tie ourselves to Bak very early without letting things play out between him and Spriggs.

I thought we were going to dump Sitton at the end of the season due to age and let Bak go due to his market price, and focus on Lang, Tretter, and groom Spriggs for 2017. The fallback being if Spriggs doesn't look like he'll be ready in time, franchise Bak or just pay up in March.

I agreed with dumping Tramon and House 2 seasons ago, both guys were getting way overpaid. I thought they might consider Bak in the same situation but I guess not. My hope now is Bak can live up to the contract, that might be a tall order, he's not worth that much now, but my guess they didn't feel Spriggs is ready, and you do have to protect the franchise.

Ron Swanson · Post #92 » by **Ron Swanson** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:02 pm

Some of these comments make me wonder if a lot of you guys know how NFL extensions and free agency work. The point of cutting Sitton and extending Bahk right now, is so you can delegate guaranteed money for this season's salary cap, while simultaneously creating cap room to sign your guys next offseason.

Debate whether or not Bahk is a good LT and worth the money, but this idea that you "wait until free agency" as a means of thinking he might be cheaper on the open market is **** laughable. You either wanted him back or you didn't.

neiLz · Post #93 » by **neiLz** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:41 pm

This is a very decent deal. If its true only 17 mil guaranteed thats a great bargain. If they roll between 2-5 mil this year for guarantees then you are only talking 12 mil guaranteed for 4 years.. if he sucks he's cut. any slippage and he gets cut. by the time the last year of the deal rolls around it may all be non guaranteed. If he lived up to the performance you can extend, cut and save cap or let him walk for a pick.

RRyder823 · Post #94 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:52 pm

emunney wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
About a day after FA starts, he's not even gonna be in the top ten highest paid LTs. Hell, probably sooner. I can't believe anyone is overly hung up on this.

Another comment without thinking. Unless of course you think 7 other teams this offseason are handing our 12+ million a year extensions to their guys. But by all means continue on on thinking this wasn't an overpay or that it's a good deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Dude this is less than Eric Fisher got. Less than every other tackle who was extended since the end of last season. Nobody knows where you're getting this top paid LT thing. He's not close. Glenn got 36m guaranteed!

That's when your looking at guaranteed monry. I'm looking at the salary he'll actually be making per year which will make him the 3rd highest paid LT in the league.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

emunney · Post #95 » by **emunney** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:55 pm

RRyder823 wrote:
emunney wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:Another comment without thinking. Unless of course you think 7 other teams this offseason are handing our 12+ million a year extensions to their guys. But by all means continue on on thinking this wasn't an overpay or that it's a good deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Dude this is less than Eric Fisher got. Less than every other tackle who was extended since the end of last season. Nobody knows where you're getting this top paid LT thing. He's not close. Glenn got 36m guaranteed!

That's when your looking at guaranteed monry. I'm looking at the salary he'll actually be making per year

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

No, you aren't, because the contract details aren't available yet.

RRyder823 · Post #96 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:01 pm

emunney wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:
emunney wrote:Dude this is less than Eric Fisher got. Less than every other tackle who was extended since the end of last season. Nobody knows where you're getting this top paid LT thing. He's not close. Glenn got 36m guaranteed!

That's when your looking at guaranteed monry. I'm looking at the salary he'll actually be making per year

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

No, you aren't, because the contract details aren't available yet.

Fair enough. If they back loaded it I'll change my tune on the subject. Averaging it out the salary would make him the 3rd highest which is what I was doing. So I guess I'll back track a little and say if most of his money is in the final year then my opinion will change but if it stays relatively flat then my point stands which is making the choice to extend him for 12+ million a year right now is a bad move and could've just as easily been done later on in the season much like how they handled Daniels last year.

What ever though. You guys like the deal. I don't. If he raises his level of play and stays healthy it'll look like a good deal. And hopefully it does. If he stays the same slightly above average guy or he hurts a shoulder it won't. Doesn't matter any more. It's done and there's still 15 weeks to go and other guys to sign.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Ron Swanson · Post #97 » by **Ron Swanson** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:26 pm

Yeah, judging an NFL contract based on the average per year salary is non-sensical. It's always about the guaranteed money and de-escalators/incentives.

RRyder823 · Post #98 » by **RRyder823** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:51 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:Yeah, judging an NFL contract based on the average per year salary is non-sensical. It's always about the guaranteed money and de-escalators/incentives.

Well it has more to do with judging what the cap number ends up being which the per year salary is a factor.

Like I just said though I'll back off untill the final structure comes out and if it's largely back loaded I'll be fine with it but I still don't think the deal should've been done this early and could've been done later on in the season while protecting against any injury potentially incurred and having better clarity on the other guys on the roster but it's done and over with at this point.

Really as long as I don't wake up and see Tretter signed for 4 years 36 million within the next few weeks I'll be fine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

GBPackers47 · Post #99 » by **GBPackers47** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:12 pm

RRyder823 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
RRyder823 wrote:So I'm your inclined to think a team would've made him the highest paid LT in the league?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

About a day after FA starts, he's not even gonna be in the top ten highest paid LTs. Hell, probably sooner. I can't believe anyone is overly hung up on this.

Another comment without thinking. Unless of course you think 7 other teams this offseason are handing our 12+ million a year extensions to their guys. But by all means continue on on thinking this wasn't an overpay or that it's a good deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

You have to look at other teams' spending habits in FA. The reason why the same teams are consistently bad, or perform at a level so much lower than they should, is because they MASSIVELY overpay for other teams' FAs. The Dolphins and Redskins, to name a few, always do it. To assume there isn't a single team out there that would offer more money than the Packers did to a 24 year old starting LT that protects the blindside of the best QB in the league is foolish.

Rodgers is closer to the end of his career than to the beginning of his career. If you have a LT that has proven he can get the job done, knows the system and wants to be part of a really good team, then you sign him to an extension, like we did. We don't have the time with Rodgers to have all the "what if's" fall into place.

Buckrageous · Post #100 » by **Buckrageous** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:16 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:I'm on the fence but ok with it. They told Lang they were going to do the young guys first. I think Lang will be extended. As will Tretter. Jones, Perry and Lacy will be interesting.

I hope they dont extend Lacy. The last thing you give an athlete that has trouble not being fat is job security.