McGinn:Packers should not have lost both Sitton and Lang

[emunney]

Last year the NFL cap was 155,270,000. The Packers' cap # was 155,177,693. They are rolling over the same money year after year for flexibility and spending within a percentage point of the cap every year. This is not cheapness, it's not cheating the fans as McGinn is implying, and it's beneath our intelligence to call it either. It's a prudent buffer.

The issue we have relative to a team like the Patriots is that we maybe don't spend *as well*, i.e., we don't get the same value out of the contracts we give out. It's not that we don't spend as much. Because guess what the Pats' cap # was last year? 7.5m less than ours. And they're sitting on more space than we are right now, too (~24m).

Article is dumb, dumb, duuuuuuuuuuumb af.

[askdavescat]

This article is not wrong in general. They are cheap. Plenty of over paying the wrong people. OL isnt that hard to replace. Next year the D will suck since we really have not addressed that. We have to get lucky in the draft and hope that some of the guy we signed cheap turn the D around. I just see another late playoff loss since we still have ARod.

This ticks me off as well. The press/talking heads all giving TT kudos for finally signing free agents. That's fine and dandy, but last year's dumpster fire was the defense, and other than picking up House on the cheap, nothing he's done this off season addresses that. ( I don't count resigning Perry, that's just a lateral move ).

[Iheartfootball]

This article is not wrong in general. They are cheap. Plenty of over paying the wrong people.

Huh? How is overpaying someone being 'cheap'?

[msiris]

This article is not wrong in general. They are cheap. Plenty of over paying the wrong people.

Huh? How is overpaying someone being 'cheap'?

They over pay guys like Shields. Perry might be another.

[Iheartfootball]

This article is not wrong in general. They are cheap. Plenty of over paying the wrong people.

Huh? How is overpaying someone being 'cheap'?

They over pay guys like Shields. Perry might be another.

Definition of cheap/cheapskate
: a miserly or stingy person; especially : one who tries to avoid paying a fair share of costs or expenses

Overpaying is the exact opposite of being cheap.

[paulpressey25]

The operating surplus they carry over can be used to fund things like the Titletown district project or capitalization on any loan they take out to fund it as well.

McGinn's article has bad facts and creates a false. Why do reporters not try to fact check the accounting/finance? This is public information, correct? So WeekapaugGroove is correct, false equivalency.

The operating surplus is bigger if they spend less salary on players in a given year than they might be allowed to under the salary cap.

And if the surplus is bigger they can direct it to whatever savings fund they'd like. Just as if in a given year their revenues don't support their expenses they can withdraw the money from the surplus to pay expenses.

What McGinn didn't do was show his work that the Packers have left surpluses under the cap in prior years. Money that was never spent. That money logically then made the surplus greater. If someone has that chart, it would add to the discussion. McGinn is sharp enough that I trust him that there have been years where the Packers did not spend all the cap money they could have nor used it in a carryover. That said, let's verify the amounts.

[msiris]

Huh? How is overpaying someone being 'cheap'?

They over pay guys like Shields. Perry might be another.

Definition of cheap/cheapskate
: a miserly or stingy person; especially : one who tries to avoid paying a fair share of costs or expenses

Overpaying is the exact opposite of being cheap.

Ok. They over pay guy who are not that good. But they always have surplus because they are never close to the cap. My main point is Ted is not as great as everyone thinks.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

The operating surplus they carry over can be used to fund things like the Titletown district project or capitalization on any loan they take out to fund it as well.

McGinn's article has bad facts and creates a false. Why do reporters not try to fact check the accounting/finance? This is public information, correct? So WeekapaugGroove is correct, false equivalency.

The operating surplus is bigger if they spend less salary on players in a given year than they might be allowed to under the salary cap.

And if the surplus is bigger they can direct it to whatever savings fund they'd like. Just as if in a given year their revenues don't support their expenses they can withdraw the money from the surplus to pay expenses.

What McGinn didn't do was show his work that the Packers have left surpluses under the cap in prior years. Money that was never spent. That money logically then made the surplus greater. If someone has that chart, it would add to the discussion. McGinn is sharp enough that I trust him that there have been years where the Packers did not spend all the cap money they could have nor used it in a carryover. That said, let's verify the amounts.

I guess I don't buy it. We have a $275M surplus which is important, but I can't imagine the Packers ever pass on more than $10M in a year and like someone pointed out we were only $100k last year. So say an average of $5M a year, which i think is high based on past extensions mid-to-late season, and it's only $60M in Ted's career....or only about ~20% of the rainy day fund. I don't think they go into their meetings thinking "This is how we can drive net income!!!" It probably would have a negative effect anyways as $5m on the table could be the difference of signing a guy that pushes the needle for an extra playoff game. Just seems like a bad business move when your primary factor in driving sales is quality of employees.

Even if someone is pushing to lower salaries, why the hell would TT do that? He is ultimately going to be judged on winning and the best shot he has at winning is spending as much money as possible in the most efficient way.

I do agree with the critique that someone mentioned that he doesn't boom or bust. Having money to sign guys to extensions is great in preserving cap space, but unless you decide to go for it one year, all you are doing is shifting the reward of spending money in year 1 to year X without ever getting the extra boost. You are just penalizing yourself. It makes sense to spend 80, 100, 100, 120 in effective current year salaries but it doesn't make sense to go 80, 100, 100, 100, 100 ...etc You are just penalizing yourself in the first year.

[Kerb Hohl]

Shields was overpaid?

[paulpressey25]

I guess I don't buy it. So say an average of $5M a year, which i think is high based on past extensions mid-to-late season, and it's only $60M in Ted's career....or only about ~20% of the rainy day fund.

I found this site where they have the cap year by year.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/cap/2016/

I'm not up enough on the NFL cap to know how to read it, but if you eyeballed the cap space each year (which includes an addition for cap carryover), you might be talking $60-75 million since 2011 through today. That's a lot of money if my interpretation is accurate.

Again, I don't think McGinn is pulling numbers out of his ass. Someone in the organization is feeding him a narrative that the team collectively over the past number of years has materially more cash to spend on players than they actually spend. McGinn usually doesn't run off half-cocked unless he's verified the numbers himself.

[WeekapaugGroove]

I guess I don't buy it. So say an average of $5M a year, which i think is high based on past extensions mid-to-late season, and it's only $60M in Ted's career....or only about ~20% of the rainy day fund.

I found this site where they have the cap year by year.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/cap/2016/

I'm not up enough on the NFL cap to know how to read it, but if you eyeballed the cap space each year (which includes an addition for cap carryover), you might be talking $60-75 million since 2011 through today. That's a lot of money if my interpretation is accurate.

Again, I don't think McGinn is pulling numbers out of his ass. Someone in the organization is feeding him a narrative that the team collectively over the past number of years has materially more cash to spend on players than they actually spend. McGinn usually doesn't run off half-cocked unless he's verified the numbers himself.

You don't lose the rollover money it continues to roll each year. There are rules coming for a minimum spend but the pack won't be near that threshold.

Again the better argument is they have too much left this particular season, not their past rollover amounts.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

[paulpressey25]

You don't lose the rollover money it continues to roll each year. There are rules coming for a minimum spend but the pack won't be near that threshold.

It only rolls for one year theoretically. And that site I linked added in the rollover money each year. I don't think my eyeball math is correct and didn't want to spend the time to figure it out, but I think the numbers in aggregate do add up.

[crkone]

McGinn went from the Pack being to soft and needing tougher bigger guys to needing smaller speedier guys in 4 years time.

[WeekapaugGroove]

You don't lose the rollover money it continues to roll each year. There are rules coming for a minimum spend but the pack won't be near that threshold.

It only rolls for one year theoretically. And that site I linked added in the rollover money each year. I don't think my eyeball math is correct and didn't want to spend the time to figure it out, but I think the numbers in aggregate do add up.

But that figure is added in and the excess each year rolls over so they never actually have "lost" any of the potential cap spend.

Example: 2013 Cap - 123M, Pack rolled about 7M over so had 130 available and actual spend was $121M so the got to roll 9 over to 2014
2014 Cap - 133M, + 9 roll over gave them 141 available, actual spend $134M (had they spent all their money in 2013 they would not have been able to spend that much, but with the roll over they had 7M that rolled to 2015 ever though they spent over the 2014 cap.
2015 - 143M cap + 7M roll over gave them 150 to spend. actual spend 141M so 9M rolled to 2016
2016 155M cap + 9M roll over, actual spend 155M so again they roll about 9M to this offseason

There is an argument to be made they should have went all in one of those years and spent all their roll over but it's not like they are "losing" this money and just hoarding it like McGinn seems to imply.

[crkone]

You don't lose the rollover money it continues to roll each year. There are rules coming for a minimum spend but the pack won't be near that threshold.

It only rolls for one year theoretically. And that site I linked added in the rollover money each year. I don't think my eyeball math is correct and didn't want to spend the time to figure it out, but I think the numbers in aggregate do add up.

But that figure is added in and the excess each year rolls over so they never actually have "lost" any of the potential cap spend.

Example: 2013 Cap - 123M, Pack rolled about 7M over so had 130 available and actual spend was $121M so the got to roll 9 over to 2014
2014 Cap - 133M, + 9 roll over gave them 141 available, actual spend $134M (had they spent all their money in 2013 they would not have been able to spend that much, but with the roll over they had 7M that rolled to 2015 ever though they spent over the 2014 cap.
2015 - 143M cap + 7M roll over gave them 150 to spend. actual spend 141M so 9M rolled to 2016
2016 155M cap + 9M roll over, actual spend 155M so again they roll about 9M to this offseason

There is an argument to be made they should have went all in one of those years and spent all their roll over but it's not like they are "losing" this money and just hoarding it like McGinn seems to imply.

And then when we blow all of this years on guaranteed money on Rodgers new contract it will be all for naught.

[Jimmmycrackcorn]

I assume that the coaching staff (and maybe Elliot Wolf) are at their wits end. There are guys they'd like to either retain or acquire.

With $23 million in remaining cap space they've got a point this particular off-season.

will you feel the same way if they spend most of that space extending Ha Ha and Davante before he season starts?

[emunney]

You don't lose the rollover money it continues to roll each year. There are rules coming for a minimum spend but the pack won't be near that threshold.

It only rolls for one year theoretically. And that site I linked added in the rollover money each year. I don't think my eyeball math is correct and didn't want to spend the time to figure it out, but I think the numbers in aggregate do add up.

No, this isn't true. You roll over space under the adjusted cap, which is adjusted based on your previous rollover. Packers were at the unadjusted cap level last year and rolled over 8m. Not possible under your theory.

If the cap is 100 and I spend 92, I roll over 8m. Let's say the next year the cap doesn't change. I spend 100 out of 108, I roll over 8m again. I've generated a spending buffer where if a too-good-to-be-true scenario comes up, I can take advantage of it, but otherwise I just push it off. This is not 8m/yr in savings. It's the same 8m every year.

[Dandridgefav]

Shields was NOT over-paid. Conversely Williams would have been had TT paid him what Tramon wanted. Perry? IF at end of regular season, Pack is in playoffs, the Defense improved to 13-15th overall and Perry stayed healthy, had 10+ sacks, sealed the edge and held the POA we got who we needed and I’m fine with whatever TT paid.

Was very upset when TT offed both Rivera/Wahle at same time. Was more upset when he tried to replace them with Adrian Klemm and – was it Nick O’Lowry? I understood letting one go but both at the same time? The sad thing is I think that Klemm and - was -t O”Donald? – that they sucked so bad and failed so completely - took TT by surprise and forever contributed to TT’s aversion to signing inexpensive older inexpensive veterans which Pats do so well. I didn’t care when Spitz and College went – Spitz was OK but always hurt, Colledge was a wuss. Sitton & Lang? Not a big deal. Only bothered we didn’t get anything for them - further showing TT weakness of making trades. But then we may get a 3rd rd comp draft pick – never expected more than a 5th in trade – so most of us don’t see that TT won there.

I think Evans was a huge signing – totally the right move, right guy. IF he does have at least 1 yr of hi-end play – then I’d say – aside from his poor PR skill – but from a performance pov - TT played the Oline transition quite well - Only reservation I have is - having saved a ton on dropping Sitton & Lang salaries - I might have paid Tretter starting centers $ to be 6th man AND still signed Evans to start.
With Evans & whole OL; with signing House for DB; with Francois to cover Guion’s (probable) loss, and the TE situation with Lee leaving & adding Bennett & Kendricks – TT handled the cap and FA signings very well. Not too mention what looks like a good draft. IF this year’s off-season marks the birth of TT’s more active FA pursuit I will be happy to have him stick around. Did not think I'd ever hear myself say that.