Packers extend Barnett

[MickeyDavis]

Hodge has a ways to go and is too slow to play the outside but he's a player. He has a nose for the ball, loves to hit.

[El Duderino]

I've seen others say this here and I have to ask a question...

What the hell are you talking about?

You don't 'lose' anything. You save.

If Thompson doesn't use a big chunk of available cap space this year,that flexibility is lost,the cap space doesn't roll over to the next year.The only thing that is "saved" is,money to the franchise,but the Packers are hardly in a financial pinch.

Now Thompson could use that huge amount of cap space on frontloading extensions to guys like Barnett and maybe Corey Williams.I guess he could also advance contract bonuses from subsequent years and charge them to this year's cap,but there is pretty much zero benefit to not using nearly every penny of your cap space each given year.The only benefit to not using every cent is if you're a single owner of a team and looking to make a bigger profit for yourself.

Last year was a perfect example.The Packers were way under the cap and late in free agency signed Woodson to a heavily frontloaded contract.Thompson did this because he knew that even if Woodson sucked,there would be very little hard to the cap in the future.Better to throw the 10 million in available cap space at Woodson and roll the dice he worked out vs letting that 10 million do absolutely nothing except sit there and vanish if it wasn't spent elsewhere before the year ended.

Had he extended Barnett last season, all that would have meant is we would have had less room this offseason.

Less room for what?What did Thompson need extra cap space for this offseason?Plus,the unused cap space from last year didn't roll over to this year,thus giving the Packers more to spend.The NFL doesn't work that way.If Thompson had used any left over cap space from last year and put it do a frontloaded aspect of an extension for Barnett,that wouldn't have taken away anything from what he had to spend this year.Last point is there is no doubt Barnett would have come cheaper,free agency this year droveup salaries.

[eagle13]

Dude is right on.

However one additional way TT can use money. Though rookies contracts are pretty established - he said in an earlier interview he could choose to pay some of those more up front as well.

[ReasonablySober]

How does unused cap-space not roll over?

By not overspending on a couple mediocre free agents this offseason, he gives him and the team future flexibility because those contracts aren't going to be on the books in subsequent seasons. If he has 10 million left after free agency and the draft are completed, that 10 million doesn't just evaporate next February.

[eagle13]

DB & Dude are talking about two different sides of same coin.
DB is talking about cap space.
Dude is speaking about actual dollars.

DB is right that future years' cap space is preserved because its not consumed by a given contract in present year that extends into future thus keeping future years' cap space available to be used.

Dude is right in that actual avaialble dollars not spent in present year can never spent in future years. If you do not spend 10mil this year - you do not get add that 10mil in addition to whatever the next year's amount is. The ability to spend that particular 10mil is gone forever.

[Reggie White]

I think this conversation/argument/battle/war is about whether or not the Packers could have done the same thing with Nick Barnett that they did with Scott Wells last year. In December 2006, they locked Wells up to a long term deal ... and his contract ate up some of the remaining 2006 cap room that we had left.

We apparently had about $4 million of 2006 cap space that we didn't "eat up" and so when this current offseason started, that $4 million didn't "roll over" to our 2007 cap space ... it was lost.

[ReasonablySober]

How was it lost? The 4 million that wasn't spent was part of the 20+ million that we entered the offseason with.

[Reggie White]

I don't know the exact numbers, but I think the salary cap works like this:

2006 NFL Salary Cap: $102 million
2007 NFL Salary Cap: $109 million

This is a "hard cap" in the NFL, not like the NBA.

If in 2006 the Packers' salaries and anything else that counted towards the cap were $98 million, then they had $4 million of available cap room still to use in 2006. If the 2007 offseason starts with a new number of $109 million, regardless of what you spent in 2006. So, if the Packers paid Barnett an additional salary in 2006 that would have counted against the 2006 cap, then those dollars wouldn't have counted against our 2007 cap.

Believe me, I'm no "GAD" when it comes to this ... but I've now looked around and it's possible that they didn't use $1 million of their 2006 cap ... which is wasted.

Again, call me crazy ...

[El Duderino]

How was it lost? The 4 million that wasn't spent was part of the 20+ million that we entered the offseason with.

No it wasn't

[ReasonablySober]

Of course it was.

Going with RW's numbers, say we were at 98 million and 4 mil was available to Thompson to spend. Could we have given Barnett an extension that started in '06 and used up some of that available space in order to lessen the burden in '07? Sure. But Thompson didn't and I can't fault the guy.

Yet that 4 million in space didn't simply evaporate. That's money that wasn't tied up in anyone on the roster, meaning that it's not being used on anyone thus far against the '07 cap.

[bigkurty]

Of course it was.

Going with RW's numbers, say we were at 98 million and 4 mil was available to Thompson to spend. Could we have given Barnett an extension that started in '06 and used up some of that available space in order to lessen the burden in '07? Sure. But Thompson didn't and I can't fault the guy.

Yet that 4 million in space didn't simply evaporate. That's money that wasn't tied up in anyone on the roster, meaning that it's not being used on anyone thus far against the '07 cap.

I see what you are saying now finally and that is true but say they would have reached the same agreement last year during the season, and say TT wanted to still frontload about 12 million, he could have put 4 million on last years cap and only put 8 million on this years cap rather than the 12 million he put on this years cap. Seeing that he probably isn't going to spend the money anyway since he believes so much in building with the draft, it probably didn't matter. But if he did want to go after a big name FA and needed more guaranteed money up front to seal that deal, he could have screwed himself by not having that extra 4 million.

[El Duderino]

Of course it was.

Going with RW's numbers, say we were at 98 million and 4 mil was available to Thompson to spend. Could we have given Barnett an extension that started in '06 and used up some of that available space in order to lessen the burden in '07? Sure. But Thompson didn't and I can't fault the guy.

Yet that 4 million in space didn't simply evaporate. That's money that wasn't tied up in anyone on the roster, meaning that it's not being used on anyone thus far against the '07 cap.

Depends how that 4 million would have been used.For sake of arguement,let's pretend Thompson has over 8 million in unused cap space as this year is ending and Corey Williams is having another nice season.If Thompson extended Williams before the deadline when money could be counted to this years cap,he could frontload that 8 million in a bonus that counted against this years cap instead of eating up money in future years as Thompson did with Woodson.If Thompson didn't do this or buy out bonuses from subsequent years for other players,that 8 million in unused money wouldn't simply roll over into the next for Thompson to spend.

The reason Green Bay was 20+ million under the cap going into this season was because some money came off the books and the cap got raised,not because of these factors and 4 million from unused space last year rolled over to this offseason.That unused money did evaporate.

[Profound23]

How many inches did they extend him by and where can I get this done?