RealGM

even though we have more then enough to re-sign him Thompson wont re-sign him for what ever....and why did Grant go public with this now if/when the Packers re-sign him all the players will now think they can demand a new contract I hate it when players go public with this....In thought Grant was smarter then that.

Interesting timing. I would like to see more than a good half season before I throw tons of money his way.

Like I said a while ago, at one point Willie Parker was in this exact situation. In the summer of 2006 he was coming off a breakout season in his second year, but was only a Exclusive Rights Free Agent. Like Grant, all he was eligible for would be the NFL minimum. He could sign that, and in 2007 he'd be a Restricted Free Agent, and likely make around 2.5 million. Only now would he have been an UFA.

Instead he signed a deal that payed him less than other young 1200 yard backs, but it was significantly more than he'd be making otherwise when he'd have no real choice. Four years, 13 million. If Grant wants to sign a deal like that, then I'd be more than happy to lock him up.

DrugBust wrote:Four years, 13 million. If Grant wants to sign a deal like that, then I'd be more than happy to lock him up.

Ditto.

OR even for two years 6 mil. He gets some $ now but if plays well can still have big payday. for Pack we get him for OK deal and not long if he sucks or gets hurt.

DrugBust wrote:Like I said a while ago, at one point Willie Parker was in this exact situation. In the summer of 2006 he was coming off a breakout season in his second year, but was only a Exclusive Rights Free Agent. Like Grant, all he was eligible for would be the NFL minimum. He could sign that, and in 2007 he'd be a Restricted Free Agent, and likely make around 2.5 million. Only now would he have been an UFA.

Instead he signed a deal that payed him less than other young 1200 yard backs, but it was significantly more than he'd be making otherwise when he'd have no real choice. Four years, 13 million. If Grant wants to sign a deal like that, then I'd be more than happy to lock him up.

but Parker didnt play only 9 games...

Bucks_Revenge wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




but Parker didnt play only 9 games...

True, but you gotta account for the inflated contracts going around in the NFL.

The Packers can offer him a real nice deal that allows for Grant to live well for the next few years while Green Bay gets a good back at a bargain price.

eagle, I'd have a hard time offering him anything less than a four year deal. It's like an MLB team buying out a guy's arby years. It's a benefit to the players because he's making more money now than he would if he simply waited. It benefits the team because they get him for less down the road. Offering him a two year deal really does nothing to benefit the Packers. They would still have to give him a huge deal in two years when he's set to become an UFA.

I guess the biggest thing is if the Packers think Grant is the real deal. If they do, sure, sign'em up for a longer deal that satisfies him. If they're skeptical, I wouldn't. I trust Ted will make the right decision.

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

eagle, I'd have a hard time offering him anything less than a four year deal. It's like an MLB team buying out a guy's arby years. It's a benefit to the players because he's making more money now than he would if he simply waited. It benefits the team because they get him for less down the road. Offering him a two year deal really does nothing to benefit the Packers. They would still have to give him a huge deal in two years when he's set to become an UFA.

I see your point and it is very valid - but my thing is - giving Grant something decent now will be much better for his happiness ala locker-room AND GB is only on hook for 2 years IF he turns into another Gado or the very real possibiity w RBs that he gets hurt If he plays great we can either pay him or move on since he'll be in late 20s. TT seems to ave no problem moving on.

But I'm cool with your plan.

I say give him a 4 year deal of $20 million. 5 a year sounds good. Then crazy incentives like few extra million if gets like 2000 yards or like 20 tds. Also play all 16 games. Be shocked how well players play for that extra bonus.

I have zero respect for agents/players who feel the need to cry in public.

What makes it all the more befuddling is it's got a history of not working in Green Bay under Thompson.

eagle13 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I see your point and it is very valid - but my thing is - giving Grant something decent now will be much better for his happiness ala locker-room AND GB is only on hook for 2 years IF he turns into another Gado or the very real possibiity w RBs that he gets hurt If he plays great we can either pay him or move on since he'll be in late 20s. TT seems to ave no problem moving on.

But I'm cool with your plan.

There is almost zero benefit to the Packers only signing Grant for two years instead of at least four years if we do decide to give him more money now.

Contracts in the NFL aren't guaranteed like other sports. If we only sign Grant for two years and he plays great, then we have to deal with signing him again after those two years. If though we give him a four years deal and Grant doesn't play that well or gets hurt the first two years of the deal, we can just waive him then and thus cancel out the last two years of the deal.

Any bonus money included could be frontloaded on to this years cap, so there would be absolutely nothing to stop the Packers from waiving Grant in year 3/4 of the contract if he underperformed.

he wont get anything. dont see why players are so dumb these days. 9 games and he wants a large contract? Correct me if im wrong, but didnt he miss his whole first season due to an injury? so he plays 9 games in 2 seasons and wants big time money. no. i dont think so.