Packers Might Trade Aaron Kampman

[aaprigs311]

TT will probably take the John Hammond approach.

John Hammond has an approach?

Watching good players walk via free agency and deciding not to gain any sort of compensation for them around trade deadline in effort to sneak a team full of mediocre talent into the playoffs.

[Wade-A-Holic]

He's a free agent after this season so we either trade him now, resign him (which won't happen) or he leaves and we get nothing.

Couldn't we tag him, then trade him?

Yep. That's what I think will happen.

[zmanishere11]

I think the most obvious answer is a trade for another franchised players. Two guys I'd love to see discussed - OJ Otogowe (S, Rams) and Darren Sproles. Kampman would help solidify the Rams front 4, not sure where he'd fit in with the Chargers but they'd make it work.


The whole free-agent picture for the Packers has become kind of muddled.

We HAVE to resign Collins as we have nothing behind him.

Kampman has proven he's not an OLB.

HOw much will Colledge/Spitz be asking for? And with how bad our line has been, how the hell do you justify paying those guys??

What do we do at LT???

[xTitan]

He's a free agent after this season so we either trade him now, resign him (which won't happen) or he leaves and we get nothing.

Couldn't we tag him, then trade him?

If 2010 remains an uncapped season, I don't believ you can tag a vested veteran, I believe after a certain amount of years they are free to walk. I do not know the free agent list, but what they could do is use that money they save on Kampman and try to sign a 3-4 type rush LB, if one is on the market.

[Ryan5UW]

He's a free agent after this season so we either trade him now, resign him (which won't happen) or he leaves and we get nothing.

Couldn't we tag him, then trade him?

If 2010 remains an uncapped season, I don't believ you can tag a vested veteran, I believe after a certain amount of years they are free to walk. I do not know the free agent list, but what they could do is use that money they save on Kampman and try to sign a 3-4 type rush LB, if one is on the market.

You can still franchise someone next offseason.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/63800817.html

"With 2010 set to be an uncapped year, each team gets one additional transition tag. Teams currently have the option of using the franchise OR transition tag. In 2010, they could use one of each."

[MikeIsGood]

He's a free agent after this season so we either trade him now, resign him (which won't happen) or he leaves and we get nothing.

Couldn't we tag him, then trade him?

If 2010 remains an uncapped season, I don't believ you can tag a vested veteran, I believe after a certain amount of years they are free to walk. I do not know the free agent list, but what they could do is use that money they save on Kampman and try to sign a 3-4 type rush LB, if one is on the market.

From my understanding, teams will actually be able to tag more players than they usually would. I know that Ryan already made a post about it, but I'll throw this into the mix as well. Ryan's source makes it sound like two tags total, but the source I read said that each team would have three tags. Not sure which is correct, or if I am misreading my source. This is from an article Kirwan did a year ago talking about how no salary cap could actually limit free agency:

Currently, a team can put either a franchise tag (average of the top five salaries at his position) or a transition tag (average of the top ten salaries at his position) on any one player on the club to protect the team from losing the unrestricted free agent. If the NFL gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011, teams will have use of one franchise tag and two transition tags. So not only would none of the young players with less than six years of service be free, but now the top three players who are eligible for free agency on a roster can be protected.

Now, I'm not sure if that means three total tags over those two years or not. Maybe Kirwan is saying that over 2010 and 2011 teams would have use of 3 total tags. Not sure. Or maybe something changed somehow since he wrote this last year. But it reads to me that each team would have three tags to use: one franchise, and two transitional.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true

ETA: Also interesting...

All you have to do to realize how lean the free agent market will be is go back and look at all the players from the 2005 draft who signed five-year deals, all the players from the 2006 draft who signed four-year deals and even players from the 2007 draft who signed four-year deals. None of these players, under the non-CBA trigger points, would be eligible for unrestricted free agency when their originals contracts expire. Here are some examples of whom it might affect if the owners choose not to continue the current CBA and a new CBA isn't negotiated:

Second-round picks from 2006 such as DeMeco Ryans, D'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh, Thomas Howard, Deuce Lutui, LenDale White, Cedric Griffin, Marcus McNeill, Greg Jennings, and Tarvaris Jackson should be the core of the free-agent market in 2010, but unless they have the ability to "void" their contracts, they will not be free as planned. They would stay with their teams as restricted free agents and it might mean two more years of service before they experience the big payday.

If the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. The truth is, the first two triggers aren't going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.

[Ryan5UW]

Yeah, that does make it sound like they could use all 3 tags, but you're right, he could mean you get to use 3 tags over those 2 years. How does the franchise tag work now? Can you use it every year, or are there stipulations that must be met when you use it to use it again the next year? That's not an aspect that I pay all that close attention to. The JS article was the only one I've read recently that mentioned the use of the tags.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, both with the potential of an uncapped year and how the Packers approach using their tags.

[MickeyDavis]

I don't normally like Bedard but he did a great job in that article summing up all the options. If we don't trade Kampman it could very well come down to keeping him or Clifton.

a) Sign Kampman to a contract extension now -- provided he and his agent would remotely entertain the thought (not exactly a given);
b) Trade Kampman this year;
c) Franchise Kampman and transition Clifton, putting him at risk to be signed elsewhere;
d) Franchise Clifton and transition Kampman with the mindset you'll match any offer, even with a poison pill;
e) Franchise Clifton, transition Kampman and then take your chances (with a third fifth round compensatory pick as a consolation prize - UPDATE on this below)
f) None of the above.

[aaprigs311]

f) See John Hammond

[Rockmaninoff]

Schemes don't win games, talent does. I stole that from someone, but I've forgotten who to credit.

This seems like a reactionary mistake. They need to use what they have in the best way possible.

[eagle13]

I don't normally like Bedard but he did a great job in that article summing up all the options. If we don't trade Kampman it could very well come down to keeping him or Clifton.

a) Sign Kampman to a contract extension now -- provided he and his agent would remotely entertain the thought (not exactly a given);
b) Trade Kampman this year;
c) Franchise Kampman and transition Clifton, putting him at risk to be signed elsewhere;
d) Franchise Clifton and transition Kampman with the mindset you'll match any offer, even with a poison pill;
e) Franchise Clifton, transition Kampman and then take your chances (with a third fifth round compensatory pick as a consolation prize - UPDATE on this below)
f) None of the above.

It seems obvious we do not use either tag on Clifton. I have always been a big fan of Chad but it’s a biz and its just stupid to invest in a 34 year old with chronic bad knees much less expect to even work for 1 year. WE DO NEED TO SPEND tag level salary on LT next offseason but not Clifton. MAYBE its time to finally drop a wad on a FA LT IF a sure bet is even available. If not - Either trade up in draft to get best or make expensive trade for top flight vet (maybe include Kampman and mid pick). IMHO LT is 4th most important position on Offense and 7th on overall team.

We desparately need a pass rush on D and yet we trade away a proven sack leader? Because? We move a premier pass rushing DE to OLB? Excuse me?? Didn't I hear Capers say he was gonna scheme to a player's strength? What one D player should we be doing that for more than Kampman. Come on play 4-2-5 on passing downs. Plus Aaron is a guy we can count on to keep producing after getting a big payday. The guy is a true professional in his approach to the game. He is a Packer type if there is one.

IF we trade him I pray we get more than a 2nd. Teams should be lining up.

[ReasonablySober]

You can remove franchise and/or transition tags. It makes sense to tag both Clifton and Kampman provided we go into an uncapped year. If they get better options, remove the tags and move forward. Better yet, trade them. But I doubt that there will be better options in a ridiculously depleted FA market.

[Ryan5UW]

Yeah, if we go into an uncapped year, I don't see us singing maybe FAs at all, yet alone any top level ones. We haven't done that lately, and we have a lot of cap space. Take away the cap limits on some of these teams (mainly Dallas and Washington) and I don't see us doing much of anything.

[ReasonablySober]

Cap limits don't even matter. Anyone worth a dime won't make it to free agency. I've said all along, the best thing that could happen to the Packers in '10 would be an uncapped year.

[braindazer]

Can we package him with hawk?

[Wade-A-Holic]

Can we package him with hawk?

Barnett has been worse than Hawk this year. Hawk's had one very bad game, two very solid games, and another mediocre game. Barnett has been nothing but bad.