texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

4 yrs 39 mil 12.5mil signing bonus
12.5 / 4 = 3.125

15 mil after 2014

20 mil after 2015

2014 cap hit 5.625mil - base salary 2.5 mil (pro-rated bonus 3.125)

2015 cap hit 8.125mil - base salary 5mil (pro-rated bonus 3.125)

2016 cap hit 13.125mil - base salary 10 mil (pro rated bonus 3.125)

2017 cap hit 12.125mil - base salary 9mil(pro rated bonus 3.125)

This is a 2 year deal PERIOD.

2016 and 2017 is just agent "window dressing"

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 



That's probably true, but Ted shoulda made it longer term. Shields almost certainly is still gonna be good that 3rd and 4th year, and even into a 5th and 6th. Now, they will be faced with the same situation - re-sign him or let him go while he is still at or near the top of his game. And of course, stretching it out another year or two would have lessened the cap hit in the short term.

As for the too much money thing, no, it isn't - not in the context of the current market with the increased cap limit and all.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Zero2Cool
10 years ago
From what I read about this contract on rotoworld, it is cap friendly and if Sam Shields tanks it as we've some some folks do who get a huge pay day, it won't murder the Packers salary cap. Also, the cap in 2015/2016 is expected to hit around $160 million.

This being a four deal is perfect. It's not too long as to hinder the Packers in the future and it's not too short that Shields could have a better year and hit up a larger contract.


Sam Shields was an undrafted free agent. I do not believe he ever has had "money" before. I'm hoping it doesn't change him. Granted he did earn $2.02 million for 2013.


I'm just glad I don't have to create a new signature graphic.



UserPostedImage
steveishere
10 years ago

That's probably true, but Ted shoulda made it longer term. Shields almost certainly is still gonna be good that 3rd and 4th year, and even into a 5th and 6th. Now, they will be faced with the same situation - re-sign him or let him go while he is still at or near the top of his game. And of course, stretching it out another year or two would have lessened the cap hit in the short term.

As for the too much money thing, no, it isn't - not in the context of the current market with the increased cap limit and all.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



The shorter deal is how they got away with giving him so little guaranteed. More years would mean more guaranteed money and would make it more dangerous of a contract. As it stands right now it's a pretty low risk deal because if he's playing up to standard you can keep him and if he's not you can get rid of him. It's a rare deal that seems to work out pretty great for both sides. I don't see why Shields would want to "stretch it out another year or two" without any extra considerations. It doesn't really work like that.
DakotaT
10 years ago
I'm very happy about this one. It may seem like we're overpaying, but I look it as paying him for his past play as well. Sam just has some things you can't coach. He has exceptional recovery/closing speed and he has very long arms and can catch very well. When he gets the mental part of the game down better, he is going to be very good.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

The shorter deal is how they got away with giving him so little guaranteed. More years would mean more guaranteed money and would make it more dangerous of a contract. As it stands right now it's a pretty low risk deal because if he's playing up to standard you can keep him and if he's not you can get rid of him. It's a rare deal that seems to work out pretty great for both sides. I don't see why Shields would want to "stretch it out another year or two" without any extra considerations. It doesn't really work like that.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



I'm very happy about it too - but I'd be happier with more years. Z2C, I hope you dig this thread up in 4 years when Shields is still really good, and we have to go through this again - deciding then whether to pay him into his declining years or let him go. a 6 or 5 year contract would have prevented that and at the same time, made the cap hit even less in the short term.

Steve, how do you figure we would have needed to guarantee more money in a longer term deal? A 12.5 million bonus is already pretty hefty, and nothing beyond that and the first year salary is guaranteed.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
sschind
10 years ago

I'm very happy about it too - but I'd be happier with more years. Z2C, I hope you dig this thread up in 4 years when Shields is still really good, and we have to go through this again - deciding then whether to pay him into his declining years or let him go. a 6 or 5 year contract would have prevented that and at the same time, made the cap hit even less in the short term.

Steve, how do you figure we would have needed to guarantee more money in a longer term deal? A 12.5 million bonus is already pretty hefty, and nothing beyond that and the first year salary is guaranteed.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 




First thing, the SB can not be pro rated longer than 5 years so even with the same 12.5 million and a 6 year deal the SB part of the cap hit could have only been lowered to 2.5 million for 5 years. The sixth year would be SB free for cap purposes. Its not a big deal I just didn't want you thinking the SB cap hit could have been lowered to 2.1 million per year over 6 years.

I also agree with steve that a six year deal would have taken more money (Obviously) and probably more bonus. As it stands I think Sam will be 30 when his current deal expires (likely even younger because I don't see the last 2 years going through as they stand) and he may get another somewhat decent deal. If he was going to lock himself up for 6 years I think he would have wanted more bonus as compensation for a likely reduced rate at 32. Assuming they could live the 3.125 million cap hit per year they could have offered a 15.5 SB over 5 or 6 years and been in the same boat they are now cap wise.

The only benefit, and it is a big one, to doing the longer term deal is like you said it takes away the need to go though all this again in 4 years. It would have been nice if they could have stretched it out to a 6 year deal that is really a 4 year deal rather than a 4 year deal that is really a 2 year deal. Of course if the cap goes up to 160 million by year 3 and 4 it is entirely possible the Packers honor the deal if Sam is still playing at a high level.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

First thing, the SB can not be pro rated longer than 5 years so even with the same 12.5 million and a 6 year deal the SB part of the cap hit could have only been lowered to 2.5 million for 5 years. The sixth year would be SB free for cap purposes. Its not a big deal I just didn't want you thinking the SB cap hit could have been lowered to 2.1 million per year over 6 years.

I also agree with steve that a six year deal would have taken more money (Obviously) and probably more bonus. As it stands I think Sam will be 30 when his current deal expires (likely even younger because I don't see the last 2 years going through as they stand) and he may get another somewhat decent deal. If he was going to lock himself up for 6 years I think he would have wanted more bonus as compensation for a likely reduced rate at 32. Assuming they could live the 3.125 million cap hit per year they could have offered a 15.5 SB over 5 or 6 years and been in the same boat they are now cap wise.

The only benefit, and it is a big one, to doing the longer term deal is like you said it takes away the need to go though all this again in 4 years. It would have been nice if they could have stretched it out to a 6 year deal that is really a 4 year deal rather than a 4 year deal that is really a 2 year deal. Of course if the cap goes up to 160 million by year 3 and 4 it is entirely possible the Packers honor the deal if Sam is still playing at a high level.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Good thoughtful reply. I didn't know that about not prorating a bonus beyond five years. I'll take your word for it.

I still think, as good as the news of signing him is, we will regret in four years that the deal wasn't for longer. I really don't see Shields declining in four years or less.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Zero2Cool
10 years ago

I'm very happy about it too - but I'd be happier with more years. Z2C, I hope you dig this thread up in 4 years when Shields is still really good, and we have to go through this again - deciding then whether to pay him into his declining years or let him go. a 6 or 5 year contract would have prevented that and at the same time, made the cap hit even less in the short term.

Steve, how do you figure we would have needed to guarantee more money in a longer term deal? A 12.5 million bonus is already pretty hefty, and nothing beyond that and the first year salary is guaranteed.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



You do realize that if he signed for longer and feels he out performed his contract that he'd probably hold out again like he attempted the year prior? Especially if the projected salary cap increases are even remotely accurate.




UserPostedImage
DakotaT
10 years ago

You do realize that if he signed for longer and feels he out performed his contract that he'd probably hold out again like he attempted the year prior? Especially if the projected salary cap increases are even remotely accurate.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Texas is a "wish he could have been" a capitalist. He does not believe the Packers should have to pay or overpay for their players. We are just suppose to get everybody on the cheap. When I saw what Brent Grimes got, I knew Shields would be getting what the Packers paid for him. I just never thought it would be the Packers paying him that. I'm pretty thrown back by this signing, and happy about it.

Now if we could land a DLineman, and upgrade to Jones at inside linebacker, and some kind of second tier veteran safety to help teach Micah Hyde to play the position.
UserPostedImage
play2win
10 years ago
This was one necessary signing IMO. Shields has been really good for us, and I believe he will only get better. Glad to see this done, even at that high a price.
Fan Shout
dhazer (13m) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (2h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (4h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (14h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (21h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (22h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (22h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.