Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
6 Pages123>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline wpr  
#1 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:12:11 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,148
Applause Received: 1,518

For those of you who have been pouting that AJ has the # 4 salary on the team, that will probably change for the up coming season.

JSOnline wrote:
Searching for salary-cap space to extend their two best players, the Green Bay Packers haven't approached the agent for linebacker A.J. Hawk about a pay cut but probably will do so before long.

Mike McCartney, the longtime agent for Hawk, said he planned to discuss that looming possibility in a face-to-face meeting with his client this week.

"A.J. and I haven't broached that subject yet," McCartney said at the National Football League scouting combine. "We really haven't. But we will."

Although McCartney did talk with Packers vice president Russ Ball Friday in Indianapolis, the agent said he wasn't informed how the club views Hawk's cap salary of $7.05 million for 2013.

"I know Green Bay values A.J.," said McCartney. "I know they like A.J. a lot . . . and I know they have some issues. So we'll see."

Hawk, a two-down strong inside linebacker in a 3-4 defense, ranks fourth on the team in cap salary for the coming season behind quarterback Aaron Rodgers ($9.75M), tight end Jermichael Finley ($8.75M) and cornerback Tramon Williams ($8.5M).

If the Packers released Hawk, they would gain $5.45M against the '13 cap by eliminating his $4.9M base salary, $300,000 per-game roster bonus and $250,000 workout bonus.

Regardless of what happens, the Packers must count $1.6M against their '13 cap and another $3.2M in the future as the remaining prorated portions of the $8M signing bonus that was part of Hawk's five-year, $33.75M contract signed on the eve of the lockout in March 2011.

Hawk, 29, played 5 to 7 pounds lighter last season, improving his range and coverage. He led the inside linebackers in tackles per snap (one every 5.3), allowed the fewest plays of 20 yards or more (2½) of any linebacker and led the team in tackles (157) and tackles for loss with a career-high 5½.

He also missed nine tackles in 833 snaps after having missed 15 in 910 snaps in 2011.

At the same time, Hawk failed to generate a takeaway for the second straight season and didn't break up a single pass.

"I think that (a pay cut for Hawk) is a possibility because of the money they're paying against the production," an executive in personnel for an AFC team said last week. "Seven million is a big number for a guy that's a two-down player. If I was the Packers, I'd be thinking about renegotiation.

"They're also dealing from a position of strength. They've got guys. Would you rather allocate those dollars to a younger player like Brad Jones? They've got D.J. Smith. It's not a position of need."

If the Packers released Hawk, let Jones walk in unrestricted free agency and continued to have reservations about Desmond Bishop's post-surgical quadriceps tear, they could look for cheaper veteran insurance in someone like Nick Barnett, who was cut by Buffalo Feb. 11.

Barnett, regarded by many scouts as a better player than Hawk during their five seasons playing together in Green Bay, is 31. His minimum salary for 2013 would be $940,000.

"The good news for A.J. Hawk is he'd have a marketplace if he was cut," the scout said. "It's a thin market at linebacker in free agency and it's another thin year in the draft in terms of depth at inside linebacker."

Bishop, 28, went down in the first exhibition game and has been in rehabilitation mode for months. It's a brutal injury, one that can leave players susceptible to a reduced level of performance and the chance of additional tears.

"They haven't given me a reason to worry a lot," coach Mike McCarthy said Saturday, referring to the team's medical staff. "But it was a different injury."

Smith, who first replaced Bishop on the weak inside, blew out his knee in the sixth game.

After Bishop and Smith came Jones, who played 794 of a possible 801 snaps in the final 12 games and did a respectable job.

"In free agency, you try to find guys who are up-and-comers," one NFL executive said. "This year, (Jones) could be one of those guys.

"Maybe on some NFL teams he would be their third-best guy in a 4-3, but maybe for the balance of teams he's that fourth-best guy. Needless to say, there's a marketplace for him. The market will tell him if he's a starter."

Rob Francois, who backed up Hawk but hasn't played from scrimmage since 2011, will be a restricted free agent. The Packers can protect their rights to Francois and all but eliminate any chance he'd receive an offer sheet by tendering him early next month at $1.323M for 2013.

Francois might not receive a tender, thereby becoming a street free agent, because the restricted tenders have skyrocketed under the most recent collective bargaining agreement.

"It's one of the worst things that happened with the new CBA," said Noel LaMontagne, the agent for Francois. "The tenders are so high now."

A likely scenario would be for the Packers to cast Francois adrift without a tender and then attempt to resign him for the third-year veteran minimum salary of $660,000.

"They love him, but they might have to look at another way of keeping him," LaMontagne said. "He's in the mix, but we'll see."

The Packers' extreme depth at inside linebacker also includes Terrell Manning and Jamari Lattimore.

As the Packers ponder cap moves to extend the contracts of Clay Matthews and Rodgers, they will consider the reliability and durability of Hawk, who has started all but two games in his seven-year career.

"The hardest players in the business to value are the guys who do dirty work," said McCartney, a former pro scout for the Chicago Bears and Philadelphia Eagles. "There is a lot of inherent dirty work that A.J. does.

"You can't measure how he directs everybody. He sends people to the right spots. So I think there's a lot of intangibles there."



Hawk shouldn't be represented by some one named Mike McCartney.

Message modified by moderator Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:34:31 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Online Zero2Cool  
#2 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:18:02 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,223

A.J. Hawk's cap salary of $7.05 million for 2013 is mind boggling! I am not a Hawk hater, but I think that's probably $3 million more than he should be getting. I sure wish these contracts were written so they wouldn't have to be restructured years later.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline buckeyepackfan  
#3 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:25:35 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2014

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Lima, Ohio

Applause Given: 352
Applause Received: 457

Somewhere it was posted The Packers had to take a 4.5 mil cap hit if Hawk was released.

This article states a much lower number.

Time to make a lot of people happy and cut ties with Hawk.

The one thing The Packers have is an abundancy of ilb's.

Time to get younger.

My only worry is that Teams in the NFL usually don't succeed when all their money is put into 3 or 4 guys.
Enjoy the ride – It kicks and just keeps on kickin’. "Stats are for Losers"
Offline wpr  
#4 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:31:17 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,148
Applause Received: 1,518

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan Go to Quoted Post
Somewhere it was posted The Packers had to take a 4.5 mil cap hit if Hawk was released.

This article states a much lower number.

Time to make a lot of people happy and cut ties with Hawk.

The one thing The Packers have is an abundancy of ilb's.

Time to get younger.

My only worry is that Teams in the NFL usually don't succeed when all their money is put into 3 or 4 guys.


I was surprised the cap number was so low. I don't really know if they should cut Hawk or not. I would feel better about it if I knew how Bishop and Smith were going to be.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Offline Pack93z  
#5 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:19:32 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 398
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan Go to Quoted Post
Somewhere it was posted The Packers had to take a 4.5 mil cap hit if Hawk was released.

This article states a much lower number.

Time to make a lot of people happy and cut ties with Hawk.

The one thing The Packers have is an abundancy of ilb's.

Time to get younger.

My only worry is that Teams in the NFL usually don't succeed when all their money is put into 3 or 4 guys.


Here is what Hawk has left on is contract:

UserPostedImage

Each of the 1.6m (4.8M) part of his carried signing bonus will have to be accounted for against the cap, I am assuming the article is assuming that they will push that hit out until next season. The roster bonuses that have not paid out will not have to be absorbed.

Packers track record is not to push issues into the future.. so I don't see them, if they cut ties with Hawk to do so and have impact on future years cap number. Especially where they will have larger cap numbers for Rodgers & Matthews and will still be looking to field a competitive team.

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Online DakotaT  
#6 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:29:37 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 666
Applause Received: 1,372

I'd rather pay Brad Jones half of AJ's inflated contract and let Hawk go find his true value elsewhere. Hawk was rewarded for a very good 2010 season. Uncle Ted sure likes to pay linebackers, probably because he was one. I think the Packers know what they have in Manning, I'm just hoping they are right. As for Bishop and Smith, none of us will know until training camp.

Hawk is probably in a pretty good negotiating position for this year anyway. Hope he volunteers the restructuring instead of forcing the Packers hand.
UserPostedImage
Offline nerdmann  
#7 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:30:37 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,706
Applause Received: 664

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
I'd rather pay Brad Jones half of AJ's inflated contract and let Hawk go find his true value elsewhere. Hawk was rewarded for a very good 2010 season. Uncle Ted sure likes to pay linebackers, probably because he was one. I think the Packers know what they have in Manning, I'm just hoping they are right. As for Bishop and Smith, none of us will know until training camp.

Hawk is probably in a pretty good negotiating position for this year anyway. Hope he volunteers the restructuring instead of forcing the Packers hand.


Trade him, don't just release him outright.

That way we get something for him, even if it's a late round pick. PLUS, the good part is, the other team will be responsible for his future cap hits if THEY want to cut him. They can always renegotiate with him if they want.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline earthquake  
#8 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:24:36 AM(UTC)
earthquake

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 194
Applause Received: 63

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Trade him, don't just release him outright.

That way we get something for him, even if it's a late round pick. PLUS, the good part is, the other team will be responsible for his future cap hits if THEY want to cut him. They can always renegotiate with him if they want.


Who will trade for him with that contract? They would likely have to have a deal in place to restructure with the new team for any trade to happen, and if that's the case, why wouldn't he simply restructure with GB?
blank
Online DakotaT  
#9 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:41:35 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 666
Applause Received: 1,372

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Trade him, don't just release him outright.

That way we get something for him, even if it's a late round pick. PLUS, the good part is, the other team will be responsible for his future cap hits if THEY want to cut him. They can always renegotiate with him if they want.


Yeah, there'd be about as big a market for Hawk's contract as there is for a DakotaT spermbank!!! Dancing
UserPostedImage
Offline nerdmann  
#10 Posted : Saturday, March 2, 2013 12:05:10 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,706
Applause Received: 664

Originally Posted by: earthquake Go to Quoted Post
Who will trade for him with that contract? They would likely have to have a deal in place to restructure with the new team for any trade to happen, and if that's the case, why wouldn't he simply restructure with GB?


If he's gonna restructure anyway, why wouldn't he do so with a team that doesn't have 6 other guys who can play at his position?
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
now / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

35m / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann