Green Bay Packers Forum

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.
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MintBaconDrivel  
#1 Posted : Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:18:18 PM(UTC)
MintBaconDrivel

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 12/11/2012(UTC)

Applause Received: 97

PackersNews wrote:
That the Minnesota Vikings were the main suitors for Greg Jennings played no part in the Green Bay Packers' counter-offer to the free-agent receiver.

That wasn’t the reason general manager Ted Thompson wasn’t willing to ante up the $9.5 million per year that Jennings got from the Packers’ NFC North rival.
Delivering the latest and most important updates on the Green Bay Packers for your convenience.
UserPostedImage
Sponsor
Offline rabidgopher04  
#2 Posted : Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:49:54 PM(UTC)
rabidgopher04

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 116
Applause Received: 130

Combine this with the fact that Jennings said he felt wanted by the Vikings. I know we can't hang on to these guys forever, but you start to wonder if this hampers our ability to attract good players. Guys won't want to come to Green Bay if the Packers have a reputation as being cheap.

I don't see the loss of Jennings as the end of the world, but I think the trend speaks to a larger pattern. I would hate to see the Packers organization have a bad reputation.
Do you like bacon?
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Packerchick on 3/18/2013(UTC)
Offline DoddPower  
#3 Posted : Sunday, March 17, 2013 6:54:42 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,169
Applause Received: 547

Originally Posted by: rabidgopher04 Go to Quoted Post
Combine this with the fact that Jennings said he felt wanted by the Vikings. I know we can't hang on to these guys forever, but you start to wonder if this hampers our ability to attract good players. Guys won't want to come to Green Bay if the Packers have a reputation as being cheap.

I don't see the loss of Jennings as the end of the world, but I think the trend speaks to a larger pattern. I would hate to see the Packers organization have a bad reputation.



It's a case by case basis. If the Packers offer enough money to a player, than said player won't think the Packers are "cheap." I don't think reputation means much as the actual numbers that are being offered to a given player. I think most players should be able to understand that their wishes and the constraints of an organization might not always align. Although, in the Jennings situation, I think he ended up getting a little less per-season from the Vikings than what the Packers originally offered him. I understand we don't know the length of the contract that was offered by the Packers (it could have only been 2-3 seasons), but the last year or two of most contracts don't mean much anyway.
Offline rabidgopher04  
#4 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2013 7:33:50 AM(UTC)
rabidgopher04

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 116
Applause Received: 130

Don't the Packers also have a reputation of offering performance-based contracts? While that seems fair and equitable, if someone is offering you the same or a little less total dollars, but more guaranteed money, wouldn't you take the one with more guaranteed cash? I think most of us in our jobs would give heavy consideration to this. If the work environment is roughly the same between the two choices, knowing you could be fired/cut at any time it just makes sense to go with the guaranteed money instead of the incentive laden offer.
Do you like bacon?
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#5 Posted : Monday, March 18, 2013 8:19:12 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 14
Applause Received: 442

The Packers do not use incentives much really. Ted has used them as ways to move money forward in the salary cap, but not really as a means of paying players. But he isn't high on Signing bonuses and guaranteed upfront money. He is more straight forward. Base salary and Roster Bonuses. Which puts more risk on the players, and less on the team. It is a reason, that Packers havent' been in cap hell, and manage an extremely low amount of dead cap money.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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


Recent Topics
6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rockmolder

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / dyeah_gb

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Gilligan


Tweeter