Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
Options
View
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: 90

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: 113
Applause Received: 127

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: 1,957
Applause Received: 470

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: 113
Applause Received: 127

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: 13
Applause Received: 360

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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Random Babble / Smokey

8h / Super Bowl Talk / Smokey

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9h / Welcome to our Community! / wpr

9h / Around The NFL / wpr

9h / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

11h / Welcome to our Community! / Smokey

12h / Random Babble / Smokey

13h / Random Babble / wpr

14h / Random Babble / IronMan

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Gilligan

15h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool


Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.