Packers and Sam Shields reach agreement on a four-year, $39 million deal· Page 3

DakotaT
Select Member

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.

Originally Posted by: play2win

Completely agree! It's bad enough to have that gaping hole at safety, losing Shields would have decimated our secondary.

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#22

Completely agree! It's bad enough to have that gaping hole at safety, losing Shields would have decimated our secondary.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

Don't get me wrong, I would have been upset if he walked elsewhere, however, recent Packers re-signings haven't worked out so well. Finley, ARod, and CM3 have all been very pricey to retain, and collectively have missed about half of the games since their reworked deal.

We're about to have roughly 50 million tied up in just 4 players (ARod, CM3, Shields, and Tramon).

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#23

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

Holding out when your salary is in the hundreds of thousands, and you see guys no better getting $5-10 million is one thing. Holding out when your salary is near the upper end of that $5-10 million range because others are getting $12-14 million (we're talking a few years from now) is a very different thing.

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

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#24

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.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

What gave you that idea? I'm advocating as much as anybody that we pay what it takes to get top level talent - whether it's what we already have or from other teams. I'm all for paying what it took to sign Shields, and I wish it would have been longer term so we don't have the same situation in 4 years. After the Rodgers and Matthews deals, I don't know why this one surprises you. Get a top level free agent Safety, and that will be my happy surprise.

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

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#25

Originally Posted by: musccy

Where do you get that $50 million figure? I count about $10-12 against the cap for Rodgers, $6 or so for Matthews, $5+ for Shields, and $8-9 for Tramon. That's in the $30 million range. The first three are well worth it, and Tramon probably will be restructured or even cut, saving at least $5-6 million.

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

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#26

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.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

I'm not sure when they changed it and I just found out about it a few months back by accident. I think it was to prevent things like 30 million dollar signing bonuses on 8 year contracts and the like which is what really got teams in hot water when players started sucking after 4 years. I think they kind of did it to protect teams from themselves. Now they have to offer more things like roster bonuses and workout bonuses and such which are not necessarily guaranteed.

I really don't think you are going to be seeing a whole lot of 6 year deals any more. The way things are set up players want to try to get in more than 1 decent deal after their rookie contracts and teams see too many careers dip after 4 years so they don't want to be hamstrung by the last 2 years. Make it a 4 maybe 5 year deal and if the guy is still playing up to high standards extend him after 3 or 4. If not take your chances with letting him hit FA. I think you will see a lot more players reaching free agency but I also think you will be seeing a lot more players eventually returning to their teams.

I also think the possibility of a 160 million dollar cap in a couple of years played into Sam's deal as well. If it balloons to that it will be much easier to keep him with his 12 million dollar hit in years 3 and 4.

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#27

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

http://overthecap.com/teamcap.php?Team=Packers&Year=2014

If you can trust this site then you have 17.9, 10.9, and 9.5 (Tramon) in 2014. To my knowledge, we don't know the official figures on Shields yet, but obviously it's a 10 average so that puts you in the ballpark of 48.3mil out of 133 mil, so about 36%.

You're right about what may happen with Tramon, but with Cobb and Jordy on the horizon, this organization is presumably about to tie up a load of money in just a few pieces, even if Byrd/Ward aren't signed!

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#28

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/cap-hit/

Rodgers $17.9 million
Matthews $10,943,750
Tramon $9.5

Posted this earlier from rotoworld

3/8/2014: Signed a four-year, $39 million contract. The deal included a $12.5 million signing bonus.

2014: $2.5 million,
2015: $3.1 million,
2016: $2.5 million,
2017: $3.1 million,
2018: Free Agent

Those figures only include about $23.7 million. Not sure where the $15.3 million went.

BRB gonna check my bank account.

Edit, dammit, no. not there

steveishere
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#29

Originally Posted by: musccy

I think Shields is around 5 or 6m for 2014 plus we had the 10m carry over making our cap around 143m this year. Looking at other teams around 40m invested in the top 4 players doesn't really seem uncommon or anything.

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#30

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I thought I read that his cap hit in 2016 and 2017 would be about 12.1 million. That would make his salary about 9 million although I recall seeing that 2.5 and 3.1 as well. I think it was just a typo, they cut an pasted the 2014 and 2015 salaries.

its not in my account either.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (41m) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (41m) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (56m) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (58m) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (58m) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (59m) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (59m) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (1h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (1h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (1h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (1h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (1h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (1h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (1h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (1h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (1h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (1h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (1h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (1h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (1h) : Packers will get in

beast (1h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (1h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (1h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (3h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (4h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (4h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (4h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (5h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (14h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (15h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (18h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating

Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!

wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS