texaspackerbacker
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
11 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
Zero2Cool (1h) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (8h) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (9h) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (9h) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (9h) : now 3
Zero2Cool (10h) : Who? What?
beast (19h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (23h) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.