texaspackerbacker
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
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.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (7m) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (8m) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (1h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (1h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (1h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (1h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (1h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (1h) : 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 (2h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (2h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (2h) : Packers will get in
beast (2h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (2h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (2h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (3h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (5h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (5h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (6h) : 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 (15h) : 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 (19h) : 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
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 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
13m / Random Babble / Martha Careful

27m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.