If theres one constant on this board (other than the Rodgers/Favre debates), its that every offseason, Ted Thompson will be ripped by a certain percentage of board members for being cheap for leaving too much money under the cap for not spending on free agents. These are valid points. I might even argue that Thompson does, indeed, warrant these accusations. But thats not what Im trying to dispute. What Im disputing is the fallacy that spending money equals increased win totals.
I recently came across this chart, which perfectly illustrates the point Im trying to make.
http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Sports/nfl-salaries.php Thats simply a listing of each NFL team and their total payroll for 2009. Notice the almost zero correlation between how much a team spent on payroll and how successful of a season they had. Four of the bottom five teams in terms of payroll made the playoffs. Seven of the bottom half made the playoffs. Oakland and Cleveland, one and four respectively in payroll, were among the worst teams in the league. I could go on, but Im sure youre all capable of looking at the chart and deducing the obvious conclusions.
Simply put Money. Doesnt. Matter.
Now, this isnt to say that Ted Thompson should not spend any money at all. It doesnt mean he shouldnt make a play for certain free agents. But it does mean that if youd like to make the case that he NEEDS to spend more or that he NEEDS to go hard and heavy in the free agency market, youre doing so despite all evidence to the contrary.
So, lets talk money. Below is a list of current players (including pending free agents), their 2009 salary and the year their contract expires.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/62145597.html I just did some rough estimates, but Ive got the committed payroll for 2010 at about $91 million. That number doesnt include any free agents, restricted or unrestricted. Adding up all the salaries from 2009 gives you roughly $120 million, so if were to assume management will keep total payroll at the same figure, wed have roughly $30 million to spend this offseason, though that includes re-signing any UFA and RFA wed like back.
NOTE: Those numbers are extremely rough and serve more as a general idea of payroll commitments. For example, Jennings 09 base salary was $5 million, but it drops to under $2 million in 2010. Rodgers will also receive a lower base salary. Some guys may have escalating salaries. For simplicity, Ill just assume they balance out.
So theres your back-of-the-napkin calculations for our estimated payroll flexibility. It seems to me that theres more than enough room to bring back any of our current players, sign our draft picks and dip into the mid-level free agent pool for a player or two.