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
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Rude!
beast (2h) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (5h) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (8h) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (9h) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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