2021 Off Season Thread

Let’s not be blind. The “sign and retain” your own has been an organization philosophy since the Ted Thompson era began. This is not some new phenomenon. It’s both a blessing and a curse as we have seen. Some things are becoming clearer
  • Rodgers has not yet been restructured and that’s not a small thing. The organization has $25m reasons to walk away after 2021-22
  • King 1 year , Jones essentially 2 years, Smiths essentially 1 year. I’m not going to use the word rebuild since it’s a overused sound bite, but it’s getting clear what the “plan” is
  • ML does not have much equity, and if he does maybe that a cause for concern but I’ll give him a pass. Yep Gute is the GM but organizational structure is scary right now
 
realitybytes said:
true, mark. maybe it really boils down to murphy.
Click to expand...

If Mark has inside info that it's Murphy, fine. But until then, Gute has the GM title, and the buck stops with him. There's a difference between Murphy being a bad boss, and Murphy actually calling shots. He can be an idiot but it's Gute's job to build the roster.
 
rpiotr01 said:
If Mark has inside info that it's Murphy, fine. But until then, Gute has the GM title, and the buck stops with him. There's a difference between Murphy being a bad boss, and Murphy actually calling shots. He can be an idiot but it's Gute's job to build the roster.
Click to expand...
Murphy I strongly believe sticks his fingers were they don't belong. Look at when Ted left he took power saying both the GM and HC will report to him. If you are not trying to gut the power of GM by doing that I don't know what is.
 
rpiotr01 said:
If Mark has inside info that it's Murphy, fine. But until then, Gute has the GM title, and the buck stops with him. There's a difference between Murphy being a bad boss, and Murphy actually calling shots. He can be an idiot but it's Gute's job to build the roster.
Click to expand...
I get what your saying but it would not surprise me if they are following an organization script for life after Rodgers. You re sign your RB to a bit a questionable deal, draft a RB high, move up to get a QB who is more of what the prototype QB is becoming.....and 95% of your deal were essentially 1-2 years playing for a short window to win with 12. Not defending the moves just more devil’s advocate
 
There's nothing wrong with signing and retaining your own as long as you value them appropriately. I'll wait to see the details on the King deal but on the surface it seems about 3 million too rich.

The counterpoint to signing your own is overvaluing all the shiny toys on other teams and thinking they will make the difference. Unless they're a special type of player it's often just swapping one so-so talent for another.
 
57packer said:
There's nothing wrong with signing and retaining your own as long as you value them appropriately. I'll wait to see the details on the King deal but on the surface it seems about 3 million too rich.

The counterpoint to signing your own is overvaluing all the shiny toys on other teams and thinking they will make the difference. Unless they're a special type of player it's often just swapping one so-so talent for another.
Click to expand...
Except for the overvaluing our own has won how many SB the past decade ??? I'll answer my own question.... NONE. The goal is to win a championship each year not to put together a roster of men that everyone loves. The true definition of insanity is to do the samething over and over again and expecting a different result.
 
It's like I've said for over 50 years. There are some Packer fans that immediately say that anyone the Packers sign to the roster are on their way to the Hall of Fame, and they won't have to buy an admission ticket.

The problem is, during the 70s and 80s, this was so prominently advocated that we had to even take great players from the past and turn them into head coaches because after all, it worked with Lambeau, didn't it?

The reality is, it's a business, and the guys who play for the Packers are paid a hell of a lot of money to do so. We can argue as to whether or not they earn what they get paid, but it doesn't matter. They're going to leave for another team for more money. It's no different than any of us, who have jobs in the real world.

The old mantra comes into play here. "Money talks and bullchit walks." Sitting in his front office, Murphy knows that the only thing that maters is the ROI. The people down the line better understand this too.
 
So now I see report saying King deal is up to 6 million dollars. Wonder what the guarantee is. Hopefully it's not more then 2-3 million with 3-4 million in incentives.
 
TW said:
It's like I've said for over 50 years. There are some Packer fans that immediately say that anyone the Packers sign to the roster are on their way to the Hall of Fame, and they won't have to buy an admission ticket.

The problem is, during the 70s and 80s, this was so prominently advocated that we had to even take great players from the past and turn them into head coaches because after all, it worked with Lambeau, didn't it?

The reality is, it's a business, and the guys who play for the Packers are paid a hell of a lot of money to do so. We can argue as to whether or not they earn what they get paid, but it doesn't matter. They're going to leave for another team for more money. It's no different than any of us, who have jobs in the real world.

The old mantra comes into play here. "Money talks and bullchit walks." Sitting in his front office, Murphy knows that the only thing that maters is the ROI. The people down the line better understand this too.
Click to expand...
The big difference between now and the 70's and 80's is shared revenue and the cap basically takes much of the profits / loss vs wins debate obsolete. Murphy wakes and nirvana, the league sends him a check for $250m without turning the lights on. And I would assume that he also looks at the waiting list for tickets and he sleeps well at night.

I could not agree with more that its a business on both sides. But what I would assume he and Ball look at is cash flow and a certain quarterback is due, in cash $22.8m this year, $25.5m in 2022 and $25.5m in 2023. A certain backup / heir apparent quarterback is due in cash $1.17M this year, $1.7m in 2022 and $2.29m in 2023. I am certain there are other examples on the roster but this is the most glaring. Cash flow when looking at the FA market is pretty much on the top of the list, you have to pay out the big signing bonus. So it gets back to 2 things. #1 King is a cheap 1 year option, I dont like it even from that perspective but from business logic it makes sense. #2 with some revenue hits due to 2020 issues, cash might be limited to FA to get in to the market is at best limited. And that gets to another business point. If you cant win the SB with Rodgers why spend the $50m. I am sure that conversation is / was taking place with the Rodgers extension or lack of one.

I am in no way defending this move, King is a liability and the soft market spelled out his value, just looking at it from a business side
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top