Left Tackle for a second round pick
by joakim on Mar 30, 2010 6:21 AM CDT
Email
PrintI have heard rumors that the Ravens will trade Jared Gaither for a second round pick. I think we should go after him, and use our 1st round pick on defense. He is only 24 years old, is solid as a left tackle, and he is huge (6'9'' 340 lbs). But I don't if he will fit our zone blocking system. But McCarthy was also talking about the power - o a lot last season. I think it's a safer and better pick than drafting a LT.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I just ran into this too...
Here is a source to give this some more validity:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/29/gaither-could-be-available-for-less-than-first-round-pick/
Sounds like they are talking a HIGH second though so we’d probably have to give a 2nd and 3rd or something to get him but man sounds like money well spent to me. Gives us some youth at the tackle position without taking the chances of HOPING a rookie will pan out!
Still would do it.
He would be an instant upgrade at LT, and would be our guy for the next 5-10 years. Plus, we would still have our 1st round pick. We could hope someone falls to us at #23, and if not we could go with the best OLB, CB, or S to help out the defense.
Gaither would want a big contract but I think it’d be worth it. Like you mentioned, he’s already proven himself in the league, and is only 24 years old.
by packallday555 on Mar 30, 2010 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
With no cap this year, this is the time to overspend. Plenty of teams (lke the Vikings) are doing it…by the time the cap is back at least one of our tackles will probably be gone.
Who did the Vikings overspend on this year exactly?
by Donald Driver on Mar 30, 2010 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions
the vault
is depleted after the last 4 free-agent signings. 30 mill in gauranteed money next year. if there was a cap we would be over already, because we were only 18 million under coming into this year….
math problem: 18 million under——-added 30 million gauranteed money for next year..
equalls a minus 12 million, plus have to sign the new rookie crop coming in, which is about 5 million.just a estimation.
Except you are double counting. The 18 million number counted all the players that we signed with guaranteed money. Plus the full number doesn’t always count against the cap sometimes its more, sometimes less…see this as a reference:
http://www.sportscity.com/NFL/Green-Bay-Packers-Salaries
Clifton was $8 million of our cap in 2009, he counts about $900K in 2010.
http://packerchatters.com/?p=12692
so the simple math you used really doesn’t work. I really don’t care enough or have the time to figure out the full number though.
plus
where’s picketts 10 mill and collins 12 mill gauranteed money along with cliffys 7.5 mill ……those are what theses guys get next year—-garaunteed., so my math is quite right.
we were 18 mill under the cap in 09, the total cap was 127 million in 2010 the cap would have been 134-136 mill.
garaunteed money is a one shot deal, they cut you a check and no it’s not pro-rated like a signing bonus for the rookies.
next thing is your going to sell me on that ted got us out cap hell after 1 year.
2005 was bad and by 2006 we were 20 million under already. how can that be?
last year
jennings made 16 million——-for one year, that all counted against the 09 cap….why you ask? well because it was a gaurantee up front money not a signing bonus.
jennings was in the top 10 paid players last year, but in year 2 and beyond his annual salary is nothing, because of the gauranteed up front money.
signing bonuses are prorated
over the lifespan of the contract.
So, if a hypothetical player signs a 5 year contract with a $10mil signing bonus and a first year salary of $2mil, then his cap number for the first year is $4mil ($2mil salary + $2mil for that year’s share of his bonus), not $12mil ($2mil salary + $10mil signing bonus).
ah, I see what you're saying
about “guaranteed money” vs. bonuses in general.
Where, out of curiosity are you getting that information from? This is the first I’ve ever heard of a distinction that guaranteed money counts in full.
DING! DING! DING!
gauranteed money is paid up front.
jennings recieved 11.25 in a signing bonus which he received immediately last year along with his annual salary of 5 million which equals 16.25 million he received last year.
just like this year…….cliffy is gauranteed 7.5 mill, pickett is owed 10 mill and collins between10-11 mill—-depends on incentives, that’s what these players will receive next year . it’s called front end gauranteed contracts. these contracts aren’t prorated——-
do the research, if you don’t believe me.
paid up front /= completely counts against salary cap
From what I understand, and from what I’ve been able to find out there thusfar, there is no distinction between a “guaranteed” contract and signing bonuses.
The way “guaranteed” money is applied to the salary cap (which again, is not active this year) is prorated over the life of the contract UNLESS the player is released/retires. Then, and only then, the remainder of that bonus is applied to the salary cap.
Yes, the team has to PAY this money all at once. But unless you’re privy to some other information I’m not aware of, I don’t think there’s a distinction with how that is applied to (this year’s nonexistent) salary cap costs.
So I’ll repeat my question: where are you getting your information about separate salary cap application for “guaranteed” money? I’ll gladly “do the research” but I’d appreciate it if you threw me a bone as to where to look.
sorry about
that .. now i’m just as confused as you are about the cap. i’m getting conflicting answeres(sp). i see what your saying about signing bonuses being year to year but i don’t think that they are all equally distributed all the time.
i’ll try to get you that website i found, so we can both be equally confused. you need a degree from M.I.T. to figure out some of this cap stuff.
Yeah we all know they are PAID up front, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that they come out of the first year of pay. If they did, there would be no incentive to use guaranteed money for the teams. The purpose of the guaranteed money is to get the player their money up front without killing the team in the current year. I haven’t seen anything to back what you are trying to sell on this one.
Exactly! Thanks Swill.
We also lose Kampman’s salary and Montomery’s salary as well. Some players compensation will be higher and others lower. Its just WAY to simplistic to grab numbers and tack them on.
don't forget
about the tendered players that got raises on their 1 year contracts like colledge, spitz,bigby,t.williams, jolly……they all are making more money than they did last year as well.
nope
not all signing bonuses are pro-rated——another myth..
You just argued against yourself.
So last year we were 18 under the cap and that included Jennings huge number. You didn’t account for that in your numbers though. The way you did it was too simplistic and WRONG!
not saying its totally accurate
but when all is said in done, after the rookies are all signed———if you add up all the salaries going into the 2010 season, i wouldn’t be surprised if the packers are pushed up against or are over the projected salary cap number for 2010. which would have been around134-136 million.
Okay I will agree with you on that. I think we are on the same page now.
The difference though is that TT is doing it intentionally right now BECAUSE there is no cap. If there were a cap, all these contracts he just signed would have been done differently. My point on the Vikings was that the FAs they have spending freely on is catching up to them. They haven’t really signed a FA this year and their number is already at or over what the cap would be at this year. I saw that in an article in the paper here in Minneapolis a while ago. None of it matters, just thought it was interesting.
i agree
this is why he is loading the contracts with the up front money, he can be over this year and next year he will be under by 10 mill.
never said it was wrong, just trying to explain why ted isn’t going to sign anymore big contracts this year————he has spent his quota—imo.
as far as the vikings go, i could care less. alls i know is that the vikes are the team we have to beat to win the division. winning the division gives you a chance at playoff byes, so whatever ted has to do—-do it—and hope it works. imo the vikes have taken risks in free-agency(allen) and the draft(harvin) that have panned out for them———sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t.
old saying goes" i’d rather be lucky than good"———i guess.
should have
offered our first for him, sign him, and give him the same contract that cliffy got. no longer have to worry about LT for the next 5 to 7 years.
it’s too late now-not going to pay gaither top dollar and cliffy, unless you just release cliffy and eat the 7.5 million dollars——that would be bad business, the ship to bring in gaither has sailed across the rubicon.
You are probably right there…unless we ship Clifton and a lower pick over there to them! :-) Then we free up the money and eliminate the competition. Our cap wouldn’t take a hit this year since there isn’t one!!
You are right though, the ship has likely sails on that dream.
No, crab is dead wrong on this one
Gaither’s not worth a #1, that’s why the Ravens are asking for a #2 supposedly and still not getting any takers. Gaither wouldn’t fit in our system, and is not known to be a hard worker. In exchange you are giving away too much for that.
by PackApologist on Mar 31, 2010 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
maybe
it wouldn’t be the first time.
i also thought the packers would beat the cardinals last year in playoffs. i was wrong again.
Why wouldn’t Gaither fit our system? He has had work issues so far yeah but it hasn’t stop him from being a good LT in the league.
by packallday555 on Mar 31, 2010 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Profootball talk doesn't give a story credibility
by PackApologist on Mar 31, 2010 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Consensus over on the Ravens blog seems to be they want to get rid of him because of money and Oher. Most want Oher to move to LT for understandable reasons, and many believe it will happen within the next two years. But Gaither has been good as well and he wants a bigger contract. So basically, they don’t want to be spending two players big time LT type money. Plus, some of them don’t seem to be so sure that Gaither would be a good RT.
by packallday555 on Mar 30, 2010 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions
His dream in Baltimore
While he’s rumored to be available because he was “only” protected with a 1st round tender vs. the Nick Collins-like 1st and 3rd round tender, Gaither doesn’t seem to want to go anywhere and the Ravens seem interested in keeping him. With Drew Rosenhaus as his agent, I’m sure there is no discount being mentioned in contract negotiations. I’m not the biggest fan of Pro Football Focus, but for what it’s worth Gaither was rated as the 4th best LT and well ahead of Chad Clifton, which seems likely. However this is a strong draft for offensive tackles, and I’m not sure Gaither is better than some of the ones that could be available in the late 1st round.
I dunno
I’ll bet you could name a litany of tackles who were taken in the first round in previous years who he’s better than
by Donald Driver on Mar 31, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Please would someone get Packer fans off the Gaither wagon?
Shake yourself if you think a team is going to part with a LT in the prime of his career. That’s almost like the Packers trading Rodgers right now, or the Colts Manning. Teams just don’t do this people! If they do trade a player of that important a position there’s something wrong.
It’s just stupid to give up both pics and money for a player where there is something wrong!
What’s wrong with him though? You already pointed out his work ethic but like I pointed out that hasn’t stopped him from being a good player (if he really does have an attitude).
The only thing wrong is they have 2 good LT’s on their roster. One was a big-name 1st round pick, and the other was a supplemental draft pick. The big name itself almost assures that they would prefer Oher to play LT, plus he is good at it. But doing this creates a problem. Gaither isn’t a RT. He is a LT and has been a good one for the Ravens. So deservedly so, he wants a bigger contract. Thing is, I’m sure the Ravens don’t want to pay two guys big time LT contracts. So for that reason, it appears the Ravens would like to part ways with him.
This is kind of a pointless debate now though. There is 0 chance we do this after giving Clifton they contract we did.
by packallday555 on Mar 31, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
So what is wrong. you keep insisting something is wrong yet you don’t mention anything. I can name something wrong about every player on every team. If I sour on a guy I can easily start talking about all the things he does wrong. He might still be a decent player but if I don’t want him I won’t mention any of them. Our Oline SUCKED last year, he’d only have to be average to upgrade any position on our offensive line…keep that in mind. Its all about perspective.
The grass is always greener
I said this before, but when a team is willing to part with a LT in his prime then there are red flags, especially when you’re not seeing a bidding war for him. Franchise tackles are a rare commodity and teams don’t just part with them unless there is a reason.
Bottom line is that this guy was replaced by a rookie last year, and they are trying to get rid of him this year. Mix that with the fact that he doesn’t really fit into our blocking scheme and we’d have to probably overpay him, doesn’t add up in my head.
by PackApologist on Apr 3, 2010 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
There are red flags with almost EVERY player that is a free agent or being traded…that is why the team is letting them go. Jared Allen had all sorts of red flags when the Vikings traded for him. It worked out okay with them.
Its okay if you don’t like him and don’t think it will work. Just keep in mind it won’t take much to upgrade our Oline. He might not be as good as Oher, but he might still be better than what we have now. He doesn’t have to be a franchise tackle for it to be worth a 2nd round pick.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily-clad Twitter photo
- Erin Andrews reportedly dating ‘Gossip Girl’ actor Chace Crawford, who also happens to be Tony Romo’s brother-in-law
- Madden ’13 will include ‘Tebowing’
- Deep Posts: Winslow not wanted in Tampa Bay?
