Scott Wells

by Timothy Bryce on Dec 4, 2011 7:15 PM CST

Hi everyone. Time for this week's "should they or should they not retain said player?" poll.

This week, let's discuss another long time Packer- Scott Wells.

Now I know many of you may say yes here, based on the fact that the Packers really don't have anyone to replace Wells right now. But, we do need to remember that Scott Wells will be 31 years old by the end of the playoffs. I have decided to take a little bit of a different approach to this poll and ask a secondary question. For those of you who answered at the right price, how high should Thompson be willing to go on Wells?(Put your answer to this in the comments section)

Poll

Should the Packers retain Scott Wells?

Yes, no matter the price

20 votes

Yes, at the right price

83 votes

No, but they better draft a center within the first few rounds then

4 votes

107 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This new CBA is interesting

Because it forces teams to spend at least 99% of their salary cap IIRC. So some crazy contracts and bonuses are going to be needed to keep teams under the cap and still be able to resign key high profile guys.

So what I’m getting at is that we might see more teams giving out franchise deals, huge salaries / bonuses in one year verses others, as well as keeping players around for cap space. Its possible we resign Wells, knowing that were going to use his salary cap money for another player in a year or two.

by Shoes31 on Dec 4, 2011 8:07 PM CST reply actions

90%

not, 99, IIRC

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Dec 8, 2011 2:47 AM CST up reply actions

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be good to keep Wells

I doubt he’s gonna be wanting a super high salary and I think he likes it in Green Bay…. give him a couple more years, and also I’m sure we’ll draft a guard that can shift to center if need be sometime soon.

When life gives ya lemons, shut up and eat your damn lemons.
Brett Favre will lead the Vikings to a Victory in Super Bowl XLVI, Guaranteed! - REVENGE4FAVRE

by P-Townfan on Dec 5, 2011 1:28 AM CST reply actions

He could command a pretty high salary...

13.

by Wiedmann on Dec 5, 2011 1:43 AM CST up reply actions

According to the Journal-Sentinel (as of like 2 or 3 weeks ago), he’s asking to be paid like a top 5 C.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2011 10:11 AM CST up reply actions

So if he wants to be paid like a top 5 center...

…that means an increase from about $2.75 million to somewhere between $3 and $6 million. Top base salary for a center is $5.5 million.

Is that really that bad?

by TheSwish on Dec 6, 2011 5:00 PM CST up reply actions

It is when you need money under the cap for 52 other guys

13.

by Wiedmann on Dec 6, 2011 9:56 PM CST up reply actions

His leadership would be hard to replace.

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Dec 5, 2011 12:40 PM CST reply actions

The answer is simple

He stays. I don’t care who we draft, I don’t care what the price may be. TT does not let him walk. The line is set and the team is winning now and TT and MM won’t let some contract quibbles get in the way of that. The evidence to that lies in the last deals of both Mark Tauscher and Chad Clifton. They were both older than Wells is now with longer injury histories, yet each got competitive deals because the replacements were not present and they were needed to protect Rodgers. Wells is no different.

by PackApologist on Dec 5, 2011 7:11 PM CST reply actions

If I recall, Tauscher was let go when it came time for his big contract.

by Timothy Bryce on Dec 5, 2011 9:19 PM CST up reply actions

Wrong

Tauscher was signed to a moderate contract and was let go mid contract when his knees gave out.

by PackApologist on Dec 5, 2011 10:06 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs

Right.

I voted for “no matter the price,” because, saying, “at the right price,” in connection with Ted Thompson, is redundant.

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Dec 8, 2011 2:51 AM CST up reply actions

It all comes down to who is his replacement?

If Wells > replacement then you keep him, but if Wells < replacement then you let him walk. Its just simple inequalities is all.

Packers' Magic Numbers:
Clinch Division = DONE!!!
Clinch 1st Rd Bye = 1
Clinch Homefield = 3

by Bezerkers on Dec 6, 2011 9:36 AM CST reply actions

Eh, not always how it is. Hawk isn’t/wasn’t > Barnett, and he was still kept over him. I think age plays a big factor into it. You don’t want to give an older player a really nice contract cause what if he can’t play it out at the level he’s at, at the time?

It’s been reported that he wants a big contract. Is it good value to give him it at 31? I honestly don’t know.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2011 10:15 AM CST up reply actions

That might have been the case.

Pre-Salary Cap… Now w/ a salary cap, and its been in place for a long time, there are always value judgements that play a large role in the equation!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2011 10:42 AM CST up reply actions

There is nothing the Packers desperately need so I could see Thompson trading down out of the first round, trade down a little more and acquire a few late second round choices and two extra choices late in the third round. Then, draft a center, a safety, and just start acquiring players along the front seven.

by Timothy Bryce on Dec 6, 2011 1:33 PM CST reply actions