Josh Sitton Released - signs w/CHI 3yrs

Henry posted:

Pakrz posted:

I can relate to the old guy thing, but I'm not buying the relevance here.  Sitton is a pro bowl G.  We can agree that he is declining (As he should at 30), but he is still better than at least half the G's in the league.  His salary of around 6m wasn't crazy by any stretch.  

 

It is when you've got that many young guys coming up for a payday.  Could they have kept Sitton and negotiated at the end of year?  Sure, but then all those guys are FAs too and now the process gets harder when you have other teams pitching offers, some specifically to drive up the price.

But i don't think it is "all those young guys," it's one or two of the FA's.   We're not mortgaging the future by letting him play out his contract and then getting a comp pick when he departs as a FA.

Im not as educated in contracts as some here, so maybe someone can share an opinion on the numbers.  With the pre existing  cap space, what could have been accomplished in season and now with the additional 6 million, what does that allow?   Who exactly where we at risk of, not necessarily losing, but letting hit the open market before we could negotiate.   Wait, don't get first shot at signing them anyway?

El-Ka-Bong posted:

Two days ago I was much more worried about the pay/production ration for Peppers than I was for Sitton.  

Excellent point.

They can now use more 2016 money to keep contracts more manageable down the road. Sitton, Tretter, Bakh, Lacy, etc. have all dealt with injuries lately. I'd rather not be on the hook for more money down the road if we don't have to.

El-Ka-Bong posted:

Two days ago I was much more worried about the pay/production ration for Peppers than I was for Sitton.  

To expand on this... Peppers is slated to make 10.5 million this season.  Does the "better to get rid of a player 1 year too soon than 1 year too late" apply to everybody?  I don't recall the preseason game (SF??), but Peppers looked horrible. 

BrainDed posted:

 We're not mortgaging the future by letting him play out his contract and then getting a comp pick when he departs as a FA.

 That would certainly make a lot of sense. Why do you think TT didn't go in that direction? My guess is a mix of performance, money and injury concerns. The problem, as someone else correctly stated, is we don't know what we don't know.

Agreed, but maybe somebody at 1265 should shed some light on it.  Because on the surface, it looks ****ing stupid when you consider the treasure GB has at QB and the fact that they employ a between-the-tackle grinder of a young RB.  

Plus, we have Perry and Jones.  The drop from Peppers to those two is less significant than Sitton to Taylor.

There has to be more to this.  If it was only finances, Peppers is the guy who goes.   More money saved and less drop off. 

oops - what caused me to think Rodgers is 35?  Glad he is 32!!!

Grave Digger posted:

They can now use more 2016 money to keep contracts more manageable down the road. Sitton, Tretter, Bakh, Lacy, etc. have all dealt with injuries lately. I'd rather not be on the hook for more money down the road if we don't have to.

But they had some cap space, was it $10, to work with already.  So it's not like they were totally handicapped.  So how many, and who, does that $6 let them add in season?

For the love of Spaghetti, please don't tell me Eddie.  That would be a huge gamble.

Meth.

Still, don't we get first shot at negotiations with pending FA's from our team. 

I'm really struggling to see the reward here.  Not "ALL" of our FA's are positively impacted by this.  More like one or two and we still, I believe, have first crack at them in the offseason.  

It can't be finances.  It's gotta be the back and possible friction in the locker room.  Throw in the lost comp pick, we know TT loves his picks, and it's the only scenario that even remotely makes sense.

1 player, a G, a very good G, is no longer on the "odds on SB favorite" and now their SB chances are significantly decreased? Vegas disagrees. 

It doesn't matter if we get "first shot' at pending free agents. It is about extending them during this season and using part of Sitton contract $$$$ to pay them now.  The main idea is to not let them get to FA status.  That is TT Cap Management 101 class. 

BrainDed posted:

But i don't think it is "all those young guys," it's one or two of the FA's.   We're not mortgaging the future by letting him play out his contract and then getting a comp pick when he departs as a FA.

Im not as educated in contracts as some here, so maybe someone can share an opinion on the numbers.  With the pre existing  cap space, what could have been accomplished in season and now with the additional 6 million, what does that allow?   Who exactly where we at risk of, not necessarily losing, but letting hit the open market before we could negotiate.   Wait, don't get first shot at signing them anyway?

I don't know if it's necessarily a numbers game as it is a timing game.  Plus, TT may be looking for guys after the first week.  We've already mentioned the derth at ILB, the excess at DB and a missing long snapper.  I highly doubt those signings will suck up all the cap room but if you know Sitton isn't going to be playing for you next year that has to be part of the consideration.  

Like I said before, it's a risk but TT is sticking to a formula.  I'm sure we all wish he was more flexible but it seems to be a given across the league as to how TT operates.

Whose mind would be blown if TT goes after a big name with all the collected resources?  Just let me get on my purple disco rocket fueled by corn and zip to the next quantum reality for it to happen.

We'll see if TT is right in a bit when other teams start making offers to Sitton. Bad back, jettisoned by GB... I wonder if any team will pay what he would have earned in GB this year? Red flag: losing weight in the hope his back is improved. Will he be as effective at a lower weight much less stay healthy? So many questions...

We'll be asking more questions when an injury occurs on the offensive line and the franchise is getting his ass kicked up to his ears. 

Who'd be shocked and amazed if the market doesn't materialize and he comes back at the previously asked for cut?  ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN.

If any injury occurs somewhere there is another Bruce Wilkerson.   Remember 1996? 

Pakrz posted:

We'll be asking more questions when an injury occurs on the offensive line and the franchise is getting his ass kicked up to his ears. 

And if that injury happens to Sitton on his new team ? ? ?

Henry posted:

Who'd be shocked and amazed if the market doesn't materialize and he comes back at the previously asked for cut?  ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN.

Thought about this earlier this morning but became depressed when I realized I don't own one ingredient for Mid Morning Fizzes. 

I'd like to think the coaching staff knows how to move the pocket to keep Aaron Rodgers protected.

Thought about this earlier this morning but became depressed when I realized I don't own one ingredient for Mid Morning Fizzes. 

I'd just plow through my case of Shiraz, or maybe my bottle of vodka.

ammo posted:

If any injury occurs somewhere there is another Bruce Wilkerson.   Remember 1996? 

Tootie Robbins!

And another post just to throw a bit more gas on the fire, since it may be trying to die down:
In trying to make sense of all this, there have been some "...when Linsley returns..." comments. Of course, we know he is out at least 6 weeks since he starts the season on PUP. However, I don't know we can count on Linsley being back this year...or next! 
Severe hammy injuries are a bitch to overcome, and it reminds me of Dez Bishop just a couple or so years back; bad hammy, tries to return, re-injures it, and was never the same. 

The Packers have a good starting C who's just 25. I hope the best for Linsley but if Tretter becomes the franchise C of the team, so be it. He's earned it with a very good camp. He can also play LT in a pinch as well. And the Packers value that.

bvan posted:

Pakrz posted:

We'll be asking more questions when an injury occurs on the offensive line and the franchise is getting his ass kicked up to his ears. 

And if that injury happens to Sitton on his new team ? ? ?

So let me get this straight... if Sitton gets his leg rolled up on and tears his ACL while playing football for the Bears, that is viewed as an "I told you so" because it obviously would have happened if he were playing in GB as well ? ? ?

Makes sense. 

I'm not sure which of these is more dumb:

1.  I'm not a TT guy, never have been.

2. Barclay sucks at G.

3.  Bloody Mary's are overrated.

What you got there is a list of unique alternate understandings.

Pakrz posted:

bvan posted:

Pakrz posted:

We'll be asking more questions when an injury occurs on the offensive line and the franchise is getting his ass kicked up to his ears. 

And if that injury happens to Sitton on his new team ? ? ?

 

So let me get this straight... if Sitton gets his leg rolled up on and tears his ACL while playing football for the Bears, that is viewed as an "I told you so" because it obviously would have happened if he were playing in GB as well ? ? ?

Makes sense. 

I agree.  The only "I told you so" would be if Sitton's history of back issues makes him ineffective or not able to play at all.  Or, if he's healthy but just not very good anymore.

Henry posted:

turnip blood posted:

The answer to Sitton being cut is how good is Taylor.  Taylor seems to be the guy the Packers will use to replace Sitton.  This whole  thing could be  that the Packers think Taylor is either close to or better then Sitton. 

I highly doubt they believe Taylor is close to or better than Sitton.   They likely think they have enough to patch the deficiency for now considering it's an interior position.  Quite simply I think both sides are making a pros/cons list and taking some risk.  

Quite honestly, the more and more I think about it, TT and extensions shouldn't even be part of the equation.  It's happening.  Everyone knows it's happening.  

It's the roll of the dice for both sides on if Josh can stay effective due to health and neither side can be sure.  I think both sides want to see Sitton on the team this year but both have a compelling argument as to contract demands.  So I highly doubt this was some bolt out of the blue and TT just decided to do away with Sitton.

13 Million for one guy?...C'mon...is it really that HARD to figure out?

6.5 Million plus $400,000 for each game?

Christ...do your homework.

Some people prefer straight hard alcohol to cocktails.

I don't know any of those people. 

And in the morning ? That's just wrong.

Sorry, I mean "unique."

ChilliJon posted:

Henry posted:

Who'd be shocked and amazed if the market doesn't materialize and he comes back at the previously asked for cut?  ALL ABOARD THE CRAZY TRAIN.

Thought about this earlier this morning but became depressed when I realized I don't own one ingredient for Mid Morning Fizzes. 

If it's the Orange Blossom Flower, you'll be good without.  But, if it's the Chartreuse, then yeah, that's a must have. 

Fedya posted:

Some people prefer straight hard alcohol to cocktails.

It depends on the timing, the situation, etc.

There are many times when a nice bit of Whiskey neat is perfect.  

Brak posted:

I'm not sure which of these is more dumb:

3.  Bloody Mary's are overrated.

 

If you must have your V8 with some alcohol in it, at least swap out Vodka for some Tequila and make it a Bloody Maria.  At least it's a bit interesting at that point.  

Fedya posted:

Some people prefer hard cocks.

Wait, what Buffalo Wild Wings location did Wolf find TT at again?

Water and ice ice baby.

I dispise V8. McLures is the best. Then I'll doctor it up. I'm not a fan of the Bloody Mary side salad. Maybe a pickle spear and a jalapeño stuffed olive. But that's it. 

I have chartreuse. Only the label says Sierra Mist. Decided against it. 

Pakrz posted:

Fedya posted:

Some people prefer hard cocks.

 

Wonder if MM will go full beard into the regular season in honor of Josh.