I also am willing to take a flyer on him but only if he is willing to renegotiate his deal to help the team and understand he may not even be the starter at this point unless he shows he can do it.
Anyhow IMHO for all of the patience the Packers have shown him now starting the 4th year calendar year I think he should help them out and do a team friendly deal. The one problem I think the Packers may have if they want to trade him is if he can even pass a physical at this point.
Bakh's in the last year of his contract so Packers have no way to unilaterally reduce the cap hit outside of cutting/trading him. Only option Gute has to keep him is to extend him, add voidable years, or agree to a pay cut/incentives for 2024. Extending him is risky as he has barely played in 3 years. And if the knee is heathy, does Bakh agree reduce his 2024 salary? Doubtful b/ca healthy Bakh could cash in on free agency.
it's a messy spot. You'd love to have a HOF LT but his knee is a wreck. Have we seen a 32 year old LT bounce back after not playing for 3 seasons due to injury? Only way I would agree to bring him back is on a vet minimum deal with incentives based on games played to get him to his full 2024 salary. He's made $50m the last 3 seasons for barely playing. If he can't see that and bend a bit on his 2024 salary, then it's over.
EDIT: I don't think teams can add voidable years without a player agreeing to it, but can't verify. So maybe they can. Still think that's a bad idea as you want a clean cap the next few years for a Super Bowl window
I think the Packers move on. Walker has done a fine job against some elite pass rushers (including last week) and while maybe Steno isn't completely sold on Walker just yet, the ceiling for him vs Bakh at age 32 with a wrecked knee is way higher.
GB also has a slew of picks this year in the top 100. Gute can grab a T and have him marinate behind Walker if Rasheed doesn't ultimately pan out. The cap savings also allows GB to go get some FA's to further bolster their secondary or wherever he wants to spend it by cutting #69.
My guess is Dave's a Jet-Jet-Jet with his tin foiled hat 40 year old QB in 2024.
He has not earned the money paid to him for 2 years (or so) now. Renegotiate for something near the minimum (like FLPACKER suggested), and trade him to another team for a day 3 pick. Good points have been made in this thread about how he feels about artificial turf, water on the knee, and how he feels about the team. If he won't renegotiate then cut him - and we can swallow the other part cap hit pill - which won't be as bad as last years AR pill. Besides. if Walker continues to play well, we don't need him and we can draft a just in case alternative for insurance purposes.
Very risky use of a roster spot, regardless of the contract.
There is obviously no way Bakh is back without reworking his contract. His cap hit is 40 million next year and his dead cap hit is 19 million, so they save 21 million in cap space even by eating the dead cap.
The incentive for Bakh is that he's due 21 million in new money in 2024 in base salary, roster bonuses, and workout bonuses. He's obviously not getting that from the Packers, and you wouldn't think even the Jets are going to give him 20 million in new money. The Packers have more incentive to pay him something next year than anyone else to get that dead cap hit of 19 million lower. If you could rework the contact to guarantee him 10 million next year, with some clauses that if he is healthy for 12+ games he gets another 10 million guaranteed the following year, that would be the way to do it. He'd get at least some new money and the Packers could spend that extra 10 million on other players. The Packers would save 10 million in cap room, still have him a very good player around if he can play even a few games, and he'd make more money as well. It would be win-win.
Here's his salary breakdown for next year.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/gr...vid-bakhtiari-12390/
But who knows, maybe Rodgers has the Jets by the short hairs and they give Bakh something like 3 years and 35 million with 8 figures of guaranteed money after their doctors clear him. Obviously, having those conversations would be tampering, but I'd bet there are back channel discussions about that right now.
@michiganjoe posted:Very risky use of a roster spot, regardless of the contract.
Is it, though?
How many games has Caleb Jones been active for this season ( or last for that matter)? The answer is 1. One game, yet he's taken a roster spot the entire season. Doesn't seem to be too risky.
Obviously I'm not advocating for DB to remain with the team and just be "inactive" any random week(s). But I think a roster spot is not really risky at all. This comes down to two things, and two things only: will he be healthy (finally) to be a starter; and can something be worked out financially that's appealing to GB.
Caleb Jones is really the point I was making. Would you rather spend a roster spot on an aging veteran with a very questionable knee or a young developmental prospect?
Bottom line for me is I remain extremely skeptical about the knee.
And I doubt DB wants to go to the Jets as that would be 11 games NOT on natural grass. DB has been a pretty vocal opponent of non-grass playing fields.
Also, for those "clamoring: to move on from DB because Rasheed Walker has been doing really well, keep in mind Yosh. Nijman had a really nice 2022 season and looked to be the primary backup to DB. The Packers thought so highly of him they put a 2nd Round tender on him. DB goes down after week 1 and Yosh is the preferred starter. But he took a step back this season, and Walker became "the guy". Walker still has plenty to prove before he can be counted on as the everyday LT.
@michiganjoe posted:Caleb Jones is really the point I was making. Would you rather spend a roster spot on an aging veteran with a very questionable knee or a young developmental prospect?
Bottom line for me is I remain extremely skeptical about the knee.
Obviously the knee health is the big question. But I trust the Packers' medical team. IF they really believe his knee is finally healthy, AND IF something can be worked out financially satisfying for the Packers, then I just don't see getting rid of him. The inability to play the past three seasons really doesn't have any implication on the team moving forward if he's healthy enough to play at a high level and the financials can be worked out. Outside of QB, quality Tackles and Tackle depth) are probably the hardest position to fill.
@michiganjoe posted:Very risky use of a roster spot, regardless of the contract.
Exactly my thoughts. If he goes down, you are now playing your swing tackle and running a razor thin line.
I believe it's not a if, it's a when. Now add in that it's likely he wont play on artificial turf games.
Pass. We need that roster spot for someone who we believe can be available for 16. If he played WR and you carry 5 other WR's, maybe 10 games would be worth it. Not LT though.
@PackLandVA posted:Is it, though?
How many games has Caleb Jones been active for this season ( or last for that matter)? The answer is 1. One game, yet he's taken a roster spot the entire season. Doesn't seem to be too risky.
Obviously I'm not advocating for DB to remain with the team and just be "inactive" any random week(s). But I think a roster spot is not really risky at all. This comes down to two things, and two things only: will he be healthy (finally) to be a starter; and can something be worked out financially that's appealing to GB.
Caleb is on the roster like Ninja was for a long time till he developed.
@YATittle posted:Caleb is on the roster like Ninja was for a long time till he developed.
Nijman was signed in 2019. He was on the Active Roster that same year in late November. He didn't see game action (I don't think) before being put on IR a month later. He has been active in every single game beginning with Week 1 in 2020 thru last weekend. Far cry from the one game Caleb was active for.
GB says they're still evaluating Bak for the 2024 season. There's nothing to evaluate. He hasn't been healthy in years, is a huge cap hit and GB has two young OTs that can play.
There's no doubt that Bak is a beast when he is healthy but it's time to move on.
None of the speculation matters because no one, even DB and his doctors, know what shape his knee will be in by TC. From what I understand, there were errors made in the original repair that caused extended and additional problems. And those problems were corrected during the last repair process. If that finally does fix the ongoing issues, he can still be elite for a couple more seasons, which is very valuable. If not, he's done. Everyone is just going to have to wait.
@Pakrz posted:GB says they're still evaluating Bak for the 2024 season. There's nothing to evaluate. He hasn't been healthy in years, is a huge cap hit and GB has two young OTs that can play.
There's no doubt that Bak is a beast when he is healthy but it's time to move on.
"Evaluating" is code for figuring out how to dump him - in this case.
@Ghost of Lambeau posted:"Evaluating" is code for figuring out how to dump him - in this case.
Correct. I'd be stunned if he's a Packer in 2024. He will be released and while yes the Packers will take a cap hit, they will recoup a significant cap savings by releasing him.
His knee is anything but a sure thing. He's past 30 and the Packers have a decent replacement in Walker who played very well, is way cheaper, and has a much higher ceiling vs the current version of Bakh.
@DH13 posted:None of the speculation matters because no one, even DB and his doctors, know what shape his knee will be in by TC. From what I understand, there were errors made in the original repair that caused extended and additional problems. And those problems were corrected during the last repair process. If that finally does fix the ongoing issues, he can still be elite for a couple more seasons, which is very valuable. If not, he's done. Everyone is just going to have to wait.
Yes, the stability of the knee wasn't the problem, which is why in the one game he payed in he performed at his typical high level. However, the exertion of playing resulted in significant fluid buildup that necessitated subsequent draining.
Gutey's word salad answer to the question about Bakh is just another indication the team is likely to move on.
What if they keep bahk..... Move Wallace to right tackle and move Zach Tom to center?? Versatility is the name of the game boys the best five
Gute was asked that yesterday and gave your answer "you always want to get your best 5 on the field"
@Boris posted:What if they keep bahk..... Move Wallace to right tackle and move Zach Tom to center?? Versatility is the name of the game boys the best five
Josh Myers got better thanks to Jenkins being healthy, but I wouldn't mind seeing an upgrade at C.
I think of Myers like the Packers thought of Runyan. Runyan was OK but GB needed better.
Tom was one of the best RT's in the game last year. I'd love to see him stay at T and so would his future salary. Centers do not make what a coveted T would make and I am sure Tom is well aware of that.
Find a better C in the 2024 draft.
@Boris posted:What if they keep bahk..... Move Wallace to right tackle and move Zach Tom to center?? Versatility is the name of the game boys the best five
Very true versatility is key to the OL especially when you have a really good line like the Packers do with guys who can move around. But, I just don't know if keeping #69 around hoping and praying he can go each week would work. I just don't have the confidence in him when you hear Gute say its been tough for him to rehab.
I say move on from Bahk and draft sign a LT as insurance in case Walker regresses.
@packerboi posted:Josh Myers got better thanks to Jenkins being healthy, but I wouldn't mind seeing an upgrade at C.
I thought Myers got better as the season went on. I think he has a year left on his rookie deal. It will be interesting to see how he performs in a contract year. One thing I really appreciate about him is he's always first in if there's a scrum or someone is talking liberties on one of the skill guys. I'm sure his team mates appreciate it as well.
None of us KNOW how is knee is today or how it is projected to be in the future. I trust the team and its medical dept has a good read on it.
Speculate all you want but at this point that’s all it is, speculation.
Bakh is welcome to come back but he has to share in the financial risk. Packers aren't a charity and paying him $50m the last 3 year to not play is enough. Reduce his salary to $3m with $1m per game played incentives and I'm all for bringing him back. If he won't agree to that, it's time to move on.
I'd still like to see an OT drafted on day 2. Depth is always needed on the o-line.
best guess is that the Packers release Bak early on to clear all that cap space and then if he passes physical testing in Spring, bring him bak on an incentive-laden deal
However, in order to release him - David has to pass a physical or GB has to agree to an injury settlement with him. This is typically a negotiation between agent and Russ Ball based on how much time he needs to recover
So there's a couple of moving parts here - IF Bak wants to return to GB then he and his agent will make less demands on the injury settlement and agree to a favorable contract structure for 2024.
From Bak's POV, the Packers offer the best opportunity for him to resume his career. From the Packers POV, he offers the best chance at elite LT play for a very low cost.
But it all depends on how his knee responds to activity - the most recent surgery was to fix the fluid-inducing irritation - not anything structural.
I can't believe all the hate to Bak, he's been fixed up and is now invincible
^ how appropriate for Bakh - the Knights of KNEE
For those not wanting to take the time watching the video, Herman's opinion is the Packers release him with an injury designation (he's at 95% certainty).
@Satori posted:But it all depends on how his knee responds to activity - the most recent surgery was to fix the fluid-inducing irritation - not anything structural.
Yes.
It seems most fans' reluctance to GB sticking with him for 2024 rests on believing his knee/health is unpredictable or his availability is going to be a big question mark over the course of the season or even week to week. But we just don't know and considering he is still rehabbing, nobody knows. Nobody needs to know today. But they will need to know or at least have confidence in an educated guess by at least TC. The latest procedure was done to correct the cause of fluid build up, which was the only remaining issue.
If that gets corrected or at least minimized to allow him to resume his career, we have an elite LT on 10's blindside that we didn't have last year, with good depth behind him. Seems worth the risk to simply wait.
@DH13 posted:But we just don't know
We don't.
We're not ortho MDs, we haven't examined the patient and wouldn't know what we were looking at even if we did.
( Left knee, right knee, wee-knee ?)
Its a very unique situation - and I have confidence in both parties finding a viable solution going forward. But the money part will have to take place before the physical part just because of the NFL calendar.
Gute needs a big chunk of that cap space for any guys he re-signs or FAs he chases - so they either need to restructure or release in March and then re-sign him at a later date.
I don’t think it matters if his knee was 100% and not injured. His contract is an albatross and he’s on the wrong side of 30.
Packers always move on two years early instead of two years late. He’s a prime candidate to be cut regardless of his knee condition and his various locker room antics don’t help. He’s no Aaron Jones.
I'm hoping for a repeat performance from Bakh in the NBA finals this year
@vitaflo posted:I don’t think it matters if his knee was 100% and not injured. His contract is an albatross and he’s on the wrong side of 30.
Packers always move on two years early instead of two years late. He’s a prime candidate to be cut regardless of his knee condition and his various locker room antics don’t help. He’s no Aaron Jones.
The issue is with cutting an injured player. That’s why I agree with Andy on an injury designation.
