What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Parsons traded to Green Bay (3 Viewers)

I personally put weight on things like that, for where a team and ownership invest money they don't have to. I understand other people may not.
I'm going to stop you right there...

A modern team NEEDS to have a modern facility. We're at the point where the data is so clear it's like a team not hiring any assistant coaches. We have data on appropriate training methods, rest, nutrition, and the importance of mental health. I'm not suggesting that every team have a motion capture device and have the QB practice their drop backs in one of those ping-pong ball suits, but to not have personalized meal plans, exercise plans, rest/rehabilitation, family care, and just a comfortable place to relax, you are actively making your team worse. To work those things require a building upgraded in the last thiry years, so it's not like anyone would have to break ground on a new project.

This isn't somewhere that ownership doesn't need to invest in. It's something that you are losing games if you don't invest in.
 
In a potentially rich QB draft, relative to where I project Green Bay and Atlanta's win totals, I think it's entirely possible the first round pick that the Rams will get from Atlanta to draft James Pearce will be worth more then the two first round picks Dallas got back for Parsons.
This is exactly right. Those two firsts really won’t be top tier firsts. Dallas should have traded him to Cleveland or Seattle. Get two top tier firsts
 
Thor Nystrom:


Am I the only one who doesn’t like the Parsons trade for the Packers?

No cap flexibility or draft equity for the foreseeable future, and the roster, which still has serious holes, will start hemorrhaging contributors starting this coming offseason.All chips pushed in for 2025.

It may be just me and Thor on the island, but I'm with him.

I know everyone hates Dallas and thinks Jones is an idiot. But that's a lot to give up. Granted, they got a lot in Parsons.

But I don't love this for Green Bay.

I'm ok with it.

I like taking huge swings even if it means mortgaging the future. But that's a lot.
Why not?
 
In a potentially rich QB draft, relative to where I project Green Bay and Atlanta's win totals, I think it's entirely possible the first round pick that the Rams will get from Atlanta to draft James Pearce will be worth more then the two first round picks Dallas got back for Parsons.
This is exactly right. Those two firsts really won’t be top tier firsts. Dallas should have traded him to Cleveland or Seattle. Get two top tier firsts
Both the Rams and Browns extracted more from their trades during the draft, and the Browns only moved down 3 spots in a 1 QB draft*
 
I personally put weight on things like that, for where a team and ownership invest money they don't have to. I understand other people may not.
I'm going to stop you right there...

A modern team NEEDS to have a modern facility. We're at the point where the data is so clear it's like a team not hiring any assistant coaches. We have data on appropriate training methods, rest, nutrition, and the importance of mental health. I'm not suggesting that every team have a motion capture device and have the QB practice their drop backs in one of those ping-pong ball suits, but to not have personalized meal plans, exercise plans, rest/rehabilitation, family care, and just a comfortable place to relax, you are actively making your team worse. To work those things require a building upgraded in the last thiry years, so it's not like anyone would have to break ground on a new project.

This isn't somewhere that ownership doesn't need to invest in. It's something that you are losing games if you don't invest in.

I'm with you. This seems natural to me, but apparently some of the teams that spend tons of additional money here are perceived as "not wanting to win" by some. Super interesting.
 
 
Investing in premium stadiums is actually revenue generating. Especially when you receive over $300M in public money and $150 million in loans from the league. The economic impact of hosting super bowls, massive concerts, college football championships, final fours, world cups, etc along with the general brand lift and exposure is rather difficult to calculate, but it adds to the bottom line and value of the franchise.

Investing in facilities could be viewed as insurance for dollars already invested in the roster. That money is already spent. Strong facilities protect it. The data says these things are necessary to maximize the return on what’s already been spent.

Where the numbers (again provided directly from the NFLPA and not third party aggregators whose numbers don’t even agree with each other) show a major lag is the actual spending on the roster and coaching staff, which most directly impacts winning.

The reality is they have a fanbase who will fall for it over and over again. They’re hostages that don’t seem to realize it. They keep the stadium full and buy merchandise endlessly so long as the Steven A Smiths and Shannon Sharpes of the world blab about them everyday on ESPN. Spending on branding perpetuates this cycle. And since they haven’t won anything that matters in 30 years, it’s pretty clear winning isnt tied to profits. The Jones’s know as long as they stay in the conversation, that’s good enough to keep the cash register humming. And at THAT, they are wildly successful. The lowest rung on this profit ladder is the cash spent on the roster and they allocate accordingly.
 
Investing in premium stadiums is actually revenue generating. Especially when you receive over $300M in public money and $150 million in loans from the league. The economic impact of hosting super bowls, massive concerts, college football championships, final fours, world cups, etc along with the general brand lift and exposure is rather difficult to calculate, but it adds to the bottom line and value of the franchise.

Investing in facilities could be viewed as insurance for dollars already invested in the roster. That money is already spent. Strong facilities protect it. The data says these things are necessary to maximize the return on what’s already been spent.

Where the numbers (again provided directly from the NFLPA and not third party aggregators whose numbers don’t even agree with each other) show a major lag is the actual spending on the roster and coaching staff, which most directly impacts winning.

The reality is they have a fanbase who will fall for it over and over again. They’re hostages that don’t seem to realize it. They keep the stadium full and buy merchandise endlessly so long as the Steven A Smiths and Shannon Sharpes of the world blab about them everyday on ESPN. Spending on branding perpetuates this cycle. And since they haven’t won anything that matters in 30 years, it’s pretty clear winning isnt tied to profits. The Jones’s know as long as they stay in the conversation, that’s good enough to keep the cash register humming. And at THAT, they are wildly successful. The lowest rung on this profit ladder is the cash spent on the roster and they allocate accordingly.

I was thinking the exact same thing about facilities - they're for protecting the massive investment in the employees. It's no longer something that can be taken for granted when some of these teams have a billion or whatever in escrow. Imagine signing a guaranteed 100m deal and then having the player tear a hamstring the first day of camp because the team cheaped out on lawn care. These careers are what make your brand, prop them up at every angle.

Am I the only one that sees the parallel between Jerry’ waning year as an owner and Al Davis’ last years with the Raiders?
Not the only one
 
Interesting dichotomy here. From Bill Barnwell:

"Of course, there are 10 other players on defense, and I'm not sure I'd pin many of those problems on Parsons. Just about every offense the Cowboys faced last season was very clearly focused on stopping him. The Dallas defense under Mike Zimmer was second in sack rate and first in turning pressures into sacks because of both Parsons himself and the sheer amount of attention teams paid to him. Zimmer brought along plenty of his A-gap pressure packages to create mismatches, but the most success the Cowboys had on defense last season came when the veteran coordinator used the threat of Parsons to manipulate and then attack opposing pass protections.

Over the past four years, the Cowboys were the league's best defense with Parsons on the field by EPA per play. Across 1,039 snaps, those same Cowboys immediately became the league's worst defense by the same metric when Parsons was on the sideline or inactive. Acknowledging that every team is going to get worse when its best player isn't playing, I'm not sure anything I can tell you is going to be more instructive than those figures. The best defense in the league with Micah Parsons ... and the worst defense in the league without him."

But then he says this:

"The downside is one that the Packers saw firsthand. Though I don't think Parsons is some awful liability against the run, he's clearly a much less imposing player there than he is in the passing game. Per the FTN Football Almanac, Parsons ranked 68th among edge rushers in stop rate against the run and 81st in yards per run stop. And his 21.7% run stop win rate ranked 76th among edge defenders with 300 snaps or more last season, although he was 40th by the same metric the prior season.

Adding Parsons to the existing roster wouldn't have singlehandedly sunk Green Bay's run defense. In combination with the departures of Clark and Slaton, though, there's suddenly a void in the interior of Green Bay's line. Karl Brooks will assume a larger part of the rotation alongside Devonte Wyatt with Clark leaving, but Brooks' ascension means there's now less depth behind the third-year pro. Undrafted free agent Nazir Stackhouse made the 53-man roster, and he might be in line to see meaningful snaps at the nose this season. It's easier to find a nose tackle than a franchise edge rusher, but the Packers probably need to find some help on the interior to keep their run defense sound as the year goes along."

This is why when I first heard they might trade Parsons I said he wasn't good against the run and was told I was making an argument based on fantasy numbers, which was wildly untrue.

 

Cap numbers by year:

2025: 9,970,000
2026: 19,237,000
2027: 26,845, 600

2028: 64,288,600
2029: 68,288,600

There are 40 mill+ salaries in 28/29 that aren't guaranteed, so 2027 is prime time for a renegotiation.
Just want to throw this out there for whenever the real numbers get announced: Very good chance that Parsons cap number in 2026 is close to what the Pack was carrying for Clark (31 mill).
Parsons 2026 cap number: 19,237,000

Clark's 2026 cap number in GB: 31,000,000
Clark's 2026cap number in DAL: 21,500,000
 

Cap numbers by year:

2025: 9,970,000
2026: 19,237,000
2027: 26,845, 600

2028: 64,288,600
2029: 68,288,600

There are 40 mill+ salaries in 28/29 that aren't guaranteed, so 2027 is prime time for a renegotiation.
Just want to throw this out there for whenever the real numbers get announced: Very good chance that Parsons cap number in 2026 is close to what the Pack was carrying for Clark (31 mill).
Parsons 2026 cap number: 19,237,000

Clark's 2026 cap number in GB: 31,000,000
Clark's 2026cap number in DAL: 21,500,000

I think we can probably look at it as a 3 year contract for $141m. It’s a big number. They also paid Clark $8.2m in bonus cash this year before trading him (roster bonus in March and a workout bonus this summer) which is extraordinary. They must have really seen this as a great opportunity.
 
You basically need a PhD in salary cap economics to fully understand these contracts and how teams manage their rosters in the short and long term. I'll leave that to the people being compensated very well to figure it out.

People love to rip one side of a trade or the other. But often trades makes sense for both teams. Extending Parsons would have tied up so much cap space for Dallas in 3 players. IMO you still find a way to keep an elite pass rusher entering their prime. But getting 2 first round picks and additional cap flexibility is significant, In retrospec, I think they overpaid Dak but its not like you can just let an above avg starting QB walk out the door.

GB acquires a difference maker on defense while having the youngest roster in the league and a young QB locked up on a decent deal. They were in great position to make this move and the real cap numbers posted above make this a no brainer for them IMO.

All that said, the Skins/Commander fan in me can't help but laugh at how all this played out and the mental/emotional gymnastics I see from DAL fans. I had a great time talking ish in the barber shop yesterday.

Can't wait for the 2025 season to start...
 
You basically need a PhD in salary cap economics to fully understand these contracts and how teams manage their rosters in the short and long term. I'll leave that to the people being compensated very well to figure it out.

People love to rip one side of a trade or the other. But often trades makes sense for both teams. Extending Parsons would have tied up so much cap space for Dallas in 3 players. IMO you still find a way to keep an elite pass rusher entering their prime. But getting 2 first round picks and additional cap flexibility is significant, In retrospec, I think they overpaid Dak but its not like you can just let an above avg starting QB walk out the door.

GB acquires a difference maker on defense while having the youngest roster in the league and a young QB locked up on a decent deal. They were in great position to make this move and the real cap numbers posted above make this a no brainer for them IMO.

All that said, the Skins/Commander fan in me can't help but laugh at how all this played out and the mental/emotional gymnastics I see from DAL fans. I had a great time talking ish in the barber shop yesterday.

Can't wait for the 2025 season to start...
So basically, a player needs an agent yeah?
 
So basically, a player needs an agent yeah?
Nah!

"Agents and lawyers just get in the way! Son, you and I can work out this deal all by ourselves, shake hands, and go have some BBQ. You can trust me 🤠

I mean, yeah, I have a bunch of lawyers on retainer, and have been negotiating contracts for decades, but I don't see any reason why a 26 year old would need an agent around to close this multi-million dollar deal."




Just because everyone loves to make fun of Jerry, and think he's a joke, doesn't mean he isn't
 
I find it genuinely shocking there is any debate about whether this was a good trade for the Packers. This is either extreme coping or commitment to the contrarian view. The hot takes just make people look ignorant or bitter. The goal of every team is to win a championship. Adding a player who has finished in the top 3 of voting for DPOY his first 3 seasons improves that chance. For those saying "look at the money", we've been here before. The salary cap rises. Contracts can be renegotiated. The markets move. I've seen so many Lions fans mention the salary numbers. Guess what, the Lions will be paying Hutchinson even more. Are you advocating to trade him? I understand Cowboys fans and media now trying to justify the trade with the "locker room" problem. This backlash is as old as the media. You can set your watch to it.
 
So basically, a player needs an agent yeah?
Nah!

"Agents and lawyers just get in the way! Son, you and I can work out this deal all by ourselves, shake hands, and go have some BBQ. You can trust me 🤠

I mean, yeah, I have a bunch of lawyers on retainer, and have been negotiating contracts for decades, but I don't see any reason why a 26 year old would need an agent around to close this multi-million dollar deal."




Just because everyone loves to make fun of Jerry, and think he's a joke, doesn't mean he isn't

I was reading this and it made me think of the show Landman. Then I remembered that Jerry Jones actually had a cameo in that as himself. :laugh:

This man's hubris is legendary. Its helped make him a boatload of money. It's also held this franchise back. But keep doing you Jerruh!
 
O
You basically need a PhD in salary cap economics to fully understand these contracts and how teams manage their rosters in the short and long term. I'll leave that to the people being compensated very well to figure it out.

People love to rip one side of a trade or the other. But often trades makes sense for both teams. Extending Parsons would have tied up so much cap space for Dallas in 3 players. IMO you still find a way to keep an elite pass rusher entering their prime. But getting 2 first round picks and additional cap flexibility is significant, In retrospec, I think they overpaid Dak but its not like you can just let an above avg starting QB walk out the door.

GB acquires a difference maker on defense while having the youngest roster in the league and a young QB locked up on a decent deal. They were in great position to make this move and the real cap numbers posted above make this a no brainer for them IMO.

All that said, the Skins/Commander fan in me can't help but laugh at how all this played out and the mental/emotional gymnastics I see from DAL fans. I had a great time talking ish in the barber shop yesterday.

Can't wait for the 2025 season to start...

Great post…appreciate looking at the both the potential upside and downside of such a major move instead of having tunnel vision on either side…well done!
 
complete list of Green Bay Packer players who signed contracts with GTD money beyond the 1st year:
  • Aaron Rogers
  • Jordan Love
  • Micah Parsons
Micah Parsons finally got paid. Not by Jerry Jones, but by the stockholders of the Green Bay Packers, Inc.

Here’s a look at the full details of the deal, per a source with knowledge of the terms:

1. Signing bonus: $44 million, with $20 million paid within 10 days and $24 million paid by December 26.

2. 2025 base salary: $1.17 million.

3. 2026 option bonus: $38 million, fully guaranteed.

4. 2026 offseason workout bonus: $250,000.

5. 2026 base salary: $2.387 million, fully guaranteed.

6. 2026 per-game active roster bonus: $200,000.

7. 2027 option bonus: $34.433 million, fully guaranteed.

8. 2027 offseason workout bonus: $250,000.

9. 2027 base salary: $3.017 million, guaranteed for injury at signing, and fully guaranteed by early 2026.

10. 2027 per-game active roster bonus: $200,000.

11. 2028 option bonus: $27.5 million.

12. 2028 offseason workout bonus: $250,000.

13. 2028 base salary: $13.05 million, $12.9 million of which is guaranteed for injury and beyond fully guaranteed in 2027.

14. 2028 per-game active roster bonus: $200,000.

15. 2029 90-man roster bonus: $1 million.

16. 2029 offseason workout bonus: $250,000.

17. 2029 base salary: $43.55 million.

18. 2029 per-game active roster bonus: $200,000.

The contract includes a $250,000 Pro Bowl escalator in 2027 through 2029, and a $250,000 All-Pro incentive in 2027 through 2029. Each is based on earning the distinction in the prior year.

He also has a $250,000 incentive for making the Pro Bowl in 2029, and a $250,000 incentive for making the All-Pro team.

So what is the deal worth? It depends on whether he was viewed as a linebacker or as a defensive end. As a defensive end, the new-money APY is $47.17 million. As a linebacker, the new-money APY is $46.5 million.

The five-year deal has a total base payout of $210.034 million, with up to $2 million in incentives/escalators.

The full guarantee at signing is $120 million, which covers all of the first three years, except $3.107 million. That’s significant; the Packers rarely fully guarantee payments beyond the first year.

They’ve made an exception only three times: for Parsons, Jordan Love, and Aaron Rodgers.

The magnitude of the contract, combined with the compensation given to the Cowboys (two first-round picks and Kenny Clark) shows how badly the Packers wanted him.

Basically, they wanted him a lot more badly than the Cowboys did.
 
I find it genuinely shocking there is any debate about whether this was a good trade for the Packers. This is either extreme coping or commitment to the contrarian view. The hot takes just make people look ignorant or bitter. The goal of every team is to win a championship. Adding a player who has finished in the top 3 of voting for DPOY his first 3 seasons improves that chance. For those saying "look at the money", we've been here before. The salary cap rises. Contracts can be renegotiated. The markets move. I've seen so many Lions fans mention the salary numbers. Guess what, the Lions will be paying Hutchinson even more. Are you advocating to trade him? I understand Cowboys fans and media now trying to justify the trade with the "locker room" problem. This backlash is as old as the media. You can set your watch to it.
I'm also still surprised at the opinions that this wasn't a huge win by Green Bay. As a fan I don't care about picks, or contracts 2 years from now.

Two years ago this team won a road playoff game against a hot Dallas team and just barely lost on the road to the 9ers who made the super bowl. Last year they went 11-6 in possibly the toughest division in football losing to the eventual super bowl champs in the playoffs. Not to shabby for the youngest team in the league.

How anyone thinks this move doesn't make sense and isn't a massive win I can't understand. These are the types of moves that win championships. It's not apples to apples, but Reggie White and Charles Woodson came to town with young upstart QBs and a quality roster, the rest is history.
 
I find it genuinely shocking there is any debate about whether this was a good trade for the Packers. This is either extreme coping or commitment to the contrarian view. The hot takes just make people look ignorant or bitter. The goal of every team is to win a championship. Adding a player who has finished in the top 3 of voting for DPOY his first 3 seasons improves that chance. For those saying "look at the money", we've been here before. The salary cap rises. Contracts can be renegotiated. The markets move. I've seen so many Lions fans mention the salary numbers. Guess what, the Lions will be paying Hutchinson even more. Are you advocating to trade him? I understand Cowboys fans and media now trying to justify the trade with the "locker room" problem. This backlash is as old as the media. You can set your watch to it.
I'm also still surprised at the opinions that this wasn't a huge win by Green Bay. As a fan I don't care about picks, or contracts 2 years from now.

Two years ago this team won a road playoff game against a hot Dallas team and just barely lost on the road to the 9ers who made the super bowl. Last year they went 11-6 in possibly the toughest division in football losing to the eventual super bowl champs in the playoffs. Not to shabby for the youngest team in the league.

How anyone thinks this move doesn't make sense and isn't a massive win I can't understand. These are the types of moves that win championships. It's not apples to apples, but Reggie White and Charles Woodson came to town with young upstart QBs and a quality roster, the rest is history.

It's a good move for GB where the impact of losing high draft picks may or may not be felt in a couple years. If they effectively draft well in round 2-4, losing the picks won't matter much.
 

How anyone thinks this move doesn't make sense and isn't a massive win I can't understand. These are the types of moves that win championships. It's not apples to apples, but Reggie White and Charles Woodson came to town with young upstart QBs and a quality roster, the rest is history.
Agreed. I can see the argument he might not be worth the salary. I get that. I actually disagree, sacks are the money maker. Guys that gets sacks sell jerseys. Parsons is great for the Packer brand. Two 1st round picks being too much is silly. Imo
 
I find it genuinely shocking there is any debate about whether this was a good trade for the Packers. This is either extreme coping or commitment to the contrarian view. The hot takes just make people look ignorant or bitter. The goal of every team is to win a championship. Adding a player who has finished in the top 3 of voting for DPOY his first 3 seasons improves that chance. For those saying "look at the money", we've been here before. The salary cap rises. Contracts can be renegotiated. The markets move. I've seen so many Lions fans mention the salary numbers. Guess what, the Lions will be paying Hutchinson even more. Are you advocating to trade him? I understand Cowboys fans and media now trying to justify the trade with the "locker room" problem. This backlash is as old as the media. You can set your watch to it.
I'm also still surprised at the opinions that this wasn't a huge win by Green Bay. As a fan I don't care about picks, or contracts 2 years from now.

Two years ago this team won a road playoff game against a hot Dallas team and just barely lost on the road to the 9ers who made the super bowl. Last year they went 11-6 in possibly the toughest division in football losing to the eventual super bowl champs in the playoffs. Not to shabby for the youngest team in the league.

How anyone thinks this move doesn't make sense and isn't a massive win I can't understand. These are the types of moves that win championships. It's not apples to apples, but Reggie White and Charles Woodson came to town with young upstart QBs and a quality roster, the rest is history.

It's a good move for GB where the impact of losing high draft picks may or may not be felt in a couple years. If they effectively draft well in round 2-4, losing the picks won't matter much.
Rounds 2-4 is where they make their hay. If we look at the first round picks the last 15 years it makes it much easier to accept. They haven't all been stinkers and the jury is still out on the more recent picks, but considering the returns on a lot of these picks, especially along the DL if Parsons is what he's shown he is the tradeoff isn't really close imo. The likelihood they get anything from either pick that will provide the same impact is pretty low.
 
HFS. Two 1sts and Kenny Clark.

And at this point do we assume Dallas is eyeballing a rebuild or do they actually believe they just made their team better? I mean you only do this when you're ready to continue firesaling right?

And so bump the **** out of Dak and Lamb. And Jaydon Blue IMHO as I wouldn't be surprised if they moved Javonte for a ham sandwich.
They aren't getting a ham sandwich, come on.

Honestly, this feels like a lot more than I would have expected for Dallas. 2 1sts and a quality starter for a guy who wanted the biggest non-QB contract ever.

I don't see this as a firesale at all. If they felt Parsons wasn't going to play for them (and they felt he was using the back as an excuse) then yes, trading him makes them better.

Dak/Lamb/Pickens may have absolutely just become discount Burrow/Chase/Higgins. Well, Lamb isn't really discount (might honestly be better than Chase) but the idea is the same.
Kenny isn't so much a quality starter at this stage, maybe they can get a little juice out of him yet, but his best days are behind him.
While this is true he still was the best interior lineman they had.
Yes, but "was" is key. He fell off last year and I've seen guys go over the cliff, it happens fast. GB seems to have a knack for knowing when it's time to move on from a player.

I like Kenny and hope he's got some gas left in the tank, but I'm ok with him being the player to go along with the picks vs one of the young guys.
I agree Clark did not play as well last season as he has for his career.

Kenny Clark has been very good. Total nighmare for the Vikings to block so I am glad hes gone either way.
 
Rounds 2-4 is where they make their hay. If we look at the first round picks the last 15 years it makes it much easier to accept. They haven't all been stinkers and the jury is still out on the more recent picks, but considering the returns on a lot of these picks, especially along the DL if Parsons is what he's shown he is the tradeoff isn't really close imo. The likelihood they get anything from either pick that will provide the same impact is pretty low.

And the Pack is getting an edge guy. The edge guy.

If a team trades two #1 for a WR, or a sefety, or even an OT, I can see making the "price is too high" argument.

If Parsons ain't worth two 1s, then no one is.
 
Rounds 2-4 is where they make their hay. If we look at the first round picks the last 15 years it makes it much easier to accept. They haven't all been stinkers and the jury is still out on the more recent picks, but considering the returns on a lot of these picks, especially along the DL if Parsons is what he's shown he is the tradeoff isn't really close imo. The likelihood they get anything from either pick that will provide the same impact is pretty low.

And the Pack is getting an edge guy. The edge guy.

If a team trades two #1 for a WR, or a sefety, or even an OT, I can see making the "price is too high" argument.

If Parsons ain't worth two 1s, then no one is.
This is just like the Packers trading up in the draft for an edge rusher. Is anyone questioning the Texans for trading up for Will Anderson Jr.? That was actually two 1s, a 2 and a 3. And guess what, when his contract is up in 2028 he's probably going to get a deal at around $52M per year.
 
Rams went all in with Matt Stafford. Jordan Love is… well, he’s Jordan Love.

When Stafford was Jordan Love's age, he was Jordan Love.

25 TD and 11 INT
22 TD and 12 INT

From their age 26 season.
Unless they actually cloned Stafford & hired McVay, I’m not seeing it.
:shrug:
He’s only starting his third year as a full time starter. What were Rodgers stats going into his third season?
 
I think we can probably look at it as a 3 year contract for $141m.

Cash paid:

3 yrs $124 MM
4 yrs $165 MM

Real terms this deal is barely above $41 MM per. As usual the initial reported $47 MM avg was B.S.
I think the Pack and Parsons bet on themselves in this deal. It's set up for three years of reasonable cap numbers, then two years of 64 mill salaries, that aren't guaranteed.

So the Pack are betting that he will wanna stay, and renegotiate. Get him another bonus, and get him to 32 years old, with further reasonable cap numbers.

Parsons is betting that he can get another big deal when he's 29 years old. If he disappoints, the Pack can cut him after three years with only 17 mill in dead cap. Which, if you think about it, is a small penalty for how big this deal is.
 
HFS. Two 1sts and Kenny Clark.

And at this point do we assume Dallas is eyeballing a rebuild or do they actually believe they just made their team better? I mean you only do this when you're ready to continue firesaling right?

And so bump the **** out of Dak and Lamb. And Jaydon Blue IMHO as I wouldn't be surprised if they moved Javonte for a ham sandwich.
They aren't getting a ham sandwich, come on.

Honestly, this feels like a lot more than I would have expected for Dallas. 2 1sts and a quality starter for a guy who wanted the biggest non-QB contract ever.

I don't see this as a firesale at all. If they felt Parsons wasn't going to play for them (and they felt he was using the back as an excuse) then yes, trading him makes them better.

Dak/Lamb/Pickens may have absolutely just become discount Burrow/Chase/Higgins. Well, Lamb isn't really discount (might honestly be better than Chase) but the idea is the same.
Kenny isn't so much a quality starter at this stage, maybe they can get a little juice out of him yet, but his best days are behind him.
While this is true he still was the best interior lineman they had.
Yes, but "was" is key. He fell off last year and I've seen guys go over the cliff, it happens fast. GB seems to have a knack for knowing when it's time to move on from a player.

I like Kenny and hope he's got some gas left in the tank, but I'm ok with him being the player to go along with the picks vs one of the young guys.
I agree Clark did not play as well last season as he has for his career.

Kenny Clark has been very good. Total nighmare for the Vikings to block so I am glad hes gone either way.
Clark played with a jacked up toe all last year. I did some digging and earlier in the season, he looked pretty good. Once the season wore on, his toe must've been more of an issue because his play fell off some. Clark mentioned he got surgery in the offseason and says he's ready to go.

He was a real difference-maker the year before with 7.5 sacks as a run-stuffer. I pulled up some games from '23 and this dude is a baller. I'm not buying some of the talk I'm hearing about him being over the hill at 29 as a DT. That's nonsense.

If Clark is healthy, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, he's going to be a very good player for Dallas.
 
You basically need a PhD in salary cap economics to fully understand these contracts and how teams manage their rosters in the short and long term. I'll leave that to the people being compensated very well to figure it out.

People love to rip one side of a trade or the other. But often trades makes sense for both teams. Extending Parsons would have tied up so much cap space for Dallas in 3 players. IMO you still find a way to keep an elite pass rusher entering their prime. But getting 2 first round picks and additional cap flexibility is significant, In retrospec, I think they overpaid Dak but its not like you can just let an above avg starting QB walk out the door.

GB acquires a difference maker on defense while having the youngest roster in the league and a young QB locked up on a decent deal. They were in great position to make this move and the real cap numbers posted above make this a no brainer for them IMO.

All that said, the Skins/Commander fan in me can't help but laugh at how all this played out and the mental/emotional gymnastics I see from DAL fans. I had a great time talking ish in the barber shop yesterday.

Can't wait for the 2025 season to start...

Good post and to be clear, my comments about their organizational direction aren’t specific to this trade. In fact at this stage of the game, trading him was probably the right move for Dallas IMO.

Where the heavy criticism is warranted is the process. They did it with Dak, Lamb, and now Parsons. Wait until the last possible minute to make decision. Had they tried to pay Parsons as soon as they could, he’s probably be locked up for 30-something, 40 tops. Dak would have been a ton cheaper.

My opinion on the trade itself is it never should have gotten to this point. Once it did, I think Jerry botched it again by not shopping it more. It’s not a great result for Dallas. I’m not sure it’s great for Green Bay either, though. Would I want WAS to give up Daron Payne, 2 1sts, and $47M per year? Nah, I’m good.
 
HFS. Two 1sts and Kenny Clark.

And at this point do we assume Dallas is eyeballing a rebuild or do they actually believe they just made their team better? I mean you only do this when you're ready to continue firesaling right?

And so bump the **** out of Dak and Lamb. And Jaydon Blue IMHO as I wouldn't be surprised if they moved Javonte for a ham sandwich.
They aren't getting a ham sandwich, come on.

Honestly, this feels like a lot more than I would have expected for Dallas. 2 1sts and a quality starter for a guy who wanted the biggest non-QB contract ever.

I don't see this as a firesale at all. If they felt Parsons wasn't going to play for them (and they felt he was using the back as an excuse) then yes, trading him makes them better.

Dak/Lamb/Pickens may have absolutely just become discount Burrow/Chase/Higgins. Well, Lamb isn't really discount (might honestly be better than Chase) but the idea is the same.
Kenny isn't so much a quality starter at this stage, maybe they can get a little juice out of him yet, but his best days are behind him.
While this is true he still was the best interior lineman they had.
Yes, but "was" is key. He fell off last year and I've seen guys go over the cliff, it happens fast. GB seems to have a knack for knowing when it's time to move on from a player.

I like Kenny and hope he's got some gas left in the tank, but I'm ok with him being the player to go along with the picks vs one of the young guys.
I agree Clark did not play as well last season as he has for his career.

Kenny Clark has been very good. Total nighmare for the Vikings to block so I am glad hes gone either way.
Clark played with a jacked up toe all last year. I did some digging and earlier in the season, he looked pretty good. Once the season wore on, his toe must've been more of an issue because his play fell off some. Clark mentioned he got surgery in the offseason and says he's ready to go.

He was a real difference-maker the year before with 7.5 sacks as a run-stuffer. I pulled up some games from '23 and this dude is a baller. I'm not buying some of the talk I'm hearing about him being over the hill at 29 as a DT. That's nonsense.

If Clark is healthy, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, he's going to be a very good player for Dallas.

Thanks for the information. I was wondering if an injury had something to do with Clark not playing up to his previous standard. This indicates it might be the case.

Only time will tell on that. Again as a Vikings fan I am happy they dont have to deal with him 2 or more times a season.

Parsons a new problem of course but happy to see Clark somewhere else.
 
Can someone explain how it is a 3 year deal for 141M
I think we can probably look at it as a 3 year contract for $141m.

Cash paid:

3 yrs $124 MM
4 yrs $165 MM

Real terms this deal is barely above $41 MM per. As usual the initial reported $47 MM avg was B.S.
I am pretty good with contracts but this one is throwing me off. Is this a 3 year for 141M or 124/3 like you are saying? From what I can see….it actually is 47M a year.

 
You basically need a PhD in salary cap economics to fully understand these contracts and how teams manage their rosters in the short and long term. I'll leave that to the people being compensated very well to figure it out.

People love to rip one side of a trade or the other. But often trades makes sense for both teams. Extending Parsons would have tied up so much cap space for Dallas in 3 players. IMO you still find a way to keep an elite pass rusher entering their prime. But getting 2 first round picks and additional cap flexibility is significant, In retrospec, I think they overpaid Dak but its not like you can just let an above avg starting QB walk out the door.

GB acquires a difference maker on defense while having the youngest roster in the league and a young QB locked up on a decent deal. They were in great position to make this move and the real cap numbers posted above make this a no brainer for them IMO.

All that said, the Skins/Commander fan in me can't help but laugh at how all this played out and the mental/emotional gymnastics I see from DAL fans. I had a great time talking ish in the barber shop yesterday.

Can't wait for the 2025 season to start...

Good post and to be clear, my comments about their organizational direction aren’t specific to this trade. In fact at this stage of the game, trading him was probably the right move for Dallas IMO.

Where the heavy criticism is warranted is the process. They did it with Dak, Lamb, and now Parsons. Wait until the last possible minute to make decision. Had they tried to pay Parsons as soon as they could, he’s probably be locked up for 30-something, 40 tops. Dak would have been a ton cheaper.

My opinion on the trade itself is it never should have gotten to this point. Once it did, I think Jerry botched it again by not shopping it more. It’s not a great result for Dallas. I’m not sure it’s great for Green Bay either, though. Would I want WAS to give up Daron Payne, 2 1sts, and $47M per year? Nah, I’m good.
It’s not really $47m per year. The last two years of the deal are phony. It’s basically $41m per year, in line with TJ Watt.
 
You basically need a PhD in salary cap economics to fully understand these contracts and how teams manage their rosters in the short and long term. I'll leave that to the people being compensated very well to figure it out.

People love to rip one side of a trade or the other. But often trades makes sense for both teams. Extending Parsons would have tied up so much cap space for Dallas in 3 players. IMO you still find a way to keep an elite pass rusher entering their prime. But getting 2 first round picks and additional cap flexibility is significant, In retrospec, I think they overpaid Dak but its not like you can just let an above avg starting QB walk out the door.

GB acquires a difference maker on defense while having the youngest roster in the league and a young QB locked up on a decent deal. They were in great position to make this move and the real cap numbers posted above make this a no brainer for them IMO.

All that said, the Skins/Commander fan in me can't help but laugh at how all this played out and the mental/emotional gymnastics I see from DAL fans. I had a great time talking ish in the barber shop yesterday.

Can't wait for the 2025 season to start...

Good post and to be clear, my comments about their organizational direction aren’t specific to this trade. In fact at this stage of the game, trading him was probably the right move for Dallas IMO.

Where the heavy criticism is warranted is the process. They did it with Dak, Lamb, and now Parsons. Wait until the last possible minute to make decision. Had they tried to pay Parsons as soon as they could, he’s probably be locked up for 30-something, 40 tops. Dak would have been a ton cheaper.

My opinion on the trade itself is it never should have gotten to this point. Once it did, I think Jerry botched it again by not shopping it more. It’s not a great result for Dallas. I’m not sure it’s great for Green Bay either, though. Would I want WAS to give up Daron Payne, 2 1sts, and $47M per year? Nah, I’m good.
It’s not really $47m per year. The last two years of the deal are phony. It’s basically $41m per year, in line with TJ Watt.

Depends if you calculating based on new money or not.

According to this, new money of Watt deal is 41: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/inside-the-new-t-j-watt-deal

According to this, new money deal of Parsons is 47: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/inside-the-micah-parsons-deal
 
Last edited:
I mean it is 47 mil a year as that’s his cash flow…that’s generally the standard. I don’t think it’s fluff like a lot of other contracts have. They will renegotiate in 3 years and keep kicking the can down the road. The dead cap hits would be pretty bad.
 
Can someone explain how it is a 3 year deal for 141M
I think we can probably look at it as a 3 year contract for $141m.

Cash paid:

3 yrs $124 MM
4 yrs $165 MM

Real terms this deal is barely above $41 MM per. As usual the initial reported $47 MM avg was B.S.
I am pretty good with contracts but this one is throwing me off. Is this a 3 year for 141M or 124/3 like you are saying? From what I can see….it actually is 47M a year.


Maybe Pelissero's report was perhaps a bit early. But I guess it depends on which source you trust as there are still some conflicting reports out there.

Spotrac has it at $124,007,000 cash paid after three years, which averages $41.3m per year - https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/72392/micah-parsons/contract/cash - at which time the Packers may have a cheap out. However, there are per game bonuses and escalators that can easily add another million or two if he hits them. The other confusing part is the Contract Note: "$12.9M of 2028 salary fully guarantees in March 2027." This seems to suggest they might have to make a decision before the third year because that much guaranteed $$ makes it hard to cut him after the 27-28 season.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top