What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Walker to Denver (1 Viewer)

GO TAYLOR

Footballguy
I thought the move Denver made was a sure sign they had something worked out for Walker.... But as more time passes doen't it seem like that is less likely???

 

T Man

Footballguy
In Denver's position, there is no urgency. Philly does not appear willing to part with a 2nd rounder. Time is on Denver's side. Green Bay is the one facing a holdout until week 10.

Denver can wait and see who is available when they are drafting. If a player they want falls, they can pick them. If not, trade the pick.

My guess is that there have been "informal conversations" with Walker's agent about his expectations for a contract extension.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
In Denver's position, there is no urgency. Philly does not appear willing to part with a 2nd rounder. Time is on Denver's side. Green Bay is the one facing a holdout until week 10.

Denver can wait and see who is available when they are drafting. If a player they want falls, they can pick them. If not, trade the pick.

My guess is that there have been "informal conversations" with Walker's agent about his expectations for a contract extension.
This matches my expectation. Both teams may have agreed to a deal in principle, just waiting to see if a player is available. Green Bay may have stated "if Sinorice Moss is available, we'll trade Walker straight for the pick, if not, we need lelie included", while Denver may have stated if a different player is available, they keep the pick. Or something along these lines may be implied by both. Pure conjecture here, but my point is a deal may be contingent on the players available.

 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
In Denver's position, there is no urgency. Philly does not appear willing to part with a 2nd rounder. Time is on Denver's side. Green Bay is the one facing a holdout until week 10.

Denver can wait and see who is available when they are drafting. If a player they want falls, they can pick them. If not, trade the pick.

My guess is that there have been "informal conversations" with Walker's agent about his expectations for a contract extension.
Unless of course Green Bay's guy is already gone.
 

UnknownCoach

Footballguy
Green Bay is actually the one who is likely waiting this thing out. They could hold onto Walker if they wanted to and put him in a bind. They also have at least 3 teams interested in trading for him. So they can wait each team out for the best offer.

I think the deal will most likely happen before the draft but it could just as easily happen during the draft if it occurs.

 

Bears_Man2

Footballguy
Green Bay is actually the one who is likely waiting this thing out. They could hold onto Walker if they wanted to and put him in a bind. They also have at least 3 teams interested in trading for him. So they can wait each team out for the best offer.

I think the deal will most likely happen before the draft but it could just as easily happen during the draft if it occurs.
I don't think Walker's in any sort of bind. He's got GB by the nuts. I agree they can hold out for the best offer, but they must deal him or he'll play the min. # of games and get his year in & then leave. If they want to franchise him, he'll get his money and he can do the same thing again.Whatever the case is, I think he's going to nice spot (Denver or the Eagles). One place that has an aging #1 and another w/o one. I think SF's too cheap to deal their pick & then have to pay him.

And I believe Javon when he says it's not about the $$ anymore. If he's anything close to what he was pre-injury (one of top 10 in the league), he'll get paid.

 

T Man

Footballguy
Green Bay is actually the one who is likely waiting this thing out. They could hold onto Walker if they wanted to and put him in a bind. They also have at least 3 teams interested in trading for him. So they can wait each team out for the best offer.

I think the deal will most likely happen before the draft but it could just as easily happen during the draft if it occurs.
Possibly, but I still think that Denver is in the driver's seat. Walker will hold out and simply return for the last 6 games. His contract calls for so little money to be paid out (relatively speaking) and the change in the CBA means that there is not attack on his bonus. He has no incentive to return. Without Walker, GB needs the picks. Denver can wait. It is unlikely that Philly or San Fran offer a 1st rounder or even a higher 2nd rounder.That being said, another possible scenario may be for Denver to wait and see if their guy is still there (Pope, Klop, Holmes). If not, trade a second this year. If he is, they can always trade a conditional pick next year. For example, a 2 unless Walker reaches certain benchmarks which would turn it to a 1.

THis makes sense since Denver likely thinks it will pick in the last 6 picks of round 1 next year; and, it provides a little protection if Walker doen't bounce back. A 1 next year = a 2 this year. And a 2 next year = 3 this year.

 

Chaos

Footballguy
why is basically sitting out a year good for Walker?

I've always thought time away from football was supposed to be a bad thing. It seems to me that GB holds the cards, not the other way around. They don't need to deal him before the draft and therefore can demand a high pick. They can always deal for a pick next year if they don't get something done before this draft.

 

UnknownCoach

Footballguy
why is basically sitting out a year good for Walker?

I've always thought time away from football was supposed to be a bad thing. It seems to me that GB holds the cards, not the other way around. They don't need to deal him before the draft and therefore can demand a high pick. They can always deal for a pick next year if they don't get something done before this draft.
I was thinking no but have changed my opinion regarding Walker's specefic case. 1. His current contract isnt much. Its almost not worth the injury risk given his talent.

2. He's coming back from a torn knee ligament. So he probably wont be 100 percent at the beginning of the season anyway. If he waits until later in the year, it gives him extra time to recover.

 

P Boy

Footballguy
I would guess that the deal is in place in principle, and one or both of DEN/GB have requested that the deal wait for the draft in the event that a player unexpectedly falls to either team (I would guess DEN moreso than GB) that would alter the deal in some fashion.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
I don't think Walker's in any sort of bind. He's got GB by the nuts. I agree they can hold out for the best offer, but they must deal him or he'll play the min. # of games and get his year in & then leave. If they want to franchise him, he'll get his money and he can do the same thing again.

Whatever the case is, I think he's going to nice spot (Denver or the Eagles). One place that has an aging #1 and another w/o one. I think SF's too cheap to deal their pick & then have to pay him.

And I believe Javon when he says it's not about the $$ anymore. If he's anything close to what he was pre-injury (one of top 10 in the league), he'll get paid.
Please elaborate for those of us not following extremely close.How many games, what happens if he doesn't play that many games, and since when does the player decide how many games he plays?

 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
It appears that Walker, Denver, and Green Bay hold all of the cards here.
:goodposting: You can make a case that any of the parties involved have the upperhand, but I find it hard to believe that a trade is so imminent if Walker hasn't even began talking with other teams about a contract.

Denver is not going to make a trade during draft day for a WR who is coming off a serious injury in the last year of his contract. They want to know they can get a contract with him first. Walker and Denver are going to have to agree on a contract value before anything goes down and if they have already agreed on something, then it would have been known by now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

T Man

Footballguy
I don't think Walker's in any sort of bind. He's got GB by the nuts. I agree they can hold out for the best offer, but they must deal him or he'll play the min. # of games and get his year in & then leave. If they want to franchise him, he'll get his money and he can do the same thing again.

Whatever the case is, I think he's going to nice spot (Denver or the Eagles). One place that has an aging #1 and another w/o one. I think SF's too cheap to deal their pick & then have to pay him.

And I believe Javon when he says it's not about the $$ anymore. If he's anything close to what he was pre-injury (one of top 10 in the league), he'll get paid.
Please elaborate for those of us not following extremely close.How many games, what happens if he doesn't play that many games, and since when does the player decide how many games he plays?
A player must only play 6 games for it to be counted as a full year for purposes of the contract and the retirment. IIRC years ago Joey Galloway sat out all but the final 6 games of the season. I forget what Walker's salary is this year, but I think it is less then $1 million. So with the CBA changes, he can sit out and not be punished for prior bonuses (ala Ricky and TO). He simply will lose game checks.

Since he is coming off of a knee injury, sitting a few weeks and losing only $600,000 (estimate) may be worth more then coming back, playing for a team you despise, risking poor play and injury.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
I don't think Walker's in any sort of bind. He's got GB by the nuts. I agree they can hold out for the best offer, but they must deal him or he'll play the min. # of games and get his year in & then leave. If they want to franchise him, he'll get his money and he can do the same thing again.

Whatever the case is, I think he's going to nice spot (Denver or the Eagles). One place that has an aging #1 and another w/o one. I think SF's too cheap to deal their pick & then have to pay him.

And I believe Javon when he says it's not about the $$ anymore. If he's anything close to what he was pre-injury (one of top 10 in the league), he'll get paid.
Please elaborate for those of us not following extremely close.How many games, what happens if he doesn't play that many games, and since when does the player decide how many games he plays?
A player must only play 6 games for it to be counted as a full year for purposes of the contract and the retirment. IIRC years ago Joey Galloway sat out all but the final 6 games of the season. I forget what Walker's salary is this year, but I think it is less then $1 million. So with the CBA changes, he can sit out and not be punished for prior bonuses (ala Ricky and TO). He simply will lose game checks.

Since he is coming off of a knee injury, sitting a few weeks and losing only $600,000 (estimate) may be worth more then coming back, playing for a team you despise, risking poor play and injury.
Sounds like a plan. Just to check though, does he actually have to play, or be on the game day roster to have the game count?
 

Ed Suspicious

Footballguy
They probably had a poor EV and didn't want to get stung on the river by somebody holding a two-outer.
No offense man, but this is possibly the dorkiest thing I've ever read. :hophead:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

T Man

Footballguy
I don't think Walker's in any sort of bind. He's got GB by the nuts. I agree they can hold out for the best offer, but they must deal him or he'll play the min. # of games and get his year in & then leave. If they want to franchise him, he'll get his money and he can do the same thing again.

Whatever the case is, I think he's going to nice spot (Denver or the Eagles). One place that has an aging #1 and another w/o one. I think SF's too cheap to deal their pick & then have to pay him.

And I believe Javon when he says it's not about the $$ anymore. If he's anything close to what he was pre-injury (one of top 10 in the league), he'll get paid.
Please elaborate for those of us not following extremely close.How many games, what happens if he doesn't play that many games, and since when does the player decide how many games he plays?
A player must only play 6 games for it to be counted as a full year for purposes of the contract and the retirment. IIRC years ago Joey Galloway sat out all but the final 6 games of the season. I forget what Walker's salary is this year, but I think it is less then $1 million. So with the CBA changes, he can sit out and not be punished for prior bonuses (ala Ricky and TO). He simply will lose game checks.

Since he is coming off of a knee injury, sitting a few weeks and losing only $600,000 (estimate) may be worth more then coming back, playing for a team you despise, risking poor play and injury.
Sounds like a plan. Just to check though, does he actually have to play, or be on the game day roster to have the game count?
He just has to make himself available to play. If the team chooses not to activate him, it still counts.
 

faede

Footballguy
How would that be a "good" thing for Javon Walker?

Seriously?

I hear about this 10 game hold out thing all the time, yet NOBODY has ever done it. Why? Because it's stupid.

You seriously think that the Packers would just welcome him with open arms week 11 and say, sure.. play all you want.. we'd LOVE you to showcase your talents for free agency next offseason.

Not to mention, the Packers have freakishly huge available salary cap this year and even moreso next year. 8mil to franchise him wouldn't even scratch the surface of the cap space they will have available, heck it won't even eat up what they will save on Brett Favre.

I think it's all on whether Favre retires or not. If he does, the Packers with 26million dollars in cap room can go to Walker and say.. here's 2million dollars, stick around this year and prove your healthy and we'll extend you midseason with the rest of the 20+ mil of cap space we have sitting around doing practically nothing.

You seriously think Javon Walker's "I'll never play in Green Bay" stance would dissolve in three nanoseconds if that were the case?

Walker is a first round draft choice. Pro-bowl caliber player. Still young. In a draft where WR is probably the crappiest position of prospects. Coming off an injury, yes. But if the Packers don't get quite a bit for Walker, he's not getting traded. Period.

 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
How would that be a "good" thing for Javon Walker?

Seriously?

I hear about this 10 game hold out thing all the time, yet NOBODY has ever done it. Why? Because it's stupid.

You seriously think that the Packers would just welcome him with open arms week 11 and say, sure.. play all you want.. we'd LOVE you to showcase your talents for free agency next offseason.

Not to mention, the Packers have freakishly huge available salary cap this year and even moreso next year. 8mil to franchise him wouldn't even scratch the surface of the cap space they will have available, heck it won't even eat up what they will save on Brett Favre.

I think it's all on whether Favre retires or not. If he does, the Packers with 26million dollars in cap room can go to Walker and say.. here's 2million dollars, stick around this year and prove your healthy and we'll extend you midseason with the rest of the 20+ mil of cap space we have sitting around doing practically nothing.

You seriously think Javon Walker's "I'll never play in Green Bay" stance would dissolve in three nanoseconds if that were the case?

Walker is a first round draft choice. Pro-bowl caliber player. Still young. In a draft where WR is probably the crappiest position of prospects. Coming off an injury, yes. But if the Packers don't get quite a bit for Walker, he's not getting traded. Period.
I think he'd probably come around for $20m -
 

Bears_Man2

Footballguy
You seriously think that the Packers would just welcome him with open arms week 11 and say, sure.. play all you want.. we'd LOVE you to showcase your talents for free agency next offseason.
Exactly why they must deal him.
Not to mention, the Packers have freakishly huge available salary cap this year and even moreso next year. 8mil to franchise him wouldn't even scratch the surface of the cap space they will have available, heck it won't even eat up what they will save on Brett Favre.
Because we all know they're ready and willing to spend. :rolleyes:
If he does, the Packers with 26million dollars in cap room can go to Walker and say.. here's 2million dollars, stick around this year and prove your healthy and we'll extend you midseason with the rest of the 20+ mil of cap space we have sitting around doing practically nothing.You seriously think Javon Walker's "I'll never play in Green Bay" stance would dissolve in three nanoseconds if that were the case?
I don't think he'll play in GB and I believe him. He will get paid regardless if he performs and he knows it.
Walker is a first round draft choice. Pro-bowl caliber player. Still young. In a draft where WR is probably the crappiest position of prospects. Coming off an injury, yes. But if the Packers don't get quite a bit for Walker, he's not getting traded. Period.
Agreed on every account but the last. And it's why he'll get paid regardless like stated above. They aren't going to get 'quite a bit' for him. If they can get a 2nd rounder + Lelie for Javon and perhaps something else, consider it a victory. They can deal him now & salvage something. Or have a malcontent superstar. Though I don't believe he's the same ME player like T.O., we all saw how smoothly that went in Philly last year.Favre retires and they're probably starting Rodgers at some point. Walker puts up marginal stats & his value is lowered into FA. Or he can get traded to Denver or Philly with established vet QB's where he can be the #1 on solid teams.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big Score

Footballguy
why is basically sitting out a year good for Walker?
I don't think he sits the entire year, just 10 games.
I've always thought time away from football was supposed to be a bad thing. It seems to me that GB holds the cards, not the other way around. They don't need to deal him before the draft and therefore can demand a high pick.
With Walker being very vocal in that he'll never play another down of football for the Pack ever again, (although I believe he plays at least 6 games for them this year) they really aren't dealing from a position of strength.
They can always deal for a pick next year if they don't get something done before this draft.
I figure he'll play the last 6 games this season, becoming a UFA next year. If this happens, Green Bay stands to get nothing for him next year.
 

fridayfrenzy

Footballguy
I hear about this 10 game hold out thing all the time, yet NOBODY has ever done it. Why? Because it's stupid.
There are a few examples of players not playing and still getting big contracts....T.O., McCardell, Keyshawn, Galloway to name a few.Someone is always going to ante up for Walker, it won't matter how many games he plays. The good thing for Walker is the the new CBA states that the team would not be abel to not allow him to show up (I think, anyways)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mike11162

Footballguy
I hear about this 10 game hold out thing all the time, yet NOBODY has ever done it. Why? Because it's stupid.
I'm pretty sure Joey Galloway did this a few years ago. Held out till week 10 or something like that to get his "season" time in. Remember him being a qb on some flag football team in Ohio while he was sitting out.
 

faede

Footballguy
The packers have absolutely no reason to make a deal unless it benefits them. And Walker's contract value will be in the toilet if he sits out for a year... (and there's no way they would play him if he sat out 10 games).

So, feel free to believe that they are going to let Walker go for a 4th rounder.. but that's simply not going to happen.

IF Walker gets traded it will be for at or near first round value... or he won't get traded at all.

Bank on it.

 

gang-wars

Footballguy
The packers have absolutely no reason to make a deal unless it benefits them. And Walker's contract value will be in the toilet if he sits out for a year... (and there's no way they would play him if he sat out 10 games).

So, feel free to believe that they are going to let Walker go for a 4th rounder.. but that's simply not going to happen.

IF Walker gets traded it will be for at or near first round value... or he won't get traded at all.

Bank on it.
Walker would gladly sit out 10 games, then sit on the bench for 6 more. Then he's a free man, and trust me he'll get as much as Burleson did. Which right now, he'd take.

WRs have done it before. They'll do it again. I agree they won't accept a 4th. Probably get a 2nd out of someone.

 

el centro

Footballguy
Green Bay is actually the one who is likely waiting this thing out. They could hold onto Walker if they wanted to and put him in a bind. They also have at least 3 teams interested in trading for him. So they can wait each team out for the best offer.

I think the deal will most likely happen before the draft but it could just as easily happen during the draft if it occurs.
This reminds me of the Bledsoe fiasco a few years back when he was traded to Buffalo at the end of the 1st...
 

GRIDIRON ASSASSIN

Footballguy
Green Bay is going to ride this out and get the highest possible draft pick possible, whether it's from Denver or Philly. .....or San Diego.

 

Texasmouth

Footballguy
I hear about this 10 game hold out thing all the time, yet NOBODY has ever done it. Why? Because it's stupid.
Too young to remember Galloway in Seattle I guess?
Yeah, because, that did such great things for his career!
Well, I believe Dallas traded two first round picks for him and I'm sure Joey got paid.
He got paid big time. Dallas thought he was the missing piece, then he got hurt in the first game.... :rant: Walker to Denver would be a great deal for everyone. If Denver is going to burn a first rounder on an unproven guy in the draft, trading a second rounder for a proven guy seems like a good choice. The guy was extremely underpaid in Green Bay and everyone knew it, he was barely making over the league minimum. Green Bay should have paid him and none of this would be happening. Favre should have also minded his own business last season, now he is the one causing problems and looking selfish.

 

Mario Kart

Footballguy
Walker to Denver would be a great deal for everyone. If Denver is going to burn a first rounder on an unproven guy in the draft, trading a second rounder for a proven guy seems like a good choice. The guy was extremely underpaid in Green Bay and everyone knew it, he was barely making over the league minimum. Green Bay should have paid him and none of this would be happening. Favre should have also minded his own business last season, now he is the one causing problems and looking selfish.
Walker made good bank for his first two years that were less than stellar and most people thought GB overpaid. Favre made Walker... everyone knows it.
 

diesel7982

Footballguy
I hear about this 10 game hold out thing all the time, yet NOBODY has ever done it. Why? Because it's stupid.
Emmitt Smith was well on his way to doing so, sitting out the first two games of the 1993 season before the Cowboys caved and paid him. Youre right in that no one has ever done it the full ten games, but that doesnt mean that no one had the intention of doing it.

Sometimes the player caves, like you are suggesting, but sometimes, the team caves, which you seem to be overlooking. Following through on just a few games of the 10 can make an impact large enough to get a deal done.

 

packersfan

Footballguy
Walker would gladly sit out 10 games, then sit on the bench for 6 more.

Then he's a free man
No he's not. The Packers can -- and would be stupid not to -- put their Franchise tag on him. Should that prevent teams from making a run at him he'll be in the same situation as he's in this season. He'll have to vow to sit out for another season and if that happens he could very well end up losing three seasons in the prime of his career. And people think he's doing the right thing here? He's on the verge of destroying his career.

The Packers hold ALL of the cards here with Walker and they always have. They don't have to trade him. They can let him sit at home and then deactivate him for the final six games should he return at that time. They don't have to play him and I hope to hell they wouldn't. Let him practice and then sit him on game days. The hell with him.

As was the case last year, Walker has zero leverage. He's trying to force his way out and the Packers aren't going to just give him away. While I haven't been thrilled with Thompson's work thus far as the team's GM I'm very happy to see he hasn't caved and made a bad deal just to be rid of Walker. If Walker's half as good as he claims then the Packers need to hold firm and get a very good deal in return.

My guess is he's traded next weekend. The Eagles like him a lot but I think a deal involving the Broncos is more likely. I could see Denver offering Lelie and a second-round pick (perhaps the newly acquired 37th pick) for Walker and the Packers making the deal.

 

TCFF

Footballguy
Walker would gladly sit out 10 games, then sit on the bench for 6 more.

Then he's a free man
No he's not. The Packers can -- and would be stupid not to -- put their Franchise tag on him.
:no: If he sat out and then the Packers decide to tag him he is guaranteed to be paid the average of the top 5 paid WRs next year. No way GB guarantees that kind of cash to a player that sits out ten games. GB will trade him, because to do otherwise would be a huge mistake leaving them with almost nothing. The only reason GB really holds any cards here is that there seems to be a good demand for Walker's services.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

packersfan

Footballguy
Walker would gladly sit out 10 games, then sit on the bench for 6 more.

Then he's a free man
No he's not. The Packers can -- and would be stupid not to -- put their Franchise tag on him.
:no: If he sat out and then the Packers decide to tag him he is guaranteed to be paid the average of the top 5 paid WRs next year. No way GB guarantees that kind of cash to a player that sits out ten games.
They will if he's forced into a situation where he has to play if he wants to have any hope of a career after that. Walker cannot afford to miss three seasons in the prime of his career. Even if the Packers Franchise him next season it's in Walker's best interests to play the entire season and play at a high level in order to receive the big contract he will want after the 2007 season. If Walker plays at a high level that obviously benefits the Packers. If the Packers Franchise Walker and he sits out the first 10 games and the Packers then sit him for the final six he will have essentially lost three years in the prime of his career. Who's going to pay him anything at that point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crystal

Footballguy
No he's not. The Packers can -- and would be stupid not to -- put their Franchise tag on him. Should that prevent teams from making a run at him he'll be in the same situation as he's in this season.
He'd be in an entirely different situation with the franchise tag. He'd have a contract more than worth playing for. Right now, he feels his contract isn't worth playing for.
 

crystal

Footballguy
If he sat out and then the Packers decide to tag him he is guaranteed to be paid the average of the top 5 paid WRs next year. No way GB guarantees that kind of cash to a player that sits out ten games.
They will if he's forced into a situation where he has to play if he wants to have any hope of a career after that. Walker cannot afford to miss three seasons in the prime of his career.
How would he miss three seasons?2004 -- played great2005 -- missed due to injury2006 -- missed due to ten-week holdout2007 -- plays under franchise tag (or under new contract on another team)He can't do anything about 2005. That's history.The question is whether his 2006 contract is worth playing for. If it's not, he'll report in week ten and then play and get paid in 2007. (Either under a franchise tag or under a new contract he'll negotiate as a free agent.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

packersfan

Footballguy
If he sat out and then the Packers decide to tag him he is guaranteed to be paid the average of the top 5 paid WRs next year. No way GB guarantees that kind of cash to a player that sits out ten games.
They will if he's forced into a situation where he has to play if he wants to have any hope of a career after that. Walker cannot afford to miss three seasons in the prime of his career.
How would he miss three seasons?2004 -- played great

2005 -- missed due to injury

2006 -- missed due to ten-week holdout

2007 -- plays under franchise tag
Here's how:2005: Missed season essentially

2006: Misses the first 10 games and the Packers de-activate him for the final six after he reports. That's a second missed season

2007: Is given the Franchise tag but fails to report again for the first 10 games. The Packers then sit him for the final six games.

That would be three missed seasons in the prime of his career. Again, this is a hypothetical but it's one the Packers IMO would be smart to follow and one Walker should be terrified of having occur. He is potentially destroying his career at the worst possible time. He's been getting bad advice from a number of different places and the reality is he's not smart enough to figure this out on his own.

He can't do anything about 2005. That's history.

The question is whether his 2006 contract is worth playing for. If it's not, he'll report in week ten and then play and get paid in 2007.
The Packers are under no obligation to play him at all this season. He's running the risk of missing a second full season essentially with this stunt. That's a rather HUGE gamble for him to take. He's also developing the rep of a malcontent which he'll carry with him to his next destination. Again, I think he gets dealt next weekend. I think either the Eagles or Broncos are going to step up with a nice offer the Packers won't be able to turn down.

 

crystal

Footballguy
2007: Is given the Franchise tag but fails to report again for the first 10 games.
That scenario is not up for consideration. If he gets the franchise tag, he'll report before the first game.
The Packers are under no obligation to play him at all this season.
Fine with him. He doesn't want to play this season (under his current contract).
He's running the risk of missing a second full season essentially with this stunt. That's a rather HUGE gamble for him to take.
Undre his current contract, playing is a bigger risk than not playing. He could get injured again.
 

packersfan

Footballguy
That scenario is not up for consideration. If he gets the franchise tag, he'll report before the first game.
Then it's to the Packers' benefit because he'll be playing for a big payday. The Packers come out looking good in that situation because they'll have a very motivated player working his ### off to do well.
Fine with him. He doesn't want to play this season (under his current contract).
And he promptly loses two full seasons of his career in the prime of his career which could lower his effectiveness going forward as well as the potential big payday he's hoping to land. Keep in mind this is a player who's had only one standout season. This isn't Terrell Owens or someone with a proven track record. While I like Javon Walker, there are no guarantees he'll be a stud WR even if he was 100% healthy -- and it remains to be seen just how good he'd be without Brett Favre as well. If it's fine with him to potentially destroy his career then I would say he's getting some very bad advice, which based on the info I've been given, is clearly the case.
Undre his current contract, playing is a bigger risk than not playing. He could get injured again.
That's the risk every player takes in the NFL. Not sure why Javon Walker is any more special in that regard. And it's speculative whether his contract is fair or unfair. Given how he received more money upfront at the start of his contract and didn't do much the first two seasons it could be argued that someone who's only had one season worthy of first-round status is hardly underpaid. But again, that's speculation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crystal

Footballguy
That scenario is not up for consideration. If he gets the franchise tag, he'll report before the first game.
Then it's to the Packers' benefit because he'll be playing for a big payday. The Packers come out looking good in that situation because they'll have a very motivated player working his ### off to do well.
I doubt the Packers want to get nothing out of him in 2006 while he takes up a roster spot, and then vastly overpay him in 2007 by franchising him.
And he promptly loses two full seasons of his career in the prime of his career . . .
He loses ten games which, as far as he's concerned, are lost anyway if he has to play for (what he considers to be) peanuts.
Keep in mind this is a player who's had only one standout season. This isn't Terrell Owens or someone with a proven track record.
That's a good argument against franchising him in 2007. So he'll sit out ten games this year and be a free agent next year when they don't franchise him.
Undre his current contract, playing is a bigger risk than not playing. He could get injured again.
That's the risk every player takes in the NFL. Not sure why Javon Walker is any more special in that regard.
Because other players get paid enough to make it worthwhile to take that risk. Walker isn't, in his opinion.
 

Big Score

Footballguy
Ahhh...Walker's way underpaid.

Everybody & their brother knows it. He's not developing any kind of rep here. This is the last year of his contract and most teams would've already extended the contract of a WR of Walkers ilk.

The Pack are messing this up in a big way IMO.

 

packersfan

Footballguy
I doubt the Packers want to get nothing out of him in 2006 while he takes up a roster spot, and then vastly overpay him in 2007 by franchising him.
They will if they can afford it (which based on Thompson's ... ummm ... frugal (to put it nicely) ... ways they should be able to and also if having a motivated Walker enables the team to do well which would be the case in 2007 should he still be there and they end up franchising.The absolute WORST thing Thompson can do here is cave and just give Walker away. If the Packers receive a good offer then they should deal him. But trading him just to be rid of him would be incredibly stupid. I'll say again, though, I believe they will get a good offer for him next weekend and I believe he will be traded.

He loses ten games which, as far as he's concerned, are lost anyway if he has to play for (what he considers to be) peanuts.
And if loses the entire season than that will be two lost seasons in the prime of his career. That's a rather monumental gamble to be taking with his career.
That's a good argument against franchising him in 2007. So he'll sit out ten games this year and be a free agent next year when they don't franchise him.
Assuming the Packers elect not to. If they do franchise him then he's made a major gamble and he will still be in Green Bay.
Because other players get paid enough to make it worthwhile to take that risk. Walker isn't, in his opinion.
"In his opinion." That's the key aspect. And Walker isn't the only player who's underpaid. Many of them actually have a legitimate argument whereas Walker IMO does not. It's his right to take this risk and it's in the Packers' rights to call him on it. That worked last year and it could end up working again for them given how he has no leverage whatsoever.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Here are Javon Walker's options:

1. Play the current season for relatively little money, then get a big contract in 2007.

2. Sit out most of the current season for relatively little money, then get a big contract in 2007.

From Walker's point of view, he's not really getting paid this year whether he plays or not, so why take the injury risk? He can report to the team in week ten and miminize his injury risk this year without putting a dent in his career earnings.

To Walker, therefore, option two may well seem preferable to option one. Working under the assumption that Walker won't report until week ten unless he gets a new contract, here are the Packers' options:

1. Kiss and make up with Walker and give him a big contract right now. It's probably not too late. Money heals all wounds.

2. Let Walker report in week ten. Pay him his peanuts and see if he can help you win a few games at the end of the year. Then let him walk after the 2006 season.

3. Let Walker report in week ten, pay him some peanuts, win some games. Then slap the franchise tag on him in 2007 and pay him like a top five receiver in the league.

4. Trade Walker now.

Option one doesn't seem so bad, necessarily, but the Packers seem determined not to go that route.

Under option two, the team saves money, punishes Walker by forcing him to waste a season, and keeps their "we don't renegotiate until we feel like it, so don't bother screwing with us" image intact. On the downside, they let a star player get away from them without getting any compensation, and without even getting full use out of him while he was taking up space on the roster.

Option three seems kind of silly. If the Packers are willing to pay Walker top five WR money, they should do it now instead of waiting until 2007. Moreover, franchising Walker probably won't make him happy. He may hold out of training camp like Orlando Pace, Julian Peterson, and Walter Jones used to do every year when they were franchised.

Since options one through three are all somewhat undesireable in their own way, option four looks like the best choice if they can get good value for him. Given his obvious skills, there should be several other teams showing enough interest to make the Packers pursue this route. I'd expect them to shop him around from now through the draft and see what they can get. A second round pick would be nice. A third rounder may suffice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top