Packers Sign David Bakhtiari to 4YR Contract Extension
By JerseyAl
Not much more than a week after surprising pretty much everyone with the release of Josh Sitton, the Packers showed us exactly who their first priority was by signing David Bakhtiari to a 4 yr contract extension.
Packersnews.com's Tom Silverstein reports that the deal is work 51.7M in new money, averaging out to 12M per year. That average puts Bakhtiari in the top 6 offensive linemen in the NFL, all of whom are left tackles (Trent Williams, Terron Armstead, Tyron Smith, Eric Fisher and Cordy Glenn). Fisher and Glenn average 12M/yr. Bakhtiari will receive 17M upfront as a signing bonus and another 10M in roster and workout bonuses next March.
Bakhtiari, a 4th round draft pick in 2013, was a surprise starter as a rookie and has done a fine job over the last three years protecting Aaron Rodgers' blindside. He has done a lot of work in the weight room to build up his strength, something that was considered a weakness when he decided to leave Colorado early. As you would have hoped, his run blocking has improved and he is now one of the most complete left tackles in the game, with few weaknesses. While penalties were a bit of an issue last season, it's my expectation his maturation will continue and he will eliminate that problem this season.
Aaron Rodgers breathes easier today.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
"Jersey Al" Bracco is the Editor-In-Chief, part owner and wearer of many hats for CheeseheadTV.com and PackersTalk.com. He is also a recovering Mason Crosby truther. Follow Al on twitter at @JerseyalGBP.
__________________________
Comments (49)
dobber
September 13, 2016 at 10:52 am
And so it starts...the onslaught of UFA signings. I understand keeping Bakhtiari in-house as he's a young guy who is ascending at a "premium" position. In essence, this is where Peppers's money will go when he comes off the books. The market for LTs will pass this deal pretty fast and he'll be paid as more of an above average to average LT before long.
I think the question now becomes: what's up with Jason Spriggs? I doubt that his preseason play did much to impact this negotiation and signing as this has likely been ongoing. Demovsky's take...
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17536651/green-bay-packers-give-four-...
...indicates that Lang may not be back, yet, if he's on the back-end of the UFA discussions. Does this mean that maybe Bulaga is destined to bump inside and someone else (Murphy, perhaps) could have a shot at RT as early as 2017?
Bearmeat
September 13, 2016 at 11:00 am
Yeah Dobber. That's my thought too. Either Bulaga bumps inside to RG if Tretter isn't resigned OR if Taylor plays well and they resign Tretter; IMO they'd put Linsley back at C, have Tretter play RG and look to deal Bulaga so Spriggs starts out at RT next year.
Ibleedgreenmore
September 13, 2016 at 08:36 pm
Its going to be one of those scenarios. You know the big contracts can not stay forever just to many to sign this year.
Idiot Fan
September 13, 2016 at 11:20 am
What is Spriggs' contract? My guess is, as a second-round pick, it's for four years. That would keep him around long enough to possibly be Bulaga's eventual replacement, right? Bulaga, with all his injury history, seems like a candidate to not make it to the end of his contract perhaps. I would like to see Lang back though.
Bearmeat
September 13, 2016 at 01:53 pm
I'm not saying this is what I'd do - I'd keep insurance for oft-injured Bulaga around. I'm saying this is what I think TT will do. Try and ship Bulaga for a pick and put the tackle he moved up for on day 2 out on the field as soon as possible.
Thegreatreynoldo
September 13, 2016 at 06:19 pm
Idiot & Bearmeat, Bulaga's contract has $4.8M (2017) and $3.2M (2018) in dead money. I don't think he can realistically be traded until 2019. His cap hits ($7.85M and $8.35M) mean that he would have to be a very good guard - around as good as Lang - to justify that kind of dough, even with probable cap inflation.
I don't think Bulaga is going anywhere unless some team offers a lot.
jeremyjjbrown
September 13, 2016 at 08:54 pm
Signing bonuses stay with the team and they accelerate when a player is traded. Bulagas is 1.6 million a year. Ouch.
DrealynWilliams
September 13, 2016 at 12:12 pm
"I think the question now becomes: what's up with Jason Spriggs?"
Depth. He provides much better depth than what we've had in previous seasons. Remember the Barlcay/Tretter/Sitton at LT days? Never again.
Thegreatreynoldo
September 14, 2016 at 12:36 am
Well, I don't disagree, Drealyn, that Spriggs figures to provide much better depth than we had previously...but we can't use a 2nd, 4th and 7th round picks on very many players who turn out to be only a depth player.
L
September 14, 2016 at 06:37 am
I'm sure he means depth through half or more of his rookie contract (if the current tackles stay healthy and don't slip in performance), but I'm sure the team expects him to challenge for a starting spot before long and that he'll unseat at least Bulaga at some point... I doubt the team would let him walk come the end of his rookie contract if he's proving to be a young asset on the O-line.
DrealynWilliams
September 14, 2016 at 11:10 am
@L Exactly.
@Reynoldo It's not likely this scenario plays out every Draft. But if priority #1 is Aaron Rodgers, there's a Top rated O-Linemen in reach and the current roster doesn't have a better backup then yes we can. You see how quick we went from "we have one of the best lines in NFL" to uncertainty.
MarkinMadison
September 13, 2016 at 02:05 pm
I speculated a few months ago that Bulaga could be bumped inside to guard. The question someone asked is if his contract number fit at guard. It does. It is right around $6M next year.
Some have speculated here that Spriggs can't play RT - he is a LT only. I don't know about that. The pass rush is coming from everywhere now, and I'm not sure that the difference between what you want out of a LT v RT is as stark as it used to be.
It sure feels like between Lang, Tretter and Bulaga that someone is going to be the odd man out next off-season.
Thegreatreynoldo
September 13, 2016 at 06:25 pm
Bulaga's cap hit next year is $7.85M and rises to $8.35M. It ain't $6M, though that fits better with your narrative. That sounds like top 3 RG money, top 5 OG money. Bulaga would have to be a very good guard to justify that kind of dough. And no, cap inflation isn't going to make it look better.
zeke
September 13, 2016 at 10:53 am
Wow, that top five... When is Joe Thomas up? Cleveland should re-work whatever deal he has out of a sense of moral obligation.
dobber
September 13, 2016 at 11:15 am
This is why I don't worry too much about the money to Bakhtiari: they're looking at what he is and how his value plays out over the course of the deal. A little high, now, but if he continues to ascend -- even if it's only marginally -- over the duration of the extension, he'll likely be underpaid relative to the market at the end.
Thegreatreynoldo
September 13, 2016 at 06:28 pm
Very questionable - Bakh would have to get better as a player, and the cap would have to skyrocket. Both are possible.
RCPackerFan
September 13, 2016 at 11:15 am
This is a smart move. Locking up Bakhtiari up long term is a big move.
With the uncertainty of the rest of the OL's future, this at least answers 1 question. And honestly that is the biggest question answered. LT is the most important OL position and and Bakhtiari is a very good pass blocking LT.
I will admit though, like Dobber said, what is next up for Spriggs. I thought he was going to be groomed to be their replacement for Bakhtiari. But now with Bakhtiari do they consider having him move to RT and Bulaga to RG? I guess those are questions to be answered in the future.
WKUPackFan
September 13, 2016 at 11:55 am
Not criticizing Jersey Al's opening statement at all. However, people on other sites are making a direct connection between the Sitton/Bakhtiari moves. I just don't believe TT sees the overall cap management in that way. It's about the overall roster/cap situation, not necessarily a comparison of two players or just within a certain position group.
fthisJack
September 13, 2016 at 12:32 pm
the Packers have the luxury of having Bak for 5 years and Spriggs for 4 and see how that plays out over time. i think Tretter should be the next priority. he is still young and versatile being able to play every position. hope they get him locked up to an extension soon.
Thegreatreynoldo
September 13, 2016 at 06:46 pm
Luxury is nice, but the NFL has a hard cap, and you only get so many draft picks. When you pay for a luxury at one position group, it affects the team at some other group. TT better hit on some draft picks that have a position to play.
WKUPackFan
September 13, 2016 at 01:08 pm
Slightly off topic: Lots of movement with respect to former Packers today. Cullen Jenkins back with the Redskins. AJ working out for Miami.
Meanwhile Erik Walden is still out of position for the Colts, and Marshall Newhouse is starting for the Giants (amazingly he was their highest rated PFF offensive player Sunday).
Personally, I'm happier with GB's younger and/or better guys in those positions.
stockholder
September 13, 2016 at 02:08 pm
For me it's a shock. I have to eat crow for supper on this. I felt they would let him go to chicago too. I really thought I had TT all figured out. Congratulations to Bahk.
sonomaca
September 13, 2016 at 01:42 pm
With #12 getting older, it was imperative that he be protected by a solid veteran rather than a younger, still-developing player (Spriggs). Bulaga is still young at 27, and under contract through 2019, so the tackle group is solid for years to come, barring injury of course.
MarkinMadison
September 13, 2016 at 02:41 pm
Agreed about the need to protect #12 as he hits his 30s. Not sure that Bulaga is going to hold up. Love him, Iowa guy. His injury history is extensive, and seems to take him out at least a few games each year. I expect him to be replaced by Spriggs within two years.
lucky953
September 13, 2016 at 07:37 pm
I think you're right on here. Packers don't believe Bulaga will make it to the end of his contract. Neither do I.
sonomaca
September 13, 2016 at 11:14 pm
Nice to have Spiggs around, if one of the tackles gets hurt. Packers can bring him along slowly. However, if there are "blowout" games down the road, I do feel Spriggs and Hundley should have an opportunity to get some game work in.
jeremyjjbrown
September 13, 2016 at 02:45 pm
Top 5 money is more really than he is worth at the moment but I guess it a good thing to be young Left Tackle. By the end of the deal I suspect it will be the right kind of money. Overall this was a move they just had to make and part of me wonders if the Sitton debacle didn't give Bahk more leverage.
ray nichkee
September 13, 2016 at 03:53 pm
Congadulations to Bahktiari. He says and does all the right things. He has probably been the most underated LT in terms of contract but I think of it as he is getting paid for what he has already done. Let's hope he stays the same player. Like everyone has said this will look like a good deal in the future. I will always be okay with holding penalties as long as #12 stays off the ground. He'll do anything to save Aaron's ass. Good move Ted.
4thand1
September 13, 2016 at 04:41 pm
They must have really liked his game on Sunday also. Also I'm sure they never were ready to let him walk, they know what they have. Glad it done early.
sheppercheeser
September 13, 2016 at 04:56 pm
I feel this is as much an investment in AR's health as in Bakh's consistent play. Boy, if he manages to avoid the silly penalties, he'll be a beast.
croatpackfan
September 14, 2016 at 04:04 am
He is beast already. As someone mentioned earlier I'm more in taking 10 yard loss than Aaron's injury!
al bundy
September 13, 2016 at 05:15 pm
Good swell wonderful. Hey ted the bears named sitton star of the game. Great protection and opened big holes for the running game. Again they are thrilled they didnt havd to cough up anydraft picks. Ya now we signed a guy who was committed all this year anyways. Probably paid too much!
Oppy
September 13, 2016 at 06:07 pm
Is "Vike Douche Troll" a phrase?
Bedrock
September 13, 2016 at 09:44 pm
You know, with excellent guard play from Sitton, Chicago almost won. (Insert massive eye roll here.)
croatpackfan
September 14, 2016 at 04:06 am
If Josh Sitton presentation was the best presentation of any Bear player last Sunday, they are sure 3-13 team this season!
NickPerry
September 14, 2016 at 05:12 am
The Bears got their ass kicked? Do teams like the Vikings and Bears really have "Stars of the Game" after a LOSS?
Hmmmmmm..... No wonder losing is accepted.
egbertsouse
September 14, 2016 at 08:13 am
Notice how the fanboys start yelling "troll!" whenever the unpleasant truth is mentioned? TT screwed up massively by letting Sitton go and getting nothing, I repeat, NOTHING as far as compensation.
Spock
September 15, 2016 at 04:16 pm
AB,
Not too hard to be the "star" of the game on the line when Cutler was sacked, what? five times. Just because Cow has "gone for good" (for, what? five times?) no one needs you to pick up the negativity void left behind. Internet trolls are usually unhappy in real life. Sad. :(
Thegreatreynoldo
September 13, 2016 at 07:16 pm
Sorry to those above other than the trolls, but I have to utterly condemn this deal. Looks downright dumb to me.
Pro-extension points:
1. Bakh is a very young, still ascending player;
2. Bakh plays a premium position;
3. Important to safeguard AR's blindside;
4. Cap is going to skyrocket soon - $200M?
Con:
a. His replacement is on the roster;
b. Just spent a 2nd, 4th and 7th on Spriggs;
c. Spriggs has no place to play;
d. This was an extension, not a UFA deal;
e. Money is rather (not way too) high;
f. Sounds like the guaranteed $ is 50% or so;
g. Bakh, at best = average run blocker;
h. Bakh is good, not great, at pass pro;
i. Bulaga isn't going anywhere due to contract;
j. Nothing says that Bulaga can even play OG;
k. Can Tretter play OG? Not much evidence of it;
l. Can Linsley play OG? Not much evidence of it;
m. Can Spriggs/Murphy play any other position?
Moneyball and/or Draft and Develop doesn't mean that TT drafts a player who doesn't see the field until year 4 or his contract. Develop by all means, but some of these young players have to play good ball while still on their rookie deals. There is a real downside to those who suggest that it is fine if Spriggs doesn't play for 3 or 4 years. That means he'll probably play enough spot starts to command big money when his rookie deal is up. Bakhtiari was a tremendous value pick - we got nice play at a premium position for 3 years (no, TT doesn't/shouldn't factor into his negotiating surplus value we've already gotten from Bakh - honestly, TT goes from being Mr. Ruthless to a teddy bear in a blink of an eye around here). One of the reasons GB was in such good cap shape and were so good is because we were playing guys at premium positions very little money (Shields, Tramon for quite some time, Bakh, Dix).
I utterly condemn this deal. At the very least, it is a pretty big bet that TT has wagered. The only things in its favor are certainty at LT (barring injury), a huge increase in the cap, or the thought that Spriggs was a mistake.
lucky953
September 13, 2016 at 07:47 pm
Your concerns are reasonable but I wonder: Can Spriggs play LT next year? No evidence of that. Plenty of guys taken higher than him haven't been able to get the job done. Then what? As noted above by Mark in Madison, good chance Bulaga doesn't make it to the end of his contract. If Spriggs is really that good, he'll be playing RT in two years. I also think, right or wrong, the Packers rate Bahktiari a bit higher than you do. OL, at his age, do get better with experience and weight training. Other posters, quite astutely, have pointed out that his contract will be only average in 2-3 years. A bird in the hand....
Thegreatreynoldo
September 13, 2016 at 09:01 pm
Is it astute? Maybe. Said the same thing about Shields' contract. That is touch and go about being an accurate statement - right now Shields is the 12th highest paid CB. That's in the ballpark for his worth. TT has a better idea of what the cap increase is likely to be than I do. It needs to be large.
I kind of have to laugh - now that Bakh has been paid, he suddenly is a better player than the language that most posters used to describe him very recently would suggest. Some sort of confirmation bias.
sonomaca
September 13, 2016 at 11:25 pm
Shields has fulfilled his end of the bargain. Shields was criticized early on for poor tackling, and he's responded by becoming more physical. The Packers wanted a more aggressive, better tackler. What they got was a serially concussed player.
croatpackfan
September 14, 2016 at 04:31 am
My opinion is that you are mad on David because of penalties. But, Josh Sitton was penalty prone, too. Why is he better than David than. Last season more pressure was coming from right side than from left side of the Packers starting OL (I'm not talking about replacement for David).
Also, you are the one who was pointing that Lane is not good LG, but the best runs against Jags were from the left side of the Packers OL - David and Lane!
There is lot of things in moving and I agree with many that very soon David contract will be average contract for very good LT. I bet some franchises will pay David even more for what they will get with him!
On the EDIT:
There is some other articles to support TT decision:
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/9/13/12905124/packers-new-contrac...
Thegreatreynoldo
September 15, 2016 at 02:31 am
To set the record straight, I wrote that Lane Taylor in his spot starts played at about an NFL average starter level last year, but looked to have regressed during this preseason. In run blocking, the drop off from Sitton to Taylor is fairly small. Taylor was known to be a good run blocker. In pass pro, the drop off from Sitton to Taylor figures to be substantial. I wrote that we can get by with Taylor at LG.
My concern was that Taylor provided excellent depth. As long as there are no injuries until Linsley comes back, we'll probably be okay. If Lang or Taylor get injured, we are looking at Barclay starting at OG instead of Taylor (or Sitton). That is scary to me.
sonomaca
September 13, 2016 at 11:19 pm
If the cap is going up, so too was Bakh's price tag. It's good business to sign him now, before the pay gets out of hand. From Bakh's perspective, there's always the possibility of injury, so best to cash in your chips now. Win-win. Spriggs is incidental to the whole thing.
PackerfanAuggie15
September 14, 2016 at 04:49 am
I'm of similar mind as TGR though a touch less strident. Missing from the list of con's is the compensatory pick should Bahk have signed elsewhere.For the scale of contract he received, the pack would likely have been awarded a 4th round pick. Though the aftermath of injury would likely change the planned moves, the chess board seemed well arranged for Bakh to walk and Spriggs to start, leaving Murphy as swing OT/OG and Pepper money available for resigning of Cook and another FA.
dobber
September 14, 2016 at 08:33 am
Remember that the compensatory pick thing isn't a player-for-player thing. It's essentially a mystical equation that takes into account the "values" of the players signed away from you and the players you sign and spits out up to two (although there's now precedent for three) extra picks in the draft. The picks could be as high as round 3 (based on past precedence).
I would argue that a red-chip OLT would merit at least a 4th on his own, but if you're adding in 3-4 other players the Packers are likely to lose (including a red-chip ORG), it could be 3rd rounders you're looking at.
Spock
September 15, 2016 at 02:39 pm
Dobber:
Excellent point. Another thing is next draft all those comp picks will be TRADEABLE. Perhaps Ted feels he has plenty of trade picks coming up and didn't feel the need to get more with the Sitton situation? We will probably never know what we aren't being told about that whole cut-down day surprise, but I doubt TT wanted to let possible comp picks walk away. Still a head scratcher, other than TT's propensity to keep the team young and therefor the cap manageable.
Thegreatreynoldo
September 15, 2016 at 03:03 am
Strident, PFA15? Little ole me? I prefer unfiltered, LOL.
Yes, Dobber, I missed the comp pick in my pro/con points. BTW, teams can get up to 4 comp picks. $12.9 AAV probably means a 3rd in current dollars, but that could change with cap inflation. Certainly a 4th, maybe a 3rd for Bakh had we let him walk and he got this type of money. Sitton might have been a 4th, but decent chance it would be only a 5th (see the link from Overthecap suggesting that $6.5M AAV is a 5th, but is around the cut-off between a 4th and 5th). It is hard to say if Sitton got FMV due to the exigent circumstances he faced, with about half of all NFL teams not having the cap space to sign him. Sitton's contract isn't as good as initially reported: it is a 1 year $8.25M, a 2 yr, $13M deal, and it tops out at $7M AAV if he plays well and long enough to last all 3 years.
The difference between Bakh's $12.9M AAV and Sprigg's average cap number for 2017 to 2019 is about $11.5M cap dollars per year, or $34.5 million cap dollars over the next 3 years. Makes Sitton's $6.55M cap dollars saved look, well not small, but modest. The $11.5M per year pays most, though not all, of the cost to re-sign both Lacy and Tretter, or other combinations.
Maybe the coaches told TT that Spriggs looks dicey to project as a starting LT in 2017. That would put TT in a bind, or maybe he took the bird he had in his hand and just backed up the brinks truck. I would have had little difficulty with 4 yrs, $42M or so for Bakh - heck, I floated $10M AAV for Bakh months ago, and many wrote that he was just average and wasn't worth that kind of dough.
http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/railbird-central-podcast-extension-discussion