Brian Gutekunst has hit so many home runs in free agency that he was due a strikeout.
And strike out he did. You could hear the collective gasp from Green Bay Packers fans worldwide after Gutekunst surprisingly handed Aaron Banks a $77 million contract in free agency. Unfortunately, our fears turned into a painful reality.
The good news? Green Bay can move on from Banks this offseason. The bad? It's not that simple. It's where financial decisions meet roster gymnastics. There's no perfect solution, nor an easy one. Let's break it down.
Packers' decision on Aaron Banks' future hinges on two crucial factors
Andy Herman of Packer Report summed it up beautifully: "Would you sign Aaron Banks to a one-year - $18.1 million deal if he were a free agent? If the answer is no then he should be cut."
It is, quite literally, the $18 million question.
So, let's talk money. As independent Packers cap expert Ken Ingalls breaks down, Green Bay would only save $4.6 million in cap space this offseason by cutting or releasing Banks. That almost doesn't seem worth it, right?
Well, it's only part of the equation. Cash trumps cap space, and by moving on this offseason, the Packers wouldn't pay Banks the $18.1 million in cash that he's owed in 2026. That's significant. This year's sky-high cap hit is unavoidable due to the $29.4 million in cash they paid Banks last spring.
Herman is 100 percent in his assessment. By keeping Banks, you are essentially agreeing to a one-year, $18.1 million deal.
If we want to focus specifically on the cap hits, releasing Banks also helps. While the $4.6 million savings this year seem low, especially as the Packers would still pay $20.25 million in dead cap, that's a short-term problem. Releasing Banks would remove future hits of $22.25 million and $20.75 million from the 2027 and 2028 salary caps, respectively.
So, clear-cut, right?
Well, that doesn't factor in the other roster headaches. It's not as simple as releasing Banks and finding a replacement. The Packers could lose three other starting offensive linemen: Rasheed Walker, Sean Rhyan, and Elgton Jenkins.
Walker will likely land a significant deal elsewhere in free agency. He's as good as gone. So, too, is Jenkins, as the Packers can create almost $20 million in cap space by moving on from the veteran. That also feels inevitable.
Of the three, Rhyan is the most likely to return, especially with Spotrac projecting that he will land a deal worth an affordable $6.5 million per year. It comes down to whether Gutekunst and Matt LaFleur believe he is good enough to start long-term.
If Walker, Rhyan, and Jenkins depart, can the Packers afford to lose Banks, too?
Jordan Morgan can replace Walker at left tackle, while Anthony Belton could resume his late-season role at right guard. That still leaves two vacant spots at left guard and center, and with no obvious replacements already on the roster. It would increase the pressure on Gutekunst to replenish the depth chart in one offseason, and it's hardly a guarantee that Morgan and Belton deserve starting jobs.
That's an awful lot of moving parts. The Packers would need to rebuild almost their entire starting offensive line, while also restocking the depth behind them. Not easy.
Gutekunst also doesn't have a first-round pick to work with, thanks to the Micah Parsons trade.
Banks did show some promising signs down the stretch. Once fully healthy, we saw occasional flashes of consistency. But the Packers need far more than just a few decent moments, having made him one of the highest-paid guards in football.
From a financial perspective, should the Packers retain Banks on what is essentially a one-year, $18.1 million deal? Absolutely not. But add in the other roster-building questions, and the decision is far less simple.
Gutekunst's rare free agency strikeout has left the Packers with a brutal offseason conundrum.