Jump to content

Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay


Jaire_Island

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Not sure how anyone can accept Rodgers' side of this

He should pay back part of his signing bonus for the years he didn't live up to the contract if he think he deserves more money for the year he exceeded it.

The contract is the great equalizer. I'll never understand why people think it's "ok" for players to want to break a contract. Why should the teams absorb 100% of the risk? The contract is THE vehicle to equally disperse risk so it's agreeable to both sides.

It makes zerozerozerozero sense why people implicitly think teams should absorb ALL the risk.

GB and Rodgers both made a bet (the contract). Rodgers "won" the first 2 years by earning more money than he deserved. GB "won" year 3 by getting better performance than the contract was worth. Suddenly, one side (after said performance) DEMANDS a risk readjustment? GTFO.

Only way I'd EVER support that is if players are forced to give back part of their paycheck for underperformances as well.

I had a nice long reply built, but to quote you "I'll never understand why people think it's "ok" for players to want to break a contract" says all I need to know about the argument I would be getting myself in to. Pass. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers paid Rodgers massively up front so they could have control on the back end. 67 mil year 1. He doesn't have guaranteed money now BECAUSE HE ALREADY GOT IT.

Yes I feel the need to shout because it is conveniently ignored.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I had a nice long reply built, but to quote you "I'll never understand why people think it's "ok" for players to want to break a contract" says all I need to know about the argument I would be getting myself in to. Pass. 

that's fine. I don't know how many more times I can type out responses to people who ignore the entire team-side of the contract risk negotiations anyway. I'm beating a dead horse at this point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spilltray said:

The Packers paid Rodgers massively up front so they could have control on the back end. 67 mil year 1. He doesn't have guaranteed money now BECAUSE HE ALREADY GOT IT.

Yes I feel the need to shout because it is conveniently ignored.

I don't disagree with this. I don't think this is geared around him wanting more money, just wanting job security. If he wants to reset the market and guarantee everything then yeah show him the door. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spilltray said:

The Packers paid Rodgers massively up front so they could have control on the back end. 67 mil year 1. He doesn't have guaranteed money now BECAUSE HE ALREADY GOT IT.

Yes I feel the need to shout because it is conveniently ignored.

exactly

people think Rodgers is justified in eating his cake and having it to

He ALREADY GOT HIS MONEY TO KEEP PLAYING LIKE AN MVP IN 2021, 2022, AND 2023 EVERYONE. He got that money UPFRONT. He's NOT underpaid. He. Already. Got. Paid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, {Family Ghost} said:

Not by most of us .. .this latest crap has pushed some of us against him.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for temper tantrums from muli-millionair athletes.

We'll agree to disagree.  Rodgers was pretty easily the most hated player on that offense before his MVP season by the majority of this board.  

I've got no sympathy for either side.  Millionaire athletes or Billion dollar franchises that routinely rip up contracts early the first moment that they think they can get an advantage.  I'll never ask a player to play every second of his contract knowing that NFL teams rarely will ever give a player the opportunity to play every second of it unless it benefits them.  Fans have an extremely hypocritical way of looking at contracts that's extremely bias in the franchise's favor.  

I've got my flag firmly planted in the middle of all this.  Aaron Rodgers isn't doing anything different than I'd have done if I was fresh off the best season of my career.  He's been nothing but consistent all year long about wanting to retire a Packer while voicing major concerns about his future with the club.  If anyone listened to anything 12 said this year this tiff shouldn't be all that surprising IMO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

that's fine. I don't know how many more times I can type out responses to people who ignore the entire team-side of the contract risk negotiations anyway. I'm beating a dead horse at this point.

 

It would make the most sense for every player to play on one year deals, so they have the potential to make more if they play well, and risk losing money from injury or underperformance. Teams carry a healthy amount of risk as well. But teams and players both want the security of longer deals and want to win, so one side loses out on the AAV based on projection at the end of the day. 

I am not ignorant to how contracts work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PackersWire -  The Athletic confirmed a previous report from Yahoo Sports that Rodgers wants Gutrekunst out as the Packers general manager, and he also reported that the MVP quarterback has openly mocked Gutekunst in group text messages with teammates.

Per McGinn, Rodgers has mockingly referred to Gutekunst as Jerry Krause, the long-time Chicago Bulls general manager. Krause’s conflict with Michael Jordan – now well-documented on the recent ESPN documentary “The Last Dance” – ended up killing off the Bulls dynasty in the 1990s.

///

That's perfectly "AR-like" - quite a leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

I don't disagree with this. I don't think this is geared around him wanting more money, just wanting job security. If he wants to reset the market and guarantee everything then yeah show him the door. 

He has a secure job for the length of the contract he got paid for. Of course he'd love more guaranteed money at the tail-end of the contract after he received that giant signing bonus.

Too bad for him, this was the trade-off in the risk negotiations. GB wanted flexibility later in his contract in exchange for a record setting guaranteed dollar amount. Rodgers and his agent liked enough to agree. Now, after he's collected all that guaranteed money he wants more? GTFO, Aaron. The team gets to collect their value from the mutually agreed contract as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

It would make the most sense for every player to play on one year deals, so they have the potential to make more if they play well, and risk losing money from injury or underperformance. Teams carry a healthy amount of risk as well. But teams and players both want the security of longer deals and want to win, so one side loses out on the AAV based on projection at the end of the day. 

I am not ignorant to how contracts work. 

If you're aware how contracts work, and can see the team's side the natural conclusion is that there is no justification for seeing "Aaron's side" right now. He already collected. Now he has to fulfill his duty he agreed to in exchange for collecting all that money. There's no other "side" to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leader said:

PackersWire -  The Athletic confirmed a previous report from Yahoo Sports that Rodgers wants Gutrekunst out as the Packers general manager, and he also reported that the MVP quarterback has openly mocked Gutekunst in group text messages with teammates.

Per McGinn, Rodgers has mockingly referred to Gutekunst as Jerry Krause, the long-time Chicago Bulls general manager. Krause’s conflict with Michael Jordan – now well-documented on the recent ESPN documentary “The Last Dance” – ended up killing off the Bulls dynasty in the 1990s.

///

That's perfectly "AR-like" - quite a leader.

Yeah too bad Rodgers didn’t deliver a dynasty... so this comparison falls flat. Wish this was killing off a dynasty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

If you're aware how contracts work, and can see the team's side the natural conclusion is that there is no justification for seeing "Aaron's side" right now. He already collected. Now he has to fulfill his duty he agreed to in exchange for collecting all that money. There's no other "side" to it.

And our disconnect is that this is how I would treat someone like Elgton Jenkins, not the face of the franchise. Rodgers isn't above the law, but he certainly warrants special consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...