Jump to content

Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ifeelasleep said:

 

Instant gratification vs Future rewards 
Thats how it works for every sport, except a few years down the line the team can release the player depending on the language of the contract, not in other sports. other sports get bonuses, incentives based on performance and awards, thats why it favors the teams.

So let me get this right, your argument is that since the NFL pays the money upfront in the form of a signing bonus instead of paying through bonuses that may or may not be achieved, it favors the team? That's some wildly reverse logic there my friend. I would say it's a pretty objective statement that from a financial statement it clearly favors the players. If they can't stay motivated through their deals it's an entire different issue, you shouldn't need any performance escalators to do your damn job.

In this case, Aaron Rodgers pocketed:

  • 66.9M in 2018 (his worst non-injured season ever)
  • 15.3M in 2019
  • 21.5M in 2020 (MVP season)

He's averaged 34,6M yearly for these three years. It doesn't motivate him enough? No other player has made as much during these years, so miss me with that crap about the MVP having been underpaid. Mahomes won't reach that 3 year average until 2024, Dak with his absolutely absurd, gigantic deal is the only player in the whole league that will make more money in the first 3 years of his contract, and that's 2021 through 2023. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I understand all the points that were made about the cba and the structure, they're valid, and the risk involved for the teams, i made a point to mention earlier how the players had less leverage because of greater roster size and a much bigger talent pool to draw from.

I never said Rodgers was underpaid (he isnt) or that he was in the right, i specifically mentioned i didnt agree with his stance as its reported on this whole debacle, i said the players have issues with the current system because they see what happens in other sports, its not a pity party. The NFL is a wildly profitable monopoly, if they had to increase revenue and guarantee contracts for their players they could, full stop.

ill gladly trade Rodgers for a haul like the broncos rumors, i wouldnt trade Love unless the coaching staff thought he didnt have it in him to be a star.

Edited by ifeelasleep
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

If tomorrow the Saints or someother team offered a 1st rounder for Love, would you take it?

I wouldn't take that deal.............BUT, I can't say if that would be a good decision or not.

The Packers need a successor to AR either now or soon and I would at least see what Love has to offer before trading him. The Packers saw enough to trade up for him in round 1, so let's see if their drafting judgement is justified. The downside is that in the event that the Packers wait until they are sure Love ISN'T the answer, then his trade value decreases to almost nil, but if this were a poker game, I'd back the hand I have, until I see enough to think my hand won't win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why do people ignore that the CBA exists? The entire purpose of a CBA is that it grants an exemption to the pesky unemployment laws that govern most businesses. It invalidates any comparison to the real world.

The players could negotiate guaranteed contracts in the next CBA, but in order to get it, they would likely have to compromise on the amount of revenue. Given the choice between guaranteed contracts and 45% of revenue vs no guaranteed contracts and 50% of revenue, the players have chosen 50% every time. That's a choice the players make. They shouldn't be pitied for making that choice. If Rodgers hates that, he should take it up with JC Tretter. 

If Rodgers wanted a fully guaranteed contact, he could have signed one. Kirk Cousins did it. The Packers would have offered it. But Rodgers wanted to make more money and he wanted to make it up front. This thing athletes do where they intentionally structure a 5 year contract so that a disproportionate amount of money pays out in years 1-3, and then they complain in year 4 that they're underpaid, is complete nonsense. 

I don't think it's been reported that Rodgers wants a full guareented contract for X amount more seasons.  He likely does want a new contract structure that makes it more difficult to trade or has a detail like a NTC to he'll need to approve a deal in the future. 

Just saying this might not have anything to do with $$

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

I don't think it's been reported that Rodgers wants a full guareented contract for X amount more seasons.  He likely does want a new contract structure that makes it more difficult to trade or has a detail like a NTC to he'll need to approve a deal in the future. 

Just saying this might not have anything to do with $$

And Larkin Love might take me home from the bar tonight, but I'm not betting on that either. 

It's about money AND stability. The rumors are that he wants to be fully guaranteed out to 2025 with a deal that makes him paid as an elite QB every year. 

Everything to do with every contract negotiation is about money. And that's not just Aaron or even professional athletes in general. 

Edited by AlexGreen#20
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And Larkin Love might take me home from the bar tonight, but I'm not betting on that either. 

 

WTF I googled that name on my work computer, unexpected lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ifeelasleep said:

I understand all the points that were made about the cba and the structure, they're valid, and the risk involved for the teams, i made a point to mention earlier how the players had less leverage because of greater roster size and a much bigger talent pool to draw from.

I never said Rodgers was underpaid (he isnt) or that he was in the right, i specifically mentioned i didnt agree with his stance as its reported on this whole debacle, i said the players have issues with the current system because they see what happens in other sports, its not a pity party. The NFL is a wildly profitable monopoly, if they had to increase revenue and guarantee contracts for their players they could, full stop.

ill gladly trade Rodgers for a haul like the broncos rumors, i wouldnt trade Love unless the coaching staff thought he didnt have it in him to be a star.

The players could fix the issues that they have with the way the league is run. They choose not to, so they can quit their bitching. 

And of course the NFL could increase the player's cut of the revenue and also guarantee contracts. But at the end of the day, it's going to hit the bottom line. 

"Owners/CEOs are already stupid rich so they should take less money to make their employees happy" just isn't how the real world works. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

If tomorrow the Saints or someother team offered a 1st rounder for Love, would you take it?

No, I need to see Love play in some preseason games before making that decision.  I like a lot of his college tape and think he could be a really good fit in LaFleur's offense .. just haven't seen it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, fattlipp said:

Last report/article I read was proposing Chubb,Lock,Risner, 3 1sts and a 2nd....

Done Deal, sign me up... try to drop Lock for Sutton, Fant or Surtain, but take it either way...

Yeah .. the general framework of this deal is very appealing.  I'd like to see Jeudy, Sutton or Fant in there, but It's a complete slam dunk if you think Love can be at least a solid NFL signal caller.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SSG said:

It is a performance based business for the franchise.  The same standard absolutely isn't afforded to the players who outperform their contracts.  Players get raises only when it's best for the franchise. Teams have no issues running to a player asking for a restructure when their play isn't up to standard and the opposite reaction rarely occurs when the player is out performing.  

Aaron Rodgers is being paid like Jared Goff on his current contract.  Getting Aaron Rodgers pay up to the level of his peers wasn't something Green Bay had any interest in doing until he forced it on them.  

The signing bonus is the thing that is most important.  They get all that money up front, regardless of injury or performance.

That's why I don't really care if a guy signs for $50 M over 2 years with a $10M signing bonus.  It's basically a 2 years, $10M contract with $40M that CAN BE EARNED.

Agents have been all over this for years.  Guaranteed money rules, but when they put the numbers out there, they take an average value, or total contract value to the media.  That large number is what draws in new clients.  

The reality is...the signing bonus is what counts most.

There isn't a big issue with the Rodgers deal.  He got his money.  His issue is more about the structure of his deal and how GB has an "out" coming up soon.  Sure he wants more money, but he wants security, security that he does not have on his current deal, which he signed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Les Punting said:

Based on Smith's average output (~7sacks/yr), he's likely to earn only $500K of that $4.4M bonus. In that case, wouldn't he be taking a pay cut?

All up to how well he plays.  He plays like an elite guy, he gets paid more money.  He plays like he did last year, he takes a pay cut, which is fair.

But....he got an additional 2.5M right away when the new deal was struck.  That's purely "found" money.  He signs, he gets it.  So one could argue he got paid more on the new deal, just with that feature.

But, remember, when I look at contracts, it is the guaranteed money that I value most.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

If tomorrow the Saints or someother team offered a 1st rounder for Love, would you take it?

I think I would. Regardless of how you feel about this drama, Rodgers still has 5 years left in him at a high enough level to win a Super Bowl. 

I know love hasn't had a real chance to prove himself, but at this point you have to have some feeling one way or another about how you feel about Love.  Total gut instinct here, but the fact that he wasn't even dressed for games makes me think he's not the guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On this fantasy trade, Packer fans with all the 1st and 2nd round draft selections on other teams that were draft crushes are resurfacing now, especially the Broncos. Now stop dreaming as a Packers fan for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of the Broncos GM. You have a good young roster, but missing a star QB. Why would a GM trade away the talented young players? What good is a star QB if he has no talent around him? If someone trades for Rodgers they know they have a small window, they don't have time to rebuild a roster to make a SB run. A trading GM is going to want to trade draft capital and draft capital only, if it also takes young players to make a deal there is probably no reason to make a deal. An old QB with no talent around him is a dim future, a roster of young talent without a high end QB still has a future.           

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...