Jump to content

Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I think for the Packers it's once they know that Love can handle the starting gig they can realistically look to deal Rodgers.  I think this could happen in the middle to late training camp.  Trading Rodgers late in camp if probably beneficial anyway .. gives him less time to learn a new offense somewhere else.

The only concern I have is that the small market for Rodgers will become even smaller the longer we wait. Can't expect teams to wait forever for a trade to happen. And it will impact the return value as well.

I get the feeling that the management is not sold on Love being even a league average starter this year (before training camp anyway). Maybe training camp will change things in that regard but to me how much time Rodgers gets to learn an offense elsewhere is irrelevant.

Once he is not a Packer, I don't care where he plays or how he does there. I am unlikely to watch any of his games unless he is playing against us. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R T said:

Broncos GM: Than keep your old, disgruntled QB who will be a cancer a destroy your locker room. 

Works both ways. 

Broncos would not be receiving a disgruntled QB. he would stop being disgruntled the moment he stepped in their doors. They'd be getting a happy still-young-enough-to-be-elite MVP QB. let's not pretend like the asset we are sending is trash in Denver's eyes. They're not bidding against themselves. They are bidding against other teams. 

Besides, nobody knows if he'll show up to the GB locker room and be a cancer. He'd be publicly shredding his own legacy if he decided to do that. And if he decided to stay out of the locker room and sit out, GB probably recoups a good chunk of his signing bonus back into their cap space. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fistfullofbeer said:

Once he is not a Packer, I don't care where he plays or how he does there. I am unlikely to watch any of his games unless he is playing against us. 

It's not about vengefully watching his games. It's about making it more likely that the Denver(or whoever's) draft picks end up being higher in the order. It makes the assets they give us more valuable if they lose. 

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

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

I would think about it.  But I would also need that pick to be higher than pick 26.  Let's give Rodgers 5 more years fully guaranteed.  In that scenario, we still have Love as a backup with cap hits of:  2.8, 3.4, 3.9 until his fifth year option.  Love is currently the 36th highest cap hit for a QB, and even his 3.9 million year would only bump him up to 34th this season.  Do we necessarily want to spend top end back-up money on our back-up? Probably not.  But that is where his contract sits right now (and this season's rookies were not on the list at all).  

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/2021/quarterback/cap-hit/

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Broncos would not be receiving a disgruntled QB. he would stop being disgruntled the moment he stepped in their doors. They'd be getting a happy still-young-enough-to-be-elite MVP QB. let's not pretend like the asset we are sending is trash in Denver's eyes. They're not bidding against themselves. They are bidding against other teams. 

Besides, nobody knows if he'll show up to the GB locker room and be a cancer. He'd be publicly shredding his own legacy if he decided to do that. And if he decided to stay out of the locker room and sit out, GB probably recoups a good chunk of his signing bonus back into their cap space. 

You took the hard*** stance that if you don't get the players you want than you are not trading, I simply point out that your hard*** stance can be meet with a hard*** stance of their own. With any negotiation in life, if it is not a positive in the eyes of both sides than one side is probably not doing the deal. If you can't do the deal without players, don't do the deal. 

All a pointless debate though, because Rodgers will be back by week one. (I hope I'm wrong) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I would think about it.  But I would also need that pick to be higher than pick 26.  Let's give Rodgers 5 more years fully guaranteed.  In that scenario, we still have Love as a backup with cap hits of:  2.8, 3.4, 3.9 until his fifth year option.  Love is currently the 36th highest cap hit for a QB, and even his 3.9 million year would only bump him up to 34th this season.  Do we necessarily want to spend top end back-up money on our back-up? Probably not.  But that is where his contract sits right now (and this season's rookies were not on the list at all).  

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/2021/quarterback/cap-hit/

Why would I even consider changing Rodgers' contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Why would I even consider changing Rodgers' contract?

I am talking about keeping Love.  I am saying that even if we guarantee Rodgers 10 years, Love's contract is not so expensive that we would have to move him if we didn't think we were getting proper compensation.  Either make a trade that is worth our while, or don't trade him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThatJerkDave said:

I am talking about keeping Love.  I am saying that even if we guarantee Rodgers 10 years, Love's contract is not so expensive that we would have to move him if we didn't think we were getting proper compensation.  Either make a trade that is worth our while, or don't trade him.  

But if you're committing to Rodgers beyond Love's rookie contract, I think you need to move Love IF you get a decent offer in return.  You're not maximizing the rookie contract, so unless you believe you're going to get Love to sign an under-the-market contract extension similar to Rodgers' first extension it'd make more sense to trade him and recoup assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, R T said:

You took the hard*** stance that if you don't get the players you want than you are not trading,

No I never specified which players. Just that the draft picks that they would have to offer wouldn’t be sufficient.

19 minutes ago, R T said:

I simply point out that your hard*** stance can be meet with a hard*** stance of their own.

Yea, we’re already aware of that, Sherlock. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Why would I even consider changing Rodgers' contract?

 

Because it gets the league MVP and unequivocal leader in the locker room back into the building.  I think they've either got to do what it takes to make 12 happy or trade him.  IMO this is a game of absolutes with no grey area.  

This season has 4 wins written all over it if the worst case happens. A cancerous locker room can turn even the most talented team in the league into a raging dumpster fire.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

No I never specified which players. Just that the draft picks that they would have to offer wouldn’t be sufficient.

Yea, we’re already aware of that, Sherlock. 

Damn and I thought we were just having a civil conversation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SSG said:

Because it gets the league MVP and unequivocal leader in the locker room back into the building.  I think they've either got to do what it takes to make 12 happy or trade him.  IMO this is a game of absolutes with no grey area.  

This season has 4 wins written all over it if the worst case happens. A cancerous locker room can turn even the most talented team in the league into a raging dumpster fire.  

That's not the only thing that Rodgers is going to want IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's not the only thing that Rodgers is going to want IMO.

I feel he would be comfortable with a contract that secures his roster spot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Doing "whatever" it takes to make ol Rodg happy should be off the table.  That would mean paying the 38 year old much more and burying the team for several years with no way out.  A recipe for disaster.  Now enhancing his deal a bit without burying us long term sure, and that's what has been offered I would bet.  No way you trade him without receiving value, no fire sale here.  The team needs to make it clear, he plays for us on our terms, the team receives value for him in a trade which is a pile of treasure, or he retires.  Period.  The team should be happy with any of the 3.

Edited by 15412
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's not the only thing that Rodgers is going to want IMO.

I'm not convinced of that but if that's the case, then he needs to be traded ASAP. 

There is no chance I'm making my locker room pick between their QB and management. There's a receipt here for a complete rebuild if that locker room turns toxic.  

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

×
×
  • Create New...