Report: Rodgers Wants Out of Green Bay

[Nick_gb]

42 minutes ago, SSG said:

Right, Intentional.  Because @incognito_mancan't fathom someone having a different opinion than his self proclaimed expert one.  Life must suck if you've gotta ignore anyone and everyone that doesn't share the same opinion on everything.

The problem is, in this scenario - There's only 1 right answer and anything outside of that is wrong. @incognito_man in this situation tends to be on the right side of that answer and you tend to be on the wrong side of that answer. 

Aaron Rodger's isn't grossly underpaid, when he signed that contract he was considered the highest paid player in NFL history - He got this contract despite his very mediocre QB play at the time of signing. You're ignoring this fact and only taking his salary at face value and not all the other money that is tied into it and proclaiming him as "grossly underpaid". 

You're essentially attempting to argue that the sky is purple, while everyone with common sense and the ability to see color can tell that it's blue. 

[TransientTexan]

30 minutes ago, SSG said:

Who's waving at anything or acting like he is getting very little? 

Again, displaying zero self-awareness. Does “pennies on the dollar” ring a bell? 

 

32 minutes ago, SSG said:

Your ability to read what was typed instead of what you want to read sucks. 

Your ability to project your own attributes onto others is excellent.

38 minutes ago, SSG said:

Saying that he's made slightly more than 33.5 million per year on the first 3 years of his deal  pretty clearly isn't ignoring the signing bonus

You pay the massive AAV lip-service then immediately contradict that sentiment with dumb non sequiturs about Brissette and Bridgewater that ignore the concept of AAV and only cherry-pick 1 cap hit. 
 

It’s like if someone had an agreement with you that you were to mow 3 lawns for $20 each. But they like you so much that they charitably pre-pay you $40 of it before you’ve even cut the first one. And then give you $10 after the 2nd and $10 after the 3rd, and then you cry and use that initial $40-charitable-act as leverage to beat them over the head with complaints that your buddy Johnny also got $10 for one of the lawns he mowed despite him mowing it slower that you did your lawn. 

[incognito_man]

21 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

incognito_man  ...tends to be on the right side of...answer[s]

Shout it from the rooftops!

[Norm]

Lol the way this dude plays you all like fiddles for his little attention buzz...

[Leader]

Bill Huber / SI   -  

An NFL executive, who has general manager aspirations, has thought through how he’d handle the crisis.

“If you get to the point where he’s like, ‘Listen, I’m not coming in regardless. I don’t care what you do. You guys can fire everyone. I just don’t want to be there. I’m not showing up.’ If it gets to that point that the guy doesn’t want to be there, I’m of the mind-set that if you don’t want to be there, OK, we’ll move on,” he said.

“It’s extremely different when you’re talking about your franchise quarterback. That’s what makes this unique. In any other case, if he really pushes, there’s a breaking point where, ‘If you don’t want to be a part of what we’re doing, maybe it just isn’t a good fit.’ The tough part for Gutey is, regardless of what Mark Murphy or any of the people he reports to says, I don’t know if he’ll ever truly have a commitment from the entire group. You need a fully committed organization to say, ‘We’re moving on from Aaron. These are the ramifications, short term and long term, and we’re willing to do this for the health of the organization.’ If he moves on, they’re going to suck – or definitely not be as good unless he quickly pivots and brings in a competent vet from somewhere else. If that’s the case, they’re not going to be good and he’s probably going to get fired. So, that’s what makes this a little tough to move on, which probably forces him to dig his heels in and make Aaron show up.”

Of course, Rodgers doesn’t have to show up. He could threaten to retire, in which case the Packers not only wouldn’t have their quarterback but they wouldn’t get a blockbuster batch of picks and/or players via a trade.

So, in the end, who will blink first?

“This is like the realest game of poker,” the executive said. “He’s all in and he’s trying to make you go all in. You’re either going to push all your chips in and say, ‘I’m all in’ and see if you call his bluff. Based on what I know, I would dig in and make him show up.”

[fistfullofbeer]

18 minutes ago, Leader said:

Bill Huber / SI   -  

An NFL executive, who has general manager aspirations, has thought through how he’d handle the crisis.

“If you get to the point where he’s like, ‘Listen, I’m not coming in regardless. I don’t care what you do. You guys can fire everyone. I just don’t want to be there. I’m not showing up.’ If it gets to that point that the guy doesn’t want to be there, I’m of the mind-set that if you don’t want to be there, OK, we’ll move on,” he said.

“It’s extremely different when you’re talking about your franchise quarterback. That’s what makes this unique. In any other case, if he really pushes, there’s a breaking point where, ‘If you don’t want to be a part of what we’re doing, maybe it just isn’t a good fit.’ The tough part for Gutey is, regardless of what Mark Murphy or any of the people he reports to says, I don’t know if he’ll ever truly have a commitment from the entire group. You need a fully committed organization to say, ‘We’re moving on from Aaron. These are the ramifications, short term and long term, and we’re willing to do this for the health of the organization.’ If he moves on, they’re going to suck – or definitely not be as good unless he quickly pivots and brings in a competent vet from somewhere else. If that’s the case, they’re not going to be good and he’s probably going to get fired. So, that’s what makes this a little tough to move on, which probably forces him to dig his heels in and make Aaron show up.”

Of course, Rodgers doesn’t have to show up. He could threaten to retire, in which case the Packers not only wouldn’t have their quarterback but they wouldn’t get a blockbuster batch of picks and/or players via a trade.

So, in the end, who will blink first?

“This is like the realest game of poker,” the executive said. “He’s all in and he’s trying to make you go all in. You’re either going to push all your chips in and say, ‘I’m all in’ and see if you call his bluff. Based on what I know, I would dig in and make him show up.”

 

But do the Packers really win even if they win the game of poker? If Rodgers shows up do you feel a disgruntled Rodgers forced into playing for a team he does not want to play any more is going to be good? Its not like he is playing with a chip on his shoulder anymore. He just won an MVP. Not much to prove beyond that point.

The only way the whole situation benefits the Packers is if they give Rodgers exactly what he wants. If not, it could basically just end up as mutually assured destruction for both parties. I am concerned there is no 'win' for the Packers in this scenario anymore. Trading him and recouping assets OR giving Rodgers exactly what he wants is the only way we can benefit from the situation. And if those are the two options we got, I would prefer to go with the former just to solidify our future more.

[Mr Anonymous]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

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.

Welcome CWood21, thanks for joining

[15412]

40 minutes ago, fistfullofbeer said:

But do the Packers really win even if they win the game of poker? If Rodgers shows up do you feel a disgruntled Rodgers forced into playing for a team he does not want to play any more is going to be good? Its not like he is playing with a chip on his shoulder anymore. He just won an MVP. Not much to prove beyond that point.

The only way the whole situation benefits the Packers is if they give Rodgers exactly what he wants. If not, it could basically just end up as mutually assured destruction for both parties. I am concerned there is no 'win' for the Packers in this scenario anymore. Trading him and recouping assets OR giving Rodgers exactly what he wants is the only way we can benefit from the situation. And if those are the two options we got, I would prefer to go with the former just to solidify our future more.

In no way does it benefit the team and franchise if you "give Rodgers exactly what he wants" if that includes not only gobs more money but a bloated contract with the 38 year old that corners us for several more years with no way out.   

Not only would you be putting the team in a very bad situation long term but you are ceding power to a player and allowing that player to extort the franchise.  THAT can never happen.  Nothing could be WORSE for a team and franchise.

Ol Rodge owes us 3 more years, his signature says so.  We reportedly have offered to enhance that contract a bit.  At this point what is going to benefit the team is to stand your ground.  He can play for us or retire.  If he retires he can get his checkbook out because he owes us a pile of cash.  Unless he won't play AND we can get a treasure trove back in the trade.  Play, retire, or trade.  ALL on the Packers terms.  

[fistfullofbeer]

2 minutes ago, 15412 said:

In no way does it benefit the team and franchise if you "give Rodgers exactly what he wants" if that includes not only gobs more money but a bloated contract with the 38 year old that corners us for several more years with no way out.   

Not only would you be putting the team in a very bad situation long term but you are ceding power to a player and allowing that player to extort the franchise.  THAT can never happen.  Nothing could be WORSE for a team and franchise.

Ol Rodge owes us 3 more years, his signature says so.  We reportedly have offered to enhance that contract a bit.  At this point what is going to benefit the team is to stand your ground.  He can play for us or retire.  If he retires he can get his checkbook out because he owes us a pile of cash.  Unless he won't play AND we can get a treasure trove back in the trade.  Play, retire, or trade.  ALL on the Packers terms.  

The lowest risk option for us is to trade him right now. Everything else involves too high of a risk unless Rodgers just comes back quietly, pretends nothing happens an plays on his current contract.

Another reason to trade him given the current circumstances is that the bar for the Packers is so high right now that nothing less than a SB win will be satisfactory. A NFCC win is meaningless if we lose in the SB. I am not confident that Rodgers can repeat what he did last year nor comfortable with the fact that we risk an unhappy Rodgers retiring next year anyway. The team is left with nothing in the end but some $$ they can recoup.

I am 100% opposed to giving in to Rodgers. But my point is that we either want Rodgers to play for us being happy OR trading him. Getting Rodgers to retire by forcing his hand OR forcing him to play here if he does not want to be here does not make us a better team. Sure we recoup some money if he retires but the team gets no assets are forced to start Love or look for outside help (or just start Bortles).

 

 

[15412]

6 minutes ago, fistfullofbeer said:

The lowest risk option for us is to trade him right now. Everything else involves too high of a risk unless Rodgers just comes back quietly, pretends nothing happens an plays on his current contract.

Another reason to trade him given the current circumstances is that the bar for the Packers is so high right now that nothing less than a SB win will be satisfactory. A NFCC win is meaningless if we lose in the SB. I am not confident that Rodgers can repeat what he did last year nor comfortable with the fact that we risk an unhappy Rodgers retiring next year anyway. The team is left with nothing in the end but some $$ they can recoup.

I am 100% opposed to giving in to Rodgers. But my point is that we either want Rodgers to play for us being happy OR trading him. Getting Rodgers to retire by forcing his hand OR forcing him to play here if he does not want to be here does not make us a better team. Sure we recoup some money if he retires but the team gets no assets are forced to start Love or look for outside help (or just start Bortles).

 

 

As long as we get value trading him now is fine if we're at that point.  I personally would welcome it, about as much as I would welcome Rodgers back with a reasonable contract that gives the team an out.  Both work.  Trading him in a fire sale does not work at any point, he would have to retire in that event and the team needs to make that clear to all camps.

All things said Rodgers is a competitor.  I do believe he loves playing the game, although at times his demeanor on the field makes one wonder.  I do not believe his play would suffer, his ego and his competitiveness wouldn't allow for it.  There are ways to handle such a situation if it would, but I don't believe it would.

[CriminalMind]

What if Options:

1) Rodgers agrees to new contract (3 years, more money & a NTC or basically some detail that makes it effectively untradeable

2) GB does nothing, Rodgers does not show up, and he retires, with GB getting nothing. Possibly after a one year hiatus, GB gets a 4/5th to move him. 

3) GB does nothing, Rodgers comes back disappointed & his play is at a reduced level because he is not happy, goes 5-5 in the first 10, picks up a lil injury and milk's it not playing in the last 7 games. GB trades him in the off season for a pick (40-50th) as no one gives up much for an old, injured, clearly declining, 'diva' QB.

4) GB and Rodgers can't come to an agreement and GB makes the decision to trade him. Rodgers has a list of 1/2 teams, but makes it known he'll only report to 1 team.  Said team is comfortable only trading for Rodgers (old, 'diva' QB with minimal time to get him/the offense up to speed) at a cheap price of 1st (2022) + 2nd (2022), else the team moves forward with their QBs on the roster, as they are not interested in moving a potential high future 2023 pick if Rodgers only has one good year left in the tank (2021) with questionable motivation. 

 

[cannondale]

The last piece of info that came out has gotten lost in the shuffle. It said something about Rodgers concern about having the right pieces around him (paraphrasing). This links the Love pick and also FA. It also best explains a possible road to nowhere as far as solutions. Everyone is beating the $$ issue to death, but I don't recall any real info regarding that

[15412]

11 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

What if Options:

1) Rodgers agrees to new contract (3 years, more money & a NTC or basically some detail that makes it effectively untradeable

2) GB does nothing, Rodgers does not show up, and he retires, with GB getting nothing. Possibly after a one year hiatus, GB gets a 4/5th to move him. 

3) GB does nothing, Rodgers comes back disappointed & his play is at a reduced level because he is not happy, goes 5-5 in the first 10, picks up a lil injury and milk's it not playing in the last 7 games. GB trades him in the off season for a pick (40-50th) as no one gives up much for an old, injured, clearly declining, 'diva' QB.

4) GB and Rodgers can't come to an agreement and GB makes the decision to trade him. Rodgers has a list of 1/2 teams, but makes it known he'll only report to 1 team.  Said team is comfortable only trading for Rodgers (old, 'diva' QB with minimal time to get him/the offense up to speed) at a cheap price of 1st (2022) + 2nd (2022), else the team moves forward with their QBs on the roster, as they are not interested in moving a potential high future 2023 pick if Rodgers only has one good year left in the tank (2021) with questionable motivation. 

 

1. 3 years is not the end of the world, but no more.  Unlikely.

2. Never happen.  The retiring part sure, he would never be traded in that event.  He can stay retired.

3. Never happen.  Rodgers would play his guts out if he comes back.  NEVER would he be traded for less than a treasure trove.

4. Rodgers doesn't get a list.  He goes where we send him, or he retires. It sounds like Vegas and Denver are teams he favors and they are indeed the most likely high bidders.  We get value, he plays for us, or he retires.  Period.  Get the checkbook out Rodg with that retirement.

[15412]

11 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The last piece of info that came out has gotten lost in the shuffle. It said something about Rodgers concern about having the right pieces around him (paraphrasing). This links the Love pick and also FA. It also best explains a possible road to nowhere as far as solutions. Everyone is beating the $$ issue to death, but I don't recall any real info regarding that

$$ are always at issue.  Rodg doesn't want less money.  Locking him into a long term contract with no way out for the team is GUARANTEEING him more $$.  $$ are always at issue.

I don't believe he's confused or vain about asking for "control" regarding draft and FA.  That can never be given to any player.  Input, sure lay it on us.  Control?  Actual say so?  Never.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, fistfullofbeer said:

But do the Packers really win even if they win the game of poker? If Rodgers shows up do you feel a disgruntled Rodgers forced into playing for a team he does not want to play any more is going to be good? Its not like he is playing with a chip on his shoulder anymore. He just won an MVP. Not much to prove beyond that point.

The only way the whole situation benefits the Packers is if they give Rodgers exactly what he wants. If not, it could basically just end up as mutually assured destruction for both parties. I am concerned there is no 'win' for the Packers in this scenario anymore. Trading him and recouping assets OR giving Rodgers exactly what he wants is the only way we can benefit from the situation. And if those are the two options we got, I would prefer to go with the former just to solidify our future more.

I dont buy into the "AR''s gonna be pissed off and play badly as a consequence" theory. He might be a bit of a Diva....but he's not gonna be that "I'm unhappy...feel sorry for me" guy. He'll get booed off the field.