Packers QB Aaron Rodgers disgruntled; "Does not want to return to team"

[Uncle Buck]

Just now, SalvadorsDeli said:

Why is it sabotaging the team to tell interested parties that he doesn't think he'll be with them for much longer? 

If he did it to try to keep players from coming to Green Bay because he is mad at the organization, that would be sabotage, IMO.  Having said that, it would probably be very hard for the Packers to prove that actually happened unless there is a player who is willing to testify to this.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I honestly think that report is BS. A guy like Mercedes Lewis is not coming back here if Aaron told him he's out.

Agreed.  Bakh extended, Aaron Jones re-signed, Marcedes Lewis re-signed, etc.  Those players don't come back if Rodgers is leaving IMO.

[SalvadorsDeli]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

If he did it to try to keep players from coming to Green Bay because he is mad at the organization, that would be sabotage, IMO.  Having said that, it would probably be very hard for the Packers to prove that actually happened unless there is a player who is willing to testify to this.

He's just providing information - possibly relevant information for players thinking about signing with the Packers. If Rodgers genuinely believed there was a good chance he wouldn't be there for much longer, don't other players have a right to know? If playing with Aaron Rodgers is a factor in me wanting to sign with the Packers, then I'd probably want to know if he's not going to be there. And if it's not a factor, then why would I care what he says? 

[CWood21]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

If he did it to try to keep players from coming to Green Bay because he is mad at the organization, that would be sabotage, IMO.  Having said that, it would probably be very hard for the Packers to prove that actually happened unless there is a player who is willing to testify to this.

But you're missing the context of the Packers' situation.  They didn't really have the room to sign FAs in free agency.  They had to backload the contract of Aaron Jones.  And they had to restructure David Bakhtiari, Adrian Amos, Za'Darius Smith, Preston Smith, and Billy Turner to create enough to get under the salary cap.

[Uncle Buck]

Just now, CWood21 said:

But you're missing the context of the Packers' situation.  They didn't really have the room to sign FAs in free agency.  They had to backload the contract of Aaron Jones.  And they had to restructure David Bakhtiari, Adrian Amos, Za'Darius Smith, Preston Smith, and Billy Turner to create enough to get under the salary cap.

That's a good point.  Another thing that could be added is what @Broncofansaid a while back.  He pointed out that they can't go after individual players for tampering.  Only other teams.  This would put Rodgers in the clear, at least from a legal perspective.

[Uncle Buck]

4 minutes ago, SalvadorsDeli said:

He's just providing information - possibly relevant information for players thinking about signing with the Packers. If Rodgers genuinely believed there was a good chance he wouldn't be there for much longer, don't other players have a right to know? If playing with Aaron Rodgers is a factor in me wanting to sign with the Packers, then I'd probably want to know if he's not going to be there. And if it's not a factor, then why would I care what he says? 

I totally agree.  I actually don't even know why it was reported as though "Rodgers could have been trying to hurt the Packers."  Probably just the talking heads looking for more clicks.

[CWood21]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

That's a good point.  Another thing that could be added is what @Broncofansaid a while back.  He pointed out that they can't go after individual players for tampering.  Only other teams.  This would put Rodgers in the clear, at least from a legal perspective.

The Packers "ace in the hole" was the Rodgers' contract.  They could have effectively restructured most of Rodgers' contract and created a sizeable amount of cap space (I believe in upwards of $20M).  Or they could have opted to restructure the roster bonus and create a good chunk of cap space.  But they decided to pay out the roster bonus and not restructure it into a signing bonus.  And going after tampering isn't meant to go after the player.  It's meant to go after the teams.  If there is any proof that the Raiders or Broncos discussed Aaron Rodgers with himself or his agent, that's tampering.  The hard part is proving it.  Unless there's a smoking gun, there's really no way to prove it.

[Uncle Buck]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

The Packers "ace in the hole" was the Rodgers' contract.  They could have effectively restructured most of Rodgers' contract and created a sizeable amount of cap space (I believe in upwards of $20M).  Or they could have opted to restructure the roster bonus and create a good chunk of cap space.  But they decided to pay out the roster bonus and not restructure it into a signing bonus.  And going after tampering isn't meant to go after the player.  It's meant to go after the teams.  If there is any proof that the Raiders or Broncos discussed Aaron Rodgers with himself or his agent, that's tampering.  The hard part is proving it.  Unless there's a smoking gun, there's really no way to prove it.

Yep.  This is one of those situations where everybody knows darn well people would be inquiring - probably desperately so.  As you said, proving it is probably going to be tough.

[Broncofan]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The Packers "ace in the hole" was the Rodgers' contract.  They could have effectively restructured most of Rodgers' contract and created a sizeable amount of cap space (I believe in upwards of $20M).  Or they could have opted to restructure the roster bonus and create a good chunk of cap space.  But they decided to pay out the roster bonus and not restructure it into a signing bonus.  And going after tampering isn't meant to go after the player.  It's meant to go after the teams.  If there is any proof that the Raiders or Broncos discussed Aaron Rodgers with himself or his agent, that's tampering.  The hard part is proving it.  Unless there's a smoking gun, there's really no way to prove it.

 

12 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

Yep.  This is one of those situations where everybody knows darn well people would be inquiring - probably desperately so.  As you said, proving it is probably going to be tough.

To underline this point - Mark Schlereth's story that a deal was all but done - was based off him talking to a non-Broncos employee, who had some connections to the FO.   It's stated very clearly by Schlereth.    Supposedly a NFL insider who "never steered him wrong before".

https://nypost.com/2021/05/03/aaron-rodgers-text-to-mark-schlereth-after-broncos-trade-report/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

I doubt anyone made contact directly, because FO's know very well what happens.    And it's super easy to prove, if formal communication took place - the cloud keeps everything.  But without that...there's a reason why these allegations rarely lead to actual penalties (unlike penalties for injury non-disclosure, since it's pretty easy to prove a player was hurt, and a team didn't disclose).

Edited May 6, 2021 by Broncofan

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

To underline this point - Mark Schlereth's story that a deal was all but done - was based off him talking to a non-Broncos employee, who has prior ties to the FO.   It's stated very clearly by Schlereth.    

I doubt anyone made contact directly, because FO's know very well what happens.    And it's super easy to prove, if formal communication took place - the cloud keeps everything.  But without that...there's a reason why these allegations rarely lead to actual penalties (unlike penalties for injury non-disclosure, since it's pretty easy to prove a player was hurt, and a team didn't disclose).

Again I'll ask, when was the last time a team was punished for tampering?  The closest we've seen to teams getting really penalized is in the NBA, and I think the biggest tampering fine was 500k, which is peanuts for franchises.  Teams don't get busted for tampering because it's nearly impossible to prove.

[Broncofan]

9 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Again I'll ask, when was the last time a team was punished for tampering?  The closest we've seen to teams getting really penalized is in the NBA, and I think the biggest tampering fine was 500k, which is peanuts for franchises.  Teams don't get busted for tampering because it's nearly impossible to prove.

IIRC White Goodman and the Globo Purple Cobras got their just desserts when they tried to buy off Peter Lafleur.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Broncofan

[Joe_is_the_best]

17 hours ago, ifeelasleep said:

Lol if rodgers thinks jerry krause is an insult that tells me he doesn't know anything about basketball and is just a casual, that man built 3 separate bulls teams around Jordan and they all won. They hadn't won anything before he got there. 

Also comparing himself to Jordan, ego out of control. He's more like kevin durant.

That surtain exchange, jeudy, couple picks is looking more enticing each day.

You can take Jeudy over our cold, dead bodies. 

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, SalvadorsDeli said:

Kinda funny to think about the Jordan Love pick as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was a complete waste of a pick given they had an MVP-caliber QB on their roster already. The Packers had no need at QB, until they picked Jordan Love, which destabilized the organization to such an extent that they might now need Jordan Love. He is the solution to the problem he inadvertently caused, which either justifies the pick or makes it an all-time awful draft pick, depending on your perspective. 

Gotta feel for the kid tbh, this is almost certainly not how he envisioned his transition into the league going. 

Hindsight, man.

Anyone can look brilliant and get 5 likes with it

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, pwny said:

I'm having some trouble reconciling the following concepts:

• Rodgers is an aging QB, who hadn't played at an extremely high level in several years, so it made sense to draft Love both to use as a potential replacement and because it was the driving force behind his resurgence.
• Other teams should want to trade significant amounts of high leverage assets for Aaron Rodgers, he clearly has at least 5 more years of elite play and can lead anyone who sees themselves as a contender to Super Bowls. There's no reason to worry he will regress any time soon.

The two of these don't really mesh, and very much feels like a have it both ways thing. Which one is it?

The answer is obvious:

You're assuming that everyone who thinks he should be traded for high value believes that Rodgers will succeed on his new team and that it would be a good deal for them.

The reality is that plenty of people think it would be a mistake for a team to give up those assets despite it being the market price.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, SalvadorsDeli said:

Pretending that expecting Aaron Rodgers to be good is just 'hindsight' speaking is a weird way to frame this. 

If the Packers were/are actually committed to Rodgers for another 3 years and essentially the entirety of Love's rookie contract, how does that pick then actually make any sense whatsoever? 

They're not financially committed to him, which is the Crux of the issue. He wants them to be, they want the flexibility. The team has paid him $110 million (on a $78 mil guaranteed contract) in order to have this flexibility in his final 2-3 seasons.

It was a smart way to structure the contract. Aaron collected a record amount of cash in years 1-3 of this contract in exchange for the team holding the leverage in years 4-6. But now that he got his huge windfall of cash he wants to reneg on the deal and is forcing the issue.

He signed a contract, got his share, and now doesn't want the other party to have their's. This is a perfect example of "greed".