A-Rod's New team (if traded), what can Packers get in trade?

[ya ya]

throwing in my 2 cents(that is all its worth prob) before something really happens. 

   AROD +King for Surtain+2nd-3rd in 22,and 2nd-3 rd in 23. I hate being in this cap hell and by 23 we will be in a better place. My logic is based on the fact that 35-40 mij on one player(any sport) hurts this game which is supposed to be teamwork. With this years 2 first rounders(with Surtain) and 10 picks in the next 2 years in the first 2 days of the draft, should set the pack up for the long haul. Also to counter loosing AROD we need a cheaper and hopefully capable game manager with Love taking control in 22. You know what is available in FA right now(getting Rivers out of retirement would be my choice).

    Nothing against AROD or others just feel that even 10 mil a year to play a game is excessive.....GO PACK!

[Nick_gb]

45 minutes ago, ya ya said:

throwing in my 2 cents(that is all its worth prob) before something really happens. 

   AROD +King for Surtain+2nd-3rd in 22,and 2nd-3 rd in 23. I hate being in this cap hell and by 23 we will be in a better place. My logic is based on the fact that 35-40 mij on one player(any sport) hurts this game which is supposed to be teamwork. With this years 2 first rounders(with Surtain) and 10 picks in the next 2 years in the first 2 days of the draft, should set the pack up for the long haul. Also to counter loosing AROD we need a cheaper and hopefully capable game manager with Love taking control in 22. You know what is available in FA right now(getting Rivers out of retirement would be my choice).

    Nothing against AROD or others just feel that even 10 mil a year to play a game is excessive.....GO PACK!

Yeah, no, I'm going to need some 1's in there or no deal. 

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, ya ya said:

throwing in my 2 cents(that is all its worth prob) before something really happens. 

   AROD +King for Surtain+2nd-3rd in 22,and 2nd-3 rd in 23. I hate being in this cap hell and by 23 we will be in a better place. My logic is based on the fact that 35-40 mij on one player(any sport) hurts this game which is supposed to be teamwork. With this years 2 first rounders(with Surtain) and 10 picks in the next 2 years in the first 2 days of the draft, should set the pack up for the long haul. Also to counter loosing AROD we need a cheaper and hopefully capable game manager with Love taking control in 22. You know what is available in FA right now(getting Rivers out of retirement would be my choice).

    Nothing against AROD or others just feel that even 10 mil a year to play a game is excessive.....GO PACK!

That's not really a very strong package at all.  You need at least a pair of FRPs in there.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, CriminalMind said:

What if Rodgers wants a new contract and reassurance he won't be traded right after 2021 or 2022 season. Working on a deal is positive, and possibly the reports said looks like GB made a substantial (highest?) QB offer.

So really what's the hold up? Logically, its possible he wants a NTC in the contract or some kind of opt-out.

Because there's really no reason to rework his deal.  He signed a HUGE deal that made him one of the highest paid players in the NFL, and got a boatload of money upfront.

[DWhitehurst]

I am skeptical they can get as much in return for Rodgers as some here think they can. I wouldn't expect much more than what Detroit got for Stafford, given teams know that the GB FO may be a bit desperate to be free of Rodgers. Having said that, I hope they are right and I am wrong.

[CriminalMind]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Because there's really no reason to rework his deal.  He signed a HUGE deal that made him one of the highest paid players in the NFL, and got a boatload of money upfront.

The "reports" are saying that the Rodgers side has not agreed to the "new contract" whatever it might have been that was offered. So it appears GB is not in the "no reason to rework the deal" camp. 

[thrILL!]

22 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

The "reports" are saying that the Rodgers side has not agreed to the "new contract" whatever it might have been that was offered. So it appears GB is not in the "no reason to rework the deal" camp. 

You’re saying he didn’t agree to the contract extension 3 years ago?

And somehow THAT refusal never got out to anyone?  Never mind the fact that the previous deal would be up by now if he hadn’t.  Bcuz pretty sure the tweet above is the deal CW was referring to. 

[Cpdaly23]

44 minutes ago, DWhitehurst said:

I am skeptical they can get as much in return for Rodgers as some here think they can. I wouldn't expect much more than what Detroit got for Stafford, given teams know that the GB FO may be a bit desperate to be free of Rodgers. Having said that, I hope they are right and I am wrong.

The packers won’t be desperate to trade Rodgers.  They can always just let him sit.

[DWhitehurst]

2 hours ago, Cpdaly23 said:

The packers won’t be desperate to trade Rodgers.  They can always just let him sit.

Yes, desperate might be too strong a word. But if Devante Adams is now disgruntled along with Rodgers, whom else might start to be? It seems to me the Packers would at least consider trading Rodgers if it is not a complete fire sale where they lose face. Not that I want that. But I'm not sure I want to extend his current contract just yet, given there are three years left on it.

[PACKRULE]

On 5/8/2021 at 2:53 AM, mikemike778 said:

It wasn't though.

We didn't have to sign Aaron Jones and many thought we wouldn't but we did on a low cap hit for 21, medium cap hit in 22 and then dead money in 23. 

We definitely didn't need to sign Mercedes Lewis, we have three decent TEs plus Dafney but we did and  its going to see dead money in the future.

There has been a very clear decision this year to kick as much cap down the road to try and win this year. These decisions don't make sense if you aren't going all out this year - they will make our team worse in 2023.

That's why I wouldn't even consider trading Rodgers and would call his bluff, make him retire if necessary. 

 

 

We didn't need to sign AJ on this board, but clearly the Pack wanted him back. It was a priority. Lewis is an extra tackle. We are a run heavy team. But yes they could have nixed AJ, and Lewis. But they liked that over what they could have brought in I guess.

Making a guy retired is not the best plan out there. The packers want to be known as a place for FA's and all players alike to want to be. Making an HOF QB retired because the sides can't come together is silly. At worst trade him to a team he's ok with and everyone is happy we get picks and such other team gets a great QB. This is why GB always has their eye on the future too. it's not just this situation in a vacuum it's often a bigger picture. 

[hitnhope]

20 hours ago, Cpdaly23 said:

The packers won’t be desperate to trade Rodgers.  They can always just let him sit.

Now that is really putting your best assets to work.

 

Why would people even suggest this?   

[mikemike778]

3 hours ago, PACKRULE said:

We didn't need to sign AJ on this board, but clearly the Pack wanted him back. It was a priority. Lewis is an extra tackle. We are a run heavy team. But yes they could have nixed AJ, and Lewis. But they liked that over what they could have brought in I guess.

Making a guy retired is not the best plan out there. The packers want to be known as a place for FA's and all players alike to want to be. Making an HOF QB retired because the sides can't come together is silly. At worst trade him to a team he's ok with and everyone is happy we get picks and such other team gets a great QB. This is why GB always has their eye on the future too. it's not just this situation in a vacuum it's often a bigger picture. 

Re Lewis and Jones - yes they were priority but we didn't have to sign them as we had other options and we couldn't afford them without paying by credit. If as expected Jones is essentially on a 2 year contract then we will be still paying him in 2023 after he has left. Same with Lewis and King and various others.

Don't have any problems with that but nobody can say we haven't put everything into going for a title this year. We have and have made decisions we didn't need to do regarding sacrificing future years for this year. 

Re Rodgers ... we paid him a signing bonus to cover four years. I'm sorry but you can't play for one year and then take the money and run. Its one thing being a nice place for free agents to play and its another thing being basically conned out of 30m.  Unless he is going to give us that bonus back then that's what it is conning us out of 30m.

Guessing if he is traded he expects a new contract where he goes and another bonus there. 

 

[fistfullofbeer]

23 hours ago, Cpdaly23 said:

The packers won’t be desperate to trade Rodgers.  They can always just let him sit.

How is letting a league MVP QB sit for year, especially when he is 38 years old helpful to a team. That is honestly a lose-lose situation for both sides. Rodgers just has more to lose than us because of his age but is really not helpful for any side.

So while we may not be 'desperate' enough to trade him, it would terrible asset management.

[Cpdaly23]

1 hour ago, fistfullofbeer said:

How is letting a league MVP QB sit for year, especially when he is 38 years old helpful to a team. That is honestly a lose-lose situation for both sides. Rodgers just has more to lose than us because of his age but is really not helpful for any side.

So while we may not be 'desperate' enough to trade him, it would terrible asset management.

Its a helpful option to a team in that a potential trade partner can’t severely discount the compensation because they think a team is “forced” to sell.  
 

If Denver thinks “well he won’t play for Green Bay, they are going to want SOMETHING for him instead of nothing” and low balls an offer, the OPTION to retain Rodgers rights are more valuable than getting your face ripped off in a trade.  
 

Also, you think Rodgers won’t get pissed if Denver low balls an offer and makes it less likely he gets out of Green Bay?  This is all about leverage, and Rodgers has a ticking clock on his career.  Green Bay will not be distressed sellers of Aaron Rodgers’ rights.  

Edited May 10, 2021 by Cpdaly23

[oldmansmell]

On 5/4/2021 at 4:37 PM, spilltray said:

 

Rodgers value comes from the competition for him, not our bargaining position. But here are a couple of thoughts.

a) I'm still saying this, although I'm unsure how feasible this would be. If we trade Rodgers I'm not sure how much pressure Gute is actually under (from the perspective of the organisation - I also think the blame publicly will fall on 12). We are choosing a gm who has constructed two really successful teams, and are in this position because we are thinking long term. Why trade for 2023 picks? I want two players (if possible a Qb) and three first round picks and three third round picks  in 2025, 2026, and 2027. I think that would a) let us rebuild, and then have hopefully very good draft capital at the peak of our  next window. I think this also maximizes the position GB is in, because we are functionally the only team who could work that deal. Part of why we are in this position is because we are in a small market.

b) I have 0 interest in Love playing starter snaps next year. I think one year as the backup is important for his progression. AND with that said, I really prefer Oakland as a destination for two reasons. 1) Carr Abrams and the draft package I mentioned (maybe just the firsts this time) makes us better Next year. 2) We just trade Carr for two firsts once he takes us deep into the playoffs. Gute will when a championship if we do that.  This system generated top tier qb's routinely under Favre (all we need is a Brunell/Hassellback type guy out of Love)