Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Cpdaly23 said:

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.  

It’s also a kind of a game of chicken. The winner is usually the one more willing to lose. Is Rodgers more willing to sit out than the Packers willingness to let him? May depend on how Love looks in mini camp. It will get more interesting I feel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Three things ..

One if we trade Rodgers we lose 30m regardless of whether its this year or next. That's a lot regardless of whether its post June. Not trading him protects that 30m if he retires you can claim that back. You can make a strong argument that the 30m is worth more than any trade compensation.

Secondly .. 

Like I've said, we are all-in.  We have sacrificed 2022 and 2023 for 2021. Trading Rodgers ruins everything. You basically use whatever leverage you've got to get him to play this year if he doesn't play for us it messes everything up so you play whatever cards you have. Saying sorry Aaron but there's zero possibility of us trading you this summer does that. And then its up to him if he wants to play.

Thirdly ..

You talk about terrible asset management. I'll tell you what terrible asset management is - its paying the MVP of the league 37m to try and win a super bowl for someone else. Its literally killing our salary cap to give another team an elite QB.

We 100% have the moral high ground here. We have paid him a signing bonus that covers four years and he expects to play for one year and then run of with the money. And probably get another bonus at the new team. No. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, oldmansmell 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)

That depends on what a team, that he’s willing to go to, can spend. If there is only one true bidder. San Francisco now appears out with what they spent to get to #3. Can the Raiders afford him without moving Carr?

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

It’s also a kind of a game of chicken. The winner is usually the one more willing to lose. Is Rodgers more willing to sit out than the Packers willingness to let him? May depend on how Love looks in mini camp. It will get more interesting I feel. 

Green Bay should be more willing to hold our ground.

If Rodgers retires he pays us the money back so we get something. If we are going forward with Love, you use that money to give him some help. Its debatable whether the trade picks are worth more so I don't see any risk in us holding firm.

For Rodgers, if he retires, it costs him financially, it ends his hope of winning another title, it goes against everything he said and damages his legacy. Its something he will regret badly 5 years down the line.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

Green Bay should be more willing to hold our ground.

If Rodgers retires he pays us the money back so we get something. If we are going forward with Love, you use that money to give him some help. Its debatable whether the trade picks are worth more so I don't see any risk in us holding firm.

For Rodgers, if he retires, it costs him financially, it ends his hope of winning another title, it goes against everything he said and damages his legacy. Its something he will regret badly 5 years down the line.

 

Exactly 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn between "pragmatics" (what works) and "principle" (what is right, just, honorable) on this. I can appreciate both sides.

A "pragmatic" approach seems to be either 1) to give Aaron what he wants (an extension on top of the 3 years left on his current contract), or to 2) trade him after June 2nd. One problem I have with the pragmatic approach is that players can go this way too. I mean, what's to stop any other key player on the Packers like Devante Adams from doing the same thing, especially after seeing how Aaron got his way?

A "principled" approach seems to be that the Packers FO tells Aaron either to 1) Retire, or to 2) Honor and keep playing out your current contract with the three years left on it, and, at some future point in time of THEIR choosing before his current contract ends, they will re-visit the possibility of offering him an extension. The problem with this is that Aaron may just retire, and your current window of SB contention is likely over, unless Jordan Love surprises us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

Three things ..

One if we trade Rodgers we lose 30m regardless of whether its this year or next. That's a lot regardless of whether its post June. Not trading him protects that 30m if he retires you can claim that back. You can make a strong argument that the 30m is worth more than any trade compensation.

Secondly .. 

Like I've said, we are all-in.  We have sacrificed 2022 and 2023 for 2021. Trading Rodgers ruins everything. You basically use whatever leverage you've got to get him to play this year if he doesn't play for us it messes everything up so you play whatever cards you have. Saying sorry Aaron but there's zero possibility of us trading you this summer does that. And then its up to him if he wants to play.

Thirdly ..

You talk about terrible asset management. I'll tell you what terrible asset management is - its paying the MVP of the league 37m to try and win a super bowl for someone else. Its literally killing our salary cap to give another team an elite QB.

We 100% have the moral high ground here. We have paid him a signing bonus that covers four years and he expects to play for one year and then run of with the money. And probably get another bonus at the new team. No. 

1.  Rodg is not going to retire.  He can never make close to the money he makes in this game nor will ever have the ego crowned to this extent.  We are going to have dead money with this guy no matter what, and much greater dead money if we bury ourselves in a guaranteed money longer term extension.

2. Trading Rodgers builds for the future.  The 2 year cap hits and the pain can be managed.  We are rid of an aging players cap liability in quick fashion while adding much in compensation.  This can be well managed.  We weaken the team he is traded to.

3. It is not killing our camp to move him.  It can be managed, the money has already been paid.  You have to look past that.  What Rodgers is asking for is to put the team in a far more damaging position dead money wise down the road.  He hasn’t won in post season for us in a great while with many possibilities.  With age and declining skills going to a team who is going to void itself of great treasure given to us is not doing what you propose.

Often when negotiation has reached this point he who speaks next, loses.   Gute needs to make the teams stand very clear, and we want Rodg back.  But not at any cost, a cost which long term can cripple this team.  State your position Gute and stand strong.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

Three things ..

One if we trade Rodgers we lose 30m regardless of whether its this year or next. That's a lot regardless of whether its post June. Not trading him protects that 30m if he retires you can claim that back. You can make a strong argument that the 30m is worth more than any trade compensation.

Secondly .. 

Like I've said, we are all-in.  We have sacrificed 2022 and 2023 for 2021. Trading Rodgers ruins everything. You basically use whatever leverage you've got to get him to play this year if he doesn't play for us it messes everything up so you play whatever cards you have. Saying sorry Aaron but there's zero possibility of us trading you this summer does that. And then its up to him if he wants to play.

Thirdly ..

You talk about terrible asset management. I'll tell you what terrible asset management is - its paying the MVP of the league 37m to try and win a super bowl for someone else. Its literally killing our salary cap to give another team an elite QB.

We 100% have the moral high ground here. We have paid him a signing bonus that covers four years and he expects to play for one year and then run of with the money. And probably get another bonus at the new team. No. 

 

 

My point is not about moral high ground. I don't think our organization has done anything morally wrong. They have made decisions that Rodgers did not like, that is all. Heck, they even paid Rodgers to make him the highest paid QB. Rodgers wants something I do not think the organization will do. i.e get involved in management decisions. Heck, if anything, his actions (or lack thereof) have shown me that he puts too much emotion into things which is not a good trait for management.

My point is that I do not have faith that Rodgers is the kind of player you can force to do something he does not want. He was unhappy earlier but never wanted to not return. If it is truly at that point, I would rather let him leave and get whatever assets we can than pay him money to just show up.

There are way too many scenarios here to individually list but here is the one that concerns me most. Rodgers comes back, plays decent but not well enough. He gets paid and at the end of the year chooses to retire. What then? You get no assets for him, still do not know where Love is with his development. Sure you get to 'save' the money in a lost season but is that really worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be quite a haul, and probably similar to what it would take for me to do it. I'd also consider Jeudy and Dre'Mont Jones as alternatives to Chubb and Risner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Would be quite a haul, and probably similar to what it would take for me to do it. I'd also consider Jeudy and Dre'Mont Jones as alternatives to Chubb and Risner.

dre'mont seems like an awful locker room guy imo. but i do definitely prefer bringing in guys with more burn on the rookie deals since our cap is so ****ed at the moment. gimmie 22' 1st, 23' 1st, 24 1st, 22' 2nd, 23' 2nd, 22' 3rd, ojemudia, mctelvin agim over that deal if that valuation is actually attainable 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just give me draft picks, want highly drafted players on full rookie contracts to maximize the deal. Don't need players that are on the doorstep of demanding large contracts.   

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

Just give me draft picks, want highly drafted players on full rookie contracts to maximize the deal. Don't need players that are on the doorstep of demanding large contracts.   

I understand what you are saying but since both parties will need to take salary caps into consideration that may not be an option. We are not talking about taking on bad players back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fistfullofbeer said:

I understand what you are saying but since both parties will need to take salary caps into consideration that may not be an option. We are not talking about taking on bad players back.

This isn't the NBA where traded contracts need to match up. The example given is with Denver, the Broncos are 25,127,156.00 under the cap right now, they can take on Rodgers contract without having to shed contracts. 

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

Just give me draft picks, want highly drafted players on full rookie contracts to maximize the deal. Don't need players that are on the doorstep of demanding large contracts.   

I'd demand Jeudy in the deal .. he's just entering his second season.  Lots of rookie contract left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I'd demand Jeudy in the deal .. he's just entering his second season.  Lots of rookie contract left.

Would you rather have Jeudy or a 1st round pick? You don't get Jeudy without giving up something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...