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

[fattlipp]

Surtain,Chubb,Jeudy,2nd.

 For

Rodgers, Jackson, Preston and a 4th..., sign and trade Kumerow and Jordy, for giggles..

Edited May 14, 2021 by fattlipp

[R T]

Kumerow is on Buffalo's roster, makes it a little hard to sign him. 

[CWood21]

6 hours 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.

Obviously Jeudy would be preferred.  And I think it'd easily be Bridgewater as the QB coming back, not Lock.

[hijokr99]

This whole thing is so exhausting. I don't know what ARod's issue is, but whatever it is I get the sense it can be papered over, not really resolved. So we'll all be on pins and needles every year & I'm doubtful that he'll be this great every year. That's not a knock on him, just reality. His performance in 2020 was historically great.

Which means that an ugly parting of the ways is inevitable and his trade value will never be higher. It sucks to break up the band now, but I think this has to get resolved quickly or the Packers must start taking offers.

I want to trade him to Vegas & not just for the entertainment value of watching him deal with Chucky. Raiders are way behind Broncos in talent so better chance future picks have more value. Problem with getting Carr back is that he's @$20 mill. Since we're into qb nostalgia (Hacket & Bortles), how about Marcus Mariota who MLF coached for a year in TN? My idea is ARod for Mariota, Trev Moehrig (Raider's 2nd rnd pick this year), Clelin Ferrell + 2022/2023 1 & 3's.

Salaries are affordable. Mariota is still young and better than Bortles. Moehrig and Ferrell help D, even if Ferrell is just a pretty good edge. Picks are valuable. Raiders can still move Carr to get some picks back and prevent ARod from going to Broncos.

[mikemike778]

7 hours ago, Norm said:

I'd be amazed if we even got two firsts...

Tell him to retire then.

Would rather have the 30m he owes up back than trade for less than that.  

Basically if we trade Rodgers then we are in the situation where we are paying the league MVP 37m (whether its this year or split over two years) to try and win the super bowl for someone else. Its a ludicrous scenario and only palatable with a monster haul of picks. We have naff all cap space so not interested in players. 

Trade for a monster haul of picks starting with three 1sts or he retires or he plays for us. 

They should be the three options. No others.

 

[coachbuns]

3 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

Tell him to retire then.

Would rather have the 30m he owes up back than trade for less than that.  

Basically if we trade Rodgers then we are in the situation where we are paying the league MVP 37m (whether its this year or split over two years) to try and win the super bowl for someone else. Its a ludicrous scenario and only palatable with a monster haul of picks. We have naff all cap space so not interested in players. 

Trade for a monster haul of picks starting with three 1sts or he retires or he plays for us. 

They should be the three options. No others.

 

Agreed.  Preferably offense and defense young starter and 3 1st rounders minimum.  Other teams looking for him have to pay to play.

[spilltray]

3 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

Tell him to retire then.

Would rather have the 30m he owes up back than trade for less than that.  

Basically if we trade Rodgers then we are in the situation where we are paying the league MVP 37m (whether its this year or split over two years) to try and win the super bowl for someone else. Its a ludicrous scenario and only palatable with a monster haul of picks. We have naff all cap space so not interested in players. 

Trade for a monster haul of picks starting with three 1sts or he retires or he plays for us. 

They should be the three options. No others.

 

This is the point. The Packers don't want to move Rodgers, they want him back. They don't NEED to trade him, so either it's a John Hadl/Herschel Walker level trade, or no deal. 

I really wish the Packers would play hardball here.

[OneTwoSixFive]

12 minutes ago, spilltray said:

This is the point. The Packers don't want to move Rodgers, they want him back. They don't NEED to trade him, so either it's a John Hadl/Herschel Walker level trade, or no deal. 

I really wish the Packers would play hardball here.

What generally happens when you play hardball is that the other side switches to hardball as well. It reminds me of a common criticism of the Packers when they were not as dominant as this last 2 years. Play more aggressively was the cry from loads of fans, but not so many understood the usual consequences of that, which was an undisciplined, high-penalty team that all too often shot itself in the foot. Playing more aggressively has a very common downside, and while the gold standard is a team that is both very aggressive AND very disciplined, that is notoriously difficult to achieve.

Hardball sounds good, but people need to understand there is a downside to it, where the team can end up cutting off their nose to spite their face. Have you seen a situation where two people are squaring off, shouting in each others face. Neither are hearing what the other is saying, because both have gone 'hardball'.

Edited May 14, 2021 by OneTwoSixFive

[spilltray]

3 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

What generally happens when you play hardball is that the other side switches to hardball as well. It reminds me of a common criticism when the Packers were not as dominant as this last 2 years. Play more aggressively was the cry from loads of fans, but not so many understood the usual consequences of that, which was an undisciplined, high-penalty team that all too often shot itself in the foot. Playing more aggressively has a very common downside, and while the gold standard is a team that is both very aggressive AND very disciplined, that is notoriously difficult to achieve.

Hardball sounds good, but people need to understand there is a downside to it, where the team can end up cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I understand the potential downsides but the two worst possible outcomes are:

1 Being locked in to a declining Rodgers at MVP pay levels for the next 3-5 years.

2 Allowing Rodgers to leave post June 1 and not getting good value for basically cratering the 2021 season.

[OneTwoSixFive]

@spilltray  Agree with that, with the rider that the Packers are unlikely to get the kind of mega-deal some are proposing, partly because other teams will, by then, know the Packers situation (whether post June 1 this year, or after this season). The one card the Packers DO hold is that there will always be several other teams that are desperate for a good QB*, so there should be competition for his services.

* That includes GMs who are on the hot seat and want a possible insta-fix that could keep them their jobs.

Edited May 14, 2021 by OneTwoSixFive

[spilltray]

It's gotta be better than the Stafford trade. Otherwise the Packers should let Rodgers show up or sit. Either way after some teams 2021 qb experiments fail, and pre free agency rather than post, there will be more market.

[{Family Ghost}]

11 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

So Matt Stafford is more valuable than Aaron to you?

No doubt .. the Stafford deal is the floor of a Rodgers deal.

[R T]

The Packers are not going to play hardball with Dunn and Rodgers, neither Murphy or Gutes has the stomach for a pissing match and Dunn knows it. Murphy can't let his legacy be remembered as the guy who pushed Rodgers out the door. Murphy is all about public image and that is probably why Rodgers will get anything he asks for in the end. 

[TransientTexan]

26 minutes ago, spilltray said:

It's gotta be better than the Stafford trade. Otherwise the Packers should let Rodgers show up or sit. Either way after some teams 2021 qb experiments fail, and pre free agency rather than post, there will be more market.

yea, while Stafford has advantages in age, and in not lowering his value by pressuring his team, Rodgers' play quality and contract should outweigh that.

Rodgers (37-38yr)  $15.5m  / $25.5m / $25.5m

#1 graded QB, & MVP

Stafford (33 yr)      $20.0m  /  $23.0m  /  -----

#14 graded QB, with maybe #10 ceiling. 

 

New team would be getting Rodgers at a ridiculously team-friendly deal, since most of his signing bonus (which was meant to cover his play quality at least through 2021-22), will stick on GB's cap. 

[{Family Ghost}]

5 minutes ago, R T said:

The Packers are not going to play hardball with Dunn and Rodgers, neither Murphy or Gutes has the stomach for a pissing match and Dunn knows it. Murphy can't let his legacy be remembered as the guy who pushed Rodgers out the door. Murphy is all about public image and that is probably why Rodgers will get anything he asks for in the end. 

Yeah ... not sure I agree with you here.  Public sentiment isn't exactly going against Murphy and Gute at this point.  As the season draws closer the heat will build, but they can always say that Aaron is under contract for three more years and that he's rejected offers to make him much more highly paid.  The ball is definitely in Rodgers court and if he takes it and goes home fans will turn on him.

Edited May 14, 2021 by {Family Ghost}