Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers officially begins holdout by skipping Packers mandatory mini-camp


TheKillerNacho
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Its clear you two are looking solely at the numbers and not looking at what actually happens in the real world. In the real world that we live in, Arod can force a trade even if he doesnt have the contract/monetary leverage. He is already rich and will have gigs lined up for the rest of his life. A short term interruption in his NFL salary will have no bearing on how this all plays out. You know how I know?

It happens every single year. 

Name one starting QB where THEY forced a trade in the last decade.

At the same time, look at how many just this year tried with the "human element" (Watson, Wilson, Rodgers, more?) and none happened....

Edited by incognito_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Its clear you two are looking solely at the numbers and not looking at what actually happens in the real world. In the real world that we live in, Arod can force a trade even if he doesnt have the contract/monetary leverage. He is already rich and will have gigs lined up for the rest of his life. A short term interruption in his NFL salary will have no bearing on how this all plays out. You know how I know?

It happens every single year. 

So what team is making an offer for Rodgers?  What is the package of picks/players?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Name one starting QB where THEY forced a trade in the last decade.

At the same time, look at how many just this year tried with the "human element" (Watson, Wilson, Rodgers, more?) and none happened....

Rodgers is about to go the same exact route as Carson Palmer. 

But there are other examples like Wentz and Stafford. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, squire12 said:

So what team is making an offer for Rodgers?  What is the package of picks/players?

 

If I'm Denver, I'm throwing the house at Green Bay. 

If I'm Washington, I'm not far behind.

Outside of them, I'm waiting to see if his price tag drops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Rodgers is about to go the same exact route as Carson Palmer. 

But there are other examples like Wentz and Stafford. 

How did Stafford force Detroit to do something they approached him about?

A QB trade happening =\= a "forced demand"

Also, I'd LOOOVVVEE for us to trade him. I hope we do because we will get an absolute haul. But, that will happen if and only if GB gets the value they want like Detroit certainly did. Their FO didn't feel "forced" whatsoever...

Edited by incognito_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

How did Stafford force Detroit to do something they approached him about?

A QB trade happening =\= a "forced demand"

I really dont see were you are struggling so much with what I said.

Carson was the example that mattered. Stafford was a "human element" trade. He wanted out and worked with the Lions to make it happen peacefully. 

 

Its almost as if you are just cherry picking random parts of my complete thought so that you can act petulant. Its very odd. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

How did Stafford force Detroit to do something they approached him about?

A QB trade happening =\= a "forced demand"

Stafford requested the trade. Don't think the lions approached him about it. 

After meetings in recent weeks in which Stafford expressed a desire for a fresh start. The Lions understood his position and plan to begin discussing trade options in the coming weeks for their star quarterback," Tom Pelissero reported. 

It was just never a big deal for the team, but info put out there suggests that it was Stafford who went to them about it

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Bay holds all the leverage if you think sitting on the most valuable asset potentially available for trade in the last decade and letting him rot if he doesn't show up is a good idea. I personally think that sounds absolutely moronic, so Rodgers holds plenty of leverage.

If he's not in camp by preseason game 1, we'd be absolutely foolish to drag it out any longer.

IMO the 2024 Packers and beyond will be a far better team after dealing Rodgers than if we keep him. Regardless of the quality of player Jordan Love is. Rodgers has had countless chances at another ring and now is 38 and will be tied to a huge cap number if he returns. 

A deadline needs to be set for this whole thing, then it goes to the highest bidder.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Forge said:

Stafford requested the trade. Don't think the lions approached him about it. 

After meetings in recent weeks in which Stafford expressed a desire for a fresh start. The Lions understood his position and plan to begin discussing trade options in the coming weeks for their star quarterback," Tom Pelissero reported. 

It was just never a big deal for the team, but info put out there suggests that it was Stafford who went to them about it

Yes. This is my entire point. There was no forcing or demand. Hell, Stafford called his desire to discuss it the hardest decision of his life.

This is my entire point. It's not "real world" to suggest that QBs demand trades and get what they want with leverage over a team like @Matts4313 keeps saying. 

It just doesn't happen in reality because the teams almost ALWAYS hold the real leverage. And in GBs case, the team has even MORE leverage than normal due to contract structuring and near-term replacement plan already underway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yes. This is my entire point. There was no forcing or demand. Hell, Stafford called his desire to discuss it the hardest decision of his life.

This is my entire point. It's not "real world" to suggest that QBs demand trades and get what they want with leverage over a team like @Matts4313 keeps saying. 

It just doesn't happen in reality because the teams almost ALWAYS hold the real leverage. And in GBs case, the team has even MORE leverage than normal due to contract structuring and near-term replacement plan already underway.

What good does letting an asset of that value rot do for the Green Bay Packers? Rodgers has plenty of leverage, it's perceived leverage instead of literal leverage, but he's got plenty of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

I really dont see were you are struggling so much with what I said.

Carson was the example that mattered. Stafford was a "human element" trade. He wanted out and worked with the Lions to make it happen peacefully. 

 

Its almost as if you are just cherry picking random parts of my complete thought so that you can act petulant. Its very odd. 

Lol, it seems like you're the one having problems with your own words. Nowhere did you say or suggest that Stafford and Wentz were "human element" (still whatever the hell that means) and didn't demand or force a trade like I asked for examples of.

Wentz and Stafford had no leverage. They exercised no leverage. Their respective teams WANTED to trade them...

They are not counter examples to anything I've said.

Palmer example also supports my point: CIN got first and second picks for a retired player that sucked...They didn't even trade him until mid season and they got an offer they liked. CIN held all the leverage in that situation as well. I'd be thrilled if Rodgers got traded midseason for the same relative value Palmer did. That would probably be three first round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

What good does letting an asset of that value rot do for the Green Bay Packers? Rodgers has plenty of leverage, it's perceived leverage instead of literal leverage, but he's got plenty of it. 

He's a sunk cost. It doesn't hurt GB at all to have that happen. If a player decides to retire there's nothing any team can do about it. Retirement isn't leverage, it's an abrupt end to the contract with zero net impact. 

No competitor gets the asset. The asset just ceases to exist. It's a sunk cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...