Jump to content

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


TheKillerNacho

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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.

It is leverage when the sunk cost can be avoided. If Rodgers is telling them "Trade me or I retire" (don't know if that's happened or is the plan, but let's play hypothetical), then you are choosing to let him become a sunk cost when instead you can get multiple positive assets in return for him. Not trading him at that point would be dumb.

You'll have to explain how losing Aaron Rodgers without getting anything in return does not hurt Green Bay, either from a competitive standpoint or a future assets standpoint. Your argument can't be "Can't lose something you never had" because there are options to avoid that and Green Bay would be purposely choosing to not go those routes.

If I offer you $10 for a broken pen that can't be fixed or used, and you turn me down and then just say "Eh, it was a sunk cost", that's a completely ignorant way of looking at that situation and you actively avoiding admitting you mishandled the whole thing.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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.

Treating the most valuable asset on your roster as a sunk cost is laughably bad general managership.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, seminoles1 said:

It is leverage when the sunk cost can be avoided. If Rodgers is telling them "Trade me or I retire" (don't know if that's happened or is the plan, but let's play hypothetical), then you are choosing to let him become a sunk cost when instead you can get multiple positive assets in return for him. Not trading him at that point would be dumb.

You'll have to explain how losing Aaron Rodgers without getting anything in return does not hurt Green Bay, either from a competitive standpoint or a future assets standpoint. Your argument can't be "Can't lose something you never had" because there are options to avoid that and Green Bay would be purposely choosing to not go those routes.

If I offer you $10 for a broken pen that can't be fixed or used, and you turn me down and then just say "Eh, it was a sunk cost", that's a completely ignorant way of looking at that situation and you actively avoiding admitting you mishandled the whole thing.

Because it's not leverage if Rodgers doesn't mean it about his retirement. That's a bluff.

There is no circumstance in which Rodgers can play for another team without GB getting compensation. Therefore, your point about GB losing value is a fallacy (begging the question). It's impossible for that value delta to exist. If he doesn't play for GB he either retires or gets traded. If he's going to retire, he's going to retire and GB would get nothing. If he's going to play, it's going to be on GBs terms, either in GB or in a trade. They have 100% control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Treating the most valuable asset on your roster as a sunk cost is laughably bad general managership.

Every team has done that with every player that has ever retired with time left on a contract, dude. GB has $50 million reasons why they know it won't actually be a sunk cost because they're smart and structured his contract this way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

Every team has done that with every player that has ever retired with time left on a contract, dude. GB has $50 million reasons why they know it won't actually be a sunk cost because they're smart and structured his contract this way.

 

Is every player the best QB to ever play coming off an MVP season?

Who gives a crap about the money? You're flushing at minimum 2 1st round picks and other players if not 3 1st rounders and multiple other picks if a bidding war happened.

I'd line up as #1 on the can Murphy and Gute if they sit there and let him retire without budging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

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.

I hope one day you can realize almost none of this is factual. But you do you. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Every team has done that with every player that has ever retired with time left on a contract, dude. GB has $50 million reasons why they know it won't actually be a sunk cost because they're smart and structured his contract this way.

And how many teams have had this happen once, let alone TWICE with back-to-back HOF QB's? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Is every player the best QB to ever play coming off an MVP season?

Who gives a crap about the money? You're flushing at minimum 2 1st round picks and other players if not 3 1st rounders and multiple other picks if a bidding war happened.

I'd line up as #1 on the can Murphy and Gute if they sit there and let him retire without budging. 

No. They are not flushing anything. If he retires there's no way they would have received compensation...

Your entire point hinges on the belief that Rodgers would choose retirement and losing out on over $100million in likely future income JUST to spite GB. That's completely irrational. He either wants to keep playing and earn millions or he's done with football. It's wholly irrational to think he would forfeit that kind of money and legacy JUST to not play for GB again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

And how many teams have had this happen once, let alone TWICE with back-to-back HOF QB's? 

I'm not sure what the point is here? The situations are very different regarding contracts and motives (Favre vs Rodgers) and GB still ended up trading Favre on their terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

I hope one day you can realize almost none of this is factual. But you do you. 

You don't make any sense lol.

It's 100% factual that you responded to my request of examples with Wentz and Stafford without any explanation of why you listed them for some "human element" (speaking of factual...).

Then, the trade results of Carson Palmer are 100% factual. In fact, there's pretty much no opinion in that post you quoted. It's pretty much entirely "factual". The only opinion was that Stafford and Wentz did not leverage their teams into trading them against their will. And that is almost certainly universally agreed upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

No. They are not flushing anything. If he retires there's no way they would have received compensation...

Your entire point hinges on the belief that Rodgers would choose retirement and losing out on over $100million in likely future income JUST to spite GB. That's completely irrational. He either wants to keep playing and earn millions or he's done with football. It's wholly irrational to think he would forfeit that kind of money and legacy JUST to not play for GB again.

You aren't looking at the evidence. We aren't taking a hardline "come back or retire" stance. We've reached out with a contract offer that pays him more money, that's gross to me.

At this point, I'll call his bluff until we come out of the tunnel at whatever stadium we're playing at week 1 of preseason. If there hasn't been significant progress made, I'm calling Denver, LV, Washington, Carolina, Philly and whoever may need a QB and hearing the offers.

If he shows up at TC, I'm great with that, but I'd have a deadline for him, and it would be the first week of preseason. The Rodgers/Favre thing was done by then. Not fair to Love to carry it into the regular season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

You aren't looking at the evidence. We aren't taking a hardline "come back or retire" stance. We've reached out with a contract offer that pays him more money, that's gross to me.

At this point, I'll call his bluff until we come out of the tunnel at whatever stadium we're playing at week 1 of preseason. If there hasn't been significant progress made, I'm calling Denver, LV, Washington, Carolina, Philly and whoever may need a QB and hearing the offers.

If he shows up at TC, I'm great with that, but I'd have a deadline for him, and it would be the first week of preseason. The Rodgers/Favre thing was done by then. Not fair to Love to carry it into the regular season.

How am I not looking at the evidence? I never said GB is taking a hardline stance of come back or retire. They don't have to because that's just how the situation naturally exists. 

There are three options:

(1) Rodgers plays for GB in 2021

(2) GB trades Rodgers

(3) Rodgers retires and doesn't play in the NFL again

All the evidence points to #1 right now. #2 has a very very outside chance of happening this year on GBs terms. #3 is pretty much unbelievable, but certainly a non-zero option. But, that option means Rodgers actually doesn't play football again so he has no trade value if that ends up being his choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...