Aaron Rodgers contract - An analysis

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, Sandy said:

But for how long? 

I see a re-energized Rodgers playing a maximum of two seasons. If he sticks around for a third the wheels will come off like it did for the Bucs this season. Too much stress on the salary cap and a lack of draft picks will eventually tear this business model down, just as it did for Brady and Manning

Yeah, I'd be considering a 2-3yr window of his new team having a SB window as the conservative "best case" outcome while weighing options.

Could be worse. Could be 6-7. Who knows if he suddenly decides to take less money from a new team because he cashed in here on his way out and plays til he's Brady's current age. And play within a system. It's feasible. It's what we hoped he'd do for awhile now (and thought he DID do for a couple years).

[skibrett15]

20 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Don't agree at all. 

It's predictable, if not extremely likely, that a talented team with a re-energized Rodgers is a contender for up to a few years. 

That is not reading tea leaves. That is applying common sense and extrapolating with calculation. Not doing so would be business malpractice.

It's very low likelihood you will play this team in the playoffs.  One of you would lose beforehand, or one of the teams would fail to make the playoffs, or one or both of your assumptions that the "talented" team or "re-energized" Rodgers will be wrong.  It's also entirely possible that this version this year is the best possible version of Rodgers and he will simply continue to decline.

Rodgers is signed expensively for 4 more years, at which point he'd be 43, and the athleticism has fallen off dramatically the past 3 years which will continue. 

He's definitely a good player, one of the best QBs in the league and a better QB than Love, and that's why teams would pay up for him.  I just wouldn't sweat trading him to the 9ers or any other NFC team.  I'd trade him to the Bears or the Lions or the Vikings too.  The rams had the best roster last year, and now they have a bottom 5 team.  The Broncos made an all-in move for a QB who was just above average and declining.

 

[StatKing]

3 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

It's very low likelihood you will play this team in the playoffs.  One of you would lose beforehand, or one of the teams would fail to make the playoffs, or one or both of your assumptions that the "talented" team or "re-energized" Rodgers will be wrong.  It's also entirely possible that this version this year is the best possible version of Rodgers and he will simply continue to decline.

Rodgers is signed expensively for 4 more years, at which point he'd be 43, and the athleticism has fallen off dramatically the past 3 years which will continue. 

He's definitely a good player, one of the best QBs in the league and a better QB than Love, and that's why teams would pay up for him.  I just wouldn't sweat trading him to the 9ers or any other NFC team.  I'd trade him to the Bears or the Lions or the Vikings too.  The rams had the best roster last year, and now they have a bottom 5 team.  The Broncos made an all-in move for a QB who was just above average and declining.

 

Trading Rodgers to a division rival would be the dumbest thing we could possibly do. If we trade him, which I don't think there's any chance we do, it'll be to an AFC team.

[Sandy]

9 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

It's very low likelihood you will play this team in the playoffs.  One of you would lose beforehand, or one of the teams would fail to make the playoffs, or one or both of your assumptions that the "talented" team or "re-energized" Rodgers will be wrong.  It's also entirely possible that this version this year is the best possible version of Rodgers and he will simply continue to decline.

Rodgers is signed expensively for 4 more years, at which point he'd be 43, and the athleticism has fallen off dramatically the past 3 years which will continue. 

He's definitely a good player, one of the best QBs in the league and a better QB than Love, and that's why teams would pay up for him.  I just wouldn't sweat trading him to the 9ers or any other NFC team.  I'd trade him to the Bears or the Lions or the Vikings too.  The rams had the best roster last year, and now they have a bottom 5 team.  The Broncos made an all-in move for a QB who was just above average and declining.

 

I have qualms about inside the division, but I have no issue with the rest of the conference. If NO, SF, SEA or NYG are the top bidder (and Rodgers doesn't nix any of those places) then we take their assets so we can real long-term rewards 

[OneTwoSixFive]

13 hours ago, StatKing said:

Trading Rodgers to a division rival would be the dumbest thing we could possibly do. If we trade him, which I don't think there's any chance we do, it'll be to an AFC team.

I think the Packers front office would agree with you, as teams are seldom as brave about those kind of circumstances as many fans are, because being bold as a fan costs nothing. However, simply looking at our previous QB - he got traded to an AFC team and a bit later he was on the Vikes. 

If I thought the best future, both financially and for the Packers going forward, was to trade Rodgers (and I do), I'd do that deal, even if it was to an in-division team. Just because you ( @StatKing ) don't like it, it doesn't make that decision dumb. It might turn out that he becomes a thorn in the Packers sides for (at most) a few years, but it is just as likely that deal looks really smart, two or three years down the road, when looking back.

Edited December 16, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive

[Jaire_Island]

With emergence of Brock Purdy, SF trading for Arod is off the table

[StatKing]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I think the Packers front office would agree with you, as teams are seldom as brave about those kind of circumstances as many fans are, because being bold as a fan costs nothing. However, simply looking at our previous QB - he got traded to an AFC team and a bit later he was on the Vikes. 

If I thought the best future, both financially and for the Packers going forward, was to trade Rodgers (and I do), I'd do that deal, even if it was to an in-division team. Just because you ( @StatKing ) don't like it, it doesn't make that decision dumb. It might turn out that he becomes a thorn in the Packers sides for (at most) a few years, but it is just as likely that deal looks really smart, two or three years down the road, when looking back.

Do i really need to explain why trading a first ballot hall of fame QB to a divison rival is a bad idea even if he only has a few years left? Any GM that does that would be fired on the spot.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, StatKing said:

Do i really need to explain why trading a first ballot hall of fame QB to a divison rival is a bad idea even if he only has a few years left? Any GM that does that would be fired on the spot.

Yes, yes you do. 

[StatKing]

19 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Yes, yes you do. 

You know GMs arent robots right? They worry about job security as much as they do the health of the franchise if not more.

NFL GMs lasts what 3-5 years on average? You really think Gutes gonna trade a top 3 player in franchise history for a couple of picks that aren't remotely guaranteed to pan out?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the idea that once Rodgers leaves we will have a few years of growing pains no matter who we have at QB. Those growing pains are a lot easier to deal with when you don't have to watch your team lose to a division rival because of a guy you traded to them. That's a tough pill to swallow for any fanbase.

Edited December 16, 2022 by StatKing

[squire12]

24 minutes ago, StatKing said:

You know GMs arent robots right? They worry about job security as much as they do the health of the franchise if not more.

NFL GMs lasts what 3-5 years on average? You really think Gutes gonna trade a top 3 player in franchise history for a couple of picks that aren't remotely guaranteed to pan out?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the idea that once Rodgers leaves we will have a few years of growing pains no matter who we have at QB. Those growing pains are a lot easier to deal with when you don't have to watch your team lose to a division rival because of a guy you traded to them. That's a tough pill to swallow for any fanbase.

so is it bad for GB the franchise or bad for the GB GM or bad for the GB fans?

seems like you are painting it as bad for the GM

short term vs long term considerations need to be weighed in the process when making the decision

[minnypackerfan]

2 hours ago, StatKing said:

You know GMs arent robots right? They worry about job security as much as they do the health of the franchise if not more.

NFL GMs lasts what 3-5 years on average? You really think Gutes gonna trade a top 3 player in franchise history for a couple of picks that aren't remotely guaranteed to pan out?

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the idea that once Rodgers leaves we will have a few years of growing pains no matter who we have at QB. Those growing pains are a lot easier to deal with when you don't have to watch your team lose to a division rival because of a guy you traded to them. That's a tough pill to swallow for any fanbase.

You make some good points.  Any trade of Rodgers is going to lead to a period of growing pains.  Rodgers retiring will lead also lead to growing pains.  One way or another these growing pains will occur in the next year to three year period.  So as a GM, do you think you really can win it next year as currently configured both talent wise, and coaching wise.  I'd say "no" as we're 5-8 for a reason. Next year, I would expect Rodgers skills to continue to show signs of deterioration.  Then add in our current cap situation which I believe will limit our ability to fix the "talent" part fast (at least it will next year). It all points to swallow that rebuild pill now.

When Favre demanded a trade, we ended up sending him to the AFC for a "conditional third round choice".  There was considerable rumors that the Vikings wanted him even then and were willing to trade a first round pick for him.  But a decision was made not to do that.  I thought that was a mistake.  As a GM, your job is to do the best thing for the franchise.  Fanbases can be fickle. If you make the right decision, over time your decision will bear itself out.  I think the fanbase back then was split much like today, but Thompson had the guts to stay with his convictions.

Favre ended up back in Minnesota in just one year.  If back then you really believed in Rodgers, I would have taken the first round pick from the Vikings as by taking that pick you are giving yourself a better chance to strengthen your team (1st vs conditional 3rd), AND your taking it from them so they lose out on a first round talent, thereby probably weakening them long term.  That is strategic thinking...and that's what great GM's must be able to do.   

When Favre ended up back in Minnesota, they beat us the first year.  But by the second the tide had turned and Rodgers was blossoming and Favre's age was showing.  By that time, Thompson looked like a genius.  He picked the right horse long term for the team.  That's what GM's get paid the big bucks to do.  If you don't have the stones, don't take the job.

The ONE POSITION that makes or breaks most GM's is quarterback.  Gute now has a decision to make.  Most people want their cake and eat it too.  Keep Rodgers and Love.  There is a price to pay for that.  If Love is your guy and he is ready to start like Rodgers was in 2008.  Make the move.  Just like Rodgers who needed to play to grow, Love is now in the same position.  First year will be a little rough, but I personally do not see a team next year that can win it now....maybe 2 - 3 years from now.  By then Rodgers is gone.

 

 

[StatKing]

2 hours ago, squire12 said:

so is it bad for GB the franchise or bad for the GB GM or bad for the GB fans?

seems like you are painting it as bad for the GM

short term vs long term considerations need to be weighed in the process when making the decision

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Let's say the we do trade Rodgers to the Vikings, which is the only team I could see doing it, that puts a tremendous amount of pressure on us to win that otherwise wouldnt be there if we traded him to say the Titans.

Pressure like that makes GMs desperate, something we haven't had to experience the past 20+ years because of our stability at QB. Desperate GMs will do anything to keep their job, future be damned. Why would Gute worry about the health of the franchise 5 years from now when there's no guarantee he makes it another two?

Just look at what Ryan Pace did to the Bears. After 2018 he pushed all his chips to the middle of the table and it didn't work. The 2021 draft rolls around and he's so desperate to keep his job he ships a haul for Justin Fields hoping it would buy him atleast another year but it didn't. He singlehandedly set them back 5 years with that one trade.

That is a scenario we should try to avoid at all costs. Even if we get 3 firsts for Rodgers it isn't worth the risk in my opinion.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, Jaire_Island said:

With emergence of Brock Purdy, SF trading for Arod is off the table

San Francisco was always an unlikely trade partner, but it has NOTHING to do with Brock Purdy.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Maybe it's worth looking at this from the opposite perspective. In 1974 The Rams sent an aging, but formerly very talented, all-pro QB named John Hadl to Green Bay. They got 5 draft choices, including two #1s and two #2s. Dan Devine soon found out that Hadl's career was spent. The trade set GB back for years. LA profited from the draft choices. With the picks, LA assembled their Super Bowl team.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Mr. Fussnputz
spelling

[CWood21]

19 hours ago, StatKing said:

Trading Rodgers to a division rival would be the dumbest thing we could possibly do. If we trade him, which I don't think there's any chance we do, it'll be to an AFC team.

If they're the highest paying team, I'd trade him to the Vikings or Bears.  But I don't think there's any chance of that given the QB situations of Chicago and Minnesota, and the direction of the Lions.