Rodgers to the Jets Trade Discussion

[{Family Ghost}]

26 minutes ago, packerstk7 said:

Sounds like a 3rd to me…

Got to at least get pick #43 from them this year.  Even that would be underwhelming. 

[packfanfb]

31 minutes ago, packerstk7 said:

Sounds like a 3rd to me…

Teams trade 3rd round picks to get no. 2 WRs mid-season for a half-year rental.

We're talking about Aaron Rodgers here.  

 

[packfanfb]

8 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Got to at least get pick #43 from them this year.  Even that would be underwhelming. 

You only settle for a 2 if the Jets are giving you a player who has 1st round value to him. That's either Jermaine Johnson (my choice) or Elijah Moore. 

If the Jets want to give me Johnson, which they should do without thinking twice if they truly believe Rodgers can take them to the SB, then I'll take JJ and pick 43, plus a conditional pick in 2024. 

[packerstk7]

27 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Teams trade 3rd round picks to get no. 2 WRs mid-season for a half-year rental.

We're talking about Aaron Rodgers here.  

 

You think Brandt saying we won’t get much means a first?

[FinneasGage]

i think leverage is my new least favorite word 

[PossibleCabbage]

Just now, FinneasGage said:

i think leverage is my new least favorite word 

It was a really good TV series though.

[fistfullofbeer]

1 hour ago, sgtcheezwiz said:

It’s going to be interesting to see if Murphy and Gute stick to their guns.

The Rodgers crew has pivoted the discourse to the Packers poor treatment of vets. If they don’t agree to lesser compensation to get a deal done, it may prove that point. The front office would be stopping him from going to the team he wants and ending his career the way he wants. 

Of course, he did say he was 90% retired but that doesn’t seem to be stopping them from taking this route.

It really depends on what the Packers management feels like is "fair" value. Some people are thinking/saying that a 3rd round pick is what we get. That is definitely not fair value.

I know we are talking about Rodgers but this is more to do with a team trying to get fair value out of a trade to help with their rebuild. Trading Rodgers and going with Love is a move for the future. It makes us worse right now and the Jets better. Much better. They need Rodgers more than really we need to move him. This is a pure business transaction at the end of the day.

Honestly, I am surprised its come to this. How the heck did the two teams decide on a trade if they were so far apart on the compensation. How could the deal advertised as "done" by some folks in the media if the teams never really agreed on a compensation package.

 

[OneTwoSixFive]

Both teams have plenty of motivation to see the deal is made.

If one side is hesitant about their decision they can ask for the moon (Packers) or try a real lowball (Jets) and not deal if they don't get it....................but this isn't the case here. That means barring any unreasonable stubborness, the deal really should be made at some time, as both sides do the dance towards a deal they can both live with.

[mikemike778]

5 hours ago, fistfullofbeer said:

It really depends on what the Packers management feels like is "fair" value. Some people are thinking/saying that a 3rd round pick is what we get. That is definitely not fair value.

I know we are talking about Rodgers but this is more to do with a team trying to get fair value out of a trade to help with their rebuild. Trading Rodgers and going with Love is a move for the future. It makes us worse right now and the Jets better. Much better. They need Rodgers more than really we need to move him. This is a pure business transaction at the end of the day.

Honestly, I am surprised its come to this. How the heck did the two teams decide on a trade if they were so far apart on the compensation. How could the deal advertised as "done" by some folks in the media if the teams never really agreed on a compensation package.

 

 

From a franchise point of view, Packers need the trade more than Jets.  If the Jets don't get him it will be very embarassing. But from a franchise point of view, there is a way around it - you probably just have to start Zac who will be ultra motivated and assuming it doesn't work draft one next year. You probably lose a year but its not catastrophic.

If Packers don't get a trade done then its going to be pretty catestrophic. Not sure what they do - you can't obliterate the salary cap whilst having him as 3rd string or something. Surely they can't play him.  Don't think cutting is an option - there is no real option to a trade at this point. You might have to give him away for a conditional 7th  if it got to roster cut down day.

The whole thing is a bit daft on both sides. How did they not sort out a deal before hand. Its nuts.

 

 

[mikemike778]

I still think 2024 picks might be the way forward and forget this year's draft . Both sides can claim a win. Fans wont like it but seems best compromise.

A 2024 1st is considered a 2023 2nd.  This is particularly true for a team that is all-in like Jets will be as picks now are more valuable.

Packers are supposedly building for future (despite the cap kicking) so really a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick. For us, a 2023 pick shouldn't be worth more than a 2024 pick.

The issue is Jets may pick later in 2024. So you throw in conditional extra picks if Jets make the play-offs. If they do that which devalues the pick/s they send then we get extra stuff.

[Rainmaker90]

I’m really interested in what’s the point of contention. 
 

There’s an extremely small chance we don’t come away with pick 13. It just isn’t going to happen. 
 

I can’t see a 2nd or 3rd round pick holding this trade him . It just doesn’t make sense to me from a NY standpoint. They have to get this done. 
 

Reports are saying we weren’t  asking for 2 1s but did that change since McAfee? The Jets showed all their cards, but after that Aaron showed all his cards as well, and they continued to do so signing Lazard!

 

I am thinking the point of contention is now we’re asking a 2nd that can become a 1 if he plays in 2024. 
 

 

[coachbuns]

9 hours ago, packerstk7 said:

Sounds like a 3rd to me…

If it's just a 3rd round pick ... tell them to pound sand, hold onto Rodgers and somebody else will be calling down the road.  

[squire12]

7 hours ago, fistfullofbeer said:

It really depends on what the Packers management feels like is "fair" value. Some people are thinking/saying that a 3rd round pick is what we get. That is definitely not fair value.

I know we are talking about Rodgers but this is more to do with a team trying to get fair value out of a trade to help with their rebuild. Trading Rodgers and going with Love is a move for the future. It makes us worse right now and the Jets better. Much better. They need Rodgers more than really we need to move him. This is a pure business transaction at the end of the day.

Honestly, I am surprised its come to this. How the heck did the two teams decide on a trade if they were so far apart on the compensation. How could the deal advertised as "done" by some folks in the media if the teams never really agreed on a compensation package.

 

Teams may have had a rough deal in place.  Let's day 2023 2nd, 2024 1st, 2024/2023 3rd... but depending on Rodgers saying he would play 2 years.

Jets meet with Rodgers and he can't/ won't give them assurances he's playing 2 more years.  

Jets would want to reconsider the 2024 pick if it's only 1 year.

[Mazrimiv]

9 hours ago, squire12 said:

9 hours ago, HokieHigh said:

Didnt show up for optional team activities, negative attitude, blaming others. 

Fully agree.  Being vocal about the front office being " all in" while being MIA from OTA is poor leadership.  

Dammit.  I can't tell if the "optional" was deliberate.

[Scoremore]

2 hours ago, mikemike778 said:

 

From a franchise point of view, Packers need the trade more than Jets.  If the Jets don't get him it will be very embarassing. But from a franchise point of view, there is a way around it - you probably just have to start Zac who will be ultra motivated and assuming it doesn't work draft one next year. You probably lose a year but its not catastrophic.

If Packers don't get a trade done then its going to be pretty catestrophic. Not sure what they do - you can't obliterate the salary cap whilst having him as 3rd string or something. Surely they can't play him.  Don't think cutting is an option - there is no real option to a trade at this point. You might have to give him away for a conditional 7th  if it got to roster cut down day.

The whole thing is a bit daft on both sides. How did they not sort out a deal before hand. Its nuts.

 

 

What are you a Jets fan?  Packers actually lose cap space this year by trading him.  We don't need to trade Rodgers he can come back and compete with Love for the starting gig.  Hell maybe they use both of them throughout the season.  Jets role with Zac Wilson?  Did you see him play?   Rodgers 3rd string?  What are you smoking.  Yes we can play him Sure we'll just give him away for a conditional 7th because nobody want Rodgers.  This is so wrong on so many counts my god dude.  

Bottom line is the Packers do not have to trade Rodgers.  Jets can either pony up or pound sand.  They can suck with Wilson all next year or become instant contenders with Rodgers.  It's pretty simple.  Gute knows this and why he's in no hurry to just cave and give Rodgers away.  At this point I hope another team comes in and trades for Rodgers.  Jets shouldn't be jerking the Packers around.  It would serve them right.