What's Aaron Rodgers trade value?

[NJerseypaint]

7 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Which isn't significantly more than what I said he should probably be valued at, a FRP and a conditional 2024 pick.

That's also fine by me.

Is anyone we choose at #13 going to impact this team more than AR? No, not at all. Just give it to them and get the deal done already.

[NYRaider]

4 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

That's also fine by me.

Is anyone we choose at #13 going to impact this team more than AR? No, not at all. Just give it to them and get the deal done already.

It also helps when you just had 3 FRP's the year before. I even think #13 straight up is probably fair value for Rodgers.

[Dr LBC]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I agree with a lot of what you said.

Reading between the lines, the two sides have been arguing in the media about whether it was a Matthew Stafford type trade, a "reasonable" trade, or wording that GB was asking "too much" and that it was "multiple firsts"

So my guess is GB is asking for 2023 1.13, a conditional 2024 pick for Aaron just being rostered prior to the draft (a first if he is, a third or less or nothing if he isn't), and a young, but fringe, player.

That package is defensible from each perspective we've heard reported. It COULD be multiple firsts, it's similar to Stafford's, and it's not unreasonable because it's much less than two firsts if he only plays one year.

*Edit - and the open issues:

-reworking Aaron's contract to fit the conditional picks in the trade that works for everyone (i.e. Jets force him to decide on 2024 prior to day they'd have to give GB a 1st if he's on the roster)

-if the 2024 pick should be a 3rd, 4th, etc etc. or nothing more if he's not rostered in 2024

-the player

Is the Stafford trade even a reasonable comp though?  A fair portion of that future FRP that we paid for him was because Detroit was wiling to take on the hit of the contract we'd given to Goff.  There's no such case in this scenario; the Packers are being asked to eat the cap-hit of Rodgers' compounding signing bonus prorations and the Jets are just getting the player - on a relatively reasonable contract (particularly given the ?'s that have already been raised as to how much longer Aaron goes until seriously opting for retirement).  The Jets really aren't bearing a whole lot of risk here, so natural compensation would dictate appropriate concession.

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

Is the Stafford trade even a reasonable comp though?

I know you quoted me but thought your question was an open one to anybody. I don't have an opinion on the comparability of Stafford's value to this one (the situations are not similar at all so it's hard for me to compare them). I only mentioned it because it's been reported (by one side or other) that they compared it to that return.

 

 

 

 

[Tperk]

How much would the trade value increase for Rodgers if he guarantees the Jets 2 years of play?

[NudeTayne]

43 minutes ago, Tperk said:

How much would the trade value increase for Rodgers if he guarantees the Jets 2 years of play?

Not much. Any less than that and it's kind of a nothingburger trade. I'd say three years is when it would get interesting. But he can't guarantee that either way, so it's kind of a moot point.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, NudeTayne said:

Not much. Any less than that and it's kind of a nothingburger trade. I'd say three years is when it would get interesting. But he can't guarantee that either way, so it's kind of a moot point.

Why is the barrier between 2 and 3 years a substantially different scenario?

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, Broncofan said:

1.  No one has any idea if A-Rod plays beyond this year.    That alone makes the idea of conditional picks added to a main pick as a no-brainer.   And the idea of 2 1sts as beyond crazy.   It's not a physical question - A-Rod himself said he was 90 percent ready to retire when he went into darkness (lol).     When that happens, counting on multiple years is just insane. 

That's probably fairly accurate.  But the problem is that conditional picks for future years seems impossible since you won't convey a pick until the season happens, so a '24 conditional pick that is based on the '24 season isn't feasible.  I'm not sure anyone realistically expects the Packers to get 2 unconditional FRPs for Rodgers.  Now, if the certain conditions were met, then I could see the Packers getting 2 FRPs but even that seems in the more optimistic scenario.

7 hours ago, Broncofan said:

2.  The QB market pretty much is dry - so waiting this long, I'd be pretty comfortable saying a 1st is going to GB.  The question is which 1st - 2024 1st (more likely to be later position-wise, and obv have to wait) or the 1.13.

This is where Green Bay's leverage comes from.  There's no fallback option for the Jets at this point.  Right now, the QB market consists of Carson Wentz, Marcus Mariota, and a bunch of mediocre options.  The Jets simply can't walk away without Aaron Rodgers.   But the problem is there's a SUBSTANTIALLY difference in value between the 13th pick this year and the Jets' FRP next year.   Even before you get to the fact that you don't get to pick for more than a calendar year from now, the Jets are likely going to make the playoffs which means they're picking 19th at the very earliest.  The 13th pick is more valuable than the 19th pick point blank, so you have to add value for that fact.

 

7 hours ago, Broncofan said:

1.  How much $ GB is absorbing for NYJ for A-Rod's salary - that influences the pick return in a massive way.

Packers are pretty much already pushed up against the cap as it is, and trading Rodgers actually makes it worse unless it's a post-June 1st trade.  Right now, the Packers are somewhere between $19.9M (OTC) and $20.7M (Spotrac) in cap space.  Trading Aaron Rodgers before June 1st eats an additional $8.7M in cap space plus the projected $3.9M for their rookie class drops their "effective" cap space down to somewhere between $7.3M and $8.1M.  Figure in ~$5M for in cap maneuvers, and they're pretty much maxed out there.  And it's not like the Packers have a much flexibility to create more cap space.  The only notable spots they can create more cap space is an extension with Rashan Gary (probably not likely until he gets back from his torn ACL), restructuring Rasul Douglas ($2.2M created), or trading Darnell Savage ($7.9M created).

7 hours ago, Broncofan said:

2. Does GB want to spend $ on specific FA player targets?   I say GB because I don't think NYJ have a lot of FA needs, but if the Jets do have a key target, it works both ways.   GB has 20M in space, but a trade will drop that by 8M, and obv any $ they assume will influence the final $ too.    They can do restructures to create more space, but it's fair to say if GB feels they have to get a certain FA, that will influence them to resolve this.   Now, if there's a guy NYJ wants (besides A-Rod) that could sign elsewhere without resolution, the knife cuts both ways.   Point being, this may force a final decision on the return as well.

As I mentioned earlier, the Packers are pretty much pressed against the cap as it is.  So they're probably not in the FA market outside of minimum signings.

[NYRaider]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

This is where Green Bay's leverage comes from.  There's no fallback option for the Jets at this point. 

Joe Douglas job is almost 100% dependent on landing Rodgers, if they miss he's probably going to be on his way out. Those picks or developing guys shouldn't mean as much to him.

[CWood21]

13 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Joe Douglas job is almost 100% dependent on landing Rodgers, if they miss he's probably going to be on his way out. Those picks or developing guys shouldn't mean as much to him.

And unfortunately, the lack of an actual owner for Green Bay hurts the Jets in that regard.

[NYJets4716]

 

18 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Joe Douglas job is almost 100% dependent on landing Rodgers, if they miss he's probably going to be on his way out. Those picks or developing guys shouldn't mean as much to him.

Joe Douglas has not shown as a GM that he is reckless or crazy when it comes to trading. He usually comes out on top. 

The Packers are not realistically going to hold Aaron Rodgers hostage over unrealistic expectations of compensation, they already told him they want to move on and he wants to move on. If the Packers really cared about compensation so much, they wouldn't have wanted to move on from Rodgers in the first place. This would be bad business practice. 

[NYRaider]

13 minutes ago, NYJets4716 said:

Joe Douglas has not shown as a GM that he is reckless or crazy when it comes to trading. He usually comes out on top. 

The Packers are not realistically going to hold Aaron Rodgers hostage over unrealistic expectations of compensation, they already told him they want to move on and he wants to move on. If the Packers really cared about compensation so much, they wouldn't have wanted to move on from Rodgers in the first place. This would be bad business practice. 

Passing on Carr / Jimmy G to publicly go all in to land Aaron Rodgers was reckless. Especially since Rodgers hadn't even committed to playing yet and they alienated Zach Wilson in the process.

[N4L]

I think it's weird that the Packers and jets didn't sort out compensation before the jets sat down with Rodgers. 

The teams should have agreed on a trade, then Rodgers signs off, and the deal happens. 

Doing it this way was foolish by Rodgers team and the jets. It definitely gave the Packers more leverage than they would have otherwise had. 

With that being said, the jets definitely should hold firm on whatever they have offered. Once the draft passes, the compensation the Packers will receive diminishes. There are no other suitors. The deal will happen. Rodgers knows the offense and can easily get together with their WRs and TEs whenever he wants. 

So, it's a game of chicken to a degree, but both teams should be motivated to do this deal before the draft. 

[NudeTayne]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Why is the barrier between 2 and 3 years a substantially different scenario?

It going from a short-term rental to actually trading for a player who is going to be a part of the team for the proverbial long haul seems between 2-3 years. Getting 1-2 years of an end-of-career quarterback being paid top dollar doesn't seem worth much in compensation, but getting a player, especially at quarterback for at least three seasons is more of a real get for the receiving team.

It's only a year, but that's a lot in this case IMO. I don't think Green Bay will get as much as they could if Aaron didn't keep acting like he was gonna retire. If he was still acting like he plans to play until 45, it makes it look like not only is he more than a rental but the new team might even be able to trade him later on for some compensation; however, Aaron has played it as the former. I doubt the Packers get anything resembling a haul unless the Jets are just that desperate.

 

[NYRaider]

28 minutes ago, N4L said:

I think it's weird that the Packers and jets didn't sort out compensation before the jets sat down with Rodgers. 

The teams should have agreed on a trade, then Rodgers signs off, and the deal happens. 

Doing it this way was foolish by Rodgers team and the jets. It definitely gave the Packers more leverage than they would have otherwise had. 

With that being said, the jets definitely should hold firm on whatever they have offered. Once the draft passes, the compensation the Packers will receive diminishes. There are no other suitors. The deal will happen. Rodgers knows the offense and can easily get together with their WRs and TEs whenever he wants. 

So, it's a game of chicken to a degree, but both teams should be motivated to do this deal before the draft. 

Isn't there a scenario where Rodgers potentially just retires though if they can't get a deal done?