What's Aaron Rodgers trade value?

[Greene N White]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

If GB opened it up Indy would make a lot of sense. Kyle Shanahan would pick up the phone so fast, same with River Boat Ron. Matt LaFleur's old buddy in Arthur Smith too potentially. 

Hell if the price is a 2nd round pick, Pittsburgh should toss 32 in the ring and go for a ring next year while Pickett gets to learn behind Rodgers.

I guarantee more teams would toss their hat in the ring.

San Fran doesn't even have close to the picks you're asking for so they're out most likely.

The only real possibilities are Washington, Tennessee, New England (Which is even a stretch), and the Jets. 

However this is provided that Rodgers would even want to play for the other teams. He could literally just say he's retiring if you trade him there and the deal is axed.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

No, it's a buyer's monopoly because the asset you're trying to get rid of won't play ball unless he goes to one specific buyer

This is just wildly incorrect.

Aaron explicitly said he preferred a different team in his interview last week.

Why are you confident Aaron would only play for the Jets?

You've now stated two reasons that heavily influence your position they are just demonstrably false.

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

Someone's not hiding his Family Guy love.

I've actually never watched it ha

[Nick_gb]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Aaron would go anywhere that makes him feel like the most important person in the room.

True, I mean if playing for the heir to Johnson & Johnson after his "immunized" vs "vaccinated" **** isn't proof of that enough for you, then I don't know what to tell ya'll. He WANTS to be a Jet because the Jets have publicly stated their admiration for Aaron through the media and their brass traveling to him. 

If Las Vegas / Indy / TN  or any other team would have went to the lengths that NYJ did publicly then I'd bet money we're not hearing the same interview we heard last week with Pat. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

Aaron explicitly said he preferred a different team in his interview last week.

Are you talking about the Pat McAffe show? Where he said "my intention is to play for the New York Jets?"

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Does anyone even know what the hell value the Packers are expecting at this point or what value the Jets have pegged this as

We can be pretty confident of the following from the GB side:

One 1st < our ask < Two 1sts

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Does anyone even know what the hell value the Packers are expecting at this point or what value the Jets have pegged this as

We can be pretty confident of the following from the GB side:

One 1st < our ask < Two 1sts

[incognito_man]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Are you talking about the Pat McAffe show? Where he said "my intention is to play for the New York Jets?"

Yes. He explicitly said he wanted to play with [Davante].

He INTENDS to play for the Jets because that's the only option. There's no other reason.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Yes. He explicitly said he wanted to play with [Davante].

He INTENDS to play for the Jets because that's the only option. There's no other reason.

Do you have the actual quote?

Because he waxed poetic throughout most of it, so I'd expect that to be in the context of "it was so wonderful how things used to be".

[Dr LBC]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

No, it's a buyer's monopoly because the asset you're trying to get rid of won't play ball unless he goes to one specific buyer.

If the house said it would set itself on fire unless it was sold for $400k, you're selling it for $400k.

And this ignore the simply fact that, for the Packers, it's presently cheaper to not trade Rodgers than to trade him.  OK, so he doesn't play because "he doesn't get to go to his one preferred destination."  He can retire, they save any new money that they would otherwise be scheduled to have to pay him, they remain on the accounting schedule they already budgeted for to handle the signing bonus they already paid him, and they have more wiggle room to either add pieces to build around Love or to reinvest in other vets currently on the roster to either free up future cap room or prepare for the event they need to potentially sign Love to an extension or make moves to replace him in the event he proves a non-option.

But if they don't get what they feel is adequate compensation to incur that additional financial burden of accelerating and compounding the prorated cap-hits of Rodgers' signing bonus, how does that lead anyone to logically think they'd do it, just to get whatever pittance they can?

If it's truly a case of mutual-lack-of-loyalty between Rodgers and the Packers then call his bluff, he signed the damn contract, let him deal with the consequences.  Go ahead, Aaron, retire.  It'll save Green Bay money.

[squire12]

11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

No, it's a buyer's monopoly because the asset you're trying to get rid of won't play ball unless he goes to one specific buyer.

If the house said it would set itself on fire unless it was sold for Jimmy down the street for $400k, you're selling it to Jimmy down the street for $400k.

when did Rodgers state he would only play for NYJ?

[incognito_man]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Do you have the actual quote?

Because he waxed poetic throughout most of it, so I'd expect that to be in the context of "it was so wonderful how things used to be".

"There were other teams that were interested, and obviously there were certain players that I have a lot of love and infinity for, and reuniting with especially one specific person would’ve been appreciated"

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

And this ignore the simply fact that, for the Packers, it's presently cheaper to not trade Rodgers than to trade him.  OK, so he doesn't play because "he doesn't get to go to his one preferred destination."  He can retire, they save any new money that they would otherwise be scheduled to have to pay him, they remain on the accounting schedule they already budgeted for to handle the signing bonus they already paid him, and they have more wiggle room to either add pieces to build around Love or to reinvest in other vets currently on the roster to either free up future cap room or prepare for the event they need to potentially sign Love to an extension or make moves to replace him in the event he proves a non-option.

But if they don't get what they feel is adequate compensation to incur that additional financial burden of accelerating and compounding the prorated cap-hits of Rodgers' signing bonus, how does that lead anyone to logically think they'd do it, just to get whatever pittance they can?

If it's truly a case of mutual-lack-of-loyalty between Rodgers and the Packers then call his bluff, he signed the damn contract, let him deal with the consequences.  Go ahead, Aaron, retire.  It'll save Green Bay money.

Agreed - I haven't argued the Jets should offer the 255th pick in the draft for him or something like that. They need to eclipse the $10MM absolute value mark to account for the cap difference.

You didn't ask, but I think the trade should be centered around a 2nd rounder.

Edited March 20, 2023 by ramssuperbowl99

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

"There were other teams that were interested, and obviously there were certain players that I have a lot of love and infinity for, and reuniting with especially one specific person would’ve been appreciated"

What an infuriatingly passive-aggressive quote.

If Rodgers is willing to play for someone else and the Jets believe it, that would change the dynamics. Stupid quote by Rodgers to give, even if it is would've and it's all over, that gives the impression of other buyers.

[Dr LBC]

9 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

He could literally just say he's retiring if you trade him there and the deal is axed.

And...

The Packers were already prepared for that and are prepared to move on with Love as their starter.  Try to grasp that Rodgers retiring is actually cheaper for the Packers than trading him.  If he wants to actually play at all, he'll have to make some sort of concession - this isn't the case of "Aaron gets to just dictate everything he wants and everyone else is obliged to acquiesce to his demands because he's Aaron Rodgers."  Even if he does do the extremely unlikely scenario of just turning around an retiring, he's looking at getting sued by the Packers to get at least a portion of the signing bonus back for the contract that he held out for that he would then be reneging on barely a year later.