Jump to content

What's Aaron Rodgers trade value?


49ersfan

Recommended Posts

Still pretty confident Aaron is picking up the pieces after being caught off guard by the tepid demand for his services (at the asking price).

I'm beyond confident GB shopped him around at a given return and the only team that showed interest at that known cost was the Jets. They undoubtedly knew the baseline cost prior to meeting with him. They got out in front of their skis, and they appear to have completely miscalculated at the ability to negotiate the price they knew ahead of time. 

The media circus is totally their fault, but it benefits GBs front office (and knew it would) so they eagerly agreed to it. 

And now they sit back and wait for the Jets to cave because time is on their side. 

How sure is Woody no other teams decide they could actually use an Aaron Rodgers in 2023? He probably shat himself a little at the Jimmy G delay...

Edited by incognito_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

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.

Aaron's clear #1 choice is SF, but that's so far from an option it doesn't warrant his discussion. 

But yeah, the Jets fit logically all off-season as wanting him, but never once felt like it was a place he'd choose of his own accord. 

I think it's a place he can (and did) convince himself of (maybe during his cave trip?) however. The team certainly has some pieces in place. But I think Aaron would have loved to stay in the NFC of possible. AFC is a gauntlet. I'm surprised he would have been interested in Las Vegas. Felt the Davante connection wasn't enough to lure him to that mess, but he apparently wanted to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dr LBC said:

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.

If he wants to go to the Jets he's going to the Jets.

No team will accept a trade for a guy that's threatening to retire even if it is a bluff.

Him being cheaper to keep than trade is also ridiculous for the circus it would cause and the fact that you'd be getting 0 compensation in the form of players just to save money in most likely a rebuilding year.

It would also be a horrible PR move for the packers to sue him regardless of if they're in the right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

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.

My stance has been pretty simple.  I don't think #13 is an unreasonable ask.  Is it an overpayment by the Jets?  Probably, but it's not often that the team acquiring the QB (aged or not) in a trade doesn't overpay somewhat, and teams in "win now" mode often use that as their justification for reasonable overpaying.

A closer to, perhaps, equitable/fair deal would be a 2nd this year and, as I mentioned before, a conditional 2nd that can turn into a 1st in next year's draft.  The problem because in what criteria you use to benchmark the conditions, because you can't simply tie it to the Jets "exercising Rodgers' 2024 option," because of the option schedule that Aaron and the Packers already agreed on in the contract that would be being traded and that deadline being well past when the 2024 draft would take place.  So it would almost have to be a performance-based condition (which a "win now" team shouldn't be opposed to), but that's why neither side gets to have their cake and eat it, too; no matter how much leverage one thinks they may have.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

An instant starter?  You mean like an instant starting QB who is, regardless of age or diminished production last season compared to the two seasons prior, still visibly better in virtually every comparable metric to any starting QB you currently have on your roster?  That kind of instant starter?

Aaron Rodgers at QB moves the needle for the Jets more in the "win next season" column than ANY rookie "instant starter" they could get at #13... period.  I don't particularly like the guy personally, but I'm not going to delude myself about what he brings to the table.  And if the Jets truly are in win-now mode then getting him into the fold sooner than later (even if that means paying slightly over odds) is the way that game works.

If Rodgers is moved, I'm pretty damn confident a FRP is changing hands... even if it's a conditional 1st (i.e. a 2nd this year and a conditional 2024 2nd that becomes a 1st if Rodgers is on the roster by the start of that league year).

And honestly, people are putting a bit too much credence in Rodgers saying he "was genuinely thinking about retirement."  Sure, he was.  That totally wasn't another attention-seeking move by him like we seeming get every offseason this decade, because he's disappointed that he got dumped from/out of the playoffs, or that the Packers opted for the same path with him that they did with Favre - but he thought he was special.  If/when he team is winning, suddenly he's quiet as a clam... until one of his peers starts getting more attention.  Dude's a diva that Ochocinco wishes he could have been.

Or the Jets can have both Rodgers and the 13th overall pick? How about that one? Cause that is what will happen.

 

The 13th overall is not going to the Packers, unless they flip 13 and 15 around as part of the trade.

 

Joe Douglas puts value on draft picks, specifically round 1 picks because they offer a 5th year option.  We have several spots we need to address still on this team outside of QB.

OL, DT, LB, and safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

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.

This guy.

This guy understands the business dynamics involved here. 

And ultimately, these are businessmen making business decisions. The football is a variable in the decision, but it's not everything. Aaron will make $x if he sucks in NY and $x + $y if he succeeds. Woody wants to make sure that what he gives up in return (z) is likely enough to earn less than $x. Z increases with every reassurance he gets about Aaron extending his career (and thus, $y).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

My stance has been pretty simple.  I don't think #13 is an unreasonable ask.  Is it an overpayment by the Jets?  Probably, but it's not often that the team acquiring the QB (aged or not) in a trade doesn't overpay somewhat, and teams in "win now" mode often use that as their justification for reasonable overpaying.

A closer to, perhaps, equitable/fair deal would be a 2nd this year and, as I mentioned before, a conditional 2nd that can turn into a 1st in next year's draft.  The problem because in what criteria you use to benchmark the conditions, because you can't simply tie it to the Jets "exercising Rodgers' 2024 option," because of the option schedule that Aaron and the Packers already agreed on in the contract that would be being traded and that deadline being well past when the 2024 draft would take place.  So it would almost have to be a performance-based condition (which a "win now" team shouldn't be opposed to), but that's why neither side gets to have their cake and eat it, too; no matter how much leverage one thinks they may have.

I think our assessment of the value side of this is pretty similar, and would absolutely take a more hard line stance that the Packers get his value and nothing else based on the circumstances.

Part of this is made more difficult by the fact that the teams are picking nearly next to each other in the draft. A first round pick swap of 8 or so spots, plus a 2nd rounder fits this really well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Greene N White said:

If he wants to go to the Jets he's going to the Jets.

No team will accept a trade for a guy that's threatening to retire even if it is a bluff.

Him being cheaper to keep than trade is also ridiculous for the circus it would cause and the fact that you'd be getting 0 compensation in the form of players just to save money in most likely a rebuilding year.

It would also be a horrible PR move for the packers to sue him regardless of if they're in the right or wrong.

You realize that you're just making it clear that all you're interested in is confirmation bias and not actual discussion, right?

The hyperbole (it's FF, it's become pretty standard here, but that doesn't make it correct) with all these absolute statements doesn't help your argument the way you seem to think it does either.

Him being cheaper to keep than trade is not ridiculous, it's simple math.  That you're not willing to look at the numbers because they pose a threat to your position exactly how you want it doesn't change hard numbers or accounting.

Also, it wouldn't be the "horrible" PR move you want to think it would be.  The only PR the Packers (who have a ton of casual fans and a wide fanbase to begin with) honestly care about is the PR of their own fans.  Going after a guy who preached that the organization wouldn't be showing loyalty to the fans if they didn't show loyalty to him by giving him what he wanted... and then that guy turned around and showed he had no loyalty himself, that's not the kind of thing that goes drawing a ton of backlash.  Especially when there's a pretty sizable chunk of Packers fans at this point that are just ready to move on from Aaron and all his drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

My stance has been pretty simple.  I don't think #13 is an unreasonable ask.  Is it an overpayment by the Jets?  Probably, but it's not often that the team acquiring the QB (aged or not) in a trade doesn't overpay somewhat, and teams in "win now" mode often use that as their justification for reasonable overpaying.

A closer to, perhaps, equitable/fair deal would be a 2nd this year and, as I mentioned before, a conditional 2nd that can turn into a 1st in next year's draft.  The problem because in what criteria you use to benchmark the conditions, because you can't simply tie it to the Jets "exercising Rodgers' 2024 option," because of the option schedule that Aaron and the Packers already agreed on in the contract that would be being traded and that deadline being well past when the 2024 draft would take place.  So it would almost have to be a performance-based condition (which a "win now" team shouldn't be opposed to), but that's why neither side gets to have their cake and eat it, too; no matter how much leverage one thinks they may have.

I suspect this exactly is the big hang-up:

Jets want contractual assurance Aaron is there in 2024

GB wants extra picks for that (and therefore also want that)

Aaron wants his freedom to choose (which he tried to insert into his last contract)

So I think the REAL standoff is the Jets getting Aaron to rework a new deal. Aaron is pissy because he wants to play, he doesn't mind playing in NY for a year, but he'd love to have his choice ASAP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NYJets4716 said:

Or the Jets can have both Rodgers and the 13th overall pick? How about that one? Cause that is what will happen.

 

The 13th overall is not going to the Packers, unless they flip 13 and 15 around as part of the trade.

 

Joe Douglas puts value on draft picks, specifically round 1 picks because they offer a 5th year option.  We have several spots we need to address still on this team outside of QB.

OL, DT, LB, and safety. 

Go ahead and give me the next Powerball numbers to hit while you're predicting the future with such certainty from your crystal ball, there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

Go ahead and give me the next Powerball numbers to hit while you're predicting the future with such certainty from your crystal ball, there.

I am very confident we will not give up the 13th overall, only way a first is included is if its conditional based on factors like the Jets make the SB with Rodgers. 

Not a single team in the NFL would give up a 1st for a 39 year old QB who might retire after this season. 

And the Jets are not the Rams who do not value draft picks, Joe Douglas highly values first round picks for their 5th year options. 

Edited by NYJets4716
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr LBC said:

You realize that you're just making it clear that all you're interested in is confirmation bias and not actual discussion, right?

The hyperbole (it's FF, it's become pretty standard here, but that doesn't make it correct) with all these absolute statements doesn't help your argument the way you seem to think it does either.

Him being cheaper to keep than trade is not ridiculous, it's simple math.  That you're not willing to look at the numbers because they pose a threat to your position exactly how you want it doesn't change hard numbers or accounting.

Also, it wouldn't be the "horrible" PR move you want to think it would be.  The only PR the Packers (who have a ton of casual fans and a wide fanbase to begin with) honestly care about is the PR of their own fans.  Going after a guy who preached that the organization wouldn't be showing loyalty to the fans if they didn't show loyalty to him by giving him what he wanted... and then that guy turned around and showed he had no loyalty himself, that's not the kind of thing that goes drawing a ton of backlash.  Especially when there's a pretty sizable chunk of Packers fans at this point that are just ready to move on from Aaron and all his drama.

Isn't the bolded exactly what you're doing?

And yeah it's simple math in the literal sense. But valuing cap space in a rebuilding year higher than multiple day 2 draft picks is pretty ignorant.

And them suing Aaron Rodgers is not about the fans. It's about potential players in the future not wanting to play there because they're suing a guy who gave 20 years of blood, sweat, and tears to the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

Isn't the bolded exactly what you're doing?

And yeah it's simple math in the literal sense. But valuing cap space in a rebuilding year higher than multiple day 2 draft picks is pretty ignorant.

And them suing Aaron Rodgers is not about the fans. It's about potential players in the future not wanting to play there because they're suing a guy who gave 20 years of blood, sweat, and tears to the organization.

Packer fans don't relate to Aaron. They would enthusiastically cheer on the GB organization suing him if he pulled the hypothetical.

My own grandma, sweetest lady you'd ever meet, **** talks him now (and has always liked Favre). GB fans are over Aaron. People in rural WI don't exactly identify with a guy suntanning his butthole, doing ayahuasca and going on a darkness retreat rather than putting in practice time with his teammates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Packer fans don't relate to Aaron. They would enthusiastically cheer on the GB organization suing him if he pulled the hypothetical.

My own grandma, sweetest lady you'd ever meet, **** talks him now (and has always liked Favre). GB fans are over Aaron. People in rural WI don't exactly identify with a guy suntanning his butthole, doing ayahuasca and going on a darkness retreat rather than putting in practice time with his teammates.

That's exactly why I said it has nothing to do with the fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NYJets4716 said:

I am very confident we will not give up the 13th overall, only way a first is included is if its conditional based on factors like the Jets make the SB with Rodgers. 

Not a single team in the NFL would give up a 1st for a 39 year old QB who might retire after this season. 

And the Jets are not the Rams who do not value draft picks, Joe Douglas highly values first round picks for their 5th year options. 

Ironically, a 38 year old 1st ballot HOF QB discussing retirement is worth multiple 1sts + assets but a 39 year old 1st ballot HOF QB discussing retirement isn't even worth a 1st or a 2nd (according to a post you made earlier). 

It's interesting how the value of someone's QB changes when you're the team paying for their services vs the fan base receiving the payment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...