What's Aaron Rodgers trade value?

[jetjuice]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Explain the differences? Adams approached Green Bay and said he wouldn't play on the tag and that the only franchise he wanted to play for was his childhood team, with his college roomie, the Raiders. I'm interested to hear how this is any different? In fact, if anything, we have more leverage in this situation. We had to move quickly with Davante as we couldn't afford to bring back pieces like Campbell, Douglas and Tonyan with the tag cost of Davante. Rodgers costs us 9+m MORE to trade to you then he does just being on our roster. 

You're doing insane mental gymnastics to make this fit your narrative, but I'll bite I guesssssss.

First, Adams was set to play on the franchise tag, Rodgers is not playing on the tag. Huge difference.

Second, Adams was only 29 at the time, Rodgers is a full 10 years older at 39 and flirts with retirement every offseason. You are clearly trading for a one year rental vs acquiring the top player at his position in his prime and giving him a top of the market extension immediately. 

Third, never did Adams say he would only play for the Raiders, he just said he preferred to not play in GB. And that was a rookie GM in Dave Ziegler on the other end of that trade, JD is a different animal as proven by his stellar trade history.

You guys have much less leverage in this situation than with Adams. 

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

So… you jobbed yourself out of an extra 1st. That’s what I’m hearing. 

Davante is a WR, not a QB. Did Tyreek go for 2 firsts? Did Hopkins? Did AJ?

What precedent was set that the Packers got jobbed and should've waited for 2 firsts ? 

[ramssuperbowl99]

To offer an olive branch to Packer fans, this trade is interesting to me because it's gotta be the most game theory-ish trade in recent NFL history.

The player and both teams involved want him gone, it's a rare legitimate win-win-win kind of thing, but at the same time, they all are looking at it as a zero sum game from value, so every single person involved thinks they'll win if the other side blinks first.

I hope eventually there is a behind the scenes leak of what went on.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, jetjuice said:

You're doing insane mental gymnastics to make this fit your narrative, but I'll bite I guesssssss.

First, Adams was set to play on the franchise tag, Rodgers is not playing on the tag. Huge difference.

Second, Adams was only 29 at the time, Rodgers is a full 10 years older at 39 and flirts with retirement every offseason. You are clearly trading for a one year rental vs acquiring the top player at his position in his prime and giving him a top of the market extension immediately. 

Third, never did Adams say he would only play for the Raiders, he just said he preferred to not play in GB. And that was a rookie GM in Dave Ziegler on the other end of that trade, JD is a different animal as proven by his stellar trade history.

You guys have much less leverage in this situation than with Adams. 

Point 1 and 3 are entirely wrong. You clearly are completely uninformed on the situation. Adams told GB he was never playing for us again and that he only wanted to play for the Raiders. Do some research. 

Point #2 has nothing to do with the original argument, which is, that the Jets are the only team negotiating with the Packers so therefore we have no leverage and have to accept whatever they offer. The Raiders and Packers were the only team negotiating for Adams, and we got fair market value for him. 

[ET80]

1 minute ago, Nick_gb said:

Every other QB on the market is meaningless when you're talking about Baker Mayfield, Jimmy G & Eat a W Winston. The only one of any real relevance in that supposed plethora of available quality QB's is Lamar Jackson and sure the Jets could offer him a contract that he may sign but even then, it's dependent on the Ravens unwillingness to match that contract and is no guarantee. 

I'm not saying you're wrong in the overvaluation of what some Packers fans are expecting for a return, in that aspect you are correct. I'm simply saying you're wrong in the sense that this make-believe plethora of QB's diminishes the need for Aaron Rodgers for the Jets. 

In a a vacuum, I really agree with you - but specific to the Jets, they just need QB play that’s better than Mike White, that’s not a high bar to reach. 

Jimmy G gets this team into the playoffs as quickly as Rodgers does, and Jimmy G has just as much a punchers’ chance against Burrow/Mahomes as playoff-Rodgers does.

[THE DUKE]

13 minutes ago, ET80 said:

For all intents and purposes, Joe Douglas is VERY good at his job; His only real knock so far is Zach Wilson at #2,

And this alone could possibly get him fired if their QB play is a dumpster fire again

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

Every other QB on the market is meaningless when you're talking about Baker Mayfield, Jimmy G & Eat a W Winston. The only one of any real relevance in that supposed plethora of available quality QB's is Lamar Jackson and sure the Jets could offer him a contract that he may sign but even then, it's dependent on the Ravens unwillingness to match that contract and is no guarantee. 

I'm not saying you're wrong in the overvaluation of what some Packers fans are expecting for a return, in that aspect you are correct. I'm simply saying you're wrong in the sense that this make-believe plethora of QB's diminishes the need for Aaron Rodgers for the Jets. 

The fact is, the Jets need/want Aaron and the Packers need/want to unload Aaron. They both equally need one another and because of that, I don't think you're going to see GB get a haul, but I also don't think you're going to see them get ripped off. You'll see a well-balanced and fair trade for both parties involved, and life will go on for both teams. 

I think what makes this trade so interesting is that the last statement may not end up being true because of the human psychology involved. Are the Packers willing to take a discount because they're just so goddamn sick of Rodgers BS? Are the Jets willing to pay a sticker price premium because their owner freaks out if it starts to unravel?

My guess is the Jets are better at sticking to their non-real options than the Packers, so the Packers take the hit on price.

[ET80]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Davante is a WR, not a QB. Did Tyreek go for 2 firsts? Did Hopkins? Did AJ?

Let’s not try to reference Hopkins in the discussion because that trade was executed by an idiot. 

At the time of each trade, Adams was significantly more accomplished than Hill and AJ, so it only stands that he’d draw more than those two - but he didn’t. In fact, Hill went for much more.

[jetjuice]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Point 1 and 3 are entirely wrong. You clearly are completely uninformed on the situation. Adams told GB he was never playing for us again and that he only wanted to play for the Raiders. Do some research. 

Point #2 has nothing to do with the original argument, which is, that the Jets are the only team negotiating with the Packers so therefore we have no leverage and have to accept whatever they offer. The Raiders and Packers were the only team negotiating for Adams, and we got fair market value for him. 

Point #1 is entirely wrong? Adams was tagged, Rodgers is under contract. Those are facts, but those clearly elude you.

Point #2 is to draw the comparison that a 39 year old in his last year of his career will NEVER cost as much as a 29 year old in their prime. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

Point #3 - please show me where Adams said he will only play for the Raiders. Burden of proof should fall on the accuser. Also there's no way to quantify this but JD again will not get fleeced.

[Nick_gb]

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

In a a vacuum, I really agree with you - but specific to the Jets, they just need QB play that’s better than Mike White, that’s not a high bar to reach. 

Jimmy G gets this team into the playoffs as quickly as Rodgers does, and Jimmy G has just as much a punchers’ chance against Burrow/Mahomes as playoff-Rodgers does.

Correct, but Jimmy G doesn't do for an owner's pocketbook what an Aaron Rodgers trade does and we have to remember a lot of this is being driven by the owner. End of the day the NFL is a business and an Aaron Rodgers trade does more for ticket sales and jersey sales than a Jimmy G signing does. It's almost a win win for Woody Johnson imho.

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

16 minutes ago, ET80 said:

For all intents and purposes, Joe Douglas is VERY good at his job; His only real knock so far is Zach Wilson at #2,

And this alone could possibly get him fired if their QB play is a dumpster fire again

This doesn’t suddenly change his philosophy on trades - it might change his philosophy n drafting players on potential vs results, but trades are a separate activity and Douglas has proven to be top notch.

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think what makes this trade so interesting is that the last statement may not end up being true because of the human psychology involved. Are the Packers willing to take a discount because they're just so goddamn sick of Rodgers BS? Are the Jets willing to pay a sticker price premium because their owner freaks out if it starts to unravel?

My guess is the Jets are better at sticking to their non-real options than the Packers, so the Packers take the hit on price.

Perhaps so. I'd also say Saleh and company are in desperation mode, so never underestimate a desperate team's willingness to do something undoubtedly stupid and bid against themselves when it comes to cash and draft picks. Not that I'd know first hand or anything.

[PackFan13]

4 minutes ago, ET80 said:

In a a vacuum, I really agree with you - but specific to the Jets, they just need QB play that’s better than Mike White, that’s not a high bar to reach. 

Jimmy G gets this team into the playoffs as quickly as Rodgers does, and Jimmy G has just as much a punchers’ chance against Burrow/Mahomes as playoff-Rodgers does.

Jimmy G's best years are on par with Rodgers worst years. Jimmy G doesn't have just as much of a punchers chance. We are a year removed from back to back MVPs while the guy had a broken thumb and no one to throw to. 

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

Let’s not try to reference Hopkins in the discussion because that trade was executed by an idiot. 

At the time of each trade, Adams was significantly more accomplished than Hill and AJ, so it only stands that he’d draw more than those two - but he didn’t. In fact, Hill went for much more.

Trade value chart they were pretty damn similar as pick 22's value vs pick 29 cancels out the value of the late round picks the Chiefs got.

I think if you asked the general consensus of NFL fans if Adams was traded for fair market value, you'd get a resounding yes. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, MWil23 said:

Perhaps so. I'd also say Saleh and company are in desperation mode, so never underestimate a desperate team's willingness to do something undoubtedly stupid and bid against themselves when it comes to cash and draft picks. Not that I'd know first hand or anything.

The Jets players are certainly doing them zero favors burning cheeseheads and celebrating like it's done already.