What's Aaron Rodgers trade value?

[Packerraymond]

24 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

I think the crazy part is the Favre situation there were other teams involved and the pick was still a conditional 4th that ended up being a 2nd. This time around it's quite literally just the Jets. Rodgers is better IMO but the situation really isn't too far off.

Why would Aaron Rodgers be worth 2 first round picks at age 40 when Favre got a conditional 4th?

You really don't understand negotiating do you? The Packers do not expect nor want 2 first round picks for Rodgers, but you never start negotiations out with what you'd take.

My guess is they value Rodgers at a 1st round pick if he plays 1 year, and a 1st and 2nd if he plays 2 years. Some of the trade will be conditional based on the him playing or not next year. They're going to push for mid 1st value, so if 13 is off the boards, they'll get creative with other picks and players.

We're not looking at two 1sts here, but if we ask for two 1sts, somehow getting 1 feels like conceding and giving more value to the other party you're negotiating with.

[NudeTayne]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You really don't understand negotiating do you? The Packers do not expect nor want 2 first round picks for Rodgers, but you never start negotiations out with what you'd take.

My guess is they value Rodgers at a 1st round pick if he plays 1 year, and a 1st and 2nd if he plays 2 years. Some of the trade will be conditional based on the him playing or not next year. They're going to push for mid 1st value, so if 13 is off the boards, they'll get creative with other picks and players.

We're not looking at two 1sts here, but if we ask for two 1sts, somehow getting 1 feels like conceding and giving more value to the other party you're negotiating with.

I think it ends up being a '23 2nd, swapping 13 for 15, Davis or Mims, a conditional next year and possibly one more player they don't see re-signing who is decent. As much as anything, it needs to look good on paper so the Packers can save face.

[Greene N White]

2 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Russ was coming off of an injury plagued, down season though.

Rodger is a year removed from back to back MVP seasons.

Stop it. That's just not true at all. If you look at the stats from Russ' last 3 years in Seattle vs Rodgers last 3 seasons in GB It's very comparable, especially their last year. This even includes Rodgers' 2 MVP Seasons

17 game averages:

Russ

4226 Passing Yards

38 TD

8 INT

29-17 Record Overall

 

Rodgers:

4201 Yards

41 TD

7 INT

34-15 record

 

If anything Rodgers is the one coming off a down season and also 7 years older. I know Russ sucked in Denver last year but that was not the narrative when the trade was made whatsoever.

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, Greene N White said:

Stop it. That's just not true at all. If you look at the stats from Russ' last 3 years in Seattle vs Rodgers last 3 seasons in GB It's very comparable, especially their last year. This even includes Rodgers' 2 MVP Seasons

17 game averages:

Russ

4226 Passing Yards

38 TD

8 INT

29-17 Record Overall

Rodgers:

4201 Yards

41 TD

7 INT

34-15 record

If anything Rodgers is the one coming off a down season and also 7 years older. I know Russ sucked in Denver last year but that was not the narrative when the trade was made whatsoever.

So the Seahawks received 3 potential starters and 2 FRPs for Russ and you think 1 FRP and a conditional pick in 2024 is too much for Rodgers? I get that Rodgers is older but this is a move you're making to win a Super Bowl within the next 1-2 seasons.

[Greene N White]

15 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Favre, in an age where no one played at 40, was coming off two seasons of backup level QB play, and one season of alright play.

Rodgers, in an age where there are guys playing at 40+, is coming off two back to back MVP seasons, and one season of alright play. 

It’s different. There doesn’t just “have” to be a comparison, there could be none. And there aren’t any, not really. 

Why do you keep saying people are playing 40+? It was pretty much just Brady and he's an anomaly. Brees was the only other guy and he was done at 41. 

[Greene N White]

2 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

So the Seahawks received 3 potential starters and 2 FRPs for Russ and you think 1 FRP and a conditional pick in 2024 is too much for Rodgers? I get that Rodgers is older but this is a move you're making to win a Super Bowl within the next 1-2 seasons.

If this was 2016 and Rodgers was 33 I would've traded all of that for him as well but he's not.

[NYRaider]

13 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

If this was 2016 and Rodgers was 33 I would've traded all of that for him as well but he's not.

You have a chance to acquire an MVP level QB that could put you over the top at $15M this year and $34M next year. I'm not a huge proponent of trading away FRPs but I would in your situation after hitting on 3 picks last year.

[StatKing]

23 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

Why do you keep saying people are playing 40+? It was pretty much just Brady and he's an anomaly. Brees was the only other guy and he was done at 41. 

Brees also had shoulder surgery and wasn't nearly as physically gifted as Rodgers. Questioning his durability at 40 is fair, but Drew Brees simply couldn't throw the ball with velocity his last year, that isn't an issue for Rodgers.

Edited March 15, 2023 by StatKing

[Packerraymond]

31 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

If this was 2016 and Rodgers was 33 I would've traded all of that for him as well but he's not.

If Rodgers was 33 you'd be looking at probably 3-4 first round picks and 2 starters. 

[Mr Bad Example]

4 hours ago, Art_Vandalay said:

 Aaron is next level annoying. He’s so damn whiny and passive aggressive.

He has learned our Upper Midwestern ways. 

[Soko]

51 minutes ago, Greene N White said:

Why do you keep saying people are playing 40+? It was pretty much just Brady and he's an anomaly. Brees was the only other guy and he was done at 41. 

Tom Brady played into his mid-40s. Drew Brees played past 40. Brett Favre played past 40. Big Ben played to 39. Phillip Rivers played to 39. Peyton Manning played until 39.

Before Favre went to the Jets, hardly anyone was doing this with any sort of success. In the last decade or so, most of the really good ones have or come really close. Guys used to retire at 35ish (still do sometimes). Favre was coming off horrible seasons and then had a swan song kind of season in 2007 (until NY ruined all the fun in 2007…and I mean ALL the fun), there was no telling what he’d be like in NY. With Rodgers there’s a completely different expectation. 

[seminoles1]

19 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Tom Brady played into his mid-40s. Drew Brees played past 40. Brett Favre played past 40. Big Ben played to 39. Phillip Rivers played to 39. Peyton Manning played until 39.

How many were actually good at those ages though?

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, NYRaider said:

So the Seahawks received 3 potential starters and 2 FRPs for Russ and you think 1 FRP and a conditional pick in 2024 is too much for Rodgers? I get that Rodgers is older but this is a move you're making to win a Super Bowl within the next 1-2 seasons.

Maybe they think Rodgers isn't good anymore.

As a Jets fan, it's cognitive dissonance to simultaneously believe:

1) Rodgers is good enough to win you a SB

2) Rodgers is cheap to acquire

 

Choose 1, folks (not you, NYRaider, everyone). The people actually making the decisions pick a viewpoint. Either you think he's not good enough to win a SB with on your team and thus not worth premium picks. Or you do think he's good enough to and then he's worth premium picks.

[Broncofan]

3 things I'd stake a good chunk of my bankroll on:

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. 

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.

3.  There is more pressure on NYJ to get the deal done, now that A-Rod has made it clear he's OK with going there.   But it only goes so far, too.   If GB is seen as unreasonable, then there is a point in which the NYJ FO said "hey, we're trying, but price X is just a bridge too far".    For example, that talk of 2 1sts - crazy when you have no idea on how long A-Rod is going to play for. 

Now, a couple of X-factors:

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

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.

To me, I'd guess it's either 1.13 & some type of pick swap later on for 2023/4, or it's 2024 1st + conditional pick.   Just my guess.  

Edited March 15, 2023 by Broncofan

[NYRaider]

9 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

To me, I'd guess it's either 1.13 & some type of pick swap later on for 2023/4, or it's 2014 1st + conditional pick.   Just my guess.  

Elijah Moore and a conditional pick next year seems like a fair middle ground.