Aaron Rodgers

Jeremy

CF Founder
Staff member
Bookie
Feb 28, 2006
16,142
7,813
10,030
Waukee, IA
All signs seem to be pointing to (and those in the know are telling us) he’ll end up in Denver. It’s going to be interesting to see what GB demands and how much leverage they really have.

They don’t HAVE to trade AR, but if they truly believe he’ll sit out or truly believe in Love (which I don’t think they do), there are realistically only 2-3 teams with the potential capital to make a trade happen. The only advantage to waiting is the clock counting down to July 2nd when his financial hit decreases, otherwise I’m guessing they already know the end-game.
 

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
Mar 27, 2006
35,234
15,579
113
If they thought he was a bust, they would have agreed to trade him by now.
I don't know about that. There are some powerful people in that organization who will have a lot of egg on their faces if Love turns out to be a bust, possibly to the point of losing their jobs. Throwing in the towel and trading Love would not be a great move right now.
 

Jeremy

CF Founder
Staff member
Bookie
Feb 28, 2006
16,142
7,813
10,030
Waukee, IA
If they thought he was a bust, they would have agreed to trade him by now.
Obviously none of us know, but I would think the market would be fairly light for Love compared to most year. We just had a huge QB draft and there are a lot of young guys at most potential landing spots. I think GB would look pretty ridiculous taking a QB the year their guy is the MVP to only give up on the new guy in 12 months without ever taking the field.

I don’t think anybody questioned if Love had/has raw potential with a potential high ceiling, but I’m not sure many people thought he was worth first round picks based on the very limited set of data he had going into last year’s draft. With no more data to go off of at this point, I just don’t see many suitors offering enough to throw him away just yet.
 

wheels686

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,369
227
63
Grinnell, IA
All signs seem to be pointing to (and those in the know are telling us) he’ll end up in Denver. It’s going to be interesting to see what GB demands and how much leverage they really have.

They don’t HAVE to trade AR, but if they truly believe he’ll sit out or truly believe in Love (which I don’t think they do), there are realistically only 2-3 teams with the potential capital to make a trade happen. The only advantage to waiting is the clock counting down to July 2nd when his financial hit decreases, otherwise I’m guessing they already know the end-game.
I see about 1% chance he sits out this year. He would have to pay back $29 million of signing bonus. His buddy AJ Hawk who he was at the Kentucky Derby with this weekend said 0% chance Rodgers sits out.

I’d still wager heavily on him returning to the Packers. Rodgers needs to stop being sensitive and just play. He’s got 3 years on his deal. Packers have no incentive to trade him. Denver doesn’t have enough to trade for him. Even if they did, the assets it would take would deplete the Broncos roster and make it a lot less attractive for Rodgers to play there.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Cy$

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 4, 2011
36,768
28,535
113
North Iowa
I don't know about that. There are some powerful people in that organization who will have a lot of egg on their faces if Love turns out to be a bust, possibly to the point of losing their jobs. Throwing in the towel and trading Love would not be a great move right now.
Obviously none of us know, but I would think the market would be fairly light for Love compared to most year. We just had a huge QB draft and there are a lot of young guys at most potential landing spots. I think GB would look pretty ridiculous taking a QB the year their guy is the MVP to only give up on the new guy in 12 months without ever taking the field.

I don’t think anybody questioned if Love had/has raw potential with a potential high ceiling, but I’m not sure many people thought he was worth first round picks based on the very limited set of data he had going into last year’s draft. With no more data to go off of at this point, I just don’t see many suitors offering enough to throw him away just yet.
But here is their chance. If they had any thought he was not what they thought, they can use Rodgers as an excuse. Hey, Aaron made us trade him and we think we have super bowl chances the next couple years with AR so our hands were tied. It is their opportunity to walk away without the damage they could have and have a place to point their finger at.

If they get get a third rounder, hey AR demanded and there wasn’t much we could do.
 

Neptune78

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2020
1,573
1,470
113
East of Neptune, IA.
This is one of the dumbest takes I’ve ever heard. That’s impressive. Brian Gitenkunst has been a great GM. Packers don’t let players run their team. Patriots draft Jimmy G when he was there. Great organizations do t let players make the decisions.
Not a Packer fan, but I find it interesting that months ago most talking heads rated the GB as one of most well run franchises in the league. Now, after the Rodgers meltdown, management is suddenly terrible.
I agree with Terry Bradshaw's unpopular take--"honor your contract or retire".
 

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
Mar 27, 2006
35,234
15,579
113
Not a Packer fan, but I find it interesting that months ago most talking heads rated the GB as one of most well run franchises in the league. Now, after the Rodgers meltdown, management is suddenly terrible.
I agree with Terry Bradshaw's unpopular take--"honor your contract or retire".
Holding out is an action afforded to the player to affect change. There are rules for it, and consequences are outlined in the CBA, but it's totally legitimate. Teams can cancel contracts when they feel it's advantageous for them and players can hold out when they feel it's advantageous for them to do so.

NFL contracts are not sacred documents. The vast majority of them are never completed as written. Don't buy the "honor your contract" nonsense. It's nothing but propaganda.
 

Halincandenza

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2018
5,331
5,628
113
I don't think he ends up in Denver. Packers don't seem to be interested in trading him. I just think he is being a baby like he usually is. I just think he is trying to do this to get whatever he wants the the Packers to do to make him happy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mr Janny

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
37,597
22,972
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
It's GB so the price will probably be surprisingly small. Teddy Bridgewater and a handful of first-round draft picks who the packers blow on poorly scouted prospects like Jordan Love, I doubt the packers can even win 4 games next year. It's going to be funny watching Gudakunst try to explain to Packers nation why he ran off the best player to ever play in Green Bay and sent the organization into a death spiral. Packers should have cleaned house after Thompson stepped down.
Don Hutson, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke and Forrest Gregg would like a word.
 

Halincandenza

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2018
5,331
5,628
113
Holding out is an action afforded to the player to affect change. There are rules for it, and consequences are outlined in the CBA, but it's totally legitimate. Teams can cancel contracts when they feel it's advantageous for them and players can hold out when they feel it's advantageous for them to do so.

NFL contracts are not sacred documents. The vast majority of them are never completed as written. Don't buy the "honor your contract" nonsense. It's nothing but propaganda.
Teams don't honor players' contracts so why should players honor theirs? You never hear people complaining when teams cut guys before their contract is up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter and Jeremy

SCyclone

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,128
11,606
113
Fort Dodge, IA
If Gutekunst agrees to include Rodgers in future roster decisions (not necessarily making them, but being actively involved in them), I think it will go a long way toward healing the wounds. And some guaranteed money wouldn't hurt either.

People argue that the Packers should have gone "all-in" while they still had a HOF QB - New Orleans has done this for a few years now, and have 0 championships to show for it. You could argue that their talent level isn't any better than Green Bay's either.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
21,299
10,178
113
Yes, we understand your position. You've told us over and over. There are some who don't agree with it. Call it what you want.
I would agree with you if this were baseball or something because their contracts are guaranteed.

In football they can just kick you to the curb anytime and get out of paying you.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
5,377
6,246
113
Holding out is an action afforded to the player to affect change. There are rules for it, and consequences are outlined in the CBA, but it's totally legitimate. Teams can cancel contracts when they feel it's advantageous for them and players can hold out when they feel it's advantageous for them to do so.

NFL contracts are not sacred documents. The vast majority of them are never completed as written. Don't buy the "honor your contract" nonsense. It's nothing but propaganda.
I agree that the "honor your contract" stance is dumb, but teams don't "cancel" contracts. The typical contracts in the NFL are written with a combo of guaranteed non-guaranteed money, and teams can cut a guy if they want. There is nothing, and never has been anything stopping a guy for negotiating a fully guaranteed contract, other than the fact that a team is going to offer less money and/or shorter contracts if that's the case. And that will continue to be the case unless there's a pretty dramatic restructuring of the salary cap.

So you could come in and say that the NFL is going to take a baseball approach and basically state that all money is guaranteed. Unless the cap goes way up or cutting a guy means that salary falls totally outside the cap, you probably don't see much of a change for practical purposes in the NFL. Instead of finishing 3 years of a 6 year deal before cutting a guy, teams just offer 2-3 year deals. And of course the term of the contract will matter much more, but most (smart) teams aren't going to offer huge salaries at long terms. Just like baseball, annual salary and # of years are the big typical tradeoff. That would occur in the NFL, rather than the current approach, where it's all about annual salary, and the length is largely an afterthought outside of 3 years.

I get what you are saying, and most contracts don't go all the way to the end of the term, but a guy can negotiate guaranteed money all he wants.
 

MustardTiger

Active Member
Apr 4, 2019
173
55
43
Don't understand the thought process of people suggesting GB would accept Drew Lock or Derek Carr and a bunch of first round picks as compensation. Any team you trade Rodgers to would instantly become a Top 7 team. ESPECIALLY oakland or denver. You're really going to trade aaron rodgers for a pile of border line day two picks? These first rounders AT BEST would be in the pick 25-32 range.

Plus your stuck with Derek Carr or Drew Lock. Two QB's that their current team would trade in a heart beat for the guy you're getting rid of (Love is not an option as we've heard nothing to suggest he's anything).

IF a trade is to go down, and I'm Green Bay, I want PLAYERS. PROVEN PLAYERS. If I'm clearing rodgers contract from my books, I don't want the cap space that comes with it. I'm looking at every single hole on my roster and I'm plugging in proven talent from the other team.

Then I'm acquiring Deshaun Watson tomorrow for whatever the cost is. Regardless of his current issues.
 

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
Mar 27, 2006
35,234
15,579
113
I agree that the "honor your contract" stance is dumb, but teams don't "cancel" contracts. The typical contracts in the NFL are written with a combo of guaranteed non-guaranteed money, and teams can cut a guy if they want. There is nothing, and never has been anything stopping a guy for negotiating a fully guaranteed contract, other than the fact that a team is going to offer less money and/or shorter contracts if that's the case. And that will continue to be the case unless there's a pretty dramatic restructuring of the salary cap.

So you could come in and say that the NFL is going to take a baseball approach and basically state that all money is guaranteed. Unless the cap goes way up or cutting a guy means that salary falls totally outside the cap, you probably don't see much of a change for practical purposes in the NFL. Instead of finishing 3 years of a 6 year deal before cutting a guy, teams just offer 2-3 year deals. And of course the term of the contract will matter much more, but most (smart) teams aren't going to offer huge salaries at long terms. Just like baseball, annual salary and # of years are the big typical tradeoff. That would occur in the NFL, rather than the current approach, where it's all about annual salary, and the length is largely an afterthought outside of 3 years.

I get what you are saying, and most contracts don't go all the way to the end of the term, but a guy can negotiate guaranteed money all he wants.
You're absolutely correct and stated it better than I did. My point is that Teams have their rights when it comes to contracts and players have theirs. Holding out is one of those. It's a tool in the player arsenal. It comes with set guidelines outlined in the CBA. There are fines that the player can incur depending on when and how long they decide to hold out, but it's still a legitimate tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halincandenza

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
Mar 27, 2006
35,234
15,579
113
Don't understand the thought process of people suggesting GB would accept Drew Lock or Derek Carr and a bunch of first round picks as compensation. Any team you trade Rodgers to would instantly become a Top 7 team. ESPECIALLY oakland or denver. You're really going to trade aaron rodgers for a pile of border line day two picks? These first rounders AT BEST would be in the pick 25-32 range.

Plus your stuck with Derek Carr or Drew Lock. Two QB's that their current team would trade in a heart beat for the guy you're getting rid of (Love is not an option as we've heard nothing to suggest he's anything).

IF a trade is to go down, and I'm Green Bay, I want PLAYERS. PROVEN PLAYERS. If I'm clearing rodgers contract from my books, I don't want the cap space that comes with it. I'm looking at every single hole on my roster and I'm plugging in proven talent from the other team.

Then I'm acquiring Deshaun Watson tomorrow for whatever the cost is. Regardless of his current issues.
If Green Bay thinks Rodgers will ultimately play for them, sure it's hard to think anything a team could offer would be worth it. But if they think Rodgers is serious, and he's not going to play another down for them, then you would rather get something than nothing
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,426
7,476
113
I don't know about that. There are some powerful people in that organization who will have a lot of egg on their faces if Love turns out to be a bust, possibly to the point of losing their jobs. Throwing in the towel and trading Love would not be a great move right now.
Plus, who would want him? I don’t think anybody is beating down their door for him.