Rodgers Watch 2023

[go pak go]

Last October/November I was pretty public in my guess of Rodgers landing spot to be the New York Jets.

It's just a great match. They are a great team with a huge hope at QB

[Yoop]

This goes back to what I said before, and as impatient as I am it makes so much sense.

Rodgers needs to know his options in order to decide his future. He’s now having conversations about those options, which I’m sure Gutey and staff scoped out and cultivated at the combine

We’ve got like five days maximum. We can do this

stickler sounds like who is going to eat the 60 mil. Rodgers is owed, will he lower that amount, and what will the Jets give us for him.

these seem to be the questions we don't have answers for

[YoHoChecko]

Guys I've figured it out and solved the problem.

The Packers and Jets should make a trade. The Packers will receive picks from the Jets and the Jets will "receive" future picks from the Packers, conditioned on whether or not Aaron Rodgers is on the Jets' roster. Then, after June 1st, the Packers can execute a second trade of Rodgers for, like, whatever; or just transfer the contract to the Jets.

That way the Rodgers cap hit issue can be resolved, but the trade can also benefit us in time for this year's draft.

Not sure how legal that is, but it seems reasonable, and there would obviously be issues around, say, Rodgers not being able to go to the Jets minicamps.

But it's a thought that could creatively solve some dead money issues

(FYI: the difference between trading Rodgers before June 1 and after June first is that Rodgers would cost $40M in dead money before June 1st, which is $8 million higher than his current cap charge; or he could cost $15.5 M in dead cap money each of the next two years, which is $15.5 less than his current cap charge.

In essence, it's between taking an $8 million hit or getting $15.5 million in savings this year. A $23 million 2023 cap swing.

[go pak go]

Guys I've figured it out and solved the problem.

The Packers and Jets should make a trade. The Packers will receive picks from the Jets and the Jets will "receive" future picks from the Packers, conditioned on whether or not Aaron Rodgers is on the Jets' roster. Then, after June 1st, the Packers can execute a second trade of Rodgers for, like, whatever; or just transfer the contract to the Jets.

That way the Rodgers cap hit issue can be resolved, but the trade can also benefit us in time for this year's draft.

Not sure how legal that is, but it seems reasonable, and there would obviously be issues around, say, Rodgers not being able to go to the Jets minicamps.

But it's a thought that could creatively solve some dead money issues

(FYI: the difference between trading Rodgers before June 1 and after June first is that Rodgers would cost $40M in dead money before June 1st, which is $8 million higher than his current cap charge; or he could cost $15.5 M in dead cap money each of the next two years, which is $15.5 less than his current cap charge.

In essence, it's between taking an $8 million hit or getting $15.5 million in savings this year. A $23 million 2023 cap swing.

F that.

We have plenty of 2023 cap space. Get the QB off the books. I'm sick of paying for players who weren't on the roster longer a season ago. We have pushed back so much money into 2024 and beyond that we can absorb the extra $8 million to trade Rodgers now and have it hit the books now.

[Labrev]

The problem is you get one year to win with cheap QB pay. After that it sky rockets and god forbid you end up in QB purgatory and have Daniel Jones problems.

The number of players who won a Super Bowl on their rookie deals since the 2011 CBA changed the draft salary rules and this allegedly became an advantage is....

2

Pat Mahomes (who has now also won not on a rookie contract) and Russell Wilson

I think the goal is to draft great QBs and extend them in a way that gives you some below-market cap years, not to maximize their 3-4 rookie contract years

My takeaway, looking at the 2011-present period, is: there truly is more than one way to skin the cat.

Good QB on a rookie deal + spending spree has been shown to work a few times.

Mahommes's win last month shows that the Elite QB on Elite QB $ deal is also a workable model, said QB just has to deliver in the big games. It is the only time that model has been shown to work since the 2011 CBA, but, it just takes one instance to prove viability.

There's also the "great supporting cast"-model, where you build an amazing team while not having an elite QB taking up cap, then you get the QB. Denver, LA-R, and Tampa pulled this one off.

And then there's arguably the ideal model, which is to have an elite QB taking less than Elite QB money, the TB12 model (plus, I would argue, being in a division so weak that you are guaranteed a Top 4 playoff seed every year, often ending up with a 1 or 2 seed; easier to win chips when you are in the playoffs *and* skip an elimination round pretty much every year). Brady basically broke the league with this.

As has been said here before, the key seems to be having a Top 10 unit on both sides of the ball, and no abysmal unit like our 2021 STs.

[YoHoChecko]

F that.

We have plenty of 2023 cap space. Get the QB off the books. I'm sick of paying for players who weren't on the roster longer a season ago. We have pushed back so much money into 2024 and beyond that we can absorb the extra $8 million to trade Rodgers now and have it hit the books now.

We actually don't, though? We have like $11 million in cap space and if we take an additional $8 million hit, we'll have $3 million

Not to mention that for reasons I don't fully understand because this contract is weird, the money isn't the same in either scenario, just in different years. Maybe the cap sites are missing something in their post-June 1st calculation, but it seems to be not just a matter of when.

Generally, I agree with you about being sick of kicking cans. But post-June 1st isn't like 3 void years. And taking a $40M hit for a guy not on the roster isn't a typical "eat it and move on" sized chunk.

The money issues are a big part of making this deal difficult to do.

[Drj820]

The problem is you get one year to win with cheap QB pay. After that it sky rockets and god forbid you end up in QB purgatory and have Daniel Jones problems.

The number of players who won a Super Bowl on their rookie deals since the 2011 CBA changed the draft salary rules and this allegedly became an advantage is....

2

Pat Mahomes (who has now also won not on a rookie contract) and Russell Wilson

I think the goal is to draft great QBs and extend them in a way that gives you some below-market cap years, not to maximize their 3-4 rookie contract years

Plus Mahomes just blew the 13.4% for 1 player rule out of the water.

dont change rules based on outliers

[Yoop]

F that.

We have plenty of 2023 cap space. Get the QB off the books. I'm sick of paying for players who weren't on the roster longer a season ago. We have pushed back so much money into 2024 and beyond that we can absorb the extra $8 million to trade Rodgers now and have it hit the books now.

We actually don't, though? We have like $11 million in cap space and if we take an additional $8 million hit, we'll have $3 million

Not to mention that for reasons I don't fully understand because this contract is weird, the money isn't the same in either scenario, just in different years. Maybe the cap sites are missing something in their post-June 1st calculation, but it seems to be not just a matter of when.

Generally, I agree with you about being sick of kicking cans. But post-June 1st isn't like 3 void years. And taking a $40M hit for a guy not on the roster isn't a typical "eat it and move on" sized chunk.

The money issues are a big part of making this deal difficult to do.

Rodgers has said he's willing to re negotiate that pay off amount, how true, and for how much is any ones guess, my point is I think a substantial amount would help this deal get done.

[go pak go]

F that.

We have plenty of 2023 cap space. Get the QB off the books. I'm sick of paying for players who weren't on the roster longer a season ago. We have pushed back so much money into 2024 and beyond that we can absorb the extra $8 million to trade Rodgers now and have it hit the books now.

We actually don't, though? We have like $11 million in cap space and if we take an additional $8 million hit, we'll have $3 million

Not to mention that for reasons I don't fully understand because this contract is weird, the money isn't the same in either scenario, just in different years. Maybe the cap sites are missing something in their post-June 1st calculation, but it seems to be not just a matter of when.

Generally, I agree with you about being sick of kicking cans. But post-June 1st isn't like 3 void years. And taking a $40M hit for a guy not on the roster isn't a typical "eat it and move on" sized chunk.

The money issues are a big part of making this deal difficult to do.

Rodgers has said he's willing to re negotiate that pay off amount, how true, and for how much is any ones guess, my point is I think a substantial amount would help this deal get done.

Any renegotiation would be with the new team.

The $40 million in dead cap we have to absorb is based on money we already paid him but did recognize in cap hit up to league year 2022. That's why it's dead money.

[BF004]

If the Jets don't want to pay Aaron $60 million, they should be asking Aaron to rework his contract, not us to eat some, just IMO.

[Yoop]

The number of players who won a Super Bowl on their rookie deals since the 2011 CBA changed the draft salary rules and this allegedly became an advantage is....

2

Pat Mahomes (who has now also won not on a rookie contract) and Russell Wilson

I think the goal is to draft great QBs and extend them in a way that gives you some below-market cap years, not to maximize their 3-4 rookie contract years

Plus Mahomes just blew the 13.4% for 1 player rule out of the water.

dont change rules based on outliers

how is it a outlier? the Saints just payed 40 mil. annual for Carr, there are a half doz. teams paying more then last years cap hit for Rodgers, I think it's time some of you guys accept that having a QB of Rodgers stature is going to cost that and more to have, if Love pans out 2 years from now we'll be paying that or more.
never have figured out why Rodgers money upset you and others so much, it's as though your oblivious to the cost of top end QB's around the league.

[Drj820]

Plus Mahomes just blew the 13.4% for 1 player rule out of the water.

dont change rules based on outliers

how is it a outlier? the Saints just payed 40 mil. annual for Carr, there are a half doz. teams paying more then last years cap hit for Rodgers, I think it's time some of you guys accept that having a QB of Rodgers stature is going to cost that and more to have, if Love pans out 2 years from now we'll be paying that or more.
never have figured out why Rodgers money upset you and others so much, it's as though your oblivious to the cost of top end QB's around the league.

Assuming you misdiagnosed my point?

[Drj820]

If the Jets don't want to pay Aaron $60 million, they should be asking Aaron to rework his contract, not us to eat some, just IMO.

If they have to eat all that, it will def affect compensation we receive. If we eat more of it, we can probably get better compensation. It may be in our interest to eat what we can.

[BF004]

If the Jets don't want to pay Aaron $60 million, they should be asking Aaron to rework his contract, not us to eat some, just IMO.

If they have to eat all that, it will def affect compensation we receive. If we eat more of it, we can probably get better compensation. It may be in our interest to eat what we can.

Aaron has always said he will look to redo his contract, I've predicated that too, stay, trade or retire.

We owe $40 on the cap yet, whether its all this year trade, could spread out retire, or whatever if we go. But I think it'll essentially be a new contract from scratch other than that. Perhaps previous dollars in place are used as the negotiating tactic.

But I don't think it makes any sense to to eat any significant money to just get like another 3rd. People freak out about Mercedes Lewis making $3M, but then are okay just trading $5M for a 5th round equivalency?

I think Aaron and his contract dollars are between him and his new team.

[Yoop]

dont change rules based on outliers

how is it a outlier? the Saints just payed 40 mil. annual for Carr, there are a half doz. teams paying more then last years cap hit for Rodgers, I think it's time some of you guys accept that having a QB of Rodgers stature is going to cost that and more to have, if Love pans out 2 years from now we'll be paying that or more.
never have figured out why Rodgers money upset you and others so much, it's as though your oblivious to the cost of top end QB's around the league.

Assuming you misdiagnosed my point?

did I ? just look at these contracts, we didn't give Rodgers the quaranteed money several others got, and that 13% figure seems eclipsed by several on this list, but the point is the going price for starting QB's hovers at the 40 mil. mark
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/new ... lijimo2fzh

[BF004]

[Drj820]

If the Jets don't want to pay Aaron $60 million, they should be asking Aaron to rework his contract, not us to eat some, just IMO.

If they have to eat all that, it will def affect compensation we receive. If we eat more of it, we can probably get better compensation. It may be in our interest to eat what we can.

Aaron has always said he will look to redo his contract, I've predicated that too, stay, trade or retire.

We owe $40 on the cap yet, whether its all this year trade, could spread out retire, or whatever if we go. But I think it'll essentially be a new contract from scratch other than that. Perhaps previous dollars in place are used as the negotiating tactic.

But I don't think it makes any sense to to eat any significant money to just get like another 3rd. People freak out about Mercedes Lewis making $3M, but then are okay just trading $5M for a 5th round equivalency?

I think Aaron and his contract dollars are between him and his new team.

You continue to assume the current contract is no big deal, while smart people continue to point out how much of a factor it will be.

The contract was awful if Rodgers continued to be a packer, it’s firable if there was ever a thought of moving on.

[Pckfn23]

Spotrac has Packers with $14.3 million in cap space and Rodgers with an $8.69 million extra cap hit, if traded.

[Labrev]

never have figured out why Rodgers money upset you and others so much, it's as though your oblivious to the cost of top end QB's around the league.

You have on many occasions said you opposed giving Rodgers the mega-deal and slammed the org for doing it, even said that people here were wrong to applaud the deal. So I think you actually know very well why his money is an issue to a lot of people, otherwise, what was your point in being opposed to his mega-deal, as you claim to have been?

[YoHoChecko]

And by the same source, that's how much technical space they have--so they can make a deal--but not how much functional space they have in terms of signing players because of the rookie contracts that will take effect and the amount of space you need to go into a season.

If Rodgers is traded as it currently stands, we'd be down to $7 million to sign the rookies and get through the season without other moves. That's basically full. The only big move left to make is an extension for Gary that reduces his cap number. Everything else we could do, save actually cutting guys, are pocket change. If we want to add ANY free agents this offseason, even the Reeds and Nixons of the world, we're going to be tight.

Yes, the contract given to Rodgers last year was awful.

As for the $60 million next year, I could care less. I know teams might push us for money, but Rodgers has been clear that he will re-do a deal to make things work.

The unfortunate part is that he can't save us from dead cap (unless there's some weird rule that lets him pay money back to us from the bonus, which the Packers could then trade, in cash, to the Jets, and the Jets could then use to pay Rodgers, but that's cap assistance to us and cash assistance to the Jets without cap assistance to them.

And I highly doubt a) that's legal or b) Rodgers would want to do that.