Rodgers wants out

[go pak go]

All the players seem to think 12 is doing them a service. Gutey must really be a jacka**.

I mean there are a lot of liberties happening when correlating to "all players" and only having an Adrian Amos tweet to back it up.

Again, I maintain it is likely less Gutey and more about the Ron Wolf system the Packers and NFL in general has. But that's really most any "At-Will" labor state. An Employee can terminate their employment at anytime and an employer can terminate at any time.

The big difference is that NFL players have to sign their rights for a certain period of time but even that is practiced in the real world too. Non-competes are in place for nearly every high level professional service. It's just the way it is and it is that way for a reason.

But yes. If this truly is a "I wish the Packers would have at least called Corey Linsley" then that is a very easy fix and on the Packers need to implement immediately.

[APB]

I just watched the full Rodgers interview and wanted to post my thoughts prior to reading anybody else's feedback so that I wouldn't be influenced. With that, forgive me if this rehashes what has already been said.

Let me say this: I empathize with Rodgers. I think many of us, myself included, have felt those same frustrations with upper level management within our organizations. I, too, have ranted and vented over decisions that seemingly dismiss the impact on the here-and-now front-line worker-bees and focus on future, future, future. It's irritating. It's frustrating. I get it. I, too, wish our corporate leadership would be more transparent and communicative when making these decisions that appear to have negative direct impact on here-and-now worker-bees like me.

I also understand it's short-sighted. And a little selfish. And immature.

Being that I'm a little long in the tooth in my particular industry, much like Rodgers, I have noticed my views have naturally shifted from what had once been a long view perspective to now focused on, say, the next 5-10 years. My goals have shifted, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have come to realize that my perspective will not always align with those of the corporation. There will be times of what I perceive as conflict of interest. There will be times when I will be frustrated over decisions that seemingly come out of the blue and completely work against my short-term goals. I understand that corporate decision making will give the impression that I, and my needs, are being disregarded and not being given their just due after years of sacrifice and giving. It's frustrating, to say the least. But it's business.

The difference between Rodgers and I is that I have accepted that. Clearly Rodgers has not.

Like I said, I empathize with Rodgers. But I think he needs to grow up a bit. Decisions will be made that don't necessarily align with your personal goals. That does not necessarily mean the organization has lost focus or has forgotten about you. It means the organization is seeing things from what is likely a much wider lens and making decisions - in the case of drafting Love, anyway - that are decisions of opportunity and not necessarily acutely planned for. Sometimes those scenarios don't allow for leadership to communicate every move and explain every decision as it relates to every employee. It is what it is...and it happens in business every day.

Is Rodgers' perception of things wrong? Not from his viewpoint. That doesn't necessarily make him right, though.

[Yoop]

Wolf complained that UFA made it so much harder to keep a great group of players together because after 4 to 5 years they could leave to the owner with the deepest pockets, owners could bid for there services, so in order to limit owners who would ruin the league by paying near anything for a player the league installed a spending cap, so who did Wolf actually have a problem with, the players, or the spend foolishly owners, so who is ruining football? imo it sure as &%$@ isn't the players.

if ya don't intend to allow a player to finish his contract, then don't give him one in the first place.

[go pak go]

unless I'am mistaken, which I'am sure you'll correct me if I'am, only Favre was still under contract, the rest where allowed to finish there contract.

why does a contract protect the employer, but not the worker?

It's just the firm protecting themself and taking some credit for developing, retaining and investing into the person.

The professional service industry is a completely different animal than a normal "labor vs entity" where the product is a physical product.

If a CPA firm, law firm, health clinic develops and invests time into a certain individual, that comes with a LOT of cost to the firm. The firm therefore needs to protect themselves in case the employee they invested heavily into decides they want to bail. That employee could take a lot of the firm's equity with him/her, again, as a result of the firm investing in that employee.

In the real world, the risk is taking firm clients. Which is why nearly every high level professional service job has a non-compete in the contract for high performers. My wife for instance. Once she gets in with a clinic, she won't be able to practice usually within a 10 to 20 mile radius after leaving said clinic and that part is heavily negotiated prior to any signing. It is why her and I will hire an attorney for those discussions.

For me, I can still practice in a vicinity, but I cannot take any of my firm's clients for a couple year period.

In the football world, the Packers don't want Rodgers to just take his services elsewhere if he decides to leave on a limb. It's not about taking clients at that point but instead competing for another team. So the "contract" is born. However, unlike the NBA or MLB, the NFL has 53 active players and 90 players in the offseason. This means even though the revenue is bigger, the cost to generate that revenue is also bigger. AND the risk from the firm's standpoint is significantly larger. You have 53 things that could go wrong each day and a fully guaranteed contract increases that risk significantly because the team bears all the risk at that point.

So to combat that, the value of the contract would need to go down SIGNIFICANTLY which the players don't want because they want nearly 50% of the revenue share and I don't blame them. So the firm comes back and says, "okay, but we need to hold some power here to let the team move on if and when it wants." At an individual level then, the player and team can negotiate just how much they want each contract to have risk be burdened by each side. In the case of Rodgers, he has a lot of power so the team offered significant signing bonus which essentially guaranteed Rodgers 5 of a 6 year deal.

[APB]

Catching up on other's reactions - yeah, if what has been reported over the years is accurate then the Packer's brass can definitely do a better job of communicating with soon-to-be former players when making roster decisions. I just don't know if what we, as fans, have been told is the whole picture. We have no way of knowing what is communicated between management and players and if we're basing this assumption on what is being relayed through the media...well, let's just say I'm not convinced the "Packer Way" is being accurately depicted.

[paco]

Catching up on other's reactions - yeah, if what has been reported over the years is accurate then the Packer's brass can definitely do a better job of communicating with soon-to-be former players when making roster decisions. I just don't know if what we, as fans, have been told is the whole picture. We have no way of knowing what is communicated between management and players and if we're basing this assumption on what is being relayed through the media...well, let's just say I'm not convinced the "Packer Way" is being accurately depicted.

Some players have confirmed it on their own. Don't ask me to remember which, but over the years players said they never received phone calls. I can't imagine they'd lie about it.

Its informal for sure. They extra touch of a final conversation (that isn't your end of the season meeting) would be nice. But I want to know how many other teams this is normal for. I doubt the Packers are the only team that just moves on and treats it like a cold business. Not everybody gets a going away party and a cake.

[go pak go]

if ya don't intend to allow a player to finish his contract, then don't give him one in the first place.

It's easy to say that for legends like Rodgers. But what about for players that suck? You also want to protect the team a little bit by not allowing the employee to "check out" after signing a big deal.

I mean it would suck if we had to keep Nick Perry for the entire length of his contract. Ultimately in that situation, contracts would be 1 to 3 years max in length and that too would be really bad for the league. Fans would hate it. I would hate it. You would never get to be attached to any player because they would be churned at a much higher rate.

And coaches do get this. Their contracts are fully guaranteed. But teams can absorb a coach's contract a lot easier because there is only 1 head coach (who actually makes any real money) where as again, there are a LOT of players.

And yes. I can see why the individual who is being impacted would not like this. Just like APB said, I understand it.

[go pak go]

I just watched the full Rodgers interview and wanted to post my thoughts prior to reading anybody else's feedback so that I wouldn't be influenced. With that, forgive me if this rehashes what has already been said.

Let me say this: I empathize with Rodgers. I think many of us, myself included, have felt those same frustrations with upper level management within our organizations. I, too, have ranted and vented over decisions that seemingly dismiss the impact on the here-and-now front-line worker-bees and focus on future, future, future. It's irritating. It's frustrating. I get it. I, too, wish our corporate leadership would be more transparent and communicative when making these decisions that appear to have negative direct impact on here-and-now worker-bees like me.

I also understand it's short-sighted. And a little selfish. And immature.

Being that I'm a little long in the tooth in my particular industry, much like Rodgers, I have noticed my views have naturally shifted from what had once been a long view perspective to now focused on, say, the next 5-10 years. My goals have shifted, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have come to realize that my perspective will not always align with those of the corporation. There will be times of what I perceive as conflict of interest. There will be times when I will be frustrated over decisions that seemingly come out of the blue and completely work against my short-term goals. I understand that corporate decision making will give the impression that I, and my needs, are being disregarded and not being given their just due after years of sacrifice and giving. It's frustrating, to say the least. But it's business.

The difference between Rodgers and I is that I have accepted that. Clearly Rodgers has not.

Like I said, I empathize with Rodgers. But I think he needs to grow up a bit. Decisions will be made that don't necessarily align with your personal goals. That does not necessarily mean the organization has lost focus or has forgotten about you. It means the organization is seeing things from what is likely a much wider lens and making decisions - in the case of drafting Love, anyway - that are decisions of opportunity and not necessarily acutely planned for. Sometimes those scenarios don't allow for leadership to communicate every move and explain every decision as it relates to every employee. It is what it is...and it happens in business every day.

Is Rodgers' perception of things wrong? Not from his viewpoint. That doesn't necessarily make him right, though.

Very good post. Thank you for sharing.

[Drj820]

I agree with the discussion of correlating the Packers org to real world work environments. I would just add that even in the real world if you have an employee that makes 10x the boss (probably Gute) and 3x the CEO (probably Murphy) the calculus changes in the situation. The all star employee the company just cannot do without starts wielding more power than any boss. Because the boss is more replaceable than the all star employee in a unique situation like that. Well, that is how this is.

Is Rodgers throwing a pity party and hurting his team, the fans, and those around him? Yes.
But if the All Star employee is disgruntled, he is allowed to be immature before he is fired. Because it is worth putting up with that to get his production. That is not just in the football world.

Unless the Packers feel like Love can play, like they felt Rodgers could play...Rodgers has far more power than Gutey and the smart business decision would not be to stick to the "Ron Wolf Way" or call Rodgers "the player" and tell him to get in line bc he is a player...but to make him happy so the company can use his production. Up until the point that it is unsavable, and then you trade the asset and fire the person who blew up the relationship. Thats how it would work in the real world.

Things change when an employee makes more money than all his bosses combined.

[APB]

I agree with the discussion of correlating the Packers org to real world work environments. I would just add that even in the real world if you have an employee that makes 10x the boss (probably Gute) and 3x the CEO (probably Murphy) the calculus changes in the situation. The all star employee the company just cannot do without starts wielding more power than any boss. Because the boss is more replaceable than the all star employee in a unique situation like that. Well, that is how this is.

Is Rodgers throwing a pity party and hurting his team, the fans, and those around him? Yes.
But if the All Star employee is disgruntled, he is allowed to be immature before he is fired. Because it is worth putting up with that to get his production. That is not just in the football world.

Unless the Packers feel like Love can play, like they felt Rodgers could play...Rodgers has far more power than Gutey and the smart business decision would not be to stick to the "Ron Wolf Way" or call Rodgers "the player" and tell him to get in line bc he is a player...but to make him happy so the company can use his production. Up until the point that it is unsavable, and then you trade the asset and fire the person who blew up the relationship. Thats how it would work in the real world.

Things change when an employee makes more money than all his bosses combined.

Those are excellent points that illustrate the contrast between our world and Rodgers' world.

In our world, we just gotta suck it up and deal with corporate decisions. In Rodgers' world, not necessarily.

I remain of the opinion, though, that it's basically a glorified hissy fit because management is doing things that he doesn't agree with. As has been mentioned, the Packers behavior has been relatively consistent for decades. Rodgers has signed multiple contracts with the team to include offers from the current management team. If he felt that strongly about past transgressions, why did he continue the relationship? Is it because he is now the player in-line to receive what he sees as an inglorious exodus?

[Pckfn23]

While a team is the people, a team can't be run by impassioned people. The team needs to communicate better as whole, but Rodgers needs to realize that decisions can't be made with emotion. That leads to hanging onto fan favorites long after they are ineffective and signings that aren't based on sound decision making.

I do think Rodgers slipped up when he said this is a year in the making, but said it isn't about the draft pick. Hmmm, what happened a year ago?

As is said, Rodgers does have a point to an extent, but this is an immature reaction to it.

[APB]

While a team is the people, a team can't be run by impassioned people. The team needs to communicate better as whole, but Rodgers needs to realize that decisions can't be made with emotion. That leads to hanging onto fan favorites long after they are ineffective and signings that aren't based on sound decision making.

I do think Rodgers slipped up when he said this is a year in the making, but said it isn't about the draft pick. Hmmm, what happened a year ago?

As is said, Rodgers does have a point to an extent, but this is an immature reaction to it.

More excellent points.

[NCF]

While a team is the people, a team can't be run by impassioned people. The team needs to communicate better as whole, but Rodgers needs to realize that decisions can't be made with emotion. That leads to hanging onto fan favorites long after they are ineffective and signings that aren't based on sound decision making.

I do think Rodgers slipped up when he said this is a year in the making, but said it isn't about the draft pick. Hmmm, what happened a year ago?

As is said, Rodgers does have a point to an extent, but this is an immature reaction to it.

I agree. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but in my opinion, Gute needs to be a heartless bastard... but Mark Murphy does not. Maybe that is what is organizationally broken since Murphy implemented the power shift. Gute builds a roster without emotion, but Murphy really should be the caretaker of fan-relations, especially with favorites, and be a little more gracious with some of our multi-year superstars.

[go pak go]

I agree with the discussion of correlating the Packers org to real world work environments. I would just add that even in the real world if you have an employee that makes 10x the boss (probably Gute) and 3x the CEO (probably Murphy) the calculus changes in the situation. The all star employee the company just cannot do without starts wielding more power than any boss. Because the boss is more replaceable than the all star employee in a unique situation like that. Well, that is how this is.

Is Rodgers throwing a pity party and hurting his team, the fans, and those around him? Yes.
But if the All Star employee is disgruntled, he is allowed to be immature before he is fired. Because it is worth putting up with that to get his production. That is not just in the football world.

Unless the Packers feel like Love can play, like they felt Rodgers could play...Rodgers has far more power than Gutey and the smart business decision would not be to stick to the "Ron Wolf Way" or call Rodgers "the player" and tell him to get in line bc he is a player...but to make him happy so the company can use his production. Up until the point that it is unsavable, and then you trade the asset and fire the person who blew up the relationship. Thats how it would work in the real world.

Things change when an employee makes more money than all his bosses combined.

Excellent post.

I think we all want the Packers to do what they need to do to get Rodgers to play in 21. The Packers want to do the same thing too.

The challenge that is going to come though is what is it going to take to make Rodgers happy? The Packers will get a great Rodgers for likely 1 - 3 years maximum and are already paying a lot of the firm's assets to keep Rodgers.

So the the challenge then becomes, "how much more" should the Packers go to appease their star employee. Especially when their star employee hasn't closed on the company's biggest goal since he became the "true leader" of the firm.

I think the last part is the biggest sticking point. You are dealing with the star employee who hasn't closed on the company's biggest goal for 10 years. And the first one was done as the star employee was still rising the corporate ladder and not yet THE GUY.

I would be much, much, much more willing to "bend the knee" to my star salesman if that star salesman actually made the sale with the client I have been wanting to close on for years and years. Rodgers hasn't done that. He hasn't delivered the hardware. And that is the primary reason you see me not wanting to bend too much for him.

Having said that, if he also brought the hardware, it could make it easier to move one because I must admit I always wanted to see Rogers (like Favre) have more than just 1 ring with the Packers.

[Pckfn23]

But if the All Star employee is disgruntled, he is allowed to be immature before he is fired. Because it is worth putting up with that to get his production. That is not just in the football world.

Unless the Packers feel like Love can play, like they felt Rodgers could play...Rodgers has far more power than Gutey and the smart business decision would not be to stick to the "Ron Wolf Way" or call Rodgers "the player" and tell him to get in line bc he is a player...but to make him happy so the company can use his production. Up until the point that it is unsavable, and then you trade the asset and fire the person who blew up the relationship. Thats how it would work in the real world.

That would only happen in professional sports/entertainment. That's not the real world. Since it isn't the real world, it does need to be handled differently. However, if Rodgers is miffed that they are not running personnel decision by him, such as cutting Kumerow, then he has become a detriment to the team he claims he loves.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

Didn't Thompson meet individually with any player cut, including camp bodies, because he himself had been in that position as a player?

I also remember Finley wanting to play after the neck injury and if I remember right Thompson wasn't ever going to allow that, because there is a whole nother life to live after football.

I wonder if it is this kind of stuff that bothers AR with Gutey. That seems to be what AR is getting at reference personal stuff.

At this point it seems clear that AR thinks Gutey is an AHole and doesn't want to work for him.

[Pckfn23]

I don't think we have any indication that Gutenkunst does not meet with players he must cut.

[paco]

While a team is the people, a team can't be run by impassioned people. The team needs to communicate better as whole, but Rodgers needs to realize that decisions can't be made with emotion. That leads to hanging onto fan favorites long after they are ineffective and signings that aren't based on sound decision making.

I do think Rodgers slipped up when he said this is a year in the making, but said it isn't about the draft pick. Hmmm, what happened a year ago?

As is said, Rodgers does have a point to an extent, but this is an immature reaction to it.

I agree. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but in my opinion, Gute needs to be a heartless bastard... but Mark Murphy does not. Maybe that is what is organizationally broken since Murphy implemented the power shift. Gute builds a roster without emotion, but Murphy really should be the caretaker of fan-relations, especially with favorites, and be a little more gracious with some of our multi-year superstars.

I don't know what everyone's exact role is. But seems like one of these people should be involved in this. Murphy is a CEO, shouldn't be his job. Should be Gutey or someone under those guys.

Grey Ruegamer - Director of Player Engagement
Jarvis Johnson - Player Engagement Intern
Jon-Eric Sullivan - Co-Director of Player Personnel
John Wojciechowski - Co-Director of Player Personnel
Richmond Williams - Director of Pro Personnel
Autumn Thomas-Beenenga - Pro Personnel Manager

[NCF]

At this point it seems clear that AR thinks Gutey is an AHole and doesn't want to work for him.

I don't think that is clear. I do think it is one or many of Gute, Ball, and Murphy, but I am not convinced it is Gute, specifically, or even that he is in Rodgers crosshairs, at all.

[Drj820]

But if the All Star employee is disgruntled, he is allowed to be immature before he is fired. Because it is worth putting up with that to get his production. That is not just in the football world.

Unless the Packers feel like Love can play, like they felt Rodgers could play...Rodgers has far more power than Gutey and the smart business decision would not be to stick to the "Ron Wolf Way" or call Rodgers "the player" and tell him to get in line bc he is a player...but to make him happy so the company can use his production. Up until the point that it is unsavable, and then you trade the asset and fire the person who blew up the relationship. Thats how it would work in the real world.

That would only happen in professional sports/entertainment. That's not the real world. Since it isn't the real world, it does need to be handled differently. However, if Rodgers is miffed that they are not running personnel decision by him, such as cutting Kumerow, then he has become a detriment to the team he claims he loves.

You dont think employees have longer or shorter leashes in the non sports world based on the value their production brings to the company?

I am seeing it play out more than ever with the extreme labor shortages going on. People not showing up, people showing up late, people smarting off to bosses...and the bosses hands are tied because firing someone off principle of how things should be just means they would lose an employee and have to make up their shifts and work 24/7.