What is Rodgers' trade value in 2022/23?

[British]

I'm seeing a lot of sentimental stuff about how the Packers negotiate Rodgers departure. I get it, he's probably my favourite Packer ever and will always be a hero. But ultimately I want to maximise his value, so if Love is ready to start in two or three years time, in the same way the Packers felt Rodgers was ready, then I wonder how much could the Packers get for 12 in a trade with a year or two left on his deal?

The 3rd rounder we got for Favre TT used to trade up for Clay Matthews without whom we may not have won the Superbowl.

If we could get a first or two for a still competent HOF-bound Rodgers with a few more years left, it could set us up real well.

Thoughts?

[Packfntk]

The thought of him playing for another team makes me sick.

[YoHoChecko]

Ummm, I dunno, we'll probably have to see how 2020 and 2021 play out first, don'tcha think?

[Captain_Ben]

As critical as I've been of him in recent years, I'd still think he'd be worth at least a first round pick (probably more), even at that age. Some team out there whose GM believes their roster is a QB away from a Super Bowl will gladly give that up for AR. On the flipside I could see us accepting that offer. I wouldn't want to see things end that way, but it's definitely interesting to think about.

[British]

Ummm, I dunno, we'll probably have to see how 2020 and 2021 play out first, don'tcha think?

Humour me YoHo. It's not like Rodgers has been hugely erratic. He's been a consistently high performing QB and he's on a 13-3 team that got to the NFCCG with a rookie head coach.

Seems high likely Rodgers will have two or three solid to very good seasons.

If he's still talking about playing into his 40s I'd think we could get at least two firsts for him. Carson Palmer went for two firsts (albeit to the Raiders). But definitely feels like we could really cash in, should Love be ready in 2-3 years.

[YoHoChecko]

Unless Rodgers falls off a cliff, I wouldn't trade him for less than the 40th pick in the upcoming draft at the time of the trade. I'm perfectly content to let him keep playing for us unless/until we get value; and I'm perfectly content to keep him until he runs out his contract. I suppose, in 2023, I could settle for a 3rd round pick which comes a year earlier than his comp pick would arrive.

But as things are, I don't want to trade Rodgers. I don't see any reason to trade Rodgers. And even if Love starts pushing him, I won't move on from Rodgers without an excellent return.

It's gonna be CRAZY if they keep Love for 3 years, trade Rodgers for like the 30th pick in the draft that year, elevate Love to starter status and then use the 30th pick we traded Rodgers for on our first 1st-round WR in 20 years.

[Captain_Ben]

Carson Palmer went for 2 firsts?? I guess that's why they're the Raiders.

[Pckfn23]

I hope we can get a 2nd for him, but let's be realistic about who he has been the last 2 seasons (min. 500 attempts):
http://pfref.com/tiny/yCmEf
13th - QB Rating
25th - Completion %
6th - Yards
12th - TDs
1st - INTs
29th - Sacks
20th - Yards/Attempts

I would give him just inside the top 10 status. Yes the talent around him plays a part, so no need for a certain someone to tell us that.

[YoHoChecko]

Humour me YoHo.

I'm so mad that you got me to participate in this conversation just by asking me

[British]

Thanks mate. Good of you to play along.

Btw Rodgers will only get us a 5th round comp pick as he's played more than ten years.

A measly return for someone of his likely talents. There must be an owner out there who's always dreamed of having a QB like Rodgers who would give up a first for him.

[Pckfn23]

Maybe right now, yes, but probably not in 2022.

[Yoop]

I'm seeing a lot of sentimental stuff about how the Packers negotiate Rodgers departure. I get it, he's probably my favourite Packer ever and will always be a hero. But ultimately I want to maximise his value, so if Love is ready to start in two or three years time, in the same way the Packers felt Rodgers was ready, then I wonder how much could the Packers get for 12 in a trade with a year or two left on his deal?

The 3rd rounder we got for Favre TT used to trade up for Clay Matthews without whom we may not have won the Superbowl.

If we could get a first or two for a still competent HOF-bound Rodgers with a few more years left, it could set us up real well.

Thoughts?

we never wanted to trade Favre, in fact the fo invited him back right till the last when he had flip flooped back and forth, so Favre forced that trade.

we should do the same with Rodgers, if at the 4th year mark the coaches think Love is better let them compete to see who starts, if Rodgers doesn't want to then let him ask to be traded, just as Favre did, it wont look good and the fans wont like us kicking Rodgers out the door, do we want the reputation that we kick players out after they have given the team so much,.

[Packfntk]

Let's not think about this for at least 2 years, hopefully 3-4.

[TheSkeptic]

Lets assume that Rodgers plays about the same this season as last. Some good games, some poor games.

Rodgers is not going to be traded this year, period.

IMO:
After the trading season re-opens, before next year's draft, Rodgers is worth a 1st and 2nd round pick from a team picking in the first 16. Or a 1st and a 1st in the following year.

After the draft and before the 2021/22 season starts, Rodgers is worth a 1st.

After the end of the 2021/22 season Rodgers is worth a late 1st or an early 2nd. He is actually worth more to a good team than a bad one because he needs a supporting cast. He is more likely to take a playoff team to a SB but he cannot take a 4-12 team to the playoffs.

After the 2022/23 season Rodgers is worth fans in the stadium, he is worthless as a player. Maybe a conditional 6th.

How well Brady and Brees play will change his value, for better or worse.

But if he takes a beating and gets another concussion, he could be done. Like Sam Shields.

The time to trade him is at the end of March, 2021. His trade value will be worth more than the salary cap problems. I expect that he will force the trade even if the Packers would prefer to keep him another year. His pride and his value as a celebrity for the next 40 years is worth more to him than the football salary and he will simply hold out if not traded.

[British]

I'm seeing a lot of sentimental stuff about how the Packers negotiate Rodgers departure. I get it, he's probably my favourite Packer ever and will always be a hero. But ultimately I want to maximise his value, so if Love is ready to start in two or three years time, in the same way the Packers felt Rodgers was ready, then I wonder how much could the Packers get for 12 in a trade with a year or two left on his deal?

The 3rd rounder we got for Favre TT used to trade up for Clay Matthews without whom we may not have won the Superbowl.

If we could get a first or two for a still competent HOF-bound Rodgers with a few more years left, it could set us up real well.

Thoughts?

we never wanted to trade Favre, in fact the fo invited him back right till the last when he had flip flooped back and forth, so Favre forced that trade.

we should do the same with Rodgers, if at the 4th year mark the coaches think Love is better let them compete to see who starts, if Rodgers doesn't want to then let him ask to be traded, just as Favre did, it wont look good and the fans wont like us kicking Rodgers out the door, do we want the reputation that we kick players out after they have given the team so much,.

I think this is a very reasonable plan going forward.

Lambeau isn't an old people's home for retired firefighters. Good teams move players on when they can't or won't compete or are worth more as trade value.

Belichick is the master at trading away guys who have helped the team win in the past.

Rodgers has been well compensated for his labour. He shouldn't be excused from competition. Competition is how the club (and he) continues to get better.

[Yoop]

I'm seeing a lot of sentimental stuff about how the Packers negotiate Rodgers departure. I get it, he's probably my favourite Packer ever and will always be a hero. But ultimately I want to maximise his value, so if Love is ready to start in two or three years time, in the same way the Packers felt Rodgers was ready, then I wonder how much could the Packers get for 12 in a trade with a year or two left on his deal?

The 3rd rounder we got for Favre TT used to trade up for Clay Matthews without whom we may not have won the Superbowl.

If we could get a first or two for a still competent HOF-bound Rodgers with a few more years left, it could set us up real well.

Thoughts?

we never wanted to trade Favre, in fact the fo invited him back right till the last when he had flip flooped back and forth, so Favre forced that trade.

we should do the same with Rodgers, if at the 4th year mark the coaches think Love is better let them compete to see who starts, if Rodgers doesn't want to then let him ask to be traded, just as Favre did, it wont look good and the fans wont like us kicking Rodgers out the door, do we want the reputation that we kick players out after they have given the team so much,.

I think this is a very reasonable plan going forward.

Lambeau isn't an old people's home for retired firefighters. Good teams move players on when they can't or won't compete or are worth more as trade value.

Belichick is the master at trading away guys who have helped the team win in the past.

Rodgers has been well compensated for his labour. He shouldn't be excused from competition. Competition is how the club (and he) continues to get better.

Favre was well compensated, so was Bart Starr in there respective Era they played in, and we didn't discard them for draft picks, we let them play till retirement, Favre broke the deal, we even asked him to keep playing, thats how we should treat Rodgers, I sense some sort of urgency to try and peddle Rodgers for return value.

the real funny part here is listening to a few call Rodgers a average QB, in the next breath they want to peddle him for a couple first round picks, what GM would give that for a average QB? comments like that make no sense

of course Lambeau is a retirement home for retired players, why would you ever think it's not, look around, we have a ring of honor, of old retired players, a HOF full of players that retired as Packers, we have more retired players in the NFL HOF then any other team,(if my memory is correct) it's our Legacy, we are steeped with tradition of treating our players with as much class as possible, I sure hope we continue being this way, I couldn't care less what other teams do.

[British]

we never wanted to trade Favre, in fact the fo invited him back right till the last when he had flip flooped back and forth, so Favre forced that trade.

we should do the same with Rodgers, if at the 4th year mark the coaches think Love is better let them compete to see who starts, if Rodgers doesn't want to then let him ask to be traded, just as Favre did, it wont look good and the fans wont like us kicking Rodgers out the door, do we want the reputation that we kick players out after they have given the team so much,.

I think this is a very reasonable plan going forward.

Lambeau isn't an old people's home for retired firefighters. Good teams move players on when they can't or won't compete or are worth more as trade value.

Belichick is the master at trading away guys who have helped the team win in the past.

Rodgers has been well compensated for his labour. He shouldn't be excused from competition. Competition is how the club (and he) continues to get better.

Favre was well compensated, so was Bart Starr in there respective Era they played in, and we didn't discard them for draft picks, we let them play till retirement, Favre broke the deal, we even asked him to keep playing, thats how we should treat Rodgers, I sense some sort of urgency to try and peddle Rodgers for return value.

the real funny part here is listening to a few call Rodgers a average QB, in the next breath they want to peddle him for a couple first round picks, what GM would give that for a average QB? comments like that make no sense

of course Lambeau is a retirement home for retired players, why would you ever think it's not, look around, we have a ring of honor, of old retired players, a HOF full of players that retired as Packers, we have more retired players in the NFL HOF then any other team,(if my memory is correct) it's our Legacy, we are steeped with tradition of treating our players with as much class as possible, I sure hope we continue being this way, I couldn't care less what other teams do.

You couldn't care what other teams do? Haven't you been berating the Packers for not following the lead of other teams and drafting a WR?

Lambeau's ring of honour is exactly where we honour players of the past, not the active roster. Favre was welcomed back only a few years after he tried to stick it to the Packers with the Vikings. Rodgers will be welcomed back too.

I'm not one to call Rodgers average but I do think there could come a time when his fame and status elevates his value beyond his play on the field. That happens to a lot of greats. Heck that's often why there are so many terrible free agent signings And owners overpay wanting a bit of that stardust. There could come a time when the best way Rodgers can help the Packers is as trade bait. And he'll deserve his place in the ring of honour all the more if we get another team to give us a couple of firsts before he hangs them up.

[Yoop]

I think this is a very reasonable plan going forward.

Lambeau isn't an old people's home for retired firefighters. Good teams move players on when they can't or won't compete or are worth more as trade value.

Belichick is the master at trading away guys who have helped the team win in the past.

Rodgers has been well compensated for his labour. He shouldn't be excused from competition. Competition is how the club (and he) continues to get better.

Favre was well compensated, so was Bart Starr in there respective Era they played in, and we didn't discard them for draft picks, we let them play till retirement, Favre broke the deal, we even asked him to keep playing, thats how we should treat Rodgers, I sense some sort of urgency to try and peddle Rodgers for return value.

the real funny part here is listening to a few call Rodgers a average QB, in the next breath they want to peddle him for a couple first round picks, what GM would give that for a average QB? comments like that make no sense

of course Lambeau is a retirement home for retired players, why would you ever think it's not, look around, we have a ring of honor, of old retired players, a HOF full of players that retired as Packers, we have more retired players in the NFL HOF then any other team,(if my memory is correct) it's our Legacy, we are steeped with tradition of treating our players with as much class as possible, I sure hope we continue being this way, I couldn't care less what other teams do.

You couldn't care what other teams do? Haven't you been berating the Packers for not following the lead of other teams and drafting a WR?

Lambeau's ring of honour is exactly where we honour players of the past, not the active roster. Favre was welcomed back only a few years after he tried to stick it to the Packers with the Vikings. Rodgers will be welcomed back too.

I'm not one to call Rodgers average but I do think there could come a time when his fame and status elevates his value beyond his play on the field. That happens to a lot of greats. Heck that's often why there are so many terrible free agent signings And owners overpay wanting a bit of that stardust. There could come a time when the best way Rodgers can help the Packers is as trade bait. And he'll deserve his place in the ring of honour all the more if we get another team to give us a couple of firsts before he hangs them up.

your first comment has nothing to do with this topic.

sure if Rodgers wanted a trade this year or next then we should get compensation, but if our goal is to use him for 3 years as we groom his replacement, then NO, let him finish his contract and retire, just as we intended to do with Favre and what we've done with other Packer greats

lis, if he is average as some seem to think, then who would we find that would give up such high compensation? we ask players to honor the deals they sign, yet you want to break his contract, no sale, unless Love can beat him out then we should honor the commitment we made, it's not Rodgers fault that we made it.

[go pak go]

Let's not think about this for at least 2 years, hopefully 3-4.

I get this. I totally do. But at least internally, I hope it's more like the pressure starts to build during 2021.

Why?

I view that pressure will build not necessarily because Rodgers will play poorly. I don't see December Aaron Rodgers play out the next two years. But rather that Jordan Love is progressing.

I mean at the end of the day, don't we want Jordan Love to progress? Like I want him to win the #2 job no contest this preseason and I would love to see him progress as Rodgers did in 2006 and 2007.

By 2007 the die-hards knew. I hope the same can be see by 2022.

[British]

Favre was well compensated, so was Bart Starr in there respective Era they played in, and we didn't discard them for draft picks, we let them play till retirement, Favre broke the deal, we even asked him to keep playing, thats how we should treat Rodgers, I sense some sort of urgency to try and peddle Rodgers for return value.

the real funny part here is listening to a few call Rodgers a average QB, in the next breath they want to peddle him for a couple first round picks, what GM would give that for a average QB? comments like that make no sense

of course Lambeau is a retirement home for retired players, why would you ever think it's not, look around, we have a ring of honor, of old retired players, a HOF full of players that retired as Packers, we have more retired players in the NFL HOF then any other team,(if my memory is correct) it's our Legacy, we are steeped with tradition of treating our players with as much class as possible, I sure hope we continue being this way, I couldn't care less what other teams do.

You couldn't care what other teams do? Haven't you been berating the Packers for not following the lead of other teams and drafting a WR?

Lambeau's ring of honour is exactly where we honour players of the past, not the active roster. Favre was welcomed back only a few years after he tried to stick it to the Packers with the Vikings. Rodgers will be welcomed back too.

I'm not one to call Rodgers average but I do think there could come a time when his fame and status elevates his value beyond his play on the field. That happens to a lot of greats. Heck that's often why there are so many terrible free agent signings And owners overpay wanting a bit of that stardust. There could come a time when the best way Rodgers can help the Packers is as trade bait. And he'll deserve his place in the ring of honour all the more if we get another team to give us a couple of firsts before he hangs them up.

your first comment has nothing to do with this topic.

sure if Rodgers wanted a trade this year or next then we should get compensation, but if our goal is to use him for 3 years as we groom his replacement, then NO, let him finish his contract and retire, just as we intended to do with Favre and what we've done with other Packer greats

lis, if he is average as some seem to think, then who would we find that would give up such high compensation? we ask players to honor the deals they sign, yet you want to break his contract, no sale, unless Love can beat him out then we should honor the commitment we made, it's not Rodgers fault that we made it.

Does he have a no-trade clause? If not it's not breaking his contract. By that argument we shouldn't trade or cut any player.

Teams overpay for players all the time, especially QBs and especially guys with name recognition like Rodgers. Carson Palmer netted two firsts.

Bottom line is Gute and LaFleur get judged on what they do to protect the franchise and win games, not to coddle the team's ageing vets. And I don't think Rodgers will want to retire in 4 years anyway. He's said he wants to play into his 40s, so it seems he'll want another contract from someone.