Rodgers wants out

[bud fox]

Interesting, that is not what you "pointed out." You tried to prove Rodgers is winning despite a cast of poor players. You got called on it and changed your argument.
Again, here is where you LOVE to cherry pick and aren't using the full data. 2017 Bears, Buccaneers, Browns.

Yes he did - for the cardinals game he had winfree, cobb and amari rodgers. That is a low talent receiving group.

I guess we will see the contracts Lazard, Tonyan, ESB and MVS get in free agency this offseason.

You really don't understand the concept of small sample size limitations do you.

Only large contract players are good now?

No - small contract players are good. Draft picks provide great value if good early. Street free agents like Rasul can be good.

But a players value will be determined at the next contract if they are good. The market will decide how good that list of players I mentioned are - I assume Adams will get more than Lazard - because he is better. It's quite straight forward. The better you are the more money you get from the market.

[Pckfn23]

So you are trying to say Lazard, MVS, Tonyan are poor football players because they will not get paid as much as Adams in free agency?

[bud fox]

So you are trying to say Lazard, MVS, Tonyan are poor football players because they will not get paid as much as Adams in free agency?

I am saying they will get paid there value as a football player.

If they are paid as the 50th best receiver when accounting for yearly salary growth, than they would be seen as the 50th best receiver. I think we won't see any of them back on the team if Rodgers is here so we will see a true market test of value.

[Pckfn23]

So you are trying to say Lazard, MVS, Tonyan are poor football players because they will not get paid as much as Adams in free agency?

I am saying they will get paid there value as a football player.

If they are paid as the 50th best receiver when accounting for yearly salary growth, than they would be seen as the 50th best receiver. I think we won't see any of them back on the team if Rodgers is here so we will see a true market test of value.

A very simple minded look at it. One that is crude and ultimately flawed since it only takes into account a single moment in time.

Always so amusing to see where these discussions take us since the arguments from some change so often to fit their agenda, often times the antithesis of what they have said in the past.

[Madcity_matt]

I think this whole argument for the sake of argument. It's all moot.

Either Rodgers wants to stay a Packer or he doesn't

If he doesn't want to be a Packer, the last 187 pages don't matter. You trade him and get what you can for him.

If he does want to be a Packer, he has to understand that if he wants to WIN as a Packer he needs to make some concessions on his contract. While he deserves to be the highest paid QB, he just can't be. Not only can we not compete with him taking up a massive cap figure, but indubitably they later years of the contract will have some enormous cap numbers as well that will set the team back for several years.

So if he WANTS to be a Packer, he needs to be able to check his ego enough to sign a contract that is team friendly, with the understanding that it lets him keep his toys. If he can't agree to this line of thinking then I think you have to move on as well.

[go pak go]

I think this whole argument for the sake of argument. It's all moot.

Either Rodgers wants to stay a Packer or he doesn't

If he doesn't want to be a Packer, the last 187 pages don't matter. You trade him and get what you can for him.

If he does want to be a Packer, he has to understand that if he wants to WIN as a Packer he needs to make some concessions on his contract. While he deserves to be the highest paid QB, he just can't be. Not only can we not compete with him taking up a massive cap figure, but indubitably they later years of the contract will have some enormous cap numbers as well that will set the team back for several years.

So if he WANTS to be a Packer, he needs to be able to check his ego enough to sign a contract that is team friendly, with the understanding that it lets him keep his toys. If he can't agree to this line of thinking then I think you have to move on as well.

[bud fox]

I think this whole argument for the sake of argument. It's all moot.

Either Rodgers wants to stay a Packer or he doesn't

If he doesn't want to be a Packer, the last 187 pages don't matter. You trade him and get what you can for him.

If he does want to be a Packer, he has to understand that if he wants to WIN as a Packer he needs to make some concessions on his contract. While he deserves to be the highest paid QB, he just can't be. Not only can we not compete with him taking up a massive cap figure, but indubitably they later years of the contract will have some enormous cap numbers as well that will set the team back for several years.

So if he WANTS to be a Packer, he needs to be able to check his ego enough to sign a contract that is team friendly, with the understanding that it lets him keep his toys. If he can't agree to this line of thinking then I think you have to move on as well.

Yes and no. Packers won without Bahk and Smith this year - that is 50m off this years cap between those two. So we can win with Rodgers on a market value contract with the removal of other big contracts.

[German_Panzer]

I think this whole argument for the sake of argument. It's all moot.

Either Rodgers wants to stay a Packer or he doesn't

If he doesn't want to be a Packer, the last 187 pages don't matter. You trade him and get what you can for him.

If he does want to be a Packer, he has to understand that if he wants to WIN as a Packer he needs to make some concessions on his contract. While he deserves to be the highest paid QB, he just can't be. Not only can we not compete with him taking up a massive cap figure, but indubitably they later years of the contract will have some enormous cap numbers as well that will set the team back for several years.

So if he WANTS to be a Packer, he needs to be able to check his ego enough to sign a contract that is team friendly, with the understanding that it lets him keep his toys. If he can't agree to this line of thinking then I think you have to move on as well.

Exactly my position. Pretty straightforward. My problem: Let's assume Rodgers is willing to stay, let's assume we want to give him a 3-4 year deal with starting guarantee (that is condicio sine qua non to keep #12) and let's assume he agrees to make concessions on his contract. Is that really enough? Or would he need to make a DEEP CUT to keep us as contenders?

Good thing for us: there is no SB-ready-powerhouse in the NFL like the Vikings in 2008. That might make #12 think again. Because I assume at this point he's only looking to build his legacy (= rings).

[German_Panzer]

Yes and no. Packers won without Bahk and Smith this year - that is 50m off this years cap between those two. So we can win with Rodgers on a market value contract with the removal of other big contracts.

Good point. Of course Bak & Z are proven. This enables you to somehow extrapolate certain assumptions (= valueable player) into the future. If you take no-names it is just guesswork and hope. This is why we need some proven core players back because it enables us (and #12) to assume that we will be pretty much as good as this season, else it would be pure speculation.

[Scott4Pack]

I'm thinking this playoff run is going to really tell if Z and Bahktiari are better, because you expect them to step up another level in January. Their replacements do not have that kind of history. And January is where players and coaches really earn their money.

[go pak go]

Yes and no. Packers won without Bahk and Smith this year - that is 50m off this years cap between those two. So we can win with Rodgers on a market value contract with the removal of other big contracts.

The Packers actually lose a net $1 million in cap by cutting Bakh and Z in 2022. I know you are trying to make a point by somehow saying Rodgers doesn't need talent around him but the point doesn't make much sense because the players you highlighted we are fine without won't save us that much (primarily Bakh).

Z and Bakh also only costed $25 million on the cap in 2021. So it's not like they were $50 million players this year. We were able to have more players this year to add to their depth because of their low cap hit. This was all done to help allure Rodgers back. Something you advocated "whatever it takes" last summer.

This is the point we are making. We are deferring everyone to maximize this run. It was aboslutely worth it....especially if they get a ring out of it. Next year however it gets very challenging as all these players see big increases.

Nobody is going after your golden boy. It was a hell of a run. We are just pointing out the bill is coming due and you can only do accounting tricks for so long.

Someone has to pay in 2022. That someone is either Rodgers, by taking significantly less money, or the Packers by needing to move on from their great QB.

It's just accounting.

[TheSkeptic]

Yes and no. Packers won without Bahk and Smith this year - that is 50m off this years cap between those two. So we can win with Rodgers on a market value contract with the removal of other big contracts.

Good point. Of course Bak & Z are proven. This enables you to somehow extrapolate certain assumptions (= valueable player) into the future. If you take no-names it is just guesswork and hope. This is why we need some proven core players back because it enables us (and #12) to assume that we will be pretty much as good as this season, else it would be pure speculation.

The Packers could not win the Championship game last year with a healthy Rodgers and no Bakh. They won't win it all this year without Bakh or Z or Jaire or Clark or Adams or Campbell. They might win 1 game if 2 of those 6 can't play, but they won't win 3 games. Gary and Preston could compensate for Z and Douglas and Stokes for Jaire and Nijman is 1000% better at LT than Turner was, but there is no replacement for Clark or Campbell or Adams. If these 6 are healthy and the Packers do not win the SB, it is 100% Rodgers fault because the only way the Packers lose is if Rodgers reverts to ignoring the coach, doing his own thing, trying to pad his QB stats and ignoring picking up a 1st down or letting Dillon or Jones score the TD.

It would be such a shame not to bring the Lombardi trophy home this season.

[YoHoChecko]

I am still truly baffled by the amount of talk about Rodgers taking some sort of hometown discount.

Like I can't even begin to consider that being on the table. That's just not going to happen. If Rodgers stays, it will be on a gigantic extension that uses accounting tricks to pump up the reported value and still make him the highest paid player in the league by some standard--be it new money/new years, be it guaranteed money in the first 3 years, be it cash paid over 3-years, be it cap value over 5 years. Whatever it is. Rodgers will be the top of the heap by some easily-reportable measure.

All talk of hometown discount is just a hope and a dream. It's based on nothing, nothing at all, aside from "maybe Rodgers' priorities have changed as he gets older" and that line means literally, over the past 7 months. Because his priorities were pretty clear before that. Not that I think this dispute is ABOUT money--it's not. But it can't be resolved without money.

Imagine Rodgers spending a full year talking about how he doesn't feel appreciated and he doesn't think the team values him the way he believes he should be valued, and you approach him with a lowball extension offer? Come on... He'd walk out faster than your friend at dinner who "left his wallet in the car"

[Captain_Ben]

I am still truly baffled by the amount of talk about Rodgers taking some sort of hometown discount.

Like I can't even begin to consider that being on the table. That's just not going to happen. If Rodgers stays, it will be on a gigantic extension that uses accounting tricks to pump up the reported value and still make him the highest paid player in the league by some standard--be it new money/new years, be it guaranteed money in the first 3 years, be it cash paid over 3-years, be it cap value over 5 years. Whatever it is. Rodgers will be the top of the heap by some easily-reportable measure.

All talk of hometown discount is just a hope and a dream. It's based on nothing, nothing at all, aside from "maybe Rodgers' priorities have changed as he gets older" and that line means literally, over the past 7 months. Because his priorities were pretty clear before that. Not that I think this dispute is ABOUT money--it's not. But it can't be resolved without money.

Imagine Rodgers spending a full year talking about how he doesn't feel appreciated and he doesn't think the team values him the way he believes he should be valued, and you approach him with a lowball extension offer? Come on... He'd walk out faster than your friend at dinner who "left his wallet in the car"

Depends on what you'd consider to be a "hometown discount." There are ways of arriving at a mutually beneficial agreement that don't involve pitching someone a lowball offer as your opening move. He already knows that other teams are going to be able to offer him more money. That's a given. Obviously if he's just about the money then I agree, he's gone. But I don't think he is just about money and I don't think he has made his decision yet.

[YoHoChecko]

Depends on what you'd consider to be a "hometown discount." There are ways of arriving at a mutually beneficial agreement that don't involve pitching someone a lowball offer as your opening move. He already knows that other teams are going to be able to offer him more money. That's a given. Obviously if he's just about the money then I agree, he's gone. But I don't think he is just about money and I don't think he has made his decision yet.

I don't think he's just about the money, either. He'll make his decision on where to play based on other factors. But whether he plays in GB or elsewhere, he will be playing under a new, highest-paid-player contract. I have already bet $1 on it. Like there is no version of reality where the likely back-to-back MVP of the league who has made a career out of feeling passed over and embracing his victim mentality, who has spent the season complaining about getting vilified for his views, who held out in the offseason and returned with a press conference candidly discussing that he wants to be appreciated and valued more and it feels like the team views him as expendable.... will just be like "nah, pay me whatever; I'm happy here. Just make it look nice." Like that's a different human you're talking about. Period.

[APB]

Depends on what you'd consider to be a "hometown discount." There are ways of arriving at a mutually beneficial agreement that don't involve pitching someone a lowball offer as your opening move. He already knows that other teams are going to be able to offer him more money. That's a given. Obviously if he's just about the money then I agree, he's gone. But I don't think he is just about money and I don't think he has made his decision yet.

I don't think he's just about the money, either. He'll make his decision on where to play based on other factors. But whether he plays in GB or elsewhere, he will be playing under a new, highest-paid-player contract. I have already bet $1 on it. Like there is no version of reality where the likely back-to-back MVP of the league who has made a career out of feeling passed over and embracing his victim mentality, who has spent the season complaining about getting vilified for his views, who held out in the offseason and returned with a press conference candidly discussing that he wants to be appreciated and valued more and it feels like the team views him as expendable.... will just be like "nah, pay me whatever; I'm happy here. Just make it look nice." Like that's a different human you're talking about. Period.

Let's assume your take is accurate. Let's also assume Rodgers does indeed express a desire to stay with the Packers beyond this season.

Something will have to give, roster wise, obviously.

Rodgers openly campaigned for having more say in roster decisions during last off-season's drama. If I'm GM for a day, I say give Rodgers exactly what he's been publicly pleading for. I present him with the cap challenges that lie ahead and ask him who the team sacrifices in order to satisfy his "highest paid player" demands. And then you have him in the room (because communication is important, remember?) when you have the conversation with Z, Davante, MVS, Preston, Elgton, and every other player you can no longer afford.

Yeah, yeah. I know this would never happen but there is a distinct part of me that would love for Rodgers to be confronted with the secondary impacts of his so far unrelenting financial demands.

[packman114]

Depends on what you'd consider to be a "hometown discount." There are ways of arriving at a mutually beneficial agreement that don't involve pitching someone a lowball offer as your opening move. He already knows that other teams are going to be able to offer him more money. That's a given. Obviously if he's just about the money then I agree, he's gone. But I don't think he is just about money and I don't think he has made his decision yet.

I don't think he's just about the money, either. He'll make his decision on where to play based on other factors. But whether he plays in GB or elsewhere, he will be playing under a new, highest-paid-player contract. I have already bet $1 on it. Like there is no version of reality where the likely back-to-back MVP of the league who has made a career out of feeling passed over and embracing his victim mentality, who has spent the season complaining about getting vilified for his views, who held out in the offseason and returned with a press conference candidly discussing that he wants to be appreciated and valued more and it feels like the team views him as expendable.... will just be like "nah, pay me whatever; I'm happy here. Just make it look nice." Like that's a different human you're talking about. Period.

YoHo we all get it. But what we also understand is a guy who wants "his guys" in order to make championship runs every year, can no longer have it both ways. My point is that Rodgers is in tune with every aspect of this game and he knows that if we pay him $30+ million/yr the team will be him and very little else. So the decision is truly his. If he wants to finish his career in Green Bay and stay with "his guys" he has to renegotiate to a lesser salary. If he wants a salary commensurate to his "status" then Gutey's decision is very easy. No one is saying he WILL take the discount, we are saying that if he is concerned about winning more Super Bowls here in Green Bay he HAS to take a discount. I prefer to see that as option he may want to do. You think it is not an option he would consider.

[Yoop]

other teams are paying huge QB contracts and still are competitive, obviously Rodgers would love to win a few SB's while also being the QB of the Packers, however he knows as well as anyone that simply having the most talented roster in the league doesn't guarantee that, in fact often the most talented team goes home with the 2nd or 3rd place trophy, there are many variables involved.

also just because Rodgers acts as though he has been under appreciated, he also knows he's in one of the best situations he's been in for years now, he has a front office that listened and catered to his needs, fired a coach that basically held his offense back, and hired one that players seem to like and respect including himself.

some here have presented possible contract scenarios where Rodgers would appear on paper to be one of if not the highest paid QB's in the league, and cutting or not resigning several high priced vets to make that possible, this imo seems like the course of action, and just because it will cost the trimming of some players to do so does not automatically mean we wont be in the running for a SB next year or the remaining years of a extension Rodgers is given.

[YoHoChecko]

YoHo we all get it. But what we also understand is a guy who wants "his guys" in order to make championship runs every year, can no longer have it both ways. My point is that Rodgers is in tune with every aspect of this game and he knows that if we pay him $30+ million/yr the team will be him and very little else. So the decision is truly his. If he wants to finish his career in Green Bay and stay with "his guys" he has to renegotiate to a lesser salary. If he wants a salary commensurate to his "status" then Gutey's decision is very easy. No one is saying he WILL take the discount, we are saying that if he is concerned about winning more Super Bowls here in Green Bay he HAS to take a discount. I prefer to see that as option he may want to do. You think it is not an option he would consider.

You say you get it, but I don’t think you do. That something has to give and that he can’t have it both ways are EXACTLY why people are saying Rodgers is likely gone. This is why people say it makes no sense.

You guys keep saying “if he wants to win championships,” but show me anywhere in anything he said last offseason and throughout his incredibly candid presses that indicates his issues with the Packers have/had anything to do with winning versus they had to do with being shown personal respect and deference. It was 100% about himself and his people. Show me anything in the rumors about where he wants to play that indicate it’s more about winning than being closer to California and closer to his fiancé.

There is just zero evidence anywhere in the record that ever indicates Rodgers is willing or interested in self sacrifice for a greater team goal. It’s never happened. It’s never been discussed in public. It isn’t evident in any of his complaints or statements about the team and his grievances.

Rodgers wants to go somewhere that HE is appreciated and valued commensurate with his standing in the league and where the organization treats its players as people, not as expendable parts. One COULD read between the lines to point out that both of those things are DETRIMENTS to winning, and those are the things he chose to prioritize.

Rodgers cares about winning because he is competitive as heck and because it enhances his personal legacy. But he, clearly, based on his own statements, his own grievances, his openly stated priorities, cares more about his day to day happiness. Which is totally fine. It just is an absolute fantasy y’all are weaving about the possibilities in front of us.

When I see all these people explain that yeah they want Rodgers to stay, but they recognize the financial realities, instead of grappling with the truth, that they’re either going to have to blood bath the roster or lose Rodgers, you come up with a third alternative that doesn’t exist in reality.

A best case scenario that is entirely unrealistic and inconsistent with all observed empirical evidence is the literal definition of “fantasy.” Hope all you want, but keep those expectations based in what’s real

[German_Panzer]

It is very simple: If Aaron is not willing to cut his demands to provide leverage to hold/acquire important players then he has to go. The only question then will remain how do it. Rodgers will only stay under a discount extension if he likes it in GB or wants to have a legacy as the dude who stayed loyal in times where everyone didn‘t. In the summer we will have a clearer picture.