Re: Rodgers wants out
Posted: 25 Jun 2021 08:45
Yeah the only reason why I could even see this being a remote possibility is that it seems like Rodgers suddenly doesn't seem to care that people think he's an asshole.
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Yeah the only reason why I could even see this being a remote possibility is that it seems like Rodgers suddenly doesn't seem to care that people think he's an asshole.
That.... could actually help us.
I mean it may be better than him just not showing up in terms of finding a trade partner...but we would still get less money back for him this year and he still wouldnt be helping the 2021 packers. 2 pretty major negatives.BF004 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 08:55That.... could actually help us.
Instead thinking we could trade him next year, after the dead money has worn off more being more palatable, we could just account for that in different ways now. And the traded to team would probably like the extra year of control they would be taking on, either to have or for negotiating reasons.
Thinking along the lines of maybe extending Adams or Jaire, or both, with a nice big cap hit this year or something.
Who cares about the money we would be getting back this year? The Packers know their long term hit they have to have for Rodgers. Regardless, we have roughly $39 million in cap liability we have to expense at some point. We need to expense the remaining $38 Million signing bonus of Rodgers regardless so whether that hit comes in 2021, 2022 or 2023 it don't matter really. So any signing bonus money we expense in 2021 means we don't have expense after 2021.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:03I mean it may be better than him just not showing up in terms of finding a trade partner...but we would still get less money back for him this year and he still wouldnt be helping the 2021 packers. 2 pretty major negatives.BF004 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 08:55That.... could actually help us.
Instead thinking we could trade him next year, after the dead money has worn off more being more palatable, we could just account for that in different ways now. And the traded to team would probably like the extra year of control they would be taking on, either to have or for negotiating reasons.
Thinking along the lines of maybe extending Adams or Jaire, or both, with a nice big cap hit this year or something.
I see your point that there could always be a silver lining, im just not sure the trade value is really affected that much. Rodgers is getting old and he is expensive, he is also great. But there probably will only be about 3 or 4 teams who can really put offers in that will compete to get him. I think those offers will reach a level where the extra year of control wont sweeten the deal too much. The new team will be restructuring his deal anyways i am sure.
are you saying a player could sign a brand new deal with a 20m signing bonus, immedietely after signing the deal inform the team he has tricked them and he will be sitting out each year, and the team will still have to have that 20m on their books through the life of deal?go pak go wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:12Who cares about the money we would be getting back this year? The Packers know their long term hit they have to have for Rodgers. Regardless, we have roughly $39 million in cap liability we have to expense at some point. We need to expense the remaining $38 Million signing bonus of Rodgers regardless so whether that hit comes in 2021, 2022 or 2023 it don't matter really. So any signing bonus money we expense in 2021 means we don't have expense after 2021.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:03I mean it may be better than him just not showing up in terms of finding a trade partner...but we would still get less money back for him this year and he still wouldnt be helping the 2021 packers. 2 pretty major negatives.BF004 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 08:55
That.... could actually help us.
Instead thinking we could trade him next year, after the dead money has worn off more being more palatable, we could just account for that in different ways now. And the traded to team would probably like the extra year of control they would be taking on, either to have or for negotiating reasons.
Thinking along the lines of maybe extending Adams or Jaire, or both, with a nice big cap hit this year or something.
I see your point that there could always be a silver lining, im just not sure the trade value is really affected that much. Rodgers is getting old and he is expensive, he is also great. But there probably will only be about 3 or 4 teams who can really put offers in that will compete to get him. I think those offers will reach a level where the extra year of control wont sweeten the deal too much. The new team will be restructuring his deal anyways i am sure.
The only thing I think could be argued is "less money for Adams resign" but even that could get easily negotiated to defer into 2022 which we would theoretically have less cap hit in 2022.
I was about to post something similar.
Im not sure the NFL has the legal authority to know for sure if he is vaccinated or not. I could see the vaccine list and rules being purely voluntary to submit to the league, and then once you submit your information then you can do the things the vaccine confirmed people can do. Theoretically there could be some vaccinated people who see their health choices as their business and they remain on the unvaccinated list purely because they did not want to submit their info to their employ. I doubt the opt out rules have clauses for vaccinated or unvaccinated because I doubt the league can force its way into knowing.
Not to get in the vaccine conversation but Rodgers does seem smart enough to where he would have probably done thorough research on the issue. That's why I think he would have gotten the vaccine. But don't want the convo to go down that rabbit hole.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 10:13Im not sure the NFL has the legal authority to know for sure if he is vaccinated or not. I could see the vaccine list and rules being purely voluntary to submit to the league, and then once you submit your information then you can do the things the vaccine confirmed people can do. Theoretically there could be some vaccinated people who see their health choices as their business and they remain on the unvaccinated list purely because they did not want to submit their info to their employ. I doubt the opt out rules have clauses for vaccinated or unvaccinated because I doubt the league can force its way into knowing.
Also, doesnt Rodgers seem kind of like the kind of guy who may not want the vaccine? I could see so many people pushing for it, that he wants to be the smartest guy in the room and contrarian and that pushes him the other way on the issue. I honestly think its like 50/50 for what camp he is in ha. I could see him being a follower of the Joe Rogan, Eric and Brett Weinstein schools of thought...which by the way I totally respect, just saying i could see him plotting a different path than the mainline thought on the jab and covid in general.
Who knows. Many smart people in both camps. I wasnt going down that rabbit hole either, just pointing out that I could see him being someone who does not do what everyone would assume in this case.Acrobat wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 10:25Not to get in the vaccine conversation but Rodgers does seem smart enough to where he would have probably done thorough research on the issue. That's why I think he would have gotten the vaccine. But don't want the convo to go down that rabbit hole.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 10:13Im not sure the NFL has the legal authority to know for sure if he is vaccinated or not. I could see the vaccine list and rules being purely voluntary to submit to the league, and then once you submit your information then you can do the things the vaccine confirmed people can do. Theoretically there could be some vaccinated people who see their health choices as their business and they remain on the unvaccinated list purely because they did not want to submit their info to their employ. I doubt the opt out rules have clauses for vaccinated or unvaccinated because I doubt the league can force its way into knowing.
Also, doesnt Rodgers seem kind of like the kind of guy who may not want the vaccine? I could see so many people pushing for it, that he wants to be the smartest guy in the room and contrarian and that pushes him the other way on the issue. I honestly think its like 50/50 for what camp he is in ha. I could see him being a follower of the Joe Rogan, Eric and Brett Weinstein schools of thought...which by the way I totally respect, just saying i could see him plotting a different path than the mainline thought on the jab and covid in general.
But they have different protocols for vaxxed and unvaxxed people. And the teams have different protocols for reaching certain vaccination percentages. So I think they DO report it, and that it was agreed upon by the negotiations with the union, which is why it's different than other employers.
Funchess did it except it wasn’t worth 20mil.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:16are you saying a player could sign a brand new deal with a 20m signing bonus, immedietely after signing the deal inform the team he has tricked them and he will be sitting out each year, and the team will still have to have that 20m on their books through the life of deal?go pak go wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:12Who cares about the money we would be getting back this year? The Packers know their long term hit they have to have for Rodgers. Regardless, we have roughly $39 million in cap liability we have to expense at some point. We need to expense the remaining $38 Million signing bonus of Rodgers regardless so whether that hit comes in 2021, 2022 or 2023 it don't matter really. So any signing bonus money we expense in 2021 means we don't have expense after 2021.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:03
I mean it may be better than him just not showing up in terms of finding a trade partner...but we would still get less money back for him this year and he still wouldnt be helping the 2021 packers. 2 pretty major negatives.
I see your point that there could always be a silver lining, im just not sure the trade value is really affected that much. Rodgers is getting old and he is expensive, he is also great. But there probably will only be about 3 or 4 teams who can really put offers in that will compete to get him. I think those offers will reach a level where the extra year of control wont sweeten the deal too much. The new team will be restructuring his deal anyways i am sure.
The only thing I think could be argued is "less money for Adams resign" but even that could get easily negotiated to defer into 2022 which we would theoretically have less cap hit in 2022.
I could be wrong of course but I imagine that even if you are vaxxed if you dont submit to the league that you are then you are just considered unvaxxed in terms of the protocols. Thats how it is at my work at least.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 10:44But they have different protocols for vaxxed and unvaxxed people. And the teams have different protocols for reaching certain vaccination percentages. So I think they DO report it, and that it was agreed upon by the negotiations with the union, which is why it's different than other employers.
Yes. I believe they can. As Lupe stated, this is what happened with Funchess. He got his signing bonus regardless because it was a signing bonus.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 10:46Funchess did it except it wasn’t worth 20mil.Drj820 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:16are you saying a player could sign a brand new deal with a 20m signing bonus, immedietely after signing the deal inform the team he has tricked them and he will be sitting out each year, and the team will still have to have that 20m on their books through the life of deal?go pak go wrote: ↑25 Jun 2021 09:12
Who cares about the money we would be getting back this year? The Packers know their long term hit they have to have for Rodgers. Regardless, we have roughly $39 million in cap liability we have to expense at some point. We need to expense the remaining $38 Million signing bonus of Rodgers regardless so whether that hit comes in 2021, 2022 or 2023 it don't matter really. So any signing bonus money we expense in 2021 means we don't have expense after 2021.
The only thing I think could be argued is "less money for Adams resign" but even that could get easily negotiated to defer into 2022 which we would theoretically have less cap hit in 2022.