The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Labrev wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 10:14You 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?
Where am I assuming its no big deal? And I'm a smart person tooDrj820 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 10:05BF004 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 09:43Aaron 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.
. Yeah. My thinking was eat Rodgers this year. Trade some picks to next year (I would love 3 1st rounders next year) and then resign during Camp. If you don't sign any big names (like seriously all vet minimum deals basically), we should be able to squeak under this year's cap heading into the season. And I don't believe Reed or Nixon are back. I want Nixon. But I think someone throws more than $6 million/year at him.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 10:18And 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.
I don't love the future picks situation; I mean definitely part of the package. But rookies just don't make huge immediate impacts often. I want to add the guys now who are going to grow and contribute to the Love succession plan. I want to open a window sooner than later. I want to add more players earlier; not defer player additions to later years. Draft picks are the best and cheapest way to do so. So I'm wholly against moving draft capital forward. It's reduced trade compensation for a reason. Time is a resource. It has value.
I hope you're right. I have a tough time believing he would normally want a guy described as "high-maintenance, low-commitment" (emphasis on the second part) running his offense, or just being part of a team built around the "Patriot Way" culture.
I mean this is why it's important to let these things into the public. Especially considering the division rivalries, knowing the Jets are in the works will get the offers or interest smoked out from the Pats and possibly Dolphins (people keep mentioning them as QB darkhorse destinations, so we might as well mention them, too).
your quoting me out of context, several members applauded the 2012 extension contract he was given making him the richest NFL player, and no one seemed to bat a eye when Murphy did it again in 2018 when Rodgers still had 2 years left on his prior contract, and not many complained when he was given a 3 year deal a little over a year ago, now every ones complaining about it and blame Rodgers for being greedy, Gute and Murphy is who you should be upset with.Labrev wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 10:14You 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?
You’ve said all along the contract was a one year deal that everyone involved expected to rework in year 2. I’m saying that’s an assumption and assumes Rodgers would want to make things easy on GB or his new team. Rodgers may “accept” going to the Jets, but may not be totally thrilled. He may decid he wants every dollar of his current deal. Expecting the current deal to be scrapped is assuming Rodgers will play nice, that is not a given. And that’s why the money is a big deal, and many people are mentioning it as complicating the trade situation.BF004 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 10:38Where am I assuming its no big deal? And I'm a smart person tooDrj820 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 10:05BF004 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 09:43
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.
I get people are talking about that, but I also don't get why they are all ignoring Aaron saying he will look to rework his contract. The Jets/and or other team and Aaron can negotiate whatever they want. If they are creating a new contract with a new team, guess I don't think it makes a lot of sense to add in a third party payer stipulation into that. And it certainly isn't like we are flush with cap room.
The decision to pick up Love's 5th year has to be made now, not in 2024. If they pick it up and Rodgers is still a Packer in 2024 the Packers are paying Love 20+ million to be a backup.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 06:58I am not sure why this still comes up, but they don't need to give the $20 million for Love now. They pick up the option this year and it hits the books in 2024.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 04:39
I am not an expert on how the Packers can trade Rodgers and find 20 mil for Love's 5th year option now, but it might still be possible.
Only if he is cut or traded after June 1st, which is not going to happen. The Packers will not be paying for Rodgers in 2024 unless he plays for the Packers in 2023.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:43Regardless, the Packers are still paying Rodgers in 2024, even if he is traded, right?Pckfn23 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 06:58I am not sure why this still comes up, but they don't need to give the $20 million for Love now. They pick up the option this year and it hits the books in 2024.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 04:39
I am not an expert on how the Packers can trade Rodgers and find 20 mil for Love's 5th year option now, but it might still be possible.
Well, yeah, if we have both on roster in 2024... Didn't think that is what we were talking about and I don't think think anyone thinks that is plausible.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:43The decision to pick up Love's 5th year has to be made now, not in 2024. If they pick it up and Rodgers is still a Packer in 2024 the Packers are paying Love 20+ million to be a backup.
NoTheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:43Regardless, the Packers are still paying Rodgers in 2024, even if he is traded, right?
Borrow from future years, its smart business. It's a negative interest loan. If I borrow you a dollar and say you only have to pay me back 95 cents in a year, or 45 next year and 40 in 2 years, you'd be stupid not to.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:43Gary is going to be a FA in 2024, is he going to be cheap? Dillon and Runyan too. Supposing somebody is the next Nixon or Rasul Douglas. With all the restructuring that has already taken place this season, who is left to restructure to make room to resign Gary and the others or to fill a weak position with a FA.
In other words, that Rodgers contract is going to hurt the Packers for years to come, not just this offseason.
Hard to argue with what's said here. Could you please use real numbers regarding contracts? My understanding is that every dollar that's put off is a full dollar charged later.
Simply, the cap continues to go up.Half Empty wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:58Hard to argue with what's said here. Could you please use real numbers regarding contracts? My understanding is that every dollar that's put off is a full dollar charged later.
I guess the dollars are still real and hit the Packers bottom line dollar for dollar, but thinking about it as a percentage of cap. ~20 million was 10% of the cap this year, next year it will only be 9%, two years only 8%, rough exaggeration, but I made a post on it a while back.Half Empty wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:58Hard to argue with what's said here. Could you please use real numbers regarding contracts? My understanding is that every dollar that's put off is a full dollar charged later.
Agree that it is normally a negative interest loan. Unless we get another COVID and the stadiums are empty again.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:59Simply, the cap continues to go up.Half Empty wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023 11:58Hard to argue with what's said here. Could you please use real numbers regarding contracts? My understanding is that every dollar that's put off is a full dollar charged later.