Rodgers wants out

[Pckfn23]

Just FYI, Rodgers got an extension 2 seasons prior to the drafting of Jordan Love. To say the Packers wanted this or that concerning the contract and the development of Love is creating a narrative that doesn't exist.

[Yoop]

very doubtful he'll go to a team with a record that gives them the 12th pick, he'll want to go a team that gives him a chance to win, and win quickly, he wont go to a team that needs a bunch of players to win it all, why would he do that? and most of the teams like that play well enough to give us a pick that high, thats why we need maybe a 1st and a 2nd year one and another first the following year, or something more reasonable like that.

His list this year included teams who would have picked 9th, 12th, and 17th. I specifically addressed that in the same post.

SF is a loaded team, and the first to come sniffing last off season, and I expect others come next off season.

[go pak go]

they wanted to keep Rodgers around for 2022 just in case Love didn't pan out, and even 2023 till sometime during PS to see if Love was ready then, thats why he got a 4 year extension, and he didn't want to be a one year at a time player.

They signed Rodgers to an extension in the summer of 2018. Jordan Love hadn't even played a full season of college ball. I don't think the FO is that talented to be able to plan things out like that.

I think as you've pointed out plenty that the team had the leverage, but now we are finding out that they would rather bend on that leverage then to count on Love this year, and from what we've heard they may want to do a longer term commitment after this season, Makes sense because whether people want to accept it or not Love is a 50/50 gamble.

Both sides had leverage. The Packers definitely had more leverage but Rodgers too had leverage and used it. The leverage Rodgers had is the Packers went ALL IN for a SB run in 2021. Meaning they have a roster ready to win now and borrowed future cap money to do it....meaning they will need to break the roster up in 2022 for a rebuild. The Packers didn't want to waste that opportunity and therefore decided it was in the best interest to bend a little bit by taking away that 2023 year.

It likely reduces our trade compensation a little. It definitely makes us most likely move on from Rodgers even if Love isn't ready after this season.

Those are concessions the Packers made.

[APB]

[mention]Yoop[/mention] - don't you realize the same logic you use over and over with Love and the likelihood he will fail - a late 1st rd pick meaning minimal chance of success - is the same argument you could've made against Rodgers?

This 50% nonsense you keep spewing is just that - nonsense. There are soooo many other variables that determine success or failure. To continue to harp on something so simplistic as draft position in determining success or failure is a waste of keystrokes.

[salmar80]

People are asking what AR gets outta this. It's quite simple:

He gets to choose his 2022 team (and beyond). And will get paid, again.

The no-trade clause is essentially veto power over any trade. Not just over which team he goes to, but AR has to approve of all aspects of the trade.

This means the new team not only has to be to his liking, but they also need to have a big money extension ready to be signed as soon as he lands there.

That extension can make his 2022 and 2023 cap numbers relatively low for the new team. This will facilitate a short term SB push. But they will kinda need to pay double: Picks and cash. GB has to hope it becomes a bidding war between teams AR approves of, otherwise the pick haul could be real disappointing.

If there are zero teams that fit his criteria, staying in GB could be an option (but it would be reeeeeal tough for the team to fit him under the cap in 2022). I would not bet on that...

[Yoop]

They signed Rodgers to an extension in the summer of 2018. Jordan Love hadn't even played a full season of college ball. I don't think the FO is that talented to be able to plan things out like that.
Yoop wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:48 pm
I think as you've pointed out plenty that the team had the leverage, but now we are finding out that they would rather bend on that leverage then to count on Love this year, and from what we've heard they may want to do a longer term commitment after this season, Makes sense because whether people want to accept it or not Love is a 50/50 gamble.
Both sides had leverage. The Packers definitely had more leverage but Rodgers too had leverage and used it. The leverage Rodgers had is the Packers went ALL IN for a SB run in 2021. Meaning they have a roster ready to win now and borrowed future cap money to do it....meaning they will need to break the roster up in 2022 for a rebuild. The Packers didn't want to waste that opportunity and therefore decided it was in the best interest to bend a little bit by taking away that 2023 year.

It likely reduces our trade compensation a little. It definitely makes us most likely move on from Rodgers even if Love isn't ready after this season.

Those are concessions the Packers made.

I said that wrong, once Love was drafted Rodgers still had 4 seasons on his contract, and the FO intended to keep him till Love was ready to manage a game, or basically ONE YEAR AT A TIME, and Rodgers knowing or felling this decided he wanted out.

[Yoop]

@Yoop - don't you realize the same logic you use over and over with Love and the likelihood he will fail - a late 1st rd pick meaning minimal chance of success - is the same argument you could've made against Rodgers?

This 50% nonsense you keep spewing is just that - nonsense. There are soooo many other variables that determine success or failure. To continue to harp on something so simplistic as draft position in determining success or failure is a waste of keystrokes.

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

[Yoop]

People are asking what AR gets outta this. It's quite simple:

He gets to choose his 2022 team (and beyond). And will get paid, again.

The no-trade clause is essentially veto power over any trade. Not just over which team he goes to, but AR has to approve of all aspects of the trade.

This means the new team not only has to be to his liking, but they also need to have a big money extension ready to be signed as soon as he lands there.

That extension can make his 2022 and 2023 cap numbers relatively low for the new team. This will facilitate a short term SB push. But they will kinda need to pay double: Picks and cash. GB has to hope it becomes a bidding war between teams AR approves of, otherwise the pick haul could be real disappointing.

If there are zero teams that fit his criteria, staying in GB could be an option (but it would be reeeeeal tough for the team to fit him under the cap in 2022). I would not bet on that...

well put.

[YoHoChecko]

People are asking what AR gets outta this. It's quite simple:

He gets to choose his 2022 team (and beyond). And will get paid, again.

The no-trade clause is essentially veto power over any trade. Not just over which team he goes to, but AR has to approve of all aspects of the trade.

This means the new team not only has to be to his liking, but they also need to have a big money extension ready to be signed as soon as he lands there.

That extension can make his 2022 and 2023 cap numbers relatively low for the new team. This will facilitate a short term SB push. But they will kinda need to pay double: Picks and cash. GB has to hope it becomes a bidding war between teams AR approves of, otherwise the pick haul could be real disappointing.

If there are zero teams that fit his criteria, staying in GB could be an option (but it would be reeeeeal tough for the team to fit him under the cap in 2022). I would not bet on that...

Explain to me what's different about that.

Yes, adding a no-trade clause is nice to give him an official veto power. However, in practice, saying "I won't report for any team except [teams]" has the exact same impact.

This is literally what we wanted all along. Not a soul on here, no matter how pro-team, was unwilling to give him a no-trade clause. The team gets the MVP QB in house without giving him a raise. They get cap relief. And then next year they can trade him OR they can keep him and let him walk away after his age 39 season to become a free agent. That last part, where they had 2 years to trade him, and now only have one year to trade him, is the "concession."

That's it. And like we've said all along... once Rodgers threw this tantrum, it guaranteed that even if he comes back, he's likely gone in another year. So yeah, he reduced the team's options from a 2-year window to a 1-year window.

[go pak go]

@Yoop - don't you realize the same logic you use over and over with Love and the likelihood he will fail - a late 1st rd pick meaning minimal chance of success - is the same argument you could've made against Rodgers?

This 50% nonsense you keep spewing is just that - nonsense. There are soooo many other variables that determine success or failure. To continue to harp on something so simplistic as draft position in determining success or failure is a waste of keystrokes.

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

The flipside of that is the Packers won't be able to provide Rodgers the same level of rosters like we did in 2019 - 2021. We just don't have the resources to do it any longer.

The reality of keeping Rodgers past this season is going to be more like a 2016 - 2018 season with higher caliber defense, but no Adams. So it's also like...what's the point? We have already seen Rodgers alone can't carry the team by himself based on 2018 information.

So it's not that I'm convinced Love will be great, but more have come to terms that the Packers literally can't be a contender with Rodgers after this season. We just can't supply him the guns.

[Pckfn23]

Due to cap, 2021 was probably going to be the Last Dance regardless of the Rodgers Riddle.

[Yoop]

@Yoop - don't you realize the same logic you use over and over with Love and the likelihood he will fail - a late 1st rd pick meaning minimal chance of success - is the same argument you could've made against Rodgers?

This 50% nonsense you keep spewing is just that - nonsense. There are soooo many other variables that determine success or failure. To continue to harp on something so simplistic as draft position in determining success or failure is a waste of keystrokes.

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

The flipside of that is the Packers won't be able to provide Rodgers the same level of rosters like we did in 2019 - 2021. We just don't have the resources to do it any longer.

The reality of keeping Rodgers past this season is going to be more like a 2016 - 2018 season with higher caliber defense, but no Adams. So it's also like...what's the point? We have already seen Rodgers alone can't carry the team by himself based on 2018 information.

So it's not that I'm convinced Love will be great, but more have come to terms that the Packers literally can't be a contender with Rodgers after this season. We just can't supply him the guns.

I disagree, no matter what the roster situation is Rodgers give us the best chance to compete, we'll most likely still contend for the division, after that anything is possible, remember often the deciding factor is which team is the most healthy, and that doesn't mean the most talented roster to begin the season, in fact often the most talented doesn't win it all.

I agree this is probably Rodgers last season as a Packer, but the team is leaving the door open to adjust his contract after this season for a longer duration.

[salmar80]

People are asking what AR gets outta this. It's quite simple:

He gets to choose his 2022 team (and beyond). And will get paid, again.

The no-trade clause is essentially veto power over any trade. Not just over which team he goes to, but AR has to approve of all aspects of the trade.

This means the new team not only has to be to his liking, but they also need to have a big money extension ready to be signed as soon as he lands there.

That extension can make his 2022 and 2023 cap numbers relatively low for the new team. This will facilitate a short term SB push. But they will kinda need to pay double: Picks and cash. GB has to hope it becomes a bidding war between teams AR approves of, otherwise the pick haul could be real disappointing.

If there are zero teams that fit his criteria, staying in GB could be an option (but it would be reeeeeal tough for the team to fit him under the cap in 2022). I would not bet on that...

Explain to me what's different about that.

Yes, adding a no-trade clause is nice to give him an official veto power. However, in practice, saying "I won't report for any team except [teams]" has the exact same impact.

This is literally what we wanted all along. Not a soul on here, no matter how pro-team, was unwilling to give him a no-trade clause. The team gets the MVP QB in house without giving him a raise. They get cap relief. And then next year they can trade him OR they can keep him and let him walk away after his age 39 season to become a free agent. That last part, where they had 2 years to trade him, and now only have one year to trade him, is the "concession."

That's it. And like we've said all along... once Rodgers threw this tantrum, it guaranteed that even if he comes back, he's likely gone in another year. So yeah, he reduced the team's options from a 2-year window to a 1-year window.

Not much difference. Making the veto power official helps with distrust, and any team trading for him is forced to negotiate an extension in advance. He could get all that through hold out/retirement threats, but now it's simpler.

I don't think AR "won" any huge victory here. Neither did the team. I view this as more of a face-saving deal.

[lupedafiasco]

@Yoop - don't you realize the same logic you use over and over with Love and the likelihood he will fail - a late 1st rd pick meaning minimal chance of success - is the same argument you could've made against Rodgers?

This 50% nonsense you keep spewing is just that - nonsense. There are soooo many other variables that determine success or failure. To continue to harp on something so simplistic as draft position in determining success or failure is a waste of keystrokes.

thanks for making my point, very few drafted QB's no matter what round there taken turn out to be Good, in fact most bust, so for people to think Love will become even a shadow of Rodgers should stay clear of vegas or any casino, is that better.

nonsense is thinking differently.

The flipside of that is the Packers won't be able to provide Rodgers the same level of rosters like we did in 2019 - 2021. We just don't have the resources to do it any longer.

The reality of keeping Rodgers past this season is going to be more like a 2016 - 2018 season with higher caliber defense, but no Adams. So it's also like...what's the point? We have already seen Rodgers alone can't carry the team by himself based on 2018 information.

So it's not that I'm convinced Love will be great, but more have come to terms that the Packers literally can't be a contender with Rodgers after this season. We just can't supply him the guns.

The Packers chose not to have the resources by making funky decisions. Drafting a backup QB in the 1st round instead of filling a position. Spending a 2nd round pick on RB and then resigning Jones. Signing to massing OLB deals and drafting another with 12th pick. Putting void year on players that are easily replaceable and probably not being sought after. Keeping Dean Lowry when there are younger promising players already cutting into his snaps. Even going back to Jimmy Graham. It was evident he was finished after the first year with us. Why did we try another year? Just take your medicine and move on. Gutey is too slow to move on from his mistakes IMO and it costs us moving forward. Dead cap sucks but at some point you just gotta admit the mistake and cut the player... Or better yet not be a dumbass in the first place and overpay.

[Yoop]

People are asking what AR gets outta this. It's quite simple:

He gets to choose his 2022 team (and beyond). And will get paid, again.

The no-trade clause is essentially veto power over any trade. Not just over which team he goes to, but AR has to approve of all aspects of the trade.

This means the new team not only has to be to his liking, but they also need to have a big money extension ready to be signed as soon as he lands there.

That extension can make his 2022 and 2023 cap numbers relatively low for the new team. This will facilitate a short term SB push. But they will kinda need to pay double: Picks and cash. GB has to hope it becomes a bidding war between teams AR approves of, otherwise the pick haul could be real disappointing.

If there are zero teams that fit his criteria, staying in GB could be an option (but it would be reeeeeal tough for the team to fit him under the cap in 2022). I would not bet on that...

Explain to me what's different about that.

Yes, adding a no-trade clause is nice to give him an official veto power. However, in practice, saying "I won't report for any team except [teams]" has the exact same impact.

This is literally what we wanted all along. Not a soul on here, no matter how pro-team, was unwilling to give him a no-trade clause. The team gets the MVP QB in house without giving him a raise. They get cap relief. And then next year they can trade him OR they can keep him and let him walk away after his age 39 season to become a free agent. That last part, where they had 2 years to trade him, and now only have one year to trade him, is the "concession."

That's it. And like we've said all along... once Rodgers threw this tantrum, it guaranteed that even if he comes back, he's likely gone in another year. So yeah, he reduced the team's options from a 2-year window to a 1-year window.

when did you ever say you'd give Rodgers a no trade clause? a no trade clause is diff. then saying Rodgers would have choice of teams, again thats the same as Murphy's this year and beyond comment, that stuff means nothing unless it's in writing, we've said a lot on this so my memory isn't to clear Yoho, but mostly from you all I've heard is the Packers need to get max compensation, you also said in the heat of the moment you'd like to see the team really stick it to Aaron, send him to a bottom feeder or whichever team can give us the most picks and players.

[YoHoChecko]

I don't think AR "won" any huge victory here. Neither did the team. I view this as more of a face-saving deal.

I guess the difference here is that the team was not TRYING to change the status quo. Rodgers threw his full force behind trying to change the status quo. A result that leaves the status quo VERY little-changed means that Rodgers, the one who made a play to get his way, made a lot of waves for very little payoff.

The team, who was content with things as they were, with the exception of wanting to restructure his deal for cap savings... got the cap savings they wanted. Got the 2021 status quo. And prrroooobbbbably will trade him at the same time that they would have anyway (after this season).

They simply lost the option to both keep Rodgers for 2022 AND receive trade compensation after. Which, as Michael Robinson said on NFL network yesterday, could easily have been done months ago.

[Pugger]

It's very close.

Maybe no retire it. We'll be back to it next offseason.

I'm just hoping the Packers don't screw this up and we get something decent in return for him next year. If they give in to everything, I'll be pissed.

Yup. Jordan Love to me is the story of this TC. If Love balls out, our leverage grows significantly. The next 8 to 9 months may just be the most important months of Gute's career.

Well. Scratch that. Next season will be important too once/if Love actually gets meaningful snaps.

And if Love isn't ready?

[YoHoChecko]

when did you ever say you'd give Rodgers a no trade clause? a no trade clause is diff. then saying Rodgers would have choice of teams, again thats the same as Murphy's this year and beyond comment, that stuff means nothing unless it's in writing, we've said a lot on this so my memory isn't to clear Yoho, but mostly from you all I've heard is the Packers need to get max compensation, you also said in the heat of the moment you'd like to see the team really stick it to Aaron, send him to a bottom feeder or whichever team can give us the most picks and players.

Let's do this...

May 6th:

why not just leave everything as is, and simply have him win the starting job till the contract is finished in 2023 with a no trade clause and resign him or let him walk as they do most players.

I would absolutely LOVE to leave everything as is except add a no trade clause and keep Rodgers either for 3 years or until he finds a place he specifically wants to go and asks out if Jordan Love is ready. But if that were the answer, just a simple no-trade clause, this would be resolved by now.

Also May 6th:

I’d offer a replacement, 4 year fully guaranteed contract, under the assumptions that the cap part of it has to make sense for us in ‘21 and ‘22, then also not nearing the highest paid player money. The 45 million per from Mahomes isn’t a fair comparison given the duration of that contract.

I’d even throw in a no trade clause, at a bit of a price.

Aaron has to sacrifice some things, money, security, control, or duration. Just can’t have them all.

But also if I’m Aaron, I do want that control to not be traded. Don’t want to have the Packers pick your destination and have that team gutted on picks and a player or two. Bucs gave up nothing other than cap. If they had to give up their top 10 pick for the tackle, and subsequent picks, and a quality veteran last year, they likely aren’t winning.

I agree with this completely; especially the top part (I would rather not do 4 guaranteed years, more like three) but the Mahomes payment level is a literally impossible ask on a 38 year old QB's timeline.

More May 6th:

So the general consensus seems to be a no trade clause, no extension but more security through the end of the current deal, figure out what to do with Love, and maybe give him some sort of opt out shifting the decision from a de facto team option to a de facto player option.

May 5th:

I really think it's a no-trade clause, a restructure that makes it nearly impossible to cut him before 2023, and an extra year (24) at the end that helps spread out and puff up the deal into a bit of an extension, more like a raise. Still very limited dead money in 2024.

That's what I got from a quick search of the words no trade clause and my name

[lupedafiasco]

Maybe no retire it. We'll be back to it next offseason.

I'm just hoping the Packers don't screw this up and we get something decent in return for him next year. If they give in to everything, I'll be pissed.

Yup. Jordan Love to me is the story of this TC. If Love balls out, our leverage grows significantly. The next 8 to 9 months may just be the most important months of Gute's career.

Well. Scratch that. Next season will be important too once/if Love actually gets meaningful snaps.

And if Love isn't ready?

This season Rodgers is here. It doesnt really affect Gutey too much. Its mostly the same team as last year.

Next season will determine the rest of Gutenkunsts life. If Love fails he blew this team up for nothing and if the team goes downhill he will never be GM for any team ever again. He might be a scout somewhere but he will never be trusted with a team.

[YoHoChecko]

As for wanting to stick it to him, yeah.

I think I said if he retired or sat out his whole season, then next year I'd burn that bridge and trade him to the worst scenario I could think of for him as retribution for blowing up a Super Bowl shot and violating his contract which does NOT contain a no-trade clause. I've also criticized him for not negotiating a no trade clause in his deal in the first place, since it's relatively easy to secure if you insist on it, and since he specifically said at the time of his signing that he thought this only guaranteed him 3 more years (rather than the 6 year life of the new extended deal).

OR if we traded him THIS year, which would mean damaging our ability to compete this year, under his current deal without a no-trade clause, I would maximize compensation.

But in terms of how to RECONCILE, I always was fine with adding a no-trade clause because it only makes official what is de facto true already. He will only play for a team he is willing to play for.