Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 13:37

Yeah, throw out what you think about how long Rodgers wants to play....

image.png

This deal is CLEARLY structured to be a 3-year deal. Everything we've ever known about cap savings versus dead cap indicates you don't PLAN to do a deal that costs you $68 million in dead money for a player not on your roster when it would cost $40 million to keep him and play him.

Even after that, I bet if Rodgers plays 3 and retires, they spread the cap out over 2 years post-June 1st style and take two years of $22.5 M dead hits rather than one year of $45 M dead cap, especially since by then (2025) we're probably looking at a cap of like $275 M (some reports it might jump as much as 20% in 2023 and maybe again in 2024 as the new TV money enters the revenue stream, but they often smooth that out over longer periods of time)

Seems it's still not clear what the structure on the Rodgers deal is.

Over The Cap says a dead cap hit in 2025 of 45m.

But Spotrac and Ken Ingalls says 76m.

Spotrac: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-p ... gers-3745/

I wonder when we will get the final numbers on this. Either way, it looks like we'll get a full tank year post-Rodgers to go draft our next HoF QB.

I know this: the fan tolerance for Rodgers having a bad game just went down significantly. If Rodgers gonna insist on a contract that resets the market and forces major team and player concessions, he better expect to be heavily criticized when he plays like an average Joe.

British wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 04:24

I'm genuinely curious as to what sort of structure could achieve that....

I'm guessing the cash payments he's receiving could be option bonuses that are counted as signing bonuses not roster bonuses so it pushes more into the out years each year? But I thought that would have to happen through restructure; I didn't know you could treat money like a signing bonus that isn't paid at signing from the outset of the contract; if they could, why didn't they do that with Bakh's contract, which was clearly written to be restructured into signing bonuses as it went (and has, indeed, been restructured that way)

APB wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 08:30

I know this: the fan tolerance for Rodgers having a bad game just went down significantly. If Rodgers gonna insist on a contract that resets the market and forces major team and player concessions, he better expect to be heavily criticized when he plays like an average Joe.

Every contract Rodgers has signed after his first extension in 2009 has reset the market and forced major concessions. Literally he has always been the highest paid QB in the league *at the time of signing*, depending on how you define that.

Wow, the Spotrac contract notes are wild.

Ok, so there is a $58M option bonus due between this season and next season. But that bonus, if picked up, activates the *2025* year of the contract. If it is not picked up, Rodgers' SALARY becomes $58M instead. That will be picked up (which is why everyone says this is at least a 2-year deal)

There is a $47M option bonus between the 2023 and 2024 seasons. If that bonus is picked up, it activates the *2026* year of the contract. If it is not picked up, the salary for 2024 becomes $47 M. By my estimation, not picking up that bonus would increase Rodgers' 2024 (year 3) cap number from $40M to nearly $70M (I think around 68M). But if it IS picked up, it further pushes dead money out, hence the Ingalls tweet.

Thus, I retract my assertion of a definite 3-year deal and understand why people are talking about it as "at least 2 years." The third year bonus provides a decision point where if they choose to keep Rodgers, they would likely have to decline the bonus and renegotiate the salary changes that triggers for dead cap purposes. If they accept the bonus it likely means Rodgers is indicating a commitment beyond 2024 and might play the 4th year of this, or a renegotiated deal.

Truly bizarre contract work here. I wondered how the Packers could possibly counter Mahomes' 12-year deal with a very creative structure on a shorter timeline and they seem to have come up with something truly unique, hence all the talking heads going on live TV like "ummmm, this one's going to take a while. I'm figuring it out."

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 08:34

British wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 04:24

I'm genuinely curious as to what sort of structure could achieve that....

I'm guessing the cash payments he's receiving could be option bonuses that are counted as signing bonuses not roster bonuses so it pushes more into the out years each year? But I thought that would have to happen through restructure; I didn't know you could treat money like a signing bonus that isn't paid at signing from the outset of the contract; if they could, why didn't they do that with Bakh's contract, which was clearly written to be restructured into signing bonuses as it went (and has, indeed, been restructured that way)

I think you are right YoHo. I saw something that the contract is built to basically restructure every year, if he comes back, to change the base to bonuses. Which will push all that out. But the consensus seems to be those big dead cap numbers. I don't think overthecap is taking into those likelyhoods into account.

APB wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 08:30

I know this: the fan tolerance for Rodgers having a bad game just went down significantly. If Rodgers gonna insist on a contract that resets the market and forces major team and player concessions, he better expect to be heavily criticized when he plays like an average Joe.

seriously now, he has been criticized for just about every game we've lost, and every PO game we've lost, so whats new?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 08:37

APB wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 08:30

I know this: the fan tolerance for Rodgers having a bad game just went down significantly. If Rodgers gonna insist on a contract that resets the market and forces major team and player concessions, he better expect to be heavily criticized when he plays like an average Joe.

Every contract Rodgers has signed after his first extension in 2009 has reset the market and forced major concessions. Literally he has always been the highest paid QB in the league *at the time of signing*, depending on how you define that.

people here and on other forums where gushing at the fact that the Packers made Rodgers the richest player in the league when Murphy gave him the contract in 2018, no kidding, it was like a badge of honor, I was shocked not only with that fan pleasure, but also Murphy for even doing it, and also retaining McCarthy, I said so here, and was blasted for it, I think I was right with that opinion, and things might be a little different now, oh well...

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 14:55

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2022 14:37

I have been adamant since the Love pick that we made a QB pick about 2 years too early.

And definitely coming to fruition here.

This isn't the year to be drafting a QB. Outside of maybe 1 or 2 guys the rest of this draft class is underwhelming at best.

I mean simple math says Rodgers had a dead cap of around $20 million this year if he was not a Packer in 2022 right?

He also gets $150 million cash over the next three years but with a $100 Million cap hit over the same time period.

So the $20 million to pay for prior years plus the $50 million gap of cash paid to cap hit would mean around $70 million of cap we need to recognize after 3 years of service to pay for the money we paid him from 2018 - 2024 without recognizing the cap expense.

If Brandt is right, Gute deserves to be chased out of Wisconsin.

Thankfully, Brandt I think will be wrong. He's let his twitter ego talk himself into a corner.

Andrew was correct on many things last year, this year he has whiffed on about everything. Im not taking his opinions as gold anymore.

British wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 09:55

If Brandt is right, Gute deserves to be chased out of Wisconsin.

Thankfully, Brandt I think will be wrong. He's let his twitter ego talk himself into a corner.

I haven't paid much attention to him in a couple years. Not right very often lately.

Probably kind of cool for Ingalls to be quoted by Brandt. Not sure if that has happened before.


I was kind of looking at this contract as vehicle that allows Aaron the ability to retire if he wishes, but he’ll half to pay money back, but stops the packers from releasing or trading him.

Brandt's insight is going to be less and less valid as the league changes and does things it didn't do when he was a part of it.

But to say he has an ego is WAY off base. He's as humble as they come and always admits when he's wrong (He even jokes about how bad he is with game predictions). He doesn't say to take his opinion as gospel. He just offers up what he thinks and that's all. We listen more closely because of the close ties with the Packers.

Listen to him, don't listen to him, up to you.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 10:03

British wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 09:55

If Brandt is right, Gute deserves to be chased out of Wisconsin.

Thankfully, Brandt I think will be wrong. He's let his twitter ego talk himself into a corner.

I haven't paid much attention to him in a couple years. Not right very often lately.

agree, he seemed like a straight shooter years ago, now, he seems more like a click bait salesman, this opinion of a 1 yr deal makes no sense for either what Rodgers wants, or the team, neither party wants a 1 yr deal out of this, he's now no different then any of the other social sports media people.

paco wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 10:13

Brandt's insight is going to be less and less valid as the league changes and does things it didn't do when he was a part of it.

But to say he has an ego is WAY off base. He's as humble as they come and always admits when he's wrong (He even jokes about how bad he is with game predictions). He doesn't say to take his opinion as gospel. He just offers up what he thinks and that's all. We listen more closely because of the close ties with the Packers.

Listen to him, don't listen to him, up to you.

I like him, but he went on the Eisen show last week and made the point that "I was right last year..." He definitely sounded like he was trying to defend his corner. I reckon he's been bent out of shape by too much time in twitter spats.

BF004 wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 10:11

Probably kind of cool for Ingalls to be quoted by Brandt. Not sure if that has happened before.


I was kind of looking at this contract as vehicle that allows Aaron the ability to retire if he wishes, but he’ll half to pay money back, but stops the packers from releasing or trading him.

Ingalls says that Rodgers won't need to pay back the prorated money like he would if it was a signing bonus because it's an option bonus.

British wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 10:33

BF004 wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2022 10:11

Probably kind of cool for Ingalls to be quoted by Brandt. Not sure if that has happened before.


I was kind of looking at this contract as vehicle that allows Aaron the ability to retire if he wishes, but he’ll half to pay money back, but stops the packers from releasing or trading him.

Ingalls says that Rodgers won't need to pay back the prorated money like he would if it was a signing bonus because it's an option bonus.

So if Rodgers retires next year, we can grab the pitchforks?