Packers Huddle

What does reconciliation look like to you?

I know some here seem to have a preference for fewer threads not more, but when there are 50 pages, I find it winds up just repeating itself since if you step away from a laptop for an hour or a day, you're likely not re-reading all the commentary that precedes you

But I also want something specific here.

This is not a thread to discuss who is at fault or why, or how people feel or why, or EVEN what a trade might look like.

This is a thread to say, "Ok, IF Rodgers were to return to the Packers, he obviously would need something (even if he just caves, there has to be a face-saving move for PR purposes.)

So I just want to brainstorm what do we think the Packers should actually offer. Or what do we think Rodgers should actually want?

There are many options. Extension, renegotiation. A No-Trade Clause so he can pick his destination if things break down again. A raise? An official voice? A public apology? Trade Jordan Love? Trade for Jake Kumerow....


That's the goal here. Just, simply, what does reconciliation look like to you?

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.

Annnnnnnnd I think he'd make them trade Love. Which would undoubtedly net no better than a 2nd round pick next year and thus wind up as a loss.

1 more year on the current deal.

Is there a way of ensuring that the dead cap is high every year of the deal making it a poor financial decision if packers want to trade or cut?

Oh, and extend Adams

This may be different than the question of “what do you think it will take”. Thats a good question but it May take something the Packers would never do like extend KAaron until he is 45 and fire Gutey. He still could really just want out and is using all this other stuff as his reasonings and they aren’t real.

I could also see Rodgers demand we trade Love. Do we think the packers would do that?

It’s also interesting to think what the org will and won’t do.

That said, I would fully gurantee KAaron’s current deal, and maybe add one more year to it. I would not pay record money for more than one year than the time on his current deal.

Into his mid 40s making money that doesn’t allow us to resign Jaire etc isn’t good business.

Rodgers needs some type of guarantee things are going to change. You can do that without actually firing anyone. He needs the FO kept in check from doing something stupid like... idk for example drafting a QB in the 1st round and giving up multiple assets at that to do it...

That check could be something the NBA often does which is opt-out contract years. Extend Rodgers for the real forseeable future. Not what the Packers currently have where they planned to push him out after 2023. Give him opt out years where if things really dont change and he really isnt happy he can opt out of his contract.

If we really believe in this teams current level of talent Rodgers shouldnt be able to find a better team to go to. If Gutey does his job and stops doing dumb &%$@ Rodgers will stay.

I do think we also need to trade Love. Get what you can for him. It was a massive mistake and weve seen Gutey do this before where there is a clear mistake but he is too slow to react and cut his losses which just hurts the team in the future.

We need to make it known to Rodgers we are doing everything we can to win. We also need to show a little god damn respect. Involve him in the conversations for some of our personnel moves. You can have a conversation with a person and ask for their thoughts and opinions on the matter and if it doesnt jive with what you think explain your reasoning. Example: Kumerow- Rodgers; "I dont know Krause I like Kumerow. He does things the right way. He practices hard and hes consistent." Gutey; "I respect that and I agree. The problem that we are having with that is special teams. We think Malik Taylor can be a core special teams player and you know how poor weve been on that side of the ball for a decade."
Another example: Love- Gutey; "Hey Rodgers we are gonna trade up for a QB in the first round. Just giving you a heads up." Rodgers; "Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard." Gutey; "Yeah April Fools. Really had you going there didnt I?" Both laugh and life is good.

I'm debating myself over "we do not negotiate with terro-QBs" and "OK, we'll negotiate, but there are hard limits".

You cannot fully guarantee a 37-year-old QB's, who hasn't been an ironman, contract very long term. You just can't, and that's regardless of Love. The organization has to have a way out in case AR has a Teddy B injury day 1 of this year's camp (knock on wood he's spared of any injuries). As Rodgers gets older, the chance of that increases.

The Packers already took a HUGE risk signing that extension some years ago. And in deals before that. AR has taken early guarantees over going to the wire for max cash he would've gotten by threatening to become an UFA for a reason: security in case of injury. The Packers literally could not have done ANYTHING had his ability been impaired early on in the most recent contract. We would've been bottom feeders for years and years, hampered by his cap charge. Why the extreme Rodgers fans don't recognize what the org has done for him is baffling.

In 2021, the biggest risk years of that deal are done, and the Packers are supposed to reap the benefits of taking that risk now in the form of options and leverage.

AR's current contract guarantees this season. The next two are essentially team options. I'd be willing to do a restructure or do an extension that would guarantee the 2022 season for AR, maybe even 2023 if not injured (= roster bonus). That's it. I can't bring myself to agree to anything more. There is no contract anyone can form that guarantees him a starting gig at GB until the end of his career, while also protecting the franchise in case of injury early in the deal.

As for other things: Apologize on your knees and keep him better in the loop, maybe. But you can't have a player dictate front office things. Just can't. A QB who decides his teammates' fortunes is a QB who has to disappoint a lot of his teammates. You can't keep everyone. Hard decisions have to be made. It's better it's done by a GM (hate him all you like) than a guy who has to walk into the locker room and lead the team after taking away someone's (and some teammate's friend's) livelihood.

yep, no trade through the life of this contract, I don't think LOve is a issue with the no trade clause, they have already offered a extension, and restructure, and he didn't accept that, imo it's the trade right before 2023 that he's upset about that he thinks is Guty's plan, fix that and I think reconciliation is possible.

If the Packers extend Rodgers, Love is gone. No way will he or should he stay with the Packers, when his rookie contract is over he is gone. And then what? Go 0-16 is what, in 2024/5 with Rodgers a shell of what he is and Love gone and no compensation other than a comp pick for Love. And in salary cap hell paying Rodgers in 2024 and beyond when he is not worth a conditional 7th round pick. Maybe by 2028 the Packers can be out of the NFC North cellar but more likely it does not happen until 2030.

And that is assuming that Love does not pull a Rodgers in 2023.

There is no solution. Trade Rodgers in June when he is worth something.

Management wants flexibility, given his age and the cap, while the player wants security beyond 2021. Those two realities prevent any long term solution both will be happy with.

Ideally he comes back for one more year. I don't know how to make that happen. I don't think it is possible at this point.

The second best solution is to trade him post June 1 for an elite rookie plus picks. Like I said before, I think Denver with Surtain is the best option for everyone.

Honestly, I'm out. No longer interested. Trade him.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 06:36

Honestly, I'm out. No longer interested. Trade him.

I will gladly welcome him back, but I am not interested in bending over backwards and locking more money into him so it restricts us from signing other guys, trading our future and having the appearance the Packers will bend to one player so we can have two likely seasons of being a contender but end up losing in the NFC Championship game.

The farthest I am willing to go is restructure which makes his dead hit and cap hit rise considerably in 2023 because I always viewed that season as a dump season anyways.

So if he wants to play for what will likely be a team on a significant decline in 2023...be my guest.

I am still floored because I thought this was honestly looking to be a win-win situation.

Rodgers could be on a championship caliber team for 2 more years and then have the ability to jump ship once our resources got depleted and it was obvious it was time for a "reset the bank" and rebuild.

The Packers would then get compensation for trading Rodgers and whoever received Rodgers could design a contract to free up resources so Rodgers could literally be Brady his final 2 - 3 years with a new team to give him a shot at being a contender.

I guess that's why I'm so mad. Because this was setting up really nice for both Rodgers and the Packers and Love.

But Rodgers wants to sh*t on all of it.

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.

This is all for the imagination, as we'll likely never really know the details that drive this topic. But then, that's why we have a forum like this anyhow.
:-)

Here's my reconciliation solution.

1. Wait for after June 1.
2. Trade Aaron to the Raiders. Get 2 first round picks and a third round pick, plus a player.
3. Wait for Aaron to retire.
4. Five to 10 years later, induct him into the Packer HOF, once the hatred has abated.
5. Give him a hero's welcome at Lambeau for the ceremony. Hugs and kisses all around, even from Guty (if he's still around).

That sounds like reconciliation to me, even if it takes a while.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 03:06

If the Packers extend Rodgers, Love is gone. No way will he or should he stay with the Packers, when his rookie contract is over he is gone. And then what? Go 0-16 is what, in 2024/5 with Rodgers a shell of what he is and Love gone and no compensation other than a comp pick for Love. And in salary cap hell paying Rodgers in 2024 and beyond when he is not worth a conditional 7th round pick. Maybe by 2028 the Packers can be out of the NFC North cellar but more likely it does not happen until 2030.

And that is assuming that Love does not pull a Rodgers in 2023.

There is no solution. Trade Rodgers in June when he is worth something.

sure if Rodgers wants to play here beyond 2023 that might be to much for Love and he'd leave, but Rodgers was willing to sit another year till Favre retired, heck Ted and Mike both asked him to come back, so Rodgers would have sat for 4 years, Love can do the same. however the impression Rodgers has is that he wont be able to finish his contract.

with Favre the goal wasn't to trade him for compensation, the FO seemed willing to let favre play till he retired, so there seems a different plan with Rodgers, a no trade clause so he can finish his contract seems like a solution that may get him on board

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 07:36

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.

I think prior to the Love pick Rodgers felt/thought he'd be allowed to play out the existing deal, then either retire, or he could job his services with another team, or seek a extension with us, course he had to know the team would draft his replacement at some point, from the angst about it that he's showing now he didn't expect it till this or next years draft, so not only does he feel as though he's being pushed out, but that the FO wants control of where he'll be pushed to.

seems we have a choice, continue to exert control over his future, or give the no trade clause and let him finish the contract and relinguish rights to compensation.

Yoop wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 07:52

seems we have a choice, continue to exert control over his future, or give the no trade clause and let him finish the contract and relinguish rights to compensation.

Maybe. But if there is grit behind the reports that Bob McGinn is saying that the Packers offered a few extensions and would be making Rodgers the highest paid player in the league and he still refused it....

that don't sound like reconciliation is possible to me.

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 08:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 07:52

seems we have a choice, continue to exert control over his future, or give the no trade clause and let him finish the contract and relinguish rights to compensation.

Maybe. But if there is grit behind the reports that Bob McGinn is saying that the Packers offered a few extensions and would be making Rodgers the highest paid player in the league and he still refused it....

that don't sound like reconciliation is possible to me.

well the FO can offer as many years as they want, minus guarantee's and the no trade clause they don't really mean anything, he wants control of his destiny and remaining years on this contract, a simple request really, unless he has a career type injury it's seems the least painful solution, and we can protect ourselves against that to with another clause.

seems the ball is in our court to get this done if that is all he wants, most everything else seems like media hype and drama, just distractions.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 May 2021 06:36

Honestly, I'm out. No longer interested. Trade him.

The part about telling FAs he was leaving so they shouldn't sign is what rubs me wrong.