Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Aaron Rodgers contract
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 496176"><p>My problem with your model was the $103 million guarantee. That would be "spectacular", "far and away", and irresponsible.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I don't think the principals care much about the buzz of headline numbers. Sizzle is for the fans; the people paying and receiving are interested in the steak.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The dead money in the first three years of your $103 mil guarantee model would be so prohibitive that if he suffered a Collins-like injury, a Sherrod-like injury, blew out his rotator cuff, suffered serious head trauma, etc., he'd have be kept on even if his career was over. Absorbing that kind of dead cap by releasing him would require so many player cuts the roster would look like the team went down in a plane crash. Year 4 we'd look like the Raiders. And if he was kept on the bench under this scenario, you'd be crippled by a large amount of cap space, escalating year after year, dedicated to a player not playing. And if you shuttled him off to permanent IR outside the cap, you're into organizational cash issues.</p><p> </p><p>That kind of guarantee is just not something any responsible management would entertain.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I think that's a false assumption. It depends on what the salary cap looks like at the time. Without a significant increase in cap in the interim, he'd be forced to take a pay cut regardless.</p><p> </p><p>We've been in a place before where a franchise QB did not demonstrate a proper balance between selfish interests and organizational needs. I have no reason to think Rodgers is in that place. However, if he were, demanding the kind of guarantee you suggest, there are other courses of action that can be taken.</p><p> </p><p>When you've been a fan as long as I have, your perspective tends to shift toward "organization first" and away from the cult of player personality.</p><p> </p><p>I happen to be in the camp that says, on balance, this is not a particularly very good football team without Rodgers. But there are lines in the sand.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 496176"] My problem with your model was the $103 million guarantee. That would be "spectacular", "far and away", and irresponsible. I don't think the principals care much about the buzz of headline numbers. Sizzle is for the fans; the people paying and receiving are interested in the steak. The dead money in the first three years of your $103 mil guarantee model would be so prohibitive that if he suffered a Collins-like injury, a Sherrod-like injury, blew out his rotator cuff, suffered serious head trauma, etc., he'd have be kept on even if his career was over. Absorbing that kind of dead cap by releasing him would require so many player cuts the roster would look like the team went down in a plane crash. Year 4 we'd look like the Raiders. And if he was kept on the bench under this scenario, you'd be crippled by a large amount of cap space, escalating year after year, dedicated to a player not playing. And if you shuttled him off to permanent IR outside the cap, you're into organizational cash issues. That kind of guarantee is just not something any responsible management would entertain. I think that's a false assumption. It depends on what the salary cap looks like at the time. Without a significant increase in cap in the interim, he'd be forced to take a pay cut regardless. We've been in a place before where a franchise QB did not demonstrate a proper balance between selfish interests and organizational needs. I have no reason to think Rodgers is in that place. However, if he were, demanding the kind of guarantee you suggest, there are other courses of action that can be taken. When you've been a fan as long as I have, your perspective tends to shift toward "organization first" and away from the cult of player personality. I happen to be in the camp that says, on balance, this is not a particularly very good football team without Rodgers. But there are lines in the sand. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
ThePerfectBeard
Heyjoe4
shockerx
weeds
sschind
Latest posts
H
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: Heyjoe4
3 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
162-0
Latest: weeds
9 minutes ago
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Green Bay to Host '25 Draft!
Latest: weeds
15 minutes ago
NFL Discussions
S
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Schultz
Today at 5:55 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 12:58 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Aaron Rodgers contract
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top