Aaron Rodgers contract

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
What made this deal so much better than the other recent elite quarterback deals was how early we got it done. Flacco & Brees contracts were expired and Peyton was a FA. Aaron wanted security and we got him cheaper for it. Never having to pay more than 21 million a year is also huge.

Now let's get him some more weapons tonight!


Exactly what i was thinking. Another pass catching tightend and deep threat at wr wouldn't hurt.
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Interesting timing of when the deal was announced ....

I mean for announcing they are making someone the highest paid player in nfl history they couldn't have picked a better time to have it glossed over by the media.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Holy Christ on a *******, batman! What a steal for TT this is. Since it's an extension, Rodgers is only going to average 18 million over the next 7 years with 40 million front-loaded into the first year...no wonder TT didn't do jack in free agency. Brilliant, brilliant move!

-From Rotoworld
"Packers signed QB Aaron Rodgers to a five-year, $110 million extension through 2019.
The front-loaded deal pays Rodgers $40 million in the first season, which explains why GM Ted Thompson was so conservative with his 2013 cap. It's a savvy deal by Thompson, and we've come to expect nothing less. Rodgers is now under control through his age-35 season. Theoretically, he can hit free agency in 2020 at age 36. Because Rodgers had two relatively cheap years remaining on his old deal, the new contract is actually worth $130.75 million over seven seasons, for an annual average of $18.68 million; Joe Flacco received an annual average of $20.1 million. The Rodgers deal is widely being pumped up as the richest in NFL history, but in actuality it's very much not. Another steal by Thompson."

The reporting on this deal is strange and not making much sense. We need better reporting and more detail.

"The front-loaded deal pays Rodgers $40 million in the first season, which explains why GM Ted Thompson was so conservative with his 2013 cap."

First, the new deal is an extension, so the 2013 bump up to $40 mil would appear to be signing bonus. If so, the cap hit is back loaded (like every other deal of any magnitude in the NFL).

Second, with the Matthews deal and the general practice of keeping a $5 mil cap cushion after the draft, there is nowhere near enough cap space in 2013 to meaningfully front load the cap on this deal even if the 2013 year was renegotiated, which does not appear to be the case.

Then we have this statement from Dougherty: "Rodgers will be paid $40 million this year, tying the NFL record for a single season's pay, according to the NFL Network and ESPN reports." Right, it looks like that's cash pay, not salary...he tied Brees who's $40 mil cash pay included $37 million in signing bonus.

ESPN said Rodgers $40 mil includes "some bonus". It looks to me like it will be about 75% bonus with the cap hit back loaded to one degree or another.

If they're paying him $40 mil cash this year, roughly $60 mil cash in the first 3 years, and the last two years of his current deal remain intact, the math says he's getting base salaries of roughly $10 mil per year for the first 3 years along with a $30 mil signing bonus. In that case, the cap hit in the first 3 years is about $14 mil per year...a back loaded deal from a cap standpoint.

We await the details.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Interesting timing of when the deal was announced ....

I mean for announcing they are making someone the highest paid player in nfl history they couldn't have picked a better time to have it glossed over by the media.

"Woo, woo, look at us, we paid more than anybody else in history!" Is this supposed to be a point of pride? It's the kind of thing media hounds like to do. "Woo, woo...fans please love me now for paying your hero like a prince!" Making a big splash on such matters is for the owner's vicarious thrill.

TT hates talking money, and will never talk about the thinking behind any particular contract. I get that; it's what I'd do. It makes sense to pop the news when attention is concentrated elsewhere, thereby avoiding the tiresome press attention.

Anyway, this isn't really news...he was expected to be extended for a record deal...and that's what happened. The real news, which most people don't care about, is how the cap hit is spread.
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
"Woo, woo, look at us, we paid more than anybody else in history!" Is this supposed to be a point of pride? It's the kind of thing media hounds like to do. "Woo, woo...fans please love me now for paying your hero like a prince!" Making a big splash on such matters is for the owner's vicarious thrill.

TT hates talking money, and will never talk about the thinking behind any particular contract. I get that; it's what I'd do. It makes sense to pop the news when attention is concentrated elsewhere.

Anyway, this isn't really news...he was expected to be extended for a record deal...and that's what happened.

I just think it says a lot about the team.

No need to try n make it negative
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I just think it says a lot about the team.

No need to try n make it negative

The only negative in my post had do with the fan(s) who think the team should make a big deal out of it. I thought I detected disappointment in your post. No?

It does say something about the team, yes.
 
M

mayo44

Guest
Am I the only who is pretty sure as a final stipulation to his contract, Rodgers must have insisted on a clause stating that the Packers must install a usable running game to take some heat off his ***?
 
OP
OP
ivo610

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
The only negative in my post had do with the fan(s) who think the team should make a big deal out of it. I thought I detected disappointment in your post. No?

It does say something about the team, yes.

No disappointment. I am pretty sure it's a unique situation when the team and the player have no interest for headlines. I'm happy for that. We aren't the sideshow so many other teams let themselves turn into
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Wilde has the details according to the (in)famous source with access to the NFL Players Association salary data.
Packers will pay Rodgers $40 million this year – a $35 million guaranteed signing bonus, a $4.5 million base salary and a $500,000 workout bonus. There is $54 million in total guarantees in the deal, with $9.5 million roster bonuses in 2014 and 2015 that are guaranteed for skill/injury, the source said. Packers president/CEO Mark Murphy said after Rodgers’ deal was announced that negotiator Russ Ball and agent David Dunn struck a deal that gave the Packers relatively good cap flexibility, given the size of the deal.

“I think we structured it in a way where we’ll continue to be in a position where we can compete on the field. But every team faces it. It’s a challenge,” Murphy said. “But he’s been such a great player and represents the Packers so well. I think everybody in the organization is really happy for him but happy for the organization, too, because it’s good for both sides.”

Rodgers’ base salaries after this year’s $4.5 million – he was slated to receive a $9.75 million base salary this year as part of his existing deal – will be $900,000 in 2014, $1 million in 2015, $11.5 million in 2016, $12.55 million in 2017, $19.8 million in 2018 and $20 million in 2019. His salary cap numbers are $12 million this season, $17.9 million in 2014, $18.6 million in 2015, $19.6 million in 2016, $20.65 million in 2017, $20.9 million in 2018 and $21.1 million in 2019.

Here's the link: http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/page.php?page_id=278
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest

It should be noted Rodgers' contract is not strictly an extension on the remaining two years...the old 2013 and 2014 contract terms were completely rewritten.

There's a key difference between Rodgers' and Flacco's deals as noted in this link. Flacco's cap hit goes to approx. $29 mil, $31 mil and $25 mil in years 4 - 6. This a deal made to be renegotiated after the 3rd. year.

Rodgers' deal is not so severely cap backloaded...after the significant cap hit jump in year 2 there's the gradual ramp to the $21 mil cap hit. This is a contract that could reasonably be played out if Rodgers continues to be Rodgers.

Nonetheless, the first 3 years of these deals...the total payout and the guarantees...are pretty comparable.

As I commented previously, Flacco's deal was nuts, born of a confluence of circumstances (SB win in the contract year) leading to a negotiation that resembled extortion. Rodgers is not underpaid so much as Flacco is overpaid. It's refreshing to see the principals involved in crafting Rodgers' deal acknowledged that.
 

texaspackerbacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
385
Reaction score
27
I haven't seen exact details of the contract - I don't know if they are public yet or not, but, somebody please explain how a contract extension can be "5 years for $110 million" and never more than $21 million in a year. The math simply does not add up. If it is perfectly straight line, it would be $22 million for each of 5 years. If it is front - or rear - loaded at all, some years would need to be more.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I haven't seen exact details of the contract - I don't know if they are public yet or not
Check the link in post #239 or read the quoted text, it lays out the money and cap hit year by year.
somebody please explain how a contract extension can be "5 years for $110 million" and never more than $21 million in a year. The math simply does not add up. If it is perfectly straight line, it would be $22 million for each of 5 years. If it is front - or rear - loaded at all, some years would need to be more.
Rodgers previous contract was through 2014 so the extension of five years means he is under contract for the next 7 seasons. How the math works depends upon if you are just looking at the 5 years of the extension or the total 7 years. The 5-year extension is worth $110M, that’s $22M/year. IMO it makes more sense to look at the entire 7 years and that number is $130.75, which is $18.68M/year.

As far as it is “never more than $21 million in a year” keep in mind Rodgers will receive $40,000,000 this year. The cap hit is never more than... because the signing bonus of $35M is spread over the term of the contract. The guaranteed money - a very important aspect of these huge deals - is $54M.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I haven't seen exact details of the contract - I don't know if they are public yet or not, but, somebody please explain how a contract extension can be "5 years for $110 million" and never more than $21 million in a year. The math simply does not add up. If it is perfectly straight line, it would be $22 million for each of 5 years. If it is front - or rear - loaded at all, some years would need to be more.

The details are in the links above...go read them.

To answer your question, this is not a 5 year / $110 million deal. That's how much was added to the $20 mil due for 2013 and 2014, kinda sorta. Nothing was actually added per se; it is more accurate to say the remaining two years were tossed and a whole new 7 year / $130 mil contract was written.

Saying 5 for $110 makes people think Rodgers is getting more than Flacco for PR purposes. From what I understand Rodgers scored a 1300 on his SAT so I'm sure he's not deceived. There are elements of Rodgers deal that are slightly better; Flacco's deal from the players perspective is higher risk / higher reward...how it turns out in the end will depend on what the restructured deal looks like 3 years hence.

I realize you wanted him to get $25 million per year for a bazillion years with a $100 mil signing bonus. You should be celebrating, not disappointed. We can afford more players this way. As I said before, your way would have been irresponsible.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top