1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Aaron Rodgers contract

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. Arodgers12

    Arodgers12 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    74
    Ratings:
    +4
    I live in the U.P. and I dont have TV either. Well I cancelled TV after football season. I will get it back before September.
     
  2. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,115
    Ratings:
    +4,078
    The cap will not soar. It's a myth. It will slowly climb.
     
  3. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    It went from $67 million to $123 million from 2001 to 2013. You don't think it will continue at the same rate? Why wouldn't it? That is 83% in 12 years - about 7% per year. That would be about $131 next year and $140 the next year. That's your "slowly climb". In five years, that is $172 million - up $49 million from now. Even if Rodgers cap number is $25 million then compared to $10 million now, it is no great problem.
     
  4. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,115
    Ratings:
    +4,078
    I'm referring to the frequent comments about how the new tv contract will cause the cap to skyrocket in a couple years. People think just moving the cap hit to those years will be ok. The cap isn't going to go up by 20 mil or anything crazy. It will have steady growth.

    You think the NFLs growth will continue like it did in the years you cited? Where do you see the doubling of income coming from exactly? I think you are going down a dangerous road if you assume continuous explosive growth. I know a few people who thought that about real estate
     
  5. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    I simply expect it to keep on keeping on - "climb slowly" like a wise man said recently. Where did the 83% growth over the last 12 years come from? The answer for the next 2 or 5 or 12 years is more of the same. I don't want to get away from football into real estate or economics or heaven forbid, politics, because the powers that be around here are incredibly touchy (I could say bitchy hahaha) about locking threads, but suffice it to say, we are not talking about explosive growth as in real estate, therefore we are also not talking about a crash or even a plateau in salaries/salary cap - just that slow steady growth you have said, which means up about $17 million in 2 years and up about $49 million in 5 years, which more than accomodates a huge Rodgers contract, especially if it is structured like most of them these days, with a big bonus spread over long term bringing a low cap number the first several years. Ditto that for Matthews.
     
  6. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    Click on the graph in the following link:

    http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-20/sports/30074982_1_nfl-salary-cap-nfl-lockout-history

    Straight line growth in this business is over. Upward movement in revenues and cap will be more modest. Golden ages don't last forever.
     
  7. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    You know that article is two years old, right? And the drop in the graph came at the time when there was so much question and controversy about what was going to be negotiated with the players union and going to no cap at all. Now things are kinda normalized, and we are back to that slow steady increase that was mentioned by Ivo - about 7% a year since 2001 and most likely continuing at a similar rate - why would it not just continue like it has in the past? You could cut the rate of increase in half - just 3 1/2% per year, and it still would easily accomodate the future cap hit of a Rodgers max contract and Matthews too.
     
  8. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    So, you want me to create an updated graph for you? The adjusted cap this year is $123 million. Go draw your own line extensions.

    The flattish trend in the past 5 years has nothing to do with CBA "uncertainties". The cap is calculated according to formulas against the various categories of revenue, except for the 2010 uncapped year. More like generalized economic uncertainties, which is a sanitized way of saying consumers have flattish discretionary income, a condition that does not appear to have any foreseeable remedy.

    The flattish increase in the adjusted cap of $1.5 mil over the past 5 years is unprecedented in the history of the cap.

    Cutting the historical rate of increase in half seems reasonable. It would stay flat were it not for the new TV deals kicking in in 2015. I'll leave for your own consideration what % of the cap should be allocated to 2 players . I pointed out that a $25 mil average for Rodgers is a greater % of the cap in year 1 than Favre's year 1 in his 2001 landmark deal, while at the same time we're heading into a slower revenue growth period. You can draw whatever conclusions you want.

    You do realized that paying Rodgers the lowest possible amount he's willing to accept is a GOOD thing, right?
     
  9. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    OK, if you think the 3 1/2% is reasonable, let's use that as an example. That makes the cap $132 million - up $9 million in 2 years and $146 million - up $23 million in 5 years and $173 million = up $50 million in 10 years. Rodgers cap number is $10 million + now. I don't like the 4 year $22-25 million figure written about in several articles as being discussed. Longer term is better. The model I previously calculated called for a $50 million bonus and salary of $3, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 30, and 35 million a year for ten years. That would be just an $8 million cap hit the first year, $13 million the second, etc. The total would be $231 million. Make the first 5 years guaranteed - a total with the bonus of $103 million. Even the brutal late years would not be too terrible, given the higher cap, if Rodgers played through the whole deal like Favre did, and the first year would actually be lower than now. After five or maybe 6, 7, or 8 or 9 years, he could be cut if he fades - which I doubt - or gets injured to the point of retirement. Something similar but les, with about a 6 year deal for $65 million or so and maybe 3 guaranteed would work for Matthews, and still leave plenty for whatever other future deals were made.

    Everybody has the same cap to deal with. 26 of the 32 teams are worse off than the Packers now. Most of them will have star player contracts to deal with also, and the ones who don't will probably be on the lower end of the quality spectrum. Bottom line, this is doable and nothing really to worry too much about.

    Yes to your last sentence, unless circumstances in the future give him reason for regrets like possibly is the case with Brady.
     
  10. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    520
    Ratings:
    +495
    Here's a funny take on it (the NCAA discussion we were having):
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-11-2013/the-ncaa-s-perfectly-fair-rules
     
  11. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    $103 million guaranteed? I don't think so. If the guy suffers a career threatening (or ending) injury in the early years of the contract, the team is screwed for half a decade or more:

    Dead cap after year 1 = $95 million
    Dead cap after year 2 = $82 million
    Dead cap after year 3 = $65 million
    2013 Oakland Raiders dead cap = $46 - $56 million
    Dead cap after year 4 = $46 million

    Otherwise, I like the deal you propose. In fact, the cash payout in the first 6 years is no different than adding 4 years / $100 million to the last 2 years of Rodgers' current contract, assuming a $40 mil signing bonus.

    With the $50 mil signing bonus and no additional guarantees, your deal ends up being about the same as Flacco's over the first 6 years, assuming no renegotiations in the interim.

    However, without the untenable $103 mil guarantee, Rodgers would likely want more money in those first 6 years.

    It's not hard to understand why this is taking longer than expected.
     
  12. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    Sometimes you just gotta have faith that the worst case isn't gonna happen regarding the dead money thing. I suppose $103 million is kinda high guaranteed money, but reducing it to bonus plus 2-3 years would be reasonable. As for how long it is taking, most likely Thompson has to at least try something lower. As a matter of pride, though, I would think Rodgers wants something so spectacular that he is far and away the highest paid in the NFL even if the final years are not likely to happen. And if he stays good for as long as Favre did, he has a decent degree of security even without the back end being guaranteed, as he wouldn't be cut while he is still at the top of his game even if the numbers were borderline ridiculous. The worst thing, though, for several reasons would be a new contract or extension that was too short term.
     
  13. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,932
    Ratings:
    +3,024
    What makes you think that? Why wouldn't 1, 2, or $3M more in guaranteed money than any other player be enough?
     
  14. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    That's not going to happen.
     
  15. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    Wouldn't you if you were him? Be the best, Get recognized as the best - by getting paid the best.
     
  16. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    Why Not?
     
  17. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    Because it would be irresponsible.
     
  18. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    Oh really hahaha! Somebody has to get paid the most, and our guy is far and away the BEST (anybody care to disagree with that?). Besides, long before the end of a long time contract, somebody else (a lot of somebodys probably) will get paid even bigger money than Rodgers. That might even be part of the strategy for Thompson - drive up the market price to make life miserable for some of those 26 teams in worse shape cap-wise than the Packers. Yeah, I doubt it, but who knows.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  19. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    Yes, Rodgers should be the highest paid. I take issue with "spectacular" and "far and away".

    Yes, you should doubt that.
     
  20. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,932
    Ratings:
    +3,024
    If Rodgers gets the richest contract and the most guaranteed money by $1M, he would be "recognized as the best". OTOH if he requires "something so spectacular that he is far and away the highest paid in the NFL" he will cripple the team. Rodgers certainly has a healthy ego but I haven't read or heard anything about him that would make me think he requires to be "far and away..." and that's really what I was asking you: What makes you believe he does? Because you would?
     
  21. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    It's what I would do - the driving up the market price I mean hahaha, but the more relevant point is it's not what Thompson would do - probably. As for the "spectacular" aspect, you said yourself in the post above, HRE, that the model I suggested wouldn't be that much more than Flacco and some of the others - but my point is, it would LOOK better - Imagine the headline, "Packers sign Rodgers for Record $231 million Contract" - those in the know knowing that those brutal last few years will either not be reached or will be restructured or by that time will seem a lot less brutal. So what would be the benefit of a super long term "career" contract for that kind of money? From the team's point of view, no chance of ever losing the guy who will probably end his career being the greatest QB in NFL history - I place THAT at a greater priority than the worry expressed above about dead money after a career-ending injury or whatever. From Rodgers point of view, even without guaranteed money beyond the first 2 or 3 or maybe 4 or 5 years, he knows, similar to Favre, if he plays at a high level - which every prideful superstar expects of himself - he will get all or almost all of that huge money in the end - because if he is still playing great, it's unthinkable for the Packers to cut him, even at the ridiculous 8th, 9th, and 10th year amounts.
     
  22. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    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.
     
  23. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    You're right about the sizzle, but (not saying Rodgers is a stat whore hahaha) it's a matter of pride for somebody at the TOP of their profession to have the world see a headline like that.Also, like I said previously, I like the idea of other teams feeling some discomfort with their cap because of Rodgers contract - wait a couple of years until Cutler says "I wanna be paid like Rodgers (key word being wannabe hahaha)" and the Bears, already much tighter squeezed than the Packers, have some tough choices to make.

    We've got a lot more agreement than disagreement, HRE. I also care far more for the team to win than for anything in the realm of individual players, feelings, etc., but I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence - that this team ain't all that good without Rodgers - I've been saying that several times in various threads. That being the case, it does become at least a little bit about that one individual anyway.
     
  24. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Ratings:
    +2,398
    This is likely Cutler's last year with the Bears. He's in his contract year and there are no extension discussions.

    Anyway, there is one insider who agrees with you that Rodgers' deal will be spectacular:

    A.J. Hawk: "Let’s be honest, all of us minions have nothing that we can offer Aaron that would even come close to anything that he would get. He deserves every dime he’s going to get. He’s going to get a billion dollars probably, so I’m OK with anything they want to give him because he’s one of the best in the world and he deserves everything."

    In my opinion, a billion would be excessive.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  25. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,871
    Ratings:
    +1,400
    I don't think the disparity between Flacco and Rodgers is going to be because Rodgers wants to blow every other player NFL history out of the water. I think it's simply because the disparity between Flacco and Rodgers in ability is that much.

    Frankly, Flacco and the Ravens kind of screwed us. If that wasn't signed, Brees and Manning are still the top dogs and Rodgers really has no case for more than $21-$22M a year. The only reason that $25M is getting thrown out there is that R0dgers is basing his case on having a lot better credentials than Flacco.
     

Share This Page