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
Fire Matt LaFleur
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="Magooch" data-source="post: 1088276" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>I really would be surprised if there's anything to the notion of trading LaFleur, but even if there were I'd suspect you could see that pretty quickly turn into a bit of a chess match... </p><p></p><p>Even assuming that the team taking him on in trade would only do so with it being contingent on a long-term deal... It wouldn't be surprising if you had a team interested in LaFleur but willing to say "We're not desperate enough to give up any draft capital for him, next year we can make the best offer for him in free agency" and just hold off. In that case then we're effectively stuck continuing with LaFleur and just watching him walk for no compensation in just a year's time</p><p></p><p>Coaches rarely have explicit "no trade" clauses but practically speaking they kind of do. Especially in LaFleur's shoes... if GB tries to play hardball and force a trade out, MLF can just tell the other team involved that he won't sign a contract with them. They aren't going to offer anything meaningful for a one year coach rental so our hands are basically tied. </p><p></p><p>But on the flip side, in that same situation GB could be looking around the coaching landscape and thinking "There's already 8 openings this year and we could see these ones opening up next year". If they want a guy like Harbaugh (for example. Or anyone else currently available) they know they can't afford to wait until next season. In that case, they're incentivized to try and get a trade deal done now (if that's the course of action they want to pursue) rather than go another year with LaFleur, see him leave for free, and have your preferred target(s) signed elsewhere by next year. </p><p></p><p>I would also wager that Payton trade as a comp is almost certainly better than you could expect for LaFleur. Payton had some "baggage" but he also comes with a Super Bowl ring, a great record in the regular season (not quite as good as Lafleur's to be fair, but nearly 2x as many games overall) and a better record of playoff success. That plus LaFleur's contract situation probably sets a lower-than-Payton ceiling in a MLF trade. </p><p></p><p>So in the event that GB is considering trading LaFleur, possibly pushing his value up:</p><p></p><p>+ still under contract until 2026</p><p>+ solid record of developing QBs</p><p>+ excellent regular season record</p><p>+ teams consistently make the postseason</p><p>+ many teams with coaching openings (i.e. high demand and limited supply)</p><p></p><p>And possibly driving it down:</p><p>- team trading for him will need to negotiate long-term deal</p><p>- some teams may prefer to wait and sign as FA rather than give up draft capital</p><p>- GB potentially motivated to "sell" quicker if they have a particular replacement in mind</p><p>- LaFleur basically controls where he goes = less leverage for GB</p><p></p><p>SO, I don't know. I don't see it as very likely but if we lose this weekend I would think a team like the Dolphins will at least make some calls...</p><p></p><p>But it will be moot when we beat Chicago and continue onward, so it's all good</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1088276, member: 17987"] I really would be surprised if there's anything to the notion of trading LaFleur, but even if there were I'd suspect you could see that pretty quickly turn into a bit of a chess match... Even assuming that the team taking him on in trade would only do so with it being contingent on a long-term deal... It wouldn't be surprising if you had a team interested in LaFleur but willing to say "We're not desperate enough to give up any draft capital for him, next year we can make the best offer for him in free agency" and just hold off. In that case then we're effectively stuck continuing with LaFleur and just watching him walk for no compensation in just a year's time Coaches rarely have explicit "no trade" clauses but practically speaking they kind of do. Especially in LaFleur's shoes... if GB tries to play hardball and force a trade out, MLF can just tell the other team involved that he won't sign a contract with them. They aren't going to offer anything meaningful for a one year coach rental so our hands are basically tied. But on the flip side, in that same situation GB could be looking around the coaching landscape and thinking "There's already 8 openings this year and we could see these ones opening up next year". If they want a guy like Harbaugh (for example. Or anyone else currently available) they know they can't afford to wait until next season. In that case, they're incentivized to try and get a trade deal done now (if that's the course of action they want to pursue) rather than go another year with LaFleur, see him leave for free, and have your preferred target(s) signed elsewhere by next year. I would also wager that Payton trade as a comp is almost certainly better than you could expect for LaFleur. Payton had some "baggage" but he also comes with a Super Bowl ring, a great record in the regular season (not quite as good as Lafleur's to be fair, but nearly 2x as many games overall) and a better record of playoff success. That plus LaFleur's contract situation probably sets a lower-than-Payton ceiling in a MLF trade. So in the event that GB is considering trading LaFleur, possibly pushing his value up: + still under contract until 2026 + solid record of developing QBs + excellent regular season record + teams consistently make the postseason + many teams with coaching openings (i.e. high demand and limited supply) And possibly driving it down: - team trading for him will need to negotiate long-term deal - some teams may prefer to wait and sign as FA rather than give up draft capital - GB potentially motivated to "sell" quicker if they have a particular replacement in mind - LaFleur basically controls where he goes = less leverage for GB SO, I don't know. I don't see it as very likely but if we lose this weekend I would think a team like the Dolphins will at least make some calls... But it will be moot when we beat Chicago and continue onward, so it's all good [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
swhitset
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:10 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 7:06 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 5:34 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
S
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: Schultz
Yesterday at 1:59 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:55 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Fire Matt LaFleur
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
