Rodgers Contract

[HardRightEdge]

It seems that some people here are trying to have a broader philosophical discussion about many different possibilities in player compensation and contract rights, however this discussion is specifically about Aaron Rodgers and his next contract. While it may be true that he is attempting to clear the path for more power for certain players in their contract negotiations, it is also true that Rodgers' contract will be constrained by his particular situation. For the many reasons stated above, I cannot see any situation where the Packers are likely to capitulate and give him a fully guaranteed contract, or an opt out clause designed to allow him to force a renegotiation every time another QB gets a new contract.

I can at times be persuasive. However, it is never persuasion for persuasion's sake or devil's advocacy. Almost never...one does get in a mood on rare occasions.

Debate club, arguing a position you can't personally endorse, is good training for lawyers, I suppose, who will eventually defend clients they know are guilty as sin. This is not that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Apparently these opt out clauses are fairly common in Major League Baseball. But they are used as an incentive to convince free agents to sign. I wouldn't think that someone like Rodgers, who is locked in with his team for four years, would be the guy to bring this sort of thing to the NFL. Except for his position as best player in the league. If the reports are true, I wonder how much of this is Rodgers really wanting this, and how much of it is his agent? His agent could directly benefit from introducing opt out clauses to the league.

You cannot compare the NFL to MLB for a variety of reasons.

First, the NFL has a hard cap. MLB does not. Rich teams can go over the cap and pay a "luxury tax" to the poor teams. Rich teams can absorb the cost of guaranteed arms that end up on the operating table and move on to the next contract. And if they give a guy an opt out clause they can afford to up the ante in the next deal if he's worth the price.

Lets say you're not a particularly rich team but go all-in on a couple of expensive arms with opt out clauses in a "win now" move. If they blow out their elbows, then the next season you can hold a fire sale, trade for prospects, slash payroll, and live to fight another day. They wouldn't have an expectation of trying to sign the guys past the opt out anyway.

Many fans are not aware that the NFL has cash payout and cap spend floors. Over a 5 year period, minimm spends are required to be pretty close to the actual cap, 95% of the actual cap if memory serves. Over 5 years all teams are required by the upper and lower bounds to spend about the same amounts. In the MLB, you can have the Red Sox spending $206 mil and the A's spending $62 million, rinse and repeat, year after year.

To recap, in MLB rich teams can afford to go over the cap to up the ante on opt out renewals; poorer teams never expect to hold high priced players past that date. In the NFL, rich teams with dough rolling in have to find things to do with that money besides paying players. Boo hoo. Poorer teams have the required spend minimums. Everybody is competing for the same players with close to the same amount of money to spend on them. Under this intense competion, the last thing NFL owners want to do is make it worse. No matter how rich you are, if your cap is a little streched in an opt out year, some crappy team with a load of unused cap can steal your franchise face. Jerry and Bob run this league. They will not abide opt out clauses.

 

[PackerDNA]

The always excellent and informative "agent's take" series is up at www.cbssports.com. Today's subject; Rodgers contract.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The always excellent and informative "agent's take" series is up at www.cbssports.com. Today's subject; Rodgers contract.

Hard to argue with that. I like this part, especically the second and third of the three provisions:

"Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has a salary escalator in his contract that attempts to help him keep pace with changing market conditions. His 2018 and 2019 third-day-of-the-league-year roster bonuses increase by a maximum of $3 million and $6 million based on his regular-season MVPs, Super Bowl MVPs and Pittsburgh's Super Bowl wins in the previous years of his contract."

The dollar amounts would need to be much larger. You win, you get paid like the top dog, and the cap consequence in the following year just have to be dealt with in the warm glow of victory. Otherwise, the player's cost of losing goes toward getting over the hump the following year.

 

[PackerDNA]

Hard to argue with that. I like this part, especically the second and third of the three provisions:

"Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has a salary escalator in his contract that attempts to help him keep pace with changing market conditions. His 2018 and 2019 third-day-of-the-league-year roster bonuses increase by a maximum of $3 million and $6 million based on his regular-season MVPs, Super Bowl MVPs and Pittsburgh's Super Bowl wins in the previous years of his contract."

The dollar amounts would need to be much larger. You win, you get paid like the top dog, and the cap consequence in the following year just have to be dealt with in the warm glow of victory. Otherwise, the player's cost of losing goes toward getting over the hump the following year.

It can get pretty complicated, right? Doesn't this sound very similar to some of what Rodgers is allegedly looking for?
Kudos to you and Captain Wimm for all the extensive work you do on cap matters.

 

[XPack]

Foles and Daniels already have contracts with opt out clause.

I don't mind giving AR12 a 5 year contract with option to opt out of final year.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Ridiculous comparison. Have some perspective man.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

I always felt players should be paid by their performance in live games and not performances in the pass games because many things change over time.

No winie, no payie
And that goes for each of the 53 players on the team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It will happen sooner rather than later but the NFL is going to start paying players guaranteed deals. It happened with Cousins and other players are going to start wanting that as well.

Some quarterbacks might receive fully guaranteed contracts in the future but I highly doubt most deals will be done that way.

Foles and Daniels already have contracts with opt out clause.

I don't mind giving AR12 a 5 year contract with option to opt out of final year.

Both Foles and Daniel are backup quarterbacks and not the face of their franchise though.

 

[XPack]

Both Foles and Daniel are backup quarterbacks and not the face of their franchise though.

How is that relevant? It's be impossible to have rules based on whether a player is 'face of franchise' or not. If it is within rules, it should be open for discussion.

I don't blame AR12 for wanting such a contract. At same time, I'd also understand if GB refuses such request. As I said before, we should ensure we keep the 4 years locked and after than I don't mind giving him options to test market if he so chooses with an opt out clause.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How is that relevant? It's be impossible to have rules based on whether a player is 'face of franchise' or not. If it is within rules, it should be open for discussion.

The difference being that those teams didn't care much about the possibility of losing either Foles or Daniel at some point when they decided to include an opt-out clause. The Packers definitely don't want Rodgers to leave in free agency.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

Winner, Winner, chicken dinner! I have been reading the last 60 or so posts, waiting to post exactly this and I didn’t even see around the horn.

What so many people on this board don’t understand is that in the world of sports, NFL players are basically slaves. Some of them are highly paid slaves but are slaves none the less and are at the mercy of their masters. This has nothing to do with Rodgers being greedy for himself and everything to do with Rodgers using his current position as basically the best player in the league, to change the way NFL players are treated. This isn’t just about him, it is about all players.

I think our definitions of "slaves" is a little different.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

And what should be said about him playing for the same amount as nobody's and never has beens the last few years without no complaining?
There is a bigger picture here...
You want him to stay motivated, you pay him accordingly.... When he doesn't play like the #1 qb in the league anymore, he will be cut or take a pay cut... either way, by then $$$ vs. Play dictates his future. That's a motivator. This leverage tactic is a mojo killer.

You all seem to have it all figured out .but trust me. I'm the master of walking when big players think they have me cornered in a chess move. Why? Because the principle of it is not worth the money or job. These big dogs are not used to that. They have what people want, and people chase... but the truth is, In my line of work, I am the guy who builds masterpieces. There are a million guys with millions of dollars. There's only one of me... I know it... and I think #12 feels the same way too, with his abilities.
Free will. It's needed to feel good. Feeling good is needed to play good. .. You corner this guy who is already a hundred millionaire. Tell him "well we got you for 4 years ,so you have to do what we say". And what do you think will happen.?

Option #1, effu, find another qb.... I'm going to start a rock band and drive my lambo around the world with my smoking hot race car driving girlfriend...

Option #2, collect money but sign off mentally. Become a zombie.

Option #3, do as told and play great for himself, and his team mates...

You hope it's option 3...,Truth is, he can trump any move Greenbay makes, by walking. Like Barry with Detroit. Go out on top, leaving the franchise in the cellar...

Option #1 wouldn't work. They wouldn't even make it to Milwaukee before hitting a wall or another driver

 

[HardRightEdge]

Some quarterbacks might receive fully guaranteed contracts in the future but I highly doubt most deals will be done that way.

There already is one...Kirk Cousins...3 years/$84 mil/fully guaranteed. It's kind of an expression that the Vikings think he's good enought to win with an outstanding defense, but not exactly good enough to lock down as the face of the franchise. Overpriced rent-an-arm; a hired mercenary; let's nickname him Blackwater. That is a pretty unique team perspective on the matter and it requires a lot of available cap space for a high pay-as-you go approach.

Some quarterbacks might receive fully guaranteed contracts in the future but I highly doubt most deals will be done that way. Both Foles and Daniel are backup quarterbacks and not the face of their franchise though.

These guys were discussed in a piece that was semi-linked a few posts above:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rs-deal-lets-examine-the-nfls-opt-out-clause/

"Daniel can opt out of the second year (2019) of the two-year, $10 million contract he signed with the Bears in March by repaying $5 million during a 10-day window in February, right after Super Bowl LIII."

Repaying $5 mil out of $10? LOL I don't think this is what we're talking about. The only way he exercises that opt out is if he has to take over for Trubisky and pulls a Keenum whereby somebody wants to pay him as a starter. I don't think the Bears are worried.

"Foles' renegotiated contract with the Eagles is more complicated than Daniel's. The Eagles have an option to pick up Foles' 2019 through 2021 contract years containing healthy salaries for a starting quarterback by the middle of next February. If the option is exercised, which isn't the intention, the Super Bowl LII MVP can void the years with a $2 million payment to the Eagles."

This is a very unique situation. Start with a franchise QB working on a relatively cheap rookie deal leaving cap avaialble to allocate to the backup position. They know that as with last season they have the roster to win. Said franchise QB is coming off injury and they've shown they can win with Foles in a pinch. This contract is designed to be a one year insurance policy in "win now" mode if Wentz has issues. Nobody was interested in paying up for Foles after the playoff run. At this point he's viewed as a run-pass option system QB, an offense few know how to run or want to learn how to run. Worst case, Wentz dies in a car crash, they exercise Foles for lack of other options, he still makes more money than anybody else will pay him minus $2 mil, and he thereby does not exercise.

In summary, the two cases have in common backup QBs who are also employed as insurance policies against pre-existing risks with the starter, in once case for a potential first round bust, in the other for a franchise QB coming off injury.

 

[XPack]

History repeats itself. Vince Lombardi traded Jim Ringo for bringing an agent into negotiations. It is commonplace nowadays and most stars have agents. This is one such moment. All this outrage will wash itself off and NFL will adapt and move on.

 

[Firethorn1001]

What so many people on this board don’t understand is that in the world of sports, NFL players are basically slaves.

Ya... I'm going to disagree with you on this one.

They are a union playing by the rules they set for under the collective bargaining agreement that they agreed to. If they wanted, they could try to bargain that they would get 100% of the revenue, sign 1 game contracts, be free agents every Monday and every December, all the owners would have to put on a production of 'West Side Story' for them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There already is one...Kirk Cousins...3 years/$84 mil/fully guaranteed.

I know that Cousins received a fully guaranteed contract from the Vikings. I expect such deals to stay the exception though.

 

[sschind]

I think our definitions of "slaves" is a little different.

Didn't Adrian Peterson take a lot of crap a few years ago for saying the same thing. Lets ask Slacker...He'll know.

 

[Ogsponge]

If you are trying to make me feel sorry for the players ... you have failed lol.

That was not my intention at all but your response does not surprise me as most people are unable to see past their nose, look at all the facts, and have any sort of empathy for the plight of other human beings who are perceived as better off than others.

 

[Ogsponge]

I think our definitions of "slaves" is a little different.

No, they are not. You are simply only focused on one definition of the word slave, there is more than one.

 

[Half Empty]

No, they are not. You are simply only focused on one definition of the word slave, there is more than one.

Hey, don't leave us hanging - what's your definition?

 

[Half Empty]

That was not my intention at all but your response does not surprise me as most people are unable to see past their nose, look at all the facts, and have any sort of empathy for the plight of other human beings who are perceived as better off than others.

Oh, I'm sure there are others, but the facts that stand out to me are (1) they are free to get a real job and (2) http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/

 

[swhitset]

That was not my intention at all but your response does not surprise me as most people are unable to see past their nose, look at all the facts, and have any sort of empathy for the plight of other human beings who are perceived as better off than others.

Your condescending answer shows you know nothing about me, but also tells me that I am fine with that.

 

[Mondio]

I would not call them slaves any more than I'd call the guy that had a son with diabetes or some other ailment kept his same job in the same spot because he was a "slave" to his employer based healthcare plan because leaving would have meant financial ruin for his family and the inability to get other insurance for a long, long time in this country. In fact, I wouldn't even consider them the same as a union football player, they may not have the ability to just move cities and teams, but they do have top notch care all the way around and unless they're complete morons, financial freedom most of people do not have. We could say we're all slaves, slaves to debt, slaves to higher education, slaves to insurance, slaves to employers, slaves to school districts, slaves to family members etc.

Slaves are people bound and beaten into work for nothing in return who's families are split to keep them week or beaten and murdered to keep them in line. They are those plucked from the lives they lead and forced into another. That's my definition and it doesn't fit an American football player regardless of the team owning a contract or not. If I start applying the word "slave" to such broad categories it loses it's meaning. So think of me what you will, I do not in any way relate an NFL player to a slave. Not in the slightest, and many of them aren't better off than I am either.

 

[sschind]

No, they are not. You are simply only focused on one definition of the word slave, there is more than one.

So in your opinion everyone who signs a contract is a slave. If I sign a contract to mow your lawn for a year I'm bound to mow your lawn for a year. Does that make me your slave? Football players sign contracts to play for teams for a specified length of time so that makes them slaves?

Like Half Empty says, what is your definition of a slave?