What do you REALLY think Rodgers would garner in a trade?

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
28,399
Reaction score
5,742
Location
Madison, WI
Ok use logic and explain to me why it would be in Rodgers best interest to give gute a list of 3 teams he was willing to be traded to. So that the packers could maximize the assets they get from Rodgers new team?
The logic is this. In professional sports, I can't recall a player being allowed to dictate to his team 1 and only 1 team he is willing to be traded to. That isn't to say that it hasn't or couldn't happen, it just isn't how trades are typically handled. I also don't think Aaron is so full of himself, to insist on how this would work.

Finally, I don't think the Packers are going to allow Rodgers to handcuff them like that. They might say "give us a list 0f 3-5 teams" but they are not going to say "give us one team" and we will let that team know that they are the only team we are allowed to trade you to.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,495
Reaction score
2,854
Rodgers is going to stay, retire or inform the Packers he isn't on board with what they roster wise can do. From there I have ZERO doubt in my mind given how he has talked lately that IF this is the case he will work with Gute to see what suitors there are, what they can give the Packers and behind closed doors he and Gute will discuss if he'd work on a deal at team "x" or team "y". I HIGHLY doubt Rodgers is going to only have one team he'd be willing to go chase a ring with, he may have his favorite (Denver) but that doesn't mean it is the only one.
 

AKCheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
470
Rodgers doesnt have to pick three teams, he can name ONE team and Green Bay can make it happen or pay him the $46Mil, blow up the team, and watch him walk next year.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,813
Reaction score
1,113
I think the first thing the Packers would do is put out a notice to all the teams saying AR is on the block. If you are interested make us an offer. They get the offers and the first thing they do is cross off the ones they would not trade him to (vikings, Bears, Bucs???) Then they go back to the ones left and look at the offers. They contact them and say we've got offers from whatever teams, is this the best you can do. Once they get a list of acceptable offers they rank them in order of their preference and go to Aaron and say we've got legit offers from these teams what are your thoughts. He doesn't know what the teams have offered all he knows is whether any of the teams are acceptable to him. If Rodgers says there is only one team on that list I'd accept a trade to then its up to the Packers to decide. Do they take that offer, try to get more or say screw you but since they have already deemed the offer acceptable its likely they would say OK. If he says yeah those 2 (or 3) would be acceptable then the Packers can take the best offer or go back and try to play them against each other. If he says none of those teams are acceptable then we are back to square one.

Say Rodgers plays hardball and says I'll only accept a trade to 1 team. The Packers could call the Jets and say remember when we gave you Favre for little or nothing? Well, we've got another deal for you. You can have Aaron for a 4th rounder. The Jets accept. Why, well for the Packers they get a 4th rounder and many millions in cap cap relief in 2022. Why would the Jets do it? Maybe they could convince Rodgers to come to the big Apple. Many many millions of dollars could do the trick. If they can't maybe they can work out a trade of their own or at the very least they sit on him for a year and get that third round comp pick next year. I would say something like this has less than a 1% chance of happening. Far fetched? Absolutely but not any more than some of the stuff I've seen being flung about.

Quick talks about what would be dumb and what would be smart. What would be dumb is for the Packers to let Rodgers tell them he will only accept a trade to one team. If they do they would be smart to set their price and stick to their guns. Tell Rodgers you want to go there they are going to have to give us this or it ain't happening. Tell the team if you want him this is what it will cost you. Let Rodgers call them and tell them to up their ante or he won't be coming to town.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
28,399
Reaction score
5,742
Location
Madison, WI
I think the first thing the Packers would do is put out a notice to all the teams saying AR is on the block. If you are interested make us an offer. They get the offers and the first thing they do is cross off the ones they would not trade him to (vikings, Bears, Bucs???) Then they go back to the ones left and look at the offers. They contact them and say we've got offers from whatever teams, is this the best you can do. Once they get a list of acceptable offers they rank them in order of their preference and go to Aaron and say we've got legit offers from these teams what are your thoughts. He doesn't know what the teams have offered all he knows is whether any of the teams are acceptable to him. If Rodgers says there is only one team on that list I'd accept a trade to then its up to the Packers to decide. Do they take that offer, try to get more or say screw you but since they have already deemed the offer acceptable its likely they would say OK. If he says yeah those 2 (or 3) would be acceptable then the Packers can take the best offer or go back and try to play them against each other. If he says none of those teams are acceptable then we are back to square one.

Say Rodgers plays hardball and says I'll only accept a trade to 1 team. The Packers could call the Jets and say remember when we gave you Favre for little or nothing? Well, we've got another deal for you. You can have Aaron for a 4th rounder. The Jets accept. Why, well for the Packers they get a 4th rounder and many millions in cap cap relief in 2022. Why would the Jets do it? Maybe they could convince Rodgers to come to the big Apple. Many many millions of dollars could do the trick. If they can't maybe they can work out a trade of their own or at the very least they sit on him for a year and get that third round comp pick next year. I would say something like this has less than a 1% chance of happening. Far fetched? Absolutely but not any more than some of the stuff I've seen being flung about.

Quick talks about what would be dumb and what would be smart. What would be dumb is for the Packers to let Rodgers tell them he will only accept a trade to one team. If they do they would be smart to set their price and stick to their guns. Tell Rodgers you want to go there they are going to have to give us this or it ain't happening. Tell the team if you want him this is what it will cost you. Let Rodgers call them and tell them to up their ante or he won't be coming to town.
Generally speaking, I am guessing that this is how most higher profile trades go. If you are trading someone like Josh Jackson, he finds out he is being shipped out to New York, probably after the news has already hit the internet.

Obviously, the level of interest for A-rod might be anywhere from 3 - 10 teams, but the ability/willingness to give the Packers what they want for him might only be a few teams. All that said, Rodgers will not "be at the table" with Gute, Murphy and whomever else, when the trade talks are going on with other teams.
 

Firethorn1001

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
838
Reaction score
423
Aaron isn't going to care that much about draft picks. Think Stafford got traded to the Rams and his first thought was.. man.. those 1st round picks are going to hurt my future with the team. Aaron is going to want to bring as many of his guys along that are FA's right now that he can. If going to Denver just causes them to trade some 1st round picks and a WR, but he gets to bring along Adams/MVS, doubt he will care.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,489
Reaction score
729
I question youre reading comprehension on this....

I have repeatedly stated that Rodgers would narrow his acceptable teams to ONE and not set up a bidding war between say 3 teams

I have repeatedly said Rodgers would have no interest in helping the packers get as much in return for him in a trade as possible...as he would like his new team to give up the least assets as possible

I have said Rodgers has the leverage to dictate which team he is traded to because hes on that level but especially because of the way his contract was restructured to get him to return last year

I have heard you say literally nothing that refutes any of those points...

I have not said that Rodgers would dictate exactly what hes willing to let his new team give up for him specifically. Like you have insinuated, im not sure where you read anywhere that i said Rodgers would say im only willing to accept a trade for a 3rd round pick or something like that
I question anything a guy says who thought Peyton Manning was traded to the Broncos. You lost all credibility in this debate at that point.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,762
Reaction score
358
I question anything a guy says who thought Peyton Manning was traded to the Broncos. You lost all credibility in this debate at that point.

Not really man that part is irrelevant unless youre really trying to argue that star players dont dictate what team they go to in a trade all the time across all sport as entertainment

I could take the time to google it ...and i guess so could you
 

Firethorn1001

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
838
Reaction score
423
trying to argue that star players dont dictate what team they go to in a trade all the time across all sport as entertainment

Star players dictate all the time, however I can't say I've ever heard the compensation being dictated because they didn't want to hurt their new team.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
So its a question many of us have weighed in on and many of us even discussed last year. HOWEVER, let's lay out a few of the last big name trades to go down and the one that is supposedly still out there first:

Matthew Stafford Trade
This is perhaps the biggest and most "similar" trade to look to if you're the Packers and/or the team hoping to get him.
Rams gave up for Stafford - Two First Rounders (most assumed would be last 1/3 of the drafts) in future years (2022,2023), a 3rd round pick in the current draft at the time (2021) + Jared Goff (cap shed reasons solely included of course).

Stafford Got - Two First Round Picks, Third Round Pick and a "below average starter at their position because of cap reasons
*Adjusting/Applying this to Rodgers IMO defends the thoughts Rodgers at minimum given his level of play is worth the same as far as picks go...player additions are tough to gauge so I'll merely say this defends the concept of Two First Round Picks plus a Third Round Pick as bottomline. Stafford helping Rams lead his team to a SB IMO doesn't change this some but some would argue that his level of play brings his value more in line with Rodgers value as of today.

Carson Wentz Trade
This trade had some escalators that might elevate one of the picks to a 1st rounder (2022) instead of a 2nd...which were hit. Colts gave up a First Rounder and a Third Rounder

Carson Wentz Got - First Round Pick (2022) and a Third Round Pick (2021)
*This defends the concept of the Stafford IMO as well...if Wentz is worth a First and a Third, Rodgers at minimum is worth substantially more than this.

Deshaun Watson "Trade Discussions"
This is the delusional IMO sky type highside value for a player. Now arguably if legal things clear, Watson's age and skill do make him a more attractable QB.

The "desire" is Three First Round Picks + Three other picks ranging in value.


Speculations on the value of Rodgers I've seen range from as little as Two First Rounders...however the majority of the thoughts appear to be in the Two Day 1 Picks and a mixture of 2-4 Day 2 picks.

Personally, I don't believe you get the Three First Rounders, Two Seconds and players as Albert Breer wrote in December (HERE)...he is crazy high, and even includes some players in his deal.

I'm in the Two Day 1s and Two Day 2s (where one minimum is a 2nd) camp personally. It's more draft equity than Stafford garnered but not too terribly much. Now you could see more Day 2s come Green Bay's way, if say GB includes some Day 3 picks in the transaction which isn't uncommon in larger trades.

I must stress this is merely a thread to discuss what Rodgers is worth in a trade....this is not a debate of whether we should, this is not a debate of how many years Rodgers will play, his playoff record or anything else which can and is discussed everywhere else. This is purely a discussion of IF Rodgers is traded, what REALISTICALLY do you feel the return is?
Thanks Ty. You've presented this very well. Another factor is that Stafford, Watson, and Wentz all have more years left, in theory, than Rodgers. But that's ok. If a team is interested in acquiring a QB for a SB run, we now know how that works.

I'd say two firsts, as you do, and two second round picks. It's gonna be important that one of those first rounders is in the top 10, so Denver is the best candidate. Rodgers will likely play for at least two more years at a high level, and that could be two SBs for a team (although Rodgers has a less than stellar record in big games).

This would get more complicated if Adams is included. The more I think about trading them together, the less likely I think it is to happen. Two first-team All Pros, one a 4 time MVP including the last 2 years. What team can afford that? And if a team has two decent WRs, they don't need Adams if they get Rodgers. The Packers are 7-0 without Adams, right? Just my opinion. Adams will get his money one way or another. Whether he still gets Rodgers throwing him the ball is another matter. I think the only team likely to do that is GB.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
Star players dictate all the time, however I can't say I've ever heard the compensation being dictated because they didn't want to hurt their new team.
Yeah, money makes the world go 'round. Players taking discounts for the team makes no sense to me.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,495
Reaction score
2,854
Thanks Ty. You've presented this very well. Another factor is that Stafford, Watson, and Wentz all have more years left, in theory, than Rodgers. But that's ok. If a team is interested in acquiring a QB for a SB run, we now know how that works.

I'd say two firsts, as you do, and two second round picks. It's gonna be important that one of those first rounders is in the top 10, so Denver is the best candidate. Rodgers will likely play for at least two more years at a high level, and that could be two SBs for a team (although Rodgers has a less than stellar record in big games).

This would get more complicated if Adams is included. The more I think about trading them together, the less likely I think it is to happen. Two first-team All Pros, one a 4 time MVP including the last 2 years. What team can afford that? And if a team has two decent WRs, they don't need Adams if they get Rodgers. The Packers are 7-0 without Adams, right? Just my opinion. Adams will get his money one way or another. Whether he still gets Rodgers throwing him the ball is another matter. I think the only team likely to do that is GB.

I think IF one of the first rounders is not a Top 10/15 level pick I do think you see the likelihood of the other two primary picks being 2nd rounders instead of my gut thought of a two firsts, and one of each a 2nd and 3rd. I also don't think a tag and trade along with Rodgers occurs....really only three teams easily can swing such a move cap wise and only two that make sense would be Dolphins and Broncos IMO - Jets I don't think do because they're not a SB contender IMO even with those two added.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
I think IF one of the first rounders is not a Top 10/15 level pick I do think you see the likelihood of the other two primary picks being 2nd rounders instead of my gut thought of a two firsts, and one of each a 2nd and 3rd. I also don't think a tag and trade along with Rodgers occurs....really only three teams easily can swing such a move cap wise and only two that make sense would be Dolphins and Broncos IMO - Jets I don't think do because they're not a SB contender IMO even with those two added.
We agree on everything except the day two picks - and yeah, if we don't get a top 10, top 15 pick the trade calculus changes. Close enough though. Those picks should solidify the D with an iDL and maybe a S (not crazy about Savage). I'm assuming most everyone else stays, and that may not be the case. The offense can get another stud OL and WR, and maybe without Rodgers we can afford to keep Tonyan. That would be a pretty solid team everywhere except QB, which would be a big question mark. I'm also assuming a new kicker, maybe a 5th round pick depending on talent. I think they have a K in camp. Name escapes me.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,495
Reaction score
2,854
We agree on everything except the day two picks - and yeah, if we don't get a top 10, top 15 pick the trade calculus changes. Close enough though. Those picks should solidify the D with an iDL and maybe a S (not crazy about Savage). I'm assuming most everyone else stays, and that may not be the case. The offense can get another stud OL and WR, and maybe without Rodgers we can afford to keep Tonyan. That would be a pretty solid team everywhere except QB, which would be a big question mark. I'm also assuming a new kicker, maybe a 5th round pick depending on talent. I think they have a K in camp. Name escapes me.

Oh there is zero doubt in my mind we can field a team that outside of QB and top end of our WR room is as good arguably or nearly better than last year even. We are in step there for sure!

Doubt we draft a kicker now that we have two others signed for 2022 that are not named Crosby already. JJ Molson we kept around all last year and many say had the inside track to replace Crosby, but just yesterday we signed "Das Boot" (Germany born) kicker from Utah State Dominik Eberle, a kid that was a rookie last year and bounced around teams that really had a clear #1, but did see action in one game where he kicked a 51 yarder a ton of xps and did well. He had excellent final years at Utah State and was arguably a top 4 kicker in that class and many say would be the 4th best if he was in the rookie class this year. I now fully expect it is going to be a Molson vs Eberle battle for our kicker position in 2022.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
Oh there is zero doubt in my mind we can field a team that outside of QB and top end of our WR room is as good arguably or nearly better than last year even. We are in step there for sure!

Doubt we draft a kicker now that we have two others signed for 2022 that are not named Crosby already. JJ Molson we kept around all last year and many say had the inside track to replace Crosby, but just yesterday we signed "Das Boot" (Germany born) kicker from Utah State Dominik Eberle, a kid that was a rookie last year and bounced around teams that really had a clear #1, but did see action in one game where he kicked a 51 yarder a ton of xps and did well. He had excellent final years at Utah State and was arguably a top 4 kicker in that class and many say would be the 4th best if he was in the rookie class this year. I now fully expect it is going to be a Molson vs Eberle battle for our kicker position in 2022.
Wow, that is really encouraging news on the K front. "Das Boot" - I love it (even though Boot is German for Boat. Great movie.....).

And I see nothing wrong with winning games with an elite D. The Steelers and Ravens come to mind. You don't need a HOF QB if you can plant him like a tulip bulb. But it's more than D. We have a solid running game, a quickly developing TE in Tonyan. Assuming we lose Adams - or better yet, tag and trade, we could pick up a FA and draft another like Olave from OSU. And who know, maybe Love is a lot better when we think. Either way, it would be a good team.

So why Do I keep going back to wanting Rodgers to return? If I'm the GM, responsible for the future of the franchise, I'm trading him in a heartbeat. But that's not what they're saying.

We'll find out soon enough. This kind of stuff is fun to speculate.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,495
Reaction score
2,854
Wow, that is really encouraging news on the K front. "Das Boot" - I love it (even though Boot is German for Boat. Great movie.....).

And I see nothing wrong with winning games with an elite D. The Steelers and Ravens come to mind. You don't need a HOF QB if you can plant him like a tulip bulb. But it's more than D. We have a solid running game, a quickly developing TE in Tonyan. Assuming we lose Adams - or better yet, tag and trade, we could pick up a FA and draft another like Olave from OSU. And who know, maybe Love is a lot better when we think. Either way, it would be a good team.

So why Do I keep going back to wanting Rodgers to return? If I'm the GM, responsible for the future of the franchise, I'm trading him in a heartbeat. But that's not what they're saying.

We'll find out soon enough. This kind of stuff is fun to speculate.

Just a heads up Tonyan is not on the roster for 2022 and would need a contract offer in FA from us to be so - his injury recovery is crucial in this regard if this route is taken.

Funny you say this, I ran a hypothetical where we get Denver's 9th and 40th overall this year plus a 1 and 3rd next season for Rodgers. In that draft we could stay at 9 and maybe take Cross or another higher OT or an EDGE like Jermaine Johnson but in my scenario I predicted Gute not being done swinging and Ekwonu Tackle from NC State (arguably the second best OT in the draft was there at 5, and the Giants have the 7th and A TON of picks in top 85 picks. Gute gives up that 9th and a 1st next year plus our 59th to grab a guy that will INSTANTLY start at RT and is most likely the LT of the future if Jenkins isn't post-Bakh era. Then we get Olave at 28, Boye Mafe at 40 and Chad Muma LB at 73 <-- Which is also a trade up (I expect you give Gute this much draft equity he is going to attack the draft, especially if they feel good about Love)....we gave our Pick 92 and 130 for 73.

Four starter level guys in our first four picks before we have to sit and wait a long time from 73 till our next pick in the 4th (139) - which if curious it went:

139 - Montaric Brown CB Arkansas
170 - Cole Turner TE Nevada
180 - Jeffrey Gunter EDGE Coastal Carolina *the toss in Day 3 pick in the 6th in the Giants trade up sent back to us.
225 - Chris Owens iOL ALabama
246 - Samori Toure WR Nebraska
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
Just a heads up Tonyan is not on the roster for 2022 and would need a contract offer in FA from us to be so - his injury recovery is crucial in this regard if this route is taken.

Funny you say this, I ran a hypothetical where we get Denver's 9th and 40th overall this year plus a 1 and 3rd next season for Rodgers. In that draft we could stay at 9 and maybe take Cross or another higher OT or an EDGE like Jermaine Johnson but in my scenario I predicted Gute not being done swinging and Ekwonu Tackle from NC State (arguably the second best OT in the draft was there at 5, and the Giants have the 7th and A TON of picks in top 85 picks. Gute gives up that 9th and a 1st next year plus our 59th to grab a guy that will INSTANTLY start at RT and is most likely the LT of the future if Jenkins isn't post-Bakh era. Then we get Olave at 28, Boye Mafe at 40 and Chad Muma LB at 73 <-- Which is also a trade up (I expect you give Gute this much draft equity he is going to attack the draft, especially if they feel good about Love)....we gave our Pick 92 and 130 for 73.

Four starter level guys in our first four picks before we have to sit and wait a long time from 73 till our next pick in the 4th (139) - which if curious it went:

139 - Montaric Brown CB Arkansas
170 - Cole Turner TE Nevada
180 - Jeffrey Gunter EDGE Coastal Carolina *the toss in Day 3 pick in the 6th in the Giants trade up sent back to us.
225 - Chris Owens iOL ALabama
246 - Samori Toure WR Nebraska
I'd be ecstatic if the draft fell that way. I've seen recent mocks with Ekwonu going as high as first, but definitely top 5. I'm just not sure we could get him. But ya never know. Haven't had the Combine yet, and to your point, Gluten can do a lot of wheeling and dealing with all that draft capital.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,495
Reaction score
2,854
I'd be ecstatic if the draft fell that way. I've seen recent mocks with Ekwonu going as high as first, but definitely top 5. I'm just not sure we could get him. But ya never know. Haven't had the Combine yet, and to your point, Gluten can do a lot of wheeling and dealing with all that draft capital.

Him and Neal will go Top 5, but I strongly predict one of the two will be there at 5 - I'd do the same move for Neal too. Yup, IF this is the future pick wise I expect Gute to be VERY active...could even be a trade back out of that nine slot should a QB hungry team make an offer we cannot refuse.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
Him and Neal will go Top 5, but I strongly predict one of the two will be there at 5 - I'd do the same move for Neal too. Yup, IF this is the future pick wise I expect Gute to be VERY active...could even be a trade back out of that nine slot should a QB hungry team make an offer we cannot refuse.
OK so now that we're all excited and we have the GM's work done for him, Rodgers will decide to stay and gum this all up.

Seriously, looking at what could be done with a trade, it seems like the only way to go. If Rodgers and Adams stay, it will affect every player on the team. Does Russ Ball have time to deal with that many moving parts? I don't know. Something tells me the decision about where Rodgers goes, or doesn't go, has been made and the details are being worked on as we write. That may be a Captain Obvious observation.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
28,399
Reaction score
5,742
Location
Madison, WI
OK so now that we're all excited and we have the GM's work done for him, Rodgers will decide to stay and gum this all up.
Actually, in the short term, Rodgers staying helps us. A restructure of his existing contract can reduce the cap hit more than a trade would. Also, trading him means you get more draft picks, which need to be paid. First rounders aren't exactly cheap.

I am looking more at the big picture and how much money they are pushing out into 2023 and beyond. Would love to see the same players back as we had in 2022, but that is really going to mortgage the future.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
Actually, in the short term, Rodgers staying helps us. A restructure of his existing contract can reduce the cap hit more than a trade would. Also, trading him means you get more draft picks, which need to be paid. First rounders aren't exactly cheap.

I am looking more at the big picture and how much money they are pushing out into 2023 and beyond. Would love to see the same players back as we had in 2022, but that is really going to mortgage the future.
I see your point Poker - still from a financial standpoint a draft class would be the same cost as about 4 of Rodgers' games (I have no idea if that's true, just messing with ya). I think it takes $12 mil in cap to sign a new draft class.

And yes I've seen the magic guys like Russ Ball can work. We pay Rodgers more and at least for 2022 the cap hit goes down. That would be true for Adams as well. But as you note, those dollars simply get pushed out and the future is indeed mortgaged.

Or can a football team run like the government, and keep pushing financial burden on later generations? I don't know but it kinda makes the idea behind the cap useless. It was supposed to create parity. So why do the same teams always seem to be in the playoffs? I get it, there are breakthrough teams, like Cincy. But I bet we could name 80% of the playoff teams for this upcoming season right now. That's not parity, or I don't understand how this all works. Probably a little of both.
 
OP
OP
tynimiller

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,495
Reaction score
2,854
The old number folks always said about ten years ago was estimate about $5M for a draft class that first year. However, of course that is if you have just one draft pick in each round, and would change according to more. That of course has grown...but here is last years draft class cap hits of the guys that stuck on the roster:

2.168M - Stokes
1.014M - Myers
890K - Rodgers
784K - Newman
730K - Slaton
720K - SJC
692K - McDuffie

Cole Van Lanen and Kylin Hill are there too but due to IR and PS I'm not quite sure what they were total but progressively less of course.

That is roughly shy of $8M
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
28,399
Reaction score
5,742
Location
Madison, WI
It was supposed to create parity.
Parity over time. The draft is suppose to help as well. I agree with you though, true parity would be to disallow pushing money out. You pay a guy $45 M this year, it goes against your cap this year. But that isn't how the system is and the Covid bump down is really creating havoc for teams like the Packers that were writing contracts on the thought that the cap would continually rise.

Every team probably has a cap specialist or 2, but the important part is structuring contracts over a reasonable amount of time, that the player will actually be on the team and contributing. It won't do any good to give a guy like Rodgers a $45M/year deal, that is for 5 years, $100M guaranteed and 2 voidable years, if the Packers think Rodgers only has 1-2 good years left in him. We are seeing the pitfalls of this with the Smith Brothers. You are screwed cap wise to keep them and screwed if you cut them, so you either take the hit now or try to restructure and push even more out into the future.

Personally, I think teams are getting themselves in trouble with all the guaranteed money and signing bonuses. I realize that if you want to keep players, you have to be competitive with the other 31 teams, but this pushing money out isn't something I like. Said it before, I would be be just fine if the NFL said that starting in 2028, there will be no more "cap tricks", money spent this season, counts this season.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,043
The old number folks always said about ten years ago was estimate about $5M for a draft class that first year. However, of course that is if you have just one draft pick in each round, and would change according to more. That of course has grown...but here is last years draft class cap hits of the guys that stuck on the roster:

2.168M - Stokes
1.014M - Myers
890K - Rodgers
784K - Newman
730K - Slaton
720K - SJC
692K - McDuffie

Cole Van Lanen and Kylin Hill are there too but due to IR and PS I'm not quite sure what they were total but progressively less of course.

That is roughly shy of $8M
Thanks Ty. Doesn't sound like a lot! Everything is relative I guess. I
Parity over time. The draft is suppose to help as well. I agree with you though, true parity would be to disallow pushing money out. You pay a guy $45 M this year, it goes against your cap this year. But that isn't how the system is and the Covid bump down is really creating havoc for teams like the Packers that were writing contracts on the thought that the cap would continually rise.

Every team probably has a cap specialist or 2, but the important part is structuring contracts over a reasonable amount of time, that the player will actually be on the team and contributing. It won't do any good to give a guy like Rodgers a $45M/year deal, that is for 5 years, $100M guaranteed and 2 voidable years, if the Packers think Rodgers only has 1-2 good years left in him. We are seeing the pitfalls of this with the Smith Brothers. You are screwed cap wise to keep them and screwed if you cut them, so you either take the hit now or try to restructure and push even more out into the future.

Personally, I think teams are getting themselves in trouble with all the guaranteed money and signing bonuses. I realize that if you want to keep players, you have to be competitive with the other 31 teams, but this pushing money out isn't something I like. Said it before, I would be be just fine if the NFL said that starting in 2028, there will be no more "cap tricks", money spent this season, counts this season.
And 2028 would be the year to start that, allowing for all the current contracts to expire (if it would even take that long, or maybe that's when the CBA expires). But it's as easy as you say - what you pay a player goes against the cap that year, period. No more signing bonuses or performance bonuses or bonuses just for showing up. Play and get paid, just like everyone else in America!
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,191
Reaction score
425
Thanks Ty. Doesn't sound like a lot! Everything is relative I guess. I

And 2028 would be the year to start that, allowing for all the current contracts to expire (if it would even take that long, or maybe that's when the CBA expires). But it's as easy as you say - what you pay a player goes against the cap that year, period. No more signing bonuses or performance bonuses or bonuses just for showing up. Play and get paid, just like everyone else in America!
Agree with the sentiment and don't want to get off track, but there are lots of others who don't/aren't. :)
 
Top