What To Make Of Our WR No-Shows

[Pokerbrat2000]

A team trading for Rodgers would have to pay him only $65.7 million ($21.9 million average) over the next three seasons under his current deal.

After the last month or so, I am not so convinced that Aaron Rogers would be too excited about the Packers simply trading him and his existing contract to another team. Now I could be wrong, but I think the only way a new team is going to make Rodgers completely happy is a restructured deal with enough guarantees for several years, to allow Aaron to feel like he is back in control.

This could actually be a real sticking point in a potential trade with another team. It's one thing to work out the compensation end between 2 teams, but if the Player, especially a high profile, high paid guy isn't on board, the new team probably is going to balk. Also, the final new contract could potentially make that team say to the Packers "well, with the new higher priced contract that AR wants, we need to take at least one draft pick off the table."

 

[gopkrs]

I'm sure someone is going to say "Adams has nothing to prove, why shouldn't he wait it out and cash in?" Well, he needs to prove he isn't just in it for the money and he is a team player. Playing it safe, just for the money wouldn't be a team player IMO.

This is ridiculous imho

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You say that like an insult but luckily I'm an American so I'll accept it.

It WAS an insult , but only to them two.

 

[Poppa San]

intelligent mans game

My beloved bride was reading this over my shoulder and said there is no such thing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This is ridiculous imho

What's ridiculous about it? Can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing and you think Adams would be justified to sit the season out unless he signs a new contract?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Poker you have many a time pointed out to people that they did not comprehend your whole post based on their responses to you. I thought I was pretty clear that any of the 4 QBs that were thrown in a trade (please read my definition of a throw in) would be eventually traded away.

Well I am glad you are at least paying attention I understood yo

It`s too complicated game for you to enjoy.

Wait, Cricket is a game? I thought it was a Sport? Welcome back Mr Buggy, if you are indeed back!

 

[Premontre1969]

After the last month or so, I am not so convinced that Aaron Rogers would be too excited about the Packers simply trading him and his existing contract to another team. Now I could be wrong, but I think the only way a new team is going to make Rodgers completely happy is a restructured deal with enough guarantees for several years, to allow Aaron to feel like he is back in control.

This could actually be a real sticking point in a potential trade with another team. It's one thing to work out the compensation end between 2 teams, but if the Player, especially a high profile, high paid guy isn't on board, the new team probably is going to balk. Also, the final new contract could potentially make that team say to the Packers "well, with the new higher priced contract that AR wants, we need to take at least one draft pick off the table."

There won’t be a trade. AR is just enjoing the attention. His girlfriend is famous and I think it’s just part of the mating ritual. Fine feathers and all. I’m sure he appreciates his recievers support for whatever it is he’s supposedly protesting. They will all show up for camp.

 

[gopkrs]

What's ridiculous about it? Can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing and you think Adams would be justified to sit the season out unless he signs a new contract?

If he wants to sit out the 5 or 7 weeks because he does not have a contract...then I understand that. He sure is not afraid. Some of the concussions he had from dirty imo hits shows he gets back into the game. But it also shows there is an obvious risk. In such a case, family concerns take over. I just don't believe he needs to show that he is not in it for the money. Money is most certainly important.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If he wants to sit out the 5 or 7 weeks because he does not have a contract...then I understand that. He sure is not afraid. Some of the concussions he had from dirty imo hits shows he gets back into the game. But it also shows there is an obvious risk. In such a case, family concerns take over. I just don't believe he needs to show that he is not in it for the money. Money is most certainly important.

What do you mean by "if he doesn't have a contract"? He has a contract so I would hope he doesn't sit it out. Should Jaire sit out the year?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Well I am glad you are at least paying attention I understood yo


Wait, Cricket is a game? I thought it was a Sport? Welcome back Mr Buggy, if you are indeed back!

Good to see you too mate.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

My beloved bride was reading this over my shoulder and said there is no such thing.

MY beloved brides father was a highly qualified cricket umpire.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

May I frame that first part?

Of course I already mentioned that I was wrong about it right after it became public the Packers had approached Rodgers about restructuring his contract.

The second part you might be partially correct on, but I also think you and some others might be putting way to much blame on the FO. I think most are seeing both sides of this and seeing the fault of each along the way and how it built up to this.

Rodgers is definitely not an easy character to handle. It's the responsibility of the front office to manage him accordingly though. Unfortunately it seems they failed in that regard.

However, I think MLF's offense and the Packer organization as a whole are better than that of Detroit's and several other teams, so I think while it will take some time, the Packers will recover from something that was inevitable anyway.

It was inevitable several years down the road though.

Doesn’t that depend on the newer rules in trade agreement? It’s my understanding they can negotiate cap vs draft selections. Meaning GB has the ability to eat the dead (such as if they feel they are in total rebuild and want maximum draft capital) or wash the sunk $ (if GB wants less draft capital in trade in order to balance their books/or sign/resign FA’s) with a team that has significant monetary capital available (or is coming up short in sufficient draft capital to make the deal).

If the Packers trade Rodgers the dead money of $38.356 million will count against their cap. There's no way around it at all.

Either way. Rodgers is older (less years) and has far more guaranteed if they ate the dead $ in both/any scenarios. The whole point being ... Rodgers is riskier/more expensive to take on than Stafford was.

Once again, you're wrong about it. Rodgers isn't more expensive than Stafford for a team acquiring him. In addition his contract doesn't have any guaranteed money left.

After the last month or so, I am not so convinced that Aaron Rogers would be too excited about the Packers simply trading him and his existing contract to another team.

The Packers can't do anything about Rodgers' contract situation with a team acquiring him in a trade though.

 

[gopkrs]

Once again, you're wrong about it. Rodgers isn't more expensive than Stafford for a team acquiring him. In addition his contract doesn't have any guaranteed money left.

The big signing bonus has to be taken into consideration...right?

 

[Poppa San]

The big signing bonus has to be taken into consideration...right?

Past signing bonus and any other already paid bonuses are charged to the team trading. That is what dead cap is. Future bonuses (workout / roster) along with guaranteed or other salary go with the player to the new team.

 

[Poppa San]

MY beloved brides father was a highly qualified cricket umpire.

Knowing my wife's sense of humor, I think she was taking a dig at the intelligent and man section and ignoring the game reference.

 

[gopkrs]

Past signing bonus and any other already paid bonuses are charged to the team trading. That is what dead cap is. Future bonuses (workout / roster) along with guaranteed or other salary go with the player to the new team.

I would guess, then, that a huge signing bonus would have to be taken into consideration (per years left on contract) with the trade. I guess that won't help the future salary cap. Or can it? Depending on the trading partner, can they pick up the salary cap hit?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rodgers is definitely not an easy character to handle. It's the responsibility of the front office to manage him accordingly though. Unfortunately it seems they failed in that regard.

Define "accordingly". They seem to have managed quite a few other guys pretty successfully, so now they are a failure?

Do you believe they and they alone failed because of where the situation is right now? I'm not saying that they didn't fail, but I am also not going to say that Rodgers didn't fail either. I don't think any of us actually have enough information to fully condemn either side or even excuse one of failing more than the other. Even when we do have all the information, some of the "failures" of either side are going to be very subjective.

If Davante or Jaire refuse to resign with the Packers, did the FO fail?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers can't do anything about Rodgers' contract situation with a team acquiring him in a trade though.

No they cant, but we see this happen all the time in the NFL and honestly I am not sure how teams get around the tampering rules. However, players are traded and immediately they have a new contract. Maybe the Packers can be the mediator through which a new contract is agreed upon between Rodgers/his agent and his new team, with a condition in the trade of "the trade becomes null and void if Rodgers refuses to later sign said contract."

No team in their right mind is going to trade a ton of draft capital away for Rodgers, just to find out that he won't report under the conditions of his current contract. Now if he has no issues with that contract, then there won't be a need for a new one with his new team. I find that highly unlikely given that we have heard he wanted more guarantees to be with the Packers beyond 2021. His new asking price might also greatly influence the actual trade capital that a team is willing to give up.

 

[gopkrs]

If Davante or Jaire refuse to resign with the Packers, did the FO fail?

Sometimes a player just wants new scenery. Another place to play. But that is set off by the ability to sign them early. I have not heard anyone demanding a trade. In fact, The Pack seemed like a solid group with no internal problems last year. Except maybe when ARod sort of walks by LaFleur like the coach could not have anything important to add.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would guess, then, that a huge signing bonus would have to be taken into consideration (per years left on contract) with the trade. I guess that won't help the future salary cap. Or can it? Depending on the trading partner, can they pick up the salary cap hit?

Kind of covered this above. The Packers are "stuck" accounting for (through cap accounting) everything that was guaranteed to Rodgers when he signed the contract and all the adjustments since, that has yet to be cap accounted for yet. This doesn't include future salaries, roster or workout bonuses. Think of it this way, Rodgers has already been paid ALL of the money in question, but some of it just hasn't been reported against the cap yet, since the NFL allows teams to spread the cap hit of doing so over the lifetime of the contract. Thus, why its called a "Dead Cap Hit", nothing the Packers or another team can do about it. If he is traded or cut, that cap hit has to be taken immediately or in this case 1/2 over this season and 1/2 over next if it happens after June 1st.

If the Packers do trade Rodgers, I don't expect his current contract to follow him for too long. His new team will give him plenty of new money and guarantees, letting him know that they want him for "X number of years".

 

[thequick12]

After the last month or so, I am not so convinced that Aaron Rogers would be too excited about the Packers simply trading him and his existing contract to another team. Now I could be wrong, but I think the only way a new team is going to make Rodgers completely happy is a restructured deal with enough guarantees for several years, to allow Aaron to feel like he is back in control.

This could actually be a real sticking point in a potential trade with another team. It's one thing to work out the compensation end between 2 teams, but if the Player, especially a high profile, high paid guy isn't on board, the new team probably is going to balk. Also, the final new contract could potentially make that team say to the Packers "well, with the new higher priced contract that AR wants, we need to take at least one draft pick off the table."

I agree they'd be likely to use that negotiating tactic but the Packers FO should not entertain it. Obviously any team trading for Rodgers or if the Packers keep him, which I'm convinced they will, is giving him a new extension that adjusts his contract so he's once again the highest paid guy...

When he last signed wasn't he pushing for a % of the cap or something? I have a feeling he's trying to set a new prescedence with regard to how contracts are structured in the NFL

 

[thequick12]

Define "accordingly". They seem to have managed quite a few other guys pretty successfully, so now they are a failure?

Do you believe they and they alone failed because of where the situation is right now? I'm not saying that they didn't fail, but I am also not going to say that Rodgers didn't fail either. I don't think any of us actually have enough information to fully condemn either side or even excuse one of failing more than the other. Even when we do have all the information, some of the "failures" of either side are going to be very subjective.

If Davante or Jaire refuse to resign with the Packers, did the FO fail?

Yes failure to manage Rodgers still makes them failures no matter who else they managed adequately...Rodgers is the most important player in franchise history

And 100% if they fail to sign Adams and Alexander they will have failed. Those are unquestionably blue chip players...you don't let them get out of the building under any circumstances...

Rodgers has failed at winning more than one superbowl so far...but it's not his job to manage the FO it's their job to manage him. Brett Favre had his own locker room etc clearly the previous FO knew the importance of keeping your best players happy. Obviously you'd like to keep all the prayers happy but it's most imperative to keep your most important players happy because that's your best chance at being successful

 

[thequick12]

The wrs not showing up was clearly a show of solidarity with Rodgers, likely led by Davante Adams. They obviously want the FO to make sure they do what it takes to get Rodgers back...had 79 of 89 players not shown up I'd have thought it's just veterans not wanting to work on their vacation. But being that 5 of the 10 who skipped it were veteran wrs certainly it can't be a coincidence

As for trading Adams that's a terrible idea, he has shown he can produce even with subpar qb play. Even if he doesn't wanna sign long term you have to franchise him.

Now obviously if he pulls a power move and refuses to play for the Packers...yeah you have to trade him but I think it's wild speculation to imply it's going to get to that point with Adams. I can't imagine the Packers board would allow the current President to remain in his position if this situation progresses to that point. As of now I'm confident Aaron Rodgers will be the Packers qb this season. When that doesn't happen I'll start entertaining the possibility that this current FO is incompetent enough to allow the foundations of the franchise to crumble like that...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes failure to manage Rodgers still makes them failures no matter who else they managed adequately...Rodgers is the most important player in franchise history

And 100% if they fail to sign Adams and Alexander they will have failed. Those are unquestionably blue chip players...you don't let them get out of the building under any circumstances...

I totally disagree. A contract requires both parties signatures. Before either party agrees to sign the contract, they typically agree with all the terms. The Packers FO being declared a failure if any player decides he likes the terms another team is offering better? So were the Packers failures when they signed Jimmy Graham or Martellus Bennett? Or doesn't it work that way when the player fails to live up to the contract? Failures that they traded Brett Favre because they didn't want him in the building anymore?

Appears maybe that in your eyes, they are failures, because they didn't do what you would have?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As for trading Adams that's a terrible idea, he has shown he can produce even with subpar qb play. Even if he doesn't wanna sign long term you have to franchise him.

Have you looked at the 2022 Cap situation? Franchising someone is a full on dead cap hit. A GM deciding he is going to Franchise someone who made it clear that he didn't want to be in Green Bay because his QB was traded? Sorry, but that wouldn't be a move I would support. Especially given the fact that I don't think the Packers are Super Bowl bound without Rodgers for the next few years, so why pay Davante, risk pissing off other players and eventually get nothing but a comp pic when he walks after franchise tags are no longer prudent. Great idea, chain him up and make him play until he changes his mind!