Report: Rodgers wants new contract (Update: May not want to return in 2021)

[nodakfan17]

The Packers just signed a street free agent WR named ‘DeAndre Thompkins’ and Packers’ Twitter has jokes.

 

Gute: ‘Aaron, come back. I got you DeAndre Thompkins and Odell Meachem.’

[GreatNWwi]

As a narcissist, Rodgers knows he is the smartest man in the room. He must realize his current contract is to his advantage in many ways with the exception that it possibly means he does not retire as a Packer if he holds on too long. Since everything he is doing and apparently saying puts that in jeopardy anyway (no pun intended), I can’t get a handle on what he is really looking for other than he does want to be the highest paid QB and/or wants to be guaranteed some income for whatever reason.

 

With his current contract if he plays good to great the next three years, he has to know that Love will not take over until 2024 at the earliest doesn’t he? And, even then it might not happen. There is no way he thinks Love will win the job in that span, his ego will not allow it. In that span, if they do cut him, he knows he will have his choice of teams one step away to go to. He could even build a super team as has been out there recently.

[patrickgpe]

its not really though. Packers hold his rights for 3 years. If the Packers choose not to trade him his really only options are to honor his contract or sit / retire, effectively ending his career. Packers hold the cards not Aaron.

[MrTPlush]

its not really though. Packers hold his rights for 3 years. If the Packers choose not to trade him his really only options are to honor his contract or sit / retire, effectively ending his career. Packers hold the cards not Aaron.

 

But that wouldn't make any sense for the Packers, none. Oh cool you forced Rodgers to retire, really stuck it to him! Don't mind how it hurts the Packers more than Rodgers. Rodgers can just go do something else likeJeopordy, but the Packers would miss out on multiple top draft picks and probably legit talent along with it (or even more draft picks). The Packers hold all the cards if we knew 100% there is zero chance he would retire...but it seems more than plausible he could.

 

Rodgers holds almost all the cards because he holds the most deadly card (retiring) and that is clear by the Packers publicly begging to do anything (basically) to get him to come back and MLF looking like he wants to ball up and cry on multiple occasions. The absolute worst outcome for anyone that hurts someone the most is Rodgers retiring on the Packers. It would be crippling in the short term and long term for the Packers.

 

The Packers can convince him to come back (I still think this happens) or you figure out a trade. Forcing him to not play is not winning for the Packers. All it does is make Rodgers lose, but you are losing even more in the process.

[tmwiese55]

Yes and it's just not realistic in the current sports landscape with the bad PR/pressure they'd get from it. It's a players world these days and GB would get blasted on this nonstop. But sweet, you stuck it to the best player in franchise history, nice job! Then say, they win 5-7 games this year while they do it, they'll look really great then.

[pacopete4]

Rodgers holds almost all the cards because he holds the most deadly card (retiring) and that is clear by the Packers publicly begging to do anything (basically) to get him to come back and MLF looking like he wants to ball up and cry on multiple occasions. The absolute worst outcome for anyone that hurts someone the most is Rodgers retiring on the Packers. It would be crippling in the short term and long term for the Packers.

 

I still cannot figure out why this is crippling to the Packers in any way? Sure, do they lose out on draft picks they could get for him? Of course. But what else do they lose here? They gain money. They've drafted his replacement. What exactly is so bad about him retiring?

[patrickgpe]

its not really though. Packers hold his rights for 3 years. If the Packers choose not to trade him his really only options are to honor his contract or sit / retire, effectively ending his career. Packers hold the cards not Aaron.

 

But that wouldn't make any sense for the Packers, none. Oh cool you forced Rodgers to retire, really stuck it to him! Don't mind how it hurts the Packers more than Rodgers. Rodgers can just go do something else likeJeopordy, but the Packers would miss out on multiple top draft picks and probably legit talent along with it (or even more draft picks). The Packers hold all the cards if we knew 100% there is zero chance he would retire...but it seems more than plausible he could.

 

Rodgers holds almost all the cards because he holds the most deadly card (retiring) and that is clear by the Packers publicly begging to do anything (basically) to get him to come back and MLF looking like he wants to ball up and cry on multiple occasions. The absolute worst outcome for anyone that hurts someone the most is Rodgers retiring on the Packers. It would be crippling in the short term and long term for the Packers.

 

The Packers can convince him to come back (I still think this happens) or you figure out a trade. Forcing him to not play is not winning for the Packers. All it does is make Rodgers lose, but you are losing even more in the process.

 

i agree with you. it would be franchise malpractice to not trade him if you felt like you had to, but to say that Rodgers holds all of the cards is simply not correct.

[MrTPlush]

Rodgers holds almost all the cards because he holds the most deadly card (retiring) and that is clear by the Packers publicly begging to do anything (basically) to get him to come back and MLF looking like he wants to ball up and cry on multiple occasions. The absolute worst outcome for anyone that hurts someone the most is Rodgers retiring on the Packers. It would be crippling in the short term and long term for the Packers.

 

I still cannot figure out why this is crippling to the Packers in any way? Sure, do they lose out on draft picks they could get for him? Of course. But what else do they lose here? They gain money. They've drafted his replacement. What exactly is so bad about him retiring?

 

Because they could easily trade him for multiple top draft picks? Forcing him to play or retire and then him retiring is just dumb on the Packers part. Would they not free up money and get picks by trading him?

 

If he flat out will never play for the Packers again, you trade him.

[DuWayne Steurer]

It's not crippling to the Packers to not trade him, but it would be dumb to not get assets back for him if he absolutely doesn't want to play for the Packers. If they can get 2-3 firsts and a couple of players now, thumbing their nose at him and saying "retire or play for us" is just dumb.

[Outlander]

Rodgers holds almost all the cards because he holds the most deadly card (retiring) and that is clear by the Packers publicly begging to do anything (basically) to get him to come back and MLF looking like he wants to ball up and cry on multiple occasions. The absolute worst outcome for anyone that hurts someone the most is Rodgers retiring on the Packers. It would be crippling in the short term and long term for the Packers.

 

I still cannot figure out why this is crippling to the Packers in any way? Sure, do they lose out on draft picks they could get for him? Of course. But what else do they lose here? They gain money. They've drafted his replacement. What exactly is so bad about him retiring?

 

Because they could easily trade him for multiple top draft picks? Forcing him to play or retire and then him retiring is just dumb on the Packers part. Would they not free up money and get picks by trading him?

 

If he flat out will never play for the Packers again, you trade him.

Well yeah, but not crippling to the franchise. Rodgers is old, no matter what happens here he isn't long for the Packers.

[pacopete4]

So not crippling, just a bad use of resources. That I can understand. I can also understand being done with selfish athletes that are having a midlife crisis and seem to bomb out of just about any meaningful relationship they've ever had. So if the Packers want to let him retire, I'm all for it. Collect that cash too!

[reillymcshane]

At this point, the Packers and Rodgers have to figure this out.

 

Go to Rodgers camp, put the cards on the table, and see if it works.

 

Offer him a new contract, including a 3-year 'guarantee' that he's the team's QB. Yes, he's aging, but I don't think anyone would be afraid to make a three year commitment to him.

 

And figure out how to avoid all the messy situations that have arisen in the past that got Rodgers and the Packers to this point. That most likely means establishing a solid line of communication with him. It's NOT letting him make personnel decisions, but it's making him a part of the process so that he understands when and why things are being done. It's about valuing his input, which I don't see as an issue. Not knowing all the issues makes this one hard to determine - but the club has to say to him they want it to work - so let's figure it out.

 

For the Packers, no matter what happens, they will want to be able to say they did everything in their power to keep Rodgers. "We offered him a raise. We offered him a guarantee that he'd be the QB for at least three years. We offered him increased interactions with the front office and coaching staff to help make sure he had the best team we could assemble around him."

 

At this point, if Rodgers says that doesn't do it for him, and he wants a trade, fine. Say you'll solicit offers after June 1, but be very clear that if the offers aren't what the team deems to be fair, they won't trade him. At that point, Rodgers has to play on his existing contract, or retire.

 

Of course, if Rodgers has unreasonable demands to return - fire Gute or trade for Julio Jones and Odell Beckham Jr - that sort of thing - you just have to say it's not happening. At that point, investigate the trade market, but don't cave unless you get a ton in exchange for him.

 

No matter, the longer this drags out - the worse it is for everyone. If Rodgers waits until camp starts - July 27 - to demand a trade, it's kind of hard to get teams to adjust that close to the season. And holding out is costly - 50k or so a day. Plus a full regular season game check for missing a pre-season game. Plus, if Rodgers really wants to be somewhere else - the earlier it gets done will give him more time to integrate into his new team. The longer he waits - the harder it will be.

[PeaveyFury]

All it does is make Rodgers lose, but you are losing even more in the process.

 

I just don't know if that's true. Rodgers loses an awful lot by retiring. I'd bet that part of the reason the Packers' appear willing to call his bluff on that is because it doesn't make any sense for Rodgers to actually retire and they know he won't.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I can honestly see Rodgers pushing to sit out the season - not retire - and just take his ball and sit out on the west coast. Green Bay could still get a ton for him via trade next offseason, they don't necessarily need to do it right this second. Knowing there would be more teams potentially looking to acquire him and knowing the salary cap for 2022 should at least let most teams interested in Rodgers be able to offer him what he's looking for in terms of a contract without crippling their own cap situation has me leaning towards GK just telling Rodgers to take the year off if he doesn't like the terms of his current contract.

[GAME05]

It would be hilarious if Rodgers played for the Packers next year but had a really bad year.

[adambr2]

It would be hilarious if Rodgers played for the Packers next year but had a really bad year.

 

"Really bad" is relative, but a lackluster season like 2019 is entirely possible. This would both hurt the 2021 Packers and tank the trade value of Rodgers, so I would be less than amused.

[adambr2]

Also, if Rodgers did retire and we pursued his signing bonus, it's not going to be as simple as Rodgers cutting us a check for 30M and the two sides shaking hands and walking away. It's generally not looked upon well for an organization to recoup the signing bonus of a longtime star. The Lions had to sue Barry Sanders to get his back. Calvin Johnson's relationship with the Lions is forever ruined because of it. Some organizations don't even bother. The Colts told Andrew Luck to keep his. We have every right to ask for it back but it will be very, very messy.

[pacopete4]

Also, if Rodgers did retire and we pursued his signing bonus, it's not going to be as simple as Rodgers cutting us a check for 30M and the two sides shaking hands and walking away. It's generally not looked upon well for an organization to recoup the signing bonus of a longtime star. The Lions had to sue Barry Sanders to get his back. Calvin Johnson's relationship with the Lions is forever ruined because of it. Some organizations don't even bother. The Colts told Andrew Luck to keep his. We have every right to ask for it back but it will be very, very messy.

 

Good. Sue his ass if he doesn’t want to abide by a contract he agreed to.

[nodakfan17]

It's not crippling to the Packers to not trade him, but it would be dumb to not get assets back for him if he absolutely doesn't want to play for the Packers. If they can get 2-3 firsts and a couple of players now, thumbing their nose at him and saying "retire or play for us" is just dumb.

It shows that players can’t demand a trade or renegotiate their last mega deal with 3 years left on their contract. That may not be worth 2 or 3 first rounders, but there is some value in holding firm.

[tmwiese55]

GB would look so bad in that entire scenario. They'd get raked over the coals all day every day on TV for months. All to just stand there proudly in spite to hurt the best player in franchise history who has carried them for 12 years and would end any relationship with him post career. Horrible look and no way they do it.

 

Sorry, if NFL teams can not honor the contract they signed by cutting players on their mega deals (like GB pointed they were strongly considering doing to him) then the players can do this. And they have been for years, he's nowhere near the first. NFL players should've went on strike somewhere around the 95-2005 timeframe when league was exploding in order to get guaranteed contracts.

[adambr2]

Also, if Rodgers did retire and we pursued his signing bonus, it's not going to be as simple as Rodgers cutting us a check for 30M and the two sides shaking hands and walking away. It's generally not looked upon well for an organization to recoup the signing bonus of a longtime star. The Lions had to sue Barry Sanders to get his back. Calvin Johnson's relationship with the Lions is forever ruined because of it. Some organizations don't even bother. The Colts told Andrew Luck to keep his. We have every right to ask for it back but it will be very, very messy.

 

Good. Sue his ass if he doesn’t want to abide by a contract he agreed to.

 

Wouldn't it be smarter to just trade him for a haul rather than dealing with both the consequences of losing him for nothing and the stigma and backlash of sending him to collections?

[pacopete4]

Also, if Rodgers did retire and we pursued his signing bonus, it's not going to be as simple as Rodgers cutting us a check for 30M and the two sides shaking hands and walking away. It's generally not looked upon well for an organization to recoup the signing bonus of a longtime star. The Lions had to sue Barry Sanders to get his back. Calvin Johnson's relationship with the Lions is forever ruined because of it. Some organizations don't even bother. The Colts told Andrew Luck to keep his. We have every right to ask for it back but it will be very, very messy.

 

Good. Sue his ass if he doesn’t want to abide by a contract he agreed to.

 

Wouldn't it be smarter to just trade him for a haul rather than dealing with both the consequences of losing him for nothing and the stigma and backlash of sending him to collections?

 

It’s one way to do it. I’m not sure why the Packers should care if he cries to the media as they collect his money for not honoring a contract. Simply say we don’t comment on players that are not members of our team and continue to move on.

[PeaveyFury]

the best player in franchise history

 

What does this have to do with Don Hutson?

[OldHeidelberg]

the best player in franchise history

 

What does this have to do with Don Hutson?

 

Off on a tangent but this thread could use it until after the 1st when we may actually get some news, I think Rodgers is arguably the best. Different eras but the NFL wasn’t the league in Hudson’s time that it is now. I don’t remember of course but I think back then it was basically only baseball and college football that mattered in team sports so Hutson’s dominance of the game probably wasn’t that big a deal. I think it is between those 2 though.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I want the Packers to be successful. Crossing their arms out of spite to win an argument and in the process giving up a bunch of top round picks just seems childish.