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

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I also really don't believe he would lose much trade value if any at all. There are always a handful of teams that will feel confident they can win right now with an all-world QB. It only takes one team that really wants a guy, we don't need 31 teams that have confidence in a 38 year old QB who sat a while.

 

The return is far more dependent on the suitor's circumstances than the age or sitting time of Rodgers.

 

If there's a team or teams that goes through this season with an awesome defense and feels they are right there but need that QB, then his value remains sky high. If a team was willing to trade two firsts or something right now, and another team thinks they are Rodgers away from a championship, I'm pretty confident that offer would stick next season.

[rickh150]

Would it be wise to start Love Week 1? Why even put Love in this pressure cooker situation? If he plays poorly, like really poorly, how soon do you pull the plug and go with Bortles? How bad would the Packers look? It might be safer (maybe not better, I understand) to start Bortles. If things go fairly well with the team winning, Love could continue to develop like Rodgers did behind the scenes. And if Bortles flops, Love could play the role of savior and really have a month or two more time to learn the offense before game action.

 

Moreover,

Bortles might possibly be better or more polished than Love right now anyways. He would also be reunited with his former coach in Hackett. Fortunately, the running game is a strength and could be the focus.

 

Like all, we are hoping to have a content Rodgers back, but I am not hopeful. The previous mentioned might serve the team better short term and long term.

[GAME05]

Washington would also be a good trade candidate. Or maybe Miami if Tua isn't good right away.

[SeaBass]

His trade value goes down because he would be 18 months removed from an MVP season, be 38 years old and of course teams are going to be wary about being out of action that long. They would still get probably more than the Packers got for Favre but the ages would be pretty comparable at that point, there's no way he's worth as much a year from now.

 

Time and value are correlated when you're talking trade value of a QB in his late 30s, that's one less year that a potential trade partner is going to get out of him. His value absolutely is less in a year. It will never be higher for the rest of his career than it is right now.

I haven't seen anyone in the media suggest that if the Packers wait that their return will be any less but I've seen multiple people talk about the Packers waiting and getting the same or better value due to more teams being involved. If you have sources that have backed up your theory that he'd lose value I'd be interested to see them.

 

How am I supposed to have a "source" for something that is entirely hypothetical? Can you post your sources for the contrary that suggest they can get better by waiting? I'd be happy to read them and be opening to examining my own viewpoints to see if there are flaws in my logic based on their logic and journalistic reputation.

 

This is uncharted territory without much precedent, but again, my logic is based on the following.

 

1) The trading team, who presumably is playing for a championship, now has one less year with Aaron Rodgers to do so. That matters. That negatively affects his value.

 

2) There is less certainty, especially as an aging QB, that Aaron Rodgers will be able to maintain an MVP level of play 2 years removed from his 2020 season than there is right now. GMs aren't dumb. They know perfectly well that the guy they trade for at this time next year might not be the same guy that was here in 2020.

 

3) Markets fluctuate. It is a sellers QB market right now, and we saw that with Stafford. We can't just assume it'll be another sellers market next summer.

 

I also don't buy for a second that the market for Rodgers won't be robust because teams are already set at QB for 2021. There is still a full training camp ahead for every team. Just because the Broncos are the only team we've heard about doesn't mean squat. If Gute makes Aaron Rodgers available, plans will change and teams will call.

Of course you're right everything is speculation right now, I suppose looking at the position the Packers have taken it doesn't seem to me they're in any hurry to trade Rodgers. So I'll ask you if you think the Packers will trade him this season if Rodgers holds out or retires? Not whether you think it's better but are they giving you that vibe?

 

I have a couple videos of the Rich Eisen show that are interesting listens, this one from Wednesday with Andrew Brandt talks about his view of when the Packers trade Rodgers but he doesn't talk about value.

Clip just talking about a trade from a front office perspective:

Full Brandt interview, the whole thing is pretty interesting really:

 

And this one Thursday with Rob Demovsky talking about how Love has looked in OTAs, around the 8:00 mark is where they talk about Rodgers.

 

I'm pretty much standing with my belief that the Packers want Rodgers back first and foremost, and this might be the most likely result, but in my opinion if he retires they let him sit out the season before trading him in 2022. It just feels like that's where this is aimed right now and I really don't think they lose any value or if they do it's not a vast decrease in returned value and they are ok with that.

[adambr2]

Thanks for sharing those. I certainly hope you are right and that the return wouldn't suffer much after a year off. I'm still thinking that the time would hurt at his age on his value. I can't think of much precedent even for a 37 year old to return a huge haul, so if it was going to happen I'd rather it happen at 37 than 38 when they have that extra year.

 

The closest comp I can think of in terms of age and recent season performance is actually Brett Favre who only returned us a conditional pick that ended up being a 3rd. I realize we're many years removed from that and it's a different era but giving up a massive haul for a 38 year old QB just seems like something a really dumb GM would do and not many of those are one QB away. I guess it only takes one but I would be surprised if we aren't disappointed with the return.

 

I'm guessing it's a moot point as I don't think the year off scenario is very plausible as I don't think it really benefits either party. Most likely scenario I would think is still that Rodgers reports at some point this summer with him being traded before this season being 2nd.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Personally I think that teams view Rodgers as closer to someone who will be good as long as Brady has been good vs. someone like Manning that had nerve and neck problems at the same age and there was less confidence about the state of his body. Rodgers hasn't had serious injuries unless we go back 15 years or so to his ACL. And no I don't consider broken collarbones as serious injuries. At 38, you could still be looking at 4-5 seasons.

[MrTPlush]

You could argue the risk of Rodgers sitting out and getting worse compensation next offseason is worth attempting to call his bluff and getting him into camp come August.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Thanks for sharing those. I certainly hope you are right and that the return wouldn't suffer much after a year off. I'm still thinking that the time would hurt at his age on his value. I can't think of much precedent even for a 37 year old to return a huge haul, so if it was going to happen I'd rather it happen at 37 than 38 when they have that extra year.

 

The closest comp I can think of in terms of age and recent season performance is actually Brett Favre who only returned us a conditional pick that ended up being a 3rd. I realize we're many years removed from that and it's a different era but giving up a massive haul for a 38 year old QB just seems like something a really dumb GM would do and not many of those are one QB away. I guess it only takes one but I would be surprised if we aren't disappointed with the return.

 

I'm guessing it's a moot point as I don't think the year off scenario is very plausible as I don't think it really benefits either party. Most likely scenario I would think is still that Rodgers reports at some point this summer with him being traded before this season being 2nd.

 

From a trade value standpoint all the above is true, but then again how many 37-38 year old QBs were traded right after they won MVP?

 

As for Rodgers' trade value right now vs 1 year from now, I'd actually argue it will be higher in 1 season because more teams could plausibly set themselves up to swing that kind of trade, both from a draft pick/player compensation standpoint and from a salary cap standpoint. Right now there's maybe two teams (Broncos, Raiders) that come up frequently when speculating trade partners this offseason - but with all the young QBs that will be making starts in 2021, there's a good chance a few flame out or at least fall on their faces, and then GMs are going to be scrambling to try and get a quality veteran QB in the fold to try and 'win now'. I'm thinking additional teams like the 49ers, Giants, Eagles, Dolphins, Redskins. Plus, you'll also have a few teams who may be looking to replace their own veteran QB's next offseason due to retirement or discontent if their season goes poorly (Seahawks, Steelers, Texans, Titans, Falcons). That winds up being roughly a third of the league possibly in the market for a 38 yr old but still great quarterback instead of a couple - that along would drive up trade value even after Rodgers got a year older and sat out a full season with teams knowing he isn't going to play for Green Bay in 2022. The one thing really working against a 2022 trade value would be the salary cap hit his current contract would remain on the Packers, who will already be hardpressed to resign some key players (Alexander, Adams, etc) in the next year without Rodgers counting almost $40M against the 2022 cap and not playing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

With the latest tidbit from Murphy, I am really beginning to doubt that Rodgers ever plays for GB again.

[madbad2000]

When considering the best/worst case scenarios with the Rodgers situation, the "best" scenario is likely Rodgers shows up to play this season. What would be the worst case scenarios? What if Rodgers really wants to hurt the Packers?

 

Options:

 

Shows Up to Play - Same as always

 

Trade - Packers get a boatload of picks, players and likely cap savings, Rodgers ends up on a contender for another run and draft pick location is likely bottom of the rounds.

 

Trade (Noncontender) - Packers get picks/players, Rodgers gets sent to a less than desirable location, picks are likely higher in rounds, but also chance Rodgers doesn't accept that deal scuttling the trade (without a no-trade clause).

 

Retire - Packers lose their QB, but recoup cap space

 

Sit out - Rodgers loses salary and gets $50k per day fine for missing training camp, Packers lose their QB

 

Retire/Unretire - Packers lose their QB, Rodgers avoids training camp fines, but when he comes back his salary cap hits again. Does a team need to approve an unretire?

 

COVID Opt Out - Assuming the NFLPA gets that negotiated again (rumored the NFLPA are trying). Last year it was $150k salary for non-medical opt outs with contract rolling over to the next year with no season accrued. Basically contract pushes an extra year with same terms.

 

Did I miss any potential options? If Rodgers is really that petty and wants to burn it all down/hurt Packers the most, which scenario do you see as the worst case? It looks like a team would have to absorb the remaining contract at the time of an unretirement for cap purposes. So if the Packers do get cap relief, that can go away quickly if Rodgers unretires. The only option at that point is contract restructures or cuts to get below the threshold.

 

I would think the worst case scenario is any combination where Rodgers doesn't play for Packers and they do not get picks/players back. The quickest way to reload is with talent and denying the Packers the trade fodder would hurt for sure.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Lord Rodgers is in a bit of hard spot himself because I'm sure he wants to scorch the ground Murphy walks on, I am not as sure he is willing to light his reputation in the state and with the fans on fire.

 

Murphy keeps getting a big head in public and needlessly talking, Rodgers may eventually get his way anyway. First alarm with Murphy was needlessly listing his credentials to the media a couple years ago, now publicly calling Rodgers difficult without actually saying it. Guy needs to shut up. Gute doesn't have an ego, but Murphy does.

[CheezWizHed]

When considering the best/worst case scenarios with the Rodgers situation, the "best" scenario is likely Rodgers shows up to play this season. What would be the worst case scenarios? What if Rodgers really wants to hurt the Packers?

 

Options:

 

Shows Up to Play - Same as always

 

Trade - Packers get a boatload of picks, players and likely cap savings, Rodgers ends up on a contender for another run and draft pick location is likely bottom of the rounds.

 

Trade (Noncontender) - Packers get picks/players, Rodgers gets sent to a less than desirable location, picks are likely higher in rounds, but also chance Rodgers doesn't accept that deal scuttling the trade (without a no-trade clause).

 

Retire - Packers lose their QB, but recoup cap space

 

Sit out - Rodgers loses salary and gets $50k per day fine for missing training camp, Packers lose their QB

 

Retire/Unretire - Packers lose their QB, Rodgers avoids training camp fines, but when he comes back his salary cap hits again. Does a team need to approve an unretire?

 

COVID Opt Out - Assuming the NFLPA gets that negotiated again (rumored the NFLPA are trying). Last year it was $150k salary for non-medical opt outs with contract rolling over to the next year with no season accrued. Basically contract pushes an extra year with same terms.

 

Did I miss any potential options? If Rodgers is really that petty and wants to burn it all down/hurt Packers the most, which scenario do you see as the worst case? It looks like a team would have to absorb the remaining contract at the time of an unretirement for cap purposes. So if the Packers do get cap relief, that can go away quickly if Rodgers unretires. The only option at that point is contract restructures or cuts to get below the threshold.

 

I would think the worst case scenario is any combination where Rodgers doesn't play for Packers and they do not get picks/players back. The quickest way to reload is with talent and denying the Packers the trade fodder would hurt for sure.

 

Well, there is the case of mass extinction. [sarcasm]Some of this offseason has me cheering that one on...[/sarcasm]

 

 

*Sorry, no 2021 version*

[MrTPlush]

Isn't his contract only three more years? If he skips he just forfeits the salary and then is effectively on a two year deal? I don't see how that isn't a huge negative, that is 33% of the contract gone. If it ends up taking a year in a new system to get up to speed you then have one year to win it all.

 

If he sat out a year I wonder if an acquiring team would almost prefer to have Rodgers sign an extension so he is around more than 2 years min.

[nate82]

 

If he sat out a year I wonder if an acquiring team would almost prefer to have Rodgers sign an extension so he is around more than 2 years min.

 

Rodgers would require the team trading for him to sign him to a new extension. I don't see why this would be an issue?

[MrTPlush]

 

If he sat out a year I wonder if an acquiring team would almost prefer to have Rodgers sign an extension so he is around more than 2 years min.

 

Rodgers would require the team trading for him to sign him to a new extension. I don't see why this would be an issue?

 

Because we don't know that Rodgers would require an extension from an acquiring team?

[nate82]

 

If he sat out a year I wonder if an acquiring team would almost prefer to have Rodgers sign an extension so he is around more than 2 years min.

 

Rodgers would require the team trading for him to sign him to a new extension. I don't see why this would be an issue?

 

Because we don't know that Rodgers would require an extension from an acquiring team?

 

I doubt Rodgers would even consider a team that wouldn't offer him an extension. He would basically be in the same boat he is in now if he didn't.

[SeaBass]

Isn't his contract only three more years? If he skips he just forfeits the salary and then is effectively on a two year deal? I don't see how that isn't a huge negative, that is 33% of the contract gone. If it ends up taking a year in a new system to get up to speed you then have one year to win it all.

 

If he sat out a year I wonder if an acquiring team would almost prefer to have Rodgers sign an extension so he is around more than 2 years min.

Per the new CBA if Rodgers does not show up to play he is fined $50k per day from the beginning of training camp to the start of the season, if he remains a hold out he forfeits game checks and does not accrue service time or advance his contract. The Packers will still have him on a 3 year contract until he reports to the team and takes his roster spot with the intention to be available to play. He does not have the option to report and refuse to play either, that is treated the same as a hold out.

 

He can officially retire, if he's going to go that route it will likely occur before the beginning of training camp so that he can avoid the $50k per day fines and save approx. $2 million total in fines. If he does not retire first and instead holds out it might be a signal that he does plan to report but will wait several days, but even if he wanted to hold out all of training camp he could retire to avoid the fines and then apply for reinstatement before the regular season starts, so it doesn't make much sense for him to not retire if he plans to hold out of training camp for any real length of time, say beyond 10 days or so.

[MrTPlush]

I doubt Rodgers would even consider a team that wouldn't offer him an extension. He would basically be in the same boat he is in now if he didn't.

 

Not really. The amount of draft capita and/or players it will take to acquire Rodgers would certainly attach that team to him for the remainder of the contract. You aren't going to get Rodgers and consider moving on in the next three years. So there wouldn't be any concern of the acquiring team dumping him on the side of the road after 2021. Arguably the biggest issue Rodgers has right now is the fact the Packers got Love while at the same time having a convenient out of his contract after 2021. Which is notable when most rumors had that as their plan once drafting Love.

 

It is quite likely he would want/expect an extension, but mostly because he could probably get it from that team. If the Packers shipped Rodgers off to the Broncos I bet he wouldn't demand a contract to play. He would probably get his way out of Green Bay an way possible if he had the choice. The contract may be the same, but the situation is way less problematic.

[nate82]

I doubt Rodgers would even consider a team that wouldn't offer him an extension. He would basically be in the same boat he is in now if he didn't.

 

Not really. The amount of draft capita and/or players it will take to acquire Rodgers would certainly attach that team to him for the remainder of the contract. You aren't going to get Rodgers and consider moving on in the next three years. So there wouldn't be any concern of the acquiring team dumping him on the side of the road after 2021. Arguably the biggest issue Rodgers has right now is the fact the Packers got Love while at the same time having a convenient out of his contract after 2021. Which is notable when most rumors had that as their plan once drafting Love.

 

It is quite likely he would want/expect an extension, but mostly because he could probably get it from that team. If the Packers shipped Rodgers off to the Broncos I bet he wouldn't demand a contract to play. He would probably get his way out of Green Bay an way possible if he had the choice. The contract may be the same, but the situation is way less problematic.

 

I don't see Love as the being the problem for Rodgers it is the contract that is the problem. With or without Love Rodgers would be asking for a new contract. So the team acquiring Rodgers will have to offer him a contract extension otherwise he will just do the same thing until he gets that new contract.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Any team trading for Rodgers would also want to cut him a new deal instantly as part of the trade to improve what it does to their cap situation - I don't think a new contract would be a hangup for either Rodgers or the team trading for him, as they would both have no problem with a windfall upfront signing bonus with a new 4-5 year deal that won't have the first two years of the contract taking up roughly $40M in cap space.

[adambr2]

Any team trading for Rodgers would also want to cut him a new deal instantly as part of the trade to improve what it does to their cap situation - I don't think a new contract would be a hangup for either Rodgers or the team trading for him, as they would both have no problem with a windfall upfront signing bonus with a new 4-5 year deal that won't have the first two years of the contract taking up roughly $40M in cap space.

 

Why? They're not on the hook for any guaranteed money and the cap hits are extremely modest for a franchise QB. It's a very cap friendly acquisition for an acquiring team.

[reillymcshane]

Any team trading for Rodgers would also want to cut him a new deal instantly as part of the trade to improve what it does to their cap situation - I don't think a new contract would be a hangup for either Rodgers or the team trading for him, as they would both have no problem with a windfall upfront signing bonus with a new 4-5 year deal that won't have the first two years of the contract taking up roughly $40M in cap space.

 

Why? They're not on the hook for any guaranteed money and the cap hits are extremely modest for a franchise QB. It's a very cap friendly acquisition for an acquiring team.

I guess the big question would he report to any team without an extension. No one knows that, but I'm guessing it's something he'll want - provide him the security for the next few years that he's said he wants - that sort of thing. Just a guess.

[FVBrewerFan]

Any team trading for Rodgers would also want to cut him a new deal instantly as part of the trade to improve what it does to their cap situation - I don't think a new contract would be a hangup for either Rodgers or the team trading for him, as they would both have no problem with a windfall upfront signing bonus with a new 4-5 year deal that won't have the first two years of the contract taking up roughly $40M in cap space.

 

Why? They're not on the hook for any guaranteed money and the cap hits are extremely modest for a franchise QB. It's a very cap friendly acquisition for an acquiring team.

 

$37MM, $40MM, $28MM the nezt 3 yrs is not "very cap friendly."

[OldSchoolSnapper]

For the MVP of the league that is extremely cap friendly. If he was near as good as he was last year, that's cap friendly. The $28mm is small potatoes if he's even decent.

[adambr2]

Any team trading for Rodgers would also want to cut him a new deal instantly as part of the trade to improve what it does to their cap situation - I don't think a new contract would be a hangup for either Rodgers or the team trading for him, as they would both have no problem with a windfall upfront signing bonus with a new 4-5 year deal that won't have the first two years of the contract taking up roughly $40M in cap space.

 

Why? They're not on the hook for any guaranteed money and the cap hits are extremely modest for a franchise QB. It's a very cap friendly acquisition for an acquiring team.

 

$37MM, $40MM, $28MM the nezt 3 yrs is not "very cap friendly."

 

Those aren't the cap hits for the team that acquires him. Those are the cap hits for the Packers which include the bonuses that are accelerated onto our cap costs if he's traded and are not the responsibility of a team that trades for him.