Aaron Rodgers Trade ideas

[LouisEly]

I'm not saying it's not possible but they literally have to find a way to clear about $70M from the cap in the next month or so.

 

You are talking about adding a LOT of voidable years into veteran contracts and pushing a LOT of salary out to future years.

Go back 14 posts in this thread

[adambr2]

I'm not saying it's not possible but they literally have to find a way to clear about $70M from the cap in the next month or so.

 

You are talking about adding a LOT of voidable years into veteran contracts and pushing a LOT of salary out to future years.

Go back 14 posts in this thread

 

Yes I read it. You can't trade Rodgers as a move to clear space to to tag and trade Adams in the same transaction. The space to tag Adams needs to be available first.

[adambr2]

Is it me, or is every time the amount of salary cap the Packers need to cut get referenced, that overall figure gets larger on this board? There are so many ways the theoretical cap figure can be adjusted and altered that until we know which players they actually want to retain and which ones actually want to stay here, there's not point in discussing hypothetical cap scenarios, tbh. Roughly half of the likely salary cap savings this team needs to make before mid-march are essentially auto cuts that many teams make annually when non-guaranteed veteran contract amounts remaining get out of whack with their onfield performance.

 

Hopefully by the end of February they won't be needing to cut $134M...

 

One thing's for certain - whether or not Rodgers and Adams are Packers next season or playing elsewhere has absolutely nothing to do with what the team's longterm salary cap outlook currently looks like. We are talking about 2 of probably the top 3 or 4 players on their roster in terms of talent/production for 2022 - if they want to be here, you find a way to make the financials work to keep them around. If you don't, you utilize what limited financial control you have over those players (i.e., franchise tag) until you get viable trade offers to maximize value in return for sending them elsewhere.

 

Well for one it's larger because they've made more moves. They've signed reserve/future contracts which has increased their amount in the hole.

 

Two, the amount they're actually in the hole ($51.5M) is different from the amount they actually need to tag Adams, which is that plus an additional $20M or so. So the $70M I stated was actually an understatement.

 

Conversely, I think the opposite of what your position is here -- there is actually such a "cap don't matter" attitude on this board. Yes, it matters. Yes the salary cap is fluid and not really a hard yearly cap, and there are ways around it but there are also limitations and potentially big consequences.

 

I never said tagging Adams was impossible but I'm amazed how many people seem to think we can just do a couple restructures and cuts here and there, slap the tag on him, get a king's ransom and we're good to go.

[Fear The Chorizo]

There's a cap don't matter mentality on this board because it honestly doesn't matter on teams with great quarterbacks - you just figure it out at the margins and keep pushing forward. Will some guys have to be cut that could be contributors in 2022 if their salaries were more friendly? Yes, but if Rodgers and Adams want to be back, you get them done and move forward. This isn't kirk cousins we are talking about.

 

The $70m you are referencing includes the salaries of everyone still currently on the roster from this year's team and what their current contracts cap hits would be for 2022. That just isn't reality, because close to $40m of that figure was likely going to be veteran cap cuts of the likes of the Smiths, cobb, Crosby, Turner, etc after this year no matter how this season went. Then that remaining $30m comes down either to how a restructured or new Rodgers deal to keep him a Packer reduces his 2022 cap hit and likewise for a new Adams deal that can spread out huge signing bonus figures onto future cap years that are now much more likely to jump up with a return to normal revenue streams as the pandemic becomes an endemic.

 

There are still more veteran restructures that can even further trim their bottom line if they need to do it. Then again, if Rodgers and Adams don't want to return, the cap reductions can get carried out much differently.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I never said tagging Adams was impossible but I'm amazed how many people seem to think we can just do a couple restructures and cuts here and there, slap the tag on him, get a king's ransom and we're good to go.

 

Amazed? I think what you describe here is basically spot on on what will likely happen. Adams will either be playing for the Packers next year under the Franchise Tag, under a new contract, or they'll tag and trade him for a solid return (if Rodgers decides to move on). I would be absolutely amazed if they let him get to unrestricted free agency. In my mind, there is a <0% chance of that happening.

 

I think you are taking the salary cap way more seriously than what it should be taken. They'll have to get creative, but there are several stories out there now that describe how exactly they can do it without gutting the entire team. Yes, a few guys will not be back next year, but if Rodgers and Adams want to come back, the Packers can make that happen while putting a solid core around them.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

There's a cap don't matter mentality on this board because it honestly doesn't matter on teams with great quarterbacks - you just figure it out at the margins and keep pushing forward. Will some guys have to be cut that could be contributors in 2022 if their salaries were more friendly? Yes, but if Rodgers and Adams want to be back, you get them done and move forward. This isn't kirk cousins we are talking about.

 

The $70m you are referencing includes the salaries of everyone still currently on the roster from this year's team and what their current contracts cap hits would be for 2022. That just isn't reality, because close to $40m of that figure was likely going to be veteran cap cuts of the likes of the Smiths, cobb, Crosby, Turner, etc after this year no matter how this season went. Then that remaining $30m comes down either to how a restructured or new Rodgers deal to keep him a Packer reduces his 2022 cap hit and likewise for a new Adams deal that can spread out huge signing bonus figures onto future cap years that are now much more likely to jump up with a return to normal revenue streams as the pandemic becomes an endemic.

 

There are still more veteran restructures that can even further trim their bottom line if they need to do it. Then again, if Rodgers and Adams don't want to return, the cap reductions can get carried out much differently.

 

This is spot on, and how teams like the Chiefs and Rams have been skirting salary cap issues for years. When you read about teams getting in "salary cap hell" it is typically because they are mismanaged and give our horrible contracts that they cannot get out of. The Packers, on the other hand, are very deftly managed financially when it comes to guaranteeing money beyond a player's signing bonus. That's why they are not nearly in the financial straits that some other teams have put themselves in.

[PeaveyFury]

That’s really not what was asked, though, to be fair. The question was “why does the amount of cap the Packers need to clear keep going up here?”, and adam correctly noted that it’s because thus far the only moves the Packers have made have been to ADD to the 2022 salary cap, this increasing what needs to be cleared. Yeah, there are some logical moves they’ll likely make to address chunks of that, but thus far they have not.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

That’s really not what was asked, though, to be fair. The question was “why does the amount of cap the Packers need to clear keep going up here?”, and adam correctly noted that it’s because thus far the only moves the Packers have made have been to ADD to the 2022 salary cap, this increasing what needs to be cleared. Yeah, there are some logical moves they’ll likely make to address chunks of that, but thus far they have not.

 

Yes and no. From the start of the new NFL league year in early March until the first week of the regular NFL season in September, only the 51 most expensive contracts actually count against a team’s salary cap. That means those guys who signed "futures" deals will only be counted against the cap until their deals are replaced by free agent signings and draft pick signings.

[PeaveyFury]

That’s really not what was asked, though, to be fair. The question was “why does the amount of cap the Packers need to clear keep going up here?”, and adam correctly noted that it’s because thus far the only moves the Packers have made have been to ADD to the 2022 salary cap, this increasing what needs to be cleared. Yeah, there are some logical moves they’ll likely make to address chunks of that, but thus far they have not.

 

Yes and no. From the start of the new NFL league year in early March until the first week of the regular NFL season in September, only the 51 most expensive contracts actually count against a team’s salary cap. That means those guys who signed "futures" deals will only be counted against the cap until their deals are replaced by free agent signings and draft pick signings.

 

While correct on Top 51, at the moment each one of those contracts counts against the 51 because the roster isn't full. Plus, those guys they sign from here will simply have a netting effect. The 70 million doesn't factor in draft signings or free agents at all.

[Fear The Chorizo]

That’s really not what was asked, though, to be fair. The question was “why does the amount of cap the Packers need to clear keep going up here?”, and adam correctly noted that it’s because thus far the only moves the Packers have made have been to ADD to the 2022 salary cap, this increasing what needs to be cleared. Yeah, there are some logical moves they’ll likely make to address chunks of that, but thus far they have not.

 

Yes and no. From the start of the new NFL league year in early March until the first week of the regular NFL season in September, only the 51 most expensive contracts actually count against a team’s salary cap. That means those guys who signed "futures" deals will only be counted against the cap until their deals are replaced by free agent signings and draft pick signings.

 

While correct on Top 51, at the moment each one of those contracts counts against the 51 because the roster isn't full. Plus, those guys they sign from here will simply have a netting effect. The 70 million doesn't factor in draft signings or free agents at all.

 

It also includes all the veteran cap figures pushed back a season from last spring's salary cap gymnastics that were done to get the team under the cap for last season without doing anything with Rodgers' contract at the time. The same thing's going to happen again this March, only with the benefit of also being able to reduce the huge 2022 cap hit Rodgers' contract has either by a restructure/extension or by a trade. The ~$20M in cap space likely needed to franchise Adams is totally hypothetical, because if he resigns with the Packers his new contract will likely contain a huge signing bonus with a very low year 1 salary, and achieve significant cap savings by spreading that signing bonus out to future cap years even though Adams would get his huge payday this year. If Adams is a Packer in 2022, his cap hit this season will be significantly lower than that - otherwise he's getting tagged and traded in a scenario where Rodgers is also leaving via trade and the team will essentially be in cap slashing/retooling mode anyways.

 

Would I like to see both Smiths back on the defense next season? Probably, but definitely not on their current contracts that were already drastically restructured to keep them around one more season in 2021 - those cuts are virtually automatic and everyone knew it as soon as those restructures were announced last spring.

[MrTPlush]

I mean if Adams is going, so is Rodgers...so like, at that point what we do to clear cap space won't matter. Just dump every old veteran to clear space. Wouldn't we want a soft rebuild at that point anyway? There would be zero chance Jordan Love could take us deep into the playoffs for years anyway...especially without a guy like Adams.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I mean if Adams is going, so is Rodgers...so like, at that point what we do to clear cap space won't matter. Just dump every old veteran to clear space. Wouldn't we want a soft rebuild at that point anyway? There would be zero chance Jordan Love could take us deep into the playoffs for years anyway...especially without a guy like Adams.

 

While it may not be a probable outcome, there is certainly more than a zero chance that Jordan Love could lead a playoff squad. Especially a defense and run-heavy squad, which is certainly where it seems Lafleur would like to go.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I mean if Adams is going, so is Rodgers...so like, at that point what we do to clear cap space won't matter. Just dump every old veteran to clear space. Wouldn't we want a soft rebuild at that point anyway? There would be zero chance Jordan Love could take us deep into the playoffs for years anyway...especially without a guy like Adams.

 

While it may not be a probable outcome, there is certainly more than a zero chance that Jordan Love could lead a playoff squad. Especially a defense and run-heavy squad, which is certainly where it seems Lafleur would like to go.

 

Particularly with how the NFC North will look next season

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I mean if Adams is going, so is Rodgers...so like, at that point what we do to clear cap space won't matter. Just dump every old veteran to clear space. Wouldn't we want a soft rebuild at that point anyway? There would be zero chance Jordan Love could take us deep into the playoffs for years anyway...especially without a guy like Adams.

 

While it may not be a probable outcome, there is certainly more than a zero chance that Jordan Love could lead a playoff squad. Especially a defense and run-heavy squad, which is certainly where it seems Lafleur would like to go.

 

Particularly with how the NFC North will look next season

 

I distinctly remember a lot of very similar consternation back in 2008 when Rodgers took over. It certainly didn't take "years" for the Packers to be a contender again. One 6-10 year in 2008 with a bunch of close, last-second type losses. Then back up to 11-5 in 2009. Now I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen again, but well-run organizations do not stay in the basement long, and I believe the Packers to be very well run.

[MrTPlush]

I distinctly remember a lot of very similar consternation back in 2008 when Rodgers took over. It certainly didn't take "years" for the Packers to be a contender again. One 6-10 year in 2008 with a bunch of close, last-second type losses. Then back up to 11-5 in 2009. Now I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen again, but well-run organizations do not stay in the basement long, and I believe the Packers to be very well run.

 

Yah, the Aaron Rodgers thing is a great reason why Jordan Love has essentially no chance to lead them deep in the playoffs for 3+ years. It took Aaron Rodgers three years despite being very very good right from the get-go. Not only that, but he fell into a pretty nice roster situation and they built it up incredibly well in those first few years. Rodgers was gifted with a Top 5 defense and a receiving core of Driver/Jennings/Nelson/Jones/Finley.

 

I am not saying that can't have a quick turnaround...Not inferring it will take a half decade plus. However, yah, I am saying they won't be a legit Super Bowl contender for the next three years. Which is where my point of, who cares about the cap space issue and the veterans on the team in the short term. Losing a useful guy or two because of cap really just won't matter. Best case would be a soft rebuild where Love is looking like the answer, they have some cap space to play around with, and can build the roster.

 

I don't really see, considering the cap constraints, how they can make this a run/defense team. Not in the sense to nearly instantly makes Jordan Love able to lead them to a Super Bowl. I think the utter best case you would be looking at is a Jimmy G type scenario. Which every one here seems to make fun of.

 

If we have to dump some guys to trade Rodgers/Adams...do it. Not saying we should go pawn off young long term pieces. Just don't see losing sleep over 30+ year old guys if we have to dump them to make cap room.

[PeaveyFury]

 

It also includes all the veteran cap figures pushed back a season from last spring's salary cap gymnastics that were done to get the team under the cap for last season without doing anything with Rodgers' contract at the time. .

 

And still, the fact remains that for them to franchise Adams, they need to clear in excess of $70 million from the cap. Nothing about that statement isn't factual, which is exactly how it was presented. Plenty of people have and will continue to debate how they will do so, but you seem to be taking issue with the number, which isn't really debatable. If they choose to exercise the franchise tag on Adams, they will have to clear $70 million from their cap to do so.

[roadcrew3]

After last offseason, I think we all are better off not using the cap as an excuse for players not being retained. This time last year, it was a certainty according to the “cap-experts” that Aaron Jones was walking, Preston Smith would be cut, and the team would look somewhat different. None of that ended up panning out. If the front office deems a player is worth it, they will be back regardless of the cap hurdles that need to be jumped. I’m willing to bet that Adams is one of those guy who they deem as worth it and aren’t gonna let walk for free

[homer]

Rumor that he's building a house in Nashville. So start up the Titan trade rumors too.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I distinctly remember a lot of very similar consternation back in 2008 when Rodgers took over. It certainly didn't take "years" for the Packers to be a contender again. One 6-10 year in 2008 with a bunch of close, last-second type losses. Then back up to 11-5 in 2009. Now I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen again, but well-run organizations do not stay in the basement long, and I believe the Packers to be very well run.

 

Yah, the Aaron Rodgers thing is a great reason why Jordan Love has essentially no chance to lead them deep in the playoffs for 3+ years. It took Aaron Rodgers three years despite being very very good right from the get-go. Not only that, but he fell into a pretty nice roster situation and they built it up incredibly well in those first few years. Rodgers was gifted with a Top 5 defense and a receiving core of Driver/Jennings/Nelson/Jones/Finley.

 

I am not saying that can't have a quick turnaround...Not inferring it will take a half decade plus. However, yah, I am saying they won't be a legit Super Bowl contender for the next three years. Which is where my point of, who cares about the cap space issue and the veterans on the team in the short term. Losing a useful guy or two because of cap really just won't matter. Best case would be a soft rebuild where Love is looking like the answer, they have some cap space to play around with, and can build the roster.

 

I don't really see, considering the cap constraints, how they can make this a run/defense team. Not in the sense to nearly instantly makes Jordan Love able to lead them to a Super Bowl. I think the utter best case you would be looking at is a Jimmy G type scenario. Which every one here seems to make fun of.

 

If we have to dump some guys to trade Rodgers/Adams...do it. Not saying we should go pawn off young long term pieces. Just don't see losing sleep over 30+ year old guys if we have to dump them to make cap room.

 

The Bengals were 2-14 in 2019, still have holes on their roster that, in a vacuum, would make just about say they're "not a Super Bowl contender."

[tmwiese55]

The key to all of that is the QB has to hit and be legit, like Rodgers did or Burrow for the most recent post. It's obviously a lot higher chance of that not happening, at which point you can be in perpetual rebuild mode like almost all other teams have gone through. If Love flops, you're likely looking at minimum 3-5 years of being bad with no guarantee of when you'll be SB level again. With this spoiled fanbase (especially those 35ish and under) it's gonna be painful to listen to.

[MrTPlush]

Maybe they give Love a year before they do so, but I imagine the Packers might use some of their massive surplus to draft another QB pretty high in the draft. So even if Love flops they may still have a better than average opportunity to find that QB of the future.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The key to all of that is the QB has to hit and be legit, like Rodgers did or Burrow for the most recent post. It's obviously a lot higher chance of that not happening, at which point you can be in perpetual rebuild mode like almost all other teams have gone through. If Love flops, you're likely looking at minimum 3-5 years of being bad with no guarantee of when you'll be SB level again. With this spoiled fanbase (especially those 35ish and under) it's gonna be painful to listen to.

 

Why does everyone keep saying this like it is a cold fact? What if they immediately suck and pick a QB in the top 5? If there's one certainty in the NFL it's that you can go from dreadful to good in record time.

[MrTPlush]

The key to all of that is the QB has to hit and be legit, like Rodgers did or Burrow for the most recent post. It's obviously a lot higher chance of that not happening, at which point you can be in perpetual rebuild mode like almost all other teams have gone through. If Love flops, you're likely looking at minimum 3-5 years of being bad with no guarantee of when you'll be SB level again. With this spoiled fanbase (especially those 35ish and under) it's gonna be painful to listen to.

 

Why does everyone keep saying this like it is a cold fact? What if they immediately suck and pick a QB in the top 5? If there's one certainty in the NFL it's that you can go from dreadful to good in record time.

 

You are just reading it that way I think.

[tmwiese55]

The key to all of that is the QB has to hit and be legit, like Rodgers did or Burrow for the most recent post. It's obviously a lot higher chance of that not happening, at which point you can be in perpetual rebuild mode like almost all other teams have gone through. If Love flops, you're likely looking at minimum 3-5 years of being bad with no guarantee of when you'll be SB level again. With this spoiled fanbase (especially those 35ish and under) it's gonna be painful to listen to.

 

Why does everyone keep saying this like it is a cold fact? What if they immediately suck and pick a QB in the top 5? If there's one certainty in the NFL it's that you can go from dreadful to good in record time.

 

Well I had an "if" in there and it seems to me QBs not panning out is more likely than not. That's not saying anything is a cold fact. You're 100% right though if the QB hits you can turn it very quickly, like Rodg, Burrow, Luck, Manning, and others. So to not be bad for a while we'd have two swings at it in Love (hopefully he hits), if he flops you'll have another top 10 pick QB in soon. Who again is, IDK 30-40%? chance of being good. Nothing is a lock one way or the other. But there is a high % chance of neither of those two being 'the guy'. Add the two rolls of the dice together though and you're probably solidly above 50% though at least, which isn't bad. Keep Rodgers and you're a SB top 5 team in the league for at least a couple more years before going through this process.

 

A big factor on how hard or how much they bend over to kiss ARods behind is their internal view on Love at this point. If they're really confident you probably cash out Rodgs/Adams and reset. This is what they were in Rodgers so they were comfortable telling Brett enough is enough with his BS. Took Thompson/MM big guts to put their whole career on the line with that decision and they were right. If they're looking at Love and thinking he's still a big question mark and likely to fail, you have to do all you can to keep the team together as best you can. Keep punting the cap down the road and deal with it later not unlike what NE just did to eat a bad year to fix the cap and draft a QB.

[MrTPlush]

I mean, at the point, cashing out even if you kinda think Love is a flop is still tempting. If Rodgers returns, how long will he be here? Is it going to turn into a thing where ever few years we have to go through this again? Maybe, maybe not. Does it become a year to year basis?

 

If there is a reasonable way to keep him around that would be my preference....but I could see where one might want to kindly cut it off even if they have no high expectations for Love. You'd have the resources afterwards to draft up in the next two drafts to pretty much any spot you want to go grab a QB.