Packers 2023 Discussion Thread

[reillymcshane]

47 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Why wouldn't Rodgers just tell the Packers who he wants to be traded to in the first place?

I highly doubt that the Packers trade Rodgers anywhere without getting his blessing, or try to force him to stay if he doesn't want to.  And I highly doubt that a team will trade for him without getting assurances from Rodgers that he wants to play for them.

Exactly. Otherwise Rodgers can just retire if he doesn't like his destination. Nothing happens without all parties being on the same page.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

[DR28]

Thank god! Alright, let's move this along now.

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 hour ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

It's at least some smoke....although the "per sources" stuff is just sloppy and speculative - could just as easily be Hackett calling Rodgers after his darkness retreat asking him how it went, but I kind of hope there's more to it than that.  I think it's time both Rodgers and the Packers moved on separately, because it's best for both of them.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

1 minute ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

It's at least some smoke....although the "per sources" stuff is just sloppy and speculative - could just as easily be Hackett calling Rodgers after his darkness retreat asking him how it went, but I kind of hope there's more to it than that.  I think it's time both Rodgers and the Packers moved on separately, because it's best for both of them.

The crux of this is that the Jets wouldn't have been able to speak with Rodgers unless they had the Packers' permission. This, to me at least, means that the Packers as an organization agree with you that it is time for a separation. It wouldn't surprise me if Rodgers talks to the Raiders and Dolphins as well. Then its a matter of the Packers accommodating not only where Rodgers wants to play, but also what the compensation would be, because a player of Rodgers magnitude (even if he isn't the player he was just a few years ago) would immediately make whichever team he goes to a Super Bowl contender. 

[DR28]

11 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

The crux of this is that the Jets wouldn't have been able to speak with Rodgers unless they had the Packers' permission. This, to me at least, means that the Packers as an organization agree with you that it is time for a separation. It wouldn't surprise me if Rodgers talks to the Raiders and Dolphins as well. Then its a matter of the Packers accommodating not only where Rodgers wants to play, but also what the compensation would be, because a player of Rodgers magnitude (even if he isn't the player he was just a few years ago) would immediately make whichever team he goes to a Super Bowl contender. 

I did see something that Packers gave Rodgers permission to talk with Jets... Although it was on twitter, so take it for what it's worth.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

14 minutes ago, DR28 said:

I did see something that Packers gave Rodgers permission to talk with Jets... Although it was on twitter, so take it for what it's worth.

It would be an obvious open-and-shut case of tampering if the Jets had talked to Rodgers without the Packers' permission.

[Fear The Chorizo]

14 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

It would be an obvious open-and-shut case of tampering if the Jets had talked to Rodgers without the Packers' permission.

Or it would be twitter being twitter, as Hackett ( a friend and member of the Jets' organization) could have just called Rodgers (or vice versa) to catch up with him and somebody ran with that information to Wingo.  Teams giving permission for veteran players to talk with members of other organizations they know well/have history with could easily be done proactively to remove concerns of tampering the league wouldn't want to bother looking into.  Until it's reported with named sourcing that Rodgers actually had a call with the Jets front office about playing with the Jets after a trade, it could be anything or nothing.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

2 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Or it would be twitter being twitter, as Hackett ( a friend and member of the Jets' organization) could have just called Rodgers (or vice versa) to catch up with him and somebody ran with that information to Wingo.  Teams giving permission for veteran players to talk with members of other organizations they know well/have history with could easily be done proactively to remove concerns of tampering the league wouldn't want to bother looking into.  Until it's reported with named sourcing that Rodgers actually had a call with the Jets front office about playing with the Jets after a trade, it could be anything or nothing.

Perhaps. But I also think at this point there's simply too much smoke for there not to be any flames. 

[homer]

14 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

Exactly. Otherwise Rodgers can just retire if he doesn't like his destination. Nothing happens without all parties being on the same page.

Yeah. Where it gets sticky is if Rodgers says "Hey, trade me to Detroit" (slim to none he'd want to go there but still...)

[superfly]

If he stays, welcome back. If he goes, oh well. I’m at the favre stage now. He’ll be in Minnesota in 2024 or 2025 too 🤡

[Samurai Bucky]

36 minutes ago, superfly said:

If he stays, welcome back. If he goes, oh well. I’m at the favre stage now. He’ll be in Minnesota in 2024 or 2025 too 🤡

It is funny how many Minnesota fans said that they hated Favre and didn't ever want him to play for the Vikings... until he did.

Fast forward to today -- same narrative.  My wife has a lot of family in Minnesota and I hear the same thing about Rodgers that I heard with Favre.

Although it seems the same, I think the Packers are handling it different learning on how Favre leaving was a debacle.  I also believe Rodgers is doing the same type of thing.  I truly believe that the Packers and Rodgers are trying to make it as amicable as possible.

[jerichoholicninja]

Wasn't Favre's situation all about him going back and forth on retiring? I don't remember there being talk about him going to another team until he wanted to come back after retiring and the Packers had already moved on. That was 15 years ago so I could be wrong.

[MVP2110]

8 minutes ago, jerichoholicninja said:

Wasn't Favre's situation all about him going back and forth on retiring? I don't remember there being talk about him going to another team until he wanted to come back after retiring and the Packers had already moved on. That was 15 years ago so I could be wrong.

Supposedly the Packers made it clear they wanted to move on to Rodgers which is why Favre initially retired. Then he decided he did want to play and the Packers traded him

[homer]

Gonna be rough if Rodgers talks to Jets and says "meh, I'd rather play for GB". If GB doesn't want him it's gonna be weird. I think what I want someone to lay out the real-world ramifications for all these $60 bajillion cap hits. Everyone keeps talking about them like it's the end of times but what does that actually mean? Do they have to cut or restructure half the team? 

[homer]

The way this is worded it seems like the whole Jets team flew out there...which would be funny.

[HarveysWBs]

4 hours ago, homer said:

Gonna be rough if Rodgers talks to Jets and says "meh, I'd rather play for GB". If GB doesn't want him it's gonna be weird. I think what I want someone to lay out the real-world ramifications for all these $60 bajillion cap hits. Everyone keeps talking about them like it's the end of times but what does that actually mean? Do they have to cut or restructure half the team? 

Ok, so Ken Ingalls is the best source I know of for this stuff, and he had a detailed breakdown in his 2023 preview article.  Basically:

-If Rodgers returns to GB this year, he costs $31.62m against the cap, and that is unalterable.  If he then leaves the team next year, his cap hit would have to immediately account for dead money at $60.21m, and $76.8m if he leaves in 2025.  Hence, a return is financially unpalatable to the brass, to say the least.

- If he retires, the team would do whatever it takes to ensure Rodgers cooperated with coordinating the retirement to happen post-June 1st, which would mean splitting his $40.31m dead cap hit out at $15.83 this year and $24.48.  Otherwise, the whole amount goes against the ‘23 cap.  For reasons discussed elsewhere and in light of recent events, the retirement scenario seems least likely of all, so we can simply move on to trades.

- A trade pre-June 1st would result in the above-mentioned $40.31 dead cap hit for this year, BUT we’d be able to get 2023 draft picks back if the deal was consummated before the draft in April.

- A trade post-June 1st allows for the same $15/25m cap split as the retirement scenario.

-  Either  trade scenario means the acquiring team has Rodgers at only $15.79m against the cap this year, which is nice, because his subsequent cap hits are far less team friendly.

What does this all mean for the 2023 cap if he’s traded now?  Ingalls projects (on his pinned tweet) that we’d have $9.1m in cap space after our draft with the picks currently in hand and no more FA deals or restructures (this number would obviously be smaller if we got high picks back in a trade).  In short,  we would need to  close a  30-40m gap.  I leave it to others to speculate how we would do that.  (This last sentence is obviously wrong on the math.  See Chorizo's correction below.)

Edited March 7, 2023 by HarveysWBs
Edited due to idiocy

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 hours ago, homer said:

Gonna be rough if Rodgers talks to Jets and says "meh, I'd rather play for GB". If GB doesn't want him it's gonna be weird. I think what I want someone to lay out the real-world ramifications for all these $60 bajillion cap hits. Everyone keeps talking about them like it's the end of times but what does that actually mean? Do they have to cut or restructure half the team? 

Given other teams are now confirmed by named sources to be talking with Rodgers, I think this doomsday scenario never happens, and the most likely outcome is Rodgers gets dealt before this year's draft - there has been some talk about waiting till June 1 before trading Rodgers to spread that cap hit across 2023 and 2024 league years, but GB currently has the cap space to absorb the full cap hit a pre-June 1 trade of Rodgers would cause.  I think it's worth moving fast in order to bolster this year's roster with draft picks brought in from the trade - this approach also would free up a ton of 2024 cap space for a Gary extension, Love extension potentially early in the 2024 league year, etc.  

The fact other teams are flying planes to go talk to Rodgers means Rodgers' preference is to play elsewhere in 2023 and the Packers are going to find a way to make that happen quickly.

[Fear The Chorizo]

16 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

Ok, so Ken Ingalls is the best source I know of for this stuff, and he had a detailed breakdown in his 2023 preview article.  Basically:

-If Rodgers returns to GB this year, he costs $31.62m against the cap, and that is unalterable.  If he then leaves the team next year, his cap hit would have to immediately account for dead money at $60.21m, and $76.8m if he leaves in 2025.  Hence, a return is financially unpalatable to the brass, to say the least.

- If he retires, the team would do whatever it takes to ensure Rodgers cooperated with coordinating the retirement to happen post-June 1st, which would mean splitting his $40.31m dead cap hit out at $15.83 this year and $24.48.  Otherwise, the whole amount goes against the ‘23 cap.  For reasons discussed elsewhere and in light of recent events, the retirement scenario seems least likely of all, so we can simply move on to trades.

- A trade pre-June 1st would result in the above-mentioned $40.31 dead cap hit for this year, BUT we’d be able to get 2023 draft picks back if the deal was consummated before the draft in April.

- A trade post-June 1st allows for the same $15/25m cap split as the retirement scenario.

-  Either  trade scenario means the acquiring team has Rodgers at only $15.79m against the cap this year, which is nice, because his subsequent cap hits are far less team friendly.

What does this all mean for the 2023 cap if he’s traded now?  Ingalls projects (on his pinned tweet) that we’d have $9.1m in cap space after our draft with the picks currently in hand and no more FA deals or restructures (this number would obviously be smaller if we got high picks back in a trade).  In short,  we would need to  close a  30-40m gap.  I leave it to others to speculate how we would do that.

If he's traded now, doesn't Rodgers' 2023 cap hit in GB go from $31M and change to ~$40M? That would just mean a $9M cap hit increase on this year's salary cap plus save the Packers close to $16M in actual salary paid out this year.  The Packers currently sit between $17-18M under the cap with Rodgers' number at $31.2M - trading him before 6/1 would mean the Packers are still $8-9M under the cap if I'm not mistaken.  I'm not sure if that amount is enough to cover all draft pick salaries, but it'd be very close and only minor roster adjustment would be needed for this year.  

If GB trades Rodgers, they should do it before 6/1 so all the dead money cap issues fall off the books at the end of the 2023 league year and they find themselves with a healthy financial situation and extra draft picks to help the team this season.

[igor67]

If they can take the hit now I'm all for taking the cap hit now and complete a solid trade. 

[MrTPlush]

Just because they gave him permission to talk with the Jets doesn’t mean their preference is to move on. At the end of the day whatever Rodgers wants to do is basically what they have to do. If he wants to go to the Jets, strong holding him to stay isn’t going to get us anywhere positive in the short or long term.

[wallus]

Trade Rodgers and sign Lamar Jackson.

[HarveysWBs]

1 hour ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

If he's traded now, doesn't Rodgers' 2023 cap hit in GB go from $31M and change to ~$40M? That would just mean a $9M cap hit increase on this year's salary cap plus save the Packers close to $16M in actual salary paid out this year.  The Packers currently sit between $17-18M under the cap with Rodgers' number at $31.2M - trading him before 6/1 would mean the Packers are still $8-9M under the cap if I'm not mistaken.  I'm not sure if that amount is enough to cover all draft pick salaries, but it'd be very close and only minor roster adjustment would be needed for this year.  

If GB trades Rodgers, they should do it before 6/1 so all the dead money cap issues fall off the books at the end of the 2023 league year and they find themselves with a healthy financial situation and extra draft picks to help the team this season.

You are absolutely correct, I spaced it and did not stick the landing on my breakdown at all--which is why nobody pays me for this.

So, continuing the back of the envelope math, we can speculate as to the hit we'll take on additional draft picks using the estimates put out by overthecap.com.  Assuming dealing Rodgers now and keeping all our current draft picks puts us more or less at the salary cap, every pick added puts us over the cap and would require a subsequent cut that at least matches their cap number.

The Jets' 1st round pick (#13) is projected to have a cap hit of $3.4m in 2023.  Their 2nd round pick (#43):  $1.6m.  3rd round (#74):  $1m.

Just for fun, here's the cap hits for each of the top three picks for some other possible landing spots:

• Raiders:  (#7) $4.8m, (#38) $1.7m, (#70) $1m
• Dolphins:  (no 1st, punished for the Brady tampering fiasco), (#51) $1.3m, (#77) $1m
• Panthers:  (#9) $4.2m, (#39) $1.7m, (#61) $1.1m
• Titans:  (#11) $3.8m, (#41) $1.6m, (#72) $1m
• Colts:  (#4) $6.6m, (#35) $1.8m, (#79) $1m

So, all in all, trading him now seems pretty financially viable.  The complicating factor would be if the buying team starts to get cute and expect Gutey and Ball to pick up some of Rodgers' salary, or if Rodgers balks at restructuring his deal for the buying team, which would (presumably) lower our draft pick haul considerably.

[CheezWizHed]

There are at least 3 more things the Pack could do to gain more space this year too: restructure Bahk and Clark and extend Gary.

[Fear The Chorizo]

11 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

There are at least 3 more things the Pack could do to gain more space this year too: restructure Bahk and Clark and extend Gary.

I'm pretty sure Clark has already been restructured this offseason to improve that cap hit for 2023 as much as possible.  I do agree a Bakh restructure could help alot - but they be better off doing nothing with that contract to keep cap and roster decision flexibility with him next offseason.  Heck, if Rodgers is traded and they do need some extra cap room for a rookie class I wouldn't be opposed to trying to deal Bakh for picks or proven NFL talent, also - I think a post June 1 trade of Bakh would have significant cap savings.

Gary extension does carry some risk with him recovering from the ACL injury, but also would make sense for some cap savings.