Yeah because it's a stupid move, which is in detail for I don't know how many pages. And IF they bring back Cobb he takes up the majority of that space with his cap number so no Adams at that point. The devil is in the details....
Rodgers Wants Out
- Thread starter Mark87
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 1,741
- Reaction score
- 358
The plan remains the same as it was before Rodgers went full diva. Run it back try and win a chip. And then rebuild on the fly with Love after trading Rodgers next season to get out of the cap hell they've put themselves in and pick up some assets.
The problem is unless the chemistry on this team was/is unbelievably strong the championship part seams like a pipe dream. This is going to be a circus of a season I am afraid.
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- 140
Cutting a year kills their leverage with AR next year and reduces his trade value too. Everybody knows the Packers have given up on AR and wish to unload him. I don't see why this would be considered any kind of smart move. It's a hell of a concession to keep Rodgers on the team for 2021.
Perhaps the team thought Rodgers might actually retire. That's the best explanation to me.
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 127
You guys are going to have to help me out some more, I'm afraid.
Yesterday morning, there was one perceived trade partner (Denver) who would be bidding against nothing more than Rodgers walking away to retirement.
At the end of the year, all 31 other NFL organizations will assume (or know) he's up for trade. Not all of them will have interest, of course but it will certainly be a whole lot more than one of 'em.
And somehow, 2, or 3, or 4, or however many teams, bidding against each other, are going to offer less than one team, bidding against nothing?
Yesterday morning, there was one perceived trade partner (Denver) who would be bidding against nothing more than Rodgers walking away to retirement.
At the end of the year, all 31 other NFL organizations will assume (or know) he's up for trade. Not all of them will have interest, of course but it will certainly be a whole lot more than one of 'em.
And somehow, 2, or 3, or 4, or however many teams, bidding against each other, are going to offer less than one team, bidding against nothing?
- Messages
- 13,785
- Reaction score
- 6,622
He’s 38, with a significant contract attached. That in itself will limit who might have interest. Now factor in a teams cap situation and assets they can give back. All of this assuming he stays healthy and his production matches his contract. His greatest value is the missing piece on a team and can mortgage 2 years to take a shot. And next year Watson will probably be on the market.
If they refused to shop him that’s criminal. If they did and it was a clear buyers market than you need to weigh compensation vs distraction. Right now the risk is that this team starts 5-4 and fingers start getting pointed and the ship goes south fast. They just signed up for 6 months of distraction unless this team makes a deep run
- Messages
- 2,983
- Reaction score
- 3,557
Just my
Two things to ponder:
1. Rodgers gets to approve what team he goes to, which could further limit the field of suitors, and
2. If a trade can’t be worked out, the Packers may end up giving Rodgers his outright release and then teams can bid for his services without giving any draft capital to GB.
- Messages
- 6,828
- Reaction score
- 11,397
I’ve followed along, and I do agree with UT at least in spirit. I think some of you are being a little dramatic about what this means, what will happen, the risks etc. Some people think Rodgers is worth a kings ransom now, but the smart folks know he isn’t. And he’s not going to be worth that much less next season, barring long term injury. That’s always a risk. What’s juicy is knowing that it’s open market for him next off-season, what if the Lions or Vikings come calling?
Overall though I think that the Packers had a plan and timeline in mind: Rodgers through 2021, Love in 2022 forward. Last year was a redshirt for Love, give him one year backing up and off we go. Rodgers knew this and his whole leverage was to throw a wrench in their plans. But at the end of the day, the Packers are getting exactly what they wanted, without having to front cash out the door to get it. It’s like when the NFL negotiates with the PA. They started with so much leverage, they’re fine giving up things they don’t care about in order to keep what they actually value + money.
I don’t like the winners/losers label, but in this case I dare say both parties kinda got what they wanted.
- Messages
- 141
- Reaction score
- 61
I don't like we had to "deal" with a player who frankly had a nice 3 year contract on the books. To me GB just set a precedent that if your a "star" we will bend the rules to accommodate you.
Some of you are fine with that and I get it but for those of us who are not please allow us to voice our displeasure without the labels.
Some of you are fine with that and I get it but for those of us who are not please allow us to voice our displeasure without the labels.
- Messages
- 1,055
- Reaction score
- 834
I agree with lots of the posts so far.
Did the Packers front office handled this poorly? From all accounts, yes and...(Adams, Rodgers).
Has Rodgers been obtuse and immature? From all accounts, yes and...(twitter, media reports).
This is a people business though, the product are athletes. All humans have egos, emotions, and need attention sometimes. Was it the Packers FO responsibility to take care of AR? Yes, and it's AR's responsibility to take care physically, emotionally, express his needs to them in a professional way. Both sides failed in that.
The problem is we don't have the whole story, may never know. I also am not a big fan of the 1 year play and trade type deal that was hatched. I understand the reasoning but it feels like they have pushed everything out a year because they had no idea what else to do.
Good chance we are right back in this thread in February.
Did the Packers front office handled this poorly? From all accounts, yes and...(Adams, Rodgers).
Has Rodgers been obtuse and immature? From all accounts, yes and...(twitter, media reports).
This is a people business though, the product are athletes. All humans have egos, emotions, and need attention sometimes. Was it the Packers FO responsibility to take care of AR? Yes, and it's AR's responsibility to take care physically, emotionally, express his needs to them in a professional way. Both sides failed in that.
The problem is we don't have the whole story, may never know. I also am not a big fan of the 1 year play and trade type deal that was hatched. I understand the reasoning but it feels like they have pushed everything out a year because they had no idea what else to do.
Good chance we are right back in this thread in February.
- Messages
- 6,828
- Reaction score
- 11,397
Seems like they pushed it out a year because that’s when they wanted to get rid of him anyway.The problem is we don't have the whole story, may never know. I also am not a big fan of the 1 year play and trade type deal that was hatched. I understand the reasoning but it feels like they have pushed everything out a year because they had no idea what else to do.
Good chance we are right back in this thread in February.
- Status