Packers and Aaron Rodgers agree on 3 yr 150 mill

[kevans74]

Agree. And the problem is that guys like Justin Jefferson, Jamarr Chase, and Deebo Samuel only represent three guys, three picks. Where someone is drafted is not a consistently reliable indicator of how they'll perform. I don't expect Gluten to find a guy like one of these, but I do expect a top 10, maybe top 20 pick will be an impact player at some point in year one. But even the word "impact" is subjective.

I expect a pick from 1 to 20 will start day one. That doesn't apply to some QBs who may sit behind a veteran for a year or two. Gluten will come through for the WR group, the team and the fans.

The issue for rookie WRs, that is VERY DIFFICULT to see before they play an actual regular season NFL down is, their adjustment to the NFL speed and how they can grasp/learn an NFL offense

The NFL isn't the same where you can win on talent alone, unless you are a transcendent talent like the guys mentioned before. But even then, it's hard to gauge "how fast" they will be or "how smart/crisp/precise" their route running will be and ability to beat zones, etc

It's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to know lol

Otherwise, Justin Jefferson, Higgins, Samuel, etc are all Top 5 picks in their draft classes easy...

Even Randy Moss and Davante weren't top 5 picks...

So it's basically impossible to tell/know

 

[Heyjoe4]

The issue for rookie WRs, that is VERY DIFFICULT to see before they play an actual regular season NFL down is, their adjustment to the NFL speed and how they can grasp/learn an NFL offense

The NFL isn't the same where you can win on talent alone, unless you are a transcendent talent like the guys mentioned before. But even then, it's hard to gauge "how fast" they will be or "how smart/crisp/precise" their route running will be and ability to beat zones, etc

It's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to know lol

Otherwise, Justin Jefferson, Higgins, Samuel, etc are all Top 5 picks in their draft classes easy...

Even Randy Moss and Davante weren't top 5 picks...

So it's basically impossible to tell/know

Good point about the speed of the game. And I think the guys that adjust better figure out how to slow the game down, rather than how to catch up. That comes from knowing the playbook and the coaching philosophy. Some of that can be done in camp, but the necessary stuff is learned on the field.

And you're right, great players like Adams and Moss don't just come from round one.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And you're right, great players like Adams and Moss don't just come from round one.

Randy Moss was a first round pick back in 1998....#21.

That said, I agree with you that you don't necessarily have to spend a first rounder on a WR to get a really good one, but it does probably increase your odds of doing so.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I didn't see the "$16M in guaranteed salary"....which is the difference between the 2 sites dead cap and the difference if you trade or cut.

Actually both sites consider $16 million of money to be paid in the future as guarantees for Lockett. Otherwise the Seahawks cutting him wouldn't result in $31.2 million of dead money counting against their cap.

Where it gets tricky is when they throw in things like "guaranteed salary". I assume that only kicks in if the player is cut and not traded.

True, if a player is released future guarantees will result in dead money. If a player is traded the team acquiring him is now on the hook for those guarantees.

So if Lockett was traded, would his new team be on the hook for that $16M + his $3M salary in 2022 + the future salaries or is that $16M a part of those future salaries and only guaranteed?

If Spotrac is correct and the Seahawks paid Lockett an option bonus of $13 million in February that money would count against their cap in dead money if he's traded. His base salary of $3 million would count against the cap of the team acquiring him though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hang on, can you break that down how it saves more to trade after this year is done then waiting? Clearly I cannot read contract structure if this is the case.

No problem, I just moved the discussion here to not sidetrack the other thread.

The Packers could trade Rodgers after the 2022 season resulting in "only" $40,313,568 of dead money counting against their cap in 2023. They would have to make the move before the option bonus is due though.

 

[tynimiller]

No problem, I just moved the discussion here to not sidetrack the other thread.

The Packers could trade Rodgers after the 2022 season resulting in "only" $40,313,568 of dead money counting against their cap in 2023. They would have to make the move before the option bonus is due though.

Gotcha, it is all tied to the option bonus trigger date, which is what?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Gotcha, it is all tied to the option bonus trigger date, which is what?

I haven't found any information on when Rodgers' 2023 option bonus is due.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I haven't found any information on when Rodgers' 2023 option bonus is due.

Not that you need it, but others might.

This appears to be a pretty decent breakdown, of a very complicated contract.

Agent's Take: Deciphering Aaron Rodgers' new record contract and what it means for the quarterback market

Rodgers' new mega deal could open the door for a huge payday for Matthew Stafford

www.cbssports.com

 

[Heyjoe4]

No problem, I just moved the discussion here to not sidetrack the other thread.

The Packers could trade Rodgers after the 2022 season resulting in "only" $40,313,568 of dead money counting against their cap in 2023. They would have to make the move before the option bonus is due though.

Not that you need it, but others might.

This appears to be a pretty decent breakdown, of a very complicated contract.

Agent's Take: Deciphering Aaron Rodgers' new record contract and what it means for the quarterback market

Rodgers' new mega deal could open the door for a huge payday for Matthew Stafford

www.cbssports.com

Thanks Poker. Contracts like this don't seem to make sense. $40 mil in dead cap after year 1 (and a trade), $76 mil in dead cap after year 3. But those numbers are correct!

I'm not a fan of improving the current cap situation by agreeing to a much larger contract and then spreading those dollars to future years. The government can do that stuff. That's it. I'm afraid for any NFL team, it means some very lean years and mediocre to bad teams ahead.

But most of us wanted Rodgers back, at least I did, so better to accept that this is how things are done to make that possible.

 

[longtimefan]

Not that you need it, but others might.

This appears to be a pretty decent breakdown, of a very complicated contract.

Agent's Take: Deciphering Aaron Rodgers' new record contract and what it means for the quarterback market

Rodgers' new mega deal could open the door for a huge payday for Matthew Stafford

www.cbssports.com

This says a 3 yr deal too

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not a fan of improving the current cap situation by agreeing to a much larger contract and then spreading those dollars to future years. The government can do that stuff. That's it. I'm afraid for any NFL team, it means some very lean years and mediocre to bad teams ahead.

Unfortunately, it is the way of the NFL now. We are seeing a lot more of it from the Packers and other teams, due in large part to the NFL cap number veering way off course last season due to Covid.

Not that I really care how many millions of dollars the NFL or each team spends, but yeah, this shenanigans of pushing it out and not having to account for actual spending in the year it was spent is BS to me. Just another way of circumventing what the cap was intended to do on a yearly basis.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Unfortunately, it is the way of the NFL now. We are seeing a lot more of it from the Packers and other teams, due in large part to the NFL cap number veering way off course last season due to Covid.

Not that I really care how many millions of dollars the NFL or each team spends, but yeah, this shenanigans of pushing it out and not having to account for actual spending in the year it was spent is BS to me. Just another way of circumventing what the cap was intended to do on a yearly basis.

Agree. There has to be a better way to match $$$ to the year they are earned, and reflecting those $$$s in that year's cap. This is basic, Accounting 101 stuff. And yeah, Covid messed things up. Players didn't stop demanding more money because of the pandemic.

We've still gotten away from the spirit of the cap. Ultimately though, teams and their fans will be punished by extended down years and rebuilds.

 

[Poppa San]

Agree. There has to be a better way to match $$$ to the year they are earned, and reflecting those $$$s in that year's cap. This is basic, Accounting 101 stuff. And yeah, Covid messed things up. Players didn't stop demanding more money because of the pandemic.

We've still gotten away from the spirit of the cap. Ultimately though, teams and their fans will be punished by extended down years and rebuilds.

So they don't teach double declining depreciation in Accounting 101 anymore? Or was that 201?

 

[Heyjoe4]

So they don't teach double declining depreciation in Accounting 101 anymore? Or was that 201?

LOL I forgot about that. But with double declining depreciation the dollars are recognized as expense earlier. With cap manipulation, that's reversed. And it's 101......

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

LOL I forgot about that. But with double declining depreciation the dollars are recognized as expense earlier. With cap manipulation, that's reversed. And it's 101......

You forgot about FIFO and LIFO. Oh the days of accounting! I think its a class that should be mandatory in H.S. Not Corp. accounting, but Personal accounting.

 

[Heyjoe4]

You forgot about FIFO and LIFO. Oh the days of accounting! I think its a class that should be mandatory in H.S. Not Corp. accounting, but Personal accounting.

Personal Accounting, or Personal Accountability - you're on to something Poker. And yes, best if started young while in HS.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Personal Accounting, or Personal Accountability - you're on to something Poker. And yes, best if started young while in HS.

Freshman year in college I took a class called "Organizational Behavior". It was basically about the Psychology of Business and how employees/bosses react in work situations. I really couldn't stand the Prof nor really the material, plus he gave multiple multiple choice exams, those are the worst. Then I got a valuable lesson on spelling my 2nd semester. I signed up for "Personnel Management", thinking it was a class on managing your own finances, learned after that would have been "Personal Management". Damn, if it wasn't the 2nd level of "Organizational Behavior". Luckily, the prof was much better and I actually liked the class.

 

[sschind]

I'm not a fan of improving the current cap situation by agreeing to a much larger contract and then spreading those dollars to future years. The government can do that stuff. That's it. I'm afraid for any NFL team, it means some very lean years and mediocre to bad teams ahead.

But most of us wanted Rodgers back, at least I did, so better to accept that this is how things are done to make that possible.

Unfortunately, it is the way of the NFL now. We are seeing a lot more of it from the Packers and other teams, due in large part to the NFL cap number veering way off course last season due to Covid.

Not that I really care how many millions of dollars the NFL or each team spends, but yeah, this shenanigans of pushing it out and not having to account for actual spending in the year it was spent is BS to me. Just another way of circumventing what the cap was intended to do on a yearly basis.

I don't really mind being able to push the money out as long as it is all accounted for in the end which it is. It separates the good cap managers from the bad ones while still allowing teams to retain some high priced talent. It also allows players to capitalize on larger contracts which may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective. I know many player contracts are obscene when compared to the fans but when compared to the owners its a fraction. Like I said before, a judicious use of the cap rules can allow a team to remain competitive but overuse can be highly detrimental. I do think we are seeing an anomaly with the Packers and in general the whole league due to two things. Aaron Rodgers for the Packers and COVID for the whole league. If not for needing to pay the best QB in the game and if COVID hadn't decimated the cap for a couple of years I doubt the Packers would be in the situation they find themselves in. I do think when the new TV deals hit the cap will increase and it will even things out a bit. It probably won't alleviate all the problems but as long as teams don't abuse the use of void years I think things will get back closer to what they were before COVID made them a necessity in many cases.

I look at the contracts of Preston Smith and Rasul Douglas with the hope that such deals become the norm. Pay them what they are worth in such a way that if they remain at that level they have a good chance of seeing the entire contract honored. Of course Smith and Douglas are not elite players so it remains to be seen if those players (Rodgers, Adams, Hill, etc.) will accept such contracts or if they will continue demanding those obscene numbers. My fear is that it will be the latter and guys like Douglas and Smith and those at a level below will suffer for it.

So they don't teach double declining depreciation in Accounting 101 anymore? Or was that 201?

Is that anything like double secret probation?

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don't really mind being able to push the money out as long as it is all accounted for in the end which it is. It separates the good cap managers from the bad ones while still allowing teams to retain some high priced talent. It also allows players to capitalize on larger contracts which may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective. I know many player contracts are obscene when compared to the fans but when compared to the owners its a fraction. Like I said before, a judicious use of the cap rules can allow a team to remain competitive but overuse can be highly detrimental. I do think we are seeing an anomaly with the Packers and in general the whole league due to two things. Aaron Rodgers for the Packers and COVID for the whole league. If not for needing to pay the best QB in the game and if COVID hadn't decimated the cap for a couple of years I doubt the Packers would be in the situation they find themselves in. I do think when the new TV deals hit the cap will increase and it will even things out a bit. It probably won't alleviate all the problems but as long as teams don't abuse the use of void years I think things will get back closer to what they were before COVID made them a necessity in many cases.

I look at the contracts of Preston Smith and Rasul Douglas with the hope that such deals become the norm. Pay them what they are worth in such a way that if they remain at that level they have a good chance of seeing the entire contract honored. Of course Smith and Douglas are not elite players so it remains to be seen if those players (Rodgers, Adams, Hill, etc.) will accept such contracts or if they will continue demanding those obscene numbers. My fear is that it will be the latter and guys like Douglas and Smith and those at a level below will suffer for it.





Is that anything like double secret probation?

Nah. Double secret probation is way cooler.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not that you need it, but others might.

This appears to be a pretty decent breakdown, of a very complicated contract.

Agent's Take: Deciphering Aaron Rodgers' new record contract and what it means for the quarterback market

Rodgers' new mega deal could open the door for a huge payday for Matthew Stafford

www.cbssports.com

Thanks, I hadn't seen that breakdown so far. If CBS is correct about it the Packers could trade Rodgers next offseason while taking a smaller amount of dead money counting against their cap than them parting ways after either two or three seasons.

I'm not a fan of improving the current cap situation by agreeing to a much larger contract and then spreading those dollars to future years. The government can do that stuff. That's it. I'm afraid for any NFL team, it means some very lean years and mediocre to bad teams ahead.

The Packers were bound for at least one bad year once Rodgers isn't around anymore anyway. They will get a chance to right their cap situation during that season as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that breakdown so far. If CBS is correct about it the Packers could trade Rodgers next offseason while taking a smaller amount of dead money counting against their cap than them parting ways after either two or three seasons.

I'm still not 100% convinced CBS, Spotrac, OTC or any other sight I have seen has Rodgers contract completely deconstructed for all of us to understand fully. What I do think they (Packers and Rodgers) did with it though is to write it in such a way, that both parties have some outs, whether it is via retirement or trade, neither side gets spanked really hard. Obviously, as long as his talent holds up, the longer the contract plays out, probably the best for both sides.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that breakdown so far. If CBS is correct about it the Packers could trade Rodgers next offseason while taking a smaller amount of dead money counting against their cap than them parting ways after either two or three seasons.



The Packers were bound for at least one bad year once Rodgers isn't around anymore anyway. They will get a chance to right their cap situation during that season as well.

I guess that's true and if that's part of the price for 15 plus tears of outstanding play and outstanding teams (with a few exceptions) it's worth one or even two down seasons. Another Lombardi or two would be nice, but unless you're the Patriots with BB and Tom Brady, and even then, there can be huge gaps between trophies.

As for the cap, I really should not criticize the process as I have no recommendation to improve. It does seem like a team can mortgage a couple of years to go all-in and win a SB, and then the piper comes calling. I guess that's fair.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm still not 100% convinced CBS, Spotrac, OTC or any other sight I have seen has Rodgers contract completely deconstructed for all of us to understand fully. What I do think they (Packers and Rodgers) did with it though is to write it in such a way, that both parties have some outs, whether it is via retirement or trade, neither side gets spanked really hard.

While Rodgers' deal is definitely more complicated than most other ones it's not that difficult to understand if CBS is correct about when the option can be exercised. As a side note, Rodgers retiring after two or three seasons would actually result in a ton of dead money counting against the Packers' cap.

I guess that's true and if that's part of the price for 15 plus tears of outstanding play and outstanding teams (with a few exceptions) it's worth one or even two down seasons.

As for the cap, I really should not criticize the process as I have no recommendation to improve. It does seem like a team can mortgage a couple of years to go all-in and win a SB, and then the piper comes calling. I guess that's fair.

It's actually possible to get out of cap hell within a single season and rebuild the team.

 

[Heyjoe4]

While Rodgers' deal is definitely more complicated than most other ones it's not that difficult to understand if CBS is correct about when the option can be exercised. As a side note, Rodgers retiring after two or three seasons would actually result in a ton of dead money counting against the Packers' cap.
I guess that's true and if that's part of the price for 15 plus tears of outstanding play and outstanding teams (with a few exceptions) it's worth one or even two down seasons.



It's actually possible to get out of cap hell within a single season and rebuild the team.

That's amazing that it can be done in one year. I guess a team just eats all their dead cap, or most of it, in one year, and moves on. That would require a helluva PR effort by the FO for all of us short-memory fans. "We're gonna suck this year (and probably a few more) but it's because we gave you what you wanted in Rodgers for (fill in the blank) years." Gotta work on that messaging.

 

[tynimiller]

That's amazing that it can be done in one year. I guess a team just eats all their dead cap, or most of it, in one year, and moves on. That would require a helluva PR effort by the FO for all of us short-memory fans. "We're gonna suck this year (and probably a few more) but it's because we gave you what you wanted in Rodgers for (fill in the blank) years." Gotta work on that messaging.

Honestly when the time comes it's best to me to hear the blunt honesty. The next year, hopefully just one year is going to be rough due to the pushing of the chips in we did. It's just that simple.