Rodgers Contract

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

I'm not sure I care as much as I used to.

That's the way I'm been feeling lately about the enter NFL

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I'm wondering what's up with Rodgers. First he says he wants to play into his 40's and have his entire career with the Packers, and "give them reason to keep him around". Now this opt out/control stuff. Jeckyll and Hyde stuff.

The art of negotiation.....

I'm not worried. The deal will get done, Rodgers will get paid, and Packer Life will go on...…:>)

 

[PackerDNA]

The art of negotiation.....

I'm not worried. The deal will get done, Rodgers will get paid, and Packer Life will go on...…:>)

Hopefully that's how it goes. But if some of these 'demands' are true, this could get contentious. It was just supposed to be wait on Cousins and Ryan. Well, they've been done for a while now.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

If Rodgers gets what he wants in his contract, think how this will effect other future contracts within the Packers and the league.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hopefully that's how it goes. But if some of these 'demands' are true, this could get contentious. It was just supposed to be wait on Cousins and Ryan. Well, they've been done for a while now.

In my opinion there's no reason to be concerned before the start of this season. If the sides don't have reached a deal entering week 1 it might be a different story though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm fine with and expect the Packers to pay Rodgers as the best QB in the league. I'm not fine with giving him all that money and then letting him decide that he'd rather go elsewhere anyway.

So you'd prefer to just let him go elsewhere anyway up front? I'd rather at least have him for one extra season than no seasons.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

No you don't,
No he's not
and any team giving in to any thing any player demands is preparing to lose.

A player hasn't been involved in FO decisions since the days of Curly Lambeau, and those are long past and for good reason. The only thing giving Brett Favre his own locker room was make him less of a team player, imagine the inside of a locker room when you know your QB gets a say on if you stay or go LOL. then imagine the respect the coaches and guys in charge who aren't really in charge will have from everyone around them to do their jobs. Rodgers isn't getting input, Tom Brady doesn't get that input, Peyton Manning didn't get a say, Brees doesn't get a say, and they won't in the future either.

Why are we bringing up history as an excuse for today? LOTS of things never happened in the days of Lambeau that are normal business today. You can certainly sit on your high horse and draw a line in the sand about FO input. And, when that line costs a team a great player that line is going to look awfully silly. Principles about "players knowing their place" can make average fans feel nice while they're at work but they don't count for much on the actual field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you'd prefer to just let him go elsewhere anyway up front? I'd rather at least have him for one extra season than no seasons.

I believe swhitset just isn't in favor of the Packers adding an opt-out clause in Rodgers' contract.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I believe swhitset just isn't in favor of the Packers adding an opt-out clause in Rodgers' contract.

Yes, I know. But if Rodgers wants that then you either give it to him or you let him sign elsewhere. Seems like the opt-out clause would at least get you SOME time with Rodgers rather than him going somewhere else, yes? With the obvious point that this all takes place when his current deal expires and the team spends insane totals on franchise tags.

 

[gbgary]

Why are we bringing up history as an excuse for today? LOTS of things never happened in the days of Lambeau that are normal business today. You can certainly sit on your high horse and draw a line in the sand about FO input. And, when that line costs a team a great player that line is going to look awfully silly. Principles about "players knowing their place" can make average fans feel nice while they're at work but they don't count for much on the actual field.

it's that old saying...if you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat it. i hope the Packers learned things from the bf experience.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, I know. But if Rodgers wants that then you either give it to him or you let him sign elsewhere. Seems like the opt-out clause would at least get you SOME time with Rodgers rather than him going somewhere else, yes? With the obvious point that this all takes place when his current deal expires and the team spends insane totals on franchise tags.

Rodgers is under contract for another two seasons with the Packers having a chance to franchise tag him after that though. Therefore he doesn't have the option to sign with another team until at least 2022.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I believe swhitset just isn't in favor of the Packers adding an opt-out clause in Rodgers' contract.

...and the demoralizing outcome of last season without Rodgers. You know, when you've lived through the Lombardi years in Milwaukee, suffered through the dark ages of the 80's and 90's, and then enjoyed the successes of recent decades, as has been my experience, one becomes more circumspect.

The Rodgers contract situation is a rock and a hard place. There is no easy solution no matter how you cut it.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The fatal logic with that is that it assumes that AR SHOULD be the highest paid QB as long as he is playing. Now maybe he will be the best for the next 2-4 years, but nobody should be guaranteed to be paid like the best.

How about the Packers add the clause, "if you don't play like the best QB, your pay for that season will be equal to the pay of the QB that matched your stats"?

Favre had his idiosyncrasies about "should I or shouldn't I keep playing", but he loved the game and never gave me the impression it was all about the money. If AR is really asking for an opt out and to forever be paid as the top player in the NFL, I wanna know if Favre can still suit up.

And what should be said about him playing for the same amount as nobody's and never has beens the last few years without no complaining?
There is a bigger picture here...
You want him to stay motivated, you pay him accordingly.... When he doesn't play like the #1 qb in the league anymore, he will be cut or take a pay cut... either way, by then $$$ vs. Play dictates his future. That's a motivator. This leverage tactic is a mojo killer.

You all seem to have it all figured out .but trust me. I'm the master of walking when big players think they have me cornered in a chess move. Why? Because the principle of it is not worth the money or job. These big dogs are not used to that. They have what people want, and people chase... but the truth is, In my line of work, I am the guy who builds masterpieces. There are a million guys with millions of dollars. There's only one of me... I know it... and I think #12 feels the same way too, with his abilities.
Free will. It's needed to feel good. Feeling good is needed to play good. .. You corner this guy who is already a hundred millionaire. Tell him "well we got you for 4 years ,so you have to do what we say". And what do you think will happen.?

Option #1, effu, find another qb.... I'm going to start a rock band and drive my lambo around the world with my smoking hot race car driving girlfriend...

Option #2, collect money but sign off mentally. Become a zombie.

Option #3, do as told and play great for himself, and his team mates...

You hope it's option 3...,Truth is, he can trump any move Greenbay makes, by walking. Like Barry with Detroit. Go out on top, leaving the franchise in the cellar...

 

[HardRightEdge]

So, with all this chatter about an opt out clause I looked for a report on the cap treatment of the signing bonus in the new contract if Rodgers opts out and doesn't sign to a new deal.

The only provisions of the CBA (https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf) that addresses a player's "right to terminate" state the following:

"Any contract year in which the player has the right to terminate based upon events within his sole control shall not be counted as a contract year for purposes of proration. In the event the NFL and the NFLPA cannot agree upon whether an option is within the player’s sole control, such issue shall be resolved by the Impartial Arbitrator."

"Any contract year that the player has the right to terminate based upon a contingency shall count as a contract year for purposes of proration until the contingency is fulfilled, at which time any amounts attributed to such year shall be accelerated and included immediately in Team Salary (notwithstanding the foregoing, if the player has one or more rights to terminate based upon one or more not “likely to be earned” incentives and the player also being on the roster at a subsequent time, no acceleration shall occur until both the incentive(s) and the roster precondition(s) have been satisfied). To the extent that such acceleration puts the Team over its Salary Cap in a League Year prior to the Final League Year, the difference shall be charged to its Team Salary for the following year; to the extent tehat such acceleration puts the Team over the Salary Cap in the Final League Year, the Team will have seven days to conform with the Salary Cap, but may not sign any players until there is Room to do so under the Salary Cap."

By my reading, whether there is a contingency or not, if Rodgers opts out after year 3, for example, and does not re-sign, the prorated signing bonus for years 4 and 5 would be taken as dead cap in year 4, the same treatment as when a player is cut or traded. This represents a loss of control over cap planning and a poison pill at the player's discretion...you lose the franchise QB and take a big dead cap hit at the same time. This is the practical implication of the team "surrendering control". The amount of dead cap in this event allows Rodgers to write his own ticket in that next renegotiation if he's still playing at an elite level. The Packers will not agree to this kind of structure any more than a fully guaranteed contract of any kind.

If one learned anything from the Favre situation it is that the organization is bigger than any one player, much bigger. The Packers were not going to be held hostage under annual threats of retirement. They won't be held hostage to a Sword of Damocles opt out clause.

Instead, tacking 5 years, for example, on the back of the remaining 2 years of the current deal presents a different problem. The signing bonus is prorated over the first 5 years of the total 7, not the back 5 years. So, if the signing bonus was $75 mil, for example, Rodgers cap hit for 2018 (and 2019) goes up $15 mil. I think we can assume this option has not been contemplated given the amount of cap shelled out to free agents. Even releasing Bulaga would not cover the 2018 cap shortfall and there are not a lot of other options to clear cap.

The other option is a rewrite of the last 2 years of the contract into a new 5 year deal starting in 2018. This can be done with a small base salary in 2018 (and perhaps 2019 as well) along with a whomping signing bonus. Then the cap hit comes in 2020-2022, big time, with the CBA being renegotiated after 2019. From the Packer perspective, this makes the most sense among all the difficult options, given the limited cap space for 2018 and not a whole of lot of cap space for 2019 either given the number of key players hitting free agency and the sizable cap commitments on the books already.

If Rodgers is insistant on an opt out clause, or any other provision, to assure he always remains the highest paid in the league, a deal will not get done this year and probably not ever. Then the best case is a SB win in 2018, Rodgers is then rewarded, and a rebuild can commence on the back of fan good will, a scenario which at this stage constitutes wishful thinking.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

In my opinion there's no reason to be concerned before the start of this season. If the sides don't have reached a deal entering week 1 it might be a different story though.

If they don't come to terms before week 1, what would the attitudes be with Rodgers and other players especially if
the season starts off on a losing note.
Many fingers will start to point.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If they don't come to terms before week 1, what would the attitudes be with Rodgers and other players especially if
the season starts off on a losing note.
Many fingers will start to point.

You mean like the first 2/3 of the 2016 season when Rodgers had lost it and was washed up? Whether random voices choose to blame Olivia Munn, a family fall out, a contract, a coach or a GM at any one time, fingers are all to frequently pointed at ephemeral and non-existent causes.

The only finger that should matter is your own after due analysis.

If the team comes out in 2018 stinking it up it won't be because of Rodgers' non-contract. Guys step up when a new contract is on the line and I'd expect chip-on-the-shoulder Rodgers to be no different. To do otherwise is self-defeating. As for the other guys, they are concerned with their own contracts and the comparables of other players. And I would not expect Rodgers to be stirring up crap in the locker room over the issue as was evidently the case with Sitton.

 

[XPack]

he is currently under contract for 2 more years and can be franchise tagged for an additional 2.... If he continues down this path... I'd let him walk after that.

You'd be fine letting him walk...but not fine with him walking out?

That eliminates the value of the contract for the team. The whole idea is that the player gets longer term security while the team has a chance to get plus value as the cap continues to rise. If he insists on getting a new deal every time a QB signs an extension, screw that noise. Just tag him three times and then move on.

As a generic case, I'd agree. If Clay Matthews comes with with this request, I'd be happy to give him the boot. AR12 is a specific case, a franchise QB who till now have had good rapport with the team and who has stated he wished to end his career here. I don't expect him to do a Farve. There are rules and then there are exceptions.

The Packers shouldn't consider offering Rodgers an opt-out clause by any means as the team would risk losing him under that scenario while currently being all but guaranteed to have him at least for another four seasons.

Depends on how the opt out is worded. Contract can always be worded to have the opt out after the 4 years when we already have the hooks in. We just don't have enough information to be making sweeping generic judgements, imo.

 

[swhitset]

You'd be fine letting him walk...but not fine with him walking out?

Absolutely. My preference, of course, is that he sign a new contract that guarantees that he is a Packer until he retires that gives him the money he deserves and the Packers the guarantee that he can't go elsewhere if the mood strikes him. However, I certainly don't want to give him all that money and an option to walk away anyway. At least by simply holding on to him for the next two contractual years and franchise tagging him for 2-3 years after that does not result in any additional dead money once he is gone. As HRE pointed out above any opt out clause he gets is likely to result in a lot of dead money if he decides to leave.... at a time the team may not have planned for. Now... you are right that not enough information is known to accurately make any determinations... these are my thoughts only with what MAY be the case based on what has been reported... Opinions may very well change with more information.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So, with all this chatter about an opt out clause I looked for a report on the cap treatment of the signing bonus in the new contract if Rodgers opts out and doesn't sign to a new deal.

The only provisions of the CBA (https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf) that addresses a player's "right to terminate" state the following:

"Any contract year in which the player has the right to terminate based upon events within his sole control shall not be counted as a contract year for purposes of proration. In the event the NFL and the NFLPA cannot agree upon whether an option is within the player’s sole control, such issue shall be resolved by the Impartial Arbitrator."

"Any contract year that the player has the right to terminate based upon a contingency shall count as a contract year for purposes of proration until the contingency is fulfilled, at which time any amounts attributed to such year shall be accelerated and included immediately in Team Salary (notwithstanding the foregoing, if the player has one or more rights to terminate based upon one or more not “likely to be earned” incentives and the player also being on the roster at a subsequent time, no acceleration shall occur until both the incentive(s) and the roster precondition(s) have been satisfied). To the extent that such acceleration puts the Team over its Salary Cap in a League Year prior to the Final League Year, the difference shall be charged to its Team Salary for the following year; to the extent tehat such acceleration puts the Team over the Salary Cap in the Final League Year, the Team will have seven days to conform with the Salary Cap, but may not sign any players until there is Room to do so under the Salary Cap."

By my reading, whether there is a contingency or not, if Rodgers opts out after year 3, for example, and does not re-sign, the prorated signing bonus for years 4 and 5 would be taken as dead cap in year 4, the same treatment as when a player is cut or traded. This represents a loss of control over cap planning and a poison pill at the player's discretion...you lose the franchise QB and take a big dead cap hit at the same time. This is the practical implication of the team "surrendering control". The amount of dead cap in this event allows Rodgers to write his own ticket in that next renegotiation if he's still playing at an elite level. The Packers will not agree to this kind of structure any more than a fully guaranteed contract of any kind.

If one learned anything from the Favre situation it is that the organization is bigger than any one player, much bigger. The Packers were not going to be held hostage under annual threats of retirement. They won't be held hostage to a Sword of Damocles opt out clause.

Instead, tacking 5 years, for example, on the back of the remaining 2 years of the current deal presents a different problem. The signing bonus is prorated over the first 5 years of the total 7, not the back 5 years. So, if the signing bonus was $75 mil, for example, Rodgers cap hit for 2018 (and 2019) goes up $15 mil. I think we can assume this option has not been contemplated given the amount of cap shelled out to free agents. Even releasing Bulaga would not cover the 2018 cap shortfall and there are not a lot of other options to clear cap.

The other option is a rewrite of the last 2 years of the contract into a new 5 year deal starting in 2018. This can be done with a small base salary in 2018 (and perhaps 2019 as well) along with a whomping signing bonus. Then the cap hit comes in 2020-2022, big time, with the CBA being renegotiated after 2019. From the Packer perspective, this makes the most sense among all the difficult options, given the limited cap space for 2018 and not a whole of lot of cap space for 2019 either given the number of key players hitting free agency and the sizable cap commitments on the books already.

If Rodgers is insistant on an opt out clause, or any other provision, to assure he always remains the highest paid in the league, a deal will not get done this year and probably not ever. Then the best case is a SB win in 2018, Rodgers is then rewarded, and a rebuild can commence on the back of fan good will, a scenario which at this stage constitutes wishful thinking.

I would imagine that any opt-out clause would include a payback of the signing bonus, yes? So if you fulfill 40% of the deal then 60% of the signing bonus gets paid back. That's the only way I could see an opt-out actually working with the salary cap structure of the NFL. Unless you simply guaranteed each year, gave no signing bonus, and the player got the opt-out; e.g., the NBA model. Then there wouldn't be any dead money left since the player is just forgoing future salaries.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would imagine that any opt-out clause would include a payback of the signing bonus, yes? So if you fulfill 40% of the deal then 60% of the signing bonus gets paid back. That's the only way I could see an opt-out actually working with the salary cap structure of the NFL.

I highly doubt that. I'm tempted to give you a flat "no". To repeat, the second CBA passage I quoted seems pretty clear that if a player exercises a "right to terminate" the prorated cap for future years accelerates into the current year, just as when a player is traded or cut.

Besides, you're looking at it from the team perspective. If the cap could somehow be clawed back, why would Rodgers sign such a deal? It defeats the whole purpose of having the opt out from his perspective. If you think the contract could be structured to claw back the cap but not the cash money, you would be sorely mistaken.

Unless you simply guaranteed each year, gave no signing bonus, and the player got the opt-out; e.g., the NBA model. Then there wouldn't be any dead money left since the player is just forgoing future salaries.

Sure, a contract doesn't have to include a signing bonus. You can pay a guy in salary only. However, to put more money in Rodgers pocket, which is the whole point of the exercise, you're hitting the cap immediately. Let's say they throw away the last 2 years of his current deal and sign him for 5 years, each year @ a flat $33 mil per year with no signing bonus, with the first 3 years guaranteed ($99 mil) with the opt out available to Rodgers after 3 years.

In that case, you've just taken about an additional $12 million in cap hit in 2018, cap you do not have. And when you take the first two years of that deal counting about $24 mil over and above current contract committment, the cap picture is not pretty at all for 2019 given the FAs you'd have to re-sign or replace.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Sure, a contract doesn't have to include a signing bonus. You can pay a guy in salary only. However, to put more money in Rodgers pocket, which is the whole point of the exercise, you're hitting the cap immediately. Let's say they throw away the last 2 years of his current deal and sign him for 5 years, each year @ a flat $33 mil per year with no signing bonus, with the first 3 years guaranteed ($99 mil) with the opt out available to Rodgers after 3 years.

In that case, you've just taken about an additional $12 million in cap hit in 2018, cap you do not have. And when you take the first two years of that deal counting about $24 mil over and above current contract committment, the cap picture is not pretty at all for 2019 given the FAs you'd have to re-sign or replace.

How is this any different than a franchise tag? Plus, the whole reason NFL players get signing bonuses is because that's the only guaranteed portion of the deal they're receiving. If you just made the salaries guaranteed then there would be no real difference between a signing bonus and the deal, other than the club not having to pay the money up front. Basically, a fully guaranteed deal with higher salaries and no signing bonus should be the same cap hit as a non-guaranteed deal WITH a signing bonus (though I would imagine the non-guaranteed would be a little more just to compensate for the increased risk to the player).

 

[HardRightEdge]

How is this any different than a franchise tag?

I don't know what you are referring to. A franchise tag applies to a player who's contract is expired and applies to one year only.

Plus, the whole reason NFL players get signing bonuses is because that's the only guaranteed portion of the deal they're receiving.

That's not the reason players get signing bonuses. Also, some or all of the salary can be guaranteed in addition to the signing bonus.

If you just made the salaries guaranteed then there would be no real difference between a signing bonus and the deal, other than the club not having to pay the money up front. Basically, a fully guaranteed deal with higher salaries and no signing bonus should be the same cap hit as a non-guaranteed deal WITH a signing bonus (though I would imagine the non-guaranteed would be a little more just to compensate for the increased risk to the player).

Salary cap 101: for cap purposes, signing bonuses are prorated over the first 5 years of the contract, or if it's an extention, over 5 years beginning with the current year.

Signing bonuses are designed to put cash money in the player's pocket now (or over some near term period of time) while the team incurs the cap hit later. Signing bonuses are all about pushing the cap liability out to the future. These contracts are referred to as "cap friendly". Of course they are only friendly if you win now; if you don't they become quite unfriendly later.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Depends on how the opt out is worded. Contract can always be worded to have the opt out after the 4 years when we already have the hooks in. We just don't have enough information to be making sweeping generic judgements, imo.

The whole point of the opt out from Rodgers perspective is to keep pace on an on-going basis with the highest QB salaries. I gave an example of 3 years which is stretching it to begin with. 4 years defeats the purpose if, for example, Wentz leaf frogs everybody after 2019. The only way 4 years (or even 3) would make sense to Rodgers is if the pay over those 4 years was so far above the Ryan benchmark that nobody would exceed it in the interim.

This whole opt out thing is a hypothetical to begin with. We don't know if this is noodling or if he's married to the idea.

From my perspective, any Rodgers contract, however structured, that assures escalation to the top of the heap on an ongoing basis is not something I'd ever agree to. I'd sooner trade him to Cleveland with their $71 mil in cap space for Mayfield and high picks, and apply the picks and huge ongoing savings over the next 4 years to roster building.

Or he just plays out the current contract.

 

[rmontro]

If Rodgers gets what he wants in his contract, think how this will effect other future contracts within the Packers and the league.

I was watching Around the Horn on ESPN tonight, and they were discussing Rodgers wanting an opt out clause. Their thinking was that it wasn't so much that Rodgers wants out of Green Bay, but that he was trying to use his position and influence to break new ground for players contracts. I could see that as something that would appeal to him. Of course, that doesn't make it a good idea from the Packers perspective.

 

[Ogsponge]

I was watching Around the Horn on ESPN tonight, and they were discussing Rodgers wanting an opt out clause. Their thinking was that it wasn't so much that Rodgers wants out of Green Bay, but that he was trying to use his position and influence to break new ground for players contracts. I could see that as something that would appeal to him. Of course, that doesn't make it a good idea from the Packers perspective.

Winner, Winner, chicken dinner! I have been reading the last 60 or so posts, waiting to post exactly this and I didn’t even see around the horn.

What so many people on this board don’t understand is that in the world of sports, NFL players are basically slaves. Some of them are highly paid slaves but are slaves none the less and are at the mercy of their masters. This has nothing to do with Rodgers being greedy for himself and everything to do with Rodgers using his current position as basically the best player in the league, to change the way NFL players are treated. This isn’t just about him, it is about all players.