Or any other team for that matter
Rodgers Contract
- Thread starter Wi. Mike now in Florida
- Start date
If you are trying to make me feel sorry for the players ... you have failed lol.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The only way for Rodgers to be capable of staying the highest paid player in the league is to sign one-year contracts one at a time. There's no insurance in case of a career-ending injury though and he couldn't agree to such a deal until the 2020 offseason.
In addition I highly doubt #12 would agree to a pay cut if he doesn't perform up to an elite level anymore. Just take a look at what happened with Matthews and Cobb this offseason.
Once again, the Packers salary cap situation isn't as bleak as you want to make us believe for the 2019 season, especially with only Matthews, Cobb, Wilkerson and Clinton-Dix being starters headed towards free agency.
With Rodgers being under contract for another two seasons and the franchise tag being a valid option afterwards there's no reason for the Packers to think about trading him for a rookie quarterback.
Curly Calhoun
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 2,123
- Reaction score
- 575
Perhaps this will calm your nerves:
Ian Rapoport of NFL Media piggybacked Monday, saying Rodgers wants “a series of player options throughout his contract so he can at least have some sort of control over what he makes and under the circumstances under which he makes them.”
“I don’t talk about it to the media, and I don’t think my agent is either,” Rodgers said, via video from Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “A lot of it is just conjecture. Or stories that aren’t really based in factual interactions or misrepresented actions. I think that’s just part of it. It’s kind of a slow period for football right now and we’re heading into the summer, and there’s not much to talk about unless somebody gets arrested or injured in the offseason or something happens on the Fourth of July. That’s usually the stories we get now until training camp. I don’t have anything to report at this point, but I’m sure there will be some unnamed sources close to me that have some sort of scoop along the way.”
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...rts-about-contract-talks-are-just-conjecture/
This is a slow period for NFL news, and those who's livelihood depends on cranking out NFL news articles have to print something...…...
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I guess it might be pretty smart for all of us not to put too much stock into media reports about contract negotiations with Rodgers and wait until a deal gets done with the franchise quarterback before losing our minds about it.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
"Bleak" and "hand wringing" (a phrase used by another poster) are words I would not use. "Concerning" is more like it. And it impacts considerably the headline subject of this thread. Nor would I use the word "only" in referring to those above named players. How concerning depends on whether this is a championship season. If one's perspective is simply to go season by season with a "make the playoffs and see what happens" attitude, one should not read my commentary on the 2019 cap. I'll recap the situation later.
Of course, that's not what I proposed. What I said was given the choice between an opt out clause contract that consistently keeps him at the top of the heap vs. trading him, I'd make the trade.
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,548
- Reaction score
- 659
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
What we do know is that there is a contract negotiation going on. One does not have to "lose one's mind" in considering some of the possibilities: (1) A conventional deal with a rewrite of the 2018 and 2019 years in a new 5 year or longer deal, (2) A conventional add-on to the existing deal, presumably with a big signing bonus to get Rodgers to the top of the heap in cash money for the next couple of years, (3) an unconventional deal with a opt out clause or clauses ("player options") that implies on-going escalations, or (4) let the current contract ride.
As I mentioned yesterday, we don't know whether option (3) was just noodling or if Rodgers is married to that idea. As I've noted previously, no team should agree to such a deal which would suggest the Packers will not. From that perspective, I'd assume he can't be married to it. "A lot of it is just conjecture", says Rodgers. Well, it is all conjecture since he didn't clarify which reports are mere conjecture and which have a basis.
One can apply analysis to the facts, league practice and Packer practice to a variety of rumors to judge their plausibility. At the most rudimentary level, Coward's "Rodgers will walk for $37 mil per year" was ludicrous on its face given the existing contract and the franchise tag that follows. The only way Rodgers could depart is a demand to be traded or else he'll retire. That kind of demand was never plausible.
Then there was the whole thing about the first fully guaranteed long term contract. That would also never happen. While a disabling injury to "the franchise" is a start-over situation with one of the incumbents, a rookie or a place holding vet, try that with a $35 mil dead cap hole year after year. The people in charge of that contract would be fired under that scenario. There's "sh*t happens" beyond one's control and within the parameters of conventional practice that gets chalked up to bad luck. Then there's the other kind.
Option (2) above is implausible because there isn't the cap space to overlay a big prorated signing bonus on top of Rodgers current salary this season. I believe options (1) and (4) are the most plausible because the cap implications over the next 2 years are the most benign. After 2020? A new CBA. A whole new ballgame. Or a work stoppage if the players pay hardball. The NFLPA is already advising players to save their money.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
A little pondering tells you this alledged Rodgers motivation doesn't make any sense if he has a basic understanding of the salary cap mechanisms. If he didn't before, I think we can assume he does now as result of this current process. Let's say he got this ground breaking opt out clause contract. Who might piggyback on that in the future? Only the vey elite. It would be hard enough managing the cap with one such huge contract with one or more sunset provisions. Add in a few more for some other Pro Bowl caliber players on the roster and cap management becomes impossible.
Other than a dozen or so players who might be able to piggyback, who would benefit most if Rodgers were to land such a deal as precedent? His ground breaking agent!
In retrospect, I realize that none of this recent stuff has been quotes from Rodgers. All I recall he himself saying about his contract is that both he and the team want to get it done, and that he was confidant that it would happen. Media generated conspiracy, anyone?
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
If the Packers end up winning the Super Bowl in 2018 I would definitely be more relaxed about the rest of Rodgers' tenure with the team.
On the other hand I don't see any viable reason to trade #12 by any means.
Spanky
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 630
- Reaction score
- 396
Ridiculous comparison. Have some perspective man.
The media stir the pot? Say it isn't so...
Apparently these opt out clauses are fairly common in Major League Baseball. But they are used as an incentive to convince free agents to sign. I wouldn't think that someone like Rodgers, who is locked in with his team for four years, would be the guy to bring this sort of thing to the NFL. Except for his position as best player in the league. If the reports are true, I wonder how much of this is Rodgers really wanting this, and how much of it is his agent? His agent could directly benefit from introducing opt out clauses to the league.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
Yes, I know, that's the point of what I was saying. In the context of the discussion we were having I'm not sure why you felt the need to lecture on something I was already saying. And the signing bonuses are EXACTLY there because the salaries aren't guaranteed. If a team guaranteed salaries, then the player's annual salaries would go up and the signing bonus would go away because the player no longer has to worry about getting cut/injured and not getting their salary. Simple example: Randall Cobb's cap number this year is $12.7 million, of which $3.25 is pro-rated signing bonus. With a fully guaranteed deal there would be no pro-rated portion because his salary would just be $12.7 million. Cobb wanted the signing bonus because he could have been cut this offseason and lost out on the $8.6 million salary. Players aren't agreeing to signing bonuses because it helps the teams, they're agreeing to signing bonuses because they want guaranteed dollars. It will happen sooner rather than later but the NFL is going to start paying players guaranteed deals. It happened with Cousins and other players are going to start wanting that as well.
What i was discussing was that, in the event of an opt-out clause, if you just guaranteed the salaries and eliminated the signing bonus then there wouldn't be any dead money if/when the player opts-out because there would be no signing bonus to pro-rate any longer. The player would just opt-out and give up the salaries on the rest of the deal, money that does not get accelerated into the current year's cap.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
Generally the opt-out is good for the player because it gives that player leverage over their current team and prevents them from being traded against their will (the best examples of this are in the NBA). Rodgers' agent wouldn't really be helped much by this unless, maybe, he gets to brag about it? Though Cousins's agent has far more to brag about with a guaranteed deal. I can certainly understand Rodgers, who has seen the personnel on this team decline quite a bit (quick, how many All-Pros on the Packers during Rodgers tenure?) want to start having a say in the team/coaching staff that he's been dragging around for years.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
There are a couple of other things we know.
Management has used terms like "in the near future". Well, one person's "near" can be next week, or by opening day. Another person might mean as late as next offseason or before the current contract expires in two years.
We also know that stating a desire to get a deal done "soon" is everybody's desire, but getting from desiring to execution can be a long slog. There's no advantage for management to acknowlege difficulties.
I cannot recall if it was Murphy or Gutekunst, but one of them recently mentioned the cash implications of this contract. Where this chiefly comes into play in this situation is with a mega signing bonus. The Packers are a business first who's primary source of revenue happens to be a football operation. As a business at this scale, which is actually pretty small at something like $500 mil in revenue, they probably don't have a highly liquid $70 mil or $100 mil or whatever large number you want to put on the signing bonus just laying around with no planned use or dedicted to a contingency/emergency reserve.
It's not clear to me when signing bonus checks are cut. I would expect small to moderate ones are cut in short order. A mega signing bonus? Maybe spread over a year? Maybe two? How patient is the player in getting his actual cash money? Does the CBA dictate a max time frame for cash payment?
The Packers would have cash planned ahead for the current negotiation, right? Not necessarily with this kind of amount. This whole thing started about a year ago. I seem to recall it was during an A.J. Hawk pod cast where Rodgers said he thought he was due for a raise. I might be mis-remembering the source but I recall seeing him saying it and thinking, "uh, oh." Management may not have been anticipating this soon and this much. If that's the case, the most obvious so-called "cap friendly" path is throw out the last 2 years of the current deal, write a new one for 5 years or more, and use a mega signing bonus to defer the bulk of the cap hit for a couple of years. And that requires a big slug of cash on hand.
I was thinking that if they can introduce opt out contracts to the NFL, players who had great years could opt out and sign a heftier contract. Agents would benefit from these larger contracts because they would get a percentage. I don't know who Rodgers' agent is off the top of my head, but I'm sure he represents other players as well as Rodgers.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
A couple of points.
Players like signing bonuses because they get a big slug of cash money up front and don't have to wait for it. Would you, as a player, want cash money now or guranteed money years down the line? I think "now" is the correct answer. Cobb's contract which you cite has a flatter spread of cash and cap than many large contracts, but still Cobb way back in 2015 took home $15.1 mil in cash money from the $13 mil signing bonus + roster bonus + workout bonus. This year his take home cash is $9.5 mil in salary and those non-signing bonuses. Where cash is concerned, sooner is always better.
For a more extreme example consider Rodgers last contract way back in 2013. $33.25 mil signing bonus, cash money up front + another $5 mil in salary and workout bonus. That's $38.25 mil cash money, all paid before the first snap week one. Here we are 5 years later and his take home is nearly half what it was in 2013. Players like up front cash very, very much. Then they tend to forget that fact when the paychecks get smaller and the cap gets bigger.
From the team perspective, saving cap up front with a signing bonus allows them more room to deal with the current realities in a "what have you done for me lately" business. What will happen 3 years down the line when the cap cost escalates is so highly uncertain as to be a blur.
I already illustrated that if, as you propose, Rodgers' new contract contained no signing bonus then you're going over the cap. It implies a rewrite of the last two years of the current deal. What was my example? 3 years, $33 mil per year, fully guaranteed for $99 mil? I'm not going back to look. Not only would that put you about $4.5 mil over the cap right now, you haven't yet accounted for $2 mil for players 52 and 53 and the PS and a prudent $4 mil in reserve for PUP/IR replacements and injury settlements. You're effectively $10 mil over.
It gets worse. Current cap committments for players under contract for 2019 are running about $152 mil. With the above example you're adding another $14 mil with the Rodgers raise. You're then up to $166 mil committed already for 2019. And that's assuming nothing for FAs Matthews, Cobb, C-D and Wilkerson. If you think Lewis will be an important contributor or Bell your starting right tackle, you have to replace them too with that shrunken cap space.
This is by way of repetiion, points you did not ackowlege or counter previously. It's a relaxing day for me today, taking off from golf and yard work, resting the back, the markets treading water, so repetition is not so annoying as on other days.
Rather than complain about condescending replies, how about actually countering the specifics presented, with example numbers for instance?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
All of what you say is true. That doesn't change anything from the player's perspective. You think the players would rather have 40% of their money up front or have 100% of it guaranteed? And as for the transitory effects of contracts shifting to guaranteed dollars vs signing bonus prorations, that's the team's issue, not the players. As far as condescending goes, at least I didn't start my reply with Rebuttals 101.
teams will never guarantee the salaries they're giving out now with attached signing bonuses. Players will have to trade up front money to get the rest guaranteed. There is no way a team could stay viable without extreme amounts of luck because there is just too much that changes year to year in player availability and production. it's as much a player's issue as it is the team's. The only thing a team is going to guarantee is a salary if you play that season. and if you're a player that is coming of a great season, you want that big signing bonus now or wait to see if you're still that productive in 4 years so you can earn that money over that amount of time?
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
That's not the option ever put on the table because teams do not fully guarantee contracts for good reason. It runs more along the lines of settling on the guaranteed money and then haggling over how much gets paid out now vs. later with some adjustments to the guarantee if necessary.
The realistic options are more like your 40% now vs. 45% in a combination now and later.
If you are arguing that contracts should be fully guaranteed on some principle and this silly signing bonus stuff should be dispensed with, it ain't gonna happen unless it is ensconsed in the next CBA. No such ensconsing will happen.
The negative implications for management of fully guaranteed contracts due to injury or performance decline under a hard cap are several and serious. It takes two to tango and management ain't dacing.
For now, today, given current realities, I gave you the Rodgers example where your principle is applied which takes the team over the cap in 2018 and seriously impairs the ability to refresh the roster in 2019. Full guarantees and opt outs are off the table.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Opt outs or not, agent pay as a % of player pay is bounded by a fairly narrow band, restrained by the cap on the upside and supported by minimum team cap and cash spends dictated by the CBA.
When I aluded to the first agent who swings an opt out clause in a big contract being the second big winner after the player himself, I was referring to the fact that some other elite players would be inclined to swith to that agent who found the magic sauce.
It seems that some people here are trying to have a broader philosophical discussion about many different possibilities in player compensation and contract rights, however this discussion is specifically about Aaron Rodgers and his next contract. While it may be true that he is attempting to clear the path for more power for certain players in their contract negotiations, it is also true that Rodgers' contract will be constrained by his particular situation. For the many reasons stated above, I cannot see any situation where the Packers are likely to capitulate and give him a fully guaranteed contract, or an opt out clause designed to allow him to force a renegotiation every time another QB gets a new contract.
