Rodgers Contract

[GleefulGary]

Ted the Terrible built a Super Bowl winning team you dolt.

 

[swhitset]

Ted the Terrible built a Super Bowl winning team you dolt.

I'd give this an agree as well btw lol.

 

[yooperpackfan]

The Packers definitely don't want Rodgers to get anywhere close to becoming a free agent as re-signing him at that point would become even more expensive. There's also a worst case scenario in which #12 might want to test free agency at that point.

IMHO that would be a mistake on the Packers part.
In two years he will be 36 years old.
In two years the Packers should have more cap space to better afford a ridiculously expensive contract if he shows that he's worth it at the end of his current contract.
OR we could be back in another Clay Matthews situation except with a lot more money involved.
I honestly think it would be better for the Packers to let things play out and in the meantime be able to better afford to surround Rodgers with a better team over the next two years.

 

[ClaysSecondWife]

So did Al Davis, yet he falls behind even Millen in aggregate GM performance. Failing to see your point, "dolt."

 

[Poppa San]

ENOUGH of the names!
[/moderator voice]

 

[Mondio]

So did Al Davis, yet he falls behind even Millen in aggregate GM performance. Failing to see your point, "dolt."

no he doesn't. He had some bad years, he was there until he died. Millen never had a decent year, let alone a superbowl win or any success at all.

 

[ClaysSecondWife]

granted, this is only draft performance.... but that wasn't the argument was it? Super Bowl or no Super Bowl, I think TT is the real "dolt", and the only point I was trying to make was that Gute is decidedly not TT

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

! RE: we should table Aaron's negotiations til the end of the summer. Geez.

 

[Mondio]

I would have to say that's probably one of the most irrelevant charts i've ever seen. There is nothing there. approximate arbitrary value given by some guy behind a computer and his "expected arbitrary values from said draft picks" LOL

Millen never sniffed success. Not once as a GM. Davis did. So did Ted

 

[ClaysSecondWife]

I would have to say that's probably one of the most irrelevant charts i've ever seen. There is nothing there. approximate arbitrary value given by some guy behind a computer and his "expected arbitrary values from said draft picks" LOL

Millen never sniffed success. Not once as a GM. Davis did. So did Ted

Sorry, i'm just not of the opinion that "sniffing success" is good enough.


That was my point the entire time, those two (and not just those two) couldn't be consistent and thus didn't really cut it, did they? I'm sorry "Ted the Terrible" spiraled a 6 post thread lol

 

[Mondio]

sure thing, consistent will never be used to describe Ted LOL. Whatever man. I could give 2 ***** about Davis and that Chart, he was miles ahead of millen and that was the point.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ted the Terrible built a Super Bowl winning team you dolt.

No question about that. He made big, bold moves in his early years to get it done. What followed was a conservative approach, reaching in the draft to fill holes, to try to stay on top. Signing a handful of free agents last year to compensate for bad drafts was a last gasp.

So who's on the bubble this year in repeating last season's failing formula? Murphy perhaps? Somebody told him to get his hands dirty and "fix it".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not sure of your logic here. Unlikely to be earned bonues count against the cap at the end of the season if earned. I'm not seeing a loophole here.

My bad, for some reason I thought thst not likely to be earned incentives don't count against the cap even if the player earns them. Forget everything Insaid about offering Rodgers any bonuses

IMHO that would be a mistake on the Packers part.
In two years he will be 36 years old.
In two years the Packers should have more cap space to better afford a ridiculously expensive contract if he shows that he's worth it at the end of his current contract.
OR we could be back in another Clay Matthews situation except with a lot more money involved.
I honestly think it would be better for the Packers to let things play out and in the meantime be able to better afford to surround Rodgers with a better team over the next two years.

I fully expect Rodgers to perform at an elite level into his 40s. Therefore it would be a mistake waiting until he's close to becoming a free agent to re-sign him. In addition there's a possibility to structure his contract in a way that would result in his cap hit not increasing over the next two seasons. Although that might not be a smart move.

 

[HardRightEdge]

My bad, for some reason I thought thst not likely to be earned incentives don't count against the cap even if the player earns them. Forget everything Insaid about offering Rodgers any bonuses .

Thanks for the acknowlegement.

One thing you can take to the bank (pun intended): over the long haul, cash that's paid in whatever form hits the cap sooner or later. You'll never find a free lunch on that score.

Whether it's a signing bonus cash payment hitting the cap 5 years down the road, guaranteed pay for seasons not played after a guy is cut, a roster bonus earned, an "unlikely to be earned" incentive that is actually earned, or dead cap in any form which includes some those above circumstance, an injury settlement--all those things are cash paid that hits the cap sooner or later. Excluding current future cap liabilities from bonuses and guarantees, cash and cap are equal.

The only exception is those post season game bonuses that every player gets and that funky post season performance bonus pool both evidently paid out of some league fund. I've never studied the hows and why's of the latter as it appears to operate under some mystery formulas and has no affect on the cap:

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...-packers-linebacker-blake-martinez/426014002/

 

[SoonerPack]

This AR contract deal is already getting old. I'm a capitalist through and through so it's hard for me to say this but here goes... How much money is enough? Is it about being the highest paid or stacking titles? In a perfect world it could be both but that's not reality with our current cap situation. I understand wanting to maximize your profit potential but over the course of his career homestretch it's safe to say he's going to make WELL over 100M on top of what he's already made. Is there a big difference between 125M and 105M? Seriously. Save the "yeah, there is a diff of 20M" nonsense if you would. When I or any of my friends have the greatest in the game conversation salary is never mentioned. Not once. AR is widely regarded by most fair minded folks as the best in the biz. If Matt R or Cam or whoever ends up making more per year, who gives a crap! Just because MIN did something stupid in guaranteeing KC's contract for the next 3 years doesn't mean we should have to follow suit. If we are going to sign as many good ball players in an effort to make this team championship quality than a couple guys may have to take a haircut. I would think the guy tracking a couple hundred million in the bank would be an ideal candidate for said haircut. Taking a couple million less or accepting massive signing/roster bonuses in lieu of all guaranteed money could really help bring in more talent. If titles and glory on the field are property #1 then hopefully both sides can come to an agreement and get a deal done and soon.

For a little connect, I'm not some dude hating on rich people. I'm not rich (yet!) by any means but my family lives a comfortable lifestyle. Again, I get wanting to max out your income potential but if you do just that and end up missing out on a couple guys because the cap is tapped, keep the moaning to yourself or pay someone to feel sorry for you.

I imagine I'm going to take a little for this post which is fine. I got a little worked up after reading Silverstein's column and needed to vent.

 

[sschind]

This AR contract deal is already getting old. I'm a capitalist through and through so it's hard for me to say this but here goes... How much money is enough? Is it about being the highest paid or stacking titles? In a perfect world it could be both but that's not reality with our current cap situation. I understand wanting to maximize your profit potential but over the course of his career homestretch it's safe to say he's going to make WELL over 100M on top of what he's already made. Is there a big difference between 125M and 105M? Seriously. Save the "yeah, there is a diff of 20M" nonsense if you would. When I or any of my friends have the greatest in the game conversation salary is never mentioned. Not once. AR is widely regarded by most fair minded folks as the best in the biz. If Matt R or Cam or whoever ends up making more per year, who gives a crap! Just because MIN did something stupid in guaranteeing KC's contract for the next 3 years doesn't mean we should have to follow suit. If we are going to sign as many good ball players in an effort to make this team championship quality than a couple guys may have to take a haircut. I would think the guy tracking a couple hundred million in the bank would be an ideal candidate for said haircut. Taking a couple million less or accepting massive signing/roster bonuses in lieu of all guaranteed money could really help bring in more talent. If titles and glory on the field are property #1 then hopefully both sides can come to an agreement and get a deal done and soon.

For a little connect, I'm not some dude hating on rich people. I'm not rich (yet!) by any means but my family lives a comfortable lifestyle. Again, I get wanting to max out your income potential but if you do just that and end up missing out on a couple guys because the cap is tapped, keep the moaning to yourself or pay someone to feel sorry for you.

I imagine I'm going to take a little for this post which is fine. I got a little worked up after reading Silverstein's column and needed to vent.

Hear hear...Now all you need to do is convince Aaron Rodgers.

 

[GleefulGary]

Hey. I hope Rodgers goes and gets paid. He's earned it.

 

[SoonerPack]

Hey. I hope Rodgers goes and gets paid. He's earned it.

See my post. He's been getting paid and will continue getting paid...handsomely. Agents are saying how cautious GB is being right now with the AR contract still looming. I just don't want to hear any "it would've been nice if we could've added a few more pieces..." if the season ends the way every season has since '10. All I'm saying is he already has multi-generational wealth and will double it before he's done. Does it really matter if Jimmy G or Matt Ryan make more per year? It's just a pissing match at that point. Stack some titles and the endorsement money will more than offset a slight haircut over the next few years.

 

[HardRightEdge]

This AR contract deal is already getting old. I'm a capitalist through and through so it's hard for me to say this but here goes... How much money is enough? Is it about being the highest paid or stacking titles? In a perfect world it could be both but that's not reality with our current cap situation. I understand wanting to maximize your profit potential but over the course of his career homestretch it's safe to say he's going to make WELL over 100M on top of what he's already made. Is there a big difference between 125M and 105M? Seriously. Save the "yeah, there is a diff of 20M" nonsense if you would. When I or any of my friends have the greatest in the game conversation salary is never mentioned. Not once. AR is widely regarded by most fair minded folks as the best in the biz. If Matt R or Cam or whoever ends up making more per year, who gives a crap! Just because MIN did something stupid in guaranteeing KC's contract for the next 3 years doesn't mean we should have to follow suit. If we are going to sign as many good ball players in an effort to make this team championship quality than a couple guys may have to take a haircut. I would think the guy tracking a couple hundred million in the bank would be an ideal candidate for said haircut. Taking a couple million less or accepting massive signing/roster bonuses in lieu of all guaranteed money could really help bring in more talent. If titles and glory on the field are property #1 then hopefully both sides can come to an agreement and get a deal done and soon.

For a little connect, I'm not some dude hating on rich people. I'm not rich (yet!) by any means but my family lives a comfortable lifestyle. Again, I get wanting to max out your income potential but if you do just that and end up missing out on a couple guys because the cap is tapped, keep the moaning to yourself or pay someone to feel sorry for you.

I imagine I'm going to take a little for this post which is fine. I got a little worked up after reading Silverstein's column and needed to vent.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't be a "capitalist through and through" and then complain about somebody who is a thoroughgoing capitalist seeking to maximize income up to what the market will bear, if that is in fact Rodgers' stance, which I would not assume at this point. If you're a "capitalist through and through", how can you expect exceptions at the expense of somebody else's capitalist impluses just because it would satisfy YOUR desires?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This AR contract deal is already getting old. I'm a capitalist through and through so it's hard for me to say this but here goes... How much money is enough? Is it about being the highest paid or stacking titles? In a perfect world it could be both but that's not reality with our current cap situation. I understand wanting to maximize your profit potential but over the course of his career homestretch it's safe to say he's going to make WELL over 100M on top of what he's already made. Is there a big difference between 125M and 105M? Seriously. Save the "yeah, there is a diff of 20M" nonsense if you would. When I or any of my friends have the greatest in the game conversation salary is never mentioned. Not once. AR is widely regarded by most fair minded folks as the best in the biz. If Matt R or Cam or whoever ends up making more per year, who gives a crap! Just because MIN did something stupid in guaranteeing KC's contract for the next 3 years doesn't mean we should have to follow suit. If we are going to sign as many good ball players in an effort to make this team championship quality than a couple guys may have to take a haircut. I would think the guy tracking a couple hundred million in the bank would be an ideal candidate for said haircut. Taking a couple million less or accepting massive signing/roster bonuses in lieu of all guaranteed money could really help bring in more talent. If titles and glory on the field are property #1 then hopefully both sides can come to an agreement and get a deal done and soon.

For a little connect, I'm not some dude hating on rich people. I'm not rich (yet!) by any means but my family lives a comfortable lifestyle. Again, I get wanting to max out your income potential but if you do just that and end up missing out on a couple guys because the cap is tapped, keep the moaning to yourself or pay someone to feel sorry for you.

I imagine I'm going to take a little for this post which is fine. I got a little worked up after reading Silverstein's column and needed to vent.

I don't blame Rodgers for wanting to be the highest paid player in the league and asking the Packers to structure the contract in a way he stays on top of the list for at least some time. It comes with the territory of having the most important player in the league.

BTW other teams would have offered Rodgers crazy, crazy money if he ever made it to free agency, therefore you could even consider him re-signing with the Packers as taking a home town discount.

 

[Half Empty]

I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't be a "capitalist through and through" and then complain about somebody who is a thoroughgoing capitalist seeking to maximize income up to what the market will bear, if that is in fact Rodgers' stance, which I would not assume at this point. If you're a "capitalist through and through", how can you expect exceptions at the expense of somebody else's capitalist impluses just because it would satisfy YOUR desires?

I think you ignored the initial part of the post -

This AR contract deal is already getting old. I'm a capitalist through and through so it's hard for me to say this but here goes

I read that to mean that, like in virtually everything in life, there ARE limits.

 

[rmontro]

This AR contract deal is already getting old. I'm a capitalist through and through so it's hard for me to say this but here goes... How much money is enough? Is it about being the highest paid or stacking titles?

I don't know Aaron Rodgers personally so this is just speculation, but I don't get the impression that it's all about the money for Rodgers. BUT, I do think he has a big ego, and that he will want to be the highest paid player in the NFL just because he wants everyone to know that he deserves it. Sort of like how he is probably still carrying that chip on his shoulder that he wasn't picked #1 in the draft. He wants the money, not so much because of the money, but for what it says.

For that reason, I don't see him being a Tom Brady type character, who will take less so he can win more championships.

 

[gbgary]

i don't want to hear any more "all-in" talk from Rodgers if his extension isn't team friendly.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think you ignored the initial part of the post - I read that to mean that, like in virtually everything in life, there ARE limits.

I read it. "Through and through" does not suggest limits, and then limits were suggested. That's my point.

I do not know Aaron Rodgers thoughts on the matter other than his comment last year that he was due for a raise. Perhaps there are limits he's willing to impose on himself, like waiting a year. Perhaps not if he's a capitalist through and through. I don't know if he's read Ayn Rand or what he thinks of that philosophy. He does read a lot though.

If the Packers take a QB in the first round that might clarify things.

 

[El Guapo]

Good insight from Tom Silverstein:

There will be a segment of the public that will wonder why Rodgers doesn’t give the Packers a discount so that general manager Brian Gutekunst can sign more free agents. Wouldn’t Rodgers sacrifice salary for the betterment of the team?

New England quarterback Tom Brady has done that. He ranks 16th in the NFL in average salary ($20.5 million) despite winning his third MVP award last season. Brady isn’t even the top wage-earner in his family, so that might have something to do with it.

https://www.packersnews.com/story/s...sion-handcuffs-packers-free-agency/453162002/

One doesn't have to push the limits, depending on one's ultimate goal.

 

[Ceodore]

I'll never knock AR for taking as much as he can possibly get, it's every person's right to do so and to set themselves and their family up for generations to come. And his career could end tomorrow. But I'll also never believe him if he says winning is his #1 priority. If it truly was, he'd take less to get better players. Now to be sure, TB's situation is a little different in that his wife's net worth is said to be double his own so taking less isn't as big of a deal. AR would be, comparatively, leaving more on the table.