Rodgers Contract

[SoonerPack]

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.

Maybe I should've only used one "through?" Ha! I disagree with you assertion that being a capitalist precludes me from an occasional exception to the rule. For example, my wife and I are very rigid when it comes to what our child eats. Fruits and veggies over processed, preservative filled goodies. Saturday was her 6th birthday party and she ate like most kids in this country that day because even though we have staunch beliefs on what our child should be eating, this was a great day for an exception to our house rule. Does AR "have a right" to be the highest paid player in the league? Does a bear crap in the woods?? Go get your chili bro! I couldn't have been more clear in my comments in that I simply don't want to hear any moaning about not bringing in enough talent if he ends up signing for a small countries GDP. Again, is it about racking up Lombardis or net worth? If he were some fringe guy trying to maximize the one contract he will receive you wouldn't hear a peep from me. I am not indicting the man. I am not calling him selfish or greedy. I am simply making the point that if you are truly about winning, then ending up with 200M over your career opposed to 220M is a "sacrifice" he may have to make. If he goes full-boat and gets every nickle he can out of the brass, good for him. I won't love or appreciate the guy any less. His words will just ring hollow if ever he voices frustration about not getting certain guys. If I can't have it both ways, neither can AR.

G P G

 

[SoonerPack]

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.

Home town discount. That's rich. Pun intended.

 

[swhitset]

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.

I agree with what you said about Rodgers, however, that bit about Tom Brady and his wife has been mentioned a few times and I think it is nonsense. Both of them are multi millionaires and I highly doubt that Tom has ever decided that making a few million less is ok because his wife has more money than he does. In fact, it is very possible that that could have been a reason to want to make more... or not. I have no idea what kind of financial arrangement that he and his wife have... but it is very likely that they keep their finances completely seperate.

 

[PackAttack12]

Not to break the rule on correcting grammar/spelling, but can someone please correct the spelling of AR's name in the title of this thread? We're probably going to be contributing to this topic for quite a while and it's driving me crazy.

 

[El Guapo]

At some point as an elite player, you have to say to yourself "When I look back at age 60, do I want people talking about how much more I could have won or do I want them talking about how many titles I won?" I'm with Ceodore that Rodgers has the ability to influence how his final five years will go. I think that players hear too much from their agents, who have zero incentive to leave any money on the table.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

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.

I always thought that of other players that said that winning is everything.
Hit them in the wallet, and they'd be speechless

 

[Sunshinepacker]

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.

I always love this take. As if it's a magical certainty that the players the team signs with the extra money will actually be worth it. Rodgers should give up money in the hope that the Packers sign the next Woodson or Peppers and not Bennett or Saturday.

Tom Brady has plenty of incentive to believe the team will get it right if he gives up some money; his team has a terrific coach and GM. The Packers have a coach who, to avoid an argument, I'll just say is not quite as good as the Pats coach and the Packers' GM is unknown.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

At some point as an elite player, you have to say to yourself "When I look back at age 60, do I want people talking about how much more I could have won or do I want them talking about how many titles I won?" I'm with Ceodore that Rodgers has the ability to influence how his final five years will go. I think that players hear too much from their agents, who have zero incentive to leave any money on the table.

The people spending the money that Rodgers shouldn't be giving up will have a larger impact on his legacy than Rodgers will. As will the guy coaching the team.

 

[sschind]

I always love this take. As if it's a magical certainty that the players the team signs with the extra money will actually be worth it. Rodgers should give up money in the hope that the Packers sign the next Woodson or Peppers and not Bennett or Saturday.

Tom Brady has plenty of incentive to believe the team will get it right if he gives up some money; his team has a terrific coach and GM. The Packers have a coach who, to avoid an argument, I'll just say is not quite as good as the Pats coach and the Packers' GM is unknown.

He could give up some of the money with the hope that the guys we sign are worth it or he can keep all his money and never know.

 

[Ceodore]

I agree with what you said about Rodgers, however, that bit about Tom Brady and his wife has been mentioned a few times and I think it is nonsense. Both of them are multi millionaires and I highly doubt that Tom has ever decided that making a few million less is ok because his wife has more money than he does. In fact, it is very possible that that could have been a reason to want to make more... or not. I have no idea what kind of financial arrangement that he and his wife have... but it is very likely that they keep their finances completely seperate.

That may be true and maybe I think of it too much from my own perspective as someone working an everyday job. But having a spouse that earns a living roughly equal to mine definitely takes some of the pressure off needing to be out there making every dollar i possibly can.

 

[Ceodore]

I always love this take. As if it's a magical certainty that the players the team signs with the extra money will actually be worth it. Rodgers should give up money in the hope that the Packers sign the next Woodson or Peppers and not Bennett or Saturday.

Tom Brady has plenty of incentive to believe the team will get it right if he gives up some money; his team has a terrific coach and GM. The Packers have a coach who, to avoid an argument, I'll just say is not quite as good as the Pats coach and the Packers' GM is unknown.

Well of course it's not a certainty. But without question there's a statistical probability that if you have the money to pay ODB jrs. of the world, they're probably going to out perform the Jeronimo Allisons. But you're right, it comes down to AR's faith in management to take the theoretical money that he'd be setting aside to use it wisely. If he doesn't have confidence in them, I don't think he's obligated to give it up. Like I said before, I dont think he's obligated to give it up anyway. I just don't think he has a leg to stand on if he says winning is the most important thing to him.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Looks like Aaron is having a fun offseason and helping to celebrate Danica's 36th! Maybe she can talk some sense into this guy and just how much money he "really" needs.

Hope that is apple juice in his glass.

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

 

[Sunshinepacker]

He could give up some of the money with the hope that the guys we sign are worth it or he can keep all his money and never know.

Or the Packers could give Rodgers the money and spend money on better coaches and demand more from the front office (all money that doesn't count against the cap). Chances are though that much of this is not really that big a deal. Most likely Rodgers gets a massive contract but the Packers save some money by making it fully guaranteed.

 

[Half Empty]

Or the Packers could give Rodgers the money and spend money on better coaches and demand more from the front office (all money that doesn't count against the cap). Chances are though that much of this is not really that big a deal. Most likely Rodgers gets a massive contract but the Packers save some money by making it fully guaranteed.

Not sure how those three descriptions tie together. Fully guaranteeing a massive contract only saves money if you have a bigger modifier - it would allow them not to give him a colossal contract?

 

[HardRightEdge]

If I were Mark Murhpy, I would not commit to a Rodgers extension until at least OTAs, and maybe not even that soon, until there was a chance to evaluate whether he can make all the throws that have made Rodgers Rodgers...on the move, three quarters, across the body.

Not that he wouldn't still be a good QB if he's lost something. Just not a $35 mil per year QB.

 

[rodell330]

If I were Mark Murhpy, I would not commit to a Rodgers extension until at least OTAs, and maybe not even that soon, until there was a chance to evaluate whether he can make all the throws that have made Rodgers Rodgers...on the move, three quarters, across the body.

Not that he wouldn't still be a good QB if he's lost something. Just not a $35 mil per year QB.

Pshhh...if Cousins is “worth” 83 mil Guaranteed...then even if Rodgers has “lost” something he’s still worth 35 mil per year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If I were Mark Murhpy, I would not commit to a Rodgers extension until at least OTAs, and maybe not even that soon, until there was a chance to evaluate whether he can make all the throws that have made Rodgers Rodgers...on the move, three quarters, across the body.

Not that he wouldn't still be a good QB if he's lost something. Just not a $35 mil per year QB.

Fully agree with this statement. I know everyone is in a hurry to get AR extended, but just like with Jordy Nelson, this is a business decision and approaching it any other way, could turn into a very costly mistake.

AR has to know that he is under contract for 2 more years to play for the Green Bay Packers and for now, he and the Packers should be willing to make sure that after his injury, he is still the same QB.

I also don't hear a lot of talk about how those 2 remaining years will be factored into a new contract. Should it reduce the final value of what everyone thinks he will end up getting paid? Or are the Packers and fans fine with tearing up a contract that right now seems to be favoring the Packers by $7-10M/year. This is no different than the reverse situation, when a player is underperforming an existing contract and a team wants to renegotiate his pay downwards, the player and his agent will want some kind of compensation for the remaining portion of the contract.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Fully agree with this statement. I know everyone is in a hurry to get AR extended, but just like with Jordy Nelson, this is a business decision and approaching it any other way, could turn into a very costly mistake.

AR has to know that he is under contract for 2 more years to play for the Green Bay Packers and for now, he and the Packers should be willing to make sure that after his injury, he is still the same QB.

I also don't hear a lot of talk about how those 2 remaining years will be factored into a new contract. Should it reduce the final value of what everyone thinks he will end up getting paid? Or are the Packers and fans fine with tearing up a contract that right now seems to be favoring the Packers by $7-10M/year. This is no different than the reverse situation, when a player is underperforming an existing contract and a team wants to renegotiate his pay downwards, the player and his agent will want some kind of compensation for the remaining portion of the contract.

I think most folks view the re-write of the last two years as an opportunity to reduce the $21 mil per year cap hit for 2018 and 2019 through signing bonus, soething I would not endorse. Rodgers, on the other hand, is probaly not very comfortable with those last two years entirely unguaranteed. If there were easy answers the deal would be done by now. The shoulder may be an additional complication.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Not sure how those three descriptions tie together. Fully guaranteeing a massive contract only saves money if you have a bigger modifier - it would allow them not to give him a colossal contract?

The idea is that the contract's overall value would be decreased since it would be guaranteed. So the team will save some money with a guaranteed deal vs a non-guaranteed deal.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If I were Mark Murhpy, I would not commit to a Rodgers extension until at least OTAs, and maybe not even that soon, until there was a chance to evaluate whether he can make all the throws that have made Rodgers Rodgers...on the move, three quarters, across the body.

Not that he wouldn't still be a good QB if he's lost something. Just not a $35 mil per year QB.

Has anyone mentioned $35mm per year? Cousins got $28mm and even a reduced Rodgers is FAR better than Cousins. Brees got a contract at $25mm per year so I would be surprised if the Packers gave Rodgers, even a fully healthy Rodgers, a deal that paid him 25% more per year than the second highest paid QB.

 

[Half Empty]

The idea is that the contract's overall value would be decreased since it would be guaranteed. So the team will save some money with a guaranteed deal vs a non-guaranteed deal.

Doesn't that depend entirely on how long the contract runs? If a non-guaranteed contract isn't fulfilled because of the inability of the player or the desires of the club, THAT saves money. Isn't the reason players will accept a lesser overall amount in a guaranteed contract is because they no longer are responsible for their health, performance, or any other factor?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Has anyone mentioned $35mm per year? Cousins got $28mm and even a reduced Rodgers is FAR better than Cousins. Brees got a contract at $25mm per year so I would be surprised if the Packers gave Rodgers, even a fully healthy Rodgers, a deal that paid him 25% more per year than the second highest paid QB.

I'm not following that logic. If a reduced Rodgers is worth more than a $28 mil Cousins, then a fully functional Rodgers is worth more. That should get you in the vacinity of $35 mil.

Cousins' oddball deal is not the benchmark. Stafford's deal is the better analogue.

Brees and Brady have been on short term deals, with Brees frachised two years in a row, seemingly forever. I guess their managements were less concerned about their focus, committment and performace under such deals.

Or maybe not? Maybe Rodgers will be playing under his current contract this year and maybe even next?

 

[rmontro]

The media keeps playing this "The Packers front office doesn't respect Rodgers" angle. For example, they fired his QB coach without telling him, they let his friend and favorite target Jordy Nelson go without trying to negotiate with him, they've failed to surround him with talent, etc. This may well be all BS, but if Rodgers starts to buy into it (and he did call the Van Pelt firing "interesting"), it could end up coming back to haunt them. A QB shouldn't be running the team, but compare it to LeBron James, where Cleveland bends over backwards to give him everything he wants. The stars rule in the NBA, and not in the NFL so far, but who knows what the future holds?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fully agree with this statement. I know everyone is in a hurry to get AR extended, but just like with Jordy Nelson, this is a business decision and approaching it any other way, could turn into a very costly mistake.

AR has to know that he is under contract for 2 more years to play for the Green Bay Packers and for now, he and the Packers should be willing to make sure that after his injury, he is still the same QB.

I also don't hear a lot of talk about how those 2 remaining years will be factored into a new contract. Should it reduce the final value of what everyone thinks he will end up getting paid? Or are the Packers and fans fine with tearing up a contract that right now seems to be favoring the Packers by $7-10M/year. This is no different than the reverse situation, when a player is underperforming an existing contract and a team wants to renegotiate his pay downwards, the player and his agent will want some kind of compensation for the remaining portion of the contract.

The Packers haven't done a whole lot to keep their franchise quarterback in good spirits over the past few years. With him being underpaid it could get ugly pretty fast if the front office decides to table contract negotiations until next year.

While I wouldn't mind the team waiting until seeing him throw in OTAs they should get a deal done with him before the start of this season.

 

[swhitset]

The Packers haven't done a whole lot to keep their franchise quarterback in good spirits over the past few years. With him being underpaid it could get ugly pretty fast if the front office decides to table contract negotiations until next year.

While I wouldn't mind the team waiting until seeing him throw in OTAs they should get a deal done with him before the start of this season.

Again ... I'm not sure it is the team putting on the brakes... I think it is entirely possible that Rodgers is waiting on Matt Ryan to get his next deal.