Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OldSchool101" data-source="post: 911196" data-attributes="member: 10086">Doesn’t that depend on the newer rules in trade agreement? It’s my understanding they can negotiate cap vs draft selections. Meaning GB has the ability to eat the dead (such as if they feel they are in total rebuild and want maximum draft capital) or wash the sunk $ (if GB wants less draft capital in trade in order to balance their books/or sign/resign FA’s) with a team that has significant monetary capital available (or is coming up short in sufficient draft capital to make the deal).Either way. Rodgers is older (less years) and has far more guaranteed if they ate the dead $ in both/any scenarios. So that would still be factored into any trade collateral comparison, regardless of which way they chose. The whole point being ... Rodgers is riskier/more expensive to take on than Stafford was.I also definitely don’t think he’s going to bring us 3 1sts snd 3 2nds. That would be great. But I don’t see it</blockquote>

Total: 111 (members: 2, guests: 109)