I'm calling it now, I think Aaron Rodgers forces a trade from the Packers

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Using Spotrac, a trade involving a swap of Rodgers and Garoppolo would somehow put the Packers further over the cap. Rodgers would still count for $26 million in dead cap, saving $19 million. But Jimmy G would add $25 million to the cap, for a net of $6 million more towards the cap. I'm sure there are other ways to manipulate the numbers, but it's still not a good move if you're trying to shed money. Same with Vegas and Carr, it ends up being about a wash. The plan for next season almost has to be Rodgers or Love at QB for GB. Unless they plan to just sign a veteran FA, and if that's the case, you go super cheap and rebuild with the plan of drafting a new QB and move on from Love. They aren't signing Love to another contract without giving him a real chance

In my scenario, the 49ers trade both Garappalo and Lance themselves and give the picks acquired from the trade to GB in their deal.

Originally Posted by weeds73

Perhaps far-fetched, but is there any scenario where he goes to Dallas and Dak Prescott gets traded? Dallas is situated to win now and i’m not convinced that Jerry is sold on Dak.

Tennessee Titans would be my Darkhorse selection for Rodgers. Tannehill is a perfectly fine quarterback, but not sure he takes them to the promised land. San Francisco would be a great fit. I just don’t see why he would want to go to Denver. They are in a brutal division and it’s not like their team is stacked with offensive talent. Tampa would be interesting if Brady retires, but that seems unlikely.

Rodgers hates Mike McCarthy, so I'm going with a no on this one.

Originally Posted by matt roberson

I think Rodgers comes back.

The Packers obviously need to extend/restructure his deal, resign Adams to a long term deal that is heavily back loaded and restructure a few other players deals/trim some fat on the OL and defense. They should have never signed Aaron jones, as much as I think he's a great RB, in todays NFL you shoot yourself in the foot by signing RBs to big deals.... If you have a good OL you can find serviceable RBs in the late rounds for dirt cheap (ala E mitch on SF) especially when you had Dillon already on a good contract.

They have plenty of talent and at this point you want AR12 to finish his career in GB and try to win another championship or two in his final few years. sell the farm to win now.

In a few years they'll be in full on rebuild mode and cap hell then you blow it up and force AR to retire or ship him down the river ala Manning/Favre. At that point you can gut the team and reset you cap issues by tanking for a few years, trading away any vets or stars/big contracts and start from the ground up with picks and rookie deals.

Love is a non factor in all of this. Sure he's on a cheap rookie deal right now and gives you a tiny chance to; come in, be successful and keep the winning ways in GB for another 10-15 years.... but I give that a less than 10% chance of that happening and a less the than 2% chance of contending for a chip before AR retires from where ever he would go. If Love never plays a meaningful snap as the lone starter in GB during his rookie deal he will have next to no value and be cheap to resign when his deal is up.

I see what you're saying, but if I'm GB, I have a really good roster now and can still contend and get better long-term at the same time. I don't know, it seems like a lot of it will be determined by how the Packers handle the D. Adams situation. It'd be asking a lot of the organization to give out three new, very large contracts to your WR, QB, and RB. It's just too much money to devote to an offense that just scored 10 points at home and lost to a team that scored no real offensive points.

I think there is too much focus on what Rodgers can get or what the Packers can get and we need to understand that any deal will address both the player's and organization's needs. The best-case scenario would be for both parties to walk away with a good feeling about their futures.

[burke23]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I see what you're saying, but if I'm GB, I have a really good roster now and can still contend and get better long-term at the same time. I don't know, it seems like a lot of it will be determined by how the Packers handle the D. Adams situation. It'd be asking a lot of the organization to give out three new, very large contracts to your WR, QB, and RB. It's just too much money to devote to an offense that just scored 10 points at home and lost to a team that scored no real offensive points.

I think there is too much focus on what Rodgers can get or what the Packers can get and we need to understand that any deal will address both the player's and organization's needs. The best-case scenario would be for both parties to walk away with a good feeling about their futures.

Man - you have not lived without a HOF QB for 30 years. Trying to contend year in and year out without one is nearly impossible. Yes - you can randomly have great years (see 49ers), but stars have to align before the clock rings 12 and your cycle if mediocrity starts all over. The Vikes have had some damn good teams over the years, but never a HOF QB in their prime in my life. Closest was Favre in 09 and that year they could have won it all except for them pulling a Vikes and fumbling and throwing it away.

Just know that Rodgers leaving means you are bound for way more 7 to 9 win seasons than you will ever wish on your worst enemy, and that’s if GB brass is decent at putting together a roster.

[rms13]

It sounds like Denver is ready to offer the farm for Rodgers, sign Devante and hire Hackett as HC. Denver seems like it would be an identical situation as GB as far as the talent on offense and defense and Rodgers would still need to be able to win in the playoffs to go anywhere.

[TSonn]

Originally Posted by rms13

It sounds like Denver is ready to offer the farm for Rodgers, sign Devante and hire Hackett as HC. Denver seems like it would be an identical situation as GB as far as the talent on offense and defense and Rodgers would still need to be able to win in the playoffs to go anywhere.

If I'm Rodgers I don't go to a division with Mahomes and Herbert.

I think the play is stay in the division somehow (every team is a trash heap) or head down to NO. Maybe TEN but I'm guessing he wants to avoid the AFC altogether.

[packman80]

Originally Posted by rms13

It sounds like Denver is ready to offer the farm for Rodgers, sign Devante and hire Hackett as HC. Denver seems like it would be an identical situation as GB as far as the talent on offense and defense and Rodgers would still need to be able to win in the playoffs to go anywhere.

I would take a 1st, 3rd, and Jeudy for Rodgers

[BostonNut]

Originally Posted by packman80

I would take a 1st, 3rd, and Jeudy for Rodgers

For a 38 year old headcase?

Even the Madden videotronic game would deny that...

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by burke23

Man - you have not lived without a HOF QB for 30 years. Trying to contend year in and year out without one is nearly impossible. Yes - you can randomly have great years (see 49ers), but stars have to align before the clock rings 12 and your cycle if mediocrity starts all over. The Vikes have had some damn good teams over the years, but never a HOF QB in their prime in my life. Closest was Favre in 09 and that year they could have won it all except for them pulling a Vikes and fumbling and throwing it away.

Just know that Rodgers leaving means you are bound for way more 7 to 9 win seasons than you will ever wish on your worst enemy, and that’s if GB brass is decent at putting together a roster.

I think the understanding is that things would get worse in Green Bay before they get better - I'm not sure most sane people want them to trade Rodgers, but you can understand how a refresh might be needed given the circumstances.

---------

Originally Posted by packman80

I would take a 1st, 3rd, and Jeudy for Rodgers

Originally Posted by BostonNut

For a 38 year old headcase?

Even the Madden videotronic game would deny that...

In a world where Carson Wentz was dealt for a first round pick, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Rodgers brings more than a first, a third, and a disappointing WR.

[packman80]

Originally Posted by lambeauleap87

I think the understanding is that things would get worse in Green Bay before they get better - I'm not sure most sane people want them to trade Rodgers, but you can understand how a refresh might be needed given the circumstances.

---------





In a world where Carson Wentz was dealt for a first round pick, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Rodgers brings more than a first, a third, and a disappointing WR.

Rodgers is also 38 years old and don't know how long he will continue to play will it be 1 year or 3 years? Also remember the new team will have to sign him to a new contract and Rodgers history has shown he goes for max value and won't sign deals to help the team get more talent like Brady has. How much longer does Rodgers play at a elite level before he falls off? Outside of Brady history has not been pretty for a QB past 40 years old.

[packman80]

Originally Posted by BostonNut

For a 38 year old headcase?

Even the Madden videotronic game would deny that...

Your a fool if he thinks he only brings back a 3rd or 4th round pick. He's still a top 3 QB in the NFL. Crappy NFL QB pool teams will pay to get talent. Not a boatload of high picks but not garbage.

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by packman80

Rodgers is also 38 years old and don't know how long he will continue to play will it be 1 year or 3 years? Also remember the new team will have to sign him to a new contract and Rodgers history has shown he goes for max value and won't sign deals to help the team get more talent like Brady has. How much longer does Rodgers play at a elite level before he falls off? Outside of Brady history has not been pretty for a QB past 40 years old.

Those assumptions are non-factors because sort themselves out - Rodgers, like it or not, has input on the entire situation (and that leverage is why he keeps half-heartedly threatening retirement).

If he gets traded, it's to a place he is happy to go to and with a new contract in place before the trade, which would lock him in for several years (or pay back massive signing bonus $$). A one/three/player package is effectively what the Lions got for Stafford (subtracting one first for the Goff contract), coming off a very average season with his career in doubt with a history of debilitating back injury.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by packman80

I would take a 1st, 3rd, and Jeudy for Rodgers

I don't know why anyone would laugh at this. It actually sounds right to me.

The Packers have Love already, and that trades out Rodgers. They will lose Adams, as they really cant afford him. And if they do franchise him, is he worth $20MIL on a 1 year deal to catch from love? Getting Jeudy would trade out Adams.

Broncos 1st pick, is a top 10. That holds weight. Broncos keep their 2nd, so they are not shut out of the draft, and move their 3rd.

Come 2023, the draft debit to the Packers is paid off. Rodgers and Adams and, I assume Hackett as HC then in Denver can really make a run of things.

Broncos are in great cap shape. And they are paying Justin Simmons now, just as much as Adams would need on a deal. If they can trade him, the money would really make sense.

[BostonNut]

Originally Posted by lambeauleap87

In a world where Carson Wentz was dealt for a first round pick, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Rodgers brings more than a first, a third, and a disappointing WR.

Isn't Carson Wentz considerably younger?

[BostonNut]

Originally Posted by Grid

I don't know why anyone would laugh at this. It actually sounds right to me.

The Packers have Love already, and that trades out Rodgers. They will lose Adams, as they really cant afford him. And if they do franchise him, is he worth $20MIL on a 1 year deal to catch from love? Getting Jeudy would trade out Adams.

Broncos 1st pick, is a top 10. That holds weight. Broncos keep their 2nd, so they are not shut out of the draft, and move their 3rd.

Come 2023, the draft debit to the Packers is paid off. Rodgers and Adams and, I assume Hackett as HC then in Denver can really make a run of things.

Broncos are in great cap shape. And they are paying Justin Simmons now, just as much as Adams would need on a deal. If they can trade him, the money would really make sense.

A top 10 pick AND a young NFL tested and producing skill player???

Zero percent.

Maybe %1 if it's the Jets.

[weeds73]

Originally Posted by BRob1

There is no scenario in Dallas. Dak would have something like a $50m cap hit from signing bonus acceleration if he was traded.

Didn't realize that Dak had that big a cap hit...sounds like non-starter. I also realize that Rodgers would not play for McCarthy (unless he gets swapped out for Payton, which is unlikely to happen this upcoming season anyway)

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Grid

I don't know why anyone would laugh at this. It actually sounds right to me.

The Packers have Love already, and that trades out Rodgers. They will lose Adams, as they really cant afford him. And if they do franchise him, is he worth $20MIL on a 1 year deal to catch from love? Getting Jeudy would trade out Adams.

Broncos 1st pick, is a top 10. That holds weight. Broncos keep their 2nd, so they are not shut out of the draft, and move their 3rd.

Come 2023, the draft debit to the Packers is paid off. Rodgers and Adams and, I assume Hackett as HC then in Denver can really make a run of things.

Broncos are in great cap shape. And they are paying Justin Simmons now, just as much as Adams would need on a deal. If they can trade him, the money would really make sense.

Do we think the broncos are in win now mode? Otherwise why wouldn’t I just hold my top 10 pick and draft someone younger? Broncos aren’t winning the division let alone the SB with Rodgers. They’d be stupid to trade for him and even more stupid to give up all those assets for a 38 year old.

I’m not saying they don’t trade for Rodgers but for that type of assets in such a small time frame for success it doesn’t make any sense. Either GB goes down on it’s ask or they tell them to kick rocks

[epatmythes]

Originally Posted by BostonNut

Isn't Carson Wentz considerably younger?

I know lots and lots of people younger than 38... and like Wentz, they all would suck as a starting NFL quarterback... so, there is that

[BRob1]

Originally Posted by weeds73

Didn't realize that Dak had that big a cap hit...sounds like non-starter. I also realize that Rodgers would not play for McCarthy (unless he gets swapped out for Payton, which is unlikely to happen this upcoming season anyway)

that’s what makes the big contracts in the nfl virtually untradeable, at least in the first several years of the deal.

In dak’s case i believe he got a 6 year deal with a $66m signing bonus. So only 1/6 of the bonus has been amortized for cap purposes, the other 5/6 would immediately hit the cap if he were traded. The other team would just be responsible for annual salary going forward, dallas would be on the hook for the full signing bonus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grid]

Originally Posted by BostonNut

A top 10 pick AND a young NFL tested and producing skill player???

Zero percent.

Maybe %1 if it's the Jets.

Broncos are in win now mode. They have a top 5 Defense. They have good backs, with both Williams and Gordon almost hitting 1,000 yards each.

Producing skill player? If that is how you see Jeudy. I see a player that has not lived up to his draft status. In 10 games this year, he only had 450 yards and not a single TD. Dealing him, knowing Adams will tag along with Rodgers, makes it an enticing throw in for the Packers, who would be losing Adams.

There is no pick they will make at #9 in the draft, will have have a bigger impact than bringing in a back to back MVP.

Originally Posted by mike1498

Do we think the broncos are in win now mode? Otherwise why wouldn’t I just hold my top 10 pick and draft someone younger? Broncos aren’t winning the division let alone the SB with Rodgers. They’d be stupid to trade for him and even more stupid to give up all those assets for a 38 year old.

I’m not saying they don’t trade for Rodgers but for that type of assets in such a small time frame for success it doesn’t make any sense. Either GB goes down on it’s ask or they tell them to kick rocks

See above. They have 11 picks in the draft, including five in the top 100. To them, that 9 pick is not as urgent as other teams. And considering their one glaring need is QB, it almost makes too much sense.

They are not looking for the long haul. Elway has shown that when he brought in Manning, to support his already good defense.

Same drill right now. Would the Packers agree to move on from Prince Sourpuss for anything less?

[packman80]

So Brady hangs it up does TB have the cap space or want to trade for Rodgers?

[EBCollectibles]

Follow Favre and go to Minnesota.

[packman80]

Originally Posted by EBCollectibles

Follow Favre and go to Minnesota.

Well since he is not a FA and GB won't trade him there won't happen. I think a trade in the NFC is hard to convince GB to do.

[Fenway55]

If Rodgers is traded (and please note I am not sold on that notion, but speaking hypothetically), he isn't going to return some huge bounty. This isn't exactly a trade they can shop to all 31 other teams and get a bidding war going. Rodgers is going to have a list - and probably a pretty darn small one - of places he is willing to go.

[whitmm]

Under the current contract, Rodgers is still going to be $20-$26 million in dead cap space if he's not on the team, depending on when a trade would happen. The best decision they could make would be an extension to push the cap hit down the road some more.

[packman80]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Under the current contract, Rodgers is still going to be $20-$26 million in dead cap space if he's not on the team, depending on when a trade would happen. The best decision they could make would be an extension to push the cap hit down the road some more.

He does not want a ext he wants out of GB and with him redoing his contract so the 2023 year voided forces GB to trade him this off-season since they are also blocked on using the FT on him.

[lambeauleap87]

Originally Posted by whitmm

Under the current contract, Rodgers is still going to be $20-$26 million in dead cap space if he's not on the team, depending on when a trade would happen. The best decision they could make would be an extension to push the cap hit down the road some more.

I think an extension is the most likely solution, although an extension or trade both create the same amount of cap space in 2022 given the dead money and proration of his signing bonus from the last deal that remains.

Originally Posted by packman80

He does not want a ext he wants out of GB and with him redoing his contract so the 2023 year voided forces GB to trade him this off-season since they are also blocked on using the FT on him.

That's a bold statement that both Aaron's words and actions have disputed. There is a 0% chance he hits free agency next year - if he decides he wants to stay in Green Bay this year, he'll get extended. If not, he either retires or gets traded.