Packers Shouldn't Give Aaron Rodgers an Opt-Out

The Packers would be foolish to give Aaron Rodgers an opt-out clause and here's why. 

For some time now, the Green Bay Packers have said a contract extension with Aaron Rodgers is basically a sure thing or a done deal. Well, after it leaked that the two-time MVP wants a potential opt-out clause, that negotiation may not be so simple.

At first glance, it would be easy to say Rodgers has earned it and should be given basically whatever he wants. However, Rodgers also represents Green Bay’s most valued asset. So regardless of what he has done for the franchise, the Packers need to protect their interests.

And in this instance, it means not caving to Rodgers and giving him a player option to become a free agent. Think about how dangerous that could be; the kind of leverage it would afford Rodgers.

Tom Brady has never had that in New England and Rodgers doesn’t need it in Green Bay. He plays quarterback and he should stick to that.

Of course, Rodgers says he wants the opt-out so he can remain one of the NFL’s highest-paid quarterbacks. Certainly, he deserves that. No one is going to argue otherwise. Yet, that still doesn’t mean the Packers should give in to his request.

Say Rodgers signs an extension and has multiple opt-out clauses. Imagine how he could use that as leverage in the offseason. Much like LeBron James, he could tell the Packers to basically build him a championship roster or else. Sign player A, B and C or I may opt out.

If Rodgers had the opt-out, maybe this offseason, he tells the Packers to stick another year with Jordy Nelson or he might have to look at other options. It’s hard to see Rodgers doing that, but if he has that power, he is far more likely to exercise it, which is why it would be foolish for Green Bay to give in to his demands.

The bottom line is that while Rodgers has just two years left on his contract, Green Bay could use the franchise tag on him for the next two years after that and not be much worse off cap wise. So unless Rodgers is willing to hold out, he really doesn’t have a ton of leverage.

Maybe the two sides could agree on language that stipulates Rodgers always be paid as a top-5 quarterback or something along those lines. I don’t know enough about the cap to know how that would work.

But I know an opt-out clause is trouble. If Rodgers gets frustrated with management, the coaching staff or even his teammates, he could threaten to use it to get his way or just leave.

Hopefully, Rodgers never wants to leave Green Bay. But at some point, especially if that elusive Super Bowl doesn’t come, things will get rocky and that’s precisely the time the Packers will wish they had never given Rodgers any type of opt-out clause.

 

__________________________

Chris is a sports journalist from Montana and has been blogging about the Packers since 2011. Chris has been a staff writer for CheeseheadTV since 2017 and looks forward to the day when Aaron Rodgers wins his second Super Bowl. Follow him @thepackersguru

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (122)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Qoojo's picture

June 03, 2018 at 10:12 am

From team perspective, I definitely would not go with the opt-out clause. I would be perfectly ok, with final 2 years of deal and 2 years of franchise tag if nothing can be done.

While Rodgers says that he wants to play until 40 or early 40s, age and time never lose, and will have a say in that. You can have an awesome training program, but age will still decrease performance level, skills, and recovery time. Getting old sucks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

June 04, 2018 at 05:29 am

This....AND this will come down to a "Team Perspective", the Packers should definitely NOT give Rodgers any kind of opt-out clause. NO WAY! I doubt Gutekunst would give into those demands either.

Does he deserve to be the highest paid player RIGHT NOW? Yup he sure does and he will be if this new demand doesn't get met. But to give into this type of demand would make it that much harder for the Packers to continue to add talent in Free Agency if Rodgers is ALWAYS the highest paid QB.

IMO the Packers need to put an offer on the table and either he signs or he doesn't. Make him the highest paid QB at 35 but NOT at 40. If he doesn't like the deal because there's no opt-out clause withdraw the deal, let him play out his remaining 2 years, and Franchise Tag his ass for two more.

I like Rodgers but this off-season has worn on me as a fan. Bitching about his QB coach...Bitching about Nelson...Now possibly not a deal done because of this clause? Play or don't.... Frankly I don't see him walking away from the money the franchise tag would pay him each year, not at 38 and 39 years old.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 10:42 am

The very fact he's pressing for it angers me. No way I give him anything of the sort. As it is, I don't see how we can build and sustain a championship roster around his upcoming contract anyway.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:24 am

1. You have no clue whether AR is "pressing for it" or not. Just because this "report" fits your narrative does not make it true.

2. Why should it anger you? Let's assume that the report is true. Why is your fandom more important than a player seeking to maximize his earning potential during his career?

3. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the Packers can field a competitive team with AR being the highest paid NFL player. Thinking otherwise simply ignores facts.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:18 pm

1. First, I take nothing seriously when you respond to my posts, as you have this silly, personal axe to grind with me. Get over it. Not everyone shares your angry leftwing politics, and most of us normals would prefer less politics on a sports site anyway.

2. If he is not pressing for it, then the reports are incorrect. That would be a good thing. Until then, I will go off what the reports say, since that is what's available to me. I won't just comfort myself with silly "But it might not be true!" guesses like you.

3. My fandom is absolutely more important than the player, since without fans there are no players. We're the customers, and we have every right to say what we want and don't want--ever heard the customer is always right? I follow the Green and Gold first, not any player. I am a Packer fan, not a player fan. If he switches helmets, I'll root against him.

I have no problem with players maximizing their earnings as long as the team--which is my main concern--comes first. The moment players get the added leverage Aaron is allegedly seeking, the team no longer comes first. Hence, I would oppose such an arrangement.

4. Aaron has not been the highest paid NFL player for years, and his new deal will dig much more into our cap--hence your statement is baseless. Additionally, when he was the highest paid player, Ted Thompson was at the height of his drafting powers, thus maintaining a talented, cheap young roster around Aaron. Those days are incredibly hard to duplicate, especially when 31 other teams are trying to do the same thing.

Last year's Super Bowl was won by a team with a QB on a rookie deal over a team with a QB making well below market value. Any notion that one player taking a higher % of the tean's cap somehow doesn't damage roster strength is ludicrous--and mathematically, embarrassing.

Bottom line: My team can't budget and plan without knowing how long its players are locked in. I notice you didn't suggest the Packers also get a full opt-out clause, meaning we could cut him at any time with no salary, bonus, or cap consequences. You just take your typical anti-management stance.

I take a pro-fan stance, which means the customers come first. We want our players well paid, but with primary control resting with the team we support, not the players we only support because they're on our team.

Now do us both a favor, WKU, and just stop commenting on my posts. I'll do the same for you. You can just satisfy yourself with your obligatory downvotes on everything I write.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:00 pm

"prefer less politics on a sports site anyway."

He didn't bring up politics, but you just did.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:26 pm

I referenced it because WKU often makes a big point of it, and is driven to attack me and all management because of it. You'll notice I made no other political references beyond the justified referencing of his bias.

Got anything else, JB? Care to tackle any of my points on the subject matter at hand?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:01 pm

No.

Most of them will fall over on their own with no tackle from me.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 04:41 pm

Cute. Another non-answer. You and your buddy are really on a roll today.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 05, 2018 at 07:52 am

Well Peth, what do you think about your boy Trump cancelling the Eagles' White House visit today? How about the fact that fewer than 10 Eagles players were going to attend? Undoubtedly the number of players planning not to attend included some white players.

Looks like your white power crusade is not being totally successful.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

June 03, 2018 at 07:55 pm

Kind of like RRodgers?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:33 pm

Well Andrew Lloyd, if you were not so busy reading politics into every comment you would have noticed that I took no position on AR's alleged demand for an opt-out or whether the Packers should likewise ask for one. And you certainly post your share of political comments for someone claiming to prefer less politics.

Nice attempt at trying to be the pro-fan hero. In reality, the team is not your main concern. Your main concern is getting your weekly dose of violence. In your eyes the players are no more than gladiators, performing for your entertainment. Their injuries, their post-career health problems, indeed their broken bodies, mean nothing to you.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:57 pm

Not "pro-fan hero." Just pro-fan.

You assume I care nothing for the players' health because the team comes first for me? That is patently absurd. In fact, your entire baseless assumption of my view toward players is drawn from no post I've ever written--just silly, emotional gushing on your part. This lends even more credence to my assessment that you shove bias into your posts.

Now WKU, if you insist on responding to my posts, would you care to actually respond to my points? Should the player and team have equal opt-out ability, meaning the team can opt-out with no salary, bonus, or cap consequence?

In fact, I made a whole string of points above. Care to actually address some of them, rather than assuming I somehow want players whipped as slaves and broken as gladiators suffering before drunken Roman hordes?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:11 pm

Statements such as "angry leftwing stance", "silly, emotional gushing" (nice Rush channelling there), and "typical anti-management stance" are not legitimate points. They are, at best, "talking points" you lifted from other sources that are unworthy of a response. When you make some legitimate points I'll be happy to respond subject by subject.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:35 pm

Rush channeling? Another false assumption. As for my depiction of your views, you are often angry, and always decidedly leftwing.

And now you're just dodging. You've made points on the topic--not many, but points nonetheless--and I've addressed them. Meanwhile, you've fled my points with the speed of Jaire Alexander in the 40.

This latest silly, "when you make legitimate points" bravada is yet another dodge--a none-too-clever attempt to further evade points you appear ill-equipped to counter.

Try--just try--to actually debate points, rather than offering endless excuses why you won't.

In short, man up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 04:02 pm

One of Rush's main shticks since the beginning of his show has been the reacting with emotions rather logic thing. I should know, I was listening as far back as when Rush was doing his environmental wackos updates with Born Free, animal stampede noises, and machine gun fire simultaneously playing in the background. That was always a funny segment.

The only thing that I am angry about is that alt-right neo-Nazis such as yourself are attempting to appropriate the traditional Conservative mantle and the Republican party. The party of Goldwater/Reagan did not support skinhead gatherings and hatred of minorities. I'm not sacrificing to you hate mongers the hard work that so many of us put in for so many years advocating the traditional Conservative message without a fight.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 02:53 am

I've used none of the tactics you claim come from Rush, and I've never even momentarily demonstrated any Neo-Nazi tendancies. Besides, since the Nazi's were a 100% leftwing party (National Socialist Party of Labor), why would I emulate them?

As for your skinhead reference, I've been a Republican for nearly 3 decades and have never met a single fellow Republican--Rush fan or otherwise--who sympathizes with them. Ever. Not one. Seeing as how I've known thousands of Republucans, I think I can safely assume your silly depiction is just more deflective nonsense.

You call yourself a traditional conservative, which is funny, since you've never made a conservative post, and no conservative would ever connect the Nazi's to any wing of the Right--that's pure leftwing spin from academia (I know this as one raised in a leftwing academic family).

And finally, you've once again offered nothing but baseless name-calling and diversions from actually addressing any of my points on the topic at hand. It's embarrassing.

Clearly you're just not capable. Enough already.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 05:57 pm

Try to keep up. What I said was that you neo-Nazi people are trying to appropriate the traditional Conservative name. Calling yourself a Conservative is an insult to those of us who went door-to-door campaigning for President Reagan.

Your political science knowledge is lacking. The Nazis were fascists. Fascists are located on the far right of the political spectrum; far, far to right of traditional Conservatives.

Your boy Trump tweeted his support for the skinheads who marched in Charlottesville. He's not a real Republican, and you may never have met him, but he calls himself a Republican, so you do "know" a Republican who supports skinheads.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 03:34 am

Still dodging my points on the subject, I see.

But if politics is all you'll discuss, so be it. "Fascism" is the use of large government force to subjugate individuals--the polar opposite of rightwing. Please describe rightwing groups who advocate for big government control...

I find it funny how you talk of "my boy" Trump, since I didn't support him at all in the primaries. For what it's worth, my top candidates were Jindal, Carson, Fiorina, Rubio, and Paul--which probably infuriates you because they were an Indian, a black man, a woman, an Hispanic, and a Libertarian. How dare I.

But you speak of "my boy" Trump. Fine, I certainly supported him over Hillary, and the booming economic results, soaring energy independence, and annihilation of ISIS speak well to the choice. Naturally, he never "tweeted support of skinheads in Charlottesville"--a ridiculous far-left spin worthy of MSNBC (from you, a guy claiming to be a "Reagan Republican"...). He simply noticed racists screaming on both sides, and wanting to be a positive middle-of-the-roader, he said there were good people on both sides (meaning good people who don't like racists on the other side, not "good skinheads"--which you wrongly assert).

Would I have made the comment? No. I simply would have done as I always do: Oppose all racism in all forms at all times.

Now, while I'm sure no one is still reading this but you and I, it's pretty obvious why I said you came after me due to your crazy political views. You really do fixate on those who fail to share your angry leftism, and you make all sorts of crazy accusations about them (skinheads, Neo-Nazies, fascists, etc.) that are utter fantasy.

Put simply, you're loony. You have as much in common with Reagan as I do a ham sandwich. When I first said you were coming after me because of political fixation, one poster asserted I was wrongly accusing you. But now, after all your loony political posts with completely whacked out accusations...

...you've proven my point. To a magnificent degree.

Furthermore, you've continued failing to address my points on Aaron's contract demands--remember that issue? You've just kept running to hilarious, hate-based name-calling.

Look, either man up and respond to my actual points on the actual issue, or go march in some rally with all the other loons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
drewjude's picture

June 04, 2018 at 03:45 am

If it was only a 3-hour cruise, why did MRS. HOWELL have so many clothes?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 04:36 am

Because she was clearly part of some fascist, skinhead conspiracy...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:10 pm

For basically a fishing boat, not the Titanic. And why a Scientist, Movie Star etc.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 04, 2018 at 05:12 am

If I was coming after you I would be replying to every one of your multiple daily comments. The "other poster" was correct, my reply to your original comment contained no political statements. It was you who first interjected political overtones.

Does energy independence include gas prices back above $3 a gallon? That is the result of the President intentionally destabilizing the Middle East by unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran agreement without a fallback plan and moving our Israeli embassy.

Again, I have no opinion on AR's alleged "contract demands". I seriously doubt that any demand in the form being discussed was, or is being, made. You say that you believe the report, which is very interesting, because you are undoubtedly usually ranting about how the mainstream media is unreliable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

June 04, 2018 at 08:44 am

your boy Trump is riding the economic trend that carried through the Obama Presidency and Isis was on the way out when he was elected, so don't be pumping up these trends like it was all him. he's a fascist buffoon plain and simple. he would like to be a dictator just like his buddy Putin.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:56 am

Oh sure. Obama never topped 2.7% for economic growth in any year of his 8-year presidency--first president in American history to fail to hit 3%. Incredible failure.

Trump is already blowing Obama's numbers away.

It's funny. Obama blamed Bush for his economic failure, and now he's taking credit for Trump's economic success. And cheerleaders like you actually think this is reasonable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

June 05, 2018 at 08:22 am

yes the trend was a steady rise in employment and continued unemployment reduction and growth of the stock market which was abysmal when he took office after Bush.

when its all said and done, Donnie Boy will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:04 am

I never said your initial post on this thread contained political comments. I said you target people out of angry leftwing political rage...

...which you then demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

Thanks for proving me right. As if I needed it.

Now, energy independence includes oil production skyrocketing in America--the price is dictated by worldwide factors. Learn economics. No true "Reagan supporter" could make such a ridiculous argument as yours.

As for pulling out of the Iran Agreement, that was a FANTASTIC decision, and an easy one as well. Congress never approved Obama's lone wolf decision to send planeloads of cash to a terror-supporting regime while getting absolutely nothing in return. My goodness, Iran retained something like 24 days warning before we could even inspect a site! Hilarious!

No opinion on AR's contract demands? And yet you must weigh in on my opinion? And yet you claim to not be targeting me out of your enraged politics??? Do you even read your posts???

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mamasboy's picture

June 03, 2018 at 04:52 pm

Unless I'm in the mood to get my ass verbally kicked, I'll avoid derogatory comments on your posts. Talk about taking it to him!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
mamasboy's picture

June 03, 2018 at 04:56 pm

Unless I'm in the mood to get my ass verbally kicked, I'll avoid derogatory comments on your posts. Talk about taking it to him!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fastmoving's picture

June 04, 2018 at 12:48 am

funny when the pet thinks he is normal, must be talking about the 10 percent of the country who understands his crazy stuff.

You never will get it but this is Lombardi country.

.....and no fan wants you to take a pro-fan stance, not even our 10 procent, you dont know what you are talking about

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

June 04, 2018 at 08:35 am

i stopped reading your rant when i got to "angry left wing politics".

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:51 am

And if following posts, he proved I was 100% correct in using "angry leftwing politics."

100% correct.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt's picture

June 03, 2018 at 12:58 pm

The Packers have two 1st rounders next year that they can use for their next franchise QB. Let Rodgers play two years, draft a QB in 2019 , let him understudy a year and then let Rodgers go. Rodgers will be 37 years old in 2020 in December and won't have more than a few years after that anyway. By making the demands that Rodger's is making, he's thinking more or less along the same lines. Fine with me. Brett Favre all over again.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:31 pm

Not sure it would be wise to let him walk at 37-38, unless Kizer becomes a true franchise player (which he has the talent to do).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
realitybytez's picture

June 03, 2018 at 04:38 pm

lol. kizer is the only starting qb that sucked more than hundley last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rak47's picture

June 03, 2018 at 10:13 pm

And you're not the only football guru who expected a 21 year old kid who as a second round [rookie] draft pick to start for a 1-15 team [worst in the league, btw] and actually look like a star or maybe lead them to the playoffs. Your football acumen is simply amazing. Hundley need I remind you was playing for the NFC North Champions.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
realitybytez's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:25 am

really? the team that hundley played for won the nfc north? while he was the starting qb? i stand corrected. i bow to your superior football acumen.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:36 pm

Andrew Lloyd: Explain when they have built a Superbowl around him since 2010? Look at our managment and head coach since then. Change this year, but still MM. So team around him? Trade him then, get four 1st round picks, and the Pack is set, right? Oh, then no QB. How'd that improve the team?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:54 pm

DD, they haven't, and I certainly don't blame Aaron for that. He's done his part. But his new salary will only make the task much harder, not easier.

No one is giving us 4 1st-rounders for Rodgers. If they did, I'd leap at it.

You do realize we must learn to win without Rodgers a few years from now regardless, right? Why are we acting like we'll never have another elite QB? Look, Aaron is a generational talent and should be highly paid for it--I hope we keep him.

But we can't completely abdicate team control for Rodgers--that would not be good for the roster or the fanbase. Jeez, I like Aaron too, but there have to be reasonable limits.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rak47's picture

June 03, 2018 at 10:23 pm

No disrespect intended but I just can't take anyone seriously who wants to get rid of Rodgers before father time does. I don't know how old you are but from your pic you don't look old enough to remember the pre Majkowski days. I say Majkowski and not Farve because Majik Man was the first QB after Bart Starr retired to bring some real excitement back to Green Bay. Those of us who suffered through those dismal 70's and 80's can remember those days like they were yesterday and are in no rush to head back there young whippersnapper. So please stop with the wer'e better off without Rodgers contract nonsense, would you.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:49 am

I turn 55 this month.

No team can abdicate complete contract control to the player. It's ludicrous.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:35 am

I agree: the inmates shouldn't run the asylum, and this kind of deal would make roster management (and improvement) nearly impossible on a yearly basis.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rak47's picture

June 05, 2018 at 03:21 am

I never said anything about relinquishing control to Rodgers. I have yet to see where Rodgers or his agent have even asked for that, only speculation and conjecture. I was more or less referring to your comments about his cap number and future contract eating up too much space.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rak47's picture

June 05, 2018 at 03:33 am

You are correct in that everyone is entitled to an opinion. And I can appreciate that you can appreciate Rodgers. However at 34 year of age you are definitely not old enough to appreciate what not having an HOF Quarterback means to the Packers. No matter what you say you cannot know another man til you've walked a mile in his shoes. And with the last 27 years covered by HOF QB play and 3-4 years of Majik man you've seen nothing but sunny days as a Packer fan my friend. You have no idea how fortunate you are to have been spared the Phil Bengston, Dan Devine, Bart Starr, Forrest Gregg, coaching circus.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

June 03, 2018 at 07:56 pm

The Packers had a possible (?probable?) SB Championship team in 2014 until MM pissed down his leg along with HHCD, JP, BB among a few others including AR (not being able to get a red zone TD to bang a big nail in the coffin).

The team was there.

Some idiotic player decisions and MM's usual playing not to lose doomed that team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Donster's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:05 am

My question is 'How does Mike Garafolo of the NFL Network actually know that Rodgers wants an out clause in his new contract?' So often these so called 'sources' don't know squat, or are making crap up. Or even Garafolo could be stretching things a bit.

Rodgers could be asking for an out clause, knowing that it more than likely won't happen, and using it a a bargaining chip for the ability to always be the highest paid QB throughout the rest of any new contract by the Packers. I personally find it difficult for Rodgers to expect to always be the highest paid QB, and for the Packers to have the ability to create a SB winning team around him over the next seven years. Or any other team for that matter. It would be very difficult to have it go both ways for Rodgers. He needs to consider if he has an out, the teams that have the money to pay are usually the teams that suck moose. That throws the wants to win a SB narrative out the door.

I hope the AR really wants to win, and win as a GBP. I also hope he isn't changing as he ages and is looking more at the money than a SB win or two.

Could he be thinking 'give me the money now, because this franchise has wasted much of my best years, and I don't see a SB appearance with MM as head coach'?

Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'As the Stomach Churns'.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:21 am

Dunn is clearly trying to push this to Garafolo. I would be surprised if this narrative lasts long. There is no way BG and Russ Ball would consider an opt out, and if they do that would be a big mistake.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:21 am

Dunn is clearly trying to push this to Garafolo. I would be surprised if this narrative lasts long. There is no way BG and Russ Ball would consider an opt out, and if they do that would be a big mistake.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 03:19 am

Aaron Rodgers has never been the highest paid player in the NFL by cap hit, percentage of the cap, and probably not by AAV, depending on how one calculates it. By cash AR was the highest paid player in exactly one year: 2013. He never earned $22M AAV. He has only had one year where he earned more than 13% of the cap (and that was just 13.2%), and mostly he's been in the 11 to 12% range, same as a ton of other players. GB has been selling the notion that it is tough to win super bowls while paying the highest paid player, but it is almost entirely a myth. For example, including 2013 to 2017 (so not including his new deal in 2018) Matt Flynn has been paid more.

Certainly AR is one of the most highly paid players. AR has always produced tons of surplus value, except in years in which he was injured. From a surplus value standpoint, there really isn't much reason not to have surrounded AR with other players who also provide lots of surplus value.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NitschkeFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:06 am

No way. The team has said they will make him the highest paid QB in the NFL (again). If making over $30 mil per year and being top paid player in league history is not enough for the guy, then F**K him.

Let him play out his current two years, franchise him if he's still any good at 36 and 37 years of age, then start the rebuild.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Hematite's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:36 am

My feelings exactly!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:43 am

AR will be the highest paid NFL player only until the next franchise QB's contract comes up. The designation of highest paid should mean nothing to you as a fan. The salary is not coming out of your pocket.

You should be happy that the Packers have the best player in the league and want him to be paid accordingly. Instead, you would rather that the Packers stone wall AR just to satisfy your jealousy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

June 03, 2018 at 12:09 pm

I don't watch the packers because of Arron Rodgers. Brett Farve had trouble when he left the packers. A-Rod would too. Jealousy has nothing to do with this. He is good for the packers and the packers are good for him. Football rules are made for the Team. Not player demands.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:36 pm

Neither "Arron" Rodgers nor Brett "Farve" ever played for the Packers.

A segment of fans are definitely jealous/resentful of AR. That's where the Danica jokes and the "he's too California cool" sentiment comes from. They just can't handle that AR is smarter, more talented, and more successful than they are.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

June 03, 2018 at 07:59 pm

youre elitist left wing shit is just too much.

please go back to your sister in ol kintuck and just STFU.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

June 03, 2018 at 09:38 pm

Why not take your vulgarity and join him there?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:07 am

I get it johnny, you feel inadequate when you compare yourself to AR. You think "Why is AR so smooth and articulate, while I can't even post an opinion without using vulgarity".

Try using that envy for some positive motivation. Take a remedial English or Math class at the local community college. Maybe you can even work your way up to a degree.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:30 pm

RAY: Yeah they can rebuild. Just have to find another HOF QB. Easy, right.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fthisJack's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:04 am

look what the Vikings and Eagles did with average QB's. if you have a dominant defense, good coaching and scheme, you can win without a HOF QB. they have him for 2 more years so i wouldn't mortgage the farm on a new contract.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:14 am

An opt out clause is simply not possible under this CBA. Lets say Rodgers signs a 4 year deal for $34 mil average per year. Say next off season sees Newton, Brady or others go over 38 or even 40 Million. Does he opt out and then all of a sudden we need to find an extra 8 mil per year for him with players already signed? When can he opt out? Any time? Every offseason? It would be much more difficult to sign your own guys. It would be totally imposible and unworkable. I don't see the Packers agreeing to this, they would go for the final 2 years and 2 franchise tag years over it. He would be 38 as a FA by then.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

June 03, 2018 at 12:12 pm

I agree with Rodgers getting paid in accordance with his abilities and production, but I don't think we need to re-write the salary cap and CBA rulebook just for him. If they want to redo the remaining two years of his contract and re-evaluate from there, that's fine with me. I just don't want to have the team be paying him increasing salaries every year if he gets injured and is only playing 3-4 games a season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:29 pm

Bure: Great idea. MM could then have Hundley ready to lead the Pack!! Pack will then have another HOF QB. Solid thinking; NOT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:45 pm

DD, my point is if the Packers agreed to an opt out, then is this really that much different than a Franchise tag? as you would be essentially negotiating anually anwayway if Rodgers opted out?? I would think the tag would he preferable. I also never made an argument for Hundley as he will likely not even make the 53 this year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
scoonie_penn's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:44 am

the salary cap ramifications for an opt out clause make it a completely unworkable situation. Any guaranteed money is spread out over the life of the contract. if an opt-out was included any time Rodgers opted out, the money would be accelerated FULLY to the current contract year. Let's say GB signed Rodgers for 5-years w/$100M guaranteed, currently that would mean the cap hit would $20M/season for 5 years. In this case if Rodgers opted out after year one the entire remainder of the $100M ($80M) would be assessed in year 2. which would mean GB would need to reduce their salaries by that $80M and cut almost every player making above a minimum salary. With the current CBA and salary cap rules, this won't work for either side.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 01:30 am

This should be breaking records for upvotes. Clearly no opt-out clause is workable in the early years of any contract that has large amounts of guaranteed money that hasn't been amortized: that is, dead money.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:25 am

Not necessarily true.

If the opt out is a renegotiation and not a free agency opt out, then the so called dead money simply becomes a starting point for the renegotiated salary and doesn't accelerate to a cap hit immediately.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:38 am

What if player X signs a new deal in May that pushes that player past ARod on the salary ladder. When does that clause kick in? The following February? Immediately in May? How do you manage a roster when your cap is essentially being massaged by how other players are signed by other teams?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 06:32 pm

Maybe there are ways, John, but not really if they involve signing or option bonus money. Yes, the opt-out could be a starting point for renegotiation but it would look like pay AR $40M or take a $25M dead money hit. Not exactly equal bargaining positions.

GB could perhaps do an opt-out if all AR's guaranteed money was by yearly roster bonuses and the opt-out really was a provision allowing AR to shop himself to other teams as a trade after 2 or 3 seasons for a defined compensation in draft picks to GB. For example, AR after the 2020 season could negotiate a deal with NE under which NE becomes responsible for all unpaid but still guaranteed base salary and roster bonuses, and GB gets perhaps a 1st, a 2nd, and a future first. In 2021, maybe GB only gets a 1st and a future first. That seems possible, but it means AR doesn't get a big fat check due to signing bonus this summer.

Some players are attracted to GB because of AR's presence. If he might not be here, that attraction is less. There would be a lot of other downsides for GB including planning a roster and drafting a QB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

June 04, 2018 at 07:05 pm

Rodgers said today that these reports are basically overblown, and that they aren't due to any information from him or his agent. If that's the case, the only other source could be with the Packers organization. And if that's the case, the question is why would the Packers leak any information on Rodgers contract negotiations to the media?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 05, 2018 at 12:39 am

Bubba the Cat actually writes all my comments. I just correct his spelling and grammar.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Community Guy's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:45 am

since this is new ground, i will not pretend to know how this might work. i wonder if there can be a written "conditional opt-out", where all of the conditions are within control of the team.. an example was mentioned above: Aaron could seek a guarantee that he will be among the highest 5 paid every year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackerBackerAZ's picture

June 03, 2018 at 11:50 am

I fail to see why the Packers should make AR the highest paid quarterback in league history with two years remaining on his contract. Has he won a Superbowl since signing the contract that made him the highest paid quarterback in the league? Has he been available for every game every season since signing that contract? Wait and see if he can win a Superbowl with our defense this season. If he does - Great! - make him the highest paid quarterback at that time. If not then don't renegotiate the contract and franchise him until we get his replacement! Winning Superbowls is what it's all about.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:25 pm

Packer backer: Real bright! How many other QB's have not won a Superbowl or even many playoff games and are getting paid more then Rodgers ? Wake up man!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 01:38 am

I agree, but we have to consider the purpose behind a request for an opt out clause. I see two potential reasons for a player to request an opt out or voidable years clause: 1) to remain the highest paid player; or 2) to be able to bail on the team if the player deems management to be incapable of building a super bowl quality roster.

The first aim probably can be done essentially through escalators and contingency language. No team should allow the second if the team has the leverage to refuse it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:01 pm

When they are traveling Aaron has to let his 5'2'' girlfriend, Danica Patrick drive the car. Must be humiliating, but she's a better driver than he is.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

June 03, 2018 at 02:54 pm

Oh Oh, you just pissed off any female posters with your sexist remark. If she were taller would it be ok? Humiliating? seriously? Her last race wasn't to much fun to watch though, wouldn't want to be a passenger in that car,lol.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:05 pm

Political Hack Feminists might be offended but smart women are not. Vive la difference!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:05 pm

Political Hack Feminists might be offended but smart women are not. Vive la difference!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 01:56 am

My wife always drove unless our purpose involved imbibing alcohol, in which case I drove home at least. Never bothered me. As it happened, she claimed to be 5'3" but she was rounding up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rak47's picture

June 04, 2018 at 03:19 am

She's a better driver than you too, are you humiliated?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:07 pm

This may very well be Aaron last contract. Agents are going to use whatever leverage they can. One very common tactic is to ask for things that will not be agreeable, but eventually you let it go once your other parameters are more favorable.

IE, "OK Russ. We'll agree to 33 million a year for 5 years, but then we want and opt out in case the salary cap ballons and the high rate goes way up. Does 36 sound better now?"

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

June 03, 2018 at 08:05 pm

Exactly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:21 pm

All comments I see are very shallow and don't hold any water. With most of you you say don't do it. Fine, then trade him now and see what we got fools!! Nothing!!!! An unhappy QB of his stature is NOT a good thing. You bring up Brady sacrificing? That's bullshit. Brady had so much built into the backend of his contract it'll make your head spin. You think he took less overall? No way!! Other teams are paying much lesser talent. So don't pay him. If they don't and I were Rodgers I'd then release the ball if anyone is within 4 feet of me, and if be dammed if I'd extend any play. The Packers better get their heads out of their asses.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:41 pm

??
1)No one made an argument to trade Rodgers.

2) No team would entertain an opt out clause

3)???? Brady IS taking less overall and he IS currently in the back half of his contract that was restructured. Additionally, Brady is not thrilled currently with his contract and is likely to renegotiate next off-season should he choose to play. Not sure your point.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Denise Chanterelle's picture

June 03, 2018 at 01:31 pm

I'm starting to think it'd be great if NO had an off-year and we get a high No. 1 draft pick to use for a QB!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Galt's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:06 pm

Exactly what I have been saying since the draft.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

June 03, 2018 at 03:08 pm

I heard nothing in AR's recent remarks about playing anywhere else. He said he wants to leave a legacy in GB and retire a Packer.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Flow49's picture

June 03, 2018 at 04:25 pm

If he plays poorly can we pay him less? Or once athleticism wanes can a few million fall off his paycheck? I’m my opinion though it’s probably a negotiation tactic to get a few more mil per year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 03, 2018 at 06:16 pm

I'm not sure where I read this, and maybe TGR can elaborate (or may know more about it) but I think that in 2 years time there's meant to be some renegotiation of TV rights, and with that, and expected proportional big surge in the salary cap.

If the reports on Rodgers request are correct, then maybe he's looking to align with this? Perhaps?

Let's be honest on the face value "knowns" though, he's a super smart guy who already has a SB ring and never has to work another day in his life. He must know that if he commands a crippling amount from the packers (and they pay it) that its coming at the expense of surrounding talent and (statistically likely) more SB glory. Father time is also going to intervene in a way that Aaron CAN influence - but can't dictate.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

June 03, 2018 at 06:51 pm

Tough to say what is actually fact or fiction in reports such as this. If Rodgers actually does want $100 million guarantees, opt-outs, inflation adjustments and a say in player decisions then it would appear that he is only concerned with himself and could care less about the rest of the players on the team. If not, this is simply sensationalized journalism speculating on what could be happening in an effort to spark readership.

From what we've seen this offseason, anything is possible with Rodgers and the Packers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 02:30 am

Television rights aren't a cap issue per se and I claim no particular knowledge. We know that the NFL offers the rights to Thursday, Sunday and Monday night games, and to Sunday early and late afternoon games up for bids as separate packages. There has been considerable backlash against Thursday Night games. Eliminating Thursday night games would be one less package available for bids. I don't think the NFL would be interested in having Friday or Saturday Night games, so it would have to fold Thursday's games into an existing package. Someone would have to project ratings increases or decreases and crunch numbers on that economic impact.

IIRC, the NFL only shares 48% of its revenues with the players. I think that the players are aiming to include more of total revenue in their share for player costs - that is the cap and benefits, and reports seem to suggest that the players are likely to get a nice increase. If I had to guess right now, I'd bet on the cap increasing substantially in 2021 or 2022. [If that is true, then any contract negotiated now with AR might not look so good if there are $25M annual jumps in the cap under the new CBA.]

Here is the thing though: there is zero doubt that despite all the smart accountants and such on the NFL's and the Union's payroll, both sides were completely surprised when the cap went from $120M in 2011 to just $120.6M in 2012. Teams had to scramble, and as further evidence the NFL and Union entered into "side agreements" in 2011 just to fix things, including the rookie draft pool numbers. The union, teams, and NFL might think a result is likely in terms of the cap, but that doesn't mean they will be right.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 04, 2018 at 04:02 am

Awesome, thanks f TGR, I knew that you had more detail on the nuances of salary caps and their indexation than me.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 08:33 pm

No. It would be speculative garbage. GIGO. I can do that right here just as well! Say the Union gets 52% of AR (All Revenue), up from 47%. First, All Revenue doesn't mean that all the revenue the NFL and its teams received are counted as AR. So, I will look real precise and calculate to the third decimal place and still have to acknowledge possibly being off by hundreds of millions of dollars or more.

I've read that the NFL earns revenue of $14B (but AR is probably about $1B or $1.5B less). That 5% increase would mean about $700M available to increase the cap (and benefits). Divided by 32 teams would be $21.875M available for cap increase per team based on current dollars, but some would go to pensions and other benefits.

NFL revenues increased by 9.58%, 11.09%, 12.16% and 13.16% from 2013 to 2016 (per Statista and CNN). [Note that the cap did not increase at anything near those increases.] If it has continued growth at 12%, it should hit about $19.7B in 2020. Revenue growth has been accelerating, hitting double digits since 2013 or so: it was mid single digits for quite a while. NFL revenue was $8B in 2010 (12% growth since that would equal $17.7B in 2017, so it didn't do that well over time).

The NFL since it dropped its tax-exempt status indicated it made a profit of $1B on about $12B in revenue. Probably some accounting tricks there. But if their profit is only $1B or so, I don't think it is going to cough up $700M more for player costs. The NFL distributed $7.8B to teams in 2016, with each team getting $244M each. GB earned another $197M on its own for a total of $441M, and made a $65M profit in 2016.

32 x $177.2M = $5.67B (so we know AR is at least $12.06B). Assuming the players got 47% of $13B or so of AR for cap and benefits (player costs), that would leave $440M for benefits. Looks like cap is about 85% of players costs.

So, assuming 20B in revenue in 2020, if the players maintain their percentage share and revenue hits $20B, I'd wildly guess $225M cap limit per team for 2021. If they get to 52%, I would wildly guess $249M per team. Those numbers strike me as high. I could go back and make the numbers fit my gut, but that would be dishonest.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

June 03, 2018 at 07:03 pm

My guess is that until Rodger's next contract is finalized we will hear all types of rumors about what Rodgers is asking for. This is why I believe and have posted previously that the sooner the Packers can get this done the better for the team and for Rodgers.

If there is an opt out clause it should work both ways. Rodgers and the Packers should both be able to opt out but only after a minimum of 2-3 seasons.

If this rumor has any legs the Packers should guarantee that Rodgers will be the league's highest paid player in the league for the next 5 seasons but either party can opt out after 3 seasons. This way the Packers have 3 more seasons to win another SB or more with Rodgers and 3 more drafts to scout/draft Rodgers replacement. Simultaneously if gives Rodgers the opportunity to finish his career somewhere else if he wants.
Would another team want Rodgers and his salary in 3 years? Denver signed Peyton late in his career. Some NFL owner will want to fill his stadium for a few seasons by signing Rodgers and maybe win an SB in the process. The only thing I am sure of is that anything can happen. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zerotolerance's picture

June 03, 2018 at 07:50 pm

Thanks Since 61. You and I have watched the team the same number of years. I come to the comments section to search for your posts.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:00 am

I appreciate your generous comments. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

June 03, 2018 at 09:31 pm

Since '61, I like your idea of of essentailly a mutual opt out
That would be great in the the ultra libertarian form of negotiation, however, Rodgers is probably less open to a mutual opt out than a "normal" conract.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:04 am

Bure9620 - I agree that Rodgers is probably more open to a normal contract than a mutual opt out. I'm just thinking that if I am the Packers and Rodgers is looking for an opt out per the author's article, which is probably speculative anyway, I would counter with a mutual opt out. By doing that the Packers can test how serious Rodgers is about an opt out and if in fact he wants to remain in GB for the remainder of his career. Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Slim11's picture

June 03, 2018 at 09:46 pm

Agreed. This also making one thing abundantly clear and that is the Packers have to prepare for Rodgers' departure. Be that retirement, another major injury or something else, a plan has to be developed and executed.

Trading for Kizer might be the start of such a plan. It's painfully clear Hundley is a failed plan/project. If trading for Kizer was only to improve the #2 QB position, then the first round in 2019 may produce the next starting QB in Green Bay.

Despite AR's comments about playing into his 40s, I don't think it will happen. He isn't Brett Favre or Tom Brady when it comes to one's physical makeup. AR's missed major portions of two seasons with broken collarbones. It's three seasons if you count his rookie (or second?) season which ended early because of a broken foot. Brady missed at least one full season and Favre didn't miss much until his final season when his body said "no more!"

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 03:02 am

I luv ya, Since '61, but I think a mutual opt-out is unworkable and pointless. It would look like Cousins' contract. Signing and option bonuses couldn't be safely amortized over 5 years.

There aren't that many logical reasons to re-negotiate AR's contract. One is to secure his services for GB for the next 5 to 7 years. Opt outs means that doesn't happen. The other is fairness/keeping AR happy. GB has most of the leverage right now, and opt outs simply surrenders it, and for what? Just what circumstances would have to occur for you to waive the non-compete and non-disclosure clauses in the contracts of your employees?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

June 04, 2018 at 02:38 pm

TGR - I agree with all of your points. I was just responding to the author's article stating that AR is looking for an opt out clause. Actually I believe that the article is speculative at best. However, if Rodgers does in fact want an opt out clause I (as the Packers) would counter with a mutual opt out. Rodgers response to the mutual opt out would tell me how serious he is about an opt out clause and whether he wants to remain in GB for the remainder of his career or not.

As for waiving the non-compete clause I can and have waived that clause when a few young consultants I brought on and mentored who wanted to leave and start their own firm and take the customers they brought to my firm with them. I decided it was better to help them start their new firm rather than fight them over the customer (which would only be bad for the clients). So I proposed and they agreed to a 5 year transition clause where they would pay my firm a declining % of the revenue from "their clients" over a 5 year period. After that time those clients would be 100% theirs. Not only that but my business partner and I provided them some seed money for their company so we were partners with them until they repaid the seed money with some interest within 3 1/2 years. To this day we still work with them and sub-contract each other depending on the customer and the project. Easier to have friends than create another competitor.

The non-disclosure clause is another matter. That is a matter of the reputation of the firm. To me protecting my clients is inviolable and the basis of trust for the client/consulting relationship. If word gets out that a firm violated their NDAs it would spread like wildfire and that firm's reputation would be ruined and they would not be able to attract clients or good consultants to work for them. If this issue ever comes up I would refer it to my attorney for the necessary advice. I have yet to have a reason or circumstance to waive our NDA clause. Out of curiosity, why do you ask? Thanks, Since '61

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 04, 2018 at 04:48 pm

In a strange twist of events, I actually found following this thread more interesting than the original article - thanks!

(apologies to the author, it wasn't your writing or style, just that the subject was so speculative that I found it a bit gossipy)

Since 61' - I think that you made a great comment that the longer this deal takes, the longer there will be for speculative "fake news" to impact the negotiations and ongoing relationship.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

June 04, 2018 at 02:37 pm

Deleted, double post. Sorry

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 08:52 pm

Thanks for your nice reply, Since '61. As an aside, my father bought his business (not for a ton of money though) when the owner got old, wanted to retire, and his only child was a practicing surgeon in another state and didn't want to run the business.

Yes, if AR wants an opt-out clause, there might be a way to at least make it less bad for GB and to test AR's sincerity by making the opt-out mutual. I posted it just now as a reply to JohnBlood above. Basically would have to eliminate all or most of the dead money in place as of an opt-out year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

June 04, 2018 at 05:49 am

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Aaron Rodgers is not signing a contract extension this year.

And if the Packers don't make it into the Super Bowl this season, expect him to ask to be traded to New England next year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 04, 2018 at 04:53 pm

Out of curiosity, can I ask why New England?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

June 04, 2018 at 06:22 pm

As Aaron Rodgers approaches the end of his career, I believe he wants to win another Super Bowl or two to cement his legacy as one of the greatest QBs in NFL history more than he wants to be the highest-paid QB.

Tom Brady is at the end of his career. If he doesn't play great this year, his career in New England is over.

And I believe Aaron Rodgers thinks his odds of winning another Super Bowl or two are better with Bill Belichick than with Mike McCarthy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

June 04, 2018 at 08:00 pm

Thanks jh9.

Belichick and Kraft seem to be pretty shrewd customers, so I wouldn't dismiss it.

That said, I wonder if the concessions that AR would have to make to get to NE would be deal-breakers for him? Not sure - the machinations of team movements surprise me each year?

Side note: There is certainly a funny dynamic at NE with Brady, Belichick and Kraft. The logician in me still can't calculate that you would let Jimmy G go with Brady in his late 30's (and for a 2nd round pick). Brady would really have to have regressed this year to be pushed out and not left to go on his own terms (as is clearly the case - as every other player there that becomes too opinionated or aged gets clipped or shipped).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

June 05, 2018 at 02:38 pm

I agree with you. Rodgers and Belichick (and Kraft) know each other's situation. Rodgers won’t make as much money with New England as he would if he remained with the Packers, but that isn’t the main issue. If this whole opt-out clause is true, it is telling.

Rodgers and his agent know the Packers won’t agree to an opt-out clause. But this gives Rodgers an excuse not to sign an extension. Publicly, it looks like he is negotiating in good faith and he is saying all the right things. But, privately, I believe he doesn’t trust McCarthy to lead this team to another Super Bowl. Rodgers will give the Packers this year and that’s it.

Negotiated behind closed doors, the public won’t know the true story. But I expect Rodgers to be playing for Belichick in the next year or two.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

June 05, 2018 at 03:14 pm

"Rodgers will give the Packers this year and that’s it."

It just doesn't work this way. The Packers own him for the next two years, minimum. Two franchise tags and you're up to 4 years. That's Packer control, not ARod. He can choose to sit, but if he does, he's damaging his own brand as, clearly, he's got TV aspirations after football. It just...won't...happen. The only way he goes anywhere is if the Packers get a crap-ton of compensation for him, but he's not going to just up and leave.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

June 05, 2018 at 06:39 pm

I understand who has contractual control. But Aaron Rodgers is the face of the franchise. Do you want him angry? How are you going to make him play his best? He wouldn't be the first professional athlete to "go through the motions." How does that help the franchise? As a Packers fan, I wouldn't want my QB playing that way.

The way I see this playing out is the deal will be negotiated behind the scenes through Rodger's agent and New England's business/legal affairs people. Next year Rodgers will still have one year left on his contract. The Packers will be offered New England's 2019 1st round pick and something like a 3rd and 5th round pick. Meaning the Packers will have three first round picks in the 2019 draft. If they don't take the trade, Rodgers will go the free agent route and the Packers will get nothing in return and a disgruntled player.

If you were BG what would you do?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

June 06, 2018 at 12:58 pm

I'm not naive enough to think that it doesn't happen behind the scenes, but any player negotiations that happen with players under contract with another team without the permission of the controlling team fall under the rules of player tampering. That's a good way to lose draft picks and incur fines, as the Pats well know.

Additionally, the negotiations really have to happen with the Packers, and not the player. Those things get out, so behind closed doors just won't happen with a player of the magnitude of ARod.

Finally, the CBA really limits the ability of players to be their own advocate while under contract. We can talk about leverage with regard to salary and timing of extensions...at this point and at his age, ARod struggles in both areas. The Packers hold the cards. He could become a sullen SOB as you indicate and be a player that 'goes through the motions', I don't disagree, but doing so damages his brand. The question is ultimately what would be at the root of the problem? Is it championships? Is it money? If it's SBs and a belief that Belichick gets him there, it would be more than funny if ARod postured himself out of GB and ended up on a NE team just as BB retires or resigns. Remember that players of the tenure and experience of ARod tend to not like to have to relearn systems or re-establish themselves in a new locker room. He's going to get his money one way or another.

If I were BG and the situation became untenable, I certainly wouldn't deal him where he wants to go...just as TT dealt BF to the Jets rather than releasing him or sending him to the Vikes.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jh9's picture

June 06, 2018 at 07:37 pm

Good post... But, how do trades happen? One team's GM (in this case Belichick) calls another team's GM (BG) and makes an offer. That's not tampering.

Let's say it's March 2019. The Packers may have played in one or two post-season games this past season and didn't make it to the Super Bowl, again. AR hasn't signed his extension and by now everyone knows he is unhappy. He wants the opt-out clause and the Packers refuse to accommodate him.

You don't think AR's agent is talking to other teams? Of course he is and there is nothing illegal about it. It's what agents do.

After seeing AR's frustration with McCarthy over the years and with Brady possibly retiring after this year, I have to believe this is an opportunity AR can't pass up. I might be wrong, but as the old saying goes: "If there's a will, there's a way."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

June 04, 2018 at 07:24 am

This story smells like a play by Rodgers' agent to set a precedent for contracts. Every NFL team wants the Packers to avoid doing that.

If he holds fast on the demand for an opt-out, a new contract is out of the question. He'll have to play out the existing deal and tag years. He may not have the leverage to make such a demand when that time has elapsed. And he will have cost himself 10s of millions of dollars in the process.

It's a bad idea to let this rumor float around for Rodgers. It won't happen. And it won't sit well with many fans.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

June 04, 2018 at 10:34 am

New contract huh?

How about tearing up the 2 years he has left and signing him to a 1 year deal.

Then re-sign him next year, wash, rinse, repeat.

That gives the Packers 2 additional tag years every year and AR the ability to negotiate his value annually.

If his performance wanes, less money or tag salary only.

Well now, thats interesting...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:00 pm

The QB franchise tag for 2018 is $23.189M. It is going to go up, and significantly, but the franchise tag amount in 2020 is likely to be about or less than AR's negotiated cap hit for that year. The tag increases less than QB salaries on a percentage basis due to the way it is calculated.

All I mean to say is that the franchise tag route doesn't scare me nearly as much as it appears it does others. Even a 2nd tag at 120% doesn't scare me very much.

I don't think we should tear up his contract, but your suggestion is more doable than many think.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

June 06, 2018 at 11:15 pm

Thanks for your opinion that my suggestion is more doable than some might think.

How does that translate into down votes?

Hahahahahaha

Im used to it!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Steven Norris's picture

June 04, 2018 at 12:36 pm

So many frightened Packers fans...if Aaron wants an Opt-Out give it to him. If the org does right keeping the roster high on talent level there's nothing to fear in him leaving. Besides orgs has ALWAYS had the opt-out clause in the NFL...it's called CUTTING THE GUY. Why shouldn't it be the same on BOTH sides for a change?

Also, Aaron is trying to make as much while he can, as he can. There is NOTHING wrong with that. I wouldn't give up $5-$10k/year off my salary for the guy that sits next to me, and I wouldn't expect him to either. That argument is defeatist and incredibly slanted toward the org's favor...which is absurd. They've got more than enough escape paths built into the process. If he's the best, he should be paid as such. Period. The fickle reactions of some of you fans to even A RUMOR is incentive enough to NOT give a "hometown discount"...SMH

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

June 04, 2018 at 09:06 pm

If the Packers gave AR a normal extension with the kind of signing bonus he commands, he won't be cuttable for years. Your situation (unless you have a contract) isn't the same as AR's situation and likely isn't on the same scale.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KamThomps's picture

June 04, 2018 at 04:07 pm

Forget about ego, take the best deal for you and the team. Win some more rings, then rake in the bucks on endorsements, Aaron. It's the way to go.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

June 06, 2018 at 05:52 pm

I'm an equal opportunity hater. I hate weenie liberals and right-wing nut jobs but I get especially nauseated when I hear BS spouting, head-up-the-ass libertarians. But all that aside, what really, really makes me want to puke is politics crap on sports blogs.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

June 06, 2018 at 11:18 pm

How dare the real world creep into our fantasy land!

Im with you Eggy!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.