Real men drink Sarsaparilla
@Henry posted:You really need to lay of the McGinn shit because that was for your benefit.
Hawk clearly stated there was an issue otherwise what exactly would they be working out? If Rodgers said to Tirico that he was disappointed this got out why didn't he say this is all bullshit instead? Because it isn't all bullshit.
Make up your mind..the FO is full of douchebags who screwed everything up..the FO doesn’t know what it’s doing..the FO has built a team that is a super bowl contender and if they won last year, the FO would still fuck it up..no pleasing your ass.
If you have an actual quote from Rodgers that he hates Gutenkust and wants out..produce it..
@Henry posted:I don't know how many other people like Brandt, Holmgren, Hawk, Jones, Kuhn etc. you need to hear from that the FO screwed up enough to have your HOF QB, the face of the franchise, literally not want to play for you anymore. That's a pretty obvious Uh Oh. Maybe kinda.
Again, Holmgren? Fuck Holmgren.
I can't wait until this thread gets turned into an episode of Drunk History.
Brilliant.
Or, a moment in Groundhog Day.
@Henry posted:you don't get Kuhn saying there's a 75% chance just because of contract negotiation.
Actually, you can.
First off, 75% is a big number. You Get Kuhn saying it because he sees and understands the business aspect of this. You get Kuhn saying 75% because he understands what AR wants with respect to commitment, and knows that without the commitment Rodgers could force their hand. Kuhn knows how competitive Rodgers is and how he is sensitive and can hold a grudge like no other. 75% from Kuhn, with him knowing what he does, is about as high as you can get from someone not named Aaron Rodgers.
@Steve of Norway posted:Make up your mind..the FO is full of douchebags who screwed everything up..the FO doesn’t know what it’s doing..the FO has built a team that is a super bowl contender and if they won last year, the FO would still fuck it up..no pleasing your ass.
If you have an actual quote from Rodgers that he hates Gutenkust and wants out..produce it..
Never play chess with a pigeon.
Fucking dumb homer.
The FO will have to guarantee something beyond the one year. If he came back, and they happened to win a ring this year, would 12 want to stick around longer? Would he retire? Would the desire/need to be traded fade into the mist?
I think they should structure an offer contingent upon reaching or winning the SB. Guarantee two years. If they reach the big dance, build some type of option into the contract, for instance a third year guaranteed, if that's what Rodgers would stipulate. If they win it, the FO gets to exercise some option. Rodgers will be fully compensated and he will be incentivized, the four year deal for Love is still intact, and in the wake of failing to reach or win it all, the GBP would be able to reimplement the post-AR plan.
Just spitballing, and I'd be interested in others' opinions as there's probably things I haven't taken into account, but it's a unique situation that might best be resolved with an outside the box approach.
Getting to the SB is going to hinge on a number of factors on the defensive side of the ball as I think the offense may be as good as last season;
1) Will the new system make a noticeable difference
2) Will the rookie DT / or veteran pickups help Clark in the middle
3) Will the young ILBers develop
4) Will outside CB opposite Alexander and slot CB be better
5) Will Smith brothers play like they did their first year.
@artis posted:The FO will have to guarantee something beyond the one year. If he came back, and they happened to win a ring this year, would 12 want to stick around longer? Would he retire? Would the desire/need to be traded fade into the mist?
I think they should structure an offer contingent upon reaching or winning the SB. Guarantee two years. If they reach the big dance, build some type of option into the contract, for instance a third year guaranteed, if that's what Rodgers would stipulate. If they win it, the FO gets to exercise some option. Rodgers will be fully compensated and he will be incentivized, the four year deal for Love is still intact, and in the wake of failing to reach or win it all, the GBP would be able to reimplement the post-AR plan.
Just spitballing, and I'd be interested in others' opinions as there's probably things I haven't taken into account, but it's a unique situation that might best be resolved with an outside the box approach.
I love the idea.
@artis posted:The FO will have to guarantee something beyond the one year. If he came back, and they happened to win a ring this year, would 12 want to stick around longer? Would he retire? Would the desire/need to be traded fade into the mist?
I think they should structure an offer contingent upon reaching or winning the SB. Guarantee two years. If they reach the big dance, build some type of option into the contract, for instance a third year guaranteed, if that's what Rodgers would stipulate. If they win it, the FO gets to exercise some option. Rodgers will be fully compensated and he will be incentivized, the four year deal for Love is still intact, and in the wake of failing to reach or win it all, the GBP would be able to reimplement the post-AR plan.
Just spitballing, and I'd be interested in others' opinions as there's probably things I haven't taken into account, but it's a unique situation that might best be resolved with an outside the box approach.
I'd be interested to see what the negotiations would be. I think there would have to be a lot of different stipulations that give Rodgers security but also an out for the Packers to transition say if Rodgers gets hurt. I think the incentives you mention make a lot of sense and also give the Packers an out say if Rodgers gets hurt.
Either way, to get this to work it's going to be a unique contract. The Packers would look to factor in escape clauses but that's still kind of a statement that they're ready to move on from Rodgers ASAP.
Then there is a the consideration of Rodgers feeling like his input is valued. Not sure how you navigate that stream.
If he's truly pissed off about being slighted by the FO for ignoring his input, etc. then it makes it even more tricky. I'm sure both sides will seek a level of pragmatism to get the relationship to work but that personal side is a tough nut.
Maybe approach as a tie to Adams, if possible. Adams turns 29 this season, see if a June 1 extension can give him his favorite receiver for a similar time frame. Of course Adams may be looking for a longer deal pre-30, but adding two more years while re-doing Rodgers’ contract might be an incentive. Bakhtiari is also under contract through 2024, though there’s an expensive out after 2022.
This means rolling the dice with Love’s likely first chance to start is on his fifth-year option, but they’re rolling the dice with him at some point regardless. 2024 might be a lean year due to dead cap, but if Love shows promise they’ll be okay.
Andrew Brandy has a proposed solution:
2) What is my proposed resolution of this dispute…Here is an idea that percolated in my head during hiking this week (see below): in return for playing this year for them, the Packers agree to grant Rodgers his freedom after the season through free agency (not through a trade). The Packers, whom I have sensed all along want to move to Love next year, would agree to lop off the final two years of Rodgers' contract (2022 and 2023) in return for Rodgers playing this year, perhaps giving him more money in 2021 to bring him to MVP-level pay. This would allow the Packers to stick to what has seemed to be their plan: to have Rodgers one more year before turning the team over to Love. And it would allow Rodgers a very Tom Brady-like way to pick his team in 2022, where there will be more playing options than there are in 2021. The downside for the Packers? They would get no trade compensation for Rodgers. The downside for Rodgers? He would still be a seat warmer for Jordan Love in 2021. Neither side would be happy with this deal, but it just might work if both sides would agree to it. They can thank me later.
I don't like it. Getting nothing for Rodgers would be like giving away our most valuable asset.
I propose other incentives, like guaranteeing the next two years salaries if we get to the Super Bowl or he wins MVP again.
Another take from Brandt:
What I’m now thinking about the Aaron Rodgers/Packers standoff… There are now comments from former teammates of Aaron who have talked to him- players such as James Jones, John Kuhn and AJ Hawk- who hardly make the situation seem as dire as the breathless reporting of a couple of weeks ago. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. As I've been saying, the Packers appear to want their cake and to eat it too: they want their present quarterback, the NFL MVP, to play for them this year while keeping the seat warm for their future quarterback. And Rodgers is understandably not down with that plan. Some of those looking for solutions are focused on the contract: making Aaron the highest paid player in the league, adding guaranteed years, etc. But... you only get to the contract part of things if the "other stuff" is worked out. As someone who managed an NFL Cap for 10 years, I know this: the money and the contract can always be figured out. From the start, this dispute has seemed about much more than money; some fissure, some chasm, some dislike between Rodgers and the front office. It is only when that part is resolved- if it ever can be- that the money part enters the equation.
Is Brandt “sensing” stuff any different than Shefty “connecting the dots”?
Much like the Giannis situation earlier this year, you cannot let a transcendent player like Rodgers leave after this season getting nothing back in return. If he’s not down with returning on what is basically a one year deal you have to trade him after June 1. If Rodgers is open to returning with assurances, then you convert the last 3 years and guarantee the dollars and give him a raise to keep him here for 2021-2023. If you want to part ways after that so be it.
@YATittle posted:Andrew Brandy has a proposed solution:
2) What is my proposed resolution of this dispute…Here is an idea that percolated in my head during hiking this week (see below): in return for playing this year for them, the Packers agree to grant Rodgers his freedom after the season through free agency (not through a trade). The Packers, whom I have sensed all along want to move to Love next year, would agree to lop off the final two years of Rodgers' contract (2022 and 2023) in return for Rodgers playing this year, perhaps giving him more money in 2021 to bring him to MVP-level pay. This would allow the Packers to stick to what has seemed to be their plan: to have Rodgers one more year before turning the team over to Love. And it would allow Rodgers a very Tom Brady-like way to pick his team in 2022, where there will be more playing options than there are in 2021. The downside for the Packers? They would get no trade compensation for Rodgers. The downside for Rodgers? He would still be a seat warmer for Jordan Love in 2021. Neither side would be happy with this deal, but it just might work if both sides would agree to it. They can thank me later.
I don't like it. Getting nothing for Rodgers would be like giving away our most valuable asset.
I propose other incentives, like guaranteeing the next two years salaries if we get to the Super Bowl or he wins MVP again.
Nope!
@Henry posted:I'd be interested to see what the negotiations would be. I think there would have to be a lot of different stipulations that give Rodgers security but also an out for the Packers to transition say if Rodgers gets hurt. I think the incentives you mention make a lot of sense and also give the Packers an out say if Rodgers gets hurt.
Either way, to get this to work it's going to be a unique contract. The Packers would look to factor in escape clauses but that's still kind of a statement that they're ready to move on from Rodgers ASAP.
Then there is a the consideration of Rodgers feeling like his input is valued. Not sure how you navigate that stream.
If he's truly pissed off about being slighted by the FO for ignoring his input, etc. then it makes it even more tricky. I'm sure both sides will seek a level of pragmatism to get the relationship to work but that personal side is a tough nut.
No doubt there will be snags however it would be designed. But get all that on the table with everyone present. Lay it all out, concerns and all. Each side is within reason that they should be able to protect their own interests, and that should be well established already, anyway. If we operate under the assumption that AR knows the Packers have the right to look beyond his tenure, then it's on the FO to say out loud to Aaron and his agent that they understand his own personal stake and his need for better clarity re the end of his career.
Notwithstanding the fact that we all understand the many factors in getting to and winning a SB, this might be a way for them to offer Rodgers some semblance of "control" that he's looking for. Considering that they were probably a half dozen or so plays away from getting there in 2020, this could potentially create some common goal-even if grudgingly-that could serve the interests of both parties. Heck, tack on some $$$ bonus if you reach the SB to sweeten the pot and possibly show some good faith.
As far as escape clauses, both sides would need to understand that this would be a new proposition and whatever issues previously can be aired out but then also set aside for the purpose of going forward. It might be as much of a clean slate as possible, and both camps can "use" one another to meet their own ends.
There's a ton of moving parts, but the common theme SHOULD be reaching the SB and collecting a ring. So even if one side or the other might not be "invested", which is relative anyway, you shut up for the sake of getting this done and act the part that the one goal is winning a title. Both sides have something to gain. Both sides have ways out if need be, depending on outcome. But you hammer it out and put up a united front and get on with playing football.
Its not an either or... as Brandt said, " you only get to the contract part of things if the "other stuff" is worked out. "
The "other stuff" is absolutely tied to the contract, and vice versa.
Of course, if they want to make a change, they have more options than they realize.
Attachments
Who would pick him up at the airport? Murph? Gutie? Frenchy? Love? AR?
Technically don’t the Vikings still own his rights? Just saying
@Pikes Peak posted:Who would pick him up at the airport? Murph? Gutie? Frenchy? Love? AR?
Coach Kick-Ass.
@Henry posted:Brandt is obviously some kind of crackpot.
He’s not quite the source that the tingling McGinn gets in his tum tum is, but he’s fine.
Isn't this about Rodgers wanting the money, yes, but more importantly, the starting position for basically as long as HE wants it? If so, then trade him. I don't think there's anyone who can say he's bigger than the team and "I'll be the starter as long as I want to be the starter." Maybe he's good to 42; maybe he only thinks he's good until he's 42. Look at Favre's last season, Montana's, Unitas', Brees', and what I suspect will be Brady's. Watching, you wished they had quit a year or two earlier. We all admired TT's "better a year too early than a year too late."
Did the FO f'up by not giving him a heads up on the Love pick? In hindsight, absolutely. Did Rodgers and his agent f'up signing the contract he did? In hindsight, absolutely. No one suspected he'd pull off an MVP year in 2020. So admit both sides f'd up and let's see some movement here.
As to incentives based on going to the SB, would those be allowed under the new CBA? I really don't know... Also, I question any agent that would allow a player to sign a contract based on if you go to the SB. What are the odds?
@Pakrz posted:Obviously, this will end in one of two ways. Rodgers will be traded for some draft picks and maybe a player or two after June 1st or he will agree to a new contract that guarantees him more money for more years. If the latter occurs, and I think it probably will, Rodgers will give some song and dance in the media about all he wants to do is win, etc. Bullshit. He wants his... and he's too big of a pussy to talk about it.
Agreed for the most part but I think there's a third possible outcome. They leave the contract as is and come to an agreement that he plays the 2021 season and the Packers trade him in 2022 prior to the draft.
Trade his ass now (6/1) IF the bounty is big enough.
OR, he can sit and give back 30 million.
OR he can play the contract he signed.
@Fandame posted:Maybe he's good to 42; maybe he only thinks he's good until he's 42. Look at Favre's last season, Montana's, Unitas', Brees', and what I suspect will be Brady's. Watching, you wished they had quit a year or two earlier. We all admired TT's "better a year too early than a year too late."
Did the FO f'up ...
Just want to get the LOYAL MANAGEMENT-BACKERS POSITION straight.
I keep hearing that NO ONE PERSON is bigger than the Packer organization ... when it comes to Rodgers.
Fine, but why does that only apply to Packer players such as Rodgers and not every member of the franchise?
Why did the vaunted Packer organization wait YEARS TOO LATE to jettison ineffective coaches like Dom, Zook, Slocum, Winston Moss, and McCarthy?
And you know what I personally would have admired?
If someone, anyone, in the organization had stepped in and not let a (medically) incompetent Ted Thompson be in charge of the roster for at least 3 years after his sell-by date.
But no, not in Green Bay, where Ted kept control (at least publicly) of personnel for a BILLION dollar corporation because the insular, complacent front office would not want to upset the status quo ... even though everyone of them (including Gutey) knew Ted was in Al Davis land and HURTING THE ORGANIZATION.
I just wonder where all the no one is bigger than the team Rodgers' critics were when Ted (or whomever was running the show from behind the curtain), Mac and the boys were given kept YEARS too late.
And in answer query above, "Did the FO f'up ..." yes, yes it did and it has been F'ing up for a number of years now.
Maybe we should just see if Mike Brown or Jerry Jones want to buy the team or could at least step in temporarily to sort out this mess of an organization.
@Dr._Bob posted:I can't wait until this thread gets turned into an episode of Drunk History.
Oh I think we are pretty much already there.
Or maybe the board of directors should hire a president of football operations instead of a real estate developer.
@ammo posted:Coach Kick-Ass.
He officially retired last year. He's turning 65 this year. We all make fun of him for good reason, but he played at least a minor role in turning around Badger football in the early 90s as the offensive coordinator (back when he was 35). God, how time flies.