Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which trade package would you choose for rodgers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • myoung
    replied
    I don't think it will take 3 firsts to get a 37 year old QB. We didn't have to pay 3 firsts to pick up Peyton Manning but in retrospect I would have. I think we are in a similar situation. We are stuck in mediocrity and a big time QB would put us in the running almost immediately.

    While I think the cost would be cheaper, I would pay it. Surtain, Lock, Patrick, 2022 First, and 2023 2nd. We get Rodgers and Eric Stokes. Sounds about right to me.

    I agree that nothing happens until June 1. The cap situation for the Packers is too ugly

    Leave a comment:


  • Gsam
    replied
    Originally posted by InsaneBlaze23 View Post

    No GM would be fired for trying to win super bowls. 2-3yrs of being a Super Bowl team is worth a lot to a GM and front office. As well, there will be players that get made to look like superstars, DeSean Hamilton could put up Pro Bowl numbers with Rodgers throwing him the ball, Denver could trade him for a group of mid round picks. Say the trade happens, and Denver is a top team, that's 3 first round picks in from 28 to 32. Which are viewed as glorified 2nd round picks.
    Every GM tries to win a superbowl. How they go about it and the risk vs reward they take is what determines whether they get fired or not. If Payton gave up 3 firsts and didnt win a SB with Rodgers he would be fired. No GM could gut a team like that and then have nothing to show for it. No young studs, no future, no QB. Not gonna happen.

    Now if you were talking about a younger QB that you were gonna have for 15 years like KYler Murray you would be talking 3-4 first rounders minimum if a team would even take your call.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gsam
    replied
    Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post

    Yes, the Packers do not have to trade him. But Rodgers can retire, that is in and of itself leverage. If the Packers can’t make amends, they have no reason not to trade him. No sense in letting him retire and not getting anything in return. That would be like when the Nuggets knew Carmelo Anthony wasn’t coming back once his contract was up and made him play out the rest of that year anyway and let him walk for nothing. The only real leverage that the Packers would have in the event of Rodgers being dead set on never playing for the Packers again would be in the form of a bidding war between other teams.
    ^^^ This guy gets it ^^^

    Leave a comment:


  • Gsam
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post

    Exactly. If you are losing a great asset, you are far better off accepting the fact and profiting in any way you can. In Rodgers' case, the compensation would be substantial. How do you let a guy sit or quit, when you could acquire a load of draft capital, and/or players???

    If nothing else, it would be the high road, because it does no good to end a relationship that way. This does not compare with the pre allegation Watson vs Houston situation. Watson did not have Rodgers' power, and lets be real, Rodgers has a big voice in The NFL. But heck, if he really wants out, get some good return value and move on.
    ^^^ This guy gets it ^^^

    Leave a comment:


  • armedequation
    replied
    from my understanding nothing would happen to june 1 due to his current contract cap hit.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    However I will say, the Packers have no reason to get a deal done now or even really a need to talk to teams about a deal as he’s a known commodity and going to fetch a hefty price regardless. They can drag it out probably all the way up to the regular season, although the proverbial sweet spot would probably be at some point in July or early August. Until then, they can and should do anything and everything to try and appease Rodgers. But as that time starts to roll around and it doesn’t look like Rodgers has budged off his stance, then they have to start talking to some teams.

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post

    Yes, the Packers do not have to trade him. But Rodgers can retire, that is in and of itself leverage. If the Packers can’t make amends, they have no reason not to trade him. No sense in letting him retire and not getting anything in return. That would be like when the Nuggets knew Carmelo Anthony wasn’t coming back once his contract was up and made him play out the rest of that year anyway and let him walk for nothing. The only real leverage that the Packers would have in the event of Rodgers being dead set on never playing for the Packers again would be in the form of a bidding war between other teams.
    Exactly. If you are losing a great asset, you are far better off accepting the fact and profiting in any way you can. In Rodgers' case, the compensation would be substantial. How do you let a guy sit or quit, when you could acquire a load of draft capital, and/or players???

    If nothing else, it would be the high road, because it does no good to end a relationship that way. This does not compare with the pre allegation Watson vs Houston situation. Watson did not have Rodgers' power, and lets be real, Rodgers has a big voice in The NFL. But heck, if he really wants out, get some good return value and move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by InsaneBlaze23 View Post

    You fail to understand the Packers don't have to trade him just because he ask. The leverage that have is teams asking and having a demand. As it's already been proven, 2 teams have openly contacted the Packers and got shot down. ESPN reported multiple GMs have said there is no point is even trying to inquire a Rodgers trade. Rodgers only gets traded if Green Bay decide to do it and a team meets there demand, otherwise he's a Packer or retired. Regardless of what outside fans hope and wish or think because they want Rodgers in the uniform of the team they like.
    Yes, the Packers do not have to trade him. But Rodgers can retire, that is in and of itself leverage. If the Packers can’t make amends, they have no reason not to trade him. No sense in letting him retire and not getting anything in return. That would be like when the Nuggets knew Carmelo Anthony wasn’t coming back once his contract was up and made him play out the rest of that year anyway and let him walk for nothing. The only real leverage that the Packers would have in the event of Rodgers being dead set on never playing for the Packers again would be in the form of a bidding war between other teams.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by InsaneBlaze23 View Post

    37yr old Rodgers is better than 33yr old Stafford. It cost Goff, 2 first, and a third for Rams to get Stafford. If you asked the Rams if they'd throw in an extra 1st to have had Rodgers instead, they'd make that trade.
    I’m pretty sure one of those firsts were thrown in for the Lions to take on Goff’s contract, not for Stafford himself. If they took out a 1st I don’t think the Lions decline that trade, to be honest I don’t think the Rams had to offer any 1sts for the Lions to accept. That was just a bad trade by a team who was desperate to get rid of their QB.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Originally posted by FR Tim View Post

    And what contract extension are you offering that Rodgers accepts?

    Also not to be too picky, you state six picks.
    Oops ( yes six)
    As far as an extension goes I would extend him two season.

    Leave a comment:


  • FR Tim
    replied
    Originally posted by 58Miller View Post
    Bridgewater plus 5 picks:
    2022,23,& 24 1st Rd picks
    22,&24 2nd rd picks
    23 3rd rd pick.

    Bridgewater instead of Lock so they have a veteran to pair with Love.
    And what contract extension are you offering that Rodgers accepts?

    Also not to be too picky, you state six picks.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Bridgewater plus 5 picks:
    2022,23,& 24 1st Rd picks
    22,&24 2nd rd picks
    23 3rd rd pick.

    Bridgewater instead of Lock so they have a veteran to pair with Love.

    Leave a comment:


  • InsaneBlaze23
    replied
    Originally posted by Gsam View Post

    Thanks for telling me what I fail to understand.

    I think I understand just fine whats happening. Two teams contacted the packers PRIOR to the draft. They have now spent draft picks based upon having a new direction. So many teams that were curious about him are now going to be out of the market.

    Also, as I stated above, the stafford trade is apples and oranges. Stafford still has 7-8 years of top tier play, Rodgers 2-3. Your gonna pay a 1st rounder every year to rent this guy? When he retires you have no young players and no QB. Any GM that did that would get fired.
    No GM would be fired for trying to win super bowls. 2-3yrs of being a Super Bowl team is worth a lot to a GM and front office. As well, there will be players that get made to look like superstars, DeSean Hamilton could put up Pro Bowl numbers with Rodgers throwing him the ball, Denver could trade him for a group of mid round picks. Say the trade happens, and Denver is a top team, that's 3 first round picks in from 28 to 32. Which are viewed as glorified 2nd round picks.

    Leave a comment:


  • InsaneBlaze23
    replied
    Originally posted by Gsam View Post

    Your gonna get 7-8 years out of stafford 2-3 out of rodgers. Not a fair comparison. Nobody is gonna pay 3 firsts for an Rodgers.
    2-3 chances at winning the super bowl. You clearly underestimate NFL teams...which ESPN is reporting that the Broncos continue to make calls about Rodgers. Don't be surprised if 3 first is included in a deal for him, if there is a deal at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • armedequation
    replied
    Originally posted by Gsam View Post

    I think your pricing is way off. Nobody is paying 3 firsts for a 37 year old qb
    read the whole thread please...i already posted that those arent my prices....i didnt write the article

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X