Packers & Aaron Rodgers ‘have been negotiating,’ but still need to ‘iron out’...· Page 2

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

Hockey has no trade clauses as well for players. As a fan from Ottawa, I can say when you want to deal players you lose ton of value and players already do not want to come to your city just like Green Bay.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla

I didn't mean to imply that no trade clause was only in MLB.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

#12

I saw someone say that the thing that needs to be "ironed out" is that he wants a no trade clause. A few years ago he pointed out that MLB has the clause and he thinks the NFL should have it too.

Originally Posted by: wpr

The NFL does have no trade clauses, Russell Wilson has one.

Though, I'm not sure I've ever heard of a Packers player having one, and it surprised me to learn that the Packers have some rules or traditions, they hate to break.

One such rule was refusing to EVER guaranteeing a contract... which is why Russ Ball was EXTREMELY insistent they'll never a contract, which is the "in" thing to do for UDFAs, and I believe that's why our UDFAs classes have gotten worse overall, with some key exception.

But maybe there is a Packers rule, of no trade clauses not being allowed?

A “no trade clause” from someone that wants to be traded???🤪
Huh?!?

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

My understanding is that he fears Love developing and him being traded away once that happens... and he wants to control his future.

From what's being stated his "Plan A" is to either get a no trade clause and ride out his current contract and become a FA just like Tom Brady. OR get a no trade clause AND extension, so that his contract is looking nger than Love's and he'll be guaranteeing himself (assuming he's healthy and wants to play) that he'll out last Love tender in the Packers. I can't quite tell which for sure.

But since he seems to be getting absolutely no where with that... his "Plan B" (or should if be C with the A being two? Either way...) Plan B is trade ASAP!

Basically he seems to be trying to make the Packers decide right now, if it's going to be him or not for the LONG term!

No. After he works out a satisfactory deal he doesn't want to be traded 2-3 years from now.

Originally Posted by: wpr

I can't tell if he would also like some persuasion in potential moves... I don't think he's happy with how the Nelson situation went down, probably not the Sitton one, or Woodson one, and O's probably very disappointed Kumerow didn't make the roster.

Woodson said he was released without ever be given a chance to take a pay cut and stick with the team. Sounds like he would of been interested in possible sticking around.

Rodgers doesn't want to wake up one day and be like today is the day your on a different team... I think knowing it's going to happen, is eatting his mind... if Love develops, it's gonna happen in 2023. If Love doesn't develop, then we might need a new QB for 2024 (well, we'll probably franchise tag Rodgers, but how long can we afford that?)

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

#13

Take it from John Kuhn

“I’m sure contract is part of that,” Kuhn said. “I’m sure that years guaranteed is a part of that. Not just being a highest-paid quarterback or the highest paid at your position. But I believe the security going forward is a part of that, and I also believe being on the same page as having open communication where all sides feel like they are being heard. Aaron and I are friends. We spent a decade of our lives together in the same meeting rooms, on the same practice field. So we do talk. And quite frankly this is something that I believe is fixable.”

PFT quoting Kuhn wrote:

Here is what I'm saying... Rodgers wants a contract that guarantees he stays put in Green Bay as long as he can play at a high level!

And Rodgers wants some input on roster decisions... as clearly he was saying keep Kumerow... and they sure as hell did not keep Kumerow (among others *cough* Jordy *cough*)... and Kumerow was a better WR than a WR they did keep (for ST reasons), though he might of been better than two WRs they kept. (and Nelson was a better WR than those they kept, other than Adams).

Cheesey
Preferred Member

3 years ago

#14

Roster decisions- To me, it sends a wrong precedent to start allowing players to get involved in that.
What if they had gone to Rodgers and told him they are cutting Kumerow? And Rodgers said “If you do, I’ll be mad! You better not do it!”
What then?
Do they cave to him, and let him have his way?
Does Rodgers then dictate what he wants from then on with the roster?
Then other star players on the team think they also should dictate who they want to keep or cut? It’s a slippery slope you don’t want to go down. And once you start doing that, you can’t reel it back in. Players are paid to play, the Brass is paid to make roster decisions.
JMO of course.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

3 years ago

#15

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

I get the impression Aaron Rodgers knows the brass is the one who makes the decisions. I don't think he wants to make the decisions. I do believe he wants to have his voice heard. I also believe he does not TRUST the decision makers to make the best decisions. There's a distinction to be made between WANTING to make the decisions and TRUSTING whomever is making the decisions to make the RIGHT ones in your mind.

People would rather take the easy way and just say Rodgers is a baby, wants to be GM, wah wah and don't want to put themselves in that position of being lead by someone you don't trust to be leading you the best way. It's a bit arrogant, absolutely. I get it the concept though. I've had managers who had me thinking WTF are you doing?

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

#16

The NFL does have no trade clauses, Russell Wilson has one.
nger than Love's and he'll be guaranteeing himself (assuming he's healthy and wants to play) that he'll out last Love tender in the Packers. I can't quite tell which for sure.

Rodgers doesn't want to wake up one day and be like today is the day your on a different team... I think knowing it's going to happen, is eatting his mind... if Love develops, it's gonna happen in 2023. If Love doesn't develop, then we might need a new QB for 2024 (well, we'll probably franchise tag Rodgers, but how long can we afford that?)

Originally Posted by: beast

I didn't mean to imply no NFL players have a no trade clause.
More than likely the NFLPA is pushing the elite players to request it in future contracts. Eventually it will trickle down to others as well.

Take it from John Kuhn

Here is what I'm saying... Rodgers wants a contract that guarantees he stays put in Green Bay as long as he can play at a high level!

And Rodgers wants some input on roster decisions... as clearly he was saying keep Kumerow... and they sure as hell did not keep Kumerow (among others *cough* Jordy *cough*)... and Kumerow was a better WR than a WR they did keep (for ST reasons), though he might of been better than two WRs they kept. (and Nelson was a better WR than those they kept, other than Adams).

Originally Posted by: beast

I do not blame Aaron for wanting the guarantees. The problem becomes what happens IF his ability drops off significantly before the contract ends (Albert Pujols?) Green Bay would have given him all the leverage and would be stuck with him for another 1,2 maybe 3 with him pushing his walker around on the field and throwing passes 10 yards short. I remember yelling at my tv when Favre thought he was still 28 years old and he was chucking the ball as hard as he could only to see it fall in front of or behind the receiver.

I can not imagine a more horrible thing than to allow a player, any player, a voice in personnel decisions. Granted I can see why the best of the best should be consulted. They may have some insight but they should understand their comments don't hold much more weight than a scout's would.

Let's take Kumerow as an example. He may well have been the best WR5 option. Rodgers clearly wanted him. Everyone even Aaron knew Jake's ceiling was not very high. Why not have a younger player take that spot and give him the chance to show what he can do? Plus the money factor. Granted Jake was only a 3 year vet but he would still earn more than a UDFA. Even if everyone agreed that he was the marginally better player why should they keep him instead a lower cost option when the difference in their abilities is not that much? Simply because Aaron and Jake ate dinner together a few times? That has the makings of a disaster when you do it for 3-4 players.

As far as Jordy's situation, they took the money they saved from releasing Jordy and passed it on to old man Jimmy Graham. It didn't work out but it doesn't mean they were wrong for moving on from Nelson. They tried to make the team stronger.

beast
Select Member

3 years ago

#17

The problem becomes what happens IF his ability drops off significantly before the contract ends (Albert Pujols?)

As far as Jordy's situation, they took the money they saved from releasing Jordy and passed it on to old man Jimmy Graham. It didn't work out but it doesn't mean they were wrong for moving on from Nelson. They tried to make the team stronger.

Originally Posted by: wpr

I heard one MLB finally (possible) explain the Albert Pujols sudden drop off...

He's older than we think! Apparently Dominica keeps horrible records or did back in the draft, and so often players to get more interest from scouts would get fake I.D. suggesting they were a heck of a lot younger than they were. (And they have actually caught some doing it).

So basically a guy would be 23, and throw average from his age, but then get some fake I.D. which said he was now 17... suddenly he's throwing fast for his age and automatic more interest!

The one base ball management guy, swears that's what Albert Pujols did, and so while legally his current paperwork says he's 41, in reality, he's more like 45 or over.

PS: I don't follow baseball and have no idea if he's right or total bullshit!

But I do follow Packers and cutting Nelson before Cobb was absolutely wrong! Then extra wrong when Nelson was willing to come back for cheap.

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: beast

I'ma Cardinal fan. We heard that his first 11 seasons in the fairest city. It really kicked into high gear when LAA offered him the 10 year deal.

I love Jordy. I was sorry to see him leave. Especially under such crappy terms. That said his production fell into the toilet. In 2016 he had 97 receptions for 1257 yards 13.0 average to 53 for 482 an 9.1 average in 2017. His completion percent dropped every single year from his high in 2011 70.8% to his low in 2017 of 60.2% Outside of his first few years when he wasn't on the field as much his numbers for first downs, yards per game, yards per receptions, tds and longest reception were the lowest of his career. It's understandable why management felt that his numbers were going to continue to drop if he stayed on the team.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

3 years ago

#19

If I got paid 30 million a year to play a game, it would be easy for me to do what the boss told me to do.
And whether you like it or not, the boss is the BOSS.
Rodgers will have a boss to answer too, no matter where he plays. And he obviously thinks HE is the boss.
Everyone wants guarantees in life, but very few get them.

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

3 years ago

#20

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

You can't say what you are going to do if you were in the same position. (Actually I guess you can but you don't really know for sure.)

He's got an arm, brain, physical skills, the training and experienced circumstances that no other person on the earth has had. 7.7 billion people are here right now. Countless billions have gone before us. No one has lived what Aaron has lived.

Ignoring the Super Bowls, he may be the greatest QB ever. It makes him a little entitled. I am not a Rodgers apologist. I wasn't a Favre one either. On June 2 if Green Bay can get 3 firsts and some other goodies for him I would think about letting him go. If they can get that haul after the 2021 season I Love gets a chance to play some and doesn't look horrible I may be even more inclined to take the picks and run.

With all that said I can understand Aaron wanting to insure his final years in the league be it with the Packers or a team of his choosing. I may not want him to be traded to certain teams but I can understand him wanting to be able to go there.

I don't see him wanting to be the boss. He simply wants to use the leverage he has available. I don't think he told the front office to fire Gute. I do think he said he doesn't want to come back. I do think he is frustrated they have not consulted with him. After all he knows the game. He knows his teammates. He knows the system. Every single thing Gute or MLF does is theoretical. Every thing he does is actual.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (3h) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (3h) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (13h) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (13h) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (15h) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (16h) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (17h) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (17h) : Thank you

wpr (17h) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (17h) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (17h) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (17h) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (17h) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (18h) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (18h) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (19h) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (19h) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (19h) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE

packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : what's so funny?

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22