Packers: Rodgers’ Chances of Returning to GB in Jeopardy!

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,825
Bay Area
Rodgers and Wilson's lack of multiple Super Bowls shows just how hard it is to win them, even with a great QB. And it also shows why the BB vs Brady "argument" is so silly. You don't win 6 without the greatest in both the QB and HC slots.
 
Sep 1, 2019
170
I don't where the betting lines are right now, but I would think the odds are now favoring Rodgers in Denver in the near future. Surtain + draft picks +? in return.

Could SF deal Jimmy G to GB? It seems unlikely, even if they do deal him, that it would be to an in-conference rival.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,299
If SF thought Jimmy G was too valuable to trade within the conference, they wouldn't have traded up to draft his immediate successor.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't where the betting lines are right now, but I would think the odds are now favoring Rodgers in Denver in the near future. Surtain + draft picks +? in return.

Could SF deal Jimmy G to GB? It seems unlikely, even if they do deal him, that it would be to an in-conference rival.
If SF is getting Rodgers, I'm pretty sure they won't give two shits about where Jimmy G is playing.
 

scott bankheadcase

I'm adequate!!
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
3,057
hoboken
I think SF's chance for Rodgers was the call they made before the draft. Now, they have Lance and they used 3 firsts to get him.

Lance can absolutely sit for an entire season, which is why they still have Jimmy. But, I don't see how Rodgers could come there for 3 or so years at this point.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
If SF thought Jimmy G was too valuable to trade within the conference, they wouldn't have traded up to draft his immediate successor.
Yeah, the "don't trade in Division/Conference etc. stuff is like 30 years old and based in a time when you barely had professionals running these teams and stoking your local rivalry was more important than trying to win.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I don't where the betting lines are right now, but I would think the odds are now favoring Rodgers in Denver in the near future. Surtain + draft picks +? in return.

Could SF deal Jimmy G to GB? It seems unlikely, even if they do deal him, that it would be to an in-conference rival.
I mean if you’re looking to damage a rival trading them Garoppolo is exactly the way to do it.
 
Apr 24, 2019
1,278
Given Rodgers' objection to the Packers drafting Jordan Love (among other things, I know), I can't imagine he'd be too psyched to join a team who just spent a shit-ton more draft capital on a far more highly regarded prospect in Trey Lance.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
I don't where the betting lines are right now, but I would think the odds are now favoring Rodgers in Denver in the near future. Surtain + draft picks +? in return.

Could SF deal Jimmy G to GB? It seems unlikely, even if they do deal him, that it would be to an in-conference rival.
Sportsbook.ag:
Packers +130
Broncos +100

Bovada:
Packers -200
Broncos +150
 
Sep 1, 2019
170
I mean if you’re looking to damage a rival trading them Garoppolo is exactly the way to do it.
Now that you put it that way, I guess it might be ingenious sabotage.

I was thinking that Rodgers would go to Denver (not SF), and GB would acquire Garoppolo as a vet replacement. That may be dubious, but if Rodgers is gone, they will need more than Jordan Love.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
So the sharps still think Rodgers patching things up with GB management is the most likely outcome. It will be interesting to see where it stands a week or so from today.
Well, it depends on which set of odds you go by (Sportsbook.ag has Broncos as a very slight favorite). But they're all pretty close. For something like this, it's not uncommon to get odds that aren't entirely aligned.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Given Rodgers' objection to the Packers drafting Jordan Love (among other things, I know), I can't imagine he'd be too psyched to join a team who just spent a shit-ton more draft capital on a far more highly regarded prospect in Trey Lance.
I'm pretty sure that Lance would be the centerpiece of the deal if the Niners decided to change course and trade for Rodgers.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Isn't Rodgers basically untradeable due to his contract?

He'll either be in GB or he's going to retire. I do not see any other options.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Depends how bad it gets? It’s not untradeable for the team acquiring him, just a lot of dead cap for the Packers.
Exactly, so why would GB trade him? Either he plays or he retires and then there is no hit.

But to just trade him and take the hit, they would need a lot back but the money wouldn't work.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
Too bad he doesn't have an opt-out; that would benefit the team
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Exactly, so why would GB trade him? Either he plays or he retires and then there is no hit.

But to just trade him and take the hit, they would need a lot back but the money wouldn't work.
If they trade him it would be for rookie salary, picks, and a tank year. If they were getting a high upside QB like Lance they might consider it. They'd have Love to throw out there as a sacrificial lamb for a year while Lance develops and then have a clear cap to rebuild their team for '22 and beyond.
 

kelpapa

Costanza's Hero
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
4,639
Exactly, so why would GB trade him? Either he plays or he retires and then there is no hit.

But to just trade him and take the hit, they would need a lot back but the money wouldn't work.
Per spotrac, the Packers have ~$3.5MM of cap space after their top 51, and Rodgers is a $31.5MM cap hit if traded vs $37MM if he plays. They would have about $9MM in cap space if they traded him. Am I reading this right?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
Exactly, so why would GB trade him? Either he plays or he retires and then there is no hit.

But to just trade him and take the hit, they would need a lot back but the money wouldn't work.
I mean the big reason you trade him over letting him retire is that saving a bit of money isn't very valuable, but getting all the things a team would trade for Rodgers is valuable?
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Per spotrac, the Packers have ~$3.5MM of cap space after their top 51, and Rodgers is a $31.5MM cap hit if traded vs $37MM if he plays. They would have about $9MM in cap space if they traded him. Am I reading this right?
Yes. OTC has a trade around $31.5 M dead money and $5.6M cap savings. Post June 1st they can split that dead money as well.

If he retires, I believe they are still on the hook for most of that dead money as well.

The contract will have little to do with trading him or not.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,182
Washington
So what happens if Rodgers retires and GB claws back whatever the prorated portion of the signing bonus is?

Edit: I was under the impression that getting a big chunk of that back would impact the dead money hit. But this stuff is alchemy to me.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,926
So what happens if Rodgers retires and GB claws back whatever the prorated portion of the signing bonus is?

Edit: I was under the impression that getting a big chunk of that back would impact the dead money hit. But this stuff is alchemy to me.
I think they can get it back, but it might take awhile.

See the Hernandez situation for example. There was several years spent by the Patriots trying to get a salary cap credit for Hernandez. I think only in the last year or two did they officially get the credit.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
So what happens if Rodgers retires and GB claws back whatever the prorated portion of the signing bonus is?

Edit: I was under the impression that getting a big chunk of that back would impact the dead money hit. But this stuff is alchemy to me.
It depends is honestly the answer. Some teams claw back money (Lions did for Megatron and it's why he won't do any Lions events), others don't bother for various reasons (The Colts just let Luck keep his bonuses). The thing on it is, it wouldn't happen right away, so it is more of a future cap benefit than an immediate one.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
It depends is honestly the answer. Some teams claw back money (Lions did for Megatron and it's why he won't do any Lions events), others don't bother for various reasons (The Colts just let Luck keep his bonuses). The thing on it is, it wouldn't happen right away, so it is more of a future cap benefit than an immediate one.
Rodgers has had three concussions as a pro, in addition to any he suffered growing up. If he wants to retire and plays his cards right, he’ll get whatever medical documentation he needs to keep that signing bonus.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,323
Boston
If they trade him it would be for rookie salary, picks, and a tank year. If they were getting a high upside QB like Lance they might consider it. They'd have Love to throw out there as a sacrificial lamb for a year while Lance develops and then have a clear cap to rebuild their team for '22 and beyond.
Their 1st round pick from only a year ago is a sacrificial lamb?

Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Mahomes all sat (part of) that first year and led their teams to the playoffs in year 2.

Depending on return, it’s perhaps lateral this year with the cap hit but it moves them forward next season, if you believe they have the QB at better contract and an asset.

My point isn’t that it’s an easy decision but that they have options.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I'll cut Bradshaw some slack, for his anger at the Steelers. His elbow was a mess and. not uncommon for the time, they didn't believe him. He basically needed Tommy John, and they wanted him to throw within a few months. They shot him full of pain killers, then asked him to try and be Joe Montana with the short passing game. There is no doubt Bradshaw tried to play hurt, was pressured to play hurt, and it ended any chance of him playing again. He was at an age he may have been done anyway, but what happened destroyed all hope, and painted chased a legend out of town. I mean there are few things worse than being injured and being accused of faking it. I wouldn't forgive that either. Add the fact he was in massive pain for a long time, while being called a quitter, I get his point. I win you 4 sb and you call me a quitter, and trash me to the press, I hold a grudge too.
 
Sep 1, 2019
170
I know that Rodger's preferred list has been reported as SF, Denver, and Vegas. However, if things are as ugly as they appear and he really wants out, I wonder if Miami gets into the mix with Tua as a primary trade chip. Rodgers along with that talent-laden roster would be an instant title contender. Not that I want Rodgers coming into the AFC East.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
LOL at Rodgers complaining about a lack of weapons in Green Bay and then end up in Miami.
 
Sep 1, 2019
170
Parker, Fuller, and Waddle seems like a nice trio of receivers, along with Gesicki at tight end and a young OL. Rodgers might think he could work with that.
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
8,147
Apropos of something? I'm going to miss Kenny Manye, hope he shows up on some other platform soon:

 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Whole lotta platitudes there, I have really no idea what he’s saying. Seems like he’s trying to rally the fans to his side for leverage.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Peter King had the Packers' minicamp running June 15-17, so I don't know what to make of the current stories that Rodgers is missing the mandatory minicamp.