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.
What is “The Beginning of the End”? Let’s stay with Oxymorons for $400.
If SF is getting Rodgers, I'm pretty sure they won't give two shits about where Jimmy G is playing.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 enjoyed this.What is “The Beginning of the End”? Let’s stay with Oxymorons for $400.
I mean, BB traded Bledsoe to the BillsIf SF is getting Rodgers, I'm pretty sure they won't give two shits about where Jimmy G is playing.
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.If SF thought Jimmy G was too valuable to trade within the conference, they wouldn't have traded up to draft his immediate successor.
I mean if you’re looking to damage a rival trading them Garoppolo is exactly the way to do it.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: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.
Now that you put it that way, I guess it might be ingenious sabotage.I mean if you’re looking to damage a rival trading them Garoppolo is exactly the way to do it.
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.Sportsbook.ag:
Packers +130
Broncos +100
Bovada:
Packers -200
Broncos +150
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.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.
I'm pretty sure that Lance would be the centerpiece of the deal if the Niners decided to change course and trade for Rodgers.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.
Depends how bad it gets? It’s not untradeable for the team acquiring him, just a lot of dead cap for the Packers.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.
Exactly, so why would GB trade him? Either he plays or he retires and then there is no hit.Depends how bad it gets? It’s not untradeable for the team acquiring him, just a lot of dead cap for the Packers.
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.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?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.
This is pretty pretty good.Too bad he doesn't have an opt-out; that would benefit the team
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?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.
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.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?
I think they can get it back, but it might take awhile.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.
Aaron Hernandez Just Saved the Patriots $3.25 Million (sportscasting.com)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.
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.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.
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.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.
Their 1st round pick from only a year ago is a sacrificial lamb?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.
Which is precisely why Lance is going nowhere.Not with the 49ers as they emptied their coffers for Trey Lance.