I don't think the Jets will want to wait until OTAs, let alone the end of T.C. to have their starting QB in the fold. Maybe they could work an "off the books" deal that doesn't take effect until then, but that seems doubtful and not really to their advantage either. I posed this question twice already and no one has answered it AFAIK: Can the Jets pay the bonus on behalf of the Packers and not incur any penalties of have it affect their own CAP? IOW: GB trades Rodgers at the start of the trading period which would cost them the $40M+ bonus hit, but can the Jets agree to pay it instead, and in lieu of other compensation (picks)?
I've been wondering this a bit as well. My #1 choice is absolutely trade for Rodgers but that has to be predicated on some kind of agreement before Carr is released. They won't be able to make anything official obviously but I would have to know we were getting Rodgers, no way we sit on our hands till June.
Whatever the true facts regarding how much money is involved, i believe GB wants to escape paying as much as they can,rather than getting draft picks. So the acquiring team will be on the hook for a multi year destruction. I hope its not the jets.
according to the previous linked article from overthecap.com “As for the Packers, they would take on $40,313,570 in dead money if they were to trade him. This is the prorated portion of the contract that comes from his $40.8 million bonus received last season and the remaining proration from a $14.26 million bonus from 2019 and a $14.465 million bonus from 2021. These costs do not travel to the new team. An interesting option for Green Bay would be to delay the trade until after June 1, which would allow the Packers to split the dead money up as $15,833,570 in 2023 and $24,480,000 in 2024“ The cap hit from the Packers perspective is Dead Money that has already been paid toward bonuses. It does not travel to the team they trade with.
Right, but for the Packers to avoid paying all of that bonus this year, they have to delay any trade until after June 1. As I said, IDT the Jets would want to wait until then, but if they push the Packers to trade before then it costs GB that bonus. So what I suggested is that the Jets offer to pay that money for the Packers to enable the trade to happen sooner, and because the Jets would be helping the Packers in this way, maybe they could avoid having to give up as much draft compensation. Again, IDK the league rules on doing this, but it seems like it would be a win-win for both teams.
I read somewhere that they could make the trade ahead of time and just designate it to officially take effect on June 1st, so Rodgers would be able to be with the Jets prior.
So he'd be able to work with the Jets CS, etc. before then even though the trade isn't officially completed?
To me the impact of getting Rodgers is really not that complicated to process. Is either A - For GB to eat the cap hit they would expect some compensation and rightfully so. At least say a second plus a mid round that can escalate on performance and achieving key milestones OR B- we strike a deal to absorb a larger cap hit by converting bonus to salary, thus the draft picks are significantly reduced It will require some fancy maneuvering because its either going to hurt our cap position or our high draft picks or a combination thereof The real question to me is can we continue within reason to improve the rest of the team and get AR, enough to make us a deep playoff contender for the next two years.
A. The cap hit they are “eating” is for money owed from previous Rodgers contract. There isn’t any scenario where GB is paying part of Rodgers salary to play for us. B. See above If the Packers don’t find a suitable trade partner, they’re fucked. It would be wild for THEM to give US a 2024 1st
A - yes I know, see B B I’m saying GB can convert it to salary and we pick a portion of it up, they get a financial brake and we get AR without us giving them any picks Where did the idea of them giving us a first come from? Not from my post
I might add there is a scenario where they will have to eat some of the cap if they want to move him or they keep AR which they don’t want.They are not in the driver seat.
B. They can’t. I’m not sure how many more times I need to say it…. Which leads me to believe you don’t actually understand A. C. AR has GB by the balls. If he retires or threatens retirement, his salary cap sky rockets and his trade value is non existent. I was being satirical but there is a scenario where the Packers want the trade more than we do ie draft$$
Who the hell cares what you do? When someone creates a scenario which refers to previous injuries as if they can't happen to the next guy in the job, there's nothing odd at all about reminding that injuries are part of the game - particularly for aging players. If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, perhaps you should just put the entire forum on ignore.
Well certainly the offense has been offensive for far too long but are you saying that Hackett has already determined what will be in his playbook before the players to run it are even on board? Haven't we dealt with that kind of futile nonsense enough already? Why mirror any other playbook? In any business the worst reason to do things in a certain way is "because that's the way we've always done it." How about planning to utilize human resources to their highest level by designing a book around the talent on hand instead of another repetition of doing things backwards?
I hate it when people use injury in discussions, seems like such a weak move. I could use injury to derail every argument that has ever risen in this site. It's ridiculous really. Lowest of hanging fruit, yes he's older but he doesn't have a history of injury. Do better, really.
I dont think Rodgers wants it anymore. His foot is halfway out the door, he likes his goofy radio and tv lifestyle. I think bringing him in would be a mistake
