Aaron Rodgers - are we RELAX-ed?

[Cameron Giles]

NFL teams have the power to move on from players whenever they want. Usually, it's a few years into a contract.

But, the minute players want to move on before the team does, then it's a problem and players are ungrateful.

Never ceases to amaze.

[CubfanAA]

NFL teams have the power to move on from players whenever they want. Usually, it's a few years into a contract.

But, the minute players want to move on before the team does, then it's a problem and players are ungrateful.

Never ceases to amaze.

Players have guarantees in their contracts. If the Packers cut Rodgers right now, he would have made 38M for the next 3 seasons he didn't play for them and they would be fully within the terms of the contract signed. If Rodgers quits right now, the Packers don't get any guaranteed games played from him over the next 3 seasons and Rodgers would be breaking the contract. If Rodgers didn't like the contract he shouldn't have signed it.

[zeeshan2]

[PFT] Brett Favre, who knows a thing or two about being on the wrong side of an Aaron Rodgers grudge, believes that Rodgers won't budge in his beef with Green Bay.

https://twitter.com/profootballtalk/sta ... 93313?s=21

[Update] The Packers are upset teams (SF, DEN) may have contacted Aaron Rodgers to gauge whether he'd be interested in playing for them, per @RobDemovsky. No tampering charges have been filed because it's nearly impossible to prove -- as the Packers learned in '08 with Minnesota/Favre.

https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/stat ... 7556450306

My reporting confirms that of ESPN’s Adam Schefter, who on Thursday cited sources that Rodgers is disgruntled and wants out, and that of Yahoo’s Charles Robinson, who on Saturday cited a source from Rodgers’ camp saying that the quarterback won’t return as long as Brian Gutekunst remains general manager of the team. As strange as it might seem, agent David Dunn has said that the straw that broke the camel’s back for his client was the team’s decision to release Jake Kumerow in early September less than 24 hours after Rodgers said on SiriusXM radio how much he valued having the wide receiver on the roster.

In addition to the Kumerow cut, Rodgers appears to have a lengthy list of grievances against Gutekunst. They include the GM’s decision to trade up and draft a quarterback, Jordan Love, one year ago, the GM’s decision not to inform him of the trade and selection before it happened and the team’s decision not to draft from a deep crop of wide receivers in 2020. It’s also a given that Rodgers has been monitoring Tom Brady’s extraordinary first season in Tampa Bay and how Buccaneers’ management has involved him, if not catered to him, regarding personnel and other decisions.

According to sources, Rodgers has mocked Gutekunst in group chats with his teammates in Green Bay by referring to the GM as Jerry Krause. The late Krause, the general manager of the Chicago Bulls during their run of six NBA championships, was loathed by Michael Jordan for some personnel moves with which Jordan disagreed. The Packers are well aware of Rodgers’ hard feelings toward Gutekunst but, at this point, are taking the high road insisting their sole focus is having Rodgers as their quarterback in 2021 and beyond. In recent months, according to sources, the Packers have offered to make the 37-year-old Rodgers the NFL’s highest-paid quarterback. Those overtures were turned aside. The fractured relationship between quarterback and team seems to have little or nothing to do with money.

https://theathletic.com/2566732/2021/05 ... re-upside/

[Bronco Billy]

NFL teams have the power to move on from players whenever they want. Usually, it's a few years into a contract.

But, the minute players want to move on before the team does, then it's a problem and players are ungrateful.

Never ceases to amaze.

Guaranteed portions of the contract are there to protect the players, just like the ability to cut players is there to protect the teams. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed to these terms. It’s amazing how some see only one side of the equation and are convinced that players are getting screwed. Rodgers has already had like $112M of guarantees kick in on his 4 year contract. How is it that he’s getting a raw deal here?

[Ice]

NFL teams have the power to move on from players whenever they want. Usually, it's a few years into a contract.

But, the minute players want to move on before the team does, then it's a problem and players are ungrateful.

Never ceases to amaze.

Not sure this is a contract issue. Sounds like a serious personality conflict. Both parties have rights on contracts so grateful or not is probably not much of an argument on either side.

While I am sure Rodgers wants more guarantees and/or freedoms, I believe he already counts against the salary cap more than any other player in the league this year. He can choose not play but he was already paid a lot of prorated dollars he would have to give back. He can also choose not to show up if he is traded.

It's quite the mess the Packers have created for themselves. Rodgers is one of the few players in the NFL that has a lot of clout so it is a lose/lose if not resolved one way or another.

[Kelldon]

Whether it is right or wrong for Rodgers to feel the way he does or do what he is doing GB crapped the bed. Last years draft was an epic fail. I think they planned to move on from Rodgers either this year or next if not then it is incredibly dumb to trade up in the first for a qb to be a backup. Rodgers went out and balled out and was mvp and Love looked like trash in camp. Now they wanna say Rodgers is still in their plans in the future. Then they took a rb in the 2nd round to be a backup ‍♂️. Would have been okay pick if they let Aaron Jones walk. Then they take, no they reach for a CB I the 1st this year. Front office screwed this up so bad it's not even funny.

If Rodgers leaves GB will be a 6-7 win team maybe 8 wins.

[Jigga94]

I hope the people saying he shouldn't have signed the contract have never had a divorce before. Not always about the $

[Cameron Giles]

Guaranteed portions of the contract are there to protect the players, just like the ability to cut players is there to protect the teams. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed to these terms. It’s amazing how some see only one side of the equation and are convinced that players are getting screwed. Rodgers has already had like $112M of guarantees kick in on his 4 year contract. How is it that he’s getting a raw deal here?

Players have guarantees in their contracts. If the Packers cut Rodgers right now, he would have made 38M for the next 3 seasons he didn't play for them and they would be fully within the terms of the contract signed. If Rodgers quits right now, the Packers don't get any guaranteed games played from him over the next 3 seasons and Rodgers would be breaking the contract. If Rodgers didn't like the contract he shouldn't have signed it.

I'm not talking numbers here or saying that Rodgers is upset about his contract.

I'm saying that strictly from a general standpoint, how is Rodgers asking out any different from a GM deciding they want to cut a player on any given year?

GMs do it and nobody says a word because "it's a part of the game". Players do it and they're called divas and unloyal for wanting out.

[CubfanAA]

Guaranteed portions of the contract are there to protect the players, just like the ability to cut players is there to protect the teams. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed to these terms. It’s amazing how some see only one side of the equation and are convinced that players are getting screwed. Rodgers has already had like $112M of guarantees kick in on his 4 year contract. How is it that he’s getting a raw deal here?

Players have guarantees in their contracts. If the Packers cut Rodgers right now, he would have made 38M for the next 3 seasons he didn't play for them and they would be fully within the terms of the contract signed. If Rodgers quits right now, the Packers don't get any guaranteed games played from him over the next 3 seasons and Rodgers would be breaking the contract. If Rodgers didn't like the contract he shouldn't have signed it.

I'm not talking numbers here or saying that Rodgers is upset about his contract.

I'm saying that strictly from a general standpoint, how is Rodgers asking out any different from a GM deciding they want to cut a player on any given year?

GMs do it and nobody says a word because "it's a part of the game". Players do it and they're called divas and unloyal for wanting out.

You can't talk about this and not talk about the numbers, because the player has already gotten paid. Unless Rodgers is including in his talk that he is going to pay back the signing bonus and restructure payments, but I highly doubt that is the case. These contracts are worked out to the advantage of both sides...The player gets paid something even if cut and the team can cut players early if they aren't working out. It is specifically written into the contracts when teams can cut players and what the penalty is to the team if they do via the guaranteed portion of the contract. It is in fact VERY different when the player decides they want out of the contract, because they are BREAKING the contract whereas the GM is operating entirely within the contract when they cut a player. Players that do this are divas and unloyal. If you want to pick where you play each year....sign 1 year contracts each year. The only players that have even a slight bit of room to bitch are the ones on rookie contracts, because they have no room to negotiate those.

[Bronco Billy]

Guaranteed portions of the contract are there to protect the players, just like the ability to cut players is there to protect the teams. Both the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed to these terms. It’s amazing how some see only one side of the equation and are convinced that players are getting screwed. Rodgers has already had like $112M of guarantees kick in on his 4 year contract. How is it that he’s getting a raw deal here?

Players have guarantees in their contracts. If the Packers cut Rodgers right now, he would have made 38M for the next 3 seasons he didn't play for them and they would be fully within the terms of the contract signed. If Rodgers quits right now, the Packers don't get any guaranteed games played from him over the next 3 seasons and Rodgers would be breaking the contract. If Rodgers didn't like the contract he shouldn't have signed it.

I'm not talking numbers here or saying that Rodgers is upset about his contract.

I'm saying that strictly from a general standpoint, how is Rodgers asking out any different from a GM deciding they want to cut a player on any given year?

GMs do it and nobody says a word because "it's a part of the game". Players do it and they're called divas and unloyal for wanting out.

You can't talk about this and not talk about the numbers, because the player has already gotten paid. Unless Rodgers is including in his talk that he is going to pay back the signing bonus and restructure payments, but I highly doubt that is the case. These contracts are worked out to the advantage of both sides...The player gets paid something even if cut and the team can cut players early if they aren't working out. It is specifically written into the contracts when teams can cut players and what the penalty is to the team if they do via the guaranteed portion of the contract. It is in fact VERY different when the player decides they want out of the contract, because they are BREAKING the contract whereas the GM is operating entirely within the contract when they cut a player. Players that do this are divas and unloyal. If you want to pick where you play each year....sign 1 year contracts each year. The only players that have even a slight bit of room to bitch are the ones on rookie contracts, because they have no room to negotiate those.

Spot on. When a player is cut - which is within the terms of the contract - the player gets to keep any guaranteed money and that portion of the contract is accelerated against the cap. So it is a duel penalty for the team (which is within league rules). A player simply quitting or refusing to play breaches his contract, and they will be liable to return any guaranteed money attached to the contracted season(s) in which they chose not to play.

I believe there are also rights attached so that a player who simply quits can’t just go sign with another team the next day. However, on a rare occasion you will see a player retire and sit for what I am guessing is a contractually required amount of time, and then reenter the league and sign as a FA with a different team.

[Bronco Billy]

Wonder if this report (if true) will change anyone’s opinion about Rodgers:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dknation.d ... st-packers

The latest news to come out of the Aaron Rodgers vs. the Green Bay Packers struggle is that Rodgers has been telling prospective free agents that he wouldn’t be in Green Bay in 2021, per NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo. Garafolo says that Rodgers was telling free agents this after the 2020 draft.

Garafolo also said he had heard similar stories of Rodgers referring to GM Brian Gutenkest as ex-Chicago Bulls GM Jerry Krause that The Athletic’s Bob McGinn had reported.

[Bronco Billy]

And this:

https://theathletic.com/2566732/2021/05 ... re-upside/

My reporting confirms that of ESPN’s Adam Schefter, who on Thursday cited sources that Rodgers is disgruntled and wants out, and that of Yahoo’s Charles Robinson, who on Saturday cited a source from Rodgers’ camp saying that the quarterback won’t return as long as Brian Gutekunst remains general manager of the team. As strange as it might seem, agent David Dunn has said that the straw that broke the camel’s back for his client was the team’s decision to release Jake Kumerow in early September less than 24 hours after Rodgers said on SiriusXM radio how much he valued having the wide receiver on the roster.

In addition to the Kumerow cut, Rodgers appears to have a lengthy list of grievances against Gutekunst. They include the GM’s decision to trade up and draft a quarterback, Jordan Love, one year ago, the GM’s decision not to inform him of the trade and selection before it happened and the team’s decision not to draft from a deep crop of wide receivers in 2020. It’s also a given that Rodgers has been monitoring Tom Brady’s extraordinary first season in Tampa Bay and how Buccaneers’ management has involved him, if not catered to him, regarding personnel and other decisions.

According to sources, Rodgers has mocked Gutekunst in group chats with his teammates in Green Bay by referring to the GM as Jerry Krause. The late Krause, the general manager of the Chicago Bulls during their run of six NBA championships, was loathed by Michael Jordan for some personnel moves with which Jordan disagreed. The Packers are well aware of Rodgers’ hard feelings toward Gutekunst but, at this point, are taking the high road insisting their sole focus is having Rodgers as their quarterback in 2021 and beyond. In recent months, according to sources, the Packers have offered to make the 37-year-old Rodgers the NFL’s highest-paid quarterback. Those overtures were turned aside. The fractured relationship between quarterback and team seems to have little or nothing to do with money.

[CGW]

Wonder if this report (if true) will change anyone’s opinion about Rodgers:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dknation.d ... st-packers

The latest news to come out of the Aaron Rodgers vs. the Green Bay Packers struggle is that Rodgers has been telling prospective free agents that he wouldn’t be in Green Bay in 2021, per NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo. Garafolo says that Rodgers was telling free agents this after the 2020 draft.

Garafolo also said he had heard similar stories of Rodgers referring to GM Brian Gutenkest as ex-Chicago Bulls GM Jerry Krause that The Athletic’s Bob McGinn had reported.

Do people think less of Michael Jordan for said dispute?

[RB6]

Changes nothing.

[Jigga94]

Changes nothing.

Yup. But it's nice to know someone is reading all of the off-season, anonymously sourced reporting