September 23, 2018, 05:32:53 AM

Author Topic: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?  (Read 1027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« on: June 03, 2018, 12:21:16 PM »
This is just a rumor. But it's coming from some rather solid sources. Whether this is just one of those "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" requests, or if this is a way to get the contract structured more to AR's liking, or something else, we'll see when the new contract is finalized.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/06/01/report-aaron-rodgers-looking-for-opt-out-clause-in-next-contract/



But, there may be other possibilities, and have at least a pinch of salt available for my personal conspiracy theory. So, the Packers hired Philbin, a guy Rodgers likes a lot. Meanwhile, MM has been around for 13 seasons. And was only extended one year, through 2019, so if he is replaced, there would be less of a cash loss if he was not retained (read: fired). And the team now has a new GM (and new GM's tend to want to hire their own guys), a new DC (forced on him by the front office?) and, of course, the return of Philbin, who has head coaching experience in Miami (not a great resume from there, but apparently well respected in GB). So, if the Packers don't win the SB this season- and I think anything less than that will be seen as unacceptable (again, JMO), then they already have a well respected HC in the wings, who already has a lot of positive experience with the team. So, could Rodgers wanting more leverage have something to do with simply wanting a new HC in GB? Admittedly, this is all based on speculation and spinning current events with a conspiratorial eye.

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/01/02/packers-signed-coach-mike-mccarthy-one-year-extension-during-2017-season/996751001/
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2018, 04:41:19 PM »
ricky, that's enough spin to run a centrifuge !
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2942
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2018, 03:04:57 PM »
The way I understood it, it has to do with newly initiated contracts that are more lucrative than his own. His agent wants the ability to basically make a new contract every time a QB makes more than Rodgers.

We saw a large expanse in QB contracts recently that dwarf Rodgers' previous record deal. I don't believe this has anything to do with Rodgers' future and longevity as a Packer. It's about not being paid the same as Mike Glennon. My guess is it could be an option after the guaranteed portion of the contract. Seems like it's the only sort of deal that a team would sign.

Personally, I think it's a little haphazard to request something like this because QB contracts have a foreseeable ceiling and floor. Rodgers' deal was the ceiling, but years later the house got a lot bigger and his ceiling became nose to nose with family dog. It's unlikely we'll see such a large increase in cap room again.

Offline The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2018, 04:36:25 PM »
so what happens when a QB passes Rodgers on the salary scale, he wants to renegotiate his contract and the Packers dont think its worth the increase.  Is he still under the same contract, or is he out?  I'm not opposed to Rodgers getting market value,  or even a clause keeping him in the top 3-4 in salary, but this "opt out" business (if true) is a little concerning.   I wouldn't give him an opt out clause because it would give him too much control.  He's being paid or will be paid top dollar in the NFL,  will the power be shifted to him (indirectly) as far as personnel decisions.  Will major decisions go through Rodgers so he doesnt "opt out" and leave?   So what happens when you cut the next  Jordy Nelson and Rodgers doesn't like it, is he out after the next QB passes his salary?   You also have to find a solution that makes him somewhat tradeable.  I don't want to trade Rodgers but down the road he isnt going to be worth the contract he's going to sign especially if he can renegotiate every time someone gets a higher salary.  Who is going to want to trade for that albatross contract when he has all the power?   Sign him to a lucrative workable deal, with no opt out clauses.  The Packers need to protect themselves, and their future, and I'm sure they will.    I hope he's here and productive for a long time.     

Online Pack Man

  • Second String
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2018, 04:56:55 PM »
Hummm... Wasn't it Sharpe that had a stipulation in his contract that kept him the top pay wise. by meeting their  amount plus one cent... 8)
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 04:59:28 PM by Pack Man »


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
......Vince Lombardi

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2018, 05:26:22 PM »
I doubt Rodgers would go for it, but you could tie it to performance criteria & other QB contracts.................for example:

Opt out clause activates for salary adjustment only, AND ONLY IF............

1) Someone passes him on the pay scale,
 
AND (2 of the following are met)

a) He get's Packers to the Big Dance (doesn't have to win it, but get them there)
b) Leads the league in TD passes
c) Leads the league in passing yards


If the Packers are giving up control of opt out, there needs to be something to counter-balance it.

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2942
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2018, 06:03:16 PM »
so what happens when a QB passes Rodgers on the salary scale, he wants to renegotiate his contract and the Packers dont think its worth the increase.  Is he still under the same contract, or is he out?  I'm not opposed to Rodgers getting market value,  or even a clause keeping him in the top 3-4 in salary, but this "opt out" business (if true) is a little concerning.   I wouldn't give him an opt out clause because it would give him too much control.  He's being paid or will be paid top dollar in the NFL,  will the power be shifted to him (indirectly) as far as personnel decisions.  Will major decisions go through Rodgers so he doesnt "opt out" and leave?   So what happens when you cut the next  Jordy Nelson and Rodgers doesn't like it, is he out after the next QB passes his salary?   You also have to find a solution that makes him somewhat tradeable.  I don't want to trade Rodgers but down the road he isnt going to be worth the contract he's going to sign especially if he can renegotiate every time someone gets a higher salary.  Who is going to want to trade for that albatross contract when he has all the power?   Sign him to a lucrative workable deal, with no opt out clauses.  The Packers need to protect themselves, and their future, and I'm sure they will.    I hope he's here and productive for a long time.   

Players can opt out anytime they want, it's called retirement.

If it is on the table and Rodgers and his agent want it, it likely will be a clause keeping him within range of the top salaries at QB. The language being thrown around in the maybe fake news media is toxic speculation on this and insinuates the desire to make a power shift. I don't see it like that.

We can all agree Rodgers' deal isn't equitable anymore. It's not an absurd notion they would want protection from this sort of thing happening again. Just for comparison: The market value for a, seemingly, top tier QB is 30 million a year right now, and his current deal averages 22 million a year.

Offline Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2018, 07:22:06 PM »
Opt outs are  in many NBA contracts, like Kevin Love's.

Between Kirk Cousins and Matt Ryan's current deals, it looks like the NFL is moving toward MLB and the NBA in their style of contracts.

That is, much more guaranteed money and the ability to opt out.

With AR, he does not have much leverage.  Green Bay has him for two more years and can then tag him for two more.

He will be 38 by then.  If they want to they can play hardball with him on this.

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2018, 02:22:00 PM »
Gregg, this is the common belief, that AR has no leverage. Yet, back in 2004, Mike McKEnzie (cornerback) decided he wanted out of GB. Everyone knew he had no leverage. That he would have to play for the Packers or no one else. Then during training camp or some other team activity, he was "hurt". He said it was his hamstring. The medicos could find nothing, but he claimed he couldn't play. How do you force a player who says he is injured to get on the field? You can't. It is his word against the medicos. It got ugly, and he was traded to NO, where he had a miraculous recovery. AR could do the same thing. And seriously, would anyone like to have an ugly tug-of-war between the team and the player, ala Favre? Sure, the Packers could just let him sit on IR or whatever, so he couldn't play- but he would still be gatting paid a great deal. So, he does have leverage. The only question is whether he or the team would let it get that ugly.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2018, 03:27:44 PM »
Big difference with Rodgers and McKenzie is that it is important to Rodgers and his legacy to play the whole of his career in GB.

The Packers messed up with Mckenzie and should of just sent him home and took his chance to play away. Handle it like Wolf handled the Keith Jackson situation, play for the Packers or don't play. Neither side is interested in playing hardball with the Rodgers deal.

Caught Joel Corry on Sirius NFL radio a few days ago talking about the Rodgers contract talks and opt outs in the NFL, it was very informative. The problem with an opt out with Rodgers deal is that the whole of the remaining signing bonus becomes a cap hit for that year that the opt out is exercised. So if the Packers give AR a 80M signing bonus on a 4 year deal and he opts out after 2 years, their than becomes a 40M cap charge to that business year. Big signing bonuses and opt outs don't work hand and hand in the NFL.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-why-still-no-aaron-rodgers-deal-lets-examine-the-nfls-opt-out-clause/

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2018, 04:31:03 PM »
RT, I'm not arguing that Rodgers will go the same direction as McKenzie. I was just pointing out that "he has no leverage" is not accurate. I agree that AR does want to end his career in GB. But then, that is a team decision, not his. Who would have imagined Joe Montana playing for another team, for example? What is irksome to someone like AR is that right now, he is paid cosiderably less than QBs who are not nearly as worthy of big contracts. Seriously- check out the guys who are more highly paid that AR. Yes, Brady is the huge outlier, but that is his choice, and we'll see how long that lasts. Meanwhile, Wentz and Goff are nearing their first "real" contracts.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/kirk-cousins-could-be-the-highest-paid-qb-with-an-84-million-contract.html
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2018, 11:41:35 AM »
I have to wonder if Rodgers will end up signing a shorter contact that voids the last two years on this deal, with the whole contract guaranteed- 3 years, maybe 4.

He gets a deal that reflects his standing in the NFL and it allows both sides to negotiate an extension before the end, at which time both sides will have a better idea what his value will be as he hits the 40 yr mark.  It would lower risk for both sides, as the team would be protected against career ending injury leaving them with a lot of dead cap, and Rodgers will be protected against the deal under paying him relative to newer contracts.  It gives him the opt out without it really being an opt out- it is more of a forced renegotiation.

I suspect this is a difficult negotiation because of his age and the potential dead cap implications.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2018, 04:21:55 PM »
Twain, that seems to be a reasonable and logical summation. However, would Rodgers accept a deal that could be voided early, rather than one which would guarantee him a lot of money? I personally think the deal you suggest would make a lot of sense. AR would still be very, very wealthy, but the Packers would be protected from that dreaded "dead money" that could hamper them for several years.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2018, 01:34:19 PM »
Twain, that seems to be a reasonable and logical summation. However, would Rodgers accept a deal that could be voided early, rather than one which would guarantee him a lot of money? I personally think the deal you suggest would make a lot of sense. AR would still be very, very wealthy, but the Packers would be protected from that dreaded "dead money" that could hamper them for several years.

Just spit balling, but I could see him doing it.  The guaranteed money on a fully guaranteed 3 year deal could be 100 million, on a 4 year deal 130 million.  I am not sure a 5 year deal or longer would guarantee any more than a bit over 100 million given what Ryan got.

It seems to me the only advantage to the longer deal for Rodgers is that if they build a big enough signing bonus into it, it could create enough dead money in year 5 that they hesitate to release him if he is chronically injured or playing badly. 

I am not sure who has the next big deal coming up, but I have to assume that the Eagles will want to do Wentz's extension after his 4th year while he is on the fifth year option, which is 2 years away.  That would be the same time as Rodgers would be talking extension after 3 year fully guaranteed contract, which means he could have another deal to base off of.

I have to wonder how the end of the current CBA after the 2020 season figures into any of this? 
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 01:35:34 PM by Twain »
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2018, 04:02:21 PM »
Twain, that seems to be a reasonable and logical summation. However, would Rodgers accept a deal that could be voided early, rather than one which would guarantee him a lot of money? I personally think the deal you suggest would make a lot of sense. AR would still be very, very wealthy, but the Packers would be protected from that dreaded "dead money" that could hamper them for several years.

Just spit balling, but I could see him doing it.  The guaranteed money on a fully guaranteed 3 year deal could be 100 million, on a 4 year deal 130 million.  I am not sure a 5 year deal or longer would guarantee any more than a bit over 100 million given what Ryan got.

It seems to me the only advantage to the longer deal for Rodgers is that if they build a big enough signing bonus into it, it could create enough dead money in year 5 that they hesitate to release him if he is chronically injured or playing badly. 

I am not sure who has the next big deal coming up, but I have to assume that the Eagles will want to do Wentz's extension after his 4th year while he is on the fifth year option, which is 2 years away.  That would be the same time as Rodgers would be talking extension after 3 year fully guaranteed contract, which means he could have another deal to base off of.

I have to wonder how the end of the current CBA after the 2020 season figures into any of this?

My guess is that 2021 will be the opt out year.
I could see a 5 year contract (3 year extension of existing contract).
GB will rewrite the final 2 years of the existing contract, and add a 3rd year (2020) that will likely all be guaranteed. The final two years could have flexible language that allows either party to opt out depending on what happens with the new CBA.

You can bet your sweet bippy that the Packers don't want to be locked into something outrageous that could have a real negative effect on their ability to operate if the CBA doesn't turn out well for owners/teams, and Rodgers won't want to be locked in if the CBA doesn't allow the salary cap to grow as fast/faster than it has the last few years.