General Category > Green Bay Packers News Talk

Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?

(1/3) > >>

ricky:
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/

OneTwoSixFive:
ricky, that's enough spin to run a centrifuge !

claymaker:
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.

The GM:
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.     

Pack Man:
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)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version