Coping With The Cap In 2022

Meeting the salary cap in 2022 will be difficult. 

 

The Packers will have to comply with the 2022 salary cap by 4:00 PM on March 16, 2022.  The exact amount of the salary cap is unknown but it is expected to reach the $208.2M maximum previously agreed to by the NFL and the Union, according to Overthecap.  The Packers have 38 players under contract at present for 2022, plus 4 more with void years but significant cap hits.  Those liabilities total $250.91M, leaving the Packers $42.71M over the salary cap limit.  The Packers already have a dead money charge of $649,918,  primarily for Van Lanen, Sternberger, and Kamal Martin, bringing the deficit to $43.36M.

Aaron Rodgers cannot be traded until after the new league starts per league rules.  For purposes of initially meeting the salary cap under the trade scenario, Rodgers' projected cap relief is ZERO.  The Packers should receive $19.27M in cap relief when Rodgers is traded, but not until March 17.  That is useful: it can be used to pay for the draft picks, the practice squad, the 52nd and 53rd contracts, and to provide some cushion to operate during the 2022 season.  Those items usually total about $9M, leaving $10.3M or so to spend on free agents, whether the free agents come from outside the organization or are the team's own players it released prior to the new league year with a handshake deal in place for 2022.

I suppose if the Packers have reached an agreement with another team to trade Rodgers and Rodgers has agreed on the terms of a new contract with the acquiring team, Rodgers could agree to alter his contract to help the Packers.  He could agree to a pay cut, or agree to lower his base salary in exchange for a guaranteed roster bonus in 2023.  I cannot remember any player doing something like that, and I am not at all sure that such a contract change would be approved by the commissioner.

I have no idea whether there is any chance of Rodgers and the Packers committing to each other long term.  For the sake of brevity, I do not want to suggest what the terms might be.  However, it should be possible for the Packers to get $15M to $21M in cap relief prior to the start of the new league year under a re-negotiated contract.  That scenario is the one that allows the Packers to keep more of the team intact.

Table I

A   B
Player Cap # SAVE # Player Cap # SAVE
Z. Smith 28.13M 15.75M 1 Bakh 22.768M (3.356M)
P. Smith 19.75M 12.50M 2 Jones 9.00M (0.750M)
Cobb 9.641M 6.858M 3 Alexander 13.294M 0M
Clark 20.65M 5.65M 4 Gary 5.051M 0M
Amos 11.982M 4.654M 5 Savage 3.982M 0M
Lowry 7.922M 3.934M 6 Love 3.377M (3.94M)
Turner 8.99M 3.18M 7 Stokes 2.71M (6.955M)
Lewis 4.525M 2.445M 8 Dillon 1.441M 0.739M
Crosby 4.735M 2.395M 9 Deguara 1.217M 0.783M
SUBTOTAL   57.366 10 Myers 1.268M (0.709M)
Jenkins 2.158M 1.419M 11 Am Rodgers 1.113M 0.421M
Summers 0.989M 0.965M 12 Runyan 0.938M 0.851M
Braden 0.965M 0.965M 13 Scott 0.916M 0.874M
Keke 1.043M 0.965M 14 Garvin 0.915M 0.875M
T. Davis 0.895M 0.895M 15 Newman 0.950M 0.875M
Hill 0.845M 0.785M 16 Slaton 0.895M 0.685M
P. Taylor 0.825M 0.825M 17 Jean-Charles 0.885M 0.705M
Wirtel 0.825M 0.825M 18 Mcduffie 0.858M 0.760M
Gileai 0.825M 0.825M 19 Heflin 0.827M 0.823M
A Rodgers 46.144M 19.297M 20      
             
King 3.00M (3.00M)   Sullivan 0.970M (0.970M)
Tonyan 1.88M (1.88M)   Campbell 0.808M (0.808M)

* Per Overthecap.

The contracts of King, Tonyan, Sullivan and Campbell expire automatically at the end of the 2021 season, so they will not count as players under contract in 2022 for purposes of the Rule of 51.  Their scheduled cap numbers move to the dead money category and count against the 2022 cap that way. 

The Rule of 51 is in place from March 16 until early September.  Under that rule, the top 51 active contracts count against the salary cap.  The Packers will have 51 players under contract for 2022 when they start to sign players to "Futures" contracts after the season but before the start of the 2022 season.  That means there will be 13 more players who count against the cap.  Some will sign for the 2022 minimum of $705K but some will cost more.  It seems likely that most of those players will come from the current practice squad and from the team's UFAs and RFAs.  Those include the following:

Table 2

UFAs RFAs ERFA
Davante Adams Yosh Nijman 3.93M Kryss Barnes 895K
DeVondre Campbell Allen Lazard 2.396M D. Dafney 895K
Valdes-Scantling E. St. Brown (UFA instead?) Henry Black 895K
Robert Tonyan   Malik Taylor 895K
Corey Bojorquez   C. Rivers 825K
Rasul Douglas   L. Hamilton 825K
Tyler Lancaster    
Lucas Patrick    
Chandon Sullivan    
Whitney Mercilus    
Dennis Kelly    
Kevin King    
Oren Burks    
Isaac Yiadom    
Randy Ramsey    

I am going to assume that the Packers issue qualified contracts to the six ERFAs at a cost of $5.23M, and tender Nijman at the second round level, which OTC estimates will be $3.93M.  I suspect the Packers will repeat what they did with Tonyan and pay Nijman the minimum of $0.965M and pay the rest as a signing bonus while adding four void years.  That would reduce his 2022 cap number to $1.558M and push $2.372M into 2023.  The cap numbers for the ERFAs and Tonyan would thus total $6.788M.  The other six roster spots for now I assume will cost the NFL minimum or $705K, or $4.23M more.  That totals $11.018M to reach 51 players.  That number ($11.018M) plus the $43.36M number from the first paragraph totals $54.378M in necessary trims.  [Strictly speaking, this number is too low.  The NFL will assess a mandatory offseason workout charge: for 2021, the charge was $792K.  Per Ken Ingalls, the Packers actually ended up paying out $535K to players for working out, not including players who had workout bonuses in their contracts.]

If the Packers released players 1A to 9A in the first table, the cap savings would total $57.366M, which just covers the $54.378M in necessary trims.  That's ugly (and no, I do not propose releasing Kenny Clark).  What it means is that every player on a second contract who is not released will have their contract renegotiated again to push cap into 2023 and beyond, and possibly one or two players on first contracts.  I also suspect that the Packers will resort to splitting signing bonuses between a 2022 signing bonus and an option bonuses in the 2023 league year to keep the signing bonuses down in 2022.

To do this properly, I would have to look at each player's contract and situation, then make a value judgment and construct an appropriate contract.  I will do something like that more briefly here.

Save $7.26M to $9.6M - Jaire Alexander.  Assuming he returns and looks healthy, give him Jalen Ramsey money (5yr/$100M - SB of $25M).  Alexander is due $13.294 in cash on his 5th year option.  A $5M proration plus the minimum of $1.035M base salary and saves $7.26M.  The Packers probably need more savings.  Pay Alexander his 2022 cash by way of a $12M signing bonus and $1.294M in base for a charge of $3.694M (proration of $2.4M plus $1.294M base).  The savings would be $9.6M.  Pay Alexander a guaranteed roster bonus (or option bonus) of $25M or a little more for inflation plus a base salary for 2023.  Some or all of the roster bonus likely will be converted to a signing bonus in 2023.

$2.5M - Aaron Jones.  Convert his $3.75M roster bonus to a signing bonus.  This reduces his cap savings in 2023 from $12.5M to $10M.  The team could get $3M if necessary.

$5.5M - Adrian Amos.  Convert his base to a signing bonus and tack on four years.  Age 29 in 2022.

$15.75M - ZaDarius Smith.  I previously had him pegged for an extension, but back surgeries scare me.  The Packers know more about his health, but since I have no information about his surgery, I am listing him as a release.

$18.812M - Release Lowry, Turner, Crosby, Lewis and Cobb.  Slaton and Keke will replace Lowry.  Nijman will replace Turner.  The Packers will have to find another kicker.  Perhaps Kaufusi can replace Lewis.  Getting low on wide receivers if Adams cannot be signed and since I did not tender Lazard. 

$9.182M - Preston Smith extension.  The Packers need two OLBs since ZaDarius should be released.  Difficult decisions.

$61.344M Subtotal cleared.  Really just $57.114M or so because by releasing 6 players on the roster, six more players making at least $705K each will be added under the rule of 51.  That would be $2.736M more than necessary.

There are still a lot of moving parts.  Elgton Jenkins has earned a Level 3 raise that is not reflected in the table above from OTC under the PPE provision in the CBA since he was named as a pro bowler on the original ballot in 2020.  The increase should be about $2.5M.  Kingsley Keke is on track to earn a Level 1 raise of $1.43M if he plays at least 35% of possible snaps in two of his first three years.  He played 40.4% in 2020 and so far has played 40.5% of possible snaps in 2021.  He will have to stay healthy and continue to receive snaps to earn the raise.  Those two raises would require the Packers to find about $4M more in cap space.  This OTC article explains the PPE provision.  The Packers would be $1.276M short of what is necessary.

$??? - Clark and Bakhtiari.  The Packers could adjust the contracts of Bakhtiari, who is scheduled to receive $14M in cash for 2022, and Clark, who is scheduled to earn $15.65M in cash in 2022.  I am reluctant to push more of their cap charges down the road, but for our purposes today, I am just going to assume the Packers got at least $1.276M in savings from them, or the rollover might suffice (see below).  They could even grab $1.3M from Gary, though I do not like renegotiating a rookie deal after just three years.

Per OTC, the Packers do have $4.6M (I think closer to $4M) in cap space at present, some of which should get rolled over into 2022.  There are moving parts there as well since the Packers will have to tally up the net for game active bonuses and pay incentives.  Preston Smith has 5 sacks and is on pace for 7.1 sacks.  He earns a $500K incentive with one more sack (his 6th sack, that is) and $1.25M if he reaches 8 sacks.  Aaron Rodgers has a slew of incentives that could reach $1M if the defense and/or STs score three touchdowns (currently at one TD).  There are other players with possible incentives.   

When the trade of Rodgers becomes official, the Packers should get $19.27M in cap relief, with about $10.3M of that being spendable.  There is a long list of UFAs in Table 2 that the Packers surely would like to retain: Adams, Campbell, Valdes-Scantling, Bojorquez, Lazard, and probably Tonyan, plus smaller deals for Lancaster, Sullivan and, less likely, Lucas Patrick.  The Packers could probably sign Adams with the $10.3M but no one else of significance.  Perhaps they could sign Campbell, MVS and Bojorquez with that amount.  

If Aaron Rodgers signs a long-term deal with the Packers and the team decides to go all-in or really all-in, the Packers could get $10.65M in cap relief from Clark on a max restructure with void years and $7.6M from Bakhtiari just by converting his roster bonus to a signing bonus, per Ken Ingalls, or more by converting his roster bonus and some of his base salary.  The Packers could probably keep Adams and most of their own players with that drastic maneuver.  The Packers have gone as low as 35% to 40% of a player's AAV in the past as a first year cap number.  I do not know what DeVondre Campbell will command in free agency.  He is something of a one-year wonder.  If he gets $9M AAV, the Packers might structure his contract to have a $4.5M 2022 cap number, for example.  Valdes-Scantling might have a $3.2M first year hit and Bojorquez around $2M.  The net spendable ($10.3M) probably covers those three players, unless there is a bidding war.

There is nothing worse than being a bad to mediocre team (6 to 8 wins) with no cap space.  If Rodgers is traded, the team should probably release Preston and ZaDarius Smith, Cobb, Lowry, Crosby, Lewis, Amos, and Turner (everyone in Table I 1A to 9A except Clark) to get $51.716M in cap relief.  Since more is still needed, extend Alexander to save about $6M more.  If one thinks it makes independent sense for the Packers to extend Preston Smith and/or Amos (Turner will be 32, so I am reluctant to extend him) to gain cap space, perhaps the team could keep a few more players (in addition to MVS, Bojorquez and Campbell from the $10.3M spendable part of Rodgers' cap relief).  Perhaps that would include Lazard, Sullivan, Lancaster, and/or Tonyan (whose market value is unclear to me due to his injury).       

 

 

NFL Categories: 
12 points

Comments (175)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
mrtundra's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:09 am

Yikes!

3 points
4
1
Minniman's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:58 pm

Gute and Russ are going to be the hardest workers in the Packers building for the foreseeable future, aren't they!

1 points
2
1
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

December 08, 2021 at 06:19 am

Even tougher than 2018

0 points
0
0
Bitternotsour's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:26 pm

It is surprising to some that the packers operate on an extended horizon. All of this has been game planned for 5 years or more. Draft and develop means you have a development plan.

Rodgers will command a kings ransom in a trade. Those that think he has no value, wait till there are three bidders for his services. Look what the Rams gave up for Stafford. Matt Stafford with the 9-63 record against winning teams. Matthew Stafford is no Aaron Rodgers.

2 points
2
0
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:13 am

"If the Packers released players 1A to 9A in the first table, the cap savings would total $57.366M, which just covers the $54.378M in necessary trims....I also suspect that the Packers will resort to splitting signing bonuses between a 2022 signing bonus and an option bonuses in the 2023 league year to keep the signing bonuses down in 2022."

I think this is the "meat" paragraph of the whole article. The Packers are going to lean hard on this year's "depth" players to be starters in 2022.

"I suppose if the Packers have reached an agreement with another team to trade Rodgers and Rodgers has agreed on the terms of a new contract with the acquiring team, Rodgers could agree to alter his contract to help the Packers."

This is a must. They'll have to re-do #12's deal prior to the start of the league year, either to keep him and make their own cap more solvent or to meet someone else's needs in trade. Whatever the case, ARod will be hot news this off-season and it will be in his best interest to be somewhat compliant. The Packers are on the clock to make this happen, and everyone knows it...which could hurt their ability to make the most of the situation.

" If Rodgers is traded, the team should probably release Preston and ZaDarius Smith, Cobb, Lowry, Crosby, Lewis, Amos, and Turner (everyone in Table I 1A to 9A except Clark) to get $51.716M in cap relief. "

This is another hard paragraph--if you don't keep/extend #12, what are you hanging on to all those other high-priced pieces for? Unless, of course, management thinks that there will be a seamless transition to the next QB (whomever it happens to be) and this unit will just keep churning along.

One thing you don't bring up is the tag/trade option people have floated on Adams. That would require the Packers to clear even more space (nearly $20M) to accommodate his tag value (unless they can agree with a trading partner and sign Adams to that partner's terms prior to the start of the league year).

Thanks for your work on this, TGR.

7 points
9
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:14 am

Thanks for the kind words. Let's deal with the last point first.

To tag and trade Adams, the Packers would have to do max restructures on at least one and probably both Clark and Bakhtiari. I don't see a conventional way otherwise to do that. Calling Howie Roseman and/or Sean Payton's cap guy. Converting Bakh's roster bonus to a signing bonus and adding two void years makes his cap numbers $24.668M, $28.168M, and $32.168M with $12.568M dead still. Packers would take a $3.8M dead money charge in 2026 if he isn't extended for his 2026 season (age 34), which I suppose is not out of the question.

Yeah, I think it is probably best to release all those players if Rodgers leaves town. Get the cap under control and GB can buy players in 2023 for Jordan Love. Of course, it would be nice for Love to have a competent supporting cast in order to assess his performance in 2022. GB has to decide after the 2022 season whether to exercise his 5th year option. Under that scenario, Love would not have Turner, Davante, Lewis and Cobb. IDK, they can find a blocking TE most likely in the draft or Kaufusi, and perhaps Nijman won't be a downgrade at RT. The WR room is thin. No backup swing tackle. The defense would be worse, putting more pressure on Love and the offense to score.

Re-doing AR's contract even if they trade him is something I have trouble with. Surely the acquiring team would want a big signing bonus, but if GB did that, upon trading him they would have to eat the new signing bonus. Purpose defeated. What I wondered is whether GB could re-write the contract and then have the acquiring team rip it up and write completely new terms. There is a prohibition on more than one renegotiation within a 12 month period. I am not sure whether that applies to one per player, or one per team. I don't think AR could simply sign a deal taking a $24M pay cut for 2022 and then sign a lucrative new deal with Denver/Philly/Indy, etc.

In addition to losing those 8 players I listed, GB would lose some, probably most of the UFAs listed in Table 2. That's a lot of snaps.

4 points
4
0
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:02 am

"No backup swing tackle." I would dispute that point TGR. Jenkins can play either LT or RT and Runyon or Newman could replace Jenkins at guard (and both Runyon and Newman played tackle in college as another option). I think the Packer O-line is pretty well stocked right now even without Turner.

2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:13 pm

Fair. I don't hate Newman as a developmental player, a guy who could improve with an offseason and more coaching because he looks good at times. Jake Hanson as the backup center is a mystery, but I suppose Jenkins is the swing tackle and swing center, and the swing guard, though not until he returns. Got hurt October 28, so he might miss all of September and october. Still, other good teams have dealt with less talent on the OL.

2 points
2
0
BradHTX's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:44 pm

What would be the ramifications of also releasing Bakhtiari, TGR? Personally, it seems like an O-line of Jenkins-Runyan-Myers-Newman-Nijman is pretty solid. As much as we all love Bakh and as great as he has been, he’s getting long in the tooth and who knows how his knee will hold up post-surgery?

Have to think doing what they can to surround Love with offensive weapons is key to his success. Personally, I’d rather see them keep Tonyan and let Bakh go. A Pro Bowl tight end vs a nobody might be more valuable than a (old…) Pro Bowl LT vs a good LT who has been a Pro Bowl-level OG.

2 points
3
1
barutanseijin's picture

December 07, 2021 at 05:09 pm

Bakhtiari was a 2020 1st team All-Pro. That’s on a different level than some guy who’s been good but hasn’t been picked for a Pro Bowl.

At any rate, a proven vet LT would seem to be what you’d want for a young QB. As long as he holds up, of course.

Tonyan will be unavailable most of next year and wasn’t playing at his 2020 level before the ACL.

1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:10 pm

Releasing Bakh prior to March 20 would result in negative $3.5M cap space. He has $9.5M roster bonus due 3/20/22 which would push the negative to $13M.

GB could probably trade Bakh between March 16 and 19 and get good picks, taking the $3.5M hit in exchange. Bakh would be attractive (assuming he returns in 2021 and plays well in these last 4 or 5 regular season games plus playoff games): the acquiring team would have cap numbers of $14M, $17.5M and $21.5M in 2024.

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:08 am

"Surely the acquiring team would want a big signing bonus, but if GB did that, upon trading him they would have to eat the new signing bonus. Purpose defeated."

My question would regard how much of the money they could tie up in a roster bonus(es) that the trading team could agree to turn into signing bonus. That might be a way to circumvent the dead money on the Packers' end.

"There is a prohibition on more than one renegotiation within a 12 month period. I am not sure whether that applies to one per player, or one per team."

I'm not hip to this, either. My suspicion would be that since you're trading the contract and it's the contract that travels from team to team, this could be prohibitive. I say that, but I don't think the Packers would have put themselves in a tough situation with regard to limiting how they could move/renegotiate #12.

1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:42 pm

The goal is to reduce AR's $46M cap hit before the new league year. Signing bonus does that, but GB would have to eat it when AR is traded. Moving money from base to a Roster bonus that isn't paid until after AR is traded is fine (say it is paid by the acquiring team in July), but it does not reduce the $46M number. And if the money is the same amount ($24M reduction in base pay moved to a $24M roster bonus paid in July by Denver) that does not change the $46M since his base pay would not have been paid until September by the acquiring team, either.

So, I thought guaranteeing a 2023 Roster bonus for $24M (I'd reduce his base from $26M to $2M) would reduce the $46.1M cap hit by $24M to $22.1M. AR would have a $31M dead money hit in 2023, but when in Rome. When GB traded him, his prorations of $26.8M would accelerate, so GB would lose about $4.7M - in other words, still net $19.297M. It would be nice because GB could tender Nijman and Lazard rather than having to work out deals with them, and could hold off on renegotiating one or two contracts. They could even trade ZaDarius if he is still on the roster on March 17 for something rather than releasing him for nothing. They could tag and trade Adams if they were quick about it.

I don't think that works. I think since AR gets less money in 2022 (roster bonus isn't scheduled to be paid until 2023) it is a renegotiation. AR could not then renegotiate his traded contract with his new team a second time within 12 months. Recall that when CB Kyle Fuller signed the offer sheet with GB, Chicago had to live with the terms for a year before Chicago could renegotiate the terms to its liking. AR would have to live with it.

The acquiring team might be fine with it. AR's cap number for Denver would be $2.5M (he has a workout bonus of $500K) in 2022. So what if his cap hit is $60M in 2023 - the total combined for 2 seasons is $62M, and there is something called rollover in the NFL. Just don't spend the money on someone else! GB just adds a bunch of years with base salaries and an option bonus payable in 2023 the way Denver and AR like.

3 points
3
0
Minniman's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:04 pm

" Calling Howie Roseman and/or Sean Payton's cap guy"

They don't have a cap - they have a lycra sombrero.

2 points
3
1
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:16 am

Ouch! Those are some truly ugly numbers TGR! Broadly, I see two options:

(1) Keeping and extending Rodgers and cutting lots of other players leaving the Packers with a HOF 38 year old QB and a mediocre team around him.
or
(2) Trading Rodgers and cutting a lesser but still significant number of players leaving the Packers with an unknown young QB, a better (but not good) team around him and some additional draft choices (from the Rodgers trade) to begin the rebuilding process.

Neither option is great, but your article truly makes me believe that 2021 is a "Last Dance" year. As to the future, I just don't see rebuilding around a 38 year old QB. The Packers would probably be better in 2022 and 2023 with Rodgers, but this is just delaying the inevitable and I would rather the Packers acquire additional draft picks to jump start the rebuild that must happen at some point.

Thanks for a very insightful article TGR. Always appreciate your hard work with the numbers.

13 points
14
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:55 am

I've been a drive AR into the ground person, but you and dobber (in a prior article's thread) have made me wonder. Let's say they retain AR and get $20M in cap relief for 2022. [If he really wants to be the highest paid QB, that is difficult until 2024. Could it work?] Here is the personnel:

DL: Clark, Keke, Slaton, Heflin, maybe Lancaster or similar guy cheap. Lose Lowry. Not bad. Hope Slaton and Keke take jumps.
LB: Preston, Gary, Garvin, probably Campbell and Barnes. Depth.
DB: Jaire, Stokes, Savage, Amos. Lose King and Sullivan. Depth. Ento??

OL: Bakh, Runyan, Myers, Newman, Nijman, Braden w Jenkins in Nov. or Dec., plus Van Lanen and Dietzen. Depth is a problem but decent?

TE: Deguara, Dafney, Kaufusi, Tyler Davis. Ugh.
RB: Dillon, Jones and Hill. Good.
WR: MVS, Amari, Winfree, maybe Lazard and St. Brown. Ugh.

So, draft a WR, TE, ILB, OLB and OL in the top three rounds. Okay, that's 5 spots with just three picks. The Packers should get 4th and 7th round comp picks. Sometimes can find an OL in the 4th.

Would GB be a contender with that foundation? Would they need to hit on some picks, like a WR and some other draft picks? Obviously, it would be harder.

5 points
5
0
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:27 am

Agree with your offensive roster under the "keep Rodgers scenario", but am not sure how you keep Preston, Campell and Amos on the defensive roster too. I suspect at least one if not two of those key players will have to go. I just can't see Rodgers giving up enough salary to afford all of them. If Preston Smith and Campbell go, the Packer defense will not be good in 2022.

Couple a weakened defense with a very under par receiving group and the Packers are very likely not a Super Bowl contender and maybe not even a playoff contender. By the time the Packers rebuild the defense and receiving corps, Rodgers will be in his 40's. Only one QB has not been in decline when playing in his 40's (Brady). Is that a good plan for the Packers?

Additionally, will Rodgers be open to that plan? Does he want to spend his last years in the NFL on a rebuilding team? Or would he prefer to be traded to a contender.

Gute watched TT trade a HOF QB at the end of his career so the front office precedent is there. Rodgers may well want a trade. If Gute can get significant draft choices for Rodgers, it speeds up the Packer rebuild. Perhaps trading Rodgers and beginning the rebuild now is the greater possibility.

Personally I was more than a bit disturbed when the Packers traded Favre and thought they had made a horrible decision. I was emotionally married to the idea of winning one more SB with Farve. I am now faced with the exact same scenario more than decade later. Emotionally I want to keep Rodgers, but after looking at the options, I think the Packers will move on from our HOF QB and I believe that may be the best long term decision.

4 points
5
1
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:45 am

"Agree with your offensive roster under the "keep Rodgers scenario", but am not sure how you keep Preston, Campell and Amos on the defensive roster too."

Hard to say. I think they could restructure P so his 2022 cap hit would be smaller than his dead money if cut or traded ($7.25M). It might be harder with Amos ($4.08M) and might be worth the investment. Campbell's contract carries a bunch of void years, but the hit isn't big in 2022. The problem is that the small hit means that resigning (I guess it could be viewed as an extension) Campbell doesn't present a bar for the Packers to limbo under and save money like P and Amos could.

TGR?

2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:07 pm

I put Campbell's dead money in table one, so that is accounted for. It is only 808K anyway. I was thinking he might command $9M AAV - he is a one year wonder in GB. Then I figured paying him 40% o 50% of his AAV, so $3.6M to $4.5M. GB has done that before, but I like 60% or 70%.

If GB got $19.3M in cap relief by trading AR, and that led to $10.3M being spendable, GB would have to get at least $19.297M with an extension to get the same spendable amount. That's doable in isolation, but not if he wants $46M AAV in new money.

I'd spend $4M on Campbell in 2022, another $4M for MVS, and $2.3M or so on Bojorquez as first year cap hits. The last is having a good season but Punters don't make a ton and punters who can't hold so well probably take a hit. So, $3.75M AAV ($15M total) and cap numbers of $2.3M, M3.5M, $4.5M and $4.7M would be reasonable?

Of GB's UFAs, I picked Campbell, MVS and Bojorquez as the UFAs with the most bang for the buck.

Could go Davante and no one else.
Could go with Sullivan, Bojo, MVS, and Lazard?
Various combinations are possible.

I should show the contract terms for Amos and Preston. I didn't really do them. what are their respective AAVs if extended. I thought $16M for Preston and $10M or $11M for Amos? To extend and pay them, their deals probably look bad down the road.

Denver drafted Von Miller in 2011, drafted Malik Jackson, Derek Wolfe and Danny Trevathan in 2012, bought some UFAs in 2013 and drafted Sylvester Williams, and voila, dominant defense. Come on Gute: find a Justin Jefferson at 32, a Gronk in round 2, I'd settle for a Fackrell in round 3, a Sitton and a Davon House in round 4!

Sigh. Back to the numbers. They sound a lot worse than the paragraph above..

6 points
6
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:40 pm

Duh, your question was on Preston Smith and I didn't catch that.

Preston's max renegotiation would lower his cap number by $9.172M but his cap number would be $10.578.

I don't believe it is possible to get his cap hit to be less than his dead money hit if released or traded.

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:30 pm

Thanks, TGR.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:55 pm

I read this and spent some time thinking about it while I was hanging Christmas lights on an absolutely beautiful Texas day. I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re mostly right.🤔. We could get some rookies and throw them in there and be a contender for the division title. Absolutely.

The question in my mind is what happens if we trade Rodgers to put a stronger team on the field? We steal Hockenson from Detroit. We draft a runs fast jumps high guy on Day 2? We use the salary cap relief to keep Campbell and Douglas and Alexander around?

The Patriots moved on from Brady, had an off year, and now are 9-4. We had much the same experience post-Favre.

3 points
4
1
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:58 am

...and they're doing it behind a young QB, a commitment to the run, and an opportunistic defense. Hmm...

2 points
3
1
Oppy's picture

December 08, 2021 at 09:58 am

This is easy for me.

Most Packers fans, right or wrong, have complained since 2010 that the singular reason the Packers haven't been to the Superbowl since is because the Packers haven't placed enough talent around the young, talented Rodgers to win it all.

If you believe that, keeping 38 year old Rodgers with a new contract and a cash-strapped organization doesn't make any sense at all.

It ain't gonna be pretty, but the time is now to cut ties and move forward for the future.

In my opinion, the Packers got weak and worried about public perception and kowtowed to Rodgers in 2021. They should have moved him this season and gone full bore forward into the rebuild they already started. Instead, when Rodgers got yappy this last off season, the Packers played PR and spent money to keep Rodgers instead of finding the trade partner and spending money on the future.

2 points
3
1
McFly's picture

December 08, 2021 at 03:52 pm

Public perception? What an absolutely asinine comment. Without Rodgers this would be a lost season, and an ugly one at that. Are you not enjoying this season? Are the Packers not one of a handful of teams that can legitimately say they are Super Bowl contenders? I for one am very glad it played out the way it did in the off-season, and I'm willing to bet most here would agree.

Nothing in the future is guaranteed, and all the picks in the world mean nothing if you don't have a good QB. Love is not it currently and may never be. Enjoy the ride while you're on it.

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 04:07 pm

Congratulations on missing the point of the article.

1 points
2
1
McFly's picture

December 08, 2021 at 04:32 pm

Oh, I get the point of the article. I'm commenting on the previous comment. Congrats on inserting yourself with a sarcastic, less-than-witty response!

-1 points
1
2
Oppy's picture

December 08, 2021 at 05:06 pm

. We haven’t won a SB in over a decade with Rodgers, so I’d respond that nothing NOW is guaranteed, either. Being cash-strapped all but guarantees struggle to compete, whereas freeing up money and planning for the future at the very least provides a foundation and hope for competing for the next decade.

By the way… Lynn Dickey was a pretty damn fine QB. I know, I watched him.

1 points
2
1
Bearmeat's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:28 am

Great comment, Guam. Mind if I steal some of your language to post inflammatory stuff that will rile up Packers fans on socials? ;)

3 points
4
1
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:35 am

LOL! Please do!

0 points
1
1
Brockrice99's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:38 am

It's going to be an absolute crap show, but going into this season I, as well as everyone expected this to be an "All In" season and just push to win a Super Bowl, which anything less than that would be a disappointment. But honestly best case scenario is just suffer the minor consequences of being way too much over the Cap. Then secondly trade Aaron, maybe others, and just stockpile a hoard of draft picks and just draft and develop players while we try to get that Cap space back and hopefully in 2 years being trying to compete for a Super Bowl again.

2 points
4
2
TarynsEyes's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:46 am

If ever there was a short doomsday story/scenario this is it.

7 points
7
0
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:45 am

...all it needs is Jerry Bruckheimer and a mostly washed-up actor to play the lead...

3 points
3
0
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:31 am

The Packers are all in for this year. That’s been obvious since at least the summer. The corollary of that is that this is the last year that this roster is intact. Despite the above convolutions, it boils down to Rodgers plus youth or Love plus less youth and a 2 to 5 year plan. The almost inevitable answer remains the latter. Emotionally that may not be palatable, but every dynamic points to it being reality.

This team will be more geared to run, we will be drafting at least one OLB high and the same at WR and relying on a fast an agile secondary. Campbell and Douglas may stay if Rodgers is gone. Adams won’t. We will rely on our younger players to form the nucleus for Love, initially, at least. They are young enough to grow with him. We will use comp picks and picks from Rodgers over the next couple of years to complete the rebuild. Unless Benkert is really valued, competition for Love will be drafted or signed.

Unpopular certainly, but the signs are incredibly strong, not just in the cap area but in the pattern of construction of roster and contracts. I increasingly feel that the mess that is the NFC North will only lend weight to the feeling in Lambeau that this is the best time to take the plunge, which is coming at some point inevitably. On paper, a Love led version of this roster could realistically compete for the division in year one with the issues and possible turnover elsewhere, which is unusual in the case of a generational transition.

Conversely, we tried the Rodgers and not much else approach for several years with a younger Rodgers. I doubt that the organization has forgotten how unsuccessful that was, since it’s the major driver of how we got where we are as ably discussed by TGR. There is no status quo option. The emotional option of rebuilding around Rodgers at 38 is not alluring at all if one takes the emotion out of it. It’s probably no more attractive to him either.

Let’s just enjoy today before it’s tomorrow.

6 points
9
3
scullyitsme's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:13 pm

This would be the worst of all scenarios. This would be the 8-8 seasons up against the cap I believe tgr was talking about. First, keep Rodgers, but if that’s not going to happen, please rebuild. Don’t half ass.

1 points
7
6
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:13 am

9-8... ;)

Might still win this ugly division...

3 points
4
1
scullyitsme's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:11 am

Guess the point is winning superbowls, if you think we have a chance with love the next couple of years then, more power too you. But if not( the logical side) it’s best to rebuild sooner rather than later if moving on from Rodgers. Winning a crappy division at the expense of superbowls down the road wouldn’t be my take. But hey, just means you have more faith in the pack( love) then I

3 points
4
1
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:08 am

'twas all snark... :)

1 points
1
0
jurp's picture

December 08, 2021 at 01:46 pm

It's not "the logical side" to believe that we don't have a chance to win a Super Bowl with Love in the next two years, because there is absolutely no data to support that position. You can believe either point, but neither can be considered logical without data to back it up.

-1 points
0
1
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:31 pm

Many talk as if it is not coming some time. It is. Had we not gone all in that time might be a few years away, but not many. As it is, the choice to extend the window with Rodgers and a roster of this caliber isn’t real anymore. Rodgers is not going to win with significantly less and the concept of rebuilding around Rodgers starting next year is as flawed in terms of probability of proving successful as it is emotionally tempting.

Ultimately, the choice is a lesser team with Rodgers that might hope to be close for a year or two before a worse fall or starting to rebuild in the hope that in a year or two we might be back in a position of real optimism. Rodgers is not forever. Assumptions based upon that are castles in the air, no matter how distasteful that is.

1 points
3
2
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:43 am

"Assumptions based upon that are castles in the air, no matter how distasteful that is."

'Loyalty' just gives you old, bad teams with sad cap situations.

2 points
3
1
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:30 pm

"It's probably no more attractive to him either." That is a key point ColdWorld. I would think Rodgers would prefer to do a "Brady" and move to a team that can compete for a Super Bowl rather than stay with a gutted Packers team (particularly since the Packers are unlikely to be able to resign Davante Adams). I believe there will be a mutual agreement between Rodgers and the Front Office to trade him to a contender. Hopefully the Pack gets a boat load of draft picks in return.

7 points
7
0
13TimeChamps's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:08 pm

Hate to be a Debbie Downer here, but I really think the "boatload of draft picks for Rodgers" crowd is going to be disappointed. Why?

A. Green Bay will be in a horrible negotiating position.

B. Rodgers will be turning 39 during his first season with his new team. Remind me again...how many QBs 39 and up have won, or even competed in a SB? That would be ONE.

C. Bill O'Brien and Dan Devine are no longer GMs in the league.

3 points
4
1
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:25 pm

Fair points 13. I do believe Denver might be a landing spot for Rodgers. Elway likes experienced QBs and Denver does have lots of 2022 draft choices courtesy of several trades as well as a very good receiver corps and defense. We will see.

1 points
1
0
13TimeChamps's picture

December 07, 2021 at 05:07 pm

I guess it all comes down to how much Denver, or whoever, wants to deplete their team, either in draft capital or young ascending affordable players to take on a player that will turn 39 next year and his massive contract. It would be the definition of going "all in". People like to compare this to the Denver/P. Manning situation. But , remember, Manning was a free agent and cost Denver nothing other than what he signed for.

I would love to see GB get a huge haul in exchange for Rodgers. But I just have a hard time convincing myself a team would mortgage their future for a player approaching 40. And while he has been fairly durable, let's not forget Rodgers has had a number of leg injuries, at least one...maybe two... concussions, and two broken collar bones.

I think a 2022 1st round pick, one young, ascending affordable receiver or defensive player, plus maybe a 2023 2nd round pick would be a win/win for everybody.

One thing we can definitely agree on....it's going to be a really interesting off-season.

3 points
4
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:24 pm

I agree with your sentiment. I think GB would get more than one first and a good young WR and a 2023 2nd, but I am having trouble thinking they would get 3 consecutive first round picks from anybody.

The NFL can get weird, though.

3 points
3
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 07:43 am

I think the number of picks is something of a red herring. If we trade him and add a top half first round pick, that alone is a significant opportunity to accelerate retooling. The same would be true of a couple of seconds. I think TGR is close and that the picked will be over 2 years, but then again, we’ve seen trades I never expected in the last couple of years.

It’s not that we are doing it for the picks but that if we are to do it, this off season is likely the time where we can get the most compensation based upon health and age.

2 points
2
0
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:36 pm

I'm laughing because I was the one saying "a boatload of draft picks" and I think we will get less than you are proposing. I had in mind two second round picks and a day three pick. Rodgers is a sure fire HOF QB, but he will be 38/39 next season. Unless the buyer absolutely believes Rodgers is the second coming of Brady I think we will be lucky to pry a first round pick out of them.

0 points
1
1
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 07:47 am

Does a team think Rodgers has a couple of years left to take them all the way, or does a team think he can enervate their catchment area/fan base? Would LA have preferred a Rodgers led go-for-broke year than a Stafford one? I suspect so. Will there there be a team thinking similarly in March?

2 points
2
0
barutanseijin's picture

December 07, 2021 at 05:29 pm

Totally agree. I’d only add that many teams face cap difficulties and will be unloading vets, including a QB or two. With so many sellers, it will be a buyer’s market.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 07:52 am

I think you are wrong on that. This is supposedly a bad year for QBs in the draft and is one that hasn’t been kind to many hitherto thought to be exciting prospects. While there are teams short in cap, there are others awash with it, some of which have potential based on their roster aside from QB. Irrespective of Rodgers, I can see the QB market being an interesting one next off season.

2 points
2
0
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:50 am

The weak QB draft class will devalue high picks in general.

2 points
2
0
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:41 am

Those are all good points--I think A is the biggest issue--but I would look to the Rams' deal for Stafford and the asking price and reporting offers on Watson as defining the market. At least 3 teams were in on Watson--who will be a PR nightmare and might end up shelved by the NFL, yet--at 3-1s (you'll recall that the 1s plus that Houston wanted is what kept him out of Miami). We can easily come up with 6-8 teams right now that have rosters that are in the SB mix if they upgrade their QB position and add a piece or two via FA.

All three of the vet QBs likely to be on the market this spring-- ARod, Wilson and Watson--are better players than Stafford. Wilson and Watson will probably demand a higher price due to their ages. It's actually ARod who I think a short-term contender will be able to get most easily...but how the compensation works out depends more on which teams are bidding and where their resources lie. I don't think there will be a dearth of suitors. A team trying to win it all this year or next is going to be buying players, not drafting them, so known values on the open market carry more impact than lottery tickets. They'll want to hold their own good players, too, and not deal them.

ARod's value will never be higher than it is right now. Any team that brings in ARod probably only holds him for 2-3 years before their own cap blows up and he either retires or gets dealt again.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 12:54 pm

Quite a lot of Seattle fans think Wilson has not been the same the last couple of years and may have been neutralized to some extent by opponents. I haven’t watched enough to know if there is any real basis for that, but it’s something to think about.

Watson, is a pure gamble. A team could get a player who, as you point out, may be unavailable at any point or even ever or it could pick up a young top talent who has some judgment questions to iron out.

To win now, Rodgers has some baggage, but is the most likely option if a team feels it is ready but for the right QB now. Which teams feel that way and how fervently remains to be seen

2 points
2
0
Oppy's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:05 am

I don't think it will be a pile of gold and dozens of beckoning maidens, but all it takes to get a good deal for Rodgers' contract in trade is two teams that both want him badly.

Keep in mind, regardless of how able Rodgers is to win a SB at his age, he's still Aaron Freakin' Rodgers, and he'll put butts in seats, which, like it or not, is still THE most important thing to 31 out of 32 NFL franchises, because they are privately held businesses, not publicly owned non-profits.

Two franchises desperate to either go for it all, or make a splash, competing to get Rodgers in their team colors, that's all it really takes. Well, teams that Rodgers is willing to play for.

My big fear though, is that Rodgers is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face, and decides to "stick it" to the Packers by retiring and then whines that the Packers forced him into retirement. I mean, Eff that douchebag, but I'd like to see the Packers get compensation out of his dismissal.

0 points
2
2
scullyitsme's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:27 am

I’m on the, if we are trading Rodgers then gut the team bandwagon. TGR is correct in that there isn’t anything worse then being mediocre and over the cap. Rebuild time. Count me Also in the group that thinks this is ridiculous. Trading your hall of fame qb who’s consistently playing at a mvp level would be asinine. The scenario where we keep Rodgers and restructure doesn’t look that bad to me. I’d like to continue winning please. My biggest fear is that gute will half ass it. Trade Rodgers but still think he can make the playoffs with love the first couple years and pay too many others. That would be disastrous

-6 points
4
10
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:54 am

Why would you rebuild around a 38 year old QB that has a short horizon in football? Most QBs retire by 38 or 39 and only a few have successfully played into their early 40's. By the time the Packers rebuild around Rodgers, he will be done. I appreciate the emotional attachment to HOF QB, but rebuilding around an old QB makes no sense.

And the Packers have done this before. Gute watched TT trade Favre in favor of a young and inexperienced QB. That worked out pretty well.... Don't be surprised if they try it again.

5 points
8
3
scullyitsme's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:17 am

Actually reading my post would be nice before commenting, I never said anything about a rebuild with Rodgers. The opposite actually

0 points
2
2
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:32 am

Sorry Scully but I read "Count me in the group that thinks this is ridiculous. Trading your HOF QB who's consistently playing at an MVP level would be asinine." and interpreted that as you preferring to keep Rodgers. My bad if I misinterpreted that.

0 points
2
2
scullyitsme's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:38 am

I do prefer to keep Rodgers, but the point is we wouldn’t need to rebuild with him. The rebuild would be if we went to love

1 points
3
2
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:56 am

On that we disagree. The Packers will have to gut their roster to keep Rodgers and that will require a rebuild of much of the roster except QB.

2 points
4
2
scullyitsme's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:02 am

That’s fine, but then go full rebuild if going to Love. Don’t try and go 8-8 win a crappy division for a couple years and have no chance at a ring. Rebuild a year, maybe two, cut the old guys, extend a few young core guys, and in hopefully one, maybe two years you’ll know what you have in love with a bunch of high draft picks and a great team around him. Or if he doesn’t pan out the qb you trade for at that time.

2 points
3
1
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:16 pm

On that we agree.....

0 points
1
1
13TimeChamps's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:43 pm

Where would we be getting a "bunch of high draft picks"?

0 points
1
1
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:13 pm

Denver has a bunch of high draft picks. Would they be willing to part with them for Rodgers? IDK.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:49 am

The Giants do, too, but they'll be turning over their front office and their roster is further away. They'll have two top-15 picks this year.

Trade one, use the other on an impact player, trade 2023...

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:02 pm

Were I the Giants, I’d look at Wilson first (Watson in NY just seems like a bad idea that no new regime needs to gamble upon). Wilson is a better medium term bet for them to rebuild around, if indeed he does hit the market.

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:19 am

There's no hiding that this is what I think is the best route. ARod is quietly playing really well, and his value will never be higher than it is now--either to the Packers or to someone else. I don't know if Love is the next elite QB to play for the Packers, but with the picks they could get in return for #12, he doesn't necessarily have to be.

1 points
4
3
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:44 pm

It’s going to be a gamble and it’s one we know we had to make sometime. Would I love to keep this roster and Rodgers? Yes, it’s always, always better to trot out a future hall of famer who is still close to the top of his game than gamble on new QB(s), but that isn’t a forever option.

The question, surely, is when must we jump from the warm glow of a known commodity in light of all relevant circumstances? Your point on Rodgers future value is indeed a strong push in favor of now for those tasked keeping the Packers in a position to be contending in the medium term.

1 points
2
1
Gee's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:33 pm

Great comment, and your last sentence is why I'm good with trading Rodgers and cutting who ever. Love and the team will most likely not be great next season, but with this division they may be ok. Besides Love not going to be the focal point of the offence next year anyway we all know, its going to be that 2 headed monster behind him.

1 points
2
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:23 am

I wrote the first version of this article on August 13th. I got tangled up with trying to construct a long-term contract for AR. And then I got more tangled trying to make him the highest paid QB in the NFL on a contract that didn't look awful for an old QB. This is what I wrote back then:

"2022 just converts the maximum possible to a signing bonus, so Rodgers earns what he is scheduled to make at present. His cap savings would be $20.736 million ($25.408M cap number).

2023 appears to me to be the problem year. Rodgers had been scheduled to make $25 million but now it's a void year. Yet, Prescott, Cousins, Watson, and Mahomes are scheduled to earn $31 million, $35 million, $37 million, and $40.4 million, respectively, in straight cash that season. I would try $35 million in cash with $20 million coming in the form of a guaranteed option bonus. That keeps Rodgers’ cap hit down as I think the Packers might still have a bit of a hangover from the void years inserted into the contracts of some players.

2024 is difficult. Prescott is scheduled to earn $34M in cash ($47.2M cap number); Watson gets $32M (just a $37M cap number); Mahomes gets $37.95M ($44.293M cap number); and Josh Allen makes an appearance at $30M ($41.77M cap number).

This leads me to two conclusions. The first is that other GMs really expect the cap to truly explode by 2025. Some say no one should have a cap number that is more than 15% of the salary cap. 15% of $280M is $42M. I do not expect the cap to reach $280M for the 2025 season. However, those teams can drive down the cap number by using void years (Prescott has a void year in 2025) and/or converting some of those cash payments to signing bonuses, which is facilitated by the ages of these quarterbacks in question. "

‘22 1.12M/19.173M/5.07M/ Cap of $25.408M
‘23 15.0M/7.67M/5.07M/4.0M/31.74M (Dead/47.74M)
‘24 37.0M/5.07M/4.0M/46.07M (Dead $31.07M)
‘25 39.0M/5.07M/4.0M/48.07M (Dead 22.07M)
‘26 41.0M/5.07M/4.0M/50.07M (Dead 13.07M)
‘27 VOID/$4.0M for the option bonus is '23. Dead $4M

But I am way short of making AR the highest paid QB. I just think he has to take less to stay. Above, his new money is $35M cash in 2023, $37M in 24, $39M in 25 and $41M in 2026. Mahomes is at $45M AAV supposedly.

3 points
3
0
MarkinMadison's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:48 am

Thanks for the breakdown TGR. This is about as bad as I expected it to look. You lay out a few options but at the end of the day this looks like a rebuild any way you slice it. I doubt that Rodgers wants to stay around for a rebuild, and I'd be shocked as hell if he actually took a pay cut to do it.

The Dallas game opened our eyes as to what Aaron Rodgers could be. The KC game was not that, but Love hasn't had a much time in the system, especially when you factor in changes in the CBA and impacts of COVID on his rookie year. Whether he proves to be a worthy successor or not I think this is the way the Packers are going to have to roll.

If they stick with the program and continue to build a solid team they may have a down year or two but they will rise again, with Love, or with someone else. I might hang onto Amos. I think he has a lot left to give. Keep the defense intact as much as possible. Move on from Turner and put Nijman at RT. Pray the Bakh fully recovers. You can roll out a decent product, add some pieces, and be a contender again in 2023 or 2024. I think we are going to have to shoot for high draft picks with the 2022 season.

2 points
5
3
HarryHodag's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:56 am

Great article and an affirmation of what I've been talking about for some time. This year is it. It could be lean year(s) coming up. My study of the cap was nowhere near as detailed as the article, but it didn't take an accountant to see the Packers have too much money spent to fit under the cap.

I said early on that Rodgers HAD to leave in order for things to return to normal. Maybe I missed it, but the article could have looked at the ramifications if Rodgers RETIRED. I got the sense from his demeanor that that also could be a possibility.

Without rehashing the article the Packers are going to need immediate help from the upcoming draft to right the ship in a cost-effective manner. This happens to all good teams as they build toward the Super Bowl. It's Green Bay's time. People used to carp about Bill Belichick and his efforts to release veterans early from contracts. But you really do have to make hard decisions for the good of the team.

The 2023 cap looks like it will be greatly expanded, so relief is on the way. But 2022 will be very different at 1265 Lombardi Avenue.

1 points
3
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:54 am

AR converted $14.26 million of his roster bonus to a signing bonus in December of 2019. then he converted $14M more in 2021. Only $5.7M from the 2018 original deal would be for a year in which he did not play. GB could have asked for a refund but they agreed last July not to request any refunds (called forfeitures) for his signing bonuses.

So, if he retired, the Packers would save $19.297M on the cap. That is, the same as if he were traded. He could wait until June 2 to retire, which would make $19M of his signing proration count in 2022 and $7.67M in 2023, but that would leave the Packers hanging unless they are okay with a pretty total rebuild. A post June 1 retirement would provide $26.97M in cap relief for 2022. GB would not be able to sign any free agents (including their own UFAs or RFAs) until June. They might have some trouble signing their drat picks for that matter, but I assume they would adjust some other contracts. There would be a $7.67M dead money hit in 2023.

2 points
2
0
croatpackfan's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:50 pm

If AR retire (I doubt) there was article (maybe by you TGR) that said Packers can ask League to wipe the all cap money from the contract of the retired player. Or I might not understood correctly?

-1 points
0
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:11 pm

Probably by me. I certainly wrote something like that, but not quite that. It was true in April, May, June, and for most of July that the Packers could ask for /demand a refund of unearned signing bonus prorations. And it was a lot of money: it was the 2021 $6.8M roster bonus paid in March plus two $11M signing bonus prorations, a total of $29M or so.

That changed in July. As part of the agreement to restructure, the Packers apparently agreed not to seek any refunds (called forfeitures) from AR, per Pelissero, Shefter, ESPN.

2 points
2
0
croatpackfan's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:46 am

Thanks for the clarification!

0 points
0
0
jurp's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:05 am

TGR - Excellent article! Thank you for explaining the incredibly convoluted world that is the salary cap in terms just about anyone can understand, and without bias. As a retired long-time technical writer, I salute you for your work!

As to the future, I agree with Coldworld that the team's best chance at continued success is to trade Rodgers, go with Love (at least for a year) and youth to get us through the 2022 and 2023 seasons. I'm more optimistic about the future than a lot of folks here - given the state of the NFC North, I think we can still narrowly win the division next year with that team (one-and-done in the playoffs, though). I hate to say it, but if we do as well as NE has done this year (year 2 post-Brady) in year 2 Post-AR, then we'll be doing great. And I think it's possible. Who knows - maybe we'll be talking about the possibility of an AR vs MLF Super Bowl in 23 or 24.

4 points
6
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:01 am

Due to length, what is not shown are the contract extensions for Amos and Preston Smith, and the restructures for Jaire and Aaron Jones. I wonder what AAV one would pay Preston if he were extended? He isn't in Watt territory, but $16M AAV, which is Leonard Floyd, Shaquil Barrett, and Bud Dupree money (all of whom are recent signings)?

I would like to keep AR. I have a bias. I have just been trying to figure out how, and mostly finding myself unconvincing.

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:56 pm

The cap may grow with new TV contracts in 2025, but veteran pay will catch up rapidly. Under TT, that affected the Packers less than most. That is not necessarily true with Gute. The problem with the extension concept is that there are players for whom 2025 is too far away. Bakh, Z, Adams, others are at or near their peak now.

Younger players are a couple of years away from their typical peak and are going to cost more and, from a roster perspective, suggest peaking around the 2025 mark. That route would run the risk of having them traded at that point in preparation for a couple of years rebuild with a then new QB. As I said earlier, it’s not just the current cap picture that suggests change is imminent, it’s the whole dynamic of the roster, among other things.

-1 points
1
2
jurp's picture

December 08, 2021 at 01:56 pm

You may have a bias toward retaining AR, but that did not come through in your write-up; hence my first paragraph :)

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 09, 2021 at 02:42 am

When I write words, I want to keep Aaron Rodgers.

When I look at numbers, I reach the opposite conclusion.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

December 09, 2021 at 06:22 am

A great way to sum things up TGR

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:17 am

Excellent stuff TGR. Thank you for putting forward the common sense that this team will be blown up after 2021. Some Packers fans are just emotionally not ready for that but it is going to happen.

I personally would like to see as many of the older veterans as possible cut or traded with the exception of Campbell and Amos. I would get that additional 20 million under the cap and tag/trade Davante.

Maximize your draft compensation and do the salary cap reboot in 2022 to reload around love or whoever is next in 2023. Rebuilding around a 38 year old quarterback is dumb as hell.

1 points
4
3
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:54 am

I would think they can extend Amos and keep his 2022 cap hit close to his dead money value if they'd traded or cut him.

IN EDIT: Thanks TGR for following up on this above.

" Rebuilding around a 38 year old quarterback is dumb as hell."

Yup.

-1 points
1
2
CheesyTex's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:51 pm

Excellent points Bearmeat.

IMO that Rodgers and Adams will play for the same team in '22 (think anyone with cap space and trade resources -- such as the Giants -- would obviously want both), and since the Packers clearly cannot afford both tagging/trading Adams would be a great way to maximize future ammo. It is a leverage game on the business side, and the tag/trade is a great idea especially if the FO is truly dealing with "Dance Partners".

0 points
2
2
Bearmeat's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:50 pm

I keep thinking ARod plus Davante for Jeudy and Surtain and 2 1s. Don’t know why. Perhaps because 12s fiancé lives in Boulder…

1 points
2
1
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

December 08, 2021 at 06:35 am

Bearmeat this is likely pretty close! I too think Denver. Just wondering though if one of Bradley Chubb, a DL like Shelby Harris, or maybe even Kyle Fuller might be included?

0 points
0
0
Gee's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:58 pm

This is going to sound dumb, but what is Adams incentive to agree to sign and trade? Its not like the NBA where holding someone bird rights, get them an extra 30& on the max. Of am I wrong?

0 points
1
1
CheesyTex's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:27 pm

I don't know the numbers (need someone like TGR), but I think tag will be about $20 million and it is for 1 year. Think Adams is looking for multi-year at NFL highest paid, likely an average of $25 mil. or more with something like $50 mil guaranteed.

If a trade partner would be willing to give him a long-term deal for more $ than the tag, IMO that's plenty of incentive to sign and trade.

1 points
1
0
Bearmeat's picture

December 08, 2021 at 01:39 pm

That's it.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:34 pm

Adams doesn't have much incentive to like being franchised for roughly $19.7M when he thinks he's worth $27.5M. The thing is, he doesn't have any say in being franchised because GB doesn't need his permission. They just issue the franchise offer. He doesn't have to sign it and probably won't.

If GB can get a first or even a 2nd in 2022, that's better than releasing him for nothing or getting a 3rd round comp pick in 2023.

3 points
3
0
jhtobias's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:34 am

Well the only issue I have is that if Rodgers is traded becuase he wants out of Green Bay doesn't want him which in my opinion is criminal negligence by management.

If Rodgers is gone then does it really matter who they keep or don't? Nothing against Jordan Love but let's be real without rodgers the rebuild is on.

Don't want to hear they can't extend Rodgers becuase of money push ot 3 to 4 years down the road cap will be huge. Really without rodgers let's keep campbell yosh and extend jaire . The others deserve better to win now

-5 points
2
7
Dragon5's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:28 am

Remains to be seen whether re-up or rebuild occurs, but if the latter, still an advocate of maximizing trade leverage with DEN sending packaged ARod+Tae for Surtain, Jeudy, 2 1sts and fill in the blank ______. Denver now has 11 picks next year, 5 in the first 3 rounds, all noted below. A rebuild, at least in the early phase, needs to focus on a stout defense so that Love can "manage" games within the QB maturity process. Given the Packers cap hell, picks Denver acquired from the Von Miller trade, Shailene Woodley's residence and preference to live in Boulder, and Rodgers recent blip about starting a family, I would not be shocked if a premeditated arrangement is already in place.

DEN 2022 draft picks
Round 1: Own pick
Round 2: Own pick
Round 2: From Los Angeles Rams
Round 3: Own pick
Round 3: From Los Angeles Rams
Round 4: Own pick
Round 5: Own pick
Round 5: From Detroit Lions
Round 6: From Philadelphia Eagles
Round 7: From San Francisco 49ers*
Round 7: From Detroit Lions*

Adams & Smith Bros all in their enemy year next year, so given our cap debacle, I wouldn't hesitate to help them all find a new home. Preston has performed well this year...from a management perspective gives Gute the opportunity to sell high for just compensation.

3 points
4
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:53 pm

Wow, that's a lot of draft picks. I was not as thrilled with getting a first in 2022, another in 2023 and maybe another in 2024. Denver could send a 1, 2 and a 3 in 2022, and then maybe another 1 in 2023.

Nice info, good food for thought.

4 points
4
0
MarkinMadison's picture

December 07, 2021 at 06:25 pm

We can't "package Tae." We can't afford to sign him, and he will not be ours to trade. Tae will sign wherever he feels like it, and we'll get a comp pick in 2023. Not sure what I'm missing here.

2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:39 pm

I wasn't responding to the AR + Adams scenario. I think that would be nice but is unlikely. It is hard to tag and trade Adams. Denver might have the cap space to handle AR and Adams, though. $12M in 2021 and $48M in 22 with 39 players under contract, to deduct $9M from the $48M. Still might have$45M to $50M available for 2022.

1 points
1
0
Leatherhead's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:40 am

Lots of good meat here. TGR, Dobber, Guam,…..you’ve done a good job at analyzing some of the hypothetical particulars from a salary cap point of view. I appreciate that. From that perspective, I most closely agree with Coldworld.

I think that what happens this season is the most important variable. If we win the Super Bowl, then there’s going to be strong sentiment towards trying to repeat. If we do not, then I think there’d be a groundswell of support for putting the best team we could around Love.

I have believed, from the day Love was drafted, that The Plan @1265 was to start Love in 2022. That meant trading Rodgers, who would still be under contract. I still believe this is the best, and most likely, scenario n

3 points
6
3
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:10 pm

Well, maybe that's why I first wrote a version of this article on August 13: because my bias was to keep AR but I couldn't make a contract extension look acceptable if he wanted $46M in new money on an AAV basis.

I think GB wins another super bowl or two if Holmgren had been willing to remain as the HC and nothing more. Rhodes and Sherman could not coax out of Favre what Holmgren got, and one of them IIRC and it is true let him have his own locker room space, if that is indeed true. I hate to see greatness leave town. I watched Whitehurst, Tagge, Hadl, which was okay. Dickey and Majkowski were fun even if I didn't think those teams were really legitimate contenders. It might be a long rebuild but Gute is pretty good with his first round picks, and really with his 2nd rounders as well. Maybe Love is the guy.

Yes, if GB wins a super bowl, things could change. The numbers won't, but the price fans are willing to countenance might. Not sure if winning a super bowl would affect the thinkking of Gute, Russ Ball, Mark Murphy, and not least, Aaron Rodgers.

4 points
4
0
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:06 pm

Winning a Super Bowl just makes for upward pay pressure, in addition to any contractual bonuses that may be triggered. The one possible change is that Rodgers might elect to retire on top. He’s got other interests, but whether he can let go of football is another thing all together. It is possible.

2 points
3
1
jurp's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:08 pm

I was also thing that Rodgers might retire if we win the Super Bowl, along with Marcedes Lewis and Crosby (I think this is his last year either way). With AR, if he's still holding a grudge against our FO, retiring as a champ would be a win-win - more time for his fiance/other interests, and screwing over Gutekunst and the FO (no trade, so no draft picks).

There is an allure with going out as a Champion. Cobb, too, could elect to retire, although he may first wait to see what, if any, interest teams have after we cut him for cap reasons.

0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

December 07, 2021 at 05:34 pm

I think Rodgers may retire if they win.

1 points
1
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:27 pm

Never going to happen!

1 points
1
0
Turophile's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:44 am

I've been waiting for TGR to address the cap in 2022 and here it is !

Thanks to him for the detailed breakdown. I was gratified that in his calculations he had Preston Smith extended rather than released - I was hoping the Packers could find a way to keep him (to pair with Rashan Gary).

What isn't addressed is how the Packers pay extra high draft choices (if Rodgers is traded). I'm sure paying them is doable, but nothing about the 2022 cap is easy.

Is is likely the Packers tag and trade Adams ?

4 points
6
2
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:13 pm

That issue never occurred to me! I think my calculator is fried for today. A first round pick that is from a team who thinks they can win it all with AR probably costs net about $2.5M. I think it's doable.

3 points
3
0
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:01 pm

Realistically, the likelihood is that draft choices will be spread over more than one year, since few teams have the capital to do otherwise. Rookie contracts aren’t that high in the scheme of things.

The problem with tag and trade is you have a massive cap hit from the 1yr tag on the books to add to that TGR has laid out.

1 points
2
1
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:57 am

If you've decided to tear it down mostly to the studs, that tag and trade plan might pay dividends for the Packers in the long run if they honestly think they can net a day 1 pick. I don' think it's likely, though, and they'll have to settle for a 3rd in 2023.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:18 pm

I agree that tag and trade (given a partner) is the best option, I’m just not at all clear how we accommodate the 20 million extra cap cost (Adams will count nothing for 2022 at this point) to get from the tag to the trade without losing other pieces.

The other thing is that one needs a very firm arrangement with another party first. Typically that’s a result of not just a desire to sign Adams but the fear of being outbid. At the price he’s likely to want us that a real possibility? Probably, but not certainly. If the WR price he seeks is seen as inflated, teams may just let him go to FA and not risk him being a frustrated rental wanting to go elsewhere.

1 points
1
0
Ferrari-Driver's picture

December 07, 2021 at 11:45 am

This is exactly why some of us become bus drivers, telephone pole installers, and dog barbers so we don't have to deal with "Managing the Cap".

6 points
6
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:17 pm

So you can drive a Ferrari on the salary of a bus driver, telephone pole installer or dog groomer?

I also remember some of your comments on how much it cost you to attend a game at Lambeau. I conclude that you could wrap your brain around the subject if you were sufficiently motivated. I think you just don't want to, but I suppose you could be a famous X, Y, or Z and don't need math to do it.

2 points
2
0
Ferrari-Driver's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:51 pm

TGR, I always wanted to be an engineer and drive a train since I was a little kid. That type of engineer didn't pan out, so I had to settle for a traditional engineering career.

4 points
4
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:44 pm

Ah, man - your math is probably excellent! Suspicion confirmed! : - )

1 points
1
0
Johnblood27's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:04 am

...and I thought you might be an LA/vegas parking valet...

3 points
3
0
Ferrari-Driver's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:08 am

You clever Devil.

3 points
3
0
barutanseijin's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:35 pm

I teach math, but i have no patience for this stuff. Very complicated, lotta ins, lotta outs what have yous.

And in the end, it’s somebody else’s money. I’ll let them worry about it.

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:21 pm

I too am grateful for TGR’s cap masochism. Really appreciate the resolution he shows to wade through this dark and convoluted valley so consistently.

1 points
1
0
Lphill's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:22 pm

Trading Rodgers after this season will be one of the biggest blunders in sports history .

-6 points
5
11
Leatherhead's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:31 pm

Bigger than trading Babe Ruth? Bigger than drafting Sam Bowie instead of Jordan? Bigger than drafting Tony Mandarich?

No. Whether it happens now or a few years from now, the Packers are going to have a new QB. I’m certain of that. His trade value might be substantial, but it will be at peak value after this season. He’s not getting younger; All Things Must Pass.

I look at a team like Denver, and think that if we could get their #1 pick in a trade, and add a player like Surtain, we might be able to put a real good team on the field around Love.

2 points
3
1
barutanseijin's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:37 pm

Why would the Broncos give up Surtain for a couple years of Rodgers? I don’t see it.

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

December 07, 2021 at 05:18 pm

Because they have to give us something we want , and they think Rodgers will take them to the Super Bowl, like Peyton Manning did.

For the Packers, we’re going to want players who can help right away more than draft picks.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

December 07, 2021 at 05:49 pm

Just

1 points
1
0
jannes bjornson's picture

December 07, 2021 at 08:13 pm

Who does Surtain replace as the starter, Jaire or Stokes. Not happening.

2 points
2
0
Leatherhead's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:13 am

Hardly a problem. We play three corners a lot. The problem is having enough good, healthy guys.

1 points
2
1
HarryHodag's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:34 pm

I don't think ANYONE who follows the Packers WANTS Aaron Rodgers to leave.
I'm not sure Aaron wants to leave. I'm not sure Aaron wants to play football any more. I'm not sure he wants to be in Green Bay.

But one thing is certain: Aaron will count 21 percent of the ENTIRE 2022 cap, with a cap hit of $46 million. No fiscally responsible team can field that number without cutting 10-20 veterans to make it happen. So you keep the HOF'er while cutting the guts out of the rest of a potential championship team. This isn't flag football. He needs blockers, runners, receivers, and a defense.
When Favre was indicating he was leaving there was a debate whether Rodgers was any good. I read a lot of similar comments about Jordan Love. I don't know if Love is the answer but he doesn't count 21 percent of the cap. At some point the current guy has to go and the new guy takes over. It appears one way or another this will be the transition off-season.

If Rodgers would tear up his contract and agree to a cap friendly new deal, then by all means HURRAY! But that is realistically not possible. Some might say it's a blunder that was unavoidable that he moves on one way or another.

3 points
3
0
Oppy's picture

December 08, 2021 at 09:36 am

I definitely follow the Packers and I've been ready to watch Rodgers leave since roughly 2018. Started becoming really concerned about his BS level since about 2016. Probably started noticing his unhealthy arrogance towards coaching and his undermining, less-than-truthful comments during pressers around 2012-2013.

So, rest assured, at least one person who follows the Packers wants Aaron Rodgers to leave the Packers. It's time. I'm sure it will be good for everyone involved in the bigger picture.

1 points
2
1
Johnblood27's picture

December 08, 2021 at 07:18 pm

Like most times, i am number 2...

It... is... TIME!!!

1 points
2
1
frankthefork's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:24 pm

Thanks for the thought-provoking cap analysis- TGR. Reality and predicting the future suck, but then you just deal with it.

Winning the division is the #1 yearly goal for the GB (any)front office; anything better than that is gravy.
In 2022, managing the cap will be priority goal #1 for GB...and if GB is w/o AR12, which I expect will be traded to Denver, it's going to be some lumping gravy for a while.

4 points
5
1
Minniman's picture

December 07, 2021 at 12:36 pm

I wondered why you were conspicuously absent from the cap discussion thread yesterday TGR - this explains in - you were keeping powder dry!

1 points
1
0
marpag1's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:01 pm

To me, this was always the reason that justified the drafting of Jordan Love... because if you play it out for just another scant year or two and sooner rather than later the numbers just can't work anymore. Gutey and Ball know it.

Jordan Love is neither the magic bullet nor the bullet that must be bitten to fix the situation. Not having Aaron Rodgers is.

4 points
6
2
Ya_tittle's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:27 pm

See what happens to the Steelers once Big Ben quits. What is their plan?

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:33 pm

Looks like a year too late if you ask most Steelers fans, whatever their plan is.

1 points
1
0
jurp's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:15 pm

Yeah, the Steelers are in a bad place. Should they take a huge risk on a high-round QB in a very weak draft or a moderate risk on someone like Blake Bortles? Heck, maybe we can trade them Etling for a 3rd rounder - just kidding, although if they gave us a 1st or 2nd I'd trade Benkert and bring Bortles back :)

1 points
1
0
stockholder's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:55 pm

I don't look it like a problem at all. If your going to trade Rodgers. Adams ,Bahk , and Tonyan can go. If you don't tag Adams. He can go. If Tonyan, Z Smith, Bahk, or any guy hasn't helped you to the play-offs. "Get rid of them". The age should be the next deciding Factor. With such "depth" on the OL. Why even sign Turner? Cap casualty. Plain and simple. But what can you do if you keep Rodgers? Well Gutey got rid of Perry and CM3. Even Daniels. So you start there. Thank you Z smith, But your job belongs to Gary. Lowrey isn't better then Daniels! And Turner isn't better then Bulaga. Finally- trade Love. He's just the bait to move up in the draft! And if Gutey gets another edge Rusher. P. Smith must be considered.

-2 points
4
6
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:36 pm

Lowry is better than Daniels is now. He was better than Daniels actually was almost immediately. That’s not to say that Lowry will have a better career in hindsight, it’s just that what matters is what a player can do at the time in question. Comparing players at different points in their career is thus a fun but not productive endeavor.

4 points
5
1
Oppy's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:08 am

Turner is probably better than Bulaga.

Definitely better if you factor in health and availability.

1 points
1
0
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:34 am

They should be able to wrangle something in trade for him...probably not a lot, but something. Which is always better than just cutting him loose.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 09, 2021 at 02:50 am

Ah, I've got things to write about this comment, but it will be in an article.

1 points
1
0
jurp's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:17 pm

And who would you use as a backup to AR if you trade Love? A rookie draft choice? Benkert? Bortles?

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 07, 2021 at 01:48 pm

Yikes. I forgot to list Rasul Douglas as a UFA. I will fix. I listed ESB as an RFA, but I think he is also a UFA. 3 credited season but 4 accrued seasons since he spent a year on IR.

I have no idea what kind of money Douglas will command on the free market. Guessing St. Brown is under $2M.

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:43 pm

Douglas, if he continues to play as he has, isn’t going to be much less than King was this year. EQ signed for under 700k this year. How much more has he really established himself?

1 points
1
0
wildbill's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:54 pm

For those who keep comparing Favre/Rodgers to Rodgers/Love situations please share those meds with me. Favre talked about retiring for several years and Rodgers was a legit possible #1 pick in the draft. TT did not manipulate anything to pick Rodgers as he was available at our pick.
Rodgers has stated numerous times he wants to play to age 40, or beyond?,and wants to be a Packer for life. I highly question if more than a team or two even had a first round grade on Love, and then we traded up to draft him.

Those who are so quick to dump Rodgers probably did not watch the 70s/80s Packers. The NFL today is all about QB play and Rodgers with a mediocre team around him will be worlds better than Love with a better cast. Run with Rodgers until the wheels fall off! We will have a more competitive team and it will be tons more fun to watch.

0 points
6
6
Guam's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:09 pm

Speaking of meds..... There was some talk about Rodgers being #1, but factually he was drafted #24. Many of the draftniks had a first round grade on Love (go back and look at the mock drafts for his year), but factually he was drafted #26.

I don't care how long Rodgers wants to play, the real question if how long can he play well? He will be 38, turning 39 next season. That is the age most QBs retire. Very few QBs have played well into their 40's (maybe just one - Brady).

And I am old enough to have started rooting for Packers during the Lombardi era. I suffered through the 80s and 90s too. Rodgers is nearing the age of decline and retirement. Love is an unknown. Why would you rebuild around an old and potentially declining QB? Why not try Love?

6 points
8
2
stockholder's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:47 pm

The Packers traded for Hadl when he was 34. Rodgers is the MVP. And the Leader of this team. Declining? - Why try Love, when Rodger's could still be around for 5 more years. Love may not.

-1 points
2
3
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:23 pm

Is Hadl an example that supports an expectation of longevity?

1 points
1
0
jurp's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:24 pm

In actual numbers, 34 < 39. In reality, Hadl <<< Rodgers. In football terms 34 is light-years less than 39. If Age-in-Football were a sine curve, 34 is just past the peak and 39 is just a smidge above the right-hand bottom. You have no proof that AR is the leader of the team, nor is he in THIS YEAR's MVP discussion.

AR could play for five more years, or his arm could decline as fast as Bart Starr's and Peyton Manning's. Odds and football history favor the latter scenario.

To paraphrase, it's better to trade a player a year too soon then to let him retire after he's all washed up.

2 points
3
1
Leatherhead's picture

December 08, 2021 at 04:36 pm

Guam, I think the real question is why would he succeed next year when he hasn’t gotten a team to the Super Bowl in over a decade? Just like Favre. At some point, you have to try something different.

1 points
2
1
Swisch's picture

December 08, 2021 at 05:23 pm

Sad to say, I was born in 1962 and too young to enjoy the Lombardi Packers; I was 10 when the Packers won a division title in 1972, but after that it was mostly tough times as a fan for the next 20 years or so -- especially living in the Chicago area almost all of that time, including the 1985 season of William "The Refrigerator" Perry scoring two touchdowns against the Packers, and the debut of, "The Superbowl Shuffle."
I'm not quick to dump Aaron Rodgers. I'd be open to trading Jordan Love and keeping Rodgers under the right circumstances; but then again, I don't think those circumstances are likely.
***
First, I doubt Rodger would take enough of a salary cut to make it at all practical to keep him; second, I don't think Rodgers really likes the LaFleur offense and would be happier elsewhere.
Would Rodgers be willing to throw only three passes in a windy game if it meant victory for the Packers, as was the case with Mac Jones and the Patriots this past week? By the way, the Patriots are showing that you can win with a young quarterback in Jones.
The risk of keeping Rodgers does seem somewhat like the John Hadl situation in the sense that we'll be hindered in keeping and acquiring good players by the huge salary of an aging quarterback who could deteriorate in performance at any time.
I would guess that Rodgers isn't willing to take a contract that appreciates that great risk, allowing the Packers to quickly move on without the burden of his mega-salary.
Aside from the contract, there are still questions about his willingness to focus on being a player without making decisions that belong to the coach and general manager. I like Rodgers as a consultant, but he has to be good with his suggestions not being implemented.
I'd like to keep Rodgers, but it doesn't seem likely it's in the best interest of the team as a whole. We have to balance the well-being of all of the players.
Plus, the fans are of no little importance. We make the NFL go. I don't want a Packers team that is decimated for years to come because of having to pay some $30 million per season for a quarterback who quite possibly will decline in skills or succumb to injury.

-1 points
0
1
Gopack12's picture

December 07, 2021 at 02:56 pm

After watching this season.. specifically the KC game vs all the others, how can any true Packers fan not be all in for resigning Rodgers for 4 or 5 more years.. Love gave us a glimpse of life after Rodgers and I for one want no part of it….Gute has shown us that he can find and plug in players everywhere around Rodgers and make it work.. This season is a perfect illustration of this…we have lost 4 of our top 6 players this year and continue to win.. but take Rodgers out the equation and our beloved Packers will become extremely mediocre, like the rest of our division …for those of you looking to move on from Rodgers, do you realize what you are signing up for?

-9 points
1
10
flackcatcher's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:29 pm

Because there is no money to sign Rodgers even if the Packers wanted to beyond 2023. What we are watching was set in 2017 with Rodger's last contract. Be glad that Gute and Ball were able to squeeze another two years out of the Cap before Covid. Now comes the rebuild. (God I hate writing this...)

2 points
3
1
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

December 07, 2021 at 09:38 pm

People are too emotional about Rodgers and unwilling to give Love a chance. The team needs for Love to play a few more games this year to see what they have. When Rodgers is traded they will get several high draft choices. If Packers do not think Love is the answer than use Love and several high draft choices and go after a top ranked QB. Not that complicated and as simple as that!

1 points
2
1
Gopack12's picture

December 07, 2021 at 10:12 pm

That simple huh. Thats why teams search for 50 years to get a great QB .. look no further than the teams in our division.. we have the greatest above to ever play and we want to get rid of him… if we do Chicago and Minnesota will throw parades and that should tell you all you need to know

-1 points
1
2
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:19 am

I guarantee you that we will go through that at some point. The question is when to take the risk? I don’t think anyone here is saying that Love is the next Franchise QB or that they want to split up this roster. I do see a realization that it’s going to be next to impossible to keep it together and also that Rodgers without a similarly deep and talented roster isn’t a recipe for success.

As Pittsburg are apparently finding this year and the Saints last year, just hoping your QB will go on forever is a high risk gamble in itself. Shareholder thinks Rodgers might have 5 more years at the top. If he does, that’s likely just about long enough to get a year, maybe two of contention if we break up this roster to keep him.

Yes, Brady is still going, but Brady Is the exception and won based on a really good roster primarily last year. Rodgers wouldn’t have anything close. Also Rodgers would likely lose his remaining best buddies, or most. Adams, Crosby, Cobb would likely be gone. Given his desire to retain such people, it’s questionable how happy that would make Rodgers. Equally, the fact that he’d be playing for a team in rebuild is probably not his ideal.

So this question of why would the team not just keep him seems to me to be a false simplicity.

4 points
5
1
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 09:07 am

Wrap this up with a bow and repost generously!

2 points
3
1
Oppy's picture

December 09, 2021 at 08:43 pm

People like to base their decisions and outlook on reason and logic, so long as the reasonable and logical conclusions support their predetermined decisions and outlook.

0 points
1
1
HarryHodag's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:45 am

Please re-read the article again, kick in the logic part of the brain and not the heart, and look at facts.
Like Love or not he's the best option at the moment for 2022. He's had time to get ready unlike Jacksonville or the Jets(and the Bears) who threw young QB's to the wolves then wonder why they fail.
All of us, as I mentioned earlier, would LOVE to have Rodgers back another year. But can you see losing more of the top veterans? So you would have Rodgers and much less else.

In personnel decisions head must trump heart.

3 points
4
1
Oppy's picture

December 09, 2021 at 08:46 pm

Harry, I just want to remind you, as I mentioned earlier, I would NOT love to have Rodgers back another year.

Ship that guy out ASAP. I'm looking forward to another decade and a half of winning football- Rodgers doesn't advance that goal.

-1 points
1
2
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 09:31 am

"...how can any true Packers fan..."

Vomit.

2 points
3
1
croatpackfan's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:02 pm

TGR thank you very much on this enormeus job. We can talk this and that, but as you stated by yourself, if Aaron Rodgers stays, he will have bunch of JAGs to play with. I'm sure, no matter how much many of you glorify him, AR does not have interest to play for Packers if he will have JAGs around him. He is too much "noble" to be around that kind of team.

Also, lets be honest. He is starting his decline, he knows that very well, but he will never admit that publicly. He is looking for the team with strong D (like WFT) without true No 1 QB and decent WR. He is doing the same as Brett Favre did. He wanted to play for Vikings so he can bring them SB title. And he found himself at Jets, from which he escaped to Vikings next season.

I will repeat one of my posts: "Once one wise man said: If you are facing rebuilding, it is always better to start earlier than later!" And I agree with that man.

So, there is many ways to calculate what to do with the cap. And, as you wrote it never ends with possibility to keep AR and all other core player. And you agree that you will not rebuilding team around 38 old QB. And AR wants to repeat Tom Brady moves, just to put himself in the same conversation about TB and Peytone Manning one day when there will be discussion about great QBs.

AR has enough money, but I believe there is more than money behind everything what AR did last offseason...

Also, evaluating Jordan Love by evaluating his playing in the game where OL did not show themselves and the plan was tailored for Aaron Rodgers can not be more wrong. What I want to see from Jordan Love is not how he emulate AR, but what he has to show us when he will playing game tailored for him...

4 points
7
3
Gopack12's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:25 pm

And your telling me you have seen enough from Love , to let go the best QB to ever play in the NFL?

-6 points
1
7
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:39 pm

It's not about Love. It's about #12, his value, and what the covid-accelerated cap did to this team and it's future cap situations.

You didn't read the article.

7 points
8
1
croatpackfan's picture

December 08, 2021 at 03:12 am

Gopack12

No, contrary! I said that we still do not know how good or bad Jordan Love is. Because he played only 4 quarters of preseason games and one game that was not consider him and his abilities when game plan was made. So we still do not know what we have with Jordan Love.

I'll bet that Jordan Love will be very good (maybe excellent) young QB when game plans will be tailored for him, not for HOF QB he is backing up now. My conclusion is that AR crying games through off season was partially (and that part was a main reason) produced by what he saw in Jordan Love.

And I will say this once more. Jordan Love has to play as Jordan Love, not as Aaron Rodgers, because he is not Aaron Rodgers. His skills might be similar but still mental aspects of the QB playing are certainly not the same as those aspects by Aaron Rodgers. When you learn from great professionals your knowledge has value only if that knowledge is adapted to your skills and personality, it would never work as 100% copy!

I know that many of fans are afraid of the future w/o AR, but most of those fans were afraid of the future w/o Brett Favre. So what. Nobody knows what future contains and what challenges will put in front of us. Why should I afraid of those new challenges? If you have self confidence you'll take what future brings and develop yourself to be better. And if you expect negative things and events from future, be sure that future will comply.

Have a nice day. Don't be so angry!

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:38 pm

"So, there is many ways to calculate what to do with the cap. And, as you wrote it never ends with possibility to keep AR and all other core player."

I can't imagine how many possible scenarios BG and Russ Ball have likely charted out at this point for how to navigate the off-season, the cap, and roster management.

Every time one domino falls, the path will change...

4 points
4
0
croatpackfan's picture

December 08, 2021 at 02:48 am

I agree Dobber!

1 points
1
0
flackcatcher's picture

December 07, 2021 at 03:21 pm

Great article TGR. Pretty much tracks with what is being whispered in front offices across the entire NFL. The main difference is unlike a lot of NFL front offices, the Packers under Gutekunst faced this head on starting in 2018. Still doesn't make it easy on us fans, but to pretend that one didn't see this coming is being unfair to one's self. Two quick points. One: Unlike some NFL owners, the Packers have avoided using void years knowing that it becomes a hidden tax on future contracts. Also, the NFL may be moving to restrict the use of void years depending on what future NFL/NFLPA negotiations hold. Two: TGR's analysis is in all likelihood the best case for the Packers going forward in 20222-2023. Oh, Joy!... Finally, wildcards: The owners have worked very hard to hide the hit Covid did to the league. When the NFLPA demand (as they will) that the owners open their books things will get interesting...

1 points
2
1
barutanseijin's picture

December 07, 2021 at 04:51 pm

The Covid hit was/is transferred to the players via a lower cap number, to the fans via higher prices and taxpayers via tax writeoffs, creative accounting & subsidies.

2 points
2
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

December 08, 2021 at 04:02 am

And a stock sale with a $90M sales goal.

0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

December 08, 2021 at 04:04 pm

Covid is an ongoing situation inside the league. Using a stock sale is a one time tool for the Packers that they can't go to very often. The owners, other than the Packers can't hold their'bake sales' because they don't have the unusual ownership structure the Packers have. At some point the owners will have to bite the bullet on Covid. They haven't, otherwise they would have entered into talks with the union about next year's Cap number. Part of this is the game within the game that the owners play among themselves. The other is the X-factors the owners understand, but can't calculate. (future TV revue Cap declining etc. etc.)

0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

December 08, 2021 at 08:23 am

no doom and gloom here. I believe in the gbp and jordan love and mlf. "ive seen hard times and ive seen pain. ive seen times when i could not find a friend" yet we have all survived and come through hard times and seen sunshine once again. ...and will in the future as well.

it is sad that ar has to go, it happens, especially in a cap driven league. the cap is good for owners, good for players and bad for fans. it is reality however and we, the fans, have to take our loyalty lumps with it.

a word of caution on the draft haul expected for a trade of ar. any team trading for ar is going to expect to win with him, and probably will. that means that the picks will be late round selections and will yield the same chances at stud players as the gbp have had for the last 25 years. think about all the moaning about how the gbp can never get any really good players in the draft because of regular season successes. that will be the same for the teams that acquires ars' draft picks. no top 5 picks there.

my optimism is firmly rooted in mlf and his offensive schemes. i am glad he was selected as the gbp coach and believe that he can do more with less in todays nfl. i believe he has also found his defensive partner who compliments him well in barry. i have rooted just as hard for gbp teams that were not favored among the leagues finest, and i will again. the sun doesn't shine on the same dogs ass all the time, but he is still my dog!

sorry for no caps, my cap key is busted.

3 points
4
1
Since&#039;61's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:17 am

TGR, thanks again for all of your effort on this issue. This is a great article and discussion on the Packers current salary cap situation. Many of the potential scenarios have been discussed by our excellent bloggers here at CHTV so I'm not going to go over them again. I will say generally that I hope that the packers can keep as much of the defense intact as possible. As much as I would prefer for the Packers to retain Rodgers and Adams I just don't see how that could happen without gutting much of the current roster. So what would be the point of keeping Rodgers and Adams in that case?

A strong defensive unit can keep a team close in most games and enable even a rebuilding offensive unit to pull out victories. So that would be my approach.

There are too many variable to get into specifically which players should be kept and which should go. At this point we don't know if or which players will decide to go into the FA market to see how much they get or just to leverage their negotiations with the Packers. If anyone should be tagged, I believe that it should be Alexander. If the Packers win it all this season we know that numerous players are going to be looking for big pay days either from the Packers or the highest bidder.

My biggest concern is that the 2 guys who got us into this mess (Ball and Gute) are now the 2 guys who we are expecting to get us out of it. Yikes!!!

Yes Gute has done an excellent job in building the current roster including some superb moves to add depth. But getting the cap under control looks like it's going to be a total cluster fuxk. I wish them luck. I going back to focusing on beating the Bears this week. There will enough cap talk after the season. GPG! Thanks, Since '61

3 points
4
1
dobber's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:40 am

"If anyone should be tagged, I believe that it should be Alexander."

Alexander will be playing on his 5th year option in 2022.

"My biggest concern is that the 2 guys who got us into this mess (Ball and Gute) are now the 2 guys who we are expecting to get us out of it. Yikes!!!"

I can see that (don't leave Murphy out of this)...but I look at it as BG building to try to make a run with ARod (signings in 2019) with some ascending vets and fortunate drafting and having his cap and timeline run smack into an unforseeable Covid wall. If anything--and I agree with your sentiment--BG's ability help put together has bought him the opportunity to try to get through it. If his 2019 signings were busts and his draft record a little lousier, that wouldn't seem very likely.

6 points
7
1
Since&#039;61's picture

December 08, 2021 at 03:13 pm

Dobber, good points as usual. You have made numerous excellent comments throughout this thread so a box of cookies for you.

I agree that BG has earned the opportunity to get through this mess. How he does it will impact the Packers either positively or negatively for the next several seasons. GPG!
Thanks, Since ‘61

1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

December 08, 2021 at 06:59 pm

We wanted this team to give Rodgers a worthwhile supporting cast sufficient to really be a serious contender. The roster has come a heck of a long way from the thin Swiss cheese roster that Gute inherited.

To be honest, I thought at that time that we would be lucky to even be in the conversation by now and that Rodgers would never have this real a window to win it all again. Last year we lost a game that we probably should have won. That’s on the coaches and players (the former in my view chiefly).

This year we have another genuine shot. This isn’t a mess it’s the culmination of a plan to give Rodgers as much as he can while he still can. But look around you. Along side that there’s a nucleus of talent assembled for the future as well. It’s not a mess, it’s a calculated plan.

It may indeed be messy, in fact next year it quite likely will be. Injuries may derail the hopes of us all, but there looks to have been preparation of a platform to give us a chance to rise again, even without a QB as good as our last two.

0 points
1
1
Since&#039;61's picture

December 08, 2021 at 10:16 pm

Coldworld I agree that there is a nucleus of talent. That is why I posted that I think the best approach is to keep the defense as intact as possible. The offense will take the big hit losing Rodgers, Adams, probably Turner, maybe one or 2 other WRs but the OL will be mostly intact and we will still have Jones, Dillon and Tonyan.

Get some picks for Rodgers and use them to draft some WRs and rebuild the offense. Hopefully Love evolves into a decent QB and we will be in the SB hunt again in a few seasons. But, we have enough to deal with to get through this season first. GPG! Thanks, Since '61

1 points
1
0
flackcatcher's picture

December 08, 2021 at 04:24 pm

Largely agree with both you and '61 on this. I will only add that the Executive Committee shares a good potion of the blame for the current Cap situation. While Murphy did the contract with Rodgers, he was acting as the Executive Committee's agent, and the E.C. signed off on Rodger's contract knowing that it ate up close to 30% of the Packer's total Cap number. I blame Mark Murphy for much of the mess (pre Gute) on pro football side of the house, but not on this. The Packer's Cap problem lies directly with the Executive Committee. It also led to the E.C. overriding Murphy, and hiring Gutekunst as GM to save their butts on the Cap situation. (among many issues we don't know about at 1265)

-1 points
0
1
croatpackfan's picture

December 09, 2021 at 04:51 am

Nobody override Murphy. Brian Gutekunst and MLF are first and decisive MM choices. When he hired MLF he just wanted confirmation from BG and RB, nothing else.

Do not spread theories with no support in facts. Murphy was making interviews with GM candidates and he picked Brian Gutenkunst, not EC.

0 points
0
0