Thing is, it only makes sense if Rodgers plans to retire next year. If he plays two years, then the conditional part is irrelevant.Originally Posted by Bretsky
Thing is, it only makes sense if Rodgers plans to retire next year. If he plays two years, then the conditional part is irrelevant.
HOFer
Oh absolutely, what else do you expect from a guy who I believe actively tried to sabotage our season last year. Did just enough to not get benched, then when all we had to do to make the playoffs is beat a shitty Detroit team, he decides not to show up on the field.
He said he was done with Green Bay last year, we forced him to stay, he screwed us
I'm not gonna worry about it too much. Packers only got a 3rd for Favre, but won the Super Bowl 3 years later. And that even though Favre was coming off a better year than Rodgers is. 3 years from now what we'll care about is whether the Packers made the right decision in going with Love. Not how much the Packers got in compensation.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
fwiw it would have been a 2nd had he not been injured. But times have changed and now clubs value the QB position way way more so the value on an elite QB is higher
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
HOFer
heres what i found on some weird ass site
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...l3fam08itxuu1fGreen Bay sends the future Hall of Famer to the Jets for a conditional fourth-round pick, choosing New York's offer over one from the Buccaneers.
The pick turns into a third-rounder if Favre plays 50 percent of snaps, a second-rounder if he plays 70 percent of snaps and a first-rounder if he plays 80 percent of snaps and the Jets make the Super Bowl.
i thought it was just a 4th rounder
The there's the obvous-but-still-worth-saying that the value of the picks depends on how good those picks are. Which I suppose is why we all want Guter to not get a third round pick.
So when TT traded back to get an extra fourth rounder in order to drop down, pass on TJ Watt, and take Kevin Schwing instead, he chose Vince Biegel with that fourth rounder.
Pukey trade all around.
But when TT traded down to get an extra fourth rounder in 2008, that guy he picked when he dropped down was Jordy Nelson. The extra fourth rounder was some crummy DE (Jeremy Thompson? Something like that). The extra pick was a bust, but Nelson of course was not.
So we will all moan when the Packers "only" get two fourths and a third next year or something, but it depends on what Guter does with them. Sure, a first gives you a better chance at a big hit, but it's not a guarantee. See Sherrod, Derrick, and Harrell, Justin. Amongst many others.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
I don't think that's the right way to look at it. If you trade a first rounder for a second rounder straight up, it's a bad trade. I don't care whether the team picking in thr second round gets lucky and thev end up with the better player. It's a bad trade.
I suppose that's true. In terms of your odds of hitting on a really good player, better to be picking higher - the whole idea of the thing. But, again, just looking at the big picture, depends on what you do with it.
I think the NFL is a money-making machine, and the people who run that thing are master marketers, along with all the media outlets that make so much money covering them. In order to keep our eyeballs glued to screens, they've had to figure out how to turn the dull, boring offseason thing into a tension-laden contest in which some teams are winners and some are losers and the debate - since there is no official score - is endless. So we end up endlessly discussing who "won" a trade before we ever really know the results of the trade - who picked whom, and how they turned out. I was looking at an article that came out just after the 2008 draft (such is my life these days), and the "expert" graded the draft, like they do - again, declaring winners and losers to feed the machine. He gave the Jordy Nelson pick a C-.
So I get what you're saying, and you are right. It's just that there's not that much to be gained by "winning" a trade unless you take what you've "won" and turn it into really good players.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
One way of looking at it is that the value of a trade is independent of the execution of realizing the value. If you sell your car for double the market value, you don't say you got a bad deal because you spent the money poorly.
True, but what I'm saying here is that we put too much emphasis on the "value" of a trade, which is the result of our needing to show "winners" and "losers" in every transaction, because that's how the NFL keeps us sucked in.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Right. Plenty of situations where the trade is a net positive for both teams. I don't think you should be comparing the two teams to see who "won". The idea important question is whether the trade improved the team at all. Was it a net positive?
Agreed. And in the case of the Packers trading Rodgers, is part of the "net positive" not having the drama of Aaron Rodgers any more? Nobody in that building is likely to admit it, but I do wonder if The Flower is excited to actually mold a QB a little and have him run MLF's own offense. And I wonder if some of the receivers are a little more relaxed now? Or if anyone there is just kinda going to be relieved that the Rodgers drama - whether generated by him or by the media - is finally going to be gone?
If there is any truth to that - and I don't know if there is; it's just something I've wondered about - then you can look at a trade that even generates, say, this year's second from the Jets and some conditional second rounder next year as a net positive.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
At this point, I don't care anymore what we get, just announce a trade is done. Way past time to move on..
Exactly what the Jets are hoping the Packers will be thinking. When it happens doesn't seem to me to be that important.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
I think OBNDY is worried that if it doesn't happen soon, he won't be around to see it happen at all.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
What do the Packers lose by trading Rodgers? Probably 2-3 more games. Lower odds as of preseason to make the playoffs.
What do they gain? Cap space and draft pick(s). Possibly their next franchise QB.
I think, in addition to the value of a trade, precedence, process and outcome have to be considered.
Precedence often by way of things like a draft pick trade chart or previous trades that are similar. In Rodgers case there aren't many (if any) because age and contract impact what he can get in trade.
Process, as in, was it good process? Was it really good process to trade two R2 picks to move up a few spots for Christian Watson? I'm not sure, but that takes us to...
Outcome, i.e., the results of the trade. Continuing with the Watson example, that trade of draft picks would look bad if he's constantly injured and can't produce. In Rodgers case, it will be a very bad outcome for GB if he is the SB MVP and Love goes 3-14.
I don't think you can just look at how well Rodgers does with the Jets to evaluate the trade for the Packers.
The risk of keeping Rodgers is that he gets hurt again and that he is pissed by the situation so shows up for a paycheck but doesn't really want to be there. He might play better for the Jets than he would have for the Packers.
The risk of trading Rodgers is that he would have otherwise committed to the Packers and been much better than Love.
How many draft picks from the Jets make the comparative risks weigh in favor of a trade.l?
A 2nd this year and a 2nd next year makes sense. Give back a 3rd if he retires after this year.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
That means you are taking a 2nd and a 3rd for him (next year's 2nd equates to a current 2).
Not sure how much I like that.
Sounds like we were getting this years 1st and a 3rd before the Jets owner welched out of the deal
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
HOFer
if the titans of someone else offers that deal (2-2nds) take it
but fuck the jets
and that might bring made teams to the table knowing a first this year is not on the table
or just wait till after the draft. teams seem to overvalue picks before the draft, then just throw them away the rest of the year for crap players
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote