Teammates 'moving forward' with Favre

[HarveyWallbangers]

Okay, I read Florio's article wrong. So, if there's no CBA, Rodgers will be a RFA? What would happen under the current CBA? I think the bottom line is that we have to assume Rodgers will be a UFA after next year.

[Pacopete4]

cpk1994... if that were true in every situation I highly doubt the Giants win the super bowl last year as he came back just in time for camp as well..

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!

No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.

You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.

Yes but the owners have opted out in 2010. If the cap is gone Rodgers is an RFA as part of the opt out changes.

[Gunakor]

Okay, I read Florio's article wrong. So, if there's no CBA, Rodgers will be a RFA? What would happen under the current CBA?

Moot issue. The current CBA and the correlating FA rules do not expire until 2011...

The current CBA - the one that Rodgers will still fall under when his contract expires - makes players ERFA's up to 3 years of service, RFA's after 4, and UFA's after 5.


EDIT: I thought I heard on NFLN that the owners were going to opt out of the current CBA when that agreement was scheduled to expire after the END of the 2010 season... Did I miss something?

[Ballboy]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!

No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.

You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.

Yes but the owners have opted out in 2010. If the cap is gone Rodgers is an RFA as part of the opt out changes.

So the Packers retain "first rights" and can match any offer?

[cpk1994]

cpk1994... if that were true in every situation I highly doubt the Giants win the super bowl last year as he came back just in time for camp as well..

What the hell are you talking about?

[Patler]

Geez, I can't read today either!

In a capped year, players with 4 or more seasons are UFAs.
In an uncapped year, players with 5 or more seasons are UFAs.

Since the owners have opted out, 2010 would be an uncapped year.

(I think! )

[cpk1994]

Why would Rodgers be "gone"?

He is signed through the 2009 season and then is RFA, Packers have plenty of time with him.



Brohm was to be a first round pick as well, whats to say he won't be better?

Untrue. Rodgers is unrestricted when his contract expires. He'll have 5 years accrued service in teh NFL. He can sign with anyone he chooses and Green Bay has no way to stop him.

PER PFT:
RODGERS IS SIGNED THROUGH 2009
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2008, 12:20 p.m.
We’ve gotten several e-mails and seen more than a few comments regarding the contractual status of Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Though some believe that 2008 is the final year of Rodgers’ rookie deal, NFLPA records indicate that he is signed through 2009.

Absent a salary cap in 2010, Rodgers would be eligible only for restricted free agency after his current deal expires, since he’d have only five years of service.

Rodgers’ rookie deal contains extensive incentives based on playing time, and Rodgers already has lost a shot to earn millions of dollars based on the fact that Brett Favre didn’t retire after the 2005 or 2006 seasons. Now that Favre is back, and if Favre wins the starting job and stays healthy, Rodgers will make only $680,000 this year.

If Rodgers is the starter in 2008 and 2009, he’ll make an extra $2.2 million. If he’d gotten the job in 2006 and held it through 2009, Rodgers would have earned $8.25 million in additional pay.

So Rodgers needs to play to get paid. And thus he’ll be screwed if Favre is the starter in 2008.

The best solution for Rodgers would be a trade to a team where he’d be the starter. But since the Packers delayed for several weeks the realization that Favre might be the better option in Green Bay, Rodgers would be seriously behind the curve if he were to land in a new city at some point in the next couple of weeks.


Unless I'm reading what they have written wrong!!!

No, you are reading it right. What is written is wrong. That article is not accurate. After 5 years of service a player is eligible for unrestricted FA, whether they started or not, whether that contract is a rookie contract or not. Whoever wrote this article has not done thier homework.

You missed the part about if there is no cap. If there is no cap the rules change.

The current CBA is valid through 2011, so he'd fall under the same FA rules as today. Sorry, I edited my last post to reflect this as well.

Yes but the owners have opted out in 2010. If the cap is gone Rodgers is an RFA as part of the opt out changes.

So the Packers retain "first rights" and can match any offer?

Yes but don't look for Rodgers to be cooperative in that case.

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

[cpk1994]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

Strahan never retired.

[Gunakor]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

[The Leaper]

Strahan never retired.

No...but trying to say that makes the situation different is kind of dumb. Strahan was sitting on the fence until right before the season, and the Giants had to be prepared to move on without him.

[cpk1994]

Geez, I can't read today either!

In a capped year, players with 4 or more seasons are UFAs.
In an uncapped year, players with 5 or more seasons are UFAs.

Since the owners have opted out, 2010 would be an uncapped year.

(I think! )

Probably should look up the CBA instead of going by Florio's report.

[Gunakor]

Geez, I can't read today either!

In a capped year, players with 4 or more seasons are UFAs.
In an uncapped year, players with 5 or more seasons are UFAs.

Since the owners have opted out, 2010 would be an uncapped year.

(I think! )

Again, I thought I read that as the owners opting out of the CBA after the 2010 season was over, making 2010 capped but 2011 uncapped. Since Rodgers contract expires after the 2009 season, he'd be renegotiating in a capped year. Wouldn't that make him unrestricted?

[Pacopete4]

Strahan didnt comeback until training camp started last year.. is he a selfish jerk that shoulda played 4th string?

He didn't officially retire either, so the Giants didn't officially replace him on the depth chart. The didn't officially tell another player they would be starting in Strahan's place. No committment was made to moving on. Bad comparison.

ckp1994's point is that he didnt have a "team commitment".... well either did Strahan, so is he acceptable to you>?