Who Will Aaron Rodgers Play For In 2023 (Or Will He Play)?

[run pMc]

They aren't now for sure, but it is surprising they didn't pursue this before signing that deal.

GB can't tell him to enjoy retirement, he can easily just say okay I'll play for you, and what are they going to do, start Love over him? I don't think they'd do that. They would trade him somewhere and if he was steadfast in saying no to the other team then they'd have to release him and he'd get where he wants to go anyway.

Except he doesn't have a no-trade clause, so they can trade him for peanuts and he can't do anything except retire. Only way he can veto is by retiring... once another team has his rights he's their player.
This is all hypothetical stuff anyway. There have been plenty of press conference lies, but if this was headed for an acrimonious split there would be word of it by now. Also, I'm pretty sure both sides want to avoid that -- they saw what happened with Favre and are being careful about how this plays out in public.

[run pMc]

i think some people, on here and in NY, are getting aaron rodgers confused with aaron rodgers



current aaron rodgers isn't 2020 aaron rodgers, he's a far cry from it

the 2020 version might make the jets or 49ers super bowl favorites, but not the current one. jimmy g was having a better year then rodgers before he got injured, purdy and a much better run then rodgers had

so how does a declining rodgers make the 49ers better then they were last year when they had 2 better QBs. and why in the hell would the 49ers even want him ? they already have 2 young decent QBs on the roster, one who looks better then #12

This is all very true.

[Rastak]

Except he doesn't have a no-trade clause, so they can trade him for peanuts and he can't do anything except retire. Only way he can veto is by retiring... once another team has his rights he's their player.
This is all hypothetical stuff anyway. There have been plenty of press conference lies, but if this was headed for an acrimonious split there would be word of it by now. Also, I'm pretty sure both sides want to avoid that -- they saw what happened with Favre and are being careful about how this plays out in public.

Why would anyone trade even a bag of footballs for someone who refuses to play for them? Any team would talk to Rodgers before pulling the trigger on anything.

[red]

bahk just restructured his contract

he's not going to the jets

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/03/10/packers-create-salary-cap-space-by-restructuring-david-bakhtiaris-contract/

tema turned a 9.5 million dollar roster bonus and 5.5 million dollar base salary and turned it into a signing bonus

move frees up 7.5 million in cap space

[run pMc]

bahk just restructured his contract

he's not going to the jets

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/03/10/packers-create-salary-cap-space-by-restructuring-david-bakhtiaris-contract/

tema turned a 9.5 million dollar roster bonus and 5.5 million dollar base salary and turned it into a signing bonus

move frees up 7.5 million in cap space

Makes less sense to trade him now.
Looks like they restructured without adding void years. Maybe they are trying to control their cap a bit tighter in the wake of the AR contract?
They can't cut Rodgers, if they did he'd count 99M against the 2023 cap.

[run pMc]

Why would anyone trade even a bag of footballs for someone who refuses to play for them? Any team would talk to Rodgers before pulling the trigger on anything.

Correct. Which is exactly why NYJ requested and received permission by GB to talk to AR. There's no deal if he vetos the trade. Honestly, if he wants to keep playing and GB wants to trade him to the NYJ, that's not a bad deal for AR. It would make them at least a strong wildcard contender if not threat to win the AFCE. They have skill players and a good defense. it's not like they are trying to trade him to the Texans.

[red]

Makes less sense to trade him now.
Looks like they restructured without adding void years. Maybe they are trying to control their cap a bit tighter in the wake of the AR contract?
They can't cut Rodgers, if they did he'd count 99M against the 2023 cap.

maybe the team is trying to free up enough cap space to trade rodgers ASAP and take the whole hit this year

[jklowan]

Or Gary's new contract is about to be signed - fingers crossed

[call_me_ishmael]

maybe the team is trying to free up enough cap space to trade rodgers ASAP and take the whole hit this year

Maybe, but then why push Bak's back a year? Functionally, it's the same thing right?

[sharpe1027]

If Bak is part of the trade, this might sweeten the deal for the Jets because I think the Packers would take the full hit for his signing bonus this year upon a trade.

[Fosco33]

I really don’t want to see AR leave. But a package w/ him and Bak and others - heck yeah

[Fritz]

If Bak is part of the trade, this might sweeten the deal for the Jets because I think the Packers would take the full hit for his signing bonus this year upon a trade.

Since we have no new facts, we all just keep pitching possibilities out there. It's crazy but it's kinda fun. This one is interesting. I know very little about the Jets, so I don't know - what's their left tackle situation?

As for Rodgers going to San Fran, you'd think they might be a team who would want to give Rodgers a try for a year, except Trey Lance has been sitting for what, a year, or two, now? I don't know if they think he's ready or not. Purdy was kept on a tight leash, and that did hurt San Fran. I don't know if they think he can develop enough to take them all the way next year, either. You'd think for a one-year run, Rodgers might be the guy they want. But then you're putting both kids on the back burner for a year and also risking that Rodgers might, might want to play for two years - then what? I just don't think that's going to happen, and I don't think Green Bay wants to help SF load up, if that's what they do think it would be. I suppose with that San Fran offense Rodgers could be good - lots of toys there for him. But I still wonder if maybe he nixed SF not because GB wouldn't trade him there, but because either SF isn't interested or Rodgers doesn't like Shanahan.

[call_me_ishmael]

This basically all but confirms he gone. It's an interview with Murphy.

https://twitter.com/TorresAdrianaTV/status/1634311582615318530

[sharpe1027]

A Google search suggested the Jets could use help at tackle.

[sharpe1027]

This basically all but confirms he gone. It's an interview with Murphy.

https://twitter.com/TorresAdrianaTV/...11582615318530

Yeah. He's gone.