PeaveyFury
-
Posts
12,809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PeaveyFury
-
Though I appreciate the discussion about Rodgers and the merits of whether he could have done more or whether the teams around him should have been better, I'm not sure it's relevant in 2021. Undeniably, the Packers are as complete a team now as they have been since XLV. Gute and his staff have turned a dicey situation roster-wise into a legitimate Super Bowl contender in a short period of time, setting both Rodgers and the Packers up for a really good shot at a title in 2021. ....which is why this seems so puzzling from Rodgers' standpoint. Is your goal to win a Super Bowl, or be the highest paid player in the league? In this case, in this year, those two things don't go together. -
Sadly, with the 2022 cap set for far less than expected, it may only give you a 1-year boost before those cap issues arise.
-
I think the point xis was making is that if it was going to tick Aaron off, it was likely to do so whether they made a courtesy call beforehand or not.
-
I don’t see why it would. He already has a de facto no trade clause because no team is trading for Rodgers if he doesn’t want to play there. The problem is the way the contract is set up and after this year dumping/trading him is fairly minimal as far as damage. Moving on from him just isn’t that hard. A big reason why Rodgers is probably putting his foot down now where he has an upper hand...or at least some advantage in this situation. But as it has been previously noted, if that's why Rodgers is upset, he only has himself (or his representation) to blame, as he agreed to those terms, and did so just a couple of years ago. I still firmly believe that he can only be perceived to have an advantage if you truly believe he's willing to retire, which I do not, and I'd suspect the Packers do not considering their willingness to play chicken with him on this.
-
I’m starting to think you’re trolling with this, but once again I’ll note how astonishingly off base I think this is. Why? Do your job and cash your paycheck just like 99.9% of the rest of both the world and professional athletes do, that’s why. Otherwise, take your entitled diva self, retire, and write the Packers that $30 million check. Players play, GMs GM.
-
I’m starting to think you’re trolling with this, but once again I’ll note how astonishingly off base I think this is. The Packers record when Rodgers doesn't play says otherwise. You don't happen to be Bob McGinn, are you? They haven’t had a first round talent behind him since.... ever. Also, those mid- 20teens teams were pretty full of holes. And I probably have more credibility as a random poster on an online message board than Bob McGinn does at this point...
-
I’m starting to think you’re trolling with this, but once again I’ll note how astonishingly off base I think this is.
-
Meh. Or the employee should act like an employee and let those whose job it is to make draft selections do so. Exactly, I’m not sure why the Packers have a responsibility to talk with anybody outside management about their draft board/possible strategy. Why increase the possibility that something gets out? [sarcasm]Hey, it's not like stuff from Rodgers' camp ends up finding its way to the media....[/sarcasm]
-
Meh. Or the employee should act like an employee and let those whose job it is to make draft selections do so.
-
What does this have to do with Don Hutson?
-
I just don't know if that's true. Rodgers loses an awful lot by retiring. I'd bet that part of the reason the Packers' appear willing to call his bluff on that is because it doesn't make any sense for Rodgers to actually retire and they know he won't.
-
I agree with all of the above, though I would hope that like they were with Adames, they'll be aggressive with a sooner-rather-than later addition at 1B or 3B as the opportunity presents.
-
That's my point, given the performance of the current cast of characters in the bullpen he likely won't be traded now until he has 5.5 years of service time. Unless of course, the roster collapses and they decide to rebuild between now and then. I think we're still not understanding each other. You said "final year of team control". I said this offseason. He has 2.5 years of team control left.
-
I think this bleeds into the 'why would you trade for a guy like Carr in return' discussion- with that number as the 2022 cap and not something higher, they're in a bit of trouble. Hence, you trade for a guy like Carr to make one more run in 2021 and hope that the cap doesn't cause a 2022-23 pull back, and if it does, you do it with a cheap Love as QB. But 2021 may be your last short-term chance for a run.
-
billy mckinney appreciation thread; traded to mets 25 may
PeaveyFury replied to djoctagone's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
Perhaps the question is, who exactly are you arguing against in your 9 posts on the subject? Who has claimed that this is anything other than a lottery ticket? -
The point is, Rodgers is at the point in his career where he's made more money than he'll ever need. He's currently being a giant Diva over whether he makes $30 or $40 million dollars next year. All the other 'great' QBs like Manning, Favre, etc. were all about trying to get a second ring at the end of their career. Not Rodgers- he wants to be the highest paid player in the league. And in doing so, he's preventing his best chance to actually win from happening. I think the disconnect here is that you seem to think the Packers are a below .500 team without Rodgers, which I think is completely off base.
-
Right, in a perfect world of responsible people. However, we are very far from that world. The determination should be: If saying people can unmask when fully vaccinated leads to increased vaccinations that outweigh the added infections from unmasked people....then we should say fully vaccinated people can unmask. It isn't about what, in theory, should reduce spread/infection. It should be what, in real world practice, will actually lead to the least amount of spread/infection. Now will that actually lead to more vaccinations that outweigh increased infections from lack of masks? I would probably lean towards no because of the massive increase of non vaccinated people now unmasking because no one will ask them if they have actually been vaccinated. I agree with all of this, save for the fact that your equation has to also account for the fact that many of those now unmasked, unvaccinated people were already unmasked in most situations.
-
The problem with the Raiders is that you can't assume they act like a normal team would. I could see a guy like Gruden alongside whichever Davis is running things now thinking that a guy like Rodgers makes them better without actually fixing their actual issues. In fact, he probably does in some way. Maybe that's the difference between 8 and 10-11 wins for them?
-
Let's not even try to pretend that Aaron Rodgers is scheduled to make anything close to the league minimum this year. He's quibbling over the difference between making $30-some million this year vs. $40 some million. Because Carr is better than most journeyman vet QBs, by a lot. You seem to be assuming the Packers crater without Rodgers, which is possible, but not the only outcome. What if acquiring Carr gets them to 11-12 wins?
-
I think all of your points are correct, reilly. There's a lot of potential uncertainty that the Packers would have with Love at QB on a team that is primed to contend. Using Carr as a bridge likely mitigates a lot of that concern. And any of those trades for picks would likely be of interest to the Packers, I'd think....
-
I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that's "likely." All I would say is likely at this point is that he won't be traded until after this season, at the earliest.
-
The Packers would likely have enough cap savings post 6/1 to be able to take Carr's contract back in a swap for Rodgers. A subsequent extension would free up more, presumably. What would a Raiders/Rodgers deal look like? Carr+ what?
-
Yes, they likely could structure it this way. But the point is, the Packers have, by wide reports, tried to coordinate an extension/restructure to free up that space, and Rodgers' feelings are 'too hurt' at this point for them to come to an agreement.
-
This. He's completely talking out of both sides of his mouth here. You can bemoan not taking care of the 'people around you' or making the moves you want them to make, but it's YOUR OWN contract and, apparently, demands for A HIGHER contract that are literally handcuffing the Packers from being able to make said deal. Want them to trade for Julio Jones? Maybe adjusting your cap number this year would help in that.... Unless, of course, all that other stuff is just noise, and it's about you yourself getting paid, and only that.
-
He can say that all he wants, but really it is.
