We know that the infobots have a weekly quota to fill. But does it really count toward the quota if they keep reporting the same thing every week?
Last week, Adam Schefter of ESPN.com told the world that a trade of quarterback Aaron Rodgers is a “real possibility.” This week, Schefter says that a trade of Rodgers “remains an option.”
Apparently, that will be the standing report until a trade does, or doesn’t, happen.
It’s hard to plow much new ground with Rodgers, given that most of the real news is coming straight from the ayahuasca drinker’s mouth. He made it clear 12 days ago that he may want to play, and that he may not want to play in Green Bay. That makes a trade (wait for it) a “real possibility.”
Five days ago, Rodgers complained about trade chatter that his own comments sparked, pointing out that none of it matters until he decides to play in 2023.
Rodgers has named the veterans whose presence are important to him in Green Bay. He has made it clear he doesn’t want to be part of a rebuild.
We realize that there’s value in playing the hits. But for the folks who are supposed to be adding new tunes to the rotation, it’s odd to see them reporting the same thing over and over and over again. Especially when it’s simply a repackaging of what Rodgers has already said.
So why am I writing about it? Good question. I don’t know, frankly. Mainly, I felt compelled to point out that it’s more than a little ridiculous to keep reporting the same non-news.
Yes, an Aaron Rodgers trade remains possible. We don’t need an insider to tell us something everyone on the outside knows.
The real question is the timeline. When will Rodgers decide on whether he wants to play at all in 2023? Then, when will he know enough about whether the Packers will be bringing back enough guys to entice him to want to stay? And if he decides not to stay, when will the trade talks commence?
As we’ve learned in past offseason cycles, a trade can be agreed to at any point. Two years ago tomorrow, the Rams and Lions struck a deal that flip-flopped Jared Goff (plus two first-round picks and a third-round pick) for Matthew Stafford.
In this case, it’s apparently going to take some time. Step one, Rodgers has to decide to play. Step two, he has to decide whether to play for the Packers. Step three, if he wants to play elsewhere, he needs to figure out where — and deals need to be done between the Packers and the new team and Rodgers and the new team.
For the team Rodgers may join, timing becomes critical. If that team isn’t getting Rodgers, it needs to move on to someone else before it’s too late. Those wheels start moving well before the start of the new league year.
For example, the Raiders need to have an unofficial deal in place for quarterback Derek Carr by February 15, or they’ll be stuck with $40.4 million in full guarantees for a guy they no longer want. What if a team that is interested in Carr is also interested in Rodgers?
If that team makes a move for Carr, it closes a door for Rodgers. If that team waits, Carr could end up somewhere else before it’s known whether Rodgers will be available.
So forget about a trade being possible. Rodgers and the Packers need to figure out ASAFP whether they’re going to continue a relationship that dates back to 2005. The sooner they know, the sooner trade talks can begin — and the sooner trade talks can conclude.
Thus, as to all issues regarding a potential Aaron Rodgers trade that everyone knows is possible, the sooner those decisions are made, the better.