Fair enough. I’ll just say this: if the two years Favre had before 2007 were more representative of his likely play in 2008 than 2007 was, then the Packers have a much better chance of getting at worst equal play out of Aaron Rodgers. Fair?
They actually can’t do that. or at least, they can can try, but they can’t enforce it. if Favre doesn’t report to the new team, the deal is rescinded and he ends right back up with the Packers. They don’t have the ability to ship him anywhere he doesn’t want to go. They have to keep him on the roster, trade him somplace he’ll agree to report or cut him.
Jake Plummer was traded from Denver to Tampa a couple seasons ago, and said he’d retire instead of reporting. Tampa still had his rights and actually successfully sued him to get back some of his signing bonus (originally paid to the Broncos.) You’re trading the rights to the player, whether he wants to retire or not.
Expecting Rodgers to be a league average Qb right out of the gate might be overly optimistic. There are likely to be some growing pains. Not always, but usually.
That said, if Favre doesn’t plsy at a 2008 level, then the Packers are unlikely to be a super bowl contender. If they aren’t a super bowl contender, then it doesn’t make sense to play Farve. Might as well get the growing pains over with.
In that sense I don’t know how much a negative Farve playing for the Bears or Vikings would be. It will probably be a couple years before the Packers are ready to compete for a super bowl again, and it is unlikely Farve will still be around by then.
Well the Bears would likely get him killed, what with our scary-bad old man offensive line out there. He’d make it maybe three or four plays before getting sacked out of his gourd. Things do not look so good in Chicago this year.
That being said, I’m all for us signing him if we could because, like Dio, I just want that jersey to wear in front of all these damned Pack fans. Hell, call up Ted Thomspon right now, we’ve got this quarterback he can have. The coaches think the kid is just dynamite, he just needs a 5th season to learn the plays, that’s all…
In other words, Tampa rescinded the trade.
I heard that breakdown on the radio this morning. If Favre doesn’t report, the deal is null and void and his rights go back to the Packers (and, obviously, whatever got traded for goes back to the other team).
If Tampa rescinded the trade and his rights went back to Denver, why did they (Tampa) get monetary compensation for the prorated signing bonus from the contract he signed with Denver? If Plummer unretires, he’d be a Buccaneer, since they hold his rights.
The fact that Favre is pushing for a trade to the Vikes or Bears makes me want to throw up. That is traitorous and diminishes him in my eyes.
I don’t know the details of the Plummer deal. I only know that it’s being reported that any deal with Favre would be rescinded if he failed to report for the new team. He’s got a trade veto clause in his contract. It might have something to do with that. It might also have to do with no team being willing to give anything to the Packers without a guarantee that Favre will show.
Now you’re just making shit up, dear.
Tampa did not rescind the trade, although the value of the pick was conditional on Plummer’s decision to report. If he’d reported, the Broncos would have received a fourth-round pick and the Bucs would have gotten the rights to Plummer. Since he didn’t, the Broncos received a 7th-round pick from Tampa, and the Bucs got the rights to Plummer.
In essence, it ended up being a trade of a 7th-round pick for cash (Plummer’s prorated signing bonus) and a negligible amount of cap space that we didn’t need anyway.
ETA: “Stellar” is laying it on a bit think, I think, GO, but the Packers certainly are a young, promising team.
Now some folks want to throw the management out because of this, yet this is the managment that stuck to their guns through a couple of tough seasons to put together a young, dynamic team with a stellar defense.
The team is the team, the player is the player, and smart fans don’t confuse the two.
Is Joe Montana any less of a 49er? Is Unitas less revered in Baltimore? These men finished their careers with teams that they are not identified with in the public mind.
I am a Steeler fan through and through - that doesn’t mean when I hear Redskins coverage here I don’t wish Antwaan Randle El well. I always liked him as a player.
Please, don’t be obtuse, Favre wants to go to two teams in the division which are long, long, long hated rivals. Montana went the Chiefs and Randle-El went to the Redskins, not even in the same Conference, much less the same division.
Come on, it’s different and you know it. This’d be like Terry Bradshaw finishing up with the Browns. And specifically screwing over the Steelers to do it.
To emphasize this point, when Lovie Smith got the Bears head coaching job he said that his only goal the first season was to beat the Packers. That’s right, to go 2-14 was his only goal. He said this in public. Everyone thought this was perfectly rational and applauded his good sense.
ESPN is reporting that Favre specifically said he wanted to stay in the division because he wants to “kick their [the Packers] asses twice” this season. That FO in Green Bay must really have pissed him off. I think their floating the false story about him using a team cell phone to call the Vikings really got under his collar (not to mention the attempted bribe. Were they really dumb enough to think that Favre is about the money?).
Here’s the thing: the NFL is nothing if not unpredictable. Every season a few teams everyone thinks will be great turn out to suck, and a few teams everyone expects to suck will be great. That applies to players, too; nobody expected Tony Romo, Ryan Grant, Willie Parker, the second coming of Joey Galloway…
Hell, nobody expected Favre to play half as well as he did last year.
The point is, nobody should expect him to play that well this year.
Yeah, that was foolish of him, even if he actually feels that way. Now they are nearly compelled to hang on to him, even if it means planting him on the bench, and the fans who might have sided with Favre will be less likely to do so in this context.
Like I said, I don’t know the deatils of the Plummer deal. I do know that it’s being reported that any deal for Favre will be rescinded if he doesn’t report to the new team. That’s probably part of any deal any interested team would want. No team is going to risk a draft pick without a guarantee that Favre will show up. It’s not like they can do anything to Favre.
Can I ask why we do not expect the team to show any loyalty to Favre, but we do expect Favre to show loyalty to the team? People are encouraging the Packers to do what is in best interest of the team regardless of the contribution Farve has provided over the years, but Favre shouldn’t be able to do what in his best interest. Why should show loyalty to the team, and not want to play for rivals? That seems like a pretty massive double standard.
ETA: Assuming he didn’t actually say that his main reasoning was to beat the Packers.