Gene Wojciechowski Attempts to Give Up His Day Job; It Immediately Returns to Him
This is why some people are cut out for general management positions, and others are not. Re: Gene's best buddy Brett Favre and the sticky situation he's put his (former?) team into.
The bottom line is this: If you believe in Rodgers as much as you say you do, you trade Favre. And it shouldn't matter where. If NFC North rival Minnesota offers the most comprehensive package, you trade him to Minnesota. If Chicago comes up with the best deal, then off to the Bears he goes. That way you get Favre's name off the roster and draft picks in your pocket. It's a win-win.
Well, except for the fact that you've just made one of your divisional rivals (one that certainly needs help at the QB position) better in 2008, and only received a chance to be better in 2009 or later in return... yeah, I guess that's a win-win. It's not like the NFL is a "win now" league or anything. If the Packers traded Favre to the Bears or Vikings, and then finished second in the division to that trading partner, I'm sure their fans wouldn't think that was too big of a deal. You know what makes everything better? Draft picks! Who cares if we got bounced in the first round of the playoffs, and the Bears are headed for the conference title game with Favre at the helm? We're about to pick up an extra linebacker!
10 comments:
I think he's right, until he says "And it shouldn't matter where." Larry b's point obviously demonstrates that "where" is hugely important. Otherwise I think Wojciechowski has a point: if Favre is expendable, trade him and get some value in return. The Packers seem to be taking a pretty spiteful approach. It looks like they're going to refuse to let him train, refuse to trade him, and then just release him at some point immediately prior to the season. From a purely self-interested standpoint, I hardly see how that is preferable to dumping him for a draft pick or two.
I think the Packers have a right to take a spiteful approach to this. Simply because over the past 3 summers they have not known if Brett is going to be around from February to May and then he starts bitching when they don't acquire the players he wants.
Let's not also forget Favre had a nice parting shot to the Packers when he said he would not retire unless he was 100% sure he could make it to the Super Bowl. Not showing a lot of faith in the team I guess.
One other reason they should be spiteful and not agree to anything Favre asks or wants is this: He retired in March, they asked him in April if he was going to return and he said no, then a month before training camp after they planned to not have him all summer, he starts going everywhere saying he wants to play again.
The endgame for the Packers is for him to stay retired.
In the NFL, if given the choice to: a. be spiteful (even assuming you have good reason to be spiteful) or b. make your team more competitive, you make your team more competitive.
Being spiteful is childish and ultimately not going to help you win football games. Getting value our of trades helps you win football games.
The endgame for the Packers is not for Favre to stay retired, it is to win football games.
I wouldn't trade him to a division rival for draft picks. The Packers might be good enough to take that division this year, and making a division rival stronger in order to get something that might help you down the line (assuming you don't make a bad pick) would be counterproductive.
Other than that, dump his ungrateful ass. It might be a bit awkward when he goes to his HOF induction ceremony in a Redskins jersey, though.
Jotto, I see exactly what you are saying about being spiteful. Here is the kicker for the Packers though and that is the fact they don't have to do anything with him. I would say be all for trading him but Favre is trying to dictate the terms of everything on this issue and he does not have that control.
When I said the endgame for the Packers is for Favre to stay retired, I should have said the "preferred" endgame is for him to stay retired. If he gets traded, released or anything else happens I think it is going to not be a good result for the Packers. I am not one for being spiteful but in this case, since the Packers don't have to do anything and Favre is being such a dick, then I think they should wait for a trade that makes sense and have Favre come to training camp as the #2 QB.
The Packers are going to lose this battle eventually, they might as well lose on their own terms and see what Aaron Rodgers/Brian Brohm can do. I shouldn't say to be spiteful but if Favre wants to go the NFC then I would not trade him there.
Trading Favre will hurt their chances to compete because it puts Favre on another team, Jotto.
That would be the main thing they'd be worried about.
The Packers have three options:
a.) Do not trade Favre (fairly spiteful, neither helpful nor damaging to the team)
b.) Trade him to a team with no shot at the playoffs whom they don't play this year (very spiteful and helpful to the team while not being damaging to the team)
c.) Trade them to a team that either they will play this year or see in the playoffs assuming they think they can make the playoffs (not at all spiteful but helpful AND damaging to the team )
I would think option a.) isn't really that bad an option.
What's Favre going to garner? A second day pick and a cap hit?
Chris W, your option b. is much better than option a. any day of the week. Option a. does nothing to help the Packers win. Option b. does. That's basically all I've been driving at. And I don't think trading him is that spiteful...he wants to play, they already have a starter as per his retirement, so every goes their separate ways.
Bengoodfella, I agree with most of that, especially the point that under most circumstances, this doesn't end particularly well for the Packers. I have no problem with the Pack waiting to make a deal on their own terms.
jotto--
trading Favre to the Jets? Or the Cardinals? Or the Chiefs?
That would be rough. He says he wants to play, but he wants to play for a winner.
Option a.) does nothing to help them win, sure, but it does very little to
1.) help other teams in the NFL win
2.) alienate their fanbase
I think inevitably the Packers should probably trade Favre, I just am making the case that if they don't trade him it's not "out of spite" or "profoundly stupid"
Trades are complicated things, and though a, what? 3rd rounder in 09/3rd rounder 2010 would be nice...it doesn't overcome the fact that
a.) The Packers don't want to send a potential pro-bowl QB to another team for a second day draft pick
b.) They are just BARELY clinging to the "high-road" position here with Favre. They wouldn't want to make a splash that would rupture that and turn sentiment against them.
Then again, for a first day pick, they'd be fucking retarded not to teal him to any non NFC-North team.
They'd have to be fucking retarded to deal him to an NFC-North team though, even for a 1st rounder.
If I were the Packers, I wouldn't trade Favre to any of the following teams:
Bears
Lions
Vikings
Bills
Ravens
Buccaneers
But then, that's me.
I think they will trade him, but they have no reason to hurry. They may get something for him, depending on how badly the other teams need a quarterback. I like how these "experts" (King, Mortenson, etc) had him going to Tampa, which is probably where Favre told them he wanted to go. I hope the egomaniacal asshole has to go to a team with no chance of winning. Let him sweat out whether or not to retire for real. Serves him right for being such a prima donna.
I've never understood inter-divisional trades in any sport unless it's trading crap for crap. Why would you want to give your division rival one of the best players who ever played the game (and one who may still be a force in the game this year) when you could get a decent package from nearly any other NFL team in need of a QB? The Packers should trade, but unless they were getting Adrian Peterson from the Vikes or Devon Hester from da Bears, it doesn't make sense to trade within the NFC North.
Post a Comment