Farve to Report this Weekend (1 Viewer)

[ScottyFargo]

And yes Scotty...he has made it clear who he wants to play for.

There are indications that Favre still wants to play for the Packers and will accept whatever role he’s given when training camp opens. He’s confident that he’ll be able to outperform Rodgers and force them to play him.

A league source said the word coming from Cook is that Favre’s first choice is to play for the Packers, who he thinks have as good a chance as any team to go to the Super Bowl. According to the source, Cook has expressed that to various people.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=776608Though...I will believe it when I see it and really hear him say it...as you know how I love these "league sources".

Haha! Oh you cad. Hey, I forgot if the Packers still wanted Favre or if they were basically trying to get him to stay retired? I think that the caveat for Favre playing in the green and yellow this year was that he wanted to start, and according to the man himself, Brett was told he was finished there. So, barring a complete and total game plan change that includes scrapping 4 year project Aaron Rodgers and going back against everything they've said they were going to do, where do you think Favre wants to play this year? Backup in Green Bay or as a starter for a different team?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Can you two just a get a room somewhere and stop bothering the rest of us?

 

[sho nuff]

And yes Scotty...he has made it clear who he wants to play for.

There are indications that Favre still wants to play for the Packers and will accept whatever role he’s given when training camp opens. He’s confident that he’ll be able to outperform Rodgers and force them to play him.

A league source said the word coming from Cook is that Favre’s first choice is to play for the Packers, who he thinks have as good a chance as any team to go to the Super Bowl. According to the source, Cook has expressed that to various people.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=776608Though...I will believe it when I see it and really hear him say it...as you know how I love these "league sources".

Haha! Oh you cad. Hey, I forgot if the Packers still wanted Favre or if they were basically trying to get him to stay retired? I think that the caveat for Favre playing in the green and yellow this year was that he wanted to start, and according to the man himself, Brett was told he was finished there. So, barring a complete and total game plan change that includes scrapping 4 year project Aaron Rodgers and going back against everything they've said they were going to do, where do you think Favre wants to play this year? Backup in Green Bay or as a starter for a different team?

3 year project in Rodgers.Though...there is alot of conflicting talk coming out from up there when I spoke to my parents last night.

Some places saying the talk between Favre and Thompson went well...some thinking its just a stunt to get released...

This thing can still go so many ways.

 

[ScottyFargo]

In simple words, you couldn't be more wrong. Who owns the contract when it's traded to another team? That's what I thought. If they value a 1st round pick that they can get from another team for Favre over the 3rd or 4th that they barter down with the Packers for Favre, then they have every opportunity to trade him. Like I said, the only precedent is any trade that has ever occured before. The player can be traded away instantly or years later, as the team who owns the contract sees fit.Prove it wrong.

Again...if it were so simple...you could show where a team has traded a player...only to turn around and trade him right away.That is what you are claiming can happen...even asking for someone to show you where a contract was ever worded to prevent it...but you are unwilling to prove your side.Prove it wrong? You have yet to prove it has ever happened.You are begging for others to prove the other side...but are providing nothing to show it has ever happened your way before.So my point stands...While the player "can be"...has it ever happened? I am not denying it could happen...I am denying it has happened.Are you denying that a trade could be configured to keep the team that trades for him from trading him right away? Because that is what it seems.

Again, I don't have to prove that a secondary trade has occured after a player has been traded, we are discussing whether or not it is possible. You have tried to rule it out based on speculation of a Packer contract caveat barring the team from doing so. You have nothing, zero, to rule this out as a possible tactic Favre is using right now. The NFL has even refused to speculate on whether or not such a pathetic tactic would hold up. That was never my point to say this was common practice, I have merely stated that the team who gains Favre's contract controls his future in the league.I have simply stated that this "silver bullet" that Packer fans are clinging too so desperately is pure, unadulterated speculation. Your point, unfortunately for you and every Packer fan who fears Brett Favre in Minnesota more than they even care to remember his Superbowl victory of yesteryear for your ballclub, does not stand. It falls quite flat.

 

[bbuster]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

 

[Phurfur]

In simple words, you couldn't be more wrong. Who owns the contract when it's traded to another team? That's what I thought. If they value a 1st round pick that they can get from another team for Favre over the 3rd or 4th that they barter down with the Packers for Favre, then they have every opportunity to trade him.

Like I said, the only precedent is any trade that has ever occured before. The player can be traded away instantly or years later, as the team who owns the contract sees fit.

Prove it wrong.

Again...if it were so simple...you could show where a team has traded a player...only to turn around and trade him right away.That is what you are claiming can happen...even asking for someone to show you where a contract was ever worded to prevent it...but you are unwilling to prove your side.

Prove it wrong? You have yet to prove it has ever happened.

You are begging for others to prove the other side...but are providing nothing to show it has ever happened your way before.

So my point stands...

While the player "can be"...has it ever happened? I am not denying it could happen...I am denying it has happened.

Are you denying that a trade could be configured to keep the team that trades for him from trading him right away? Because that is what it seems.

Again, I don't have to prove that a secondary trade has occured after a player has been traded, we are discussing whether or not it is possible. You have tried to rule it out based on speculation of a Packer contract caveat barring the team from doing so. You have nothing, zero, to rule this out as a possible tactic Favre is using right now. The NFL has even refused to speculate on whether or not such a pathetic tactic would hold up. That was never my point to say this was common practice, I have merely stated that the team who gains Favre's contract controls his future in the league.

I have simply stated that this "silver bullet" that Packer fans are clinging too so desperately is pure, unadulterated speculation. Your point, unfortunately for you and every Packer fan who fears Brett Favre in Minnesota more than they even care to remember his Superbowl victory of yesteryear for your ballclub, does not stand. It falls quite flat.

Are you actually saying Farve is talking to teams about a seconary trade?I don't think Favre has filed for reinstatement yet! Camp starts tomorrow.

 

[fatness]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Summary of article: The current situation is Thompson's fault and he should trade Favre to the Vikings. Thompson is not "bold".Fairly interesting read, thanks for posting it. But it really minimizes Favre's role in the current problem and involves a lot of guesswork as to what Thompson is thinking and doing, and blame based on that guesswork.

 

[Phurfur]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Summary of article: The current situation is Thompson's fault and he should trade Favre to the Vikings. Thompson is not "bold".Fairly interesting read, thanks for posting it. But it really minimizes Favre's role in the current problem and involves a lot of guesswork as to what Thompson is thinking and doing, and blame based on that guesswork.

Official NFL business ended on Friday without retired quarterback Brett Favre taking any of the necessary steps toward reinstatement.

 

[sho nuff]

In simple words, you couldn't be more wrong. Who owns the contract when it's traded to another team? That's what I thought. If they value a 1st round pick that they can get from another team for Favre over the 3rd or 4th that they barter down with the Packers for Favre, then they have every opportunity to trade him. Like I said, the only precedent is any trade that has ever occured before. The player can be traded away instantly or years later, as the team who owns the contract sees fit.Prove it wrong.

Again...if it were so simple...you could show where a team has traded a player...only to turn around and trade him right away.That is what you are claiming can happen...even asking for someone to show you where a contract was ever worded to prevent it...but you are unwilling to prove your side.Prove it wrong? You have yet to prove it has ever happened.You are begging for others to prove the other side...but are providing nothing to show it has ever happened your way before.So my point stands...While the player "can be"...has it ever happened? I am not denying it could happen...I am denying it has happened.Are you denying that a trade could be configured to keep the team that trades for him from trading him right away? Because that is what it seems.

Again, I don't have to prove that a secondary trade has occured after a player has been traded, we are discussing whether or not it is possible. You have tried to rule it out based on speculation of a Packer contract caveat barring the team from doing so. You have nothing, zero, to rule this out as a possible tactic Favre is using right now. The NFL has even refused to speculate on whether or not such a pathetic tactic would hold up. That was never my point to say this was common practice, I have merely stated that the team who gains Favre's contract controls his future in the league.I have simply stated that this "silver bullet" that Packer fans are clinging too so desperately is pure, unadulterated speculation. Your point, unfortunately for you and every Packer fan who fears Brett Favre in Minnesota more than they even care to remember his Superbowl victory of yesteryear for your ballclub, does not stand. It falls quite flat.

I have never said it is not possible...I don't recall anyone saying it is not possible for that type of deal to happen.I am ruling it out in this situation saying the team can, and most likely will, do everything in its power to keep him from going to the Vikings...and that, as the earlier link showed, seems to be completely possible. Despite your denial.You have nothing...zero...to rule out the Packers doing such a thing as people are saying they will right now.And we have merely stated that the team who gains Favre's contract may be doing so under certain restrictions to keep him on their roster and not turn around and trade him to the Vikings.I don't consider it to be desperate at all...as it has been discussed by some very prominent writers.And your trade to one team...to turn around and trade to another is pure speculation as well (yet you don't seem to care about that speculation...just when others are doing it)...which was the point of me questioning you and where has it ever happened as you describe.Again...its a total double standard...you want others to prove their side, but are unwilling to prove anything like a trade and a turn around trade has ever happened either. Again...pure speculation that this would happen on your part.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.

If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.

Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

 

[sho nuff]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Meh...some poor comparisons to releasing Sharper (which was a cap casualty more so that other reason), Longwell, and Henderson...as if they are anything close to what Favre is. Even with Reggie...they let him out of his deal after a year away from the game and he was pretty much done anyway at that point.

 

[sho nuff]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

Yes...because it is that simple... And even with Favre...Dallas would still be the favorite in the NFC.

 

[ScottyFargo]

In simple words, you couldn't be more wrong. Who owns the contract when it's traded to another team? That's what I thought. If they value a 1st round pick that they can get from another team for Favre over the 3rd or 4th that they barter down with the Packers for Favre, then they have every opportunity to trade him. Like I said, the only precedent is any trade that has ever occured before. The player can be traded away instantly or years later, as the team who owns the contract sees fit.Prove it wrong.

Again...if it were so simple...you could show where a team has traded a player...only to turn around and trade him right away.That is what you are claiming can happen...even asking for someone to show you where a contract was ever worded to prevent it...but you are unwilling to prove your side.Prove it wrong? You have yet to prove it has ever happened.You are begging for others to prove the other side...but are providing nothing to show it has ever happened your way before.So my point stands...While the player "can be"...has it ever happened? I am not denying it could happen...I am denying it has happened.Are you denying that a trade could be configured to keep the team that trades for him from trading him right away? Because that is what it seems.

Again, I don't have to prove that a secondary trade has occured after a player has been traded, we are discussing whether or not it is possible. You have tried to rule it out based on speculation of a Packer contract caveat barring the team from doing so. You have nothing, zero, to rule this out as a possible tactic Favre is using right now. The NFL has even refused to speculate on whether or not such a pathetic tactic would hold up. That was never my point to say this was common practice, I have merely stated that the team who gains Favre's contract controls his future in the league.I have simply stated that this "silver bullet" that Packer fans are clinging too so desperately is pure, unadulterated speculation. Your point, unfortunately for you and every Packer fan who fears Brett Favre in Minnesota more than they even care to remember his Superbowl victory of yesteryear for your ballclub, does not stand. It falls quite flat.

I have never said it is not possible...I don't recall anyone saying it is not possible for that type of deal to happen.I am ruling it out in this situation saying the team can, and most likely will, do everything in its power to keep him from going to the Vikings...and that, as the earlier link showed, seems to be completely possible. Despite your denial.You have nothing...zero...to rule out the Packers doing such a thing as people are saying they will right now.And we have merely stated that the team who gains Favre's contract may be doing so under certain restrictions to keep him on their roster and not turn around and trade him to the Vikings.I don't consider it to be desperate at all...as it has been discussed by some very prominent writers.And your trade to one team...to turn around and trade to another is pure speculation as well (yet you don't seem to care about that speculation...just when others are doing it)...which was the point of me questioning you and where has it ever happened as you describe.Again...its a total double standard...you want others to prove their side, but are unwilling to prove anything like a trade and a turn around trade has ever happened either. Again...pure speculation that this would happen on your part.

I've said it already. It all boils down to what Favre wants. If he doesn't like the idea of being traded to the Bucs and not being able to petition them to trade him to where he really wants to go, then he won't do it. The issue at hand was the one being discussed, the likelihood of a second trade. The rationalization of the opponents to this idea are based wholly on the Packers getting away with a difficult and unlikely contract notation, that hinges on Favre and the trading team accepting it. That's why I am telling you your sole defense to keeping him out of Minnesota is a pipe dream If he wants it bad enough, he can get it simply by not playing along.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Awesome article highlighting the fear and doublestandards.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

Yes...because it is that simple... And even with Favre...Dallas would still be the favorite in the NFC.

It is that simple. If Brett doesn't want to go there......he won't redo his deal. Dallas favorite for what? To get bounced in their 1st game again?

 

[Flash]

In simple words, you couldn't be more wrong. Who owns the contract when it's traded to another team? That's what I thought. If they value a 1st round pick that they can get from another team for Favre over the 3rd or 4th that they barter down with the Packers for Favre, then they have every opportunity to trade him.

Like I said, the only precedent is any trade that has ever occured before. The player can be traded away instantly or years later, as the team who owns the contract sees fit.

Prove it wrong.

Ummmm, sorry bro, but you really shouldn't be arguing something you have no clue about. seriously just stop now.

 

[Flash]

Yes, the team he is traded to owns the contract. AND IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE TRADE ONCE APPROVED BY THE LEAGUE OFFICE. According to the league, each trade is taken on a case by case basis. So if the Packers added language to the trade agreement stipulating extra compensation in the event of another trade of Favre to the Vikings and the league signed off on it, the team in question would have to comply.

From the link:

A popular subject contained in various e-mails we've received over the course of the day is a trade of Favre to a team other than the Vikings or the Bears, followed by a trade of Favre to a team like the Vikings or the Bears.

Don't count on it happening. Our guess is that the Packers would include in any trade of Favre to someone other than the Vikings or the Bears a provision that, if Favre thereafter is traded to the Vikings or the Bears, the compensation will increase to a first-round pick, or more.

Though the Packers can't release Favre with an understanding that he won't sign with certain teams, the Packers presumably can condition compensation on what the team that acquires Favre's rights does with them.

It's no different than, for example, the trade that gave the Broncos a seventh-round pick that would have upgraded if Jake Plummer had reported to the Bucs. Or the deal that will send a fourth-round pick from Tennessee to Dallas if Pacman Jones isn't reinstated for the 2008 season.

It's a conditional draft pick — and the condition that would increase the compensation in the case of a Favre trade would be the re-trading of Favre to a team like the Bears or the Vikings.

We asked NFL spokesman Greg Aiello whether such a term would be enforceable, but Aiello declined to speculate. He said that the trades are considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the league office would evaluate the terms that are presented, if/when trade terms are reached.

Peace.

This is all assuming a team accepts such outlandish demands over a retirement risk flake, who also has to sign off on such a trade. The only way that gets done is if both parties, Favre and the trading team, are cool with Favre starting there. Favre's made it pretty clear where he wants to play. He'll be released before allowing himself to be tied down to a team he doesn't want to play for.

Nobody has ever denied all parties have to accept the deal.And he will not be released.

The only scenario where I see him being released outright, is f he indeed does come into camp, and goes through the entire training camp with the Packers, and Rodgers shows he's more than capable. I can see the Packers releasing Favre in the last week of camp, virtually assuring him of not being able to catch on as a starter anywhere in the NFL including Minnesota, until late in the year.

 

[Flash]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Meh...some poor comparisons to releasing Sharper (which was a cap casualty more so that other reason), Longwell, and Henderson...as if they are anything close to what Favre is. Even with Reggie...they let him out of his deal after a year away from the game and he was pretty much done anyway at that point.

These are all good points. How can anyone in the right mind compare Sharper, Longwell, and Henderson to Favre? That's laughable.There's a slight tangent to Reggie White, but again it's not even close as he was retired for a year and out of the NFL when he came back.

That article was not very good.

 

[Flash]

I've said it already. It all boils down to what Favre wants. If he doesn't like the idea of being traded to the Bucs and not being able to petition them to trade him to where he really wants to go, then he won't do it. The issue at hand was the one being discussed, the likelihood of a second trade. The rationalization of the opponents to this idea are based wholly on the Packers getting away with a difficult and unlikely contract notation, that hinges on Favre and the trading team accepting it. That's why I am telling you your sole defense to keeping him out of Minnesota is a pipe dream If he wants it bad enough, he can get it simply by not playing along.

This is where you are completely wrong. First off he needs to file for reinstatement. Secondly he becomes property of the Packers, and THEY determine where he will play or NOT play. If no trade works out, they are so far under the cap they can sit on his $12M and not blink, and don't think TT won't do that. Your pipedream of Favre playing for your Vikings is just that, a pipedream. Forget about him and worry about your own QB Jackson.

 

[Flash]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Awesome article highlighting the fear and doublestandards.

Did you actually read the article?

.....Favre also isn't the first Packers great to be pushed out the door. Hall of Famer Paul Hornung, team leader and most valuable player of the Packers' first two championship teams under Lombardi, was dumped in an expansion draft. The legendary Ray Nitschke was benched and essentially shamed into retirement. Hall of Fame tailback and Green Bay native Arnie Herber was waived at the age of 31 during the final week of training camp in 1941, when he was just a season removed from leading the Packers to an NFL title.

Please point out the double-standards.Once again comparing Favre to Sharper, Longwell and Henderson is laughable.

Keep up the Packer bashing though

 

[bcr8f]

So Favre called and said he was coming but hasn't sent in his papers.

Brett instead of talking why don't you just come? You can stand outside Lambeaau in a Favre jersey and protest.

Just show up man. No need to call ahead.

 

[Phurfur]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.

If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.

Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

Your business savvy is remarkable!

 

[Tau837]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Outstanding take.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Why can't he? If he really digs his heels in, he'll end up starting in Green Bay or Minnesota. For as unpopular as he currently is, he has a lot of power in this whole thing.

I think its quite the opposite. He has NO power in this. Its all up to GBs FO. If they want to trade him to Minnesota then he will starting there (but I doubt they will). Its not up to Favre. If he stays in GB, its up to the team, not Favre, who starts. So he has no control in the matter. There's nothing for him to do but retire (again).

Brett Favre in Green Bay will not be the starter. They have already decided that. Any amount of time he spends there further places the team behind. Green Bay will have to move him post haste, and if he holds fast, he'll get the release because even though they can afford 3 Brett Favres under their cap right now, in no way, shape, or form can they afford the drama that this entire scenario has caused. We are talking Atlanta Falcons level of press here, and like it or not, that is a distraction that these young, inexperienced team will not be able to handle. Especially after Rodgers falters in week 1.

If Favre gives the Packers the best chance to win, why wouldn't he be the starter???

 

[AnonymousBob]

If Favre is washed up or worse than Rogers, GB should trade him to whoever will give them the best deal. Minnesota or other. If Favre isn't washed up, they shouldn't trade him - instead they should let him start.

People keep letting emotions get involved. And until he applies for reinstatement...

 

[Flash]

Why can't he? If he really digs his heels in, he'll end up starting in Green Bay or Minnesota. For as unpopular as he currently is, he has a lot of power in this whole thing.

I think its quite the opposite. He has NO power in this. Its all up to GBs FO. If they want to trade him to Minnesota then he will starting there (but I doubt they will). Its not up to Favre. If he stays in GB, its up to the team, not Favre, who starts. So he has no control in the matter. There's nothing for him to do but retire (again).

Brett Favre in Green Bay will not be the starter. They have already decided that. Any amount of time he spends there further places the team behind. Green Bay will have to move him post haste, and if he holds fast, he'll get the release because even though they can afford 3 Brett Favres under their cap right now, in no way, shape, or form can they afford the drama that this entire scenario has caused. We are talking Atlanta Falcons level of press here, and like it or not, that is a distraction that these young, inexperienced team will not be able to handle. Especially after Rodgers falters in week 1.

If Favre gives the Packers the best chance to win, why wouldn't he be the starter???

I truly hope Favre does come back and compete for the job, he should win it hands down, and if he proves he's better than Rodgers and they still don't start him, then you know this was all a personal thing for TT.

 

[Flash]

If Favre is washed up or worse than Rogers, GB should trade him to whoever will give them the best deal. Minnesota or other. If Favre isn't washed up, they shouldn't trade him - instead they should let him start. People keep letting emotions get involved. And until he applies for reinstatement...

Another This has been my thought process all along.

 

[jeter23]

Sirius Radio was doing a live camp report from Jets camp this morning. They were talking about a reporter from a "major" TV station that was gathering material for his report and was about to leave this morning when he got orders to stay until 5 pm due to anticipation of a big announcement. May be nothing, but could be what we have been waiting for.

 

[MCguidance]

Sirius Radio was doing a live camp report from Jets camp this morning. They were talking about a reporter from a "major" TV station that was gathering material for his report and was about to leave this morning when he got orders to stay until 5 pm due to anticipation of a big announcement. May be nothing, but could be what we have been waiting for.

 

[fatness]

Associated Press, about today's news conference.

Video of press conference

In his season-opening news conference at Lambeau Field on Saturday, McCarthy strongly affirmed the team's commitment to Rodgers and reiterated that players and coaches spent the offseason planning to move forward after Favre retired in March.

"Aaron Rodgers is the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers," McCarthy said. "That's been stated over and over again. I hope we can finally understand that. That's where we are as an organization and as a head coach of the Green Bay Packers. I don't know how else to answer that question."

McCarthy acknowledged that Favre's presence could become a distraction. "It'll be a challenge, there's no doubt about it," McCarthy said. "But it's a new challenge and a new year. (It's) different than I personally have ever experienced, but it's something that I can promise you we'll have a plan for and will be dealt with directly."

But McCarthy did acknowledge that he was disappointed about how the situation has evolved. "The way it's gone has been disappointing, I'll say that," McCarthy said. "So you can say that's a surprise."

That's the closest McCarthy and other Packers officials have come to publicly criticizing Favre in recent weeks, even after the quarterback lashed out at Thompson in an interview with Fox News.

 

[bbuster]

Good read...IMHO

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Meh...some poor comparisons to releasing Sharper (which was a cap casualty more so that other reason), Longwell, and Henderson...as if they are anything close to what Favre is. Even with Reggie...they let him out of his deal after a year away from the game and he was pretty much done anyway at that point.

These are all good points. How can anyone in the right mind compare Sharper, Longwell, and Henderson to Favre? That's laughable.There's a slight tangent to Reggie White, but again it's not even close as he was retired for a year and out of the NFL when he came back.

That article was not very good.

I agree that comparisons to Sharper, Longwell, and Henderson are silly when comparing to Favre. For me it's more about the Packer fans who are turning on Favre because of his indecision and his sometimes poor handling of the situation. All the name callling..."media whore" "diva" etc. by people who only months ago were singing his praises is nauseating. What I found interesting were these certain points in the article. Favre isn't the first Packers star to retire and then want to unretire.

Hall of Fame tackle Forrest Gregg retired five times -- after the 1965, '68, '69, '70 and '71 seasons -- but didn't follow through until after playing one final season in Dallas.

The immortal Don Hutson announced his retirement before each of his last three seasons, only to change his mind each time. Before his last year, 1945, he didn't commit to playing until just 48 hours before the opener. Hutson also considered retiring before the 1939 season, but was coaxed back and reported to camp nine days late.

The late Reggie White announced his retirement before the 1998 season, changed his mind the next day, played another year and announced his retirement again. This time, he sat out a season, returned for one with the Carolina Panthers and finally retired for good on his third try.

As I've said in several other threads, Favre isn't the first one to have trouble with the decision to retire, and he won't be the last. The media has made this situation a circus for years. Favre has made some mistakes this year in the way he has handled the situation...so what...so have the Packers. The Packers are fools for not welcoming Favre back this year for several reasons that I have mentioned many times, in many threads.

The "EX-Favre fans" seem to me to be just as fickle as they claim Favre is.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Sirius Radio was doing a live camp report from Jets camp this morning. They were talking about a reporter from a "major" TV station that was gathering material for his report and was about to leave this morning when he got orders to stay until 5 pm due to anticipation of a big announcement. May be nothing, but could be what we have been waiting for.

I would hate to see the Jets trade for Favre. Clemens is better than Rogers now and also in college. This doesn't add up.

 

[jurb26]

Sirius Radio was doing a live camp report from Jets camp this morning. They were talking about a reporter from a "major" TV station that was gathering material for his report and was about to leave this morning when he got orders to stay until 5 pm due to anticipation of a big announcement. May be nothing, but could be what we have been waiting for.

I would hate to see the Jets trade for Favre. Clemens is better than Rogers now and also in college. This doesn't add up.

This would be a horrible trade for the Jets to make. Quite honestly. Any team trading for Favre this late is a poor idea IMO.

 

[Aaronstory]

Yes, the team he is traded to owns the contract. AND IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE TRADE ONCE APPROVED BY THE LEAGUE OFFICE. According to the league, each trade is taken on a case by case basis. So if the Packers added language to the trade agreement stipulating extra compensation in the event of another trade of Favre to the Vikings and the league signed off on it, the team in question would have to comply.

From the link:

A popular subject contained in various e-mails we've received over the course of the day is a trade of Favre to a team other than the Vikings or the Bears, followed by a trade of Favre to a team like the Vikings or the Bears.

Don't count on it happening. Our guess is that the Packers would include in any trade of Favre to someone other than the Vikings or the Bears a provision that, if Favre thereafter is traded to the Vikings or the Bears, the compensation will increase to a first-round pick, or more.

Though the Packers can't release Favre with an understanding that he won't sign with certain teams, the Packers presumably can condition compensation on what the team that acquires Favre's rights does with them.

It's no different than, for example, the trade that gave the Broncos a seventh-round pick that would have upgraded if Jake Plummer had reported to the Bucs. Or the deal that will send a fourth-round pick from Tennessee to Dallas if Pacman Jones isn't reinstated for the 2008 season.

It's a conditional draft pick — and the condition that would increase the compensation in the case of a Favre trade would be the re-trading of Favre to a team like the Bears or the Vikings.

We asked NFL spokesman Greg Aiello whether such a term would be enforceable, but Aiello declined to speculate. He said that the trades are considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the league office would evaluate the terms that are presented, if/when trade terms are reached.

Peace.

This is all assuming a team accepts such outlandish demands over a retirement risk flake, who also has to sign off on such a trade. The only way that gets done is if both parties, Favre and the trading team, are cool with Favre starting there. Favre's made it pretty clear where he wants to play. He'll be released before allowing himself to be tied down to a team he doesn't want to play for.

I'm sorry. Is this an admission that your original thesis, that once Favre's contract is traded, the team in question could do whatever it wants including trading him to the Vikings no matter what the trade agreement was between the Packers and said team, was erroneous? 'Cause that would be awesome...

 

[ScottyFargo]

Yes, the team he is traded to owns the contract. AND IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE TRADE ONCE APPROVED BY THE LEAGUE OFFICE. According to the league, each trade is taken on a case by case basis. So if the Packers added language to the trade agreement stipulating extra compensation in the event of another trade of Favre to the Vikings and the league signed off on it, the team in question would have to comply.

From the link:

A popular subject contained in various e-mails we've received over the course of the day is a trade of Favre to a team other than the Vikings or the Bears, followed by a trade of Favre to a team like the Vikings or the Bears.

Don't count on it happening. Our guess is that the Packers would include in any trade of Favre to someone other than the Vikings or the Bears a provision that, if Favre thereafter is traded to the Vikings or the Bears, the compensation will increase to a first-round pick, or more.

Though the Packers can't release Favre with an understanding that he won't sign with certain teams, the Packers presumably can condition compensation on what the team that acquires Favre's rights does with them.

It's no different than, for example, the trade that gave the Broncos a seventh-round pick that would have upgraded if Jake Plummer had reported to the Bucs. Or the deal that will send a fourth-round pick from Tennessee to Dallas if Pacman Jones isn't reinstated for the 2008 season.

It's a conditional draft pick — and the condition that would increase the compensation in the case of a Favre trade would be the re-trading of Favre to a team like the Bears or the Vikings.

We asked NFL spokesman Greg Aiello whether such a term would be enforceable, but Aiello declined to speculate. He said that the trades are considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the league office would evaluate the terms that are presented, if/when trade terms are reached.

Peace.

This is all assuming a team accepts such outlandish demands over a retirement risk flake, who also has to sign off on such a trade. The only way that gets done is if both parties, Favre and the trading team, are cool with Favre starting there. Favre's made it pretty clear where he wants to play. He'll be released before allowing himself to be tied down to a team he doesn't want to play for.

I'm sorry. Is this an admission that your original thesis, that once Favre's contract is traded, the team in question could do whatever it wants including trading him to the Vikings no matter what the trade agreement was between the Packers and said team, was erroneous? 'Cause that would be awesome...

Exactly what do you think you proved by showing that Aiello refused to speculate as you all are doing?

Our guess is that the Packers would include in any trade of Favre to someone other than the Vikings or the Bears a provision that, if Favre thereafter is traded to the Vikings or the Bears, the compensation will increase to a first-round pick, or more.

A guess + your speculation = ? Do you want me to tell you you did a good job quoting an article that gave you the idea in the first place?My thesis stands. The only case that a trade that includes an anti-double trade clause is if Favre and the team that trades for him are satisfied. If Favre doesn't want it, the trade doesn't happen, so counting on this magic bullet keeping him out of Minnesota is weak. The most likely scenario is that a team would trade for Favre because they want to start him. If they start listening to offers immediately after they get him so much the better for them if they can turn a profit off of the trade.

Green Bay's influence only goes as far as what a team is willing to put into a trade, and even then it still hinges on whether or not Favre is satisfied.

 

[monessen]

Adam Schefter is reporting on NFL Network:Brett Farve is expected to show up for Packers training camp this weekend. He told Ted Thompson this via phone on Thursday. A letter of reinstatement could be faxed to the Commissioner as early as today.

Weekend's almost up, Adam Schefter. Maybe it's a really, really long letter Brett is writing.

 

[bcr8f]

Favre: I'm not reporting to camp yet

By Greg A. Bedard

Sunday, Jul 27 2008, 06:33 AM

Green Bay - Quarterback Brett Favre said he will not report to training camp today as he gives the Green Bay Packers some time to work on his exit from the team, according to a story posted on SI.com's website early Sunday morning.

"I had planned on reporting for the start of Packers training camp Sunday, but Ted Thompson asked if I would give him a couple of days to try to get the situation resolved. I agreed to do that," Favre told Peter King. "I don't want to be a distraction to the Packers, and I hope in the next few days we can come to an agreement that would allow me to continue playing football.

"I've also spoken with Commissioner (Roger) Goodell a couple of times this week, in hopes that he could be some sort of arbitrator in this. I hope he can be.''

Favre told Goodell he and the team were "at an impasse" and Favre wanted his outright release.

Also, Favre freely admitted he spoke to both Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress and quarterbacks coach Darrell Bevell but flatly denied they did anything that amounts to tampering.

"I have no qualms about admitting I talked to them,'' said Favre, who was interviewed by Milt Ahlerich, league's vice president of security. "Talking with Milt, he said, 'Brett, did they entice you?' I said no, 'I don't need to be enticed anywhere.' They absolutely did not entice me to come to Minnesota.''

The New Jersey Star-Ledger is reporting that a deal between the Green Bay Packers and the New York Jets regarding quarterback Brett Favre is now unlikely.

The paper writes: According to someone with knowledge of the talks between the Jets, Packers and Favre's representatives, any chance of a deal between the Packers and Jets is "very remote."

A source close to the quarterback concurred Saturday afternoon, calling a trade sending Favre to to the Jets "doubtful."

 

[sho nuff]

I've said it already. It all boils down to what Favre wants. If he doesn't like the idea of being traded to the Bucs and not being able to petition them to trade him to where he really wants to go, then he won't do it. The issue at hand was the one being discussed, the likelihood of a second trade. The rationalization of the opponents to this idea are based wholly on the Packers getting away with a difficult and unlikely contract notation, that hinges on Favre and the trading team accepting it. That's why I am telling you your sole defense to keeping him out of Minnesota is a pipe dream If he wants it bad enough, he can get it simply by not playing along.

And others have said it...if Bret does not want to do it...his options are to report to the Packers or stay retired.Its not stopping the Packers from doing such a thing.Yes...the liklihood of a 2nd trade...one you think is so likely, others think will be protected against by the Packers.You want proof from others that the Packers can do such a thing, while not prooving that a team has ever made such a 2ndary trade.Its all speculation on both side...something which you simply will not admit.Its no more of a pipe dream than those thinking the Packers will just let him get re-traded to the Vikings. That is what I am telling you.

 

[sho nuff]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

Yes...because it is that simple... And even with Favre...Dallas would still be the favorite in the NFC.

It is that simple. If Brett doesn't want to go there......he won't redo his deal. Dallas favorite for what? To get bounced in their 1st game again?

Yes...because the Vikings have such a great postseason record.

 

[Avery]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

Yes...because it is that simple... And even with Favre...Dallas would still be the favorite in the NFC.

It is that simple. If Brett doesn't want to go there......he won't redo his deal. Dallas favorite for what? To get bounced in their 1st game again?

Yes...because the Vikings have such a great postseason record.

Wasn't Dallas a favorite is the NFC last year too?How'd that work out?

 

[bcr8f]

There will be a poison pill with any trade.

"if Favre plays more than 3 games in the state of Minnesota team loses 12 1st round draft picks"

With the Viings trade history they deserve it.

 

[fatness]

Also, Favre freely admitted he spoke to both Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress and quarterbacks coach Darrell Bevell but flatly denied they did anything that amounts to tampering.

"I have no qualms about admitting I talked to them,'' said Favre, who was interviewed by Milt Ahlerich, league's vice president of security. "Talking with Milt, he said, 'Brett, did they entice you?' I said no, 'I don't need to be enticed anywhere.' They absolutely did not entice me to come to Minnesota.''

So Favre is the judge of what is tampering and what is not?Let's see. Good quarterback for years, a better GM than Thompson (in his own mind), judge of NFL tampering matters (in his own mind) ---- is there anything this guy thinks he can't do?

 

[bcr8f]

Also, Favre freely admitted he spoke to both Minnesota Vikings coach Brad Childress and quarterbacks coach Darrell Bevell but flatly denied they did anything that amounts to tampering.

"I have no qualms about admitting I talked to them,'' said Favre, who was interviewed by Milt Ahlerich, league's vice president of security. "Talking with Milt, he said, 'Brett, did they entice you?' I said no, 'I don't need to be enticed anywhere.' They absolutely did not entice me to come to Minnesota.''

So Favre is the judge of what is tampering and what is not?Let's see. Good quarterback for years, a better GM than Thompson (in his own mind), judge of NFL tampering matters (in his own mind) ---- is there anything this guy thinks he can't do?

Define enticing Brett. Did they say "You know Brett we're only a good QB away from winning a SB."

Brett would that entail enticing?

 

[Donnybrook]

I am probably biased here but I see the charges against the Vikings as being totally different than tampering with a player who is in the last year of his contract and some other team entices him with more money. Since Favre was never going to become a free agent, what actual harm was done to the Packers besides the public embarrassment. If Thompson and Favre could have kept their dispute private they could have avoided much of this media circus in the first place.

 

[Aaronstory]

Yes, the team he is traded to owns the contract. AND IS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE TRADE ONCE APPROVED BY THE LEAGUE OFFICE. According to the league, each trade is taken on a case by case basis. So if the Packers added language to the trade agreement stipulating extra compensation in the event of another trade of Favre to the Vikings and the league signed off on it, the team in question would have to comply.

From the link:

A popular subject contained in various e-mails we've received over the course of the day is a trade of Favre to a team other than the Vikings or the Bears, followed by a trade of Favre to a team like the Vikings or the Bears.

Don't count on it happening. Our guess is that the Packers would include in any trade of Favre to someone other than the Vikings or the Bears a provision that, if Favre thereafter is traded to the Vikings or the Bears, the compensation will increase to a first-round pick, or more.

Though the Packers can't release Favre with an understanding that he won't sign with certain teams, the Packers presumably can condition compensation on what the team that acquires Favre's rights does with them.

It's no different than, for example, the trade that gave the Broncos a seventh-round pick that would have upgraded if Jake Plummer had reported to the Bucs. Or the deal that will send a fourth-round pick from Tennessee to Dallas if Pacman Jones isn't reinstated for the 2008 season.

It's a conditional draft pick — and the condition that would increase the compensation in the case of a Favre trade would be the re-trading of Favre to a team like the Bears or the Vikings.

We asked NFL spokesman Greg Aiello whether such a term would be enforceable, but Aiello declined to speculate. He said that the trades are considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the league office would evaluate the terms that are presented, if/when trade terms are reached.

Peace.

This is all assuming a team accepts such outlandish demands over a retirement risk flake, who also has to sign off on such a trade. The only way that gets done is if both parties, Favre and the trading team, are cool with Favre starting there. Favre's made it pretty clear where he wants to play. He'll be released before allowing himself to be tied down to a team he doesn't want to play for.

I'm sorry. Is this an admission that your original thesis, that once Favre's contract is traded, the team in question could do whatever it wants including trading him to the Vikings no matter what the trade agreement was between the Packers and said team, was erroneous? 'Cause that would be awesome...

Exactly what do you think you proved by showing that Aiello refused to speculate as you all are doing?

Our guess is that the Packers would include in any trade of Favre to someone other than the Vikings or the Bears a provision that, if Favre thereafter is traded to the Vikings or the Bears, the compensation will increase to a first-round pick, or more.

A guess + your speculation = ? My thesis stands.

Please look up the defenition of words before you use them to try and make a point. Thanks.

 

[Kiddnets]

from the jets boards for what its worth

I'm Just repeating what this dude {Jeremy Green?} said on ESPN Radio, so don't shoot the messenger

He said the Packers want to trade Favre to the Jets, that is their ideal scenario because they absolutely want him out of the NFC, he said the Packers would probably get no more than a 3rd or 4th RD Pick, maybe a 3rd, because Favre is only playing one or two more years, but GB would take it {3rd or 4th} to trade Favre to the Jets and out of the NFC

But he emphasized over and over again that the Packers absolutely view the Jets as the ideal destination

 

[sholditch]

roto

Report: Favre-to-Tampa Bay trade was close

Favre

According to the Tampa Tribune, "it is believed" that the Packers and Bucs were close to agreeing on compensation in a trade that would've sent Brett Favre to Tampa Bay on Saturday.

The Tribune suggests that renewed talks Sunday may have been why Favre and Green Bay are at a standstill. In addition, beat reporter Roy Cummings says "it is believed" that the Jets are not bidding for Favre's services. The Packers are thought to be holding out for conditional draft pick that could escalate to a first-rounder if Favre plays a certain amount of games. Jul. 27 - 2:24 pm et

Source: Tampa Tribune

This to me is ridiculous. Of course he's going to play in all the games, dude hasn't missed a start in over a decade. They need to back off that.

 

[Steady Mooobin]

Good read on the NFL.com article posted above.If the Packers are that sold on Aaron flipping Rodgers, prove it and let Brett go. Brett obviously sees Purple Jesus and that defense and realizes they'd be the favorite in the NFC.Go Brett Go. Refuse to redo that contract with any other team. Be a $12 million (?) 'clipboard holder' before you accept that.

Yes...because it is that simple... And even with Favre...Dallas would still be the favorite in the NFC.

It is that simple. If Brett doesn't want to go there......he won't redo his deal. Dallas favorite for what? To get bounced in their 1st game again?

Yes...because the Vikings have such a great postseason record.

Wasn't Dallas a favorite is the NFC last year too?How'd that work out?

:scottcase: for the end of this season.Congratulations on your Giants. I was rooting for them and Strahan. However, the Giants now have two of the worst Superbowl winning teams in NFL history. (90 Giants is the other)Since we are bringing up old ####, none of your 3 SB winning teams could even compete vs any of the Cowboys winning teams.

 

[bcr8f]

:scottcase: for the end of this season.Congratulations on your Giants. I was rooting for them and Strahan. However, the Giants now have two of the worst Superbowl winning teams in NFL history. (90 Giants is the other)Since we are bringing up old ####, none of your 3 SB winning teams could even compete vs any of the Cowboys winning teams.

Cowboys fans need to bring up ancient wins. None of their curent teams can win a single playoff game.

 

[sho nuff]

If what I heard today is true...that Thompson told Favre it would not be a good idea to show up just yet (now the article posted in this thread sounds a bit different than what FoxSports Radio reported)...then the Packers are now not handling it very well.

I don't like that they are not at least open to the competition if they are not willing to get this deal done quickly to trade him.

But again...too much is getting played out through the media...rather than as quiet as possible...part of that is Favre whining about how he has been treated...part of it is the team taking their stance in the media as well.