Hypothetical: Backroom GM deals? (1 Viewer)

[The Gatekeeper]

Why don't the Vikings just find an AFC team like the Cleveland Browns for example that would be willing to trade for Favre then trade him to the Vikings for a profit so to speak. Let's say that the Browns trade a 2nd round pick for Favre then send him to Minnesota for the 2nd round pick back and a 4th round pick. Minnesota gets their guy and the Browns get an extra pick for basically doing nothing. Would it be unethical for the Vikings GM to call around for a potential partner to basically do the trade for them?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

 

[Getinthemix]

I can't believe that no one else has ever thought of this idea. Groundbreaking.

 

[Jimmy James]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

I don't think that's true. I think it's more along the lines of this, consequence-wise:1) All relationships with Thompson would be burned2) Some other GMs probably wouldn't make deals with you at all3) Everybody would be hesitant to deal with you in the future under similar circumstancesWith that said, I'm surprised that there isn't some GM out there willing to make this happen if the Vikings really want this done. I don't think it would be a good career move, but it's not like the supposed football professionals out there always have the best judgment in the world. I am guessing the Vikings just don't want Brett that badly. They seem to have a pretty good thing going with no QB, so even if they get Dilfer-level play this year, they could be in excellent shape for the postseason.

 

[Avery]

I can't really spreak to your ideas , but I can tell you that this is a crappy, misleading thread title.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

I don't think that's true. I think it's more along the lines of this, consequence-wise:1) All relationships with Thompson would be burned2) Some other GMs probably wouldn't make deals with you at all3) Everybody would be hesitant to deal with you in the future under similar circumstancesWith that said, I'm surprised that there isn't some GM out there willing to make this happen if the Vikings really want this done. I don't think it would be a good career move, but it's not like the supposed football professionals out there always have the best judgment in the world. I am guessing the Vikings just don't want Brett that badly. They seem to have a pretty good thing going with no QB, so even if they get Dilfer-level play this year, they could be in excellent shape for the postseason.

Don't forget that nearly everyone in NFL front offices, and coaching staffs eventually gets fired. Then they get rehired by another franchise. Not a good thing for your resume if you are part of either one of those front offices, or higher up on the coaching staffs.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

You guys don't ever think this kind of thing has happened before? You guys are acting like these GM's are moral pillars of the community or something. If these guys aren't stabbing each other in the back they are busy stabbing players on their own team in the back. I am just wondering why it is taking so long for this to happen.

 

[BusMan]

Can't the Packers include some provision in the trade that Favre can't end up on an NFC North team within a year or something like that?

 

[The Kerminator]

I would think it would be pretty easy to put a clause in the terms of the trade that if Favre isn't on the accepting teams roster that the price would be much higher. I would also think that now that the commissioner is involved this would be frowned upon by the league.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Isn't there a cooling off period where once a player is traded he can't be traded again for like 30 days or more?

 

[Obie Wan]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

I don't think that's true. I think it's more along the lines of this, consequence-wise:1) All relationships with Thompson would be burned2) Some other GMs probably wouldn't make deals with you at all3) Everybody would be hesitant to deal with you in the future under similar circumstancesWith that said, I'm surprised that there isn't some GM out there willing to make this happen if the Vikings really want this done. I don't think it would be a good career move, but it's not like the supposed football professionals out there always have the best judgment in the world. I am guessing the Vikings just don't want Brett that badly. They seem to have a pretty good thing going with no QB, so even if they get Dilfer-level play this year, they could be in excellent shape for the postseason.

In this situation, I think the Packers would be the ones looking to put together a 3 way deal under the table.The Vikings need to be the end destination because they will give up the most since they have the best fit for Favre. Thompson gets crucified by teh fan base if Brett is traded directly to Minn and does well.However, if TT can eliminate alot of the backlash against himself by trading Favre to an AFC team. Don;t have much control over subsequent trades. If they cut him outright, he will end up in Minn anyway, so it's in GBs best interest to maximize the trade value and reducing the fall out from that trade. They really can't trade Brett somewhere he does not want to go, so they need to make the best of a bad situation.

 

[Jimmy James]

Somehow, I don't think Thompson cares about maximizing value. This seems a bit more personal than that at this point. Of course, that could just be part of some elaborate hype-building process. I have my suspicions that the talk about Shockey and Taylor constituted two campaigns similar to what I'm talking about.

 

[Jimmy James]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

I don't think that's true. I think it's more along the lines of this, consequence-wise:1) All relationships with Thompson would be burned2) Some other GMs probably wouldn't make deals with you at all3) Everybody would be hesitant to deal with you in the future under similar circumstancesWith that said, I'm surprised that there isn't some GM out there willing to make this happen if the Vikings really want this done. I don't think it would be a good career move, but it's not like the supposed football professionals out there always have the best judgment in the world. I am guessing the Vikings just don't want Brett that badly. They seem to have a pretty good thing going with no QB, so even if they get Dilfer-level play this year, they could be in excellent shape for the postseason.

Don't forget that nearly everyone in NFL front offices, and coaching staffs eventually gets fired. Then they get rehired by another franchise. Not a good thing for your resume if you are part of either one of those front offices, or higher up on the coaching staffs.

If some of the folks who have been constantly recycled keep jobs in and around the league, I don't think this would be a career killing type of thing.

 

[Assani Fisher]

You guys don't ever think this kind of thing has happened before? You guys are acting like these GM's are moral pillars of the community or something. If these guys aren't stabbing each other in the back they are busy stabbing players on their own team in the back. I am just wondering why it is taking so long for this to happen.

Did you not read the responses? Only one mentioned anything about morals. The answer to your question is that it wouldn't be worth it for the Browns because teams in the future wouldn't want to trade with them. So unless the Browns "profit" was something huge like 3 1st rounders, then it just wouldn't be worth it.

 

[jurrassic]

A couple things. One, this will never happen. Alot of the reasons for that are already stated above:

1.) Future relationship with Packers, other teams

2.) Commissioner's involvement

3.) Ability of Packers to place a poison pill in the trade clause preventing this

With all that being said, I can't believe people are still talking about Favre to the Vikings. There is absolutely zero chance of that happening. Not so much from the Packers view but from the fans view. Thompson and Murphy would never want the backlash from the fans.

I will say I think people just assuming Favre on the Vikings would seal a Super Bowl berth for them is a little ridiculous. Before last season, Favre has 3-4 years of average play. The wr and te talent on the Packers is twice as good as the Vikings. Today's Favre isn't the same guy from 10 years ago who could make Robert Brooks and Bill Schroeder look good. The Packers offense, and play calling had alot to do with Favre's success. Mike McCarthey is a much better play caller than Brad Childress will ever be. I'm not saying Favre would not have success on the Vikings, but the personnel is different, the offensive playcalling is different, Favre will be another year older.

 

[Interseptopus]

I think you're all forgetting that the tampering backlash could involve a stipulation that Favre cannot play for the Vikings ever.

The previous tampering charges we've seen involved active players. This is unique because Favre was retired, talked to the MIN HC and OC, and all of a sudden wanted to be released from the Packers. Gooddell is not a moron, I'm sure he's thought of this idea, and with the tampering being at the root of all this- if MIN was to end up with Favre after a couple trades, it would mean MIN profited from the tampering.

I can see as a result of the tampering GB getting a 3rd round draft pick from MIN and Favre not being able to play for MIN for one year

 

[Interseptopus]

Oh yeah, and this idea is not really "brilliant". It wouldn't happen because in trades I'm sure there are legal documents signed by each team finalizing the trade and it's clauses. In that, the Packers would most definitely include a no trade to MIN clause.

Sorry, but you ain't getting our #4. You have to live with Tavaris Jackson...

EDIT:

And yes, the title of this thread is very misleading. You need to change that right away

 

[acme]

I can't really spreak to your ideas , but I can tell you that this is a crappy, misleading thread title.

 

[Lash]

something along the lines of ... GB trades Favre to Kansas City for a 2009 second round pick which escalates into a 2009 first and 2009 second and 2010 first if KC trades Favre to an NFC team

should stop all of the speculation of him ending up in Minny or any other place that Favre could eventually knock GB out of playoffs except for a very unlikely super bowl contest

 

[ookook]

Hey Lash,

I don't think Favre will play anywhere he thinks the team will lose more games than win, and that is KC.

Now, if I were the Packers I mgiht make the trade anyway as it shifts the onus to Favre as being a "no show"...good PR.

I am starting to think the TB trade might happen if Gruden is on board.

-Neil

 

[SSOG]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

A GM's job isn't to be respected. It isn't to be a bastion of goodness in an otherwise cutthroat world. A GM's job is to build the best team possible, end of story. If my GM can totally ream another GM in a trade, then I don't cry for the other GM- his job was to field the best team, and he failed.Now, if my GM thinks that a backroom trade reduces his chances of making deals in the future and therefore hinders his ability to increase the strength of the team in the long run, and he doesn't do it for that reason, then fine (although, since the NFL is so trade-averse, I question how much it'd really hurt if other teams started shunning you). But if my GM wasn't pulling the trigger on this because he wanted to play fair and not hurt anyone's feelings, then I think it's time for me to get a new GM, because my current one isn't doing his job.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

If Minnesota really wants Farve, I think they will just have him report to Packers' camp. Once he reports, the Packers will either cut him or keep him. I don't see why the Vikings would give up draft picks now for someone they can sign outright in a month's time.

On a side note, can Green Bay not just pay Farve his $12 million and send him to the house if he reports? Kind of like the Bucs did with Keyshawn several years ago? It sucks to flush $12 mill down the toilet, but it would be a lot easier than giving your rivals a new starting QB.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

Oh yeah, and this idea is not really "brilliant". It wouldn't happen because in trades I'm sure there are legal documents signed by each team finalizing the trade and it's clauses. In that, the Packers would most definitely include a no trade to MIN clause. Sorry, but you ain't getting our #4. You have to live with Tavaris Jackson... EDIT:And yes, the title of this thread is very misleading. You need to change that right away

Who said it was brilliant? When you have a word in quotes it helps if the original poster actually said that word genius. I guess a moderator changed my oh so misleading thread title so all the gimps that are crying can take their Manpons out now.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league.

A GM's job isn't to be respected. It isn't to be a bastion of goodness in an otherwise cutthroat world. A GM's job is to build the best team possible, end of story. If my GM can totally ream another GM in a trade, then I don't cry for the other GM- his job was to field the best team, and he failed.Now, if my GM thinks that a backroom trade reduces his chances of making deals in the future and therefore hinders his ability to increase the strength of the team in the long run, and he doesn't do it for that reason, then fine (although, since the NFL is so trade-averse, I question how much it'd really hurt if other teams started shunning you). But if my GM wasn't pulling the trigger on this because he wanted to play fair and not hurt anyone's feelings, then I think it's time for me to get a new GM, because my current one isn't doing his job.

This is the most correct post on this thread.

 

[massraider]

If Minnesota really wants Farve, I think they will just have him report to Packers' camp. Once he reports, the Packers will either cut him or keep him. I don't see why the Vikings would give up draft picks now for someone they can sign outright in a month's time.On a side note, can Green Bay not just pay Farve his $12 million and send him to the house if he reports? Kind of like the Bucs did with Keyshawn several years ago? It sucks to flush $12 mill down the toilet, but it would be a lot easier than giving your rivals a new starting QB.

On your first point: If the Vikes want Favre, I personally think it's worth a Day 1 pick to get him there, acclimated, and working out. There's no guarantee when the Pack releases him, or maybe they find someone else to trade with. If you think you are a Super Bowl contender with favre, screwing around over a draft pick is really not being smart. Draft picks are valuable, but not as valuable as starting QBs.On your second point:Green Bay could do that, but it's the worst possible option, IMO. It would be a public nightmare that would almost be unmatched. something like that could very well hurt the team, and I don't think you do that just to keep him from Minny. If they are that scared of him in Minny, he should be starting for GB.

 

[Jimmy James]

If the Packers try to send Favre home if he reports, the NFLPA reaction is likely to make a bad labor environment even worse. The Titans tried that with McNair if I remember right, and it almost hit the fan right then and there.

I have a feeling Favre is going to report when he darn well pleases and will be a cancer. He has already damaged his rep as much as it will be damaged. He'd might as well go all the way through with it.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think the "Packer fan backlash" element in these discussions is often way overstated. For one, I really don't think Thompson cares much what the fans, bloggers and Joe Six-Packs of Cheeseland think about him. Furthermore, I don't think many Packer fans would care very much if Favre went to Minnesota or Chicago, as long as the Packers got good compensation for him. Certainly I think a trade to an NFC North team would be disfavored and may come at a premium, but if for example they got a first round pick out of it I think most fans would be happy.

The other comment that I think has to be made in these discussions is just to point out that I think very few teams likely have interest in Favre right now. He has not applied for reinstatement, he gave a very convincing retirement press conference just a few months ago, and he has not yet stated a commitment to playing football this year. He is a guaranteed media circus and locker room distraction. He is very likely, at best, a difficult player to coach at this age. I can't imagine any team giving up substantial value for Favre under these circumstances.

 

[Interseptopus]

Oh yeah, and this idea is not really "brilliant". It wouldn't happen because in trades I'm sure there are legal documents signed by each team finalizing the trade and it's clauses. In that, the Packers would most definitely include a no trade to MIN clause.

Sorry, but you ain't getting our #4. You have to live with Tavaris Jackson...

EDIT:

And yes, the title of this thread is very misleading. You need to change that right away

Who said it was brilliant? When you have a word in quotes it helps if the original poster actually said that word genius. I guess a moderator changed my oh so misleading thread title so all the gimps that are crying can take their Manpons out now.

In my original post I never quoted anyone, therefore I don't know what the problem is. I used quotes around "brilliant" because in your posts about this idea, you say "I wonder why it hasn't been done yet"- or something along those lines, acting as if it's such a great move to make why do no other GMs do it. Bottom line is that you will never get an answer you like to your question. Because you seem so anti-conversation about this towards anyone who represents the opposite point of view from you. You ask a question, and people give answers you aren't happy with, so you say, "You guys don't ever think this kind of thing has happened before?" 1. No, I really don't. If it was such a great and easy thing to do, you'd see it done around the league everywhere. Obviously there is something flawed with this idea that we cannot answer because we are not GMs

"You guys are acting like these GM's are moral pillars of the community or something." You are correct, there shouldn't be a holier than thou perspective of GMs, but no one said morals were the reason no GM would do this. Before you posted this, the only thing someone said that closely resembles mentioning morals is: "Its called a code of ethics. Any GM trying to do that would lose the respect of every other GM in the league." Code of ethics is MUCH different compared to morality.

There are other ethics used in the NFL- such as not running up the score. If you run up the score (like the Patriots did this last year), you are not really in tune with the code of ethics. It makes you look like a complete jack hole. It's not morally wrong to up the score, you're not going to hell, but it is ethically wrong as a head coach to run the score up on a team like that. Same idea goes for GMs. It's ethically wrong to screw over another GM and make another GM look foolish. Not a good way to win favors in the future from other GMs...

"If these guys aren't stabbing each other in the back they are busy stabbing players on their own team in the back." I disagree 100% with this statement. GMs are not out to stab eachother in the back. In fact, I think GMs tend to help other teams out while helping themselves out. It's like you on your fantasy team- you're not looking to pull a fast one on an owner in a trade. That's not the way to get others to want to trade with you. The best way to make a trade is to look for weaknesses on the other team and try to improve those weaknesses with your strengthes. If you can make a trade where both teams come out on top, it makes you look like a great owner and teams want to trade with you. I really don't think GMs want to stab other GMs in the back. Can you offer examples where a GM stabbed another GM in the back? Because I really can't think of one instance. Usually GMs trade with other GMs just the same as fantasy owners trade with each other. Any GM that makes this proposed move earns the scorn from every other GM in the league similar as to the scorn Belichick has earned by cheating and running up the scores. Not a good way to make freinds, or to start a career for many young GMs in the league

 

[Jon_Moore]

If it happened, it would be blatantly obvious. The commisioner might over rule it, there would probably be some consequences from the league.

Also, it would become a major distraction. What do teams usually do with distractions? They get rid of 'em. Terrell Owens was probably outplaying every receiver in 2005, on a Philly team that needed him badly, but they suspended him for more than half the season, and cut ties with him following the season.

The GM would draw so much negative attention for this, he'd be poof, gone. And all for a 4th round pick?! You seriously think someone's going to risk his well-paying cushy job for a 4th rounder?