Question on Favre to Minny

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the Packers don't want him to play for them, let him go play somewhere else......what, are the Packers afraid that Brett might come back to beat them?......the solution to that is simple then, let him play for the Packers!!

This makes no sense. Teams sometimes have players of value that don't fit into their team. Why would they just give them away to other teams?

For instance, if Favre were brought back as a starter, it might make Rodgers expendable. Do you think they should just release Rodgers? Hell no, he is worth draft picks on the market.

[Lurker64]

I believe a lot of what would keep Favre from being traded again would be that if traded to team A he would ask for a gentlemen's assurance that Favre would not be traded again this year. If Favre were traded by team A this year in contradiction to the promise the GM of team A made to Ted Thompson, it would become known in GM circles that "the GM of team A is dishonest in his dealings and is not to be trusted." Which is something that will greatly hurt his ability to deal with other teams in the future.

Nobody wants to work out trades (picks or players) with a guy who is known to blatantly mislead you when it suits him. Reputation as a "fair and honest dealer" is important in NFL GM circles.

[Patler]

The only way around this, though, is for the traded team to release Favre, and then Minny signs Brett directly. The Vikes could then trade a 2nd round pick to that team, as a means of returning the favor, for a marginal player.

The conditional trade clause would have to cover releasing Favre also.

If he is release he would be subject to waver rules. Which would go by last year final standings in which the Bears would be one of the first teams to get a crack at claiming him off wavers, because of there bad record.

Veterans (4+ years) are not subject to waivers if they are released before the trade deadline. If released after the trade deadline they are subject to waivers, but can elect to become free agents at the end of the season even if their contract has not expired.

[Packerarcher]

If other teams would go through all this trouble to get a WINNING QB,how in the hell can you people not see that TT is a dumbfuck for not letting him come back. It's not to comlpicated you put the best player on the field,and that sure the FUCK isn't Rodgers.

[The Leaper]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

True...but you have to get the other team to AGREE to it, and it typically pertains to a player's performance and not about future transactions of the player.

This is different from a "poison pill"...which refers to teams constructing a restricted free agent offer that would be crippling to the player's current team if they chose to match the offer.

The Packers don't have much leverage...they've made it clear they are moving on, so if Favre turns in his paperwork then Thompson is FORCED to move him. Throwing conditions on a trade agreement when you don't have much leverage will only make the deal LESS sweet. I'm assuming Thompson is going to want to get as much as he can...so tacking on conditions isn't going to help that.

[Patler]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

True...but you have to get the other team to AGREE to it, and it typically pertains to a player's performance and not about future transactions of the player.

This is different from a "poison pill"...which refers to teams constructing a restricted free agent offer that would be crippling to the player's current team if they chose to match the offer.

The Packers don't have much leverage...they've made it clear they are moving on, so if Favre turns in his paperwork then Thompson is FORCED to move him. Throwing conditions on a trade agreement when you don't have much leverage will only make the deal LESS sweet. I'm assuming Thompson is going to want to get as much as he can...so tacking on conditions isn't going to help that.

I agree, it all depends on what is important to TT. I was simply suggesting that if TT is concerned about a team trading for Favre for the primary purpose of trading him to a third team (personally, I think that is very unlikely) there are ways to discourage a team from doing that.

On the other hand, if the team really wants Favre for their own use, what would they care about any consequences of a "re-trade" in 2008? It's not something that would happen.

Ultimately, TT's leverage in swinging a deal will depend primarily on one thing - how many teams are interested in acquiring Favre. If there is only lukewarm interest from a couple teams, the teams may be willing to take their chances getting him as a FA. If a couple teams want him badly, the price will go up as the teams try to ensure getting him.

[Ballboy]

If the Packers don't want him to play for them, let him go play somewhere else......what, are the Packers afraid that Brett might come back to beat them?......the solution to that is simple then, let him play for the Packers!!

This makes no sense. Teams sometimes have players of value that don't fit into their team. Why would they just give them away to other teams?

For instance, if Favre were brought back as a starter, it might make Rodgers expendable. Do you think they should just release Rodgers? Hell no, he is worth draft picks on the market.

First off, back off a bit HH.

This whole topic was brought up about TRADING Brett, not releasing him. What makes no sense is why the Packers, who clearly don't want him, wouldn't trade him for at least something. Tell me HH, what did the Packers gain by Brett retiring? Who cares if they get a 2nd, 3rd or even a 7th rounder for Brett - thats alot more than they got when he retired!!!!

Your "for instance" isn't even close what the situation is, so why you are trying to twist what I am saying into something as silly as that is beyond me.

[mmmdk]

Favre hasn't even file his reinstatement. What kind of game is Brett paying? The more this drags on, the more I (presently) loathe Brett Favre. The latter will pass with time but I'm with TT, Packers & Dungy on this one - 100%