Josh Sitton.

[Fritz]

McGinn article was garbage, read like a letter to the editor by the old guy down the road who's pissed off about kids cutting across his lawn. Nothing new/relevant in it, other than expressing the surprise (that many of us have) that there was no trade partner.

Like several McGinn opinion pieces, this one depends entirely upon whether you believe the "source with knowledge" that McGinn uses on occasion. If you believe the source is trustworthy, then the Packer front office blew this one, big time. If you don't believe the source is credible (maybe it's Torrance Marshall's girlfriend or Greg Jennings's sister), then it's just McGinn getting clicks.

[pbmax]

If they decided Sitton had declined, I suspect it was based on what they saw in practice. Maybe the back is still a problem. Maybe the lighter Sitton was less stout in the running game. I don't think the decision was made from last year's tape or they would have made the trade earlier.

Yeah, that does seem most likely. Given his snap count in preseason (one game two series), it had to be practice or a medical report.

[pbmax]

You miss my point. Yes, we all know the free agent situation and maybe TT had already made the decision not to offer Sitton an extension. But if you want to keep Sitton playing throughout the year, you don't tell him or his agent that you're not going to extend. Honesty is not a factor. Playing your cards close to the vest is. This is a business negotiation not a morality play. And you certainly don't play one employee against another publicly.

It sounds to me like the left hand of management didn't know what the right hand was doing...and/or didn't think this thing through properly.

Its a business meeting schedule. They were telling the player and the agent when to expect contact so as to not set false expectations. If you don't tell him that and negotiations with Bach and Tretter move slowly, what is Sitton left thinking in November? Communication is important. In fact, one consistent criticism of Thompson is that he doesn't do enough of it himself.

A "possible" contract extension means, if they can agree on a price. I don't think McGinn, who's entire article is premised on the need to keep the Pro Bowl Guard, is saying the Packers didn't want him past this year. If he knew that, that would be your headline here.

The Packers have a list like this every year and they communicate it to each player. Daniels was high on the list last year, ahead of Perry for instance. These lists have made the paper each of the last several years.

Final price and cap number is among target in these deals. Both could affect what the Packers think they can spend on Sitton and other FAs. So you have a priority list.

[Joemailman]

But if you want to keep Sitton playing throughout the year, you don't tell him or his agent that you're not going to extend.

What difference does it make? In the last year of his contract, he's playing for his next contract. He's all the incentive in the world to have a great year, whether his next contract is with the Packers or someone else.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Its a business meeting schedule. They were telling the player and the agent when to expect contact so as to not set false expectations. If you don't tell him that and negotiations with Bach and Tretter move slowly, what is Sitton left thinking in November? Communication is important. In fact, one consistent criticism of Thompson is that he doesn't do enough of it himself.

A "possible" contract extension means, if they can agree on a price. I don't think McGinn, who's entire article is premised on the need to keep the Pro Bowl Guard, is saying the Packers didn't want him past this year. If he knew that, that would be your headline here.

The Packers have a list like this every year and they communicate it to each player. Daniels was high on the list last year, ahead of Perry for instance. These lists have made the paper each of the last several years.

Final price and cap number is among target in these deals. Both could affect what the Packers think they can spend on Sitton and other FAs. So you have a priority list.

If that's the way it works, then it's crazy! To prioritize negotiations is sensible, but announcing it to the players in question is nuts.

Salesmen are probably the only individuals with bigger egos than pro football players. I was in business for 20 years. I would never think of telling one salesman that he must wait while I negotiate with another higher priority salesman. In fact, if I allowed the contracts of the entire sales department to expire at the same time I would have had to have my head examined. It would destroy all my leverage to say the least.

It was a huge management fail to allow a situation to exist where the contracts for your entire offensive line expire at the same time. Management should have done all in its power to avoid this scenario. Now they are reaping the consequences.

[pbmax]

If that's the way it works, then it's crazy! To prioritize negotiations is sensible, but announcing it to the players in question is nuts.

Salesmen are probably the only individuals with bigger egos than pro football players. I was in business for 20 years. I would never think of telling one salesman that he must wait while I negotiate with another higher priority salesman. In fact, if I allowed the contracts of the entire sales department to expire at the same time I would have had to have my head examined. It would destroy all my leverage to say the least.

It was a huge management fail to allow a situation to exist where the contracts for your entire offensive line expire at the same time. Management should have done all in its power to avoid this scenario. Now they are reaping the consequences.

Players and their agents talk. Your salesmen probably do too, but except for the exceptional ones, have fewer firms known to be interested in them. The players agent can spend the time the team is not negotiating with his client judging his value with other firms.

[Maxie the Taxi]

What difference does it make? In the last year of his contract, he's playing for his next contract. He's all the incentive in the world to have a great year, whether his next contract is with the Packers or someone else.

The difference is whether you want him to renew with you or someone else. The difference is his attitude in the locker room toward your organization. I don't see any benefit whatsoever to tell a player that in the eyes of management he's a lame duck, contract or no contract.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Players and their agents talk. Your salesmen probably do too, but except for the exceptional ones, have fewer firms known to be interested in them. The players agent can spend the time the team is not negotiating with his client judging his value with other firms.

Yup. You'd have to be a fool to think employees don't talk or compare salaries. My question is: Why encourage the conversation? Keep it private and keep them each guessing and thinking that they are the highest priority. Hopefully, by the time they learn differently, it will be December and other playoff emotions will occupy their minds.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What difference does it make? In the last year of his contract, he's playing for his next contract. He's all the incentive in the world to have a great year, whether his next contract is with the Packers or someone else.

Careful, there. Hate to see the thread moved.

I agree with what you say. It is not any great harm or disrespect for a player not to have a contract extended. Disappointment at having to change teams - sure. But you don't get to be 30 in the NFL without figuring out how the meat market works. Becoming a FA is not a bad deal.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Careful, there. Hate to see the thread moved.

I agree with what you say. It is not any great harm or disrespect for a player not to have a contract extended. Disappointment at having to change teams - sure. But you don't get to be 30 in the NFL without figuring out how the meat market works. Becoming a FA is not a bad deal.

Harlan, I'm deeply disappointed that you are wasting time in this thread and not tending to business as President of the Dean Lowry Fan Club.

You're fired!

[Harlan Huckleby]

If that's the way it works, then it's crazy! To prioritize negotiations is sensible, but announcing it to the players in question is nuts.

There is no good option. Negotiating in bad faith doesn't really buy you anything. Also, it is not such a disaster for the player. Neither Lang nor Sitton were all that upset, as both claim.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, I'm deeply disappointed that you are wasting time in this thread and not tending to business as President of the Dean Lowry Fan Club.

You're fired!

This particular shit pile has really attracted us flies. We can't resist landing here and having a sniff. 25 pages and growing every day.

[Maxie the Taxi]

There is no good option. Negotiating in bad faith doesn't really buy you anything. Also, it is not such a disaster for the player. Neither Lang nor Sitton were all that upset, as both claim.

Negotiating in bad faith? C'mon, man! I'm simply advocating keeping your cards close to your vest. That's common sense. Everyone knows its a game like Poker. Is not telling everyone at the table what cards you hold "negotiating in bad faith?"

Negotiating in bad faith means promising something you have no intention of delivering. I'm not advocating that.

[Maxie the Taxi]

And that's the truth!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Negotiating in bad faith? C'mon, man! I'm simply advocating keeping your cards close to your vest. That's common sense. Everyone knows its a game like Poker. Is not telling everyone at the table what cards you hold "negotiating in bad faith?"

Negotiating in bad faith means promising something you have no intention of delivering. I'm not advocating that.

Good faith (Latin: bona fides) is fair and open dealing in human interactions. This is often thought to require sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action.

If you pretend to be seeking a deal when your real intentions are to avoid reaching a deal, you are not "negotiating in good faith." You're right, you aren't engaged in fraud, it isn't as bad. It's a grey area, I get your poker defense.