This article made me literally rub my hands with glee. This is EXACTLY the kind of management strategy I want for our team, and have for years. A lot of fans develop emotional attachments to specific players. I don't. My attachment is to the team, first and foremost. I want the Packers to win. The players are just pieces fit in to achieve that goal. So I never really understand it when people say things like, "I hope he gets to retire here" or "I'd really hate to see him go" for reasons other than his talent. The only reason why a player should be kept is because he's still performing at a high level and no one of equivalent or greater talent can be brought in at a reasonable price.

These guys make way too much money for me (or a good GM) to keep them around for purely sentimental reasons. They are tools in the quest for championships. If these guys really are about the team (maybe 1 in a 100 is), then they can choose to take a little less to stay wtih the team they profess to love. If they elect instead to strike out for greener pastures, best of luck to them, but I may or may not root for them (just as I root for some players who have never been Packers), but I won't grieve their departure. If they want to retire Packers, they can either stay with the organization or sign a one-day retirement deal at the end of their career.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

This article made me literally rub my hands with glee. This is EXACTLY the kind of management strategy I want for our team, and have for years. A lot of fans develop emotional attachments to specific players. I don't. My attachment is to the team, first and foremost. I want the Packers to win. The players are just pieces fit in to achieve that goal. So I never really understand it when people say things like, "I hope he gets to retire here" or "I'd really hate to see him go" for reasons other than his talent. The only reason why a player should be kept is because he's still performing at a high level and no one of equivalent or greater talent can be brought in at a reasonable price.

These guys make way too much money for me (or a good GM) to keep them around for purely sentimental reasons. They are tools in the quest for championships. If these guys really are about the team (maybe 1 in a 100 is), then they can choose to take a little less to stay wtih the team they profess to love. If they elect instead to strike out for greener pastures, best of luck to them, but I may or may not root for them (just as I root for some players who have never been Packers), but I won't grieve their departure. If they want to retire Packers, they can either stay with the organization or sign a one-day retirement deal at the end of their career.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

This article made me literally rub my hands with glee. This is EXACTLY the kind of management strategy I want for our team, and have for years. A lot of fans develop emotional attachments to specific players. I don't. My attachment is to the team, first and foremost. I want the Packers to win. The players are just pieces fit in to achieve that goal. So I never really understand it when people say things like, "I hope he gets to retire here" or "I'd really hate to see him go" for reasons other than his talent. The only reason why a player should be kept is because he's still performing at a high level and no one of equivalent or greater talent can be brought in at a reasonable price.

These guys make way too much money for me (or a good GM) to keep them around for purely sentimental reasons. They are tools in the quest for championships. If these guys really are about the team (maybe 1 in a 100 is), then they can choose to take a little less to stay wtih the team they profess to love. If they elect instead to strike out for greener pastures, best of luck to them, but I may or may not root for them (just as I root for some players who have never been Packers), but I won't grieve their departure. If they want to retire Packers, they can either stay with the organization or sign a one-day retirement deal at the end of their career.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

TheOldMan, the fact you stole Rockmolder's avatar is just creepy.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

This article made me literally rub my hands with glee. This is EXACTLY the kind of management strategy I want for our team, and have for years. A lot of fans develop emotional attachments to specific players. I don't. My attachment is to the team, first and foremost. I want the Packers to win. The players are just pieces fit in to achieve that goal. So I never really understand it when people say things like, "I hope he gets to retire here" or "I'd really hate to see him go" for reasons other than his talent. The only reason why a player should be kept is because he's still performing at a high level and no one of equivalent or greater talent can be brought in at a reasonable price.

These guys make way too much money for me (or a good GM) to keep them around for purely sentimental reasons. They are tools in the quest for championships. If these guys really are about the team (maybe 1 in a 100 is), then they can choose to take a little less to stay wtih the team they profess to love. If they elect instead to strike out for greener pastures, best of luck to them, but I may or may not root for them (just as I root for some players who have never been Packers), but I won't grieve their departure. If they want to retire Packers, they can either stay with the organization or sign a one-day retirement deal at the end of their career.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Ted says, "FU*K Driver.

This is a business. He's gone.

I'm 31-33, but they don't hold ME to the same standard. Thank God.

That's life, beyotches".

"TheOldMan" wrote:

Ted says, "FU*K Driver.

"TheOldMan" wrote: