Back in 1988, Wayne Gretzky who was by far and away the greatest hockey player in the game and who had just led Edmonton to its 4th Stanley Cup and who was in the prime of his career was traded to the L.A. Kings. He was traded because the owner was having financial difficulties in his other business ventures and along with players and picks that were swapped the Pocklington (Edmonton's owner) also received $15M in cash. Gretzky did not want to leave Edmonton. However, the owner was intent on trading him.
On his first appearance in Edmonton after the trade—a game that was nationally televised in Canada—he received a four-minute standing ovation. The arena was sold out, and the attendance of 17,503 was the Oilers' biggest crowd ever to that date. Large cheers erupted for his first shift, his first touch of the puck, and his two assists. After the game, Gretzky took the opportunity to confirm his patriotism: "I'm still proud to be a Canadian. I didn't desert my country. I moved because I was traded and that's where my job is. But I'm Canadian to the core. I hope Canadians understand that." He wasn't booed because the Oiler fans "cared." He wasn't booed because it is human nature to show no appreciation for teams/players that pose a threat. He was loudly applauded and appreciated because they recognized that he wanted to be an Oiler but his owner/organization kicked him out. He didn't hold the organization hostage or flutter in the wind whether he wanted to stay or go.
According to JSR and Deepie, the fans should have booed Gretzky because they cared or that it's human nature to boo someone that is a threat to their team. It's Again, Gretzky was overwhelmingly applauded. He wanted to stay an Oiler. It was not his choice to leave and the fans recognized that and applauded him as they should have. It was not disingenuine. It was not unofficially orchestrated. It is what fans do. Again, the difference with the Favre situation should be very clear. The GB fans harbor a lot of resentment and bitterness as their hero deserted them. He was not pushed out.
The same will be true when LeBron returns to Cleveland this year. Cleveland fans feel that he deserted them and is a traitor. Cleveland wasn't looking to trade him. They would have given him max amount of money. They tried to build a winner around him (bringing in Shaq, trading for Antawn Jamison at the trading deadline). Cleveland had the best record in the NBA last year so it wasn't like the organization wasn't trying to help him. However, he chose to take less money and go elsewhere and then chose to hold a spectacle when he announced his "decision." Immediately, Cleveland fans were seen burning his jerseys. They pulled down his "We are all witnesses" monument from downtown. Fans were bitter and angry.
Again, it is clear why fans react the way they do. If Favre was truly loved in GB, they wouldn't treat him the way that they do. They would not have booed him after Minnesota's Sunday Night loss where he was battered, injured, and disappointed. If they truly didn't have any hard feelings, they would have cheered him. So the point that they boo because they care or that it is human nature to show no appreciation for teams/players that pose a threat doesn't make sense.
20 comments:
Favre will never be revered like he was in Green Bay.
Favre had opportunities to go back, but prior to the draft and all off-season he said he was going to stay retired (just as he had done the prior year). The Packers didn't want to be held hostage another year and they had Aaron Rodgers so they cut him loose.
It was the right decision for the Packers who are now benefitting from having one of the best young QBs in the game without all of the drama of Favre.
Favre hurt his legacy in Green Bay by going to the Jets and then to the hated Queens after crying and saying he was retired (over and over).
Personally, I don't care whether Favre plays or not. He is entitled to do that as long as someone wants him. But, there is no question he is not as loved as he once was in Wisconsin.
If Cal Ripken had "retired" and then gone to the Yankees it would have hurt his legacy in Baltimore. He didn't and that is why is one of the most beloved figures in Baltimore history.
And respected by pretty much all sports fans.
What about Lebron James?
Do you think he gets booed by Cleveland fans up his return?
I think he will get booed and booed loudly because they care. They have a reason to boo hard.
Would it have been ok for him to just stay in Cleveland just to "do the right thing". I think he made the choice thats better for him. That will help him win championships. The fans wont like it but he shouldnt be held hostage by the fans just cus they dont like it.
Same with Favre. He wanted to play in GB. They did not want him there. So should Favre have been held hostage by the Packer organization and the fans and retire when all he really wanted to do was play football some more. absolultly not.
Lebron leaving the Cavs to chase his dream of a championship is almost no different than Favre leaving the packers to chase another superbowl championship. The only slight difference, Cavs org and fans wanted Lebron to stay and Packers org did not want Favre to stay and play even though packer fans originally wanted him to stay and play for the packers.
JSR, I addressed LeBron in the original post. LeBron (as Favre) is free to do what he wants to do but you have to live with the consequences and the consequences for LeBron is that he is now hated in Cleveland as the fans feel he betrayed them. Most basketball fans feel the same way although it may not be as quite personal as it is for the fans in Cleveland. LeBron has also been criticized by former basketball players for not trying to win it himself and instead taking an easier route.
The LeBron and Favre situations are similar in that the fans AND organizations both wanted them to stay with their respective teams/cities. I am not sure how/why you say that the Packers organization did not want him there. I REALLY don't understand how/why you say that the organization held Favre hostage. Please explain that.
It's the EXACT opposite. I have given you FACTS as to how much the Packer organization tried to get Favre back. How many opportunities they gave him and the concessions they would have made to bring him back. FAVRE SHUNNED THEM. Even after his retirement statement, the Pack was willing to take him back. AGAIN, HE SHUNNED THEM. So how is it that you say that the Packers held Favre hostage?
True they gave him opportunities to return. Opportunities when he wasnt ready to return. In the end he did NOT shun them. He wanted to return and they DID NOT want him back. That is where it ended. If they did want him back, He would be a Packer right now. Thats simple and clear cut.
I am saying that the Packers would have held Favre hostage if Favre wouldnt have considered playing for someone else and was forced to retire on JUNE 20. Because it is clear that on JUNE 20th the packers said "Playing in GB is not an option". Favre essentially refused to be held hostage so he asked for his release so he could pursue another championship. Being cowards they traded him outside of the division, the to a non contender.
LeBron is going to get booed and frankly he will never regain the universal love people had for him because of the way he left Cleveland.
He'll always have fans, just as Favre will always have fans - but they won't the the Ripken-esque athletes that they could have been.
I am not sure I understand the whole thing about fans boo because "the care". Fans care when they don't boo also.
As for whether the Packers gave Favre a chance or not - it largely doesn't matter. Favre most certainly could have stayed, but he said he was going to retire, and he kept saying he was going to retire. He had pulled the same crap the year before. The Packers had Aaron Rodgers waiting in the wings decided it was time to move on.
The Packers are far better off with Rodgers and I doubt you would get even 1 GM in the NFL who would take Favre over Rodgers. The Packers made the right choice and Favre should have just faded away into Packer legend - but he decided to make an annual spectacle out of his "retirements".
"Again, it is clear why fans react the way they do. If Favre was truly loved in GB, they wouldn't treat him the way that they do. They would not have booed him after Minnesota's Sunday Night loss where he was battered, injured, and disappointed. If they truly didn't have any hard feelings, they would have cheered him. So the point that they boo because they care or that it is human nature to show no appreciation for teams/players that pose a threat doesn't make sense."
You cant just generalize and say all fans in all areas in all sports behave the same way towards any player. Every circumstance is different. Not all fans are going to cheer not all fans will boo.
But one thing is for absolute certainty. Its a point that ive brought up a few times that has been ducked.
If Joe Gibbs went to coach the cowboys and returned to Fed Ex field to play against the redskins after beating the redskins in Dallas, I dont care how loved Joe Gibbs was, he will get booed. My point here is that the packer fans boing Favre the other night was a normal response to Packer fans booing a Viking QB just as the bears used to boo Favre when he was with the Packers and walking off soldier field. Why in the world would Packers fans have "no hard feelings" towards any Viking, Bear or Lion for that matter? Did it ever occur to you that the media may have been focusing on the booing and making it seem more abnormal than it really was. Have you ever been to a football game? dont you and the rest of the crowd boo when the opposing team runs onto the field? Its all what the media focuses on.
This is what I mean when i talk about fans Caring. Its directly from my other post.
Why is it that when the Cowboys come to Fed Ex field, that place is 10 times louder and a more hostile environment to play in than when say the Colts come to town? Well its simple, Washington fans care more about the Cowboys than the Colts. They boo louder. Go to a sports bar. Tell a Skins fan that youre a cowboys fan and he'll surely say something derogatory to you. Tell that same skins fan that youre a colts fan and he probably wont care. They will do anything possible to make it tougher for the Cowboys to win at Fed Ex. A loss to the Cowboys is much more devastating to a Redskins fan than a loss to the colts. They essentially care more to boo more loudly when the Cowboys are playing the skins than if any other team plays the skins.
JSR, I understand what you are saying about fans "caring" but I don't agree with you about Favre. I also think that your Gibbs example wouldn't happen. But that really doesn't matter.
You have to agree that there are many Green Bay fans - I'm not saying the majority, just many - who no longer like Favre.
You also have to agree that across the country, Favre is now regularly ridiculed for his annual "retirements".
He was untouchable and revered at a different level in Green Bay and nationally than he is now. You would agree wouldn't you?
I agree with you there Rob.
The comparison of Favre with GB going to Soldier Field and getting booed and Favre as a Viqueen going to Lambeau Field and getting booed is not a good one. They are very different scenarios because the Soldier Field example is just Bear fans rooting against their opposition. The Lambeau Field example is much more personal. There are strong feelings by GB fans towards Favre and it isn't just like any other opponent coming into their stadium. There is true bitterness there.
I agree that every situation is different and every circumstance is different. However, fans will react to those situations based on the circumstances leading that player to leave. If that player wanted to stay but was pushed out by the organization, the fans will receive that player warmly. If the player turns his back on the organization, the fans will react negatively.
Again, look at the examples:
McNabb - wanted to stay in Philly but was pushed out - fans reacted with a standing O.
Gretzky - wanted to stay in Edmonton but was pushed out - fans reacted with a standing O.
A-Wad - Seattle wanted him but he left for the money - fans around the league despised him for that and he went from one of the most talented/respected players to A-Wad.
LeBron - Cleveland wanted him to stay and would have paid him more but he chose to leave - fans will no doubt let him have it in his return to Cleveland and the feelings around the league are pretty negative towards the guy. Last night, Celtic fans were chanting "OVER-RATED" consistently towards James and the Heat. That will be pretty consistent amongst all NBA fans.
Favre: GB wanted him to stay and gave him a number of opportunities and concessions to come back and he did not accept them. The Packers had no choice but to move on with Rodgers but when Favre changed his mind again, he wanted GB to drop everything and hand it all back to Favre. Fans recognized how Favre had become egomanical and diva like and they treated him accordingly.
So, again, I agree with you that each situation is a bit different in how players left but the constant seems to be how fans react and it seems based on whether the player left on his own accord or whether he was pushed out by his organization.
I agree with you for the most part. Except of our account of how the Packers should have handled Favre.
I am not even saying that the Packers should have dropped everything and went with Favre in June after the Packers had made plans to go ahead with Rodgers. I mean i would love to see Favre still on the Packers. All I am imposing is why not just release him if they wanted to move forward. Why sabatoge his success by sending him to the Jets. Why did the Packers organization have to be selfish and trade him to a mostly irrelevant team. Thats not the way a Legend of the Packer organization should have been treated.
They should have manned up and granted his release if they wanted to simply move forward. It should have been over right there. They should have had nothing else to do with him. Favre era in GB should have been over with his release.
Instead of just moving forward and it being the end of the Favre era, they decided to take it one step further and dump him on a losing non competitve team for their own selfish interest.
You might say that the Packers are an organization and they have to look out for their interest.
Why is it ok for the Packers to be selfish in this situation by trading him to a team of their choice for a second round pick instead of just releasing him. and then on the other hand when Favre is looking out for himself and acting in a egotistical and selfish way, its wrong?
You cant say its ok for the Packers to look out for their own interests but then turn around and say that Favre should not have done the same. That Favre should have just gone with whatever the Packers wanted to do with him. Thats just absurd. You cannot place the blame on one and not the other.
I'm not placing blame on one and not the other.
Favre was under contract. They tried to bring him back multiple times. Favre twisted and turned in the wind and GB had to ultimately make a decision to move forward because Favre couldn't figure it out. Favre said that he wanted to be released. The Packers are in the NFL to win. They do not want to assist their opponents to win. We can probably agree that all NFL teams share the same feelings.
An outright release most likely would mean that Favre was signing within the division and most likely with the Viqueens. Why would you expect the Packers to do that? Do you think that that would be a smart move? If you were the GM of GB, would you let that happen? Think about that not only have you let a divisional rival get better but it would also turn out to be a public relations issue.
The Packers were willing to trade him but again you are not going to trade him within the division. No GM would allow that unless the other team was willing to offer plenty in return. Again, complicating matters was Favre's unique contract gave him the leverage to void any potential trade by not reporting to the camp of the team he might be traded to if the Packers had elected to go that route. As a result, there were not going to be a whole lot of takers.
Favre against twisted GB's nuts and said I am unretiring and I will show up at the GB camp even though he had been told that if he did that, he would be coming in as a backup. At that point, he knew it was going to be a HUGE distraction yet he wanted to stick it to the Packers. Real classy.
Ultimately, the only willing participants to trade for Favre were the Bucs and Jets and he went to the Jets.
Again, the Packers were trying to bring him back and he didn't want to come. No GM in his right mind would give a solid QB his outright release so that he could sign with a divisional opponent.
Thats exactly the point im trying to make. If the Packers organization and GM is allowed to look out for the interests of Packers, then why is it so wrong that Favre looks out for his own interests?
Why would one be considered selfish and egotistical, and the other side faultless for acting in the same way. They were both acting in the best of their own interests and to fault one over the other is simply biased, opinionated and not objective at all. I have already accepted that there were faults on both sides in how the situation was handled. I also know that both acted selfishly for their own interests. I also believe that you cant apply the cookie cutter rule in how you treat every player. The guy is a hall of fame QB who helped generate lots of reveneue for the team. exceptions needed to have been made for him. Anyone knows you cant treat a high earning salesman who is bringing in profits for a company the same as janitor working for the same company. Favre earned the right to be treated better than the next guy.
I dont hold anything against the Packers. I still root for them and will solely root for them once Favre is done playing.
I just don't know how the Packers were selfish or egotistical. They were the ones that made the concessions to Favre. They were the ones that gave him multiple offers/chances to come back. They wanted him back. Even after he made his retirement announcement and the Packers started making plans with Rodgers but Favre started waffling again, McCarthy was willing to give the job back to Favre only to be told by Favre that he has again decided to stick with his original decision.
When a guy is going back and forth like that, how can you ever tell if he is truly coming back? He said he wanted to come back before and then changes his mind. The Packers are running a football team and have to get their team ready to play. It can't be all about one guy no matter who that guy is. Brett was making it all about him. Judging from your comments, you think it should be all about Brett and not about the team. You think that the Packers should just try and go about business as usual and try and insert Rodgers as the starter and get him AND the team prepared for him to be the starter. Cater your playbook to play to his strengths all while thinking that if/when Favre tries to come back, we scrap everything and just hand the keys back to Brett. Is that really fair? Seriously, after all the twisting in the air and waffling, how could the Packers ever be certain that Favre really was committed to coming back. He had burned them before. You cannot operate a team or any other kind of business like that. It makes it SO much more difficult for the coaches and rest of the team to have to work under those circumstances. Football is a team sport but Favre made it all about him.
Again, the Packers were accommodating. They made concessions. They hoped he would come back. They dealt with his waffling the previous year and accepted his offer to return again in 2007 after his retirement announcement only to be told by him that he decided that he really wanted to stay retired. I can't fault them at all for how they played it.
Guys - you are not going to agree.
Let's find common ground. We all agree:
1. The Pack is better off w/Rodgers.
2. Favre has lost fans as a result of his annual retirements.
3. Favre had every right to want to play and if there are teams that want him so be it.
4. The Pack had every right to trade him.
5. He is not playing well this year.
I agree on all points.
1. The Pack is better off w/Rodgers.
For the long term, yes. But its indeterminate whether the Packers would have done worse over the past two seasons with Favre starting.
2. Favre has lost fans as a result of his annual retirements.
Agreed
3. Favre had every right to want to play and if there are teams that want him so be it.
Agreed
4. The Pack had every right to trade him.
Agreed, they had the right to, but should have handled it better as he was a legend of the franchise who acted selflessly for the previous 17 years. The only thing he had been crucified for in year 14, 15, 16, and 17 is his inability to make a decision on whether to return in a timely manner. I have to remind you that it was only after year 17 (his last as a packer)that he actually made a decision to retire and then unretire so to say that he was waffling and changing his mind again and again prior to that is 100% false. Still its hardly a cause to eventually close the doors to a beloved hero. I agree they gave him supposed opportunities to return ( i say "supposed opportunties" because we dont know what hoops they would have made him jump through (compete for starting job, etc) and what else would have happened had he actually agreed to return when given the chance to.) I also agree that it is business. If it is ok for one party to act in the best of their interest, then why is it wrong for the other party to act the same way. You simply cannot place 100% of the blame on Favre for this when it was both the Packers and Favre who acted in their own best interest.
5. He is not playing well this year.
Agreed.
"I have to remind you that it was only after year 17 (his last as a packer)that he actually made a decision to retire and then unretire so to say that he was waffling and changing his mind again and again prior to that is 100% false."
Not true. In Year 16, in the season finale on national tv (I believe against Chicago). It was widely rumored he was going to retire. He gave an interview on the field in which he broke down because the feelings were that that was his last game. True, he never offically retired but that is what the prevailing thinking was so there was some waffling at that time although not to the extent it was in Year 17.
"I agree they gave him supposed opportunities to return ( i say "supposed opportunties" because we dont know what hoops they would have made him jump through (compete for starting job, etc) and what else would have happened had he actually agreed to return when given the chance to.)"
The Packers nearly begged him to come back as the starter and made concessions to lighten his load to come back. These are facts so not sure what you mean by "supposed opportunities." They were also willing to hand the starting job back to him even after his retirement speech and they had started to make plans for Rodgers as their starter. Again, these are facts.
"I also agree that it is business. If it is ok for one party to act in the best of their interest, then why is it wrong for the other party to act the same way. You simply cannot place 100% of the blame on Favre for this when it was both the Packers and Favre who acted in their own best interest."
Agree that they can and should act in their mutual best interests. However, it is Favre that shunned down the Packers multiple times and seemed to make it abundantly clear that he could not commit.
Where we have our biggest disagreement is that you seem to think the Packer organization should have been willing to hold out on Favre indefinitely and allow him to twist in the wind and if and when he decides to come back no matter when that happens agree to give him his job back regardless of anything. Whereas I say that it is bad policy for the organization, the players, and the team to allow one player (no matter who it is) to dictate the operations that much. It is unfair to the team and it is a selfish act of an individual.
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this point.
Agreed. Great discussion. It was fun.
Post a Comment