It's Nothing Personal, Just Business for the Packers
While dumping off fan favorites early is unpopular, it's part of the same old routine
By GregMeinholz
A team press conference is called a few weeks after the season's conclusion. The "thank you" quotes are prepared, the tissue boxes are placed, and the honors are ready. A long-time franchise player and fan favorite has played their last game with the team and decided to call it a career. This is how every fan would like these players' careers to finish. They only wear one jersey, and when their time comes, they simply ride off into the sunset and retire. For some teams, that does happen. But for the Green Bay Packers, we're used to the only retirement ceremonies being after the player has had an absence from the team and wishes to return just to retire as a member of the organization.
In the last 25 years, only two retirements from Packers greats that happened after their last year with the team come to mind. Brett Favre, and we all know how that went, and Donald Driver. Driver had some free agency interest before making his decision, but decided retirement was the direction he was heading instead. Since then, many players have returned to the Packers after playing elsewhere to have their final curtain call press conference, names like Jordy Nelson, Clay Matthews, and most recently, Mason Crosby, come to mind. Each of these players was either released or wasn't re-signed by the Packers, and played briefly for another team before coming back for their Packers retirement.
So, why is this?
To put it simply, the Packers have mastered a philosophy of letting veteran players go just before their time is "truly up." Under both Ted Thompson and now Brian Gutekunst, there's been a sort of mastery of knowing full well a player is no longer worth the contract they're receiving, and it's time to cut them loose if a compromise can't be reached. The Packers then turn the player loose, the fans get upset about their departure, the player then signs with a different team for well more than the Packers would've paid them, but then the player only maybe has a year or so of decent success before they're being let go and calling it a career. Of course, some have a few more years than others, but it's rarely a situation where the Packers made the wrong decision in letting them go when they did.
The reason can be money-based, or it could simply be that the Packers have a younger player waiting in the ranks to replace that veteran, and having them sit and wait for the veteran to be ready to retire before they can get their chance is just not on the table. 3-4 years of a younger developing replacement on a smaller contract is more appealing than 1-2 years of regressed play from a near-retired veteran making top dollar.
It's not that the Packers are ungrateful for the past and want this player gone just because they can; it's because, at the end of the day, it's business. And rarely in business can you be successful if you cater to your lesser-performing friends over those who can make a much larger, longer-term impact.
Contracts aren't rewards, they're investments.
With the release of Jaire Alexander yesterday, the wound is undoubtedly fresh, and it stings a little, but many fans understand the situation. Letting go of a player who is often injured and not performing at a high level most of the season, but making a large contract, seems like a bit of a no-brainer.
When these situations arise, teams normally request that the player take a pay cut or some sort of restructuring, so that if the player doesn't perform or gets hurt again, the impact to the team's pocketbook isn't as severe. Most players find that to be unfair and demand that the team stick to their original deal. What goes sort of misunderstood when a lucrative contract is signed is that it's all based on past success, and it's a reward. Sure, in some ways, if a player performs at a high level one season and is given a lucrative contract after, it is a reward. But it's a reward based on investment. The signing team expects that performance to happen throughout the new contract. When it doesn't happen, that's when restructures or releases are brought to the table.
Imagine this: you sign a contract with a landscaper to take care of your yard for the entire summer. You've seen their work before, so you have no problem paying them a few bucks more than competitors. But a month into that contract, your bushes are overgrown and your flowers aren't watered, but the grass is at least mowed, though not very well, and some weeks, the landscapers don't even show up to mow at all. You'd likely want some of that money back, or would want to find a different landscaper to take over, right?
Well, put it this way, the Packers are paying Jaire Alexander a large contract, and he's not performing as they believed he would either. For many weeks, he's not even available. This is why the Packers are moving on unless Jaire agrees to a smaller fee.
As much as it's said there have been some disagreements with Jaire and the Packers over the years, that does not appear to be the case behind this release. The Packers would love to keep Jaire Alexander on the team, but only if he agrees to a smaller contract given his common unavailability. It's nothing personal, it's just business.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Greg Meinholz is a lifelong devoted Packer fan. A contributor to CheeseheadTV as well as PackersTalk. Follow him on Twitter @gmeinholz and Bluesky @gmeinholz.bsky.social for Packers commentary, random humor, beer endorsements, and occasional Star Wars and Marvel ramblings.
__________________________
Comments (39)
dobber
June 10, 2025 at 10:09 am
"Contracts aren't rewards, they're investments"
I think this statement might be the best summary of the process, and an explanation as to why the Packers don't tend to issue third contracts. They've certainly had second contracts that they've been willing to "go to the bank" on to generate cap space by adding a year or two (or some void years), but that's not the same as getting to that final season and delivering a new 4-year deal. This is where they are on Jenkins right now...trying to figure out whether to add a year or two to allow some money jockeying and keep him happy for an additional year.
"Most players find that to be unfair and demand that the team stick to their original deal."
Perhaps, especially with heavily backloaded contracts that teams use now, but I think most players know that huge cash value at the end of contracts that bloats their AAVs are a mirage. I'd argue any players who aren't on the edge of being put out to pasture know they can get a more lucrative bolus of guaranteed money plus cash value that gets them ahead if they can either renegotiate or if they get cut. I'd argue that JA felt he was in that boat.
Some people (and some here) argue that it's bad business to not honor contracts but this is the current practice used by every team in the league and enabled by the CBA--to be honest, the players aren't bitching that much.. This is how the league has evolved. If you're going to be the only team that doesn't use these unguaranteed deals as a cap management tool, you're going to be approaching the cap and player management with one hand tied behind your back. In the end, "loyalty" may seem admirable, but all it does is make your team old, expensive, and unathletic.
GregC
June 10, 2025 at 11:29 am
Good explanation, thanks dobber. I am starting to get a little worried about Elgton Jenkins. At least in this case, it's easy to see a mutual benefit with a new contract. (With Alexander, there would've been an obvious benefit for the team, but not for Alexander.) Seems like the Jenkins situation should have been resolved by now.
LLCHESTY
June 10, 2025 at 12:08 pm
I guess the way to start looking at these deals is to actually look at what the player got paid for the years he played. Jaire signed a 4 year, $84 million deal. He averaged roughly $20.155 million on the three years, so not much difference. Aaron Jones signed a 4 year, $48 million deal and played three years averaging $10.227 million. Kenny Clark's deal is a little trickier because of his 5th year option. He signed a 4 year, $70 million deal and the option was worth 7.69 million so the average was $15.53 million. He played on that deal for four years before it was reworked and averaged $15.135 million in those 4 years. So you start to see the pattern. The player is cut or contract reworked before the final year and they usually end up making less than the stated yearly average but not by much, though Jones could argue $5 million is a nice chunk of change.
For some reason the Packers don't like doing it but one way to keep the bigger contracts from being so back loaded is to have a guaranteed roster bonus in the 2nd year and less of a signing bonus. That still gives them the option to switch to a signing bonus and spread it out over the remaining years on the deal but if the cap increases more than expected it can be paid as is and make the rest of the years more palatable. If the owners are successful in getting rid of void years the Packers will probably have to start using that option.
LambeauPlain
June 10, 2025 at 02:53 pm
Good points.
Read some believe Alexander will make around $10 to 15 mil for a year of service. No one will sign him to multiyear deal with large guarantees given his Occasional play.
Void years...as Gutey groused a few years ago "that's seems to be what we are doing here now". He didn't seem to like them. They are a good tool for high performing players with risk of decline. If they outlaw them, it will create some pain.
Being a ROI minded, frugal man I detest throwing money away. Void years stuck in my craw. But the Packers are a unique pro team as all earnings are plowed back into the team. And the void years, teamed with cap increases every year, don't sting as much at 1265 as other privately owned teams.
LambeauPlain
June 10, 2025 at 02:42 pm
Nice post Dobber.
"Some people (and some here) argue that it's bad business to not honor contracts but this is the current practice used by every team in the league and enabled by the CBA..."
Alexander and his agent knew this well when they signed the last deal. It is most definitely a "cap management tool."
There's no welching here...Alexander the Occasional banked $millions up front when he signed. The Packers appropriately evaluated he was not living up to the expectations the contract. The Packers did not want to continue to overpay Alexander. Alexander did not want to renegotiate a new deal based on his current "contributions".
Alexander said no, Packers said "ok, then we will no longer pay you per the contract." Business.
I think the Packers took a hard line with him, similar to Aaron Jones.
However, Hobbs is not Jacobs...unless, Hafley, who uses individual player strengths to build a defense, believes the DB corps is very good top to bottom even without Alexander.
Hafley and Ainsley want "Vision and Break", versatile DBs. That describes Nixon, X, Bullard, Williams, Hobbs. Valentine has been a scrappy press CB...he's going to have to learn Vision and Break. And maybe Hafley sees he's getting it.
mnbadger
June 10, 2025 at 10:26 am
Well written article Greg and nice follow up summary Dobber.
I wish it would have worked out with the Pack.
Now I'm hoping the 'queens offer him a hefty, multi-year, fully guaranteed contract.
At least then he'd help us win TWO or THREE games per season.
GPG!
stockholder
June 10, 2025 at 10:30 am
Alexander cost them more than his contract.
The efficiency of the secondary suffered.
And in turn lowered the morale.
Alexander can point to his 12 Ints as achievements.
But he lacked the Emotional Intelligence
and energy, needed for a Super-Bowl run.
LambeauPlain
June 10, 2025 at 03:02 pm
Yep, Alexander the Occasional under-performed the expectations of his contract. So the Packers terminated the arrangement per the contract.
I am not sure about him hurting the efficiency of the secondary. Valentine and Nixon got to play many snaps on the boundary last year...Bullard learned how to play slot. Hafley wants DB versatility and that is also efficient.
Alexanders absence surely hurt the effectiveness of the D last year...yet without him for a majority of the season the D was still #6 in points and #5 in yards. Coaches make a difference.
splitpea1
June 10, 2025 at 10:35 am
"To put it simply, the Packers have mastered a philosophy of letting veteran players go just before their time is 'truly up'." Well, not exactly. Davante Adams and Aaron Jones are still productive, but couldn't agree on a contract and wanted to play elsewhere. In the case of Jamaal Williams, the Packers didn't want to pay big contracts to two running backs at the time as they hoped for big things from A. J. Dillon. So they made the right decisions--but more for economical reasons and a desire to get younger.
Who knows what will happen with Alexander, but I think the Packers made the right decision here as well. He had only played in half the games over four (!) seasons, so the organization had every right to insist on a restructure. Let him take his chances somewhere else; he can and will be replaced.
ricky
June 10, 2025 at 10:40 am
"It's not personal, it's business" is also a line from "The Godfather". But it does make the point that the NFL is a business. Should the Packers pay the contract even though Alexander has been unable to play full time the last two seasons? After all, he sustained those injuries while on the job. It's not as if he broke a leg while driving drunk or something similar. If an injury occurred at work for most people, workman's compensation would kick in. Then again, these guys should know what they are getting into. This is the culmination of dreams that they've had for years. And it's simply human nature to believe the bad things will happen to others, but not you. Until it does.
Fair? It's not personal; it's business.
TarynsEyes
June 10, 2025 at 10:54 am
I wonder what the success rate is on third contract players? I'd expect each position group to have a difference, so let's not compare them.
My thinking is that if you haven't gotten the best from a player inside the first two contracts, you're most likely to suffer a huge deficit with the third. Yes, the argument will likely be veteran experience/leadership, but how much stock can one place in that veteran or a younger player derive if that veteran isn't available or production doesn't equal to the younger?
Naturally, there are outliers, the anomaly of some, but the third contract for the most part, IMO, cannot be as fruitful a return for the team as it is for the player.
You don't restructure your car loan after having it for 7-8 years, especially when it's in the repair shop half the time, you say good-bye, reflect on the good times, and trade it in, or outright dump it.
mnbadger
June 10, 2025 at 12:15 pm
Very apt comparison.
GPG!
Vachio
June 10, 2025 at 06:41 pm
I'd say you're spot on. I can't recall very many 3rd contracts working out well, for anyone, really, outside the QB position.
Leatherhead
June 10, 2025 at 12:03 pm
AS Norman Dale famously said "This is your team".
Although we may still add a piece or two, like we did with Willis last year, the guys we have today are going to be doing the heavy lifting, for better or worse.
Valentine is a very good, underrated player. Although Coldworld says Valentine is a liability against the run (because PFF says so), Valentine played 700 snaps last year on the league's #3 run defense. He only gave up 23 completions in 17 games.
We're going to fine without the guy who was a good CB for us back in the day when Rodgers was with the team. Of course, Rodgers has been gone for two years now.
Guynorge
June 10, 2025 at 12:48 pm
He did not have a 4 year contract. He had 4 one year contracts.
Alberta_Packer
June 10, 2025 at 01:02 pm
"Contracts aren't rewards, they're investments." Thinking that constructing a roster is not unlike building an investment portfolio - with different types of stocks - common, growth, penny, value, blue-chip etc. So for a GM it's the optimal asset mix of rookies, veterans, stars, superstars, bench, FAs etc. - given finite funds - with the greatest ROI being a Championship.
LLCHESTY
June 10, 2025 at 01:05 pm
Jenkins' deal is going to a tricky one. His $17 million a year average would be the 12th highest paid guard but tied with the 2nd highest paid center. Do they give him concessions because he didn't ask to be moved to center? His position is understandable, if he struggles a bit at center teams will offer him less as guard of he's released after the season. But if they extend him any increase in pay would probably make him the highest paid center and he's not worth that.
Once again this could have all been avoided if they had drafted a top center last year in a very deep class. Would have saved them the Banks contract as well.
One option would be to guarantee part of his 2026 salary without extending him to give him some assurances he'll be there next year or get paid something if he's not. Guaranteeing ⅓ of his '26 salary would be roughly $5.5 million, not a crippling amount of it doesn't work out.
Alberta_Packer
June 10, 2025 at 01:34 pm
If Jenkins salary was 1.7 M instead of 17M - I would be more empathetic to his case. It's not like Center is a new position for him - having played it in College and a smattering with the Packers. It seems to me that he just doesn't want to experience the temporary discomfort of having to work a little harder while adjusting to the position - which suggests the question of work ethic. Perhaps Gutekunst agrees to a token contract concession - for the sake of optics. Otherwise hold firm with his current contract and fine-away if necessary.
Yooper
June 10, 2025 at 01:15 pm
Jaire gave us all some great moments but he really needed to play more than he did.
dobber
June 10, 2025 at 01:26 pm
I don't know if it's been reported elsewhere, but the Packers are apparently electing to cut JA without splitting his hit over 2025 and 2026, so they'll only save about $6M against this year's cap, but will have him completely off the 2026 cap.
www.profootballrumors.com/2025/06/packers-to-release-cb-jaire-alexander
Cheezehead72
June 10, 2025 at 01:39 pm
Not a bad move because that will give them more money to extend needed players next year. But I will believe it when I read it on a more established site.
Leatherhead
June 10, 2025 at 02:11 pm
Spotrac has the Packers taking a $17M dead money hit this year on Alexander.
Leatherhead
June 10, 2025 at 02:08 pm
If I recall, you predicted that getting Alexander off the books as quickly as possible might be a driving consideration.
You know, if the Packers wanted to do some significant remodeling after this season, it's looking like they might have the cap freedom to some things
Spotrac has us at 7th for available cap space. $35M in Dead Money, about half of that to Alexander.
Now.....about Jenkins. He is 30, and will turn 31 towards the end of the season. He is under contract for this year and next. His salary has exploded....from $3.5M in 2024, to around $11.5M this year, to $18.5 in 2026.
We're already in a position where 3 of our Oline starters will need to be resigned or replaced, so I'd like to not make it 4 by running off Jenkins.
I suspect he'd like an extension on his deal that would make him a Packer for life. IMO, he's still a pretty good player and has more than a year left in him, and the team will work out something that would keep him in Green Bay for the rest of his career.
TarynsEyes
June 10, 2025 at 02:54 pm
"IMO, he's still a pretty good player and has more than a year left in him, and the team will work out something that would keep him in Green Bay for the rest of his career".
One year early or one year late is in play here, and saying he has more than a year in him to make him a Packer for life, seems to imply his career is closer to the end, and shouldn't be extended past 2026 where he'll be 33+.
I refer to my analogy in my comment above, adding years on a car loan that is nearly paid off, and nearing the expiration date of solid use is not smart or good business for the Owner, it's good for the Insurance co and Bank (the Player), as they (he) keeps collecting premiums on a quickly devaluing product.
This should have been a priority in thinking, and action the last couple of years.
It's always amazing how the desire to be a Packer for life from players, always seems to vanish when money is in play.
Jenkins is getting paid well, for whichever position he plays.
Bitternotsour
June 10, 2025 at 03:03 pm
the two tackles - one of them might get franchised if negotiations don't go in the Packers favor.
GregC
June 10, 2025 at 01:38 pm
Interesting news from practice today: Bo Melton is being tried at cornerback. Makes sense, as he has little chance of making the team as a WR, and he has been a gunner on the punt coverage team. He is a good blocker and tackler for his size (5'11", 189 pounds).
Alberta_Packer
June 10, 2025 at 01:47 pm
So Travis Hunter 2.0?
LambeauPlain
June 10, 2025 at 03:08 pm
Looking at Bo's athletic measurables, they are nearly identical to a WR who moved to CB (during his last college season) by the name of Sam Shields.
That worked out rather well. Interestingly, Bo was a far better receiver in college than was Sam. This could work.
He is all valuable at all STs and has convinced the coaches of his football talent. Maybe Hafley and Ainsley see something in Bo at CB...see if he can become an easy choice for the 53...or a difficult cut.
GregC
June 10, 2025 at 03:29 pm
I was thinking of Sam Shields too. Also, Bo's brother Max plays CB and was drafted 43rd overall by the Cardinals. Max is listed at 5'11" and 187 pounds--virtually identical to Bo in size. Max ran a 4.39 second 40-yard dash. Bo ran it in 4.34 seconds.
Even if this works out, I don't know if it's realistic for Bo to be an effective CB this season, though. I'd be interested to hear if there's any precedent for an NFL player learning the position that quickly.
Alberta_Packer
June 10, 2025 at 04:27 pm
From what I understand - Bo was a CB in High School and also at Rutgers before he was converted to a WR. So the position is not foreign to him. Also he's likely auditionning for CB 5 - which is the role that Corey Ballentine and Robert Rochell once filled. Meaning - primarily as a ST player and depth CB.
the_gavia_pass
June 10, 2025 at 02:19 pm
the most interesting news is that alexander dead money will be all in 2025, no splitting on 2026 cap.
I view this as a point to the transition year. 2025 is a test for gutey lafleur and love. if there will be no upgrade Policy will make a reset january 26. i already wrote that weeks ago, my feeling is in 2026 the packers will have new gm, new hc and now we know they'll have a big free cap. 2026 QB class is also considered good so they'll draft a new QB. may be they will also trade love to get draft picks and trade up in the draft.
13TimeChamps
June 10, 2025 at 03:07 pm
"my feeling is in 2026 the packers will have new gm, new hc"
Well, if that's your highly educated opinion, I'm sure it'll happen. How could a 20-something cyclist from Italy be wrong concerning NFL matters?
"may be they will also trade love to get draft picks and trade up in the draft."
But I thought you said Love is a total bust. How is he going to bring multiple draft picks?
Keep it coming...you truly are hilarious!
the_gavia_pass
June 10, 2025 at 04:00 pm
in 1983 I was in washignton dc, 1 month as a guest in a navy RB home (staubach era).
it's 42 years of football. come in our italian packers fan club in facebook, i am one of the founders. you'll be surprised of how deep we know american football. and we italians we are not afraid of criticize the packers. I see now more and more fans are writing about mark muprhy failure...i am writing this from 2011, we are saying that in our fans club since 2011. bob mcginn was the first in 2017 to have some doubt about murphy.
so...what can you say? just "i'm american so i know football better than you" ??? it's not a good point now...believe me. it's america that is coming to europe not the opposite.
Leatherhead
June 10, 2025 at 08:24 pm
Murphy is the winningest President the organization has ever had.
He was named in December of 2007, took over the next month. For those of you who remember those dark days, Favre threw away a game for the Packers for the last time, sinking our chances for a Super Bowl.
Then....there was the Favre Kabouki Dance theater of "I don't know what I want" Then it was, "I'm going to retire''. Then it was "I'm gonna come back", then it was "I want to be released" (so I can play for the Vikings and then stick it to Ted")
Murphy helped steer the ship during that time. He also got us through the Rodgers drama. And he won a Lombardi. And he's left a very solid organization behind him. This has been nearly 20 years of good stewardship.
Bitternotsour
June 10, 2025 at 10:18 pm
.
the_gavia_pass
June 10, 2025 at 04:06 pm
btw I climb the legendary gavia pass to the 2652 mt top in 1h 50min. you?
in 1988 an american, andy hampsten won on gavia, in a legendary stage with snow and cold.
but I am sure few americans know that.
13TimeChamps
June 10, 2025 at 05:09 pm
And even fewer Americans care.
You never explained how a player (Love) that you've deemed a total bust numerous times on this site will net us multiple draft picks in a trade.
Enlighten us. I mean you're in a fan club after all.
LambeauPlain
June 10, 2025 at 03:14 pm
Oh, good grief.
dobber
June 10, 2025 at 07:52 pm
"may be they will also trade love to get draft picks and trade up in the draft."
They're married to Love's contract for at least the next two seasons. Dealing him after 2025 is a non-starter...it would decimate the cap and they'd be releasing players left and right.