The line on how it affects Madden's retirement plans is priceless.
This is Exhibit 234,983 why I hate the media. Drumming crap because they can.
That being said, I doubt that Favre wants to be retired, but I do bet that he would rather be retired than play in most situations. If the Vikings did call though, I can't say I would blame him for putting on the pads one more time.
I find myself conflicted by his dawdling and reversing field seventeen times each off-season. On the one hand, he has a right to play if he's good enough and someone wants him. On the other hand, the team has a right to make off-season decisions in an educated fashion.
My current potty book is a re-read of "Lords Of The Realm," about baseball ownership up until roughly the '94 strike, and one of the points that comes out of the discussions on baseball free agency was the one-sided nature of loyalty. As fans we expect players to show loyalty to their teams, but for years and years the teams showed no more loyalty to players than they would any cog in any machine. For every Favre holding a team's off-season plans in his hands, how many teams are there who keep a talented-enough-to-start backup as such just because they can? How many teams keep their young studs in the minor leagues just long enough to delay the arbitration/free agency clock? Why do we generally default to siding with the teams in these situations?
(These are the things I think on the potty. If I were starting this post, I'd create a "Potty Thoughts" tag for it.)
2 comments:
The line on how it affects Madden's retirement plans is priceless.
This is Exhibit 234,983 why I hate the media. Drumming crap because they can.
That being said, I doubt that Favre wants to be retired, but I do bet that he would rather be retired than play in most situations. If the Vikings did call though, I can't say I would blame him for putting on the pads one more time.
I find myself conflicted by his dawdling and reversing field seventeen times each off-season. On the one hand, he has a right to play if he's good enough and someone wants him. On the other hand, the team has a right to make off-season decisions in an educated fashion.
My current potty book is a re-read of "Lords Of The Realm," about baseball ownership up until roughly the '94 strike, and one of the points that comes out of the discussions on baseball free agency was the one-sided nature of loyalty. As fans we expect players to show loyalty to their teams, but for years and years the teams showed no more loyalty to players than they would any cog in any machine. For every Favre holding a team's off-season plans in his hands, how many teams are there who keep a talented-enough-to-start backup as such just because they can? How many teams keep their young studs in the minor leagues just long enough to delay the arbitration/free agency clock? Why do we generally default to siding with the teams in these situations?
(These are the things I think on the potty. If I were starting this post, I'd create a "Potty Thoughts" tag for it.)
Post a Comment