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.