So Brett Favre has told the Green Bay Packers that he definitely wants to play again, although he has asked them to release him in order for him to have the chance to pick and choose which team he will play for. A couple of thoughts ran through my mind when I read this.

First, how could Favre possibly play for anyone else besides the Packers? They are already prepared to retire his number on the first Monday Night game of the season, and he is a legend in Green Bay. People don't view him as just a football legend, but a part of the community. After all we've heard and read about him, wouldn't this tarnish his image not just a bit, but a TON?

Secondly, why would the Packers rather go with Aaron Rogers at QB as opposed to Favre? If Favre had another season like he did in 2006 then I would understand it, but he didn't! He came back last year, and helped lead the team to the NFC Championship Game. He was selected to play in the Pro Bowl, and finally had a running back to help alleviate the pressure. Going forward with Favre behind center would give the team a much better chance to win in 2008 than it would with Rogers.

With that said, you have to feel badly for Aaron Rogers. First he was supposed to be a top pick along with Alex Smith in the 2005 Draft, but instead fell all the way to #24. Then he's had to endure the retirement talk from Favre for three years, and just when it looks like Favre is finally gone, he decides he wants to come back.

So where does this leave Rogers and the Packers? Well, if Favre does in fact come back, and it's with the Packers, Green Bay will have no choice but to trade Rogers much like the way the Atlanta Falcons dealt Matt Schaub prior to last season. Rogers should be able to fetch two second round picks like Schaub did, and the Packers could then groom this year's second round pick, Brian Brohm, to be Favre's successor. This would not only help the Packers now, but also in the future.

Now time to go to the mailbag...

PF - I wouldn't pick Philly quite yet, since Iguodala hasn't signed a new deal. He turned down a big offer from them last season.
The power of money. I thought Maggette was San Antonio bound for sure.
Good post. I hope free agency picks up more tomorrow.

PF, thanks for the comment. As for Philadelphia, I'm definitely not picking them to win the East, but I do believe they will be a team to be reckoned with. While Andre Iguodala turned down an extension last season, he is signed through this year, so at the very least they'll have one year of Brand, Miller, and AI together. In a conference like the East, that should be good enough to get them back to the playoffs, and once you're there, who knows what can happen.

Banmeplease - I disagree about GS overspending for Maggette in this age of inflated contracts five and fifty is not that bad, 10 per isnt too much if Lamar Odom makes 14 mil, especially given he is young and probably going to put up 30 points a game under Don Nelson, and if his weakness is defense who cares they dont play it anyways. I am wondering if Davis backs out of his deal now as it was not signed yet... we shall see.

Banmeplease, Corey Maggette could very well get 30 points a game, although even in Golden State's up-tempo offense I think that's a bit high (I think 26-27ppg is much more realistic). With that said, I think you may have missed my point about his contract. You're absolutely right, $10 million per year is not that high in today's NBA, however I am a firm believer that just because you have the money doesn't mean you have to spend it.

Is Maggette a good player? Absolutely. But is he going to be the difference in helping that team get back to the playoffs? Well that's where I believe the answer is no. Therefore, if he is not going to help you at least get to the playoffs, let alone win, then I would not spend $50 million on him for five years. Rather, I would keep that money in my pocket, and give myself the financial flexibility to make other moves when they are more appropriate.

Corzo14 - I admitedly know little about basketball. But it does not seem that the Seventy Sixers have done enough to over come the talent that the Celtics have even in the east. How much would losing Posey be for the Celtics? Should they over pay him to keep him for his defense and clutch three point shooting.

Corzo14, that's a good question regarding Posey. When you say overpay, I think it depends on how much. Is it giving him four years as opposed to three, or is it giving him 3 years and 21 million compared to 3 years and 15? Posey reminds me a little bit of Bruce Bowen. He's not as good defensively, but he still good, and he knocks down the big 3's like Bowen does. As we have seen, having Bowen with the Spurs has been a big reason why they have won NBA titles every other year.

Unfortunately for the Celtics, keeping Posey is not the only move they need to make. I don't know what it is, but I get the feeling that everything kind of went right for the Celtics this year, and they are not a team built to last. As I have said time and time again in this blog, I am a big fan of both Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce certainly took a very important step to that next level during the playoffs, but this is a team that needs more athleticism up front. PJ Brown is likely going to retire, and it would be nice to give Garnett some rest throughout the course of the regular season. The same could be true for Allen and Pierce in the backcourt. Maybe Bill Walker will turn out to be a very serviceable rookie, but re-signing Posey should be just the start.

I'm not saying by any means that they need a complete overhaul, I'm merely saying it would benefit them to bring in some fresh faces.

Thanks to everyone for their comments and questions. Please keep them coming...