I’ve taken a couple of days for some family time in the D.C. area, and MDS and the rest of the gang have been holding the fort down capably in my absence.

On Saturday, I was out of the loop for most of the day, but I was able to check the MDS updates from my Sprint device. 

The item posted earlier in the day regarding the position of Packers G.M. Ted Thompson as to the potential return of quarterback Brett Favre caught my attention, because it confirmed conclusively my theory as to Thompson’s attitude toward Favre in 2008.

With a 2007 season that exceeded expectations so significantly that it yielded long-term extensions both for Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy, they both (I now firmly believe) concluded that the time has come to have the first Favre-free year. 

It was inevitable that Favre would, at some point, not be a member of the organization.  If Favre were to leave after a couple of mediocre seasons, a 5-11 record or worse in the first attempt post-Favre could have gotten people fired. 

But with Favre “retiring” on the heels of a season that produced a high degree of job security for Thompson (and for McCarthy), both men could make it through a mediocre-or-worse season (or two . . . or three) with someone else calling the signals.

Favre’s attempt to return complicates matters, significantly.  If the Packers tank in 2008, Thompson will be criticized for not allowing Favre to return as the starter.  But Thompson also knows that, if he allows Favre to play for anyone else in 2008, and if Favre excels while Aaron Rodgers and/or Brian Brohm and/or Matt Flynn struggle, the decision not to re-embrace Favre could be enough to get Thompson fired.

And so the notion that the Packers would pay Favre a $12 million base salary to sit the bench behind Rodgers is all about Thompson trying to squeeze Favre to stay in Mississippi.  Because Thompson knows that, if Favre pushes the issue and shows up for camp and is willing to hold a clipboard for $705,000 per week, Thompson will have to either delay the first post-Favre season to 2009 — or Thompson will have to let Favre go.

And so the best interests of the team, in our opinion, aren’t guiding Thompson.  The best interests of the Packers, in the short term, point directly to re-installing Favre as the starter and trying to win the Super Bowl.  The long-term best interests of the franchise arguably require getting another guy ready now, even if it means that the team doesn’t do as well as it otherwise could with Favre throwing the passes.

But if the franchise is willing to suffer a bit in the short term in order to get better even faster down the line, the franchise shouldn’t care about whether Favre plays for someone else in 2008 — and the franchise shouldn’t want to spend $12 million to keep it from happening.

So, as a practical matter, Thompson is simply controlling the potential P.R. consequences of his decision to suffer through the growing pains of football without Favre at a time when Favre still wants to play football.

Thus, Thompson’s current posture isn’t being driven by the best interests of anyone or anything othter than Thompson himself.