« Happy Mittens Day! | Home | Keith Hernandez Hearts Mittens Too »

Brett Favre and the Cost of the Number Four

By Brinson | July 23, 2008

Darren Rovell makes a great point over at CNBC today regarding the possibility that Brett Favre might have to shell out some cash to wear the number four on his jersey, depending on where he gets traded. (And clearly, he’s getting traded.) But the biggest money maker of them all would be if he landed here, with the Carolina Panthers.

When asked how much Kasay might ask, Kasay’s agent Jack Reale said the two hadn’t talked about the possibility, but did say that “most players are attached to the number they wear in some way.”

It’s hard to say exactly how much that No. 4 is worth, but I’d say it’s definitely worth more than the record paid for a number. In 2005, Clinton Portis paid Ifeanyi Ohalete $38,000 for the No. 20. Other significant NFL jersey number transactions have basically involved Jeff Feagles. Feagles sold No. 10 to Eli Manning for a week-long family vacation. He then sold No. 17 to Plaxico Burress in exchange for the remodeling of his kitchen.

Last year, Ahman Green paid $20,000 for the No. 30 jersey, but Jason Simmons – who had that number suggested the money be donated to charity. With a contribution from Green, Simmons and Texans owner Bob McNair, the made the down payment on a house for a single mom in the area.

And how much would Brett Favre, in this hypothetical situation that continues to grip this blog by it’s mothballs and is starting to annoy me, have to pay? My guess is Kasay wouldn’t give it up. Which would be awesome. Except that it would create strife, and strife’s not cool for anyone.

Here’s a better idea, John, should this situation arise: Make Favre wear MITTENS when he’s not in the game. That way, if Jake Delhomme stays healthy all season, we get a year’s worth of Brett Favre on the sidelines, wearing white mittens. If Delhomme gets hurt or isn’t prepared to actually perform up to snuff, we get Brett Favre slinging the ball to Steve Smith.

Seems like a win-win either way to me. Downside, of course, being that none of this is really remotely close to happening.