June's arrival greases the skids for movement on a Jaire Alexander resolution

A quirk in the NFL calendar could make it easier for Green Bay to stomach moving on from Alexander -- which could also be why they keep him.

Good morning!

Today's edition of The Leap makes the case for why June 1’s arrival makes it easier for the Green Bay Packers to either move on from Jaire Alexander or push harder for a pay cut to keep him in town.

---

Thank you for reading and supporting our coverage. You can also support our work by following us on social media:

Jason B. Hirschhorn: @by_JBH on Twitter / @byjbh@bsky.social on Bluesky / @by_jbh on Threads

Peter Bukowski: @Peter_Bukowski on Twitter / @peterbukowski@bsky.social on Bluesky / @peter_bukowski on Threads

The Leap: @TheLeapGB on Twitter / @theleap.bsky.social on Bluesky / The Leap's YouTube channel

If you appreciate thoughtful, independent coverage of the Packers and NFL, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support allows us to serve this community with the stories and reporting it deserves.

As always, thanks for making The Leap a part of your day.

---

June 1 brings relief for the Green Bay Packers in their Jaire Alexander negotiations, but how does that impact what happens next?

Peter Bukowski: First of all, you’re probably sick of all of this boardroom negotiation analysis around Jaire Alexander. This has been covered as if the solvency of national security relies on finding a resolution. Personally, I don’t think the outcome of the Packers' season in 2025 rests on whatever happens here, but we have just passed a major potential pivot point.

In a quirk of the NFL calendar, teams can now break up the financial hit of moving on from veteran players … like, say, a disgruntled — or at least mildly gruntled — former All-Pro cornerback who has had issues staying on the field. The cap ramifications of moving on from Jaire Alexander have fundamentally changed.

Before, the calculation was “The compensation for trading Alexander has to be greater than the roughly $7 million in cap savings, and he’s going to count $17 million on the cap even if he’s gone.”

That second part was crucial. If they’re lighting the money on fire anyway, why not work toward a resolution? Recent reporting suggests each side is now more willing to discuss restructuring the current contract, but if Green Bay were to find a trade partner, he would only leave $7.5 million in dead cap this year, wiping off more than $17 million from the ledger.

The Packers would also have $7.5 million in dead money in 2026 and over $2 million in 2027, but those numbers are hardly prohibitive. Trading him for a less-than-overwhelming package has different value to the Packers than it did 48 hours ago.

But recent reporting also suggested Alexander didn’t want to be traded, not because he was adamant about staying in Green Bay, but because he’d rather be released so he is free to pursue his contract with a team of his choosing.

If the Packers wanted, they could use this as a cudgel. “Take a pay cut or we’ll trade you somewhere you don’t want to go.” The sting may be lessened by the money Alexander theoretically wouldn’t be giving up in that scenario, but Packers News reported that at least one trade was close for Alexander, but issues with the compensation and a contract restructure scuttled the deal.

The way I read that report is that Alexander wanted more money than the team was willing to pay him, given the compensation. The more he wants, the less the acquiring team is going to want to pay.

No deal.

But the added financial flexibility cuts both ways. Now that it costs less to keep Alexander, his management team can argue that any threat of a trade is hollow. There’s less incentive to get compensation where there’s significantly less dead money to eat, thanks to the NFL’s mob accounting rules.

Just cut him and allow him to pursue a new deal on his terms. Why argue over a 7th-round pick and send a star of the franchise to a place he doesn’t want to go? That’s a bad look, right?

Cutting a player in that situation has been Green Bay’s path in the past, moving on from players who were cut not to save money but because they couldn’t, or weren’t likely in the future to stay healthy. But the rhetoric from the Packers, and Brian Gutekunst in particular, has consistently sounded like a team that doesn’t want to move off Alexander without compensation.

The team has “invested” a lot in him, according to the GM.

And though the coaches and front office have implied they’re less than thrilled with Alexander’s health record — an issue made worse by reports multiple team sources believed Alexander doesn’t always gut through injuries — they appear resolute in not giving him away.

There’s still no deadline to make this happen either. Green Bay saves the greater dollar figure if they work out a trade or decide to cut Alexander on June 1st or September 1st. They still hold the cards here because they can draw this out and insist Alexander come to the negotiating table.

But the question we must ask is, “Do the Packers want Jaire Alexander?”

The answer is likely as simple as, “Yes, for the right price.”

Currently, the issue is that the two sides disagree on what that price should be, and until they reach an agreement, we’ll have this impasse. The calendar change provides ammunition for teams to say to the Packers that a trade benefits Green Bay more at this juncture, so drop the asking price, thus making it easier to agree to a new deal with Alexander.

From the Packers’ perspective, though, if there’s a new deal to be made, why wouldn’t they be the ones actively seeking to find that goldilocks zone? Having Alexander on the roster beats the alternative, even if he’s an injury risk. The question the Packers, and any team considering acquiring Alexander, is what is that risk worth?

When Alexander plays, he’s still an excellent cover corner in a league with very few of those. Whether it’s a trade, a release, or a re-worked contract, the risk to the Packers of any one of those outcomes fell precipitously when the calendar shifted to June. That provides a position of power from which to operate, and while there’s no rush on a deal, the nuances of a complicated financial system make it easier for this saga to mercifully come to a close.