The reasons vary, but it does seem that every year there is a player or two that GB just decides they are not interested in resigning, and so either they don't make an offer at all, or they make an "offer" that they pretty much know the player won't accept.

In both of these cases (Alexander/Jones), the deciding factor seemed to be availability. While Jones didn't have quite the injury history of Alexander, he wasn't exactly a 17 game per year iron-man either. I think they're really taking it to heart that "the most important ability is availability".

Also have to consider one other factor: the salaries offered to both players were higher than they ended up getting elsewhere, but they also represented substantial pay cuts from their prior salary with GB. I think it's hard for an athlete to accept that 'you're not that guy any more'. Also, it makes some sense to me that a player might feel like "I worked, I sacrificed, I gave up my body (injuries) playing for this team, and now that I'm beat up, they don't want to pay me?!?! I've been loyal to the team - where's the loyalty coming back?!?!" But unfortunately, it's a cold business and it just doesn't work that way. So it would be easy for a player to feel disrespected, and in those types of cases, it's probably easier/for the best if they just go elsewhere.

Really wish it didn't have to go that way, but in the salary cap era of football, that's just how it is. You just can't afford to have that big of a cap hit going to a guy who is out more than they're in. There's a reason why they invented the term "cap casualty", and it's not just for situations where a team has mismanaged their cap and now has to cut a bunch of guys to stay under. It's also for guys whose current availability/performance level is just not close to their current cap number...

Oh well. We thank them for their service, and wish them the best in their future endeavors...