I disagree. As I posted I don't get what they're doing at ILB but I don't think it's Thompson holding onto Hawk because he drafted him so high. Listen to what the coaches say about Hawk - they view him as almost a coach on the field and he's been very durable. Again, don't get me wrong, I'd have Bishop and Jones on the roster and jettison Hawk, all I'm saying is I don’t think you have Thompson's motivation right. BTW, I don't think Thompson would have thought twice about waiving/trading Hawk if he hadn't agreed to the pay cut.
IMO they let Harrell hang around because they had already paid him his signing bonus - the gamble was if he could get healthy they may have gotten a return on their investment. I believe he got $8M in guaranteed money so the cost of keeping him around wasn't that great compared to the "reward" if he ever could've gotten healthy. BTW, the big mistake with Harrell was twofold IMO: There were reports that the Packers were offered a sweet deal for the pick involving (I believe) the other team's second round pick in that draft (and perhaps another pick) and their first rounder of the next draft. But Ted said he doesn't do that (trade important picks from one draft to another) and views each draft on its own. And the second mistake of course was picking a guy with such an extensive injury history - I think he sprained his ankle upon being born.
Brian Brohm is an example of Thompson being unemotional about "his" draft picks. He was the number 56 pick overall and he lasted one year with the Packers.
Decisions are often made for multiple reasons, and you touched on some of the ones associated with releasing Bishop: cost vs. benefit, injury status/future injury risk, $'s over-allocated to the position, and perhaps some thoughts on the potential of the bench players.
Evidently, the Packers offered Bishop a reduced contract. So, injury status/ future risk is not the issue
in isolation. It's the risk measured against the cost and measured against the available alternatives. As you noted with Harrell, he got a lot of guaranteed money up front, so keeping him around to see if he could become anything did not entail much cost. Bishop, on the other hand, is due some meaningful pay come week 1.
With Bishop, we have 3 guys who appear to be making more than the league median average for the position, ILB being the lowest paid position after fullback. So why Bishop and not Hawk? Because Hawk is durable while being a known commodity. Some might argue Hawk has remained relatively injury-free because he doesn't hit people very hard very often in a business-decision kind of way. But that has to be balanced against the risk that Bishop pulls up lame again.
This is an unfortunate situation. We missed his physical presence in the middle of the field last season, and I believe his absence will be felt going forward.
This isn't good news. 
