I'm inclined to say the same. It has to be something culturally because he's hardly on huge money relative to what he can deliver and he's even mostly rained in his suspensions etc, so it can only be that he's culturally just not what the club wants going forward.
Not sure about culturally... it might be more about how and where he fits into the team from a footy sense.
I think if you look over the years on this forum there has been a bit of "Jack Bird where should he play" when it comes to TPJ.
Second row: He's an offensive weapon, but his defence is suspect.
Prop: again offense is excellent, but his best games comprise 3 stints on the field, which can over complicate things and use up vital substitutions.
Lock: Similar to prop, but he can also bring ball playing to the position. From a team sense you need to have two locks rotating, because he wont get through the full 80
Bench: flexibility to play multiple positions, reduces his fatigue errors, explosive impact player to bring on.... but are you getting value for money
And across all positions his defence becomes suspect as he fatigues.
If you consider that we are effectively replacing TPJ with Capewell, then you are getting a far more reliable footy player that is a set and forget 80min second rower.
Given TPJ is off contract end of next year they were probably thinking he's a nice to have luxury type player, but right now we need to build a solid consistent core that we can rely on every week and know what we'll be getting.