Depressing...

[joeshmo]

Joe, I still don't see or believe there's any reason at this point Fitz will sign a new deal for the Cards other than he's said he wants to play there. We'll see...

You were probably one who thought the same thing about Warner, Wilson, and Dockett, am I right?

Look, I understand the angst, I really do. But there has been few things on guys getting extensions that I have let known I was certian of it happening. Warner, Wilson, and Dockett were the few exceptions. Went on record with all three as saying they were locks to get new deals and would not be leaving. Fitz will be my 4th.

I will not give those same certianties for Deuce, Breaston, Lyle, and did not in the past with the likes of Smith, Rolle, Dansby.

I just know who are the Wiz guys and who are faces/personalities of the team and I just know how Wiz and Mickey will not let those guys leave for anything. There is not a lot of those guys but the select few will be staying as long as they are still able to play at a high level.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

What's really, really depressing is Bucky's continuous state of depression!

.... and in his honour, the hat trick of:

 

[kerouac9]

You mean the same contract that every top 3 draft pick, by every single team that has been signed over the last ten years gets?

Barking up the wrong tree. They didn't make a mistake in the initial contract, they made the mistake in not re-doing his deal the year prior before he had the team by the nuts.

As for Fitz this year, he without a doubt in my mind will get a new long term deal. Not even a question. Fitz is a Wiz guy through and through, and Wiz is a Fitz guy through and through. The last two guys you could say that about were Wilson and Dockett. Both players the fans were talking as if they were already gone a year before their contract ended and both players given extensions. Wilson given a big extension a year before his contract ended, dockett given a big extension a year before his contract ended, Fitz will be the third in three years.

Don't most of those top 3 picks have a voidable year in the last year that allows them to void the contract and then the team has to place the Franchise tag on them?

That seems to be my memory of the situation. The Cards remain fundamentally against voidable years on rookie contracts, so they instead put impossible salaries in the final year of the deal. Then, though, they have to negotiate a new contract or cut the player outright. If you cut a player, you can't control his rights with the Franchise Tag.

The Cards were looking at Fitz with an unmanageble salary instead of a voided year where he could've played with the franchise tag on him and work out a new deal. The Franchise tag would've been less expensive and been re-usable.

The Cards gave Fitz a voidable year in his second contract, and prevented themselves from Franchising him. Way to learn your lesson, Rod.

I agree, though, that this is a lot of angst when there's really not much to think about for another year. I'm more worried about Lutui leaving in free agency this offseason than I am Fitz next year.

 

[Treefiddy]

Watching teams tag some of (if not) their best players like Manning, Vick, David Harris, Woodley, Mankins, Vincent Jackson, Ngata, Hali & even the Iggles using the transition tag on K David Akers.

Maybe the tag is voided if no CBA is agreed upon (doubt it), but those teams at least tried to protect it's most valueable pieces for a chance to win!!! And the Cards don't think the best player on it's team is good enough to protect? If Larry Fitzgerald doesnt sign an extension (not looking good IMO), Rod Graves should be fired the day #11 leaves AZ!!! I really can't believe more of you aren't seeing whats before our eyes.

You're saying these teams that let their star players contract expire and are now forced to using the Franchise Tag are doing more to keep those star players than the Cardinals who still have Fitz under contract for a year?

That makes zero sense.

 

[JeffGollin]

You're (1) setting up a hypothetical, (2) presenting it as fact and then (3) criticizing the (4) speculated response by Mgt. to that non-fact.

Hmm. Sounds like a plan...

 

[joeshmo]

Don't most of those top 3 picks have a voidable year in the last year that allows them to void the contract and then the team has to place the Franchise tag on them?

That is a more recent trend. Conveniantly teams started using this tactic after they saw what happened with Fitz, a top 3 pick who actually hit on all of his incentives which was and still is a rarity.

 

[kerouac9]

That is a more recent trend. Conveniantly teams started using this tactic after they saw what happened with Fitz, a top 3 pick who actually hit on all of his incentives which was and still is a rarity.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that we had an extended holdout with a draft pick over voidable years. Was it Antrel Rolle, which is why he structured his deal in a way that caused the team to cut him with a year left on his deal? Was it even before that?

It was Rolle, and it was before the Fitz deal: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/hea...0100307cardinals-off-season-drama-somers.html

Rolle's departure, however, could have been avoided if the Cardinals had been more flexible when negotiating his rookie contract in 2005. The Cardinals refused to make the last year (2010) voidable, instead agreeing to an escalator clause that would have paid Rolle $12 million had he remained with the team.

If the year had been voidable, the Cardinals could have placed the franchise tag on Rolle at a cost of $6.45 million. He would have stayed with the team at least one more season.

Instead, the Cardinals were faced with decision to either pay him a $4 million roster bonus by last Friday or terminate his contract. They released him and hoped he would re-sign. Instead, he opted to leave.

The Cardinals moved quickly to replace him, trading two draft picks to the Jets for free safety Kerry Rhodes. But the Rolle situation is anecdotal evidence that the Cardinals aren't quite through paying for their past stodgy business practices.

Owner Bill Bidwill was against voidable clauses, a commonly used contract element throughout the NFL. Bidwill has since dropped his objections to voidable years, and the trade for Rhodes brought some fans in off the ledge.

And it's been a problem since at least 2008: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jim_trotter/03/12/cardinals/index.html

 

[joeshmo]

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that we had an extended holdout with a draft pick over voidable years. Was it Antrel Rolle, which is why he structured his deal in a way that caused the team to cut him with a year left on his deal? Was it even before that?

It was Rolle, and it was before the Fitz deal: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/hea...0100307cardinals-off-season-drama-somers.html



And it's been a problem since at least 2008: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jim_trotter/03/12/cardinals/index.html

I am positive. Sure it was used, but it was a rarity and may actually still be a rarity if last year has anything to say about it. Just last year only Suh and Berry got a "team voidable year" out of the top 5.

 

[conraddobler]

There's "big" and then there's "BIG". I like big, as a matter of fact the older I get, the better big sometimes looks.

Now none of this has anything to do with your beautiful wife, who is lovely beyond compare although I wouldn't know because I, of course, being a gentleman have never looked at her that way.

That and the fact that I know you are generally heavily armed.

I think I'm just going to slowly back out the door now. Nothing to see...moving along...

JTS

The Anna Nichole Smith syndrome, livin on the edge.

P.S.

I agree, bigger is sometimes better, right up until it's not.

"This message is not intended to imply I look at other women I don't, the entire concept is theoretical and only for discussion purposes, my wife is the only woman I look at, ever, so much so I bump into other women like they aren't there."