My thoughts on Boston (if anyone cares :) )

[green machine]

Go

We did not franchise him because we did not want him here next year. Had we franchised him, odds are nobody would have given up top draft picks for him. He has some big question marks, so the odds of that are not great, in my opinion. It seems like Boston did not want to be here. If we franchised him we would have had him for one season, he would have been an attitude problem, and he would have left the next year, ala SiMEon Rice. But for people to say we should have gotten compensation, I don't think we would have. I imagine Graves explored this option, and did not have much of a market, as far as trades would have gone.

adam
________
CHILDREN PAXIL

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

even if we couldn't get top draft picks, don't you think a couple of 3rds or a 3rd and 4th would be better than getting nothing? i'm sure a few teams would have been lining up to throw such mid-draft picks for a player of david's caliber. graves checking into things, right, other gms are gonna say, sure we'll trade with you, but you're not gonna tag him, right? so we can just wait and then sign him ourselves. the tag takes that ability away from other teams. graves is a boob.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that he didn't want to be here.

If he would have stayed one more year it would have been concrete hands again......locker room poison....and off-field screw ups.

If you make someone stay somewhere where they don't wanna be you're gonna pay.....whether it be sports....or a marriage....or whatever.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Re: Bottom Line

Originally posted by BuckeyeCardinal
The bottom line is that he didn't want to be here.

If he would have stayed one more year it would have been concrete hands again......locker room poison....and off-field screw ups.

If you make someone stay somewhere where they don't wanna be you're gonna pay.....whether it be sports....or a marriage....or whatever.

THAT IS NOT THE BOTTOM LINE! That is not why the tag was invented! The tag was made so that you wouldbn't have to lose your best player with no compensation! Why are you guys ignoring that fact?

 

[CardinalChris]

Gotta agree.... A Tag mean a pick. AT LEAST a second, and I think Dieog would have paid a second for him. I'll take an extra pick over no compensation any day. as for them not wanting him? I think th eno bonus offer said that.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Graves and Boston

Graves got hosed......welcome to the NFL.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

also, not all players tank just b/c they're unhappy where they are . . . ever hear of a lil' someone named corey dillon? every year he's tried to get out of cincy and every year he gets stuck there and every year he has a good season, so don't throw that "if he doesn't want to play here he'll suck" argument anymore.

 

[ajcardfan]

I've refrained from bringing this up.....

Actually, I blame this on Fergy and Bidwill more than Graves. I bitched loud and long about the four year contract at the time. That four year garbage for first round picks just so we don't do "bells and whistles" has finally bitten us. Just like I said it would. I said at that time the Cardinals should have let him holdout until game 10 before they let him sign that deal. I got hosed pretty hard for that stance on the Rivals board, but if they had listened to me, he'd still be here, and we would have had a much better idea of how bad his problems were next year.

 

[RLakin]

Re: Re: Bottom Line

Originally posted by cheesebeef
THAT IS NOT THE BOTTOM LINE! That is not why the tag was invented! The tag was made so that you wouldbn't have to lose your best player with no compensation! Why are you guys ignoring that fact?

Hey, it's not worth the time. There's no point anybody can make that will change these individuals minds. Furthermore, there is no argument that these individuals can make that will make any sense.
Fact of the matter is that Graves screwed up. He made a major miscalculation about the market for Boston and thought the Cardinals reluctance of placing the tag would be a better negotiating ploy than placing the tag itself. He was wrong.

So what if he was suspended and/or there is no market for him?

Answer: You can always take the tag off.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

And?

"and thought the Cardinals reluctance of placing the tag would be a better negotiating ploy than placing the tag itself."

And why is that?

 

[RLakin]

Re: And?

Originally posted by BuckeyeCardinal
"and thought the Cardinals reluctance of placing the tag would be a better negotiating ploy than placing the tag itself."

And why is that?

Well, it's pretty simple if you think about it. The Cardinals did not place the tag on Boston and cited off-the-field issues as the reason why not.
Now if you really don't want the guy back why would you bring up bad things about his past, thus bringing down his value in the (perceived) eyes of the rest of the NFL and costing yourself any significant compensation?

Easy, just as Bickley wrote, if you can taint Boston, his price tag will (in theory) go down.

Graves errored, however, in thinking that no NFL team would be willing to take this gamble w/ big up front (signing bonus) money. He didn't do his homework. Dale Carter, a 4 time violator, got big money from NO last year. Cletidus Hunt, a 2 time violator got $6 million up front from GB. Peerless Price, the #1 receiver in the market, got franchised. All the factors should have led Graves and the organization to believe that there was precedent for giving big up front to a troubled player who was now the #1 unrestricted receiver in the market.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by green machine
We did not franchise him because we did not want him here next year. Had we franchised him, odds are nobody would have given up top draft picks for him. He has some big question marks, so the odds of that are not great, in my opinion. It seems like Boston did not want to be here. If we franchised him we would have had him for one season, he would have been an attitude problem, and he would have left the next year, ala SiMEon Rice. But for people to say we should have gotten compensation, I don't think we would have. I imagine Graves explored this option, and did not have much of a market, as far as trades would have gone.

adam

yes we are real smart. we let the bad ass Rice leave and the bad ass Boston leave.
I really feel good.

 

[john h]

Re: Bottom Line

Originally posted by BuckeyeCardinal
The bottom line is that he didn't want to be here.

If he would have stayed one more year it would have been concrete hands again......locker room poison....and off-field screw ups.

If you make someone stay somewhere where they don't wanna be you're gonna pay.....whether it be sports....or a marriage....or whatever.

If the bottom line is he did not want to be here then who does want to be here?

 

[Shane]

Re: Re: Bottom Line

Originally posted by cheesebeef
THAT IS NOT THE BOTTOM LINE! That is not why the tag was invented! The tag was made so that you wouldbn't have to lose your best player with no compensation! Why are you guys ignoring that fact?

Actually Cheese that is the bottom line!

The tag may not have been created for that purpose but in the long run that is exactly what it does. It pisses players off and they in turn become whiney babies and a cancer in the locker room!

 

[pinetopred]

I just wonder where Boston's responsiblity lies in all this, it just seems very easy to place all the blame on Graves right now. I think I can become a pro football player and not be accoutable to anybody or anything if thats the new guildlines or the new precedent that is being set.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Re: Re: Re: Bottom Line

Originally posted by Shane H
Actually Cheese that is the bottom line!

The tag may not have been created for that purpose but in the long run that is exactly what it does. It pisses players off and they in turn become whiney babies and a cancer in the locker room!

OH MY GOD! Go ahead and call me a bitch like some other guy on the board. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT - WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING FOR BOSTON! And if we couldn't through trade, then Graves is an even bigger boob than I think right now.

 

[AZCB34]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bottom Line

Originally posted by cheesebeef
OH MY GOD! Go ahead and call me a bitch like some other guy on the board. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT - WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING FOR BOSTON! And if we couldn't through trade, then Graves is an even bigger boob than I think right now.

We ASSUME we could have gotten something...only because it seems logical we would have. But we may have not gotten one offer and then DB COULD (I admit he might not) have then done the stone hands routine or sulked and been a distraction. Then the Cards are right back to the same point.

The key is, every ounce of logic says the Cards could have gotten a 3rd and another conditional pick for him. If a team LIKE sd was willing to pony up a nice guaranteed bonus then certainly some team would give up a couple picks for the guy. What better investment is there for a 3rd rounder and a conditional pick?

IMO, the smarter gamble would have been to tag him and tell his agent to do some work and get a trade done. Graves rolled the dice and lost. Plain and simple.