Today’s Rumor (03/22) - Cards are making Indy sweat it out

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,436
Reaction score
27,654
Location
Gilbert, AZ
And there are franchises who have enough organizational stability where they can trade down and get maximum value out of those additional picks. I don't believe we are at that point as an organization especially in an off-season where our scouts spent the year scouting for a scheme that we no longer use. Our scouts have spent the year scouting defensive players for a 3-4 scheme and soft-zone CBs. Now, we are a month and a half into a 4-3 scheme and the team has to try to translate those notes into 4-3 fits.

The other issue is that there are so many roster holes or just talent deficient groups that a trade down looks best because holes are being filled with hope.
I actually don't believe you ever get value from trading down and out -- at least, not in the way that people are talking about it here. I hear people saying that instead of getting one foundational player at #3 overall, we should get three foundational players at, like #12, #56, and #70 (for example).

It just doesn't work like that. A team needs four to six foundational players at any time. These are the guys on max contracts plus young players who worked out. The question is how many of these guys are on second or third contracts vs on rookie deals.

If you have the majority of these guys on second (or third) contracts, you want to trade down because you need to fill out your red-chip players with guys on rookie contracts. You can only have four players making $15 million a year or more. This is where you find savings.

If you have the majority on rookie contracts, you want to spend your resources on mid-level free agents to accelerate their development curve and the additional flexibility of the rookie scale.

There isn't a lot of competitive logic to minimizing your opportunity for franchise-defining talent when you arguably have only one or two franchise-defining players on your roster (Murray and Budda -- assuming we move Hop).
 

BirdGangThing

Casual Fan
Joined
Dec 27, 2019
Posts
12,818
Reaction score
16,558
Location
Arcadia
I actually don't believe you ever get value from trading down and out -- at least, not in the way that people are talking about it here. I hear people saying that instead of getting one foundational player at #3 overall, we should get three foundational players at, like #12, #56, and #70 (for example).

It just doesn't work like that. A team needs four to six foundational players at any time. These are the guys on max contracts plus young players who worked out. The question is how many of these guys are on second or third contracts vs on rookie deals.

If you have the majority of these guys on second (or third) contracts, you want to trade down because you need to fill out your red-chip players with guys on rookie contracts. You can only have four players making $15 million a year or more. This is where you find savings.

If you have the majority on rookie contracts, you want to spend your resources on mid-level free agents to accelerate their development curve and the additional flexibility of the rookie scale.

There isn't a lot of competitive logic to minimizing your opportunity for franchise-defining talent when you arguably have only one or two franchise-defining players on your roster (Murray and Budda -- assuming we move Hop).
:cheers:
You must be registered for see images attach
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,969
Reaction score
35,882
Location
Colorado
I actually don't believe you ever get value from trading down and out -- at least, not in the way that people are talking about it here. I hear people saying that instead of getting one foundational player at #3 overall, we should get three foundational players at, like #12, #56, and #70 (for example).

It just doesn't work like that. A team needs four to six foundational players at any time. These are the guys on max contracts plus young players who worked out. The question is how many of these guys are on second or third contracts vs on rookie deals.

If you have the majority of these guys on second (or third) contracts, you want to trade down because you need to fill out your red-chip players with guys on rookie contracts. You can only have four players making $15 million a year or more. This is where you find savings.

If you have the majority on rookie contracts, you want to spend your resources on mid-level free agents to accelerate their development curve and the additional flexibility of the rookie scale.

There isn't a lot of competitive logic to minimizing your opportunity for franchise-defining talent when you arguably have only one or two franchise-defining players on your roster (Murray and Budda -- assuming we move Hop).
The debates next year when Budda is 28, heading into the last year of his contract, and where the Cardinals can save 14.2 mil by cutting or trading him are going to be fantastic (only 3.7 in dead money).
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,069
Reaction score
11,611
The debates next year when Budda is 28, heading into the last year of his contract, and where the Cardinals can save 14.2 mil by cutting or trading him are going to be fantastic (only 3.7 in dead money).
It's why there is a good argument to trade him now. His value may not be any higher than it is now, even with the ankle.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,436
Reaction score
27,654
Location
Gilbert, AZ
It's why there is a good argument to trade him now. His value may not be any higher than it is now, even with the ankle.
I don't understand the argument that James Conner and Zach Ertz are so important to building a winning culture but Budda Baker can be sacrificed on the altar of cap space.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,069
Reaction score
11,611
I don't understand the argument that James Conner and Zach Ertz are so important to building a winning culture but Budda Baker can be sacrificed on the altar of cap space.
Don't dare put that stance on me. I never even implied that.

Trading Budda away falls into the same reason why you would trade D-Hop.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,969
Reaction score
35,882
Location
Colorado
2024 is super interesting.

Right now I would say our 10 best players are Kyler, Conner, Humphries, Hopkins, Brown, Baker, Thompson, Ertz, Beachum and Simmons.

In 2024, Conner, Hopkins, Baker, and Ertz all should probably be cut due to their ages and positions.

Brown and Simmons are both FAs, and only Brown currently has an argument to be re-signed.

That leaves us with Kyler, Humphries, Beachum and Thompson as our top 4 players prior to 2024 free agency with, hopefully, Will Anderson at 5.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,436
Reaction score
27,654
Location
Gilbert, AZ
2024 is super interesting.

Right now I would say our 10 best players are Kyler, Conner, Humphries, Hopkins, Brown, Baker, Thompson, Ertz, Beachum and Simmons.

In 2024, Conner, Hopkins, Baker, and Ertz all should probably be cut due to their ages and positions.

Brown and Simmons are both FAs, and only Brown currently has an argument to be re-signed.

That leaves us with Kyler, Humphries, Beachum and Thompson as our top 4 players prior to 2024 free agency with, hopefully, Will Anderson at 5.
Cripes at Kelvin Beachum being one of our ten best players. Oof.

We'll continue to learn more, but I assume many will come in here and say that Zaven Collins is already better than Beachum and definitely will be by next year.

Also, if we draft a mid-round RB they'll likely be among our 10-best players by the end of the year.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,969
Reaction score
35,882
Location
Colorado
Cripes at Kelvin Beachum being one of our ten best players. Oof.

We'll continue to learn more, but I assume many will come in here and say that Zaven Collins is already better than Beachum and definitely will be by next year.

Also, if we draft a mid-round RB they'll likely be among our 10-best players by the end of the year.
Just another frustrating part of boycotting free agency this year so far. Budda is the face of the franchise and the smart football move next season will be shipping him off. The blowback of another bad season coupled with getting rid of the face of the franchise is going to put some real pressure on Monti. I can't see Budda wanting to take less, and I don't see the justification of extending a 28 year old S at a rate of 17 per year.
 

Shane

Current STAR
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
66,494
Reaction score
32,943
Location
Las Vegas
You must be registered for see images attach

Unless the Colts are incredibly stupid I don't think the Cardinals should trade back
Wilandre Wadserson come on down….
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,520
Reaction score
21,575
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
.
If this happens I will be calling for the pitchforks for this pathetic FO. Not only not taking Anderson and then him going to a division rival to torment us forever would be a very, very Cardinals thing to do.
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
541,009
Posts
5,296,911
Members
6,290
Latest member
stbmd
Top