stating whiz should have changed his philosophy on bringing in FAs because he might have got a comp pick instead the next year is rediculous.
Woohoo Cards awarded a compensatory pick!
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
Mitch
Crawled Through 5 FB Fields
_____________________________________________________________
These are some of the issues that I hope the new CBA irons out...
Reasons:
(1) imo---there should be NO compensatory picks---the current system of how the picks are determined is a joke---you lose Dansby and you sign Lenon and that's practically a scratch?
(2) teams do consider losing compensatory picks when deciding whether to sign UFAs---which makes it more difficult for veteran free agents to sign---the system is fine for the star UFAs---actually the system has been great for the star UFAs---but it penalizes the average UFAs.
(3) the system seemed to be designed to help the struggling teams cope with losing prize UFAs...but actually the teams that have benefitted the most are the perennial winners like Pittsburgh and New England.
The reason why there should be no compensatory picks is that every team has to operate under a salary cap---if a team loses a big name UFA, then they can go and sign a big name UFA if they wish---or sign as many UFAs as they can fit under the cap.
What I would love to see is a system where teams are given the right of first refusual on contract offers made to any player with 6 or fewer years of experience. Players hitting their 7th year whose contracts have expired then can sign anywhere else and would not have to give their previous team the chance to match.
The reason why I prefer 6 years is that teams should have a chance to keep players that they have been developing for 4 years---players who are now just starting to play up to their potential. The teams that groom those players often don't get the benefit of all that hard work.
Remember---this is right of first refusal---so the player winds up with the same contract (no loss there) and the team that groomed him gets 2 extra chances in years 5 and 6 to retain him. I think that is fair to everyone.
Not all teams will want to match the contracts and that's fine, but at least it's their choice.
Did we use our Franchise tag? There was no cap yet we got rid of Dansby and Rolle. It happens with the Cardinals more frequently then it should. I know sometimes it is unavoidable, but there is a reason it happens to us so frequently. If players don't want to stay here that is the difference between being a perennial powerhouse and a bottom-feeder. Whatever the cause, we haven't taken steps to fix this problem. So yes, I can say we are willing. We haven't done enough to keep guys like Dansby or they'd still be here. Maybe that means over paying a bit. But overpaying for good players is better then getting a discount on a scrub because you're ultimately still overpaying.
Not about keeping 5 RBs/FBs it's about bringing in a guy who's proven to be sub par at everything. Rather take the chance on a UDFA/late round pick then spend a little more on a vet like Wright to not make us a better team.
Again, I'd rather fill the bottom of the bench with UDFAs and late round picks then guys who have proven themselves to be sub-par. I didn't like the Wright signing at the time it happened either. Why do we bring in guys like DA and Wright who have proven they can't do much for other teams. It's arrogance and foolishness but the coaching staff and FO to think they can turn guys like that into quality players. It's not being an arm-chair QB using hindsight if no one outside of the team expects anything from a guy at the time of the signing and then complains when he doesn't contribute. That's foresight.
