You do that and you risk making your best defensive playmaker unhappy and looking forward to leaving in 2009. I don't think that is doing what is best for the Cardinals, weakening an already suspect defense.
Saving a few dollars at the expense of wins was what got the old Cardinals 30 years of losing seasons and a reputation as the armpit of the NFL. I don't think they're still operating that way. I would like to believe that they're trying to work out a deal that is good for both Dansby and the Cardinals without creating any hard feelings on either side.
Of course the focus is on making everyone happy. My point is, going into the negotiations it's on the GM to have the ability to look, not only at the deal in front of him, but the over all status of the team as well. Yes, you want to make Dansby happy, but ultimately, Graves job is to get Dansby on the field by whatever means necessary while still allowing adequate space under the cap to tend to other players and possible free agents. Graves isn't going to get exactly what he wants, neither is Dansby, the trick is finding a middle that makes everyone happy. It's not as easy as just throwing a truck load of cash at Dansby and getting him to sign fast. There are other things impacted by the financial aspects of the deal, and these are things that take time to work out. You want to make Dansby happy, but if the only thing that makes him happy is putting the team in a financial position that makes it hard for them to improve, that's a problem. Like it or not, Graves job is to save money. Not because the Bidwill family is cheap, but because there is only so much money to go around and we need a roster of 53 men, all of whom expect to be paid.
Yeah, but see, you put it ALL on Fitz, and it definitely isn't.
That's not what I did at all. I realize that the agent for Fitz is also involved, my only point was due to the flexibility we need from a new deal with Fitz, there is not much that can really go forward till his situation is resolved. It's the situation with Fitz and what does or doesn't get done, that will determine exactly how much money we have for FA.
An extension makes absolute sense for both parties, and so the onus for getting the extension done really falls on the GM. If it were a tough signing, like the Dansby situation, I would certainly say that it's largely a two-way street in negotiations, and that it's a tough one to get done. With the Fitz extension, it makes great sense for Fitz to get a deal done, making it that much worse for Graves if it doens't happen. Bottom line: a competent GM gets the Fitz extension done.
I'm sorry, but I think the above is an assumption on your part. There are advantages to Fitz not signing an extension as well. He'll get that huge pay day, and be a year closer to testing free agency for an even bigger deal. Fitz has said he wants to stay here, but we all know we have to take things said in the media with a grain of salt. Overall, this is Fitz job, and it's about his paycheck, just like any of us. I'm not saying Fitz doesn't want to be here, I think he does, but to just assume this is an "easy" deal or a no brainer is drawing a lot of unsubstantiated conclusion on your part. I don't see the Fitz deal as being easy at all. They need to try to offer him a deal that's so lucrative it will convince him to make less next year, but at the same time give the team financial freedom to work with other players. Doesn't sound simple to me.
I think a lot of people are simplifying the responsibility that Graves has, and using that inaccurate simplification as justification to say Graves is dragging his feet. The Cardinals are in a rather complex financial position this year, and I for one don't envy the job they have to do. The decisions of this off season are anything but easy. They have to make it all work financially while working with the pressure of knowing that one more losing or non playoff season is going to cause a serious hit in season ticket sales. The people of Arizona aren't going to accept anymore excuses.
