An Offer To Rework Fitz's Deal - Darren Urban

[HookemCards]

Now Hookem brought up a good point and very valid one for the Pro side of what Graves did.. Which I think I could buy.

But on the con side, if he didn't use mostly roster bonuses we could have signed more players. Meaning less cap space this season but we would also have more players under contract and have less worry about having to sign free agents, thus less worry about the cap. Also meaning possible better record now, not a likely hood but a higher possibility especially considering our injury history.

There are pros and cons to both sides of it. Which is why and I know I have said it in the past I liked Graves roster bonus idea just at more of a 50%-50% ratio to take advantages of more pro's for both sides of the argument and a great idea and great balance I think more and more teams would do and we could be on the cutting edge of that for a change.

I don't know if I worded it correctly. I'm not sure if it was intentionally to be able to cut players easier, if I recall the practice actually started the previous year under Green. Lets just say blind squirrel.

 

[HookemCards]

Well, we wouldn't have the $30 Million in cap space if Grave hadn't of done what he did.

As it turns out, the team progressed ( won 3 additional games) and we have the flexibility to keep our core players and add some more middle-of-the-road FA's. Whether we like waiting or not, this organization has a plan and is sticking to it. We all would like the process to go faster, but that isn't the path they've chosen to take. Hopefully, this plan will result in this team being good over a decade instead of just having a great year and then sinking into obscurity again.

Well if you are going to give Graves credit for having the foresite to do the roster bonuses last year to save cap room, then you have to ding him for structuring Gandy's contract so that he counts almost 7 million against the cap. Now he will have to be cut or restructured.

I actually don't have a problem with the roster bonus thing on a 5-11 team with a new coach. Just don't expect me to be happy about it the following year when they say we won't be terribly active in FA. What the hell is the point then.

 

[Vermont Maverick]

They could give Fitz a 24 mil signing bonus on a 6 year contract with salaries of 3 mil each year. That would give him 30 mil the next 2 years, and cost about 7mil per year for the life of the contract. Would he sign it? Who knows, but I'd bet Graves wouldn't have to move too much off those numbers.

If Fitz is guaranteed $30 Million the next two years on his current contract, do you really think he'd sign a contract that essentially gives him the same money for the next two years and only $3M per year the next four years after that?

 

[HookemCards]

If Fitz is guaranteed $30 Million the next two years on his current contract, do you really think he'd sign a contract that essentially gives him the same money for the next two years and only $3M per year the next four years after that?

The only thing that matters to the players is upfront money. Why wouldn't he? Besides base salaries after the first 2 years mean minimal, you could add 2 mil to years 3 and 4, and 2 mil more years 5 and 6. 24 mil bonus, 3 mil, 3 mil, 5 mil, 5 mil, 7 mil, 7 mil. But if he wants to do it that way he'll get restructured again in year 5, but he'll be in the league 7 years instead of 3 so his bonus will go down. Reguardless his cap hit for the next 2 years is still 7 mil.

 

[40yearfan]

Well if you are going to give Graves credit for having the foresite to do the roster bonuses last year to save cap room, then you have to ding him for structuring Gandy's contract so that he counts almost 7 million against the cap. Now he will have to be cut or restructured.

I actually don't have a problem with the roster bonus thing on a 5-11 team with a new coach. Just don't expect me to be happy about it the following year when they say we won't be terribly active in FA. What the hell is the point then.

Graves also said we wouldn't be terribly active in FA the year we picked up Edge. Why not wait to see what will happen before we jump to conclusions?

 

[cardpa]

What are the cap savings if they let BJ walk, cut Holt, Shipp, Ross and Berry? No longer having a contract with BJ has to have some savings because they won't be paying him anymore.

I just have a feeling unless the contract with Fitz is top shelf he will play out his remaining two years and then flee.

 

[HookemCards]

What are the cap savings if they let BJ walk, cut Holt, Shipp, Ross and Berry? No longer having a contract with BJ has to have some savings because they won't be paying him anymore.

I just have a feeling unless the contract with Fitz is top shelf he will play out his remaining two years and then flee.

BJ isn't cap savings or cap hit becuase he is not on the roster therefore isn't calculated on the salary cap.

Holt saves 3.5 if cut by Mar 1
Shipp saves 1.75
Ross saves 2.1
Berry saves 3

 

[Duckjake]

Well if you are going to give Graves credit for having the foresite to do the roster bonuses last year to save cap room, then you have to ding him for structuring Gandy's contract so that he counts almost 7 million against the cap. Now he will have to be cut or restructured.

I actually don't have a problem with the roster bonus thing on a 5-11 team with a new coach. Just don't expect me to be happy about it the following year when they say we won't be terribly active in FA. What the hell is the point then.

Graves also did Fitzgerald's original contract which now has to be restructured or it will "hurt the team"and the team will be "hamstrung" in dealing with new players and signing our current guys.

The Cards Off season planning:

Rod: ok guys anybody have any ideas on what we should do?

MB: not me, how about you coach?

KW: haven't the slightest, after all I just got here. Hey Keim what do you have for us?

SK: I think we should do what we always do, check out who we can get from the HC's former team, see who Q can round up for us and ask the players if they have any friends who might like to play in Arizona.

Rod,MB and KW (all together): great idea. Now that's settled we can go on vacation.

MB (walking out the door): somebody wake up dad and tell him the meetings over.

 

[joeshmo]

Graves also said we wouldn't be terribly active in FA the year we picked up Edge. Why not wait to see what will happen before we jump to conclusions?

Why do people keep bringing that up. It doesn't prove anything. Graves made those statements before the new CBA was ratified and the cap went up from 85 Mill to about 100 Mill within a 24 hour period. Any statements made prior to that by every single GM in the league was of course going to be completely false because of the drastic new change in the Cap environment.

 

[joeshmo]

Well, we wouldn't have the $30 Million in cap space if Grave hadn't of done what he did.

As it turns out, the team progressed ( won 3 additional games) and we have the flexibility to keep our core players and add some more middle-of-the-road FA's. Whether we like waiting or not, this organization has a plan and is sticking to it. We all would like the process to go faster, but that isn't the path they've chosen to take. Hopefully, this plan will result in this team being good over a decade instead of just having a great year and then sinking into obscurity again.

And around in circles we go.

We wouldn't have 30 Million but we would have more players under contract not needing that 30 Mill in the first place and we would still have the flexibility to keep our core which in this case seems to only be Dansby this year.

 

[DaisyCutter]

And around in circles we go.

Exactly. I'm not sure why anyone bothers responding to 40year. The Cards front office is always right; critics are always wrong. Between 40year and nidan, one would think that Rod Graves was one of the Top 5 GMs in the NFL, and not one of the 5 worst.

 

[spanky1]

While Graves might not be one of the top 5 GM's in the league, he is certainly not one of the 5 worst.

 

[DaisyCutter]

While Graves might not be one of the top 5 GM's in the league, he is certainly not one of the 5 worst.

He is in the only metric that matters: Winning percentage during his tenure.

But it'd be interesting to do a power ranking of all the GMs in the NFL. Not every team has a GM, of course, but after Millen and owner/GMs Snyder and Al Davis, who would you rate below Graves? They can't just be unknown quantities, either, like Parcells or San Fran's new head guy. They have to have shown that they're worse than Graves--yes, I'm aware that this implies that I believe that Rod Graves is worse than nothing as a GM.

For what it's worth, here are who I think are the best GMs in the NFL (a really quick list that is by no means set in stone):

1. A.J. Smith, San Diego Chargers.
2. Bill Polian, Indianapolis Colts
3. Jerry Reese, New York Giants
4. Tim Ruskell, Seattle Seahawks
5. Carl Peterson, Kansas City Chiefs
6. Kevin Colbert, Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Ozzie Newsome, Baltimore Ravens
8. Scott Pioli, New England Patriots
9. Jerry Angelo, Chicago Bears
10. Tom Heckert, Philadelphia Eagles
11. Paul Vance, Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Jeff Fisher, Tennessee Titans

 

[40yearfan]

Exactly. I'm not sure why anyone bothers responding to 40year. The Cards front office is always right; critics are always wrong. Between 40year and nidan, one would think that Rod Graves was one of the Top 5 GMs in the NFL, and not one of the 5 worst.

Yeah, when someone has an opposing viewpoint to yours, it's obvious they must be wrong.

Must be nice to be perfect.

 

[cardsfanmd]

He is in the only metric that matters: Winning percentage during his tenure.

But it'd be interesting to do a power ranking of all the GMs in the NFL. Not every team has a GM, of course, but after Millen and owner/GMs Snyder and Al Davis, who would you rate below Graves? They can't just be unknown quantities, either, like Parcells or San Fran's new head guy. They have to have shown that they're worse than Graves--yes, I'm aware that this implies that I believe that Rod Graves is worse than nothing as a GM.

For what it's worth, here are who I think are the best GMs in the NFL (a really quick list that is by no means set in stone):

1. A.J. Smith, San Diego Chargers.
2. Bill Polian, Indianapolis Colts
3. Jerry Reese, New York Giants
4. Tim Ruskell, Seattle Seahawks
5. Carl Peterson, Kansas City Chiefs
6. Kevin Colbert, Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Ozzie Newsome, Baltimore Ravens
8. Scott Pioli, New England Patriots
9. Jerry Angelo, Chicago Bears
10. Tom Heckert, Philadelphia Eagles
11. Paul Vance, Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Jeff Fisher, Tennessee Titans

I am curious as to why you have Ruskell and Peterson over Craft.

 

[40yearfan]

And around in circles we go.

We wouldn't have 30 Million but we would have more players under contract not needing that 30 Mill in the first place and we would still have the flexibility to keep our core which in this case seems to only be Dansby this year.

What about the Kent Somers article? He was saying the same thing Graves has been saying. Has RG pulled the wool over his eyes also?

I find it hard to understand why people always look for the worst when it comes to this team. It's obvious they have changed their way of doing things and are acting like a real NFL team. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and at least wait until they screw up before blaming them for things that have yet to happen?

 

[40yearfan]

He is in the only metric that matters: Winning percentage during his tenure.

But it'd be interesting to do a power ranking of all the GMs in the NFL. Not every team has a GM, of course, but after Millen and owner/GMs Snyder and Al Davis, who would you rate below Graves? They can't just be unknown quantities, either, like Parcells or San Fran's new head guy. They have to have shown that they're worse than Graves--yes, I'm aware that this implies that I believe that Rod Graves is worse than nothing as a GM.

For what it's worth, here are who I think are the best GMs in the NFL (a really quick list that is by no means set in stone):

1. A.J. Smith, San Diego Chargers.
2. Bill Polian, Indianapolis Colts
3. Jerry Reese, New York Giants
4. Tim Ruskell, Seattle Seahawks
5. Carl Peterson, Kansas City Chiefs
6. Kevin Colbert, Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Ozzie Newsome, Baltimore Ravens
8. Scott Pioli, New England Patriots
9. Jerry Angelo, Chicago Bears
10. Tom Heckert, Philadelphia Eagles
11. Paul Vance, Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Jeff Fisher, Tennessee Titans

So if the Cards win 10 or more games in 2008, will that mean that RG has suddenly become a great GM or will you find it more expedient to give that credit to Wiz?

 

[DaisyCutter]

I am curious as to why you have Ruskell and Peterson over Craft.

Do you mean Pioli (the NE Patriots guy)? There are a handful of reasons--and I'm not saying that this is a written-in-stone/no-possible-debates list. This is just some thoughts that I quickly put together.

1. Pioli works a lot with Belichick, but Peterson builds his team basically on his own, as does Ruskell, since Holmgren was (wisely, IMO) stipped of any personnel authority.

2. It's easier to recuit veteran players when you're a dynasty, and so I don't think that his level of difficulty is as high--especially when they burn as many draft picks as they do every season on guys who don't make the roster.

3. I'm not 100% sure that the Pats didn't win because they cheated, and I think that has to hurt the rep of the guy building the Dynasty.

Ruskell built a team both through aggressive FA moves and the draft that has seemingly won every NFC West title in recent memory. That has to be worth something. Also, Carl Peterson has built a team that was competitive for a very long time, even if they didn't have the best on-paper talent. He seems to make a lot of very smart moves. I have a lot of respect for the way that he runs his franchise.

 

[DaisyCutter]

So if the Cards win 10 or more games in 2008, will that mean that RG has suddenly become a great GM or will you find it more expedient to give that credit to Wiz?

I'll actually be really impressed if the Cards win 10+ games in 2008 against a much harder schedule. Graves will deserve a lot of credit if that happens, but I'll be surprised if you demerit Graves or Whis if the team remains 8-8 or backslides next year.

8-8 versus one of the softest schedules in the NFL--and losing twice to the worst team in the division--doesn't do a lot to endear me to a General Manager. Especially when he has to cut a player that he was "thrilled" to sign 11 months ago.

I think that the jury is still out on Graves' last round of decisions: Drafting Levi Brown, hiring Coach Whisenhunt (EDIT: It might also be worth noting that I remember it being reported last year around this time that Coach Whis wasn't even Graves first choice for the HC position, but it was the Bears DC at the time, who is now coaching LBs in San Diego and didn't get an interview for any of the vacancies this season), keeping Clancy Pendergast (though this may not have really been his choice). Whatever happens this offseason w/r/t Fitz, Pace, and Dansby will also either be to Graves' credit or fault.

But this team has cut ties with a number of players that Graves was apparently more than happy to offer significant contracts to--like Milford Brown, Kendrick Clancy, soon to be Terrance Holt, and maybe Marcel Shipp. You can pretend those things didn't happen, or don't matter. But they did, and they do.

I was thrilled with the way that Whis has worked out so far, especially some of the more subtle improvements that happened w/r/t discipline toward the end of the season. I'm really excited to see what another year of development will do. But I agree with Harry Greene, who consistently has written that this coaching staff and our fans seem to deserve a more efficient front office than we have at the present.

Rod Graves first four or five years with the franchise were failures by the only measure that matters: wins and losses. His first head coaching selection was a failure in Dennis Green. Hopefully he's learned some lessons and lives up to his title. But it's way too early to say that he's lived down his earlier poor decisions.

 

[40yearfan]

I'll actually be really impressed if the Cards win 10+ games in 2008 against a much harder schedule. Graves will deserve a lot of credit if that happens, but I'll be surprised if you demerit Graves or Whis if the team remains 8-8 or backslides next year.

8-8 versus one of the softest schedules in the NFL--and losing twice to the worst team in the division--doesn't do a lot to endear me to a General Manager. Especially when he has to cut a player that he was "thrilled" to sign 11 months ago.

I think that the jury is still out on Graves' last round of decisions: Drafting Levi Brown, hiring Coach Whisenhunt, keeping Clancy Pendergast (though this may not have really been his choice). Whatever happens this offseason w/r/t Fitz, Pace, and Dansby will also either be to Graves' credit or fault.

But this team has cut ties with a number of players that Graves was apparently more than happy to offer significant contracts to--like Milford Brown, Kendrick Clancy, soon to be Terrance Holt, and maybe Marcel Shipp. You can pretend those things didn't happen, or don't matter. But they did, and they do.

I was thrilled with the way that Whis has worked out so far, especially some of the more subtle improvements that happened w/r/t discipline toward the end of the season. I'm really excited to see what another year of development will do. But I agree with Harry Greene, who consistently has written that this coaching staff and our fans seem to deserve a more efficient front office than we have at the present.

Rod Graves first four or five years with the franchise were failures by the only measure that matters: wins and losses. His first head coaching selection was a failure in Dennis Green. Hopefully he's learned some lessons and lives up to his title. But it's way too early to say that he's lived down his earlier poor decisions.

So how long do you think Graves has had complete control of this team? Do you know for sure that it was his decision to hire Dennis Green? And right or wrong by the way, DG did help to get this ship going in the right direction.

And you can ask Ouchie or Duckjake or any of the others. I stated unequovically that anything less than 8 wins this year would be unacceptable. They pulled that off in spite of losing their #1 QB and having their #2 QB playing with a broken arm for one half the season. Give these guys some credit. The injuries decimated this team this year. We had some youngsters step up (Pace, Brown) but lost too many key players.

And as far as an easy schedule? Any given Sunday!! NFL teams are not very far apart talent wise. Look at the Giants beating the Pats in the SB. There weren't very many football gurus saying the Giants had more talent than the Pats before the game and if you look at both teams, position wise, I think that is still very obvious. The Giants don't have as much talent, but they still won. Any given Sunday.

As far as having FA's that didn't work out? Every team has that happen and probably in the same percentage as the Cards did. No one is perfect. Was it last year that the Pats didn't keep any of their draft picks and yet they still went 18 and 0. Good teams overcome those type of mistakes. The Cards aren't good yet, but they are certainly much better than they used to be and are improving every year.

The right players and coaches can make any GM look like a genius and getting to that point involves nearly as much luck as it does skill. For example, Warner getting the starting job with the Rams in 2001 when both other QB's went down. Pure dumb, blind luck. I think it's about time some of this dumb good luck strikes this organization.

 

[Stout]

40, are you still going to harp on the 'how long has Graves REALLY had control of the team' excuse? We hear it from a variety of places every year. I don't want to just jump on you for no reason, but I have to agree with other posters...no matter what happens, you (and Nidan) always defend Rod Graves. You give him carte blanche, no matter what he does. At least I give him a nod here and there when I think he does something right (which isn't often). We won 8 games this year...and if we had gone after more players and had more depth? Might just have won a few more, but of course, our front office is too cautious and downright timid and scared. Graves is so paralyzed of doing the wrong thing that he puts himself in a position to take far less risks. No risk=no reward, man.

 

[Stout]

And around in circles we go.

We wouldn't have 30 Million but we would have more players under contract not needing that 30 Mill in the first place and we would still have the flexibility to keep our core which in this case seems to only be Dansby this year.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I was wrong, 40. I guess you don't defend every and any decision that Rod Graves makes.

Back to my original point, of course: Can you name 5 GMs that are worse than Rod Graves? These questions don't arise in a vacuum.

 

[HookemCards]

So how long do you think Graves has had complete control of this team? Do you know for sure that it was his decision to hire Dennis Green? And right or wrong by the way, DG did help to get this ship going in the right direction.

And you can ask Ouchie or Duckjake or any of the others. I stated unequovically that anything less than 8 wins this year would be unacceptable. They pulled that off in spite of losing their #1 QB and having their #2 QB playing with a broken arm for one half the season. Give these guys some credit. The injuries decimated this team this year. We had some youngsters step up (Pace, Brown) but lost too many key players.

And as far as an easy schedule? Any given Sunday!! NFL teams are not very far apart talent wise. Look at the Giants beating the Pats in the SB. There weren't very many football gurus saying the Giants had more talent than the Pats before the game and if you look at both teams, position wise, I think that is still very obvious. The Giants don't have as much talent, but they still won. Any given Sunday.

As far as having FA's that didn't work out? Every team has that happen and probably in the same percentage as the Cards did. No one is perfect. Was it last year that the Pats didn't keep any of their draft picks and yet they still went 18 and 0. Good teams overcome those type of mistakes. The Cards aren't good yet, but they are certainly much better than they used to be and are improving every year.

The right players and coaches can make any GM look like a genius and getting to that point involves nearly as much luck as it does skill. For example, Warner getting the starting job with the Rams in 2001 when both other QB's went down. Pure dumb, blind luck. I think it's about time some of this dumb good luck strikes this organization.

You defend him for giving roster bonuses last year to put us in better shape financially this year, but fail to point out that had he not done that we could have signed more depth, and maybe the injuries aren't as big a problem.

I find it hard to believe that teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, New England, Seattle, SD, are "luckier" than us. Every year there are 15 to 16 teams better than us (sometimes more). You can always tell what teams are going to be good and have a better chance of making the playoffs just because of the FO.

 

[Shane]

“His cap number will have an affect with how we proceed in free agency,” Graves said, allowing that without a new deal, the Cards not only will be hamstrung with new players but also re-signing their own free agents.

First, to Shane and Cardsfan, I'll ask you to read the quote again. The first part is accurate. Of course if we don't extend Fitz's contract, it'll affect free agency. The second part, while not quoted, is directly attributed to Graves by the author. It says that not only will it effectively kill our ability to sign FAs, but it will cut sooooo deep that we'll have a problem re-signing our own guys. That is an outright lie. We won't have as much cap space if we don't extend Fitz, but we'll still have plenty.

I still think you are WAY overeacting stout! There is a reason that part of the article isnt quoted. If graves even said anything even remotely like that why wouldnt he just quote it and put what he really said?

Its pure conjecture on the authors part and nothing more IMHO.