Another thought about the June FA period

[Cardiac]

Many of us have been disappointed by the inactivity of RG & co. since the draft. Just about any player who gets cut has someone yelling for the Cards to sign him.

I think most of us would agree if that the right D-lineman or CB were available the Cards should go after them. Many also believe that a vet QB is a big need, especially after last years mess at the position. I do want the Cards to look hard at any player at one of these positions who does become available. Having said that I don't won't them addressing any other area on the team. We have a ton of young potential talent and have added ~ 7 FA's this year already.

Many have been upset that the Cards didn't get anything for DB and some even thought we should have tagged Plummer. The potentially good news is that the Cards should be in the running for some compensatory picks this coming draft.

The formula for comp. picks is very involved and confusing. On another web site their is an fan who has figured this system out and predicts what teams will be awarded what picks for what players at a 90 + % rate. I think this year he was off by one or two picks, and those were off by just a round or so. He just posted that the Cards may not get any comp. picks this year for DB, Plummer etc. because of the number of FA's we did sign ourselves this year. Part of the formula is $ and number of players gained / lost.

So to those who say it doesn't matter if the Cards sign a ton of FA's because we have the cap room etc maybe the comp. picks should be considered as well. Just a thought.

By my calculations the Cards signed 7 vet FA's and lost 5. Plummer and DB's contracts by themselves more than cover the $ part of the equation. I guess we have to root for someone to sign Makovicka and Fredrickson. Remember players we cut don't count towards this formula.

 

[Stout]

We're also 10 million or so over the cap...so why NOT bring in good Vet competition at positions other than CB and DT? It would not hurt us. Some said Godfrey, even though some agreed he is a very solid player, could not have helped us. Hm, he likely would have been an immediate starter. Why? It's not a position of need for us, but he would have become the best LB we had if we signed him.

To me, to have the ability to sign more, better players and to not do it is not a good strategy.

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by Stout
We're also 10 million or so over the cap...so why NOT bring in good Vet competition at positions other than CB and DT? It would not hurt us. Some said Godfrey, even though some agreed he is a very solid player, could not have helped us. Hm, he likely would have been an immediate starter. Why? It's not a position of need for us, but he would have become the best LB we had if we signed him.

To me, to have the ability to sign more, better players and to not do it is not a good strategy.

The only problem with adding a veteran from available Free Agent pool is the quality. Can mention one free agent that would be a huge upgrade for this team? You could argue that Godfrey would have been an upgrade, but I still think it was a good move NOT to sign him. Why bring in a injured vetaran to a $2.8M one-year contract when your roster is packed with young talented players?

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by BACH
The only problem with adding a veteran from available Free Agent pool is the quality. Can mention one free agent that would be a huge upgrade for this team? You could argue that Godfrey would have been an upgrade, but I still think it was a good move NOT to sign him. Why bring in a injured vetaran to a $2.8M one-year contract when your roster is packed with young talented players?

Is our roster packed with talented young players? Highly debatable. We have some talented young guys and a slew of players who MIGHT be good.

Godfrey would have been an upgrade, and he was only plagued by injury for one season. He's not old. He's still in his prime. Every other season he's been superb. There are other guys out there that can really help us (Antonio Freeman for one) that we haven't even taken a look at. Indifference will kill us.

 

[BACH]

When healthy Godfrey is probably the #4 MLB in the league behind the trio of Ray Lewis, Urlacher and Zack Thomas. He knows that, which is why he only wanted a one-year deal, so he can get a better contact next year when he's healthy.

My point was that I didn't want him to take a roster spot away from Hayes, Faulk, Gilbert or Young, if he's just going to be here for 1 year. Let these player develop and if it turns out that they're not good enough to take care of the MLB position then you should sign Godfrey next year to a multi year deal.

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by Stout
He's not old. He's still in his prime. Every other season he's been superb.

Couldn't agree more..

Originally posted by Stout
Godfrey would have been an upgrade, and he was only plagued by injury for one season.

No, he was injured last year AND this year as well. He's not 100%until week 4 and Seattle have already stated that they'll only use him as a two-down player.

Did you want Graves to pay $2.1M for that?

 

[Cardiac]

Hey Guys,


Let me try this again. So in Stout's argument the comp. picks would have zero of little impact on whether to bring in a vet FA.

Bach believes that Godfrey is a one year gamble because we don't know if we could re-sign him next year and we would have to cut a youngin this year. Again no real concern to the comp. pick impact.

Did I summarize your thoughts correctly, both of you don't put any weight into the comp. pick thought?

 

[Stout]

Well, I thought you had already answered the comp pick argument yourself...since we will get little to no comp this next draft anyway, why not sign more FA?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by BACH
When healthy Godfrey is probably the #4 MLB in the league behind the trio of Ray Lewis, Urlacher and Zack Thomas.

There is no way in hell that Thomas is a top 3 middle linebacker. Heck, Keith Brookings is much better than Thomas, Brookings might even be better than Urlacher.

 

[jtav10]

do not get a vet qb backup. blake needs to know this is his team. if he gets hurt we'll just run the ball more with one of the kids at qb.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
There is no way in hell that Thomas is a top 3 middle linebacker. Heck, Keith Brookings is much better than Thomas, Brookings might even be better than Urlacher.

not to argue but did thomas not lead the league in tackles last season? that has to count for something.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Originally posted by BACH
When healthy Godfrey is probably the #4 MLB in the league behind the trio of Ray Lewis, Urlacher and Zack Thomas. He knows that, which is why he only wanted a one-year deal, so he can get a better contact next year when he's healthy.

My point was that I didn't want him to take a roster spot away from Hayes, Faulk, Gilbert or Young, if he's just going to be here for 1 year. Let these player develop and if it turns out that they're not good enough to take care of the MLB position then you should sign Godfrey next year to a multi year deal.

thats actually a pretty good argument. but I, the injury clouds the issue as to where he ranks in the league. I have to think that if he were that good, then he would not have been cut.

add to that, the fact that we do have a ton of talent at LB. Our LBs were ok last year and should be better this year. LB is a position where we did not need to take a chance on veteran with a questionable future.

DT is another matter. I would have been/would be in favor of taking a shot on ONE free agent that had a lot of question marks (e.g. hand) to help us at the DT spot. There is no guarantee that any of our current players will be able to get the job done. spending some dough on a guy like hand would be a risk, but we have some extra money, and I think it would be worth it to roll the dice on one guy.

 

[Cardiac]

Originally posted by Stout
Well, I thought you had already answered the comp pick argument yourself...since we will get little to no comp this next draft anyway, why not sign more FA?

Thanks for the clarification. As of this point (according to the formula for comp. picks) we have gained 5 FA's and lost 4.

Since Emmitt and Hodgins were cut by their teams they don't figure into it. Since Lassiter was signed after June 1st and the Cards didn't make him an offer after that date he doesn't count.

This means the Cards have to make an offer to Makovicka and hope someone else signs him or, Spikes or Garcia have to be cut so that we even out the gained / lost category. If one of these two things happen then the Cards can get comp. picks.

For the sake of argument let's just assume that the if the Cards pick up another FA they won't get a comp. pick and if they don't they will get a comp. pick. Does this factor into the thought process for any of you.

I would rather have a 3rd of 4th rd comp. pick then another body in camp this year. I hope I finally made sense.

 

[Red Air Force]

Originally posted by Cardiac
Thanks for the clarification. As of this point (according to the formula for comp. picks) we have gained 5 FA's and lost 4.

Since Emmitt and Hodgins were cut by their teams they don't figure into it. Since Lassiter was signed after June 1st and the Cards didn't make him an offer after that date he doesn't count.

This means the Cards have to make an offer to Makovicka and hope someone else signs him or, Spikes or Garcia have to be cut so that we even out the gained / lost category. If one of these two things happen then the Cards can get comp. picks.

For the sake of argument let's just assume that the if the Cards pick up another FA they won't get a comp. pick and if they don't they will get a comp. pick. Does this factor into the thought process for any of you.

I would rather have a 3rd of 4th rd comp. pick then another body in camp this year. I hope I finally made sense.

I understand your thought process, but I think it would be foolish to plan our off season moves around getting compensetory picks.

You sign the guys you need, cut the ones you don't, and if it works out to some picks, great! Anything else would just be more the same chickens**t moves we've seen in the past.

 

[JeffGollin]

To put things in perspective

I agree that the name of the game is to add the "right" free agents to the roster and not just anyone who comes along.

But this shouldn't let RG off the hook.

He was the one who raised expectations about signing Colvin, Holliday and M Robinson. Then he was the one who said "we plan to sign guys after June 1 - judge me on who we bring to camp" and he's now the guy who's saying: "There will be good players (like Fina) who will be available as teams cut vets during training camp." (And no doubt, if he doesn't sign anyone, the the name of the next tune will be: "We saved the money because we want to extend the contracts of some of our key players.")

Isolated - None of those comments is without merit.

But in toto, they sound like Rod is constantly revising his plan to justify what's already unfolded.

And, in the end, we don't have a backup QB, veteran help at CB or much of an upgrade at DT. (It's possible that a few Cardinal youngsters like McCown, Rhinehart, Wendell or Atoe will step up and take Rod off the hook. But, IMHO, Rod is living pretty foot-loose on the high wire).

 

[Stout]

Well said, Jeff. I've tried to get across a few of these things but optimism springs eternal at the moment and since Rod never 'guaranteed' any of this, it supposedly lets him off the hook.