Here is the dilemna --
and I will quote the late George Young, courtesy of Peter King's column this morning: "hungry players are better players"
I think part of the problem with the Cardinals signing big dollar free agents (and you can throw another six or seven teams in this boat) is this:
If to sign the player to a team that hasnt won, you have to pay a risk premium to that player (i.e. overpay him) -- you clearly are getting a player that plays for the money. When they get that money, do they put out the same 100% that earned them that big contract? Do they back it off to 95% (without even consciously doing it) because they think that by getting a big contract, they are now big time? With a huge signing bonus in the bank, do they "retire" by backing effort off to 90%? Does that lower effort result in a player that isnt quite as good as the one the team thought it was signing?
Cardinals or no, history suggests that a majority of players signed to "big" contracts never match the performance that got them that contract.
I dont know what the right answer is. I have always agreed with Denny's approach to free agency -- trying to find players that still felt they had something to prove, or had a chip on their shoulder.