Berry upset with contract?

[AzCardzFan]

I was listening to Jurecki last night and he was saying that Berry is upset with how his contract was handled and is generally upset with his contract. I havent seen this anywhere else so I wanted to see if anyone else has heard about this? We really need him to be healthly this year and produce for us or else our pash rush is looking scary.

 

[ajcardfan]

No, I haven't heard that.

But, if he didn't like it, why did he sign it?

 

[joeshmo]

The only issue I know of is that he wanted a 2 or 3 year deal and the Cards never even gave that idea a second thought. But consideing he got little to no play in free agency Berry is probably more made at the NFL then the Cards because no other teams came calling to give him more leverage to get a longer term deal. Dont think he is mad at the Cards really, but at the the situation and circumstances didnt play out in his favor. Not sure if he feels that way anymore but he was annoyed at the time. Its really a non-issue.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

If he wanted more years, did he not make it clear before he signed? I find a bit difficult to believe that the FO and Berry couldn't work out 2 more years if he really wanted it.

 

[Redheart]

You know, this is one of those "things" in life; Berry was a stud for us last year, way more productive than our big $ FA LaBoy.

LaBoy brought the "Sack-King Belt" into the locker room along with his huge salery, but it was Berry who won the right to wear it most; shouldn't he get paid?

Berry played cheap last year because he was coming off of a 2nd injury-shortened year, had a great year but can't get paid because his age and injury history.

Berry knows he deserves more and he knows he is fortunate that the Cardinals are going to keep a roster spot for him rather than some young, high-potential, stud. One of those things...

 

[IAWarnerFan]

So many great player on this yeam and all of them wanting to get the $ that they are worth. It's a good headache to have , but a headache non the less. I hope we can keep everyone happy, but realize that may be unrealistic. Bertrand Berry is one of my favorite players and hopefully the Cardinals can extend his contract.

 

[cgolden]

No, I haven't heard that.

But, if he didn't like it, why did he sign it?

If this is in fact true, it's worse that Boldin and Dockett combined. Berry's contract is literally less than three months old and if he's unhappy with it, he's only got himself to blame. Besides he's about to be a 34 year old guy with an extensive injury history who's great big, awesome season was a 7 sack performance in 18 games. The guy is a situational pass rusher at best and the sooner he realizes that the better.

 

[cgolden]

Berry played cheap last year because he was coming off of a 2nd injury-shortened year, had a great year but can't get paid because his age and injury history.

Brerry knows he deseves more and he knows he is fortunate that the Cardinals are going to keep a roster spot for him rather than some young, high-potential, stud. One of those things...

Really? Seven sacks in 18 games is hardly great. He's a 34 year old situational pass rusher, what did he really expect?

 

[Duckjake]

If this is in fact true, it's worse that Boldin and Dockett combined. Berry's contract is literally less than three months old and if he's unhappy with it, he's only got himself to blame. Besides he's about to be a 34 year old guy with an extensive injury history who's great big, awesome season was a 7 sack performance in 18 games. The guy is a situational pass rusher at best and the sooner he realizes that the better.

Wow. Hard to believe its been 4.5 years since Berry's 14.5 sack season. Probably the Cards best ever free agent on defense but I'd agree he's getting paid what he's worth now.

 

[az jam]

You know, this is one of those "things" in life; Berry was a stud for us last year, way more productive than our big $ FA LaBoy.

LaBoy brought the "Sack-King Belt" into the locker room along with his huge salery, but it was Berry who won the right to wear it most; shouldn't he get paid?

Berry played cheap last year because he was coming off of a 2nd injury-shortened year, had a great year but can't get paid because his age and injury history.

Berry knows he deserves more and he knows he is fortunate that the Cardinals are going to keep a roster spot for him rather than some young, high-potential, stud. One of those things...

I looked it up and he actually was put on the Injury Reserve for three straight years. I feel bad for him but the Cards are the only team that really wanted him.

 

[DieHardFromMO]

Berry could have helped his cause by showing up at the Super Bowl. The guy delivered no sacks or tackles against the Steelers who I thought were supposed to have a suspect OL.

If he was injured during the course of the game I don't recall it, but I am certain if he could have registered a timely sack against Rottenburger instead of allowing the Steelers to march down the field in the last two minutes of the game he could have earned a larger payday.

At least that is how I see it.

 

[Treefiddy]

I was listening to Jurecki last night and he was saying that Berry is upset with how his contract was handled and is generally upset with his contract. I havent seen this anywhere else so I wanted to see if anyone else has heard about this? We really need him to be healthly this year and produce for us or else our pash rush is looking scary.

Jurecki made is sound as though the Cardinals made Berry an offer, he decided to test Free Agency and got no interest, then when he went back to the Cardinals, the new offer they gave him was lower than the initial offer.

He basically hurt himself by testing Free Agency.

 

[lauraw]

We need Bertrand Berry at his best!!

 

[Skkorpion]

Jurecki made is sound as though the Cardinals made Berry an offer, he decided to test Free Agency and got no interest, then when he went back to the Cardinals, the new offer they gave him was lower than the initial offer.

He basically hurt himself by testing Free Agency.

Thank you for explaining it.

 

[Toro]

IMO, the Cardinals should have said "go test Free Agency, our offer is stil there if you change your mind."

TInstead, they nickel and dime by offering less when he come back. for what? A couple hundred grand? stupid.

I have heard they have done this to players before.

 

[Skkorpion]

IMO, the Cardinals should have said "go test Free Agency, our offer is stil there if you change your mind."

1. Why? What if Whisenhunt and Graves didn't wish to do that?

2. What if they told him him if he tested the free agent market, the offer would no longer be there? Many teams do this. Why bid against yourself? Do you know what the team did? If so, what is your source?

Now to the rest of your vent.

TInstead, they nickel and dime by offering less when he come back. for what? A couple hundred grand? stupid.

I have heard they have done this to players before.

a) Was it a couple of hundred grand? Source, please? Who knows? If the offer changed, maybe the difference was even larger. Do you know the size of the original offer?

b) "I have heard they have done this before."
You don't say! None of us have ever heard that before. Cross my heart hope to die.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I don't even want to hear it. Boldin, Dockett, Dansby, and now maybe Berry.

Hey, I know

maybe just maybe

Dockett, Berry or Dansby could have done something to prevent the Steeler's game winning drive...then all this contract complaining would make a little more sense

 

[Toro]

1. Why? What if Whisenhunt and Graves didn't wish to do that?

2. What if they told him him if he tested the free agent market, the offer would no longer be there? Many teams do this. Why bid against yourself? Do you know what the team did? If so, what is your source?

Now to the rest of your vent.


a) Was it a couple of hundred grand? Source, please? Who knows? If the offer changed, maybe the difference was even larger. Do you know the size of the original offer?

b) "I have heard they have done this before."
You don't say! None of us have ever heard that before. Cross my heart hope to die.

I am not sure if it was last year or two years ago but the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel and offered him less money to stay. Move forward to`this year...the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel the day before was due a bonus. I think it was $200K. Hodel is a good long snapper and the Cards were planning to try` to sign him again. They didn't want to pay the $200K bonus.

Their tactics just scream CHEAP. But hey, we already knew that!

 

[Perfectionist]

I am not sure if it was last year or two years ago but the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel and offered him less money to stay. Move forward to`this year...the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel the day before was due a bonus. I think it was $200K. Hodel is a good long snapper and the Cards were planning to try` to sign him again. They didn't want to pay the $200K bonus.

Their tactics just scream CHEAP. But hey, we already knew that!

Didn't Hodel fail his physical?

 

[Duckjake]

I am not sure if it was last year or two years ago but the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel and offered him less money to stay. Move forward to`this year...the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel the day before was due a bonus. I think it was $200K. Hodel is a good long snapper and the Cards were planning to try` to sign him again. They didn't want to pay the $200K bonus.

Their tactics just scream CHEAP. But hey, we already knew that!

The St.Louis media didn't call Bidwill "Dollar Bill" without cause.

But I don't know if it was that the Cards were cheap so much as they just didn't have the money to spend that other owners did and had to squeeze every penny to stay afloat.

I've posted before about the rumor that the Cards always had holdouts with their first round picks because the Bidwills didn't have the cash to pay the signing bonus until the TV checks arrived in August or early September.
(Some of you will remember NazDrew.)

 

[JeffGollin]

Too Many Players/Not Enough Money

It's a fact of life in the NFL, like it or not.

How a team distributes its cap budget to get the most bang for its proverbial buck is both fascinating and replete with danger. Which is the best policy:

Pay a half-dozen stars (call them "Category A") the lion's share of the money and compensate for this by stocking most of the remaining roster with minimum-wage players (Call them Category D). The Redskins are kind of like that.

Have few if any highly-paid stars on your roster; preferring instead to load up on "good but not great" or emerging players. (Call them Category B).

Pay everyone the same amount of money (and wind up with 53 players - Category C - who are considered "average" but really want to be there).

Play it by ear each season - depending on how close a team is to being a playoff contender, the average age or youth of its overall roster, the number of players considered "indispendable", need for star-power to fill seats etc.

Which way is best? Probably all or none. Whatever works - & sometimes a team will get lucky (or conversely, unlucky). Even a "system-team" like the Patriots will occasionally break the bank to hang onto a superstar.

My gut feeling is that you'd like your team to have something like:

Category A Players - Zero

Category B Players - A lot (as many as 30)

Category C Players - 10

Category D Players - 13

To make it work, the Front Office and HC would have to effectively sell all 53 players on the concept that they'll make more money in the long run on a consistent winner than they will on a one-shot wonder with a handful of superstars but little in the way of long-range talent behind them.

Further - in order to stock the cupboard with enough of the kind of players you need to win consistently, everyone will need to pitch in a little and give up enough money to make it work.

The challenge is that it won't sell unless both the front office and coaching staff has terrific credibility with the players. (The Rooney-owned Steelers apparently have that sort of credibility. My perception, however, is that the Cardinals don't - at least not yet).

 

[joeshmo]

I am not sure if it was last year or two years ago but the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel and offered him less money to stay.

Not sure what you are talking about. He wasn't cut last year or the year before. He was a unrestricted free agent during last years free agency. They came to a deal with him before free agency even started but he didn't sign it until the Fitz deal was finalized and cap space was available. It is why Hodel didn't take a single free agent visit last year. There was no offering of less money. Not sure what you are thinking of?

And regardless, are you really using a long snapper as your argument. You have to look at it in terms of long snapper money. Put some perspective on it. When compared to Long snapper salaries, 200k is not chump change, its a fairly big raise or deduction.

Move forward to`this year...the Cardinals cut Nate Hodel the day before was due a bonus. I think it was $200K. Hodel is a good long snapper and the Cards were planning to try` to sign him again. They didn't want to pay the $200K bonus.

1. Where did you hear they tried to re-sign him. Havent read or heard a single thing about that.
2. Where did you hear he was due a roster bonus. Havent read or heard a single thing about that either.

Hodel walked away with all of his signing bonus they negotiated for 4 years and he got it all for only one year of work. He walked away with 450k that was supposed to be spread out over 4 years but got it for only one year of work. He did not have a bonus due to him this year he got all of his bonus in 2008, he failed a physical, and they didn't like his down field coverage. Hodel was without a doubt not a cheap move, especially since they replaced him with a guy making the same amount of money and another 300k bonus they have to pay out to the new guy.

 

[joeshmo]

IMO, the Cardinals should have said "go test Free Agency, our offer is stil there if you change your mind."

TInstead, they nickel and dime by offering less when he come back. for what? A couple hundred grand? stupid.

I have heard they have done this to players before.

Cant even come close to telling you how wrong that thought process is. Teams never tell a player, yeah feel free to test free agency are offer will be the same when you get back. Berry got his first offer before free agency even started, he didnt sign again until March 18th. That at minimum 18 days of him trying to test free agency, not a single team in the league is going to keep the same offer on the table for 18+ days? Do you know how much changes in 18 days the start of free agency? There isn't a business in the world that is going to keep the same offer on the table for 18 days because needs change, budgets change, the market changes, and so on.

Once the Cards made moves during those 18 days the Budget and market was changed, thus any new offer would change. Cards spent a lot of money during those 18 days - Re-signed Kurt Warner, Signed McFadden, Signed Mike Leach, Signed Wright, re-signing of Haggans.

Isn't it convenient that Berry decided to stop testing free agency and sign a deal a day after we re-signed Haggans to the long term deal that Berry wanted. If Berry signed his deal before Haggans, Berry would have been the one with a long term deal and Haggans would have been stuck with the one year deal.

Berrys own fault and has nothing to do with the Cards being cheap. Its the business of football.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Total use of plan B never works, because then the best players out of plan B consider themselves great even if they are not compared to their teammates and the club ends up paying them outrageous money LOL

 

[RugbyMuffin]

IMO, the Cardinals should have said "go test Free Agency, our offer is stil there if you change your mind."

TInstead, they nickel and dime by offering less when he come back. for what? A couple hundred grand? stupid.

I have heard they have done this to players before.

Good. I hope they did do this.

Fair is fair.

The Cardinals said we will offer you this contract. Berry denied it, and went on to free agency. That was his choice. He made the decision, took a gamble, and lost.

Why on the earth would the Cardinals offer the same contract to a guy that no other team wants? The Cardinals were smart to offer less and keep there options open, and money aside for other things. It is not the Cardinals fault that Berry turned his nose up at there original offer. The Cardinal made good by offering a contract at the beginning of free agency, after the Cardinals offer was turned down, like they always do, probably made plans to move on.

Maybe Berry should be happy he has a job in the NFL this season, and that the Cardinals signed him.

Plus OTA's, are voluntary and a seasoned vet is not going to be missing out on anything, but a chance to start.

Seriously, the Cardinals would look pretty stupid, IMO if they always bowed down to every little demand of every player.

This club is tight against the cap, and needs every nickel to accomplish there offseason goals.