Budda requests trade

[Stout]

I'm really going to miss Budda's winning drive and never say die attitude that led to one winning season in 6.

It's almost as if you win with a good team, and having one good player on a bad team makes no difference.

#CompanyMan

 

[Stout]

What may seem to be tanking, is NOT tanking. Cardinals are going through a PROCESS change that is LONG LONG overdue. Other than that, I agree with you. Budda may be being shortsighted, but at 27, he doesn’t want to take that risk.

Oh, make no mistake, we're definitely tanking. It may also come with a positive process change--I have my doubts as I don't think the plan is very good--but it comes with tanking.

 

[Stout]

I think if you have other good players then who you have at free safety makes very little difference.

As demonstrated by Marcus Epps, Justin Reid and Tashuan Gipson all starting in divisional games this year.

Epps just signed for $6m per year. Reid is getting paid $10.5m per year, and Gipson just signed a $2.9m 1 year extension.

I love Baker. Let him go try win something elsewhere. I don't blame him for that at all. But this hand wringing like he's some crucial difference maker to an obvious rebuilding team is just silly. Budda won't make the slightest difference next year, but the picks and cap saving will make more difference in the long run.

Not only that, but I'd like to think it was planned this way. Having no G's left after 2 years for a 27 year old safety and having $12m per year invested in your other safety shouts to me that they always wanted this as an option.

You don't tie up $27m in your safety room.

Man, you are nothing if not predictable. The minute this happened, you turned on BB. Now it's all part of the master plan and MO and co planned it all along. #CompanyMan

If it came out that we kept him and MO and co say they always planned to build around BB, your tune would change quicker than a radio station and that would be your new narrative and, of course, you would find it was a brilliant plan and claim you never thought anything else, despite your posting history on the topic.

 

[Stout]

lol the Cards have the 3rd highest cap hit in the safety room this year already and we only have 2 rosterable safeties at the moment.

Next year it's 2nd.

That's simply not sustainable for a team that's rebuilding.

Where was this narrative from you? Oh, right, it wasn't until you saw this happened and perceived the team wasn't going to keep him. Now you have to make it seem like the obvious right decision LOL

 

[Stout]

Gannon and Rallis both couldn't stop praising Budda less than 2 months ago. I'm sure they are thrilled with this development.

This isn't part of some master rebuilding plan. This is a franchise on fire losing the last of what's good.

But, hey, cap space!!!

https://cardswire.usatoday.com/2023/02/25/arizona-cardinals-violent-budda-baker-nick-rallis/

“Budda sets the standard on how you play this game,” Rallis said at his introductory press conference. “It is violent. It is high-motor 24-7.”

He also said that there are “all kinds of guys on this defense who play at that standard” but Baker was the one he made sure to point out.

Rallis wants more Budda-like play.

“We’re going to continue to demand to push that even further and for everyone to be at that standard of playing violently and being explosive,” he said. “Everybody has to get better.”

Don't worry, the board spin doctor will be along shortly to explain how Rallis and Gannon are totally on board with losing this guy and it's really the only smart thing to do, and gosh, can't everyone realize how brilliant the Cards are and have always been?

 

[Stout]

Sure...

If it's irrelevant, as has been said - I wonder why the RAMS' GM is dealing with the following:

45 signed players (23 below $1m)

$50M in 'dead" money (22 players)

$13M in Cap space

And with all our cap space, what have we been doing?

 

[BritCard]

Hey, I'm just responding to what you said when you narrowed their focus to spending two whole months trying to convince him to say. Nothing keeping them from shopping him at the same time and it would be criminally stupid for them not to. We're both of us presenting hypotheticals because neither of us know what's going on behind the scenes.

You're talking like I'm the one who said the Steelers are out now. That would be the pundit who wrote the story. It's a narrative by the actual people reporting on these teams, but hey, don't let that stand in the way of you defying logic in stating FA can have literally nothing to do with his market value.

You chose to quote it. If you quote it then you are tacitly saying you agree.

Either way, I don't believe the market has shrunk for a multi pro bowl and all pro safety. Budda is a guy that if you like him you find a way to make it work while they are available.

For comparison, the Jets traded Jamal Adams in late July. Minkah was traded in mid September.

 

[BritCard]

#CompanyMan

#Facts

 

[BritCard]

Man, you are nothing if not predictable. The minute this happened, you turned on BB. Now it's all part of the master plan and MO and co planned it all along. #CompanyMan

If it came out that we kept him and MO and co say they always planned to build around BB, your tune would change quicker than a radio station and that would be your new narrative and, of course, you would find it was a brilliant plan and claim you never thought anything else, despite your posting history on the topic.

I mean, I literally started a thread several weeks ago about trading Budda but sure. If it makes you feel better just invent ****.

 

[Stout]

#Facts

#AlternateFactsPresentedAsOpinions

 

[BritCard]

Where was this narrative from you? Oh, right, it wasn't until you saw this happened and perceived the team wasn't going to keep him. Now you have to make it seem like the obvious right decision LOL

You mean apart from the thread I started arguing it made sense to trade him several weeks ago?

 

[Stout]

I mean, I literally started a thread several weeks ago about trading Budda but sure. If it makes you feel better just invent ****.

And the moment it comes out that we're not trading him, you'll be singing Monti's praises and claiming it's the most brilliant thing in the world to keep him. Don't pretend you wouldn't. Anything we do right now is the right thing, according to you.

 

[BritCard]

#AlternateFactsPresentedAsOpinions

Wait, what?

So he didn't only have 1 winning season in 6 and 1 good player does make a difference on a bad team?

 

[BritCard]

And the moment it comes out that we're not trading him, you'll be singing Monti's praises and claiming it's the most brilliant thing in the world to keep him. Don't pretend you wouldn't. Anything we do right now is the right thing, according to you.

Dude, I literally argued for trading him when there was no sign of trading him and I'm now continuing to consistently argue for trading him.

But if it makes you feel better you can pretend none of that happened.

 

[Stout]

Wait, what?

So he didn't only have 1 winning season in 6 and 1 good player does make a difference on a bad team?

No, "he" didn't. The "team" did. And, news flash: It takes good players to field a winning team. This year is a wash, but after that, we're going to need *checks notes* good players. But they're a luxury according to you, right?

 

[Zeno]

Well it takes more than a year, which is 2 years. So yeah it does.

No it doesn’t, quick turn around in the NFL happen nearly every year.

Let’s look at recent history.

Rams 4-12 2016 Rams 11-5 2017 New Coach
Cardinals 5-11 2012 Cardinals 10-6 2013 New Coach
Giants 4-13 2021 Giants 9-7-1 2022 New Coach
Jaguars 3-14 2021 Jaguars 9-8 2022 New Coach
Colts 4-12 2017 Colts 10-6 2018 New Coach
Eagles 4-11-1 2020 Eagles 9-8 2021 New Coach

Every one of those teams improved by at least 5 wins in the first year of a new coach. It doesn’t take “at least 2-3 years” that is defeatist talk of people who accept and expect mediocrity. I can accept 1 season of being a bad team but not 2-3, there is absolutely no excuse for that.

 

[Stout]

No it doesn’t, quick turn around in the NFL happen nearly every year.

Let’s look at recent history.

Rams 4-12 2016 Rams 11-5 2017 New Coach
Cardinals 5-11 2012 Cardinals 10-6 2013 New Coach
Giants 4-13 2021 Giants 9-7-1 2022 New Coach
Jaguars 3-14 2021 Jaguars 9-8 2022 New Coach
Colts 4-12 2017 Colts 10-6 2018 New Coach
Eagles 4-11-1 2020 Eagles 9-8 2021 New Coach

Every one of those teams improved by at least 5 wins in the first year of a new coach. It doesn’t take “at least 2-3 years” that is defeatist talk of people who accept and expect mediocrity. I can accept 1 season of being a bad team but not 2-3, there is absolutely no excuse for that.

How dare you use our own Cardinals in this terrible argument of...oh, wait, yeah, it's a fool's errand to accept long rebuilds. We all know this. The idea of a long rebuild is just ownership's way to fool people into accepting the team not spending the money to win.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Tired of this "cap doesn't exist" bluesky thinking.

The cap exists. If you want to make a run you can borrow from future cap using weighted deals and void years up to 4 years into the future.

Like any borrowing you can only do it for a certain amount of time before you have to pay the piper. You can stretch out it's effective lifespan if you hit on an inordinate number of draft picks but how likely is that? While Keim hasn't been as aggressive in this respect as the Rams, Bucs or Eagles (and the Eagles do have so pain coming down the road in the future) Keim still managed to do enough of it while still building a poor roster that it now needs a major reset.

Find one example(I'm sure there might be 1) of a team losing a player they WANT to keep/re-sign because of the cap. It doesn't exist. Teams use the cap as an excuse to let players walk that they don't feel are worth the money.
If the Rams, and all their "cap hell" wanted to go out and sign Saquon Barkley and trade for Hopkins, while signing him to a new deal, they could do it tomorrow and both players would fit under the cap. There are so many ways to re-arrange and manipulate the cap. That's why it's irrelevant.

 

[BritCard]

No, "he" didn't. The "team" did. And, news flash: It takes good players to field a winning team. This year is a wash, but after that, we're going to need *checks notes* good players. But they're a luxury according to you, right?

Free Safeties earning $16m per are a definitely luxury.

You (and others) act like you should just hold on to good players no matter what. As if other teams, good teams even, don't move on from good players all the time for a variety of reasons.

As I said yesterday. Every non trench player on the Eagles has turned over in the last 2 years except Slay. Every non trench player on the Chiefs has turned over except Mahomes and Gay.

This idea that we should cling on to Budda because he's good despite the roster and cap situation we are in in just ridiculous fantasy.

I guess the Chiefs shouldn't have traded Tyreek right? Or the Packers Adams? Or the Raiders Waller?

If Budda wants to leave now what are the odds of him not wanting to leave after another losing season? So why would he sign an extension to stay next year? In which case he leaves for free in 2 years. So why not just trade him now?

Which are all points I made when I started the trade Budda thread.

 

[BritCard]

Find one example(I'm sure there might be 1) of a team losing a player they WANT to keep/re-sign because of the cap. It doesn't exist. Teams use the cap as an excuse to let players walk that they don't feel are worth the money.
If the Rams, and all their "cap hell" wanted to go out and sign Saquon Barkley and trade for Hopkins, while signing him to a new deal, they could do it tomorrow and both players would fit under the cap. There are so many ways to re-arrange and manipulate the cap. That's why it's irrelevant.

Literally every good player that leaves a team ever.

You think the Eagles let Javon Hargrave walk why? Or TJ Edwards? Why did the Chiefs let Orlando Brown walk?

I mean yeah, you can throw all sense to the wind and sign anyone if you really want. At the expense of overall roster construction.

I could go rob a bank, but the consequences stop me.

The cap is real. It's why teams pay people to manage it effectively.

 

[Stout]

Literally talking about good teams letting good players leave--top teams. Literally talking about the two teams that were in the Super Bowl. Those teams can do that because they have loads of talent and they can then go and re-load through the draft or FA. Teams devoid of talent, letting talent walk for no discernible reason as we have, make no sense. That's not how you rebuild.

Now, the BB situation isn't quite the same. He's in a situation where it makes little sense to stay on this dumpster fire of a team unless he gets another big guaranteed payday. I get that. The reality here is that he'll need traded. Problem is, in waiting so long, we've really handcuffed our trade options and will get less than we could've gotten before. It's like we're being reactive instead of proactive. I'm not a fan.

 

[QuebecCard]

Good theory. I’m sure there are many “football gods” overlooking the entire league.

How about, they paid for and acquired the best players and won the Super Bowl?

How about acquiring the so-called 'best players' does not lead automatically to a Super Bowl?

To many variables to make that more than a theory in name alone.

Happy for them. All I've added is that this success, which could have been a failure, has come at a price they are now paying.

 

[BritCard]

No it doesn’t, quick turn around in the NFL happen nearly every year.

Let’s look at recent history.

Rams 4-12 2016 Rams 11-5 2017 New Coach
Cardinals 5-11 2012 Cardinals 10-6 2013 New Coach
Giants 4-13 2021 Giants 9-7-1 2022 New Coach
Jaguars 3-14 2021 Jaguars 9-8 2022 New Coach
Colts 4-12 2017 Colts 10-6 2018 New Coach
Eagles 4-11-1 2020 Eagles 9-8 2021 New Coach

Every one of those teams improved by at least 5 wins in the first year of a new coach. It doesn’t take “at least 2-3 years” that is defeatist talk of people who accept and expect mediocrity. I can accept 1 season of being a bad team but not 2-3, there is absolutely no excuse for that.

Cool.

4 of those teams had QB's on rookie deals, the Cardinals were paying Carson the 21st higher Quarterback salary and the Colts only had a losing record in 2017 because Andrew Luck missed the entire season.

Also none of those teams had a QB that's going to miss time with an ACL injury.

 

[Stout]

Cool.

4 of those teams had QB's on rookie deals, the Cardinals were paying Carson the 21st higher Quarterback salary and the Colts only had a losing record in 2017 because Andrew Luck missed the entire season.

Also none of those teams had a QB that's going to miss time with an ACL injury.

What does this have to do with anything? No one's saying we're turning it around this season. Kyler's knee will be just fine in 2024 when we should be competing. There's no excuse to set your team/roster up so we don't have a chance to compete in 2024.

 

[BritCard]

Literally talking about good teams letting good players leave--top teams. Literally talking about the two teams that were in the Super Bowl. Those teams can do that because they have loads of talent and they can then go and re-load through the draft or FA. Teams devoid of talent, letting talent walk for no discernible reason as we have, make no sense. That's not how you rebuild.

Now, the BB situation isn't quite the same. He's in a situation where it makes little sense to stay on this dumpster fire of a team unless he gets another big guaranteed payday. I get that. The reality here is that he'll need traded. Problem is, in waiting so long, we've really handcuffed our trade options and will get less than we could've gotten before. It's like we're being reactive instead of proactive. I'm not a fan.

Moving on from highly paid players that play at marginal positions is exactly how you rebuild. It's literally the definition. Along with aging stars getting past their peak.