Shane, people also forget that the way the rules were last year, after losing Dansby and Rolle, they would have had to replace them with similar contracts and there were no players worth that money at thay point. It had nothing to do with not wanting spend it.
Banky, Shane, AF, et al:
It's all a matter of
perception.
Go back to 2008---no one could believe the Cardinals made it to the Super Bowl---now they were the underdog darlings of the NFL, led by the consummate underdog in QB Kurt Warner.
Everyone in the football world knew Kurt Warner was the main reason why the Cardinals got to the big show.
Yup, the same Kurt Warner who was not tabbed by the coaches to be the starting QB that year---the same Kurt Warner whom ESPN speculated had won the starting job at the end of pre-season, much to the disdain of Ken Whisenhunt.
So Warner wins the starting job and takes the Cardinals to its first NFC West crown, it's first NFC Championship and its first Super Bowl appearance.
Warner's 2008 salary: $5M (and he had asked for a contract extension that summer was denied).
Then---with all eyes watching following the Super Bowl---the Cardinals manifest shrewd negotiations with Warner on a new contract---to the point where a frustrated and exasperated Warner flies to SF with his wife to get wined and dined by of all teams, the 49ers.
Even though the Cardinals managed to acquiesce to Warner's contract demands---the way the whole affair was handled did little to expunge the stigma of parsimony the Bidwills have been mired with for decades. ESPECIALLY in light of how Warner deserved a great deal more than the $5M he earned in 2008.
Then---the Dansby and Rolle debacles last year---
Again: we are talking about perception here.
And if you want an argument as to what player the Cardinals could have paid money to last year and didn't? (while saving a tidy $30M)
There were several---but how about the most conspicuous one?
How about QB Marc Bulger?
The coaches wanted him---the front office said no.
Again---think of how incidences like this affect the general public's perception of the organization.
And this is one of a historical series of reasons why the stigma persists.