Cardinals are one of five teams un $10mil.....

[imaCafan]

The Cardinals are one of five teams that currently are more than $10 million under the $102 million salary cap, along with New England, Jacksonville, Houston and New Orleans.

Just thought that it was interesting that Jax and NE were 2 of the other teams........

 

[Sandan]

Obviously they are all incompetant and thier owners are cheap

Or maybe, just maybe this is a totally overblown metric, best used when the poster is looking for a reason to blast the FO

 

[conraddobler]

Obviously they are all incompetant and thier owners are cheap

Or maybe, just maybe this is a totally overblown metric, best used when the poster is looking for a reason to blast the FO

That's a bit harsh.

Those teams you mention win, they also have 1/10th the holes on their roster we do.

It dosen't suprise me at all, New England trades everyone and keeps stocking picks.

 

[Sandan]

You are talking about Saints and the Texans as well in this group ?

 

[Lloydian]

That's a bit harsh.

Those teams you mention win, we've yet to do that, you might want to factor in that metric too.

To factor in the metric of whether or not a team wins makes the measurement meaningless. Since the question at hand is, "Could the ten million in cap space be a significant meaning behind perceived weaknesses," it seems that information indicating that the combined records of the five teams that meet the criteria being 7-3 would suggest that having cap space does not necessarily mean you'll lose. But to ignore any results that contradict your position makes the argument weak.

Of the five teams that are ten million under the cap, three are undefeated, one is at .500, and one is winless. Sounds to me like being that far under the cap indicates a winner more than it indicates a loser. Or maybe cap space is not well related to end performance.

 

[Lloydian]

You are talking about Saints and the Texans as well in this group ?

So what is the Saints record so far?

 

[Sandan]

That's a bit harsh.

I suppose so.

But I am so sick and tired of folks casting around to look for yet another stick to beat us up with.

If anybody asks for logic then the answer is along the lines of "It's ok for NE to be under the CAP as they have been a winner recently".

This makes the assumtion that we are going to be bad this year because BB is cheap and refused to spend the cash.

Geeze we are 1-1 not 0-10

 

[football karma]

While I think ownership could have done more this offseason, this is also a meaningless statistic--

The logic is also faulty --- New England just traded their most dynamic offensive player because they wouldnt pay him -- even though they had plenty of cap space. If using cap space is a measue of "desire to win", then New England doesnt want to win.

 

[Sandan]

I can't even imagine the melt down we would have if the Cardinals did something similar.

 

[Card Trader]

I suppose so.

But I am so sick and tired of folks casting around to look for yet another stick to beat us up with.

If anybody asks for logic then the answer is along the lines of "It's ok for NE to be under the CAP as they have been a winner recently".

This makes the assumtion that we are going to be bad this year because BB is cheap and refused to spend the cash.

Geeze we are 1-1 not 0-10

I rarely agree with you about things, but on this I agree 100%.

 

[Sandan]

So what is the Saints record so far?

One better than ours.

I was casting doubts on the statement that the other teams were winning programs and threfore should be given the benifit of the doubt while the Cardinals should be breated at every opportunity.

The Saints and Texans hardly have a long term winning tradition. The Saints are 1 game ahead of us today and have played two of the NFL's current elite teams in the Browns and the Packers.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The Saints are 1 game ahead of us today and have played two of the NFL's current elite teams in the Browns and the Packers.

huh? Sorry, I just had to ask how you think that both the Browns and Packers - two teams who were bad last year and horrific this year are two of the NFL's "current elite teams?"

 

[Card Trader]

You missed the sarcasm.............

 

[Duckjake]

I can't even imagine the melt down we would have if the Cardinals did something similar.

They did it just 3 years ago and let go not just one but their 3 best offensive players. People were not happy about it but it eventually worked out because we got Boldin and Fitz and now Leinart. However we paid for them by having to endure the 2003 season.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You missed the sarcasm.............

I miss a lot of things with Nidan. Especially when his sarcasm is actually proving the opposite of the point he's trying to make.

 

[Russ Smith]

I can't even imagine the melt down we would have if the Cardinals did something similar.

Well I'd dispute that New England traded Branch because they didn't want to PAY him. They traded him because they didn't want to OVERPAY him, same reason Denver traded Lelie he wanted #1 WR money and wasn't worth it.

Branch got 6 years 39 million, he's never had a 1000 yard receiving year, never caught more than 5 TD passes, and was never the clear cut #1 WR in New England a team that everyone swears is desperately looking for a #1.

Is he a good player, absolutely, even very good, but I'd say Seattle overpaid him.

I also think New England made a statement to the rest of the team, if you don't honor your contract, you're gone, Branch wouldn't report, so New England wouldn't negotiate. He's a very good player but he handled this poorly and New England refused to let him hijack the team.

 

[AntSports Steve]

With all that money teams have under the cap, players are going to make more than ever. I'm sure in 2 years Seattle will think they got a steal for Branch's contract.

Any Free Agent next year is going to hit the jackpot. There is too much money and not enough good players. If Big hits the market, he will be the Elite free agent that all teams go after. It would not shock me if he ends up getting $10M+ per year.

Now, what really will happen is... The cards offer a good contract and Big's agent turns it down. Then, before free agency in March, the Cards will Franchise him. I think Hutchinson got the Franchise deal $8M+ per year. Big agent will want more than the Franchise offer and an long drawn-out hold out will happen.

What would be better is to realize that Big is better than what's out there. Sign him to what seems like a large extension now (but really in 2 years it will seem small) and lock him up while using that $10M cap space. That way, next year the Cards will have $10M available to lock up the next guy. If that $10M is not used to extend Big, then the FO and Graves have failed.

 

[CardinalChris]

New England just traded their most dynamic offensive player because they wouldnt pay him

Holy Shnike! They traded Tom Brady?

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

At least they were reasonable and didn't overpay for Nate Burleson .

 

[john h]

To factor in the metric of whether or not a team wins makes the measurement meaningless. Since the question at hand is, "Could the ten million in cap space be a significant meaning behind perceived weaknesses," it seems that information indicating that the combined records of the five teams that meet the criteria being 7-3 would suggest that having cap space does not necessarily mean you'll lose. But to ignore any results that contradict your position makes the argument weak.

Of the five teams that are ten million under the cap, three are undefeated, one is at .500, and one is winless. Sounds to me like being that far under the cap indicates a winner more than it indicates a loser. Or maybe cap space is not well related to end performance.

To make any argument valid IMHO you would need to look at a period of time say over the last 5 years. Average out the teams with the money under CAP and see just what being under the CAP delivers. One year does not give enough information.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

At least they were reasonable and didn't overpay for Nate Burleson .

Remember when this board was going crazy because they got Nate Burleson and I told everyone he absolutely sucks....

 

[ActingWild]

With all that money teams have under the cap, players are going to make more than ever. I'm sure in 2 years Seattle will think they got a steal for Branch's contract.

Any Free Agent next year is going to hit the jackpot. There is too much money and not enough good players. If Big hits the market, he will be the Elite free agent that all teams go after. It would not shock me if he ends up getting $10M+ per year.

Now, what really will happen is... The cards offer a good contract and Big's agent turns it down. Then, before free agency in March, the Cards will Franchise him. I think Hutchinson got the Franchise deal $8M+ per year. Big agent will want more than the Franchise offer and an long drawn-out hold out will happen.

What would be better is to realize that Big is better than what's out there. Sign him to what seems like a large extension now (but really in 2 years it will seem small) and lock him up while using that $10M cap space. That way, next year the Cards will have $10M available to lock up the next guy. If that $10M is not used to extend Big, then the FO and Graves have failed.

I hope our FO is reading this.