Dansby wants Free Agency

[Dayman]

http://www.azcardinals.com/blog/post.php?author=1&id=2156

Looks like it's definitely not happening before the season. Although I realize it's mighty unlikely, I hope they can work something out next year.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is Dansby's age. While he's not old, by any means, he will turn 29 midway through the 2010 season. Signing him to a 5 year deal is a little riskier than it was a couple of years ago. Still, I think he's an integral part of this team, and I really don't want to see him leave.

 

[lobo]

http://www.azcardinals.com/blog/post.php?author=1&id=2156



One thing I haven't seen mentioned is Dansby's age. While he's not old, by any means, he will turn 29 midway through the 2010 season. Signing him to a 5 year deal is a little riskier than it was a couple of years ago. Still, I think he's an integral part of this team, and I really don't want to see him leave.

He is a very good player however very good is not good enough in my book to tie up the money he is looking for...he might regret the move based on a sagging economic condition....whatever. If he goes good luck, he served the team well and I am sure he is going to go all out this year...I believe overall people are not as obsessed with their "favorites" demanding the money they are looking for...it's just the way it is today.

 

[Duckjake]

Fine Cbus, if it was only Hardy Brown saying it, there is cause for discussion, but read Somers report. Do you think he would write something like that if he didn't believe it had merit to it? At that point in time, the perception was that Dansby wasn't playing up to snuff. Right or wrong, it still gave this team pause to consider giving him a lucrative contract. That's why his contract wasn't extended at that time. As far as I'm concerned, the FO did the right thing AT THAT POINT IN TIME. There were questions that needed to be answered.

There was no right thing to do at the time of those rumors which were in the Summer of 2006 as he was still under contract. Remember he wasn't franchised until after the 2007 season.

After Dansby's excellent 2006 season the Cards should have known whether they wanted to keep him or not. 3 years and all of them highly productive.

But then Dansby has yet another stellar season in 2007 AFTER moving to a new position at inside linebacker and the Cardinals still can't decide whether to give him a long term contract? Two full seasons after the rumors and you think there were still questions to be answered? In the spring of 2008?!?!?

177 Tackles, 11.5 sacks, 3 INTS, and 11pdfs. in 28 games ('06 & '07) and there were still serious questions to be answered?

The FO rolled the dice based on faulty information and lost and it is going to cost them over $9 million dollars this season and maybe a top level playmaking defender for 2010.

 

[WisconsinCard]

He wants to sign but his demands are unrealistic. On ESPN First Take, one of the NFL insiders said that Dansby is seeking over $30 million in guaranteed money.
If that's true, can I have whatever the hell he is smoking?[/QUOTE]


Can you really blame him? He is going to make over 30 mil for three seasons. So I can see where he thinks he is worth 30 mil guaranteed. Next year when he get his signing bonus probably somewhere between 15 and 18 mil that 34 to 36 mil for the lst three seasons.

I will say it again the mistake made was having to f-tag him again this year. If we had a replacement for him, it would have forced him to negoiate in good faith with someone. Maybe not us (the cards) but someone.

 

[lauraw]

BooHoo!!!! Good riddance Dansby!!!

 

[40yearfan]

There was no right thing to do at the time of those rumors which were in the Summer of 2006 as he was still under contract. Remember he wasn't franchised until after the 2007 season.

After Dansby's excellent 2006 season the Cards should have known whether they wanted to keep him or not. 3 years and all of them highly productive.

But then Dansby has yet another stellar season in 2007 AFTER moving to a new position at inside linebacker and the Cardinals still can't decide whether to give him a long term contract? Two full seasons after the rumors and you think there were still questions to be answered? In the spring of 2008?!?!?

177 Tackles, 11.5 sacks, 3 INTS, and 11pdfs. in 28 games ('06 & '07) and there were still serious questions to be answered?

The FO rolled the dice based on faulty information and lost and it is going to cost them over $9 million dollars this season and maybe a top level playmaking defender for 2010.

Get your time frames correct. I was responding to a statement that said the cards should have renewed his contract two seasons ago and explaining why that wasn't the proper thing to do AT THAT TIME. That's why I used the capitalization.

And you can use all the stats you want to use. It isn't going to change history. There were questions about his desire and being able to stay healthy. That is a fact.

Using hindsight, you can make a case for renewing his contract back then, but if the FO had the ability to know what the future would bring, I'm sure they wouldn't be messing with football.

 

[Duckjake]

Get your time frames correct. I was responding to a statement that said the cards should have renewed his contract two seasons ago and explaining why that wasn't the proper thing to do AT THAT TIME. That's why I used the capitalization.

And you can use all the stats you want to use. It isn't going to change history. There were questions about his desire and being able to stay healthy. That is a fact.

Using hindsight, you can make a case for renewing his contract back then, but if the FO had the ability to know what the future would bring, I'm sure they wouldn't be messing with football.

My time frames are correct yours are off. The Two "seasons" ago people were referring to was the Spring of 2008 when the Cards used the Franchise Tag on KD for the first time. Not the spring of 2007 as Dansby's contract did not come up during the 2007 off season.

It is a fact that those allegations came before the 2006 season and that the franchise tag was applied to Dansby for the first time AFTER the 2006 and 2007 seasons were played.

Any front office that can't make proper projections about what the future will bring by looking back at previous player performances has no business messing with football.

Denny Green was wrong about Dansby just like he was about a lot of things in Arizona. The Cardinals were wrong to buy into it instead of looking at what Dansby was doing on the field.

 

[40yearfan]

My time frames are correct yours are off. The Two "seasons" ago people were referring to was the Spring of 2008 when the Cards used the Franchise Tag on KD for the first time. Not the spring of 2007 as Dansby's contract did not come up during the 2007 off season.

It is a fact that those allegations came before the 2006 season and that the franchise tag was applied to Dansby for the first time AFTER the 2006 and 2007 seasons were played.

Any front office that can't make proper projections about what the future will bring by looking back at previous player performances has no business messing with football.

Denny Green was wrong about Dansby just like he was about a lot of things in Arizona. The Cardinals were wrong to buy into it instead of looking at what Dansby was doing on the field.

Dj we just finished the 2008-2009 season. Two seasons ago would have been the 2007-2008 season. Your math is terrible.

As far as there not being contract negotiations:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f4/update-on-dansby-and-pace-negotiations-101486.html?highlight=dansby

They were on-going in November, 2007. Even at that time, there were still reservations about Dansby as evidenced by this joeshmo post:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1539824&postcount=26

 

[lauraw]

40 year fan, Ive known you to be honest and forthright in our dealings in the past on this board!! Hasn't the time come to just say to Dansby, "We Have you one more year of lights out football and we expect nothing less from you."
Take our 3rd round complementary choice for his ass, let him move on, and wish him well? We can spend next years draft on outside linebackers and Dlinemen if need be, but one player does not take down our team!!!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

but if the FO had the ability to know what the future would bring, I'm sure they wouldn't be messing with football.

c'mon 40, that's what they GET PAID FOR . . . for having forethought. they are supposed to be professionals capable of projecting (hopefully more successfully than not) into the future. it's okay for them to fail every now and again. and this is an example of one of those failures. some of us AT THE TIME thought it was a mistake and it's turned out to be just that.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

40 year fan, Ive known you to be honest and forthright in our dealings in the past on this board!! Hasn't the time come to just say to Dansby, "We Have you one more year of lights out football and we expect nothing less from you."
Take our 3rd round complementary choice for his ass, let him move on, and wish him well? We can spend next years draft on outside linebackers and Dlinemen if need be, but one player does not take down our team!!!

unfortunately, he's still our most dynamic defensive player. and just b/c he wants to test FA doesn't mean he wants to LEAVE. i don't understand everyone's anger with him. he produces on the field. he wants to test FA. big deal.

 

[WisconsinCard]

BooHoo!!!! Good riddance Dansby!!!

I don't think he's crying. He "LOS" has played his hand very well and has all of the leverage. Can't blame him for asking for the moon. The offer he has now will still be there next year (if not better), if not from the cards then another team.

 

[40yearfan]

40 year fan, Ive known you to be honest and forthright in our dealings in the past on this board!! Hasn't the time come to just say to Dansby, "We Have you one more year of lights out football and we expect nothing less from you."
Take our 3rd round complementary choice for his ass, let him move on, and wish him well? We can spend next years draft on outside linebackers and Dlinemen if need be, but one player does not take down our team!!!

I agree Laura. We need to quit getting hung-up on individual players and start looking at the team as a whole. This ain't your fathers' Cardinals anymore. We've morphed into a real NFL team.

 

[Duckjake]

Dj we just finished the 2008-2009 season. Two seasons ago would have been the 2007-2008 season. Your math is terrible.

As far as there not being contract negotiations:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f4/update-on-dansby-and-pace-negotiations-101486.html?highlight=dansby

They were on-going in November, 2007. Even at that time, there were still reservations about Dansby as evidenced by this joeshmo post:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1539824&postcount=26

Your reasoning is terrible. Dansby was franchised for the first time AFTER the 2007 season was complete. That is when a new deal should have been worked out. Franchised for 2008 and Franchised for 2009. Not the 2007 and 2008 seasons.

I don't care about what Joeshmo says because a lot of what he states is based on what Dansby did in College 7 years ago. And my whole take is based on those reservations being a mistake especially after two seasons where Dansby did nothing to indicate they were correct.

Paying $17 million to a guy and taking a $9 million dollar cap hit for '09 because you are afraid that he might not play hard after he gets a big payday, especially after he's played for you for 4 and 5 seasons, is just poor management. If you don't think he'll play get rid of him and spend the money on someone who will.

After all Dansby like all ILBs is easily replaceable right?

 

[40yearfan]

c'mon 40, that's what they GET PAID FOR . . . for having forethought. they are supposed to be professionals capable of projecting (hopefully more successfully than not) into the future. it's okay for them to fail every now and again. and this is an example of one of those failures. some of us AT THE TIME thought it was a mistake and it's turned out to be just that.

Ouchie, you are arguing a point I haven't even addressed. The only thing I commented about was whether or not we should have renewed Dansby's contract two seasons ago. At that time, I didn't believe it was the right thing to do and apparently a bunch of other people felt the same way. That's why I posted those web-sites to bolster my opinion.

As you say, there are successes and failures. I also believe we've had more success than failures this past two years. I hope the streak continues.

 

[Duckjake]

Ouchie, you are arguing a point I haven't even addressed. The only thing I commented about was whether or not we should have renewed Dansby's contract two seasons ago. At that time, I didn't believe it was the right thing to do and apparently a bunch of other people felt the same way. That's why I posted those web-sites to bolster my opinion.

As you say, there are successes and failures. I also believe we've had more success than failures this past two years. I hope the streak continues.

Having a senior moment 40?

but if the FO had the ability to know what the future would bring, I'm sure they wouldn't be messing with football.

 

[40yearfan]

Your reasoning is terrible. Dansby was franchised for the first time AFTER the 2007 season was complete. That is when a new deal should have been worked out. Franchised for 2008 and Franchised for 2009. Not the 2007 and 2008 seasons.

I don't care about what Joeshmo says because a lot of what he states is based on what Dansby did in College 7 years ago. And my whole take is based on those reservations being a mistake especially after two seasons where Dansby did nothing to indicate they were correct.

Paying $17 million to a guy and taking a $9 million dollar cap hit for '09 because you are afraid that he might not play hard after he gets a big payday, especially after he's played for you for 4 seasons, is just poor management. If you don't think he'll play get rid of him and spend the money on someone who will.

After all Dansby like all ILBs is easily replaceable right?

Quit trying to change the subject and the timeline. This month is July, 2009. Two seasons ago would have put us at July, 2007. Two seasons ago, the Cardinals were negotiating with Dansby (November, 2007). That's were those posts I listed were from. It was before Dansby was franchised and as noted, some people still held reservations about his desire/health.

The fact is that the front office was trying to negotiate a contract with him at that time and were unable to do so. To try and blame them for not overpaying him is not fair. They managed to redo the contracts for Dockett, Boldin, Wilson and Fitzgerald. Doesn't it seem strange that what should have been an easier deal to work out (Dansbys contract) didn't get done when all these others were? Maybe Dansby didn't want to negotiate and has had free agency in mind this whole time? Maybe he was willing to take the gamble he wouldn't be hurt (or has an insurance policy for that contingency) and opted for the major dollars instead of security? If so, there was no way a deal could get done without completely breaking the bank. IMO, you don't break the bank for an LB. QB, RB, WR, OL maybe, but not an LB.

 

[40yearfan]

Having a senior moment 40?

but if the FO had the ability to know what the future would bring, I'm sure they wouldn't be messing with football.

Dj, you must be a politician. You are very good at taking things out of context.

Here's the whole statement:

Using hindsight, you can make a case for renewing his contract back then, but if the FO had the ability to know what the future would bring, I'm sure they wouldn't be messing with football.

As I have stated many times, hindsight is not applicable when talking about a certain period in time. It might determine what the actual outcome was, but it doesn't have anything to do with the mind-set at that particular time.

 

[Duckjake]

Quit trying to change the subject and the timeline. This month is July, 2009. Two seasons ago would have put us at July, 2007. Two seasons ago, the Cardinals were negotiating with Dansby (November, 2007). That's were those posts I listed were from. It was before Dansby was franchised and as noted, some people still held reservations about his desire/health.

The fact is that the front office was trying to negotiate a contract with him at that time and were unable to do so. To try and blame them for not overpaying him is not fair. They managed to redo the contracts for Dockett, Boldin, Wilson and Fitzgerald. Doesn't it seem strange that what should have been an easier deal to work out (Dansbys contract) didn't get done when all these others were? Maybe Dansby didn't want to negotiate and has had free agency in mind this whole time? Maybe he was willing to take the gamble he wouldn't be hurt (or has an insurance policy for that contingency) and opted for the major dollars instead of security? If so, there was no way a deal could get done without completely breaking the bank. IMO, you don't break the bank for an LB. QB, RB, WR, OL maybe, but not an LB.

So I'm still right. By November of 2007 the Cards had a full season, 2006, and the majority of another, 2007, to evaluate Dansby. They didn't put the franchise tag on him until 2008 AFTER the completion of the 2007 regular season.

A franchise tag you say they were correct in using because they had reservations about Dansby and didn't want to offer him a long term contract under those circumstances. That is what we are discussing. Nothing was brought up about the Cards having to use the tag in '08 because Dansby wouldn't sign or for any other reason.

There was no redo because Dansby was a free agent after the 2007 season.

I said that the Cards made a mistake because they had plenty of time, two full seasons after the initial rumors surfaced, to see that the allegations were off base. You haven't posted one thing to debate that instead you just keep arguing over the definition of "two seasons".

So answer this question, did the Cardinal FO have two seasons with Dansby playing between the time the allegations originated in August of 2006 until they used the franchise tag on Dansby for the first time?

Yes or No.

 

[Duckjake]

Dj, you must be a politician. You are very good at taking things out of context.

Here's the whole statement:

As I have stated many times, hindsight is not applicable when talking about a certain period in time. It might determine what the actual outcome was, but it doesn't have anything to do with the mind-set at that particular time.

I don't what's more confusing, your original post or your explanation of what you really meant by your original post.

And since Ouchie read it the same way I did its not just me.

 

[40yearfan]

I don't what's more confusing, your original post or your explanation of what you really meant by your original post.

And since Ouchie read it the same way I did its not just me.

Birds of a feather----

 

[40yearfan]

So I'm still right. By November of 2007 the Cards had a full season, 2006, and the majority of another, 2007, to evaluate Dansby. They didn't put the franchise tag on him until 2008 AFTER the completion of the 2007 regular season.

A franchise tag you say they were correct in using because they had reservations about Dansby and didn't want to offer him a long term contract under those circumstances. That is what we are discussing. Nothing was brought up about the Cards having to use the tag in '08 because Dansby wouldn't sign or for any other reason.

There was no redo because Dansby was a free agent after the 2007 season.

I said that the Cards made a mistake because they had plenty of time, two full seasons after the initial rumors surfaced, to see that the allegations were off base. You haven't posted one thing to debate that instead you just keep arguing over the definition of "two seasons".

So answer this question, did the Cardinal FO have two seasons with Dansby playing between the time the allegations originated in August of 2006 until they used the franchise tag on Dansby for the first time?

Yes or No.

Answer my question first and only answer it yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[joeshmo]

those articles didn't prove a thing to me.Dansby plays on Sundays. Wasn't Steve McNair juts being lauded all last week for getting on the field every Sunday while not being to practrice all week? So Dansby had some injury issues in training camp,big deal? Did he miss regular season games? It sounds like DG was trying to take his best player to task in training camp to make him an example for the rest of the team and let them know that he was in charge. When it was go time, KD was right in there making plays like he did every week. I totally disregared the Hardy Brown post.That was pure speculation by someone with no more insight than any of us.

Dont feel like reading all of the posts so not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but Hardy Brown is a very prominent Cards media personality who knows the coaches and watches every single practice. Also note Jurecki also brought up the same info just yesterday when they interviewed Dansby and got into a debate afterwards. Jurecki thinks he should get paid now, but just a few years ago, they nicknamed the trainers office, Dansbys Suite becuase he spent so much time there, and although he played in games he was taken out of a lot of snaps because he tapped his helmet taking himself out of plays often for so called minor injuries. Jurecki said that hasnt happened or been like that for two years now though. His partner Bickley wondered if that was because he was in contract years or not, Jurecki said that could be it but he thinks he has really matured as a person from two years ago.

 

[earthsci]

Answer my question first and only answer it yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I hope that is an inside joke.

 

[Duckjake]

I hope that is an inside joke.

Sometimes I think all 40's posts are some sort of inside joke.