Does Breaston's success make it easier to trade Boldin?

[Shane]

This year Fitz has improved on his one weakness. Yards after the catch.

I've always thought that Boldin was the better WR. Fitz has changed my mind on that. Fitz is now a top 5 WR. Boldin is maybe a top 10 but more like a top 15. Still we are talking about two of the best WRs in the league.

But really how do you base that opinion other than improving RAC? Before Q got beheaded he was easily the best WR on the field during the first 4 games and the most productive. He was also The primary redzone target for Warner.

 

[Shane]

1) Because he's always injured.

2) He doesn't want to play for us.

3) We can't afford him.

#1 overstatement

#2 Players say that crap all the time in the end $ is all that matters

#3 Yes we can

 

[dreamcastrocks]

#1 overstatement

#2 Players say that crap all the time in the end $ is all that matters

#3 Yes we can

1. Maybe not. It was a freak accident, but he has been injured now a bit more than I like.

2. Maybe, hopefully. I'm not convinced. Q might feel betrayed by the organization and doesn't want to retire a Card.

3. I don't think so.

 

[MadCardDisease]

But really how do you base that opinion other than improving RAC? Before Q got beheaded he was easily the best WR on the field during the first 4 games and the most productive. He was also The primary redzone target for Warner.

Other than the 49ers game, Fitz has been the top WR. I guess that's what I'm basing it off of.

 

[Shane]

Other than the 49ers game, Fitz has been the top WR. I guess that's what I'm basing it off of.

I can see that side. But the big thing on here for the guys favor Fitz has been TD's.

In the Miami game they both had 6 catches Q for 140 and Fitz for 153 yet Q had 3 TD's

Jets 119 to 122 10 catches Q to 8 Fitz but Q had the TD.

So I could see both sides.

Fitz Definitely had the better game in Washington but again Q had the TD.

All I know is I really do love them both.

 

[CardsFan88]

Jesus guys, why are we all talking about making us worse. There is no reason to get rid of him. Getting rid of him won't allow us to stay under the cap, it will only make us worse.

Then after being worse, you have to somehow use that cap space to get someone as good at another position. It WON'T HAPPEN. You might get decent, but you won't find a trend setter at another position like Quan is for WR.

We aren't in cap trouble, and won't be for years. Remember the cap will be about 130-140 million soon.

CAP SPACE IS NOT OUR PROBLEM

Jesus, how many people are thinking we are cap strapped is insane.

How are we cap strapped?

We have plenty of people we can ask to take paycuts. I'm sure some would. Not all, but some would.

Have we tried that yet? Not really. Berry did, warner did. Take a look around, and you'll see good teams get 2-3 guys A SEASON to do this. Sometimes more.

If you get rid of Quan, you'll be doing it because someone suckered you into believing you had to do it.

You don't have to, and believing someone who is saying that, is silly.

Again, with the new CBA, by the time Quan's new contract will be over, do you guys have an inkling of what the cap will be 150-170 million. Anyone think we can't fit in 18 million of 150 or 170 for the 2 best wr's in football?

I swear some people want to move backwards. There is nothing ethereal about having capspace spread out over every position and have it averaged so that it's like the NFL average

You do stuff like that you'll be 2-14 every season.

This game isn't about averages, the averages are made up by numerically (and not reality) averaging what each DIFFERENT team does.

There is no law that states you can't win because somehow you have too much at one position. Jesus.

Remember sometimes, the best unit in the league, is the least paid. Sometimes it's the highest. Usually it's somewhere in between. But you can win or lose being any of those things. It's irrelevant.

You keep your best players. Then if you don't have enough cap space, you have to be good at drafting, and picking up players on either the waiver wire, or udfa. But then again if you don't draft well, or pick up good players via waiver wire or udfa, it doesn't matter how much cap space you have. You'll still suck.

Trading boldin, for fake cap reasons, and you deserve to fail. Just because we've got a bunch of weapons doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Jesus guys, why are we all talking about making us worse. There is no reason to get rid of him. Getting rid of him won't allow us to stay under the cap, it will only make us worse.

Then after being worse, you have to somehow use that cap space to get someone as good at another position. It WON'T HAPPEN. You might get decent, but you won't find a trend setter at another position like Quan is for WR.

We aren't in cap trouble, and won't be for years. Remember the cap will be about 130-140 million soon.

CAP SPACE IS NOT OUR PROBLEM

Jesus, how many people are thinking we are cap strapped is insane.

How are we cap strapped?

We have plenty of people we can ask to take paycuts. I'm sure some would. Not all, but some would.

Have we tried that yet? Not really. Berry did, warner did. Take a look around, and you'll see good teams get 2-3 guys A SEASON to do this. Sometimes more.

If you get rid of Quan, you'll be doing it because someone suckered you into believing you had to do it.

You don't have to, and believing someone who is saying that, is silly.

Again, with the new CBA, by the time Quan's new contract will be over, do you guys have an inkling of what the cap will be 150-170 million. Anyone think we can't fit in 18 million of 150 or 170 for the 2 best wr's in football?

I swear some people want to move backwards. There is nothing ethereal about having capspace spread out over every position and have it averaged so that it's like the NFL average

You do stuff like that you'll be 2-14 every season.

This game isn't about averages, the averages are made up by numerically (and not reality) averaging what each DIFFERENT team does.

There is no law that states you can't win because somehow you have too much at one position. Jesus.

Remember sometimes, the best unit in the league, is the least paid. Sometimes it's the highest. Usually it's somewhere in between. But you can win or lose being any of those things. It's irrelevant.

You keep your best players. Then if you don't have enough cap space, you have to be good at drafting, and picking up players on either the waiver wire, or udfa. But then again if you don't draft well, or pick up good players via waiver wire or udfa, it doesn't matter how much cap space you have. You'll still suck.

Trading boldin, for fake cap reasons, and you deserve to fail. Just because we've got a bunch of weapons doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot.

You're assuming that Q actually will play with his current contract until it ends. I don't think many people will think Boldin will do that.

 

[Pariah]

Can we afford to Pay Q the kind of money he wants? Yes and no. Financially, I think it can be fit under the cap, but a price tag like that combined with Fitz's puts WAY too much money in the WR position, IMO. It hamstrings us in other areas, and for that reason I'd rather not see the cardinals pay it.

We've seen what the offense can do with Fitz and a couple of other capable WRs. Is it as dynamic as it is with Boldin and Fitz? No, of course not. But we have issues on defense and along the line. I don't think we can effectively address those if we have 2 top-5 WR contracts under the cap.

JMHO

 

[Pariah]

You're assuming that Q actually will play with his current contract until it ends.

Sure he will. But then we get nothing when he walks, and we're not really treating him fairly.

When a player of Boldin's ilk wants to be traded, we ought A) do our best to meet his contract demands (within reason/without compromising the long-term team strategy), and if that can't be worked out, then B) work with him to find a trade that works for both parties.

JMHO

 

[joeshmo]

Then after being worse, you have to somehow use that cap space to get someone as good at another position. It WON'T HAPPEN. You might get decent, but you won't find a trend setter at another position like Quan is for WR.

Not the whole story. First you dont need to find a trend setter to replace the likes of Quan. You need to find an upgrade at another position, plus you have the draft pick or picks from the trade.

We aren't in cap trouble, and won't be for years. Remember the cap will be about 130-140 million soon.

CAP SPACE IS NOT OUR PROBLEM

Jesus, how many people are thinking we are cap strapped is insane.

How are we cap strapped?

Not a single person is saying anything about not having the cap. It isnt a cap strapped issue it is a what would you rather spend your money on. Defense, OL, or one of the worst positions to spend your money on, WR, let alone two WR's. Again it is not a cap issue it is a cap usage issue.

We have plenty of people we can ask to take paycuts. I'm sure some would. Not all, but some would.

Have we tried that yet? Not really. Berry did, warner did. Take a look around, and you'll see good teams get 2-3 guys A SEASON to do this. Sometimes more.

Warner didnt take a pay cut, he took a restructure. A pay you less today and for your troubles we will pay you more later. Berry also did not take a pay cut. If he can get to certian production marks he will get his money back.

No one takes a flat out pay cut in the NFL. With so called pay cuts come, incentives, bonus money, or sacraficing future cap space. You want a player to take a pay cut you have to give them incentives to do so, which costs money.

Again, with the new CBA, by the time Quan's new contract will be over, do you guys have an inkling of what the cap will be 150-170 million. Anyone think we can't fit in 18 million of 150 or 170 for the 2 best wr's in football?

The cap is based on current deals in place that pay the league and divided out per team. The biggest of which is 80% of the cap and that is the TV deal. That TV deal will not be redone until 2012. The cap will be Approx $140 by 2011 if the deal is redone. Depending on what percentage the players work out with the owners which will most likely stay at the 60%-68% range. The cap wont be in the 150-170 range until the 2012 season minimum.

But that is besides the point. Both Fitz and Boldin will be in the last years of their deal and the last years of a players deal are there most expensive and the 18 Mill of that 140 Mill isnt correct. If a deal for Boldin is similar to Fitz about 2 Mill less which is what Boldin is asking for 8 Mill a season then it would actually be 25 Mill out of 140 Mill which we get to the same issue again we will be using about 15% of the cap for two WR's. Just not a smart investment.

There is no law that states you can't win because somehow you have too much at one position. Jesus.

There is no law but there is a history that spending money on WR's is a bad investment and one of the least impactful positions on the football field. I think the NFL is finally figuring this out. There wasnt a single WR picked in the first round this year, teams are starting to spend on One WR instead of two nowadays. We wont two straight games against a combined 9-1 record teams. Our record without or without Boldin is almost exactly the same. Warner is playing just as good without him as he does with him. There comes a point were there is diminishing returns and that was never more true then with WR's.

Just look at the top 10 passing teams. They all have only one highly paid WR(Indy is the closet possible one and Wayne is only making 6.5 Mill a season). If you have a good QB you dont need two highly paid WR's, and the current top 10 passing teams show as such. You dont need two highly paid WR's even if you dont have a QB because there is no one to get them the ball.

 

[joeshmo]

The cap is going to go up dramatically soon.

I'll venture out and say that any team that resigns it's own players won't be in cap hell after the new CBA. All of these 'big' contracts, will seem like steals. At one time, boldin's current deal was considered a very good deal. Not the best, but a very good one. After the CBA, there will be a ton of players who thought they signed what amounted to max deals, only to find out the new CBA pushes up the threshold another 3-5 million a year, making every contract signed under the old CBA a steal.

First it will not go up dramatically soon as I have already pointed out.

Second all of those so called steal contracts will become players whining about wanting more money. It is a cycle. And you already stated a good example. Boldin signs a deal and wants a new one 2 years later becuase of the new CBA. Whats to stop Boldin from doing it again when the CBA goes up dramatically again(which it wont). The guy is already whining about wanting to get his 3rd different contract in only his 6th year. The guy doesnt have Drew as his agent for nothing and would want more of that CBA pie when it supposedly goes up dramatically again. He has a history of it so whats to stop him from working on whining for his 4th new contract a few years from now?

 

[joeshmo]

But really how do you base that opinion other than improving RAC? Before Q got beheaded he was easily the best WR on the field during the first 4 games and the most productive.

Besides being the primary redzone target for Warner not sure how you Boldin was the most productive or easily the better WR on the field during the first 4 games. They have been about as equal as it gets.

Boldin had 27 catches for 366 yards for 13.6 average, 5 TD's and 1 fumbles.
Fitz has 24 catches at 415 yards for 17.3 average, 2 TD's, zero fumbles.

Also watching or listening to every broadcast it is always brought up that it is Fitz that gets the double teams and the extra coverage over the top and not Boldin. It is also seen during the game.

Again not sure how anyone can say that either WR was easily the better WR the first four games of the season.

 

[joeshmo]

All I know is I really do love them both.

As do I. Its the Boldin jerseys that I own not the Fitz jerseys. Its Boldin I try to get an autograph from first when I go to the camps.

It comes down to who got the big deal first and the fact I think spending big on WR's is a bad investment. Fitz got the big deal first so...

I dont even like drafting 1st round WR's as a rule.

 

[CardsFan88]

The key is getting the contract done before the new CBA. Once that happens the price of all players good and bad will go up dramatically. I actually see right now as the best opportunity for teams to resign their players, until the CBA after this upcoming one comes around.

This off season is a good time to re-up him. Good time to re-up everyone we need to. After the new CBA, our cap space will increase dramatically, erasing the escalating costs of our guys. Even then, odds are they'll be fairly straight deals, in which players aren't making much more in their 6th or 7th year of the deal as they are the 2nd year. In that sense the pie gets bigger each year to sign guys to fa deals, or resign say breaston a few years from now.

Good teams are not built through FA. It can give you a piece or two to build around, or give you a player or two to put you over the top. But generally the latter are players you sign 6-7 year deals that are really 2-3 year deals.

There's also the banking of LTBE incentives that can be used towards next years cap space, year in and year out like the Eagles do.

Again we could get rid of Q, and use that money for another Al Johnson. Because we need more ol help. Even if you get a notch better player in terms of talent and/or health, you'd really only get 1 player for q.

No doubt in a trade you'll get a pick, but although we would think fair value would be say a 1st and a 2nd, we'd probably have to settle for a single 3rd or 4th.

All good teams have good players that are playing for them at good deals. You got the guy for 4 years as a 5th round pick, you sign a few guys as UDFA, you get a couple of guys signed like Haggans, on the cheap. All good teams fill their positions through things like this. They have talent on their teams making less than their actual value.

We've got a good core we need to keep together. Signing our guys to deals during this CBA that will have them under contract for the majority of the NEXT CBA, is a recipe for winning imho. Even if you have to have to do an escalating contract with one or two of them to fit it in, it can be done, and things like this are done year in and year out by teams.

I don't think it hamstrings us. It just means we can't sign lucrative fa's. It means we have to do what other good teams do. Draft well, sign fa's wisely, get udfa's, and have the coaches to develop the talent you do have. It's only one less way to do things when you are cap strapped.

Don't forget that if the teams is good for 2-3 seasons in a row, we'll saving about 80 million or so in salary from not having a top 5 or so pick. Our cap will be for veterans instead of unproven guys like L. Davis.

Not to mention we still have leinart. He still has time, but if he can't get his act together in a couple of years, we could cut, or when his contract is up, not resign him. That would add a few million to our cap space (or however you want to look at it).

Again, it's not about $$$$ at a particular position, it's about talent at that particular position. Again $$$ does not equal production. Cap space does not mean you'll get a good player. Throwing money at players doesn't not equal success. You keep your good players, and definitely when they are among the best in all of the NFL.

We've been doing pretty good at developing our players, we've been doing pretty darn well at drafting, we've been signing guys like LaBoy instead of resigning guys for a lot more like Pace. As bad as Rod Graves has been at certain areas, once the team is built, his philosophy of not jumping in early with huge offers for above average or average players will help this team during cap strapped years. Quality veterans on the cheap will help a team with depth.

I think we can fit Fitz and Q in, resign dansby, wilson, etc. We would be a bit cap tight, but nothing major. Nothing that can't be fixed with an increase in the cap...which will be coming. I see a 20 million jump as the minimum amount from this CBA to the next. Jerry Jones I bet does too, that's why he signed all his guys now (imo). He's also using the uncapped year, to have a higher cap number so that later years will already be 'paid for' capwise by a few million. I bet now that he's in that position, guess where his weight will be? To either have that year uncapped, or to make sure the starting cap under the new CBA is as high as possible. I don't feel many owners are against him on this. This is a very successful league, one in which the cap will double from it's current limit in about 10 years. It wasn't too long ago the cap was 50 million. It won't be too long before it's 200.

If you have to make a hard decision a few years from now, then you have to. But we shouldn't make a hard decision on Q, for the possibility that if we don't now, a few years from now, we might have to make a tough decision. We don't have to do it now, so we shouldn't. Not when it involves one of the best players in the NFL. Not when all the signs show that the cap is going to go up dramatically during these contracts. Not at the very start of what might be a very good run for the cards over the next 3-5 years.

I fully believe that teams that sign up their proven veterans to good long term contracts before the new CBA happens, will be in a position to be a dynasty. They'll have their good proven players locked up, and will have the capspace under the new agreement to sign the breaston's, the watson's, the hightower's, etc...when they become proven. They'll use LTBE's to bank capspace. They'll rework contracts. They'll have the space to continue signing average starter/ good backup quality players to good deals. They'll still have their draft picks like everyone else (not signing 60 million deals before playing a snap). Theyll have opportunities to sign UDFA's just like any other team....and if they get creative, IF they are capstrapped, I bet some will still be able to sign 1 or 2 players to put them over the top. Teams that prepare now, will have their cake and eat it too.

We have alot of good, young, proven players we could lock in under a scenario like this. If done right, we're in probably one of the best, if not THE BEST position to use the NFL rules and business model to leapfrog alot of teams. Not every team has a lot of young players worthy of new deals. We do.

Trading Q in such a favorable climate, imo would be asinine. I bet we're just so used to losing, we're not able to see when everything is setting up our way. Thus we do not have a plan to take advantage of it. But I'm not so sure our FO feels that way. Even if they don't see it, the way things are set up, resigning Q won't put us in a position where it hurts our team down the road. Again there is no pressure but what we put on ourselves to alter that. Listening to that self inflicted pressure, would be asinine imo.

 

[CardsFan88]

Not the whole story. First you dont need to find a trend setter to replace the likes of Quan. You need to find an upgrade at another position, plus you have the draft pick or picks from the trade.



Not a single person is saying anything about not having the cap. It isnt a cap strapped issue it is a what would you rather spend your money on. Defense, OL, or one of the worst positions to spend your money on, WR, let alone two WR's. Again it is not a cap issue it is a cap usage issue.



Warner didnt take a pay cut, he took a restructure. A pay you less today and for your troubles we will pay you more later. Berry also did not take a pay cut. If he can get to certian production marks he will get his money back.

No one takes a flat out pay cut in the NFL. With so called pay cuts come, incentives, bonus money, or sacraficing future cap space. You want a player to take a pay cut you have to give them incentives to do so, which costs money.



The cap is based on current deals in place that pay the league and divided out per team. The biggest of which is 80% of the cap and that is the TV deal. That TV deal will not be redone until 2012. The cap will be Approx $140 by 2011 if the deal is redone. Depending on what percentage the players work out with the owners which will most likely stay at the 60%-68% range. The cap wont be in the 150-170 range until the 2012 season minimum.

But that is besides the point. Both Fitz and Boldin will be in the last years of their deal and the last years of a players deal are there most expensive and the 18 Mill of that 140 Mill isnt correct. If a deal for Boldin is similar to Fitz about 2 Mill less which is what Boldin is asking for 8 Mill a season then it would actually be 25 Mill out of 140 Mill which we get to the same issue again we will be using about 15% of the cap for two WR's. Just not a smart investment.



There is no law but there is a history that spending money on WR's is a bad investment and one of the least impactful positions on the football field. I think the NFL is finally figuring this out. There wasnt a single WR picked in the first round this year, teams are starting to spend on One WR instead of two nowadays. We wont two straight games against a combined 9-1 record teams. Our record without or without Boldin is almost exactly the same. Warner is playing just as good without him as he does with him. There comes a point were there is diminishing returns and that was never more true then with WR's.

Just look at the top 10 passing teams. They all have only one highly paid WR(Indy is the closet possible one and Wayne is only making 6.5 Mill a season). If you have a good QB you dont need two highly paid WR's, and the current top 10 passing teams show as such. You dont need two highly paid WR's even if you dont have a QB because there is no one to get them the ball.

Cap usage issue I understand. But what I'm saying is, if you don't use the cap, it's wasted. If you overpay somebody, it's wasted. There is no guarantee that an slight upgrade that costs you 1/2 of Q's capspace will be worth not having Q. A good backwards example is Breaston and B. Johnson. We could've resigned him, and it would have cost us a great deal more than breaston, yet breaston is clearly outperforming what B. Johnson was doing. We signed Al johnson, and many felt that he wasn't much better than sendlein. But was making 7 million a year roughly. Probably about 6 million more than sendlein.

With Q, you know you have a top flight, game changing player. You never want to subtract those from your team, you want to add them.

Picks are good, and we do seem to do well with them as of late. But I personally would take Q, over Al Johnson and a 3rd round pick. Even if it wasn't Al Johnson, but say Alan Faneca and a 3rd round pick, I'd keep Q.

You always have opportunity to upgrade your marginal talent. It's much easier to find a guy via fa, draft, or udfa that is marginally better than your current starter or backup, then it is to find another Q, Fitz, Wilson, et al.

Pay cut to the cap this year. LTBE for Berry most likely. If he doesn't make the numbers, we'll get additional cap space next year, if not and they are UTBE, then we won't gain anything. But either way, we got down to the cap, without cutting them, or someone else. Good teams, and teams that the players believe in, will take pay cuts, or restructure to stay with the team. Not everyone ofc, but generally enough do to make an impact year in an year out on some teams.

I'm not a fan of taking a trend setter, and simply increasing production slightly at say 2-3 positions...and even then that's not a guarantee. Many times you sign guys, and they don't pan out. Q already has panned out. I'm not a fan of trading a good player for 4 marginal players. 4 marginal players that might be in house already, or pretty easily surpassed in the draft. Not much separates players from practice squad to marginal starter status. These guys are all dime a dozen. They'll be plenty of them, year in, and year out.

Again I feel like we're taking some ethereal plan for making a good team, and applying it to us. It's apples and oranges, because very few teams, if ever, have had 2 physically superior wr's on their team, that are game changers. We buck the trend. It's not the norm, and it is special. It can't be judged on by the same rules as traditional teams might be measured up against. We're different, and we are here. We're not making judgments about drafting Q or Fitz, these have already occurred. We're here, and we're lucky to have both of them. Lightning in a bottle.

Cap strapped is an issue, if you are planning on using it elsewhere instead, it's an either/or, but either way that is painted, the cards are pictured to be up against the cap....whether it's boldin and fitz at wr, or fitz at wr, and another guy at another position.

Again though, say we needed a QB. Say we got rid of Q, so we could get a franchise QB. How many of them enter into FA? In other words, we might just get the cap space to spend on other areas, and not have anyone worth it for it to be spent on.

Some years it just isn't a good FA crop. Sometimes it's only good in a few areas, and other than trying to replace a stud with a stud, good finds can be had on FA market like a Travis Laboy or cheaper, that can have an impact. You can always find guys making 1.5-4 million that can end up being just as good as a guy making 7 million. I don't see how having Q on our team, affects us from signing 1 or 2 of these guys a year with Q during tight years, and maybe 4-5 during non-tight years.

Again the restructures as I understand them, are usually UTBE. This affects the next year, not the current year. We're not in a position where we have to cut anybody, and next year, is light years away. Generally though overall the team does get reductions. Not every UTBE will be earned, it just gives the guy a chance to recoup some money, and have it count against next year's cap.

Exactly. I wasn't suggesting it would be 150-170 mill cap next year or 2010, I'm thinking 2013-2015. All these deals are starting at 2009, a seven year deal would mean a 7 year deal runs 2009-2015. Which means if we sign dansby in the offseason to a 7 year deal, or extend Q's deal 4 or 5 years, we'll be dealing with a contract that in the last few years, would be in a scenario where Q and Fitz combine to make 18-22 million out of a 150-170 million cap.

You're right that contracts get more expensive. But if memory serves correct Fitz's contract is pretty even all the way across the board. I believe year 7 is less than 2 million more per year than year 1. A similar approach to boldin's contract can be done.

It doesn't have to be a 7 year 70 million dollar deal, where it's 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 20 million against the cap. Well of course it doesn't even have to be 70 million, just pulling those numbers out of the air.

Under my scenario it's more like 10-14 percent of a cap, for 2 of the best WR's in football. Even then, when the TV deal is done again, it could go up even more than we are expecting. It generally does. Not to mention it might be reworked. Not reworked, extended. The TV deal can be extended to say 2018 but, it also reworks the numbers higher for 2012. The NFL has an interest to make as much money as possible, and can throw things in there that we don't consider, or adding more of newly added things. Who would've though of changing games in the middle of the season so they are on primetime or what not. You can bet whatever the next TV deal is, there will be aspects that are new, that will be used as leverage to get the NFL more money. Maybe it's more web rights, whatever.

Finally again though, we aren't spending the money on unknowns. We have the gift of already having these guys, knowing what they can and will do on our team. We don't have to worry about a denver rb trying to run in our system, to give an example. It's unusual, I agree, but we have it, we're already here. No need to go backwards, because it's unorthodox. In fact imo, we are set up so we don't need to take any wr's for the next few years in our draft. We can almost completely eliminate that position from being drafted, unless someone really catches our eye in a late round, or is a kr/pr, or whatever. We can use those picks normally spent on wr's over a few year stretch, to take players at those other positions. The opportunity is there. We know what areas we need to focus on, and what we don't have to. WR is set with 3 studs, and doucet who I think could very well become a stud wr. Plenty of opportunity to fill other positions in coming years.


=============================

First it will not go up dramatically soon as I have already pointed out.

Second all of those so called steal contracts will become players whining about wanting more money. It is a cycle. And you already stated a good example. Boldin signs a deal and wants a new one 2 years later becuase of the new CBA. Whats to stop Boldin from doing it again when the CBA goes up dramatically again(which it wont). The guy is already whining about wanting to get his 3rd different contract in only his 6th year. The guy doesnt have Drew as his agent for nothing and would want more of that CBA pie when it supposedly goes up dramatically again. He has a history of it so whats to stop him from working on whining for his 4th new contract a few years from now?

It is a cycle. One that cannot be avoided. Good teams let good players go. They survive and move on. Or they don't. Because as much as I love my cardinals, even if they turn it around now, I know in my lifetime, and even in the coming decade, there will be down years.

Again I'm thinking of the contracts and CBA and TV rights in a larger context. I am thinking about 2015 already, I am thinking about the next TV rights. The CBA when the percentage is selected, will be applied to the TV right of the next television package. So a CBA deal signed in 2010, won't limit and create a windfall for teams getting higher revenues from a 2011 or 2012 signed TV deal. We're going to see two jumps. One with the new CBA, and one when the new TV contract sets in. But overall i'm looking at it as one big continual jump done during one set of contracts our guys sign. Between 2009 and 2015 the changes are going to be dramatic. At this point, a 10 percent increase in the cap, would be more than a 10 million increase to the cap. Small percentage increases are bring about a huge increase in cap. The cap isn't growing by 1-2 million a year, it's starting to grow at 10 million a year. So a 7 year contract will be more easily fit in, even with increases in salary, over that span. But that said, it looks like we're going for more even salaries, so it'll be even easier to fit in.

True, boldin did this. But also dansby and dockett and wilson want restructures, but they all still played and didn't do what even Boldin did. Meaning we're far more sensitive to this right now, that what is reality year in and year out. Even if a guy does it once, odds are not twice. Even if they are a head case, you can only sign so many deals as a top flight guy. After these next deals are up, not many of our guys will be young enough to command a 7 year contract. 3-4 years sounds about right for a long term contract, if they are still quality players ofc.

Again though, there is no pressing need to make a change, so why press and make a change. There's no need to. Again if someone comes out and says we can sign Adrian Peterson next year, and drop Q, that's more feasible. But that ain't gonna happen. Since FA, there have been more FA years, then FA prizes. If AP was to be a FA in 2010 even, there would be one helluva bidding war, in which it would take Fitz and Q's contract to cover peterson's agent's demands. We are talking about a league that'll pay 70-80 million for cb's that aren't top flight, but merely good. I'll resign Q over having to bid on guys like that any day.

2008 $116 million 2003 $75 million
2007 $109 million 2002 $71 million
2006 $102 million 2001 $67.5 million
2005 $85.5 million 2000 $62.2 million
2004 $80.5 million 1999 $58.4 million

If one notices, we've gone from 58 million in 1999 to 116 million in 2008. Nine years difference, double the salary cap. That's an 11 percent increase per year. Now the factors that contribute to that are two fold. CBA, and TV rights, both of which are coming up again.

By this measure in 2017, we should have a 232 million dollar salary cap. Will we get there, probably not, but it is entirely possible. Using the past as a guide, a conservative figure for 2017 would be a 200 million cap. So when I say 150-170 million towards the end of his contract, I am being conservative.

So no when I think of either ripping up his contract, or adding years to it, I don't think Q making 8-10 million a year depending on the year, will put us in a really bad position. Again I think it would be a steal.

It'll be a pretty big piece of the pie this year, but by the end of the contract, it won't be. If Q whines again, then we can make him play out that contract, and deal with it. Either way, when talking about probably in the middle to latter half of the next decade, I think we should put those potential situations off for a few years. To use an example. Is it important that Social Security is solvent to 2080 or is 2040 just fine for a few years? If you catch my drift.

Finally though, whether Q or another player at another position, if they're going to complain about the new CBA and their contract, then they will. It's not a reason to not sign him now, because you can say the case for anybody at any position that you sign. I doubt Q would, and if he did, again I already know he'll come and play, at least for a year.

Either way though, I'm just putting this out there, I know I can't sway everyone and possibly anyone. This is just how I see it. I see this as a great opportunity to leapfrog other teams that don't have the talent to take advantage of the increase in salary cap. (teams that have few worthy of signing long term)

 

[Mitch]

The Cards Are Not Trading Boldin, Period!

 

[RonF]

The Cards Are Not Trading Boldin, Period!

 

[Pariah]

The Cards Are Not Trading Boldin, Period!

I'm glad you're so optimistic, but I think it's a real possibility.

 

[WildBB]

You know what those people will say, after you do what they tell you? What are you stupid, you traded or let boldin go?

Getting rid of Q, simply because of the mantra of cap space and where to spend it, is silly. Doing things like this is how you become 'same ol cardinals'. Think about it. You keep good players. Getting rid of Q, would be an act of thinking too much, and reacting.

 

[wembley88]

If someone makes us an offer we cant refuse, we think about it then but in the meantime id rather focus on salivating at the prospect of Fitz, Boldin, Breaston and Doucet with hightower and James in the backfield....

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The Cards Are Not Trading Boldin, Period!

This is funny. Wasn't it you that pretty much guaranteed (by your contacts) that Q was on his way to Dallas?