Really? Come on.
Is this dude serious? So we're all saying **** because you re-signed a guy that you already had - who has never helped get you to the playoffs - to a deal that gives him more in guaranteed money than any player has received on a contract that short in the history of the league?
Is this dude serious? So we're all saying **** because you re-signed a guy that you already had - who has never helped get you to the playoffs - to a deal that gives him more in guaranteed money than any player has received on a contract that short in the history of the league?
Yeah. We're saying **** alright. So does having finally signed Fitzgerald to a four year deal now put you guys back in the running for major free agents like Alan Faneca or do you suddenly no longer feel that signing him was important because he got away behind the Fitz fiasco?
If I were you, I'd be VERY happy about getting Fitz back into the fold. But calling everyone over to hear you talk crap as if this situation didn't work out poorly for you is laughable. Make no mistake. The Cardinals caved in on this deal. Fitzgerald's original contract demands were 4 years with $32M in guarantees and the Cardinals were saying "No way!" The final deal? 4 years with $30M guaranteed. So with as many needs as the Cardinals have, they drug this negotiation out and missed the most crucial part of free agency over what amounts to $500K of cap room per year? That is what we call idiotic front office work.
Fitz is a great receiver and getting him back in the fold was a great move for you guys. But the way that this whole thing was carried out leaves most NFC West fans smiling at Fitzgerald, not cursing him. If it weren't for this whole thing being so protracted, God knows what great free agents you guys might have gotten inked in free agency... most notably one of the top 5 offensive linemen in all of football. **** indeed.
The team that just paid a guy $30M guaranteed on a four year deal "never" would have paid what Faneca got? Right. Perhaps they were saying they wouldn't pay it because they couldn't afford it given Fitzgerald's situation.
Rod Graves is the same guy who said two years ago that the Cardinals wouldn't make any big splashes in free agency and then signed Edgerrin James - one of the biggest named RBs of the modern era - just a few days later. Yeah. I must be completely wrong. If Rod Graves said you guys weren't going to do something, clearly that's all there is to it.
Rod Graves is the same guy who said two years ago that the Cardinals wouldn't make any big splashes in free agency and then signed Edgerrin James - one of the biggest named RBs of the modern era - just a few days later. Yeah. I must be completely wrong. If Rod Graves said you guys weren't going to do something, clearly that's all there is to it.
Rod Graves is the same guy who said two years ago that the Cardinals wouldn't make any big splashes in free agency and then signed Edgerrin James - one of the biggest named RBs of the modern era - just a few days later. Yeah. I must be completely wrong. If Rod Graves said you guys weren't going to do something, clearly that's all there is to it.
You're right but you missed the point. The difference between the deal they were rejecting a month ago and the deal they finally accepted is a difference of 500k per year. Pretty negligible amount when it prohibits you from being a player in free agency.
Um... no. It was transition tagging him instead of franchise tagging him that cost us Hutchinson. But I assume you already knew that and were just taking some off topic shot in the dark because you had no real point.
It was a sequence of events that changes Grave's position, NOT Graves misleading anyone about his FA intentions.SeaChicken said:
