Lorenzon Alexander and Jasper Brinkley's contract numbers per Jurecki

[Chopper0080]

I agree - I tend to think we could have kept Wilson, he might have even been willing to rework his contract a bit. I'm not sure what the FO thoughts on that move were unless they just wanted to move on from him in general.

I get moving on from Wilson rather than Rhodes if you had to make a choice, and I would have agreed with the move. What I don't agree with is then cutting Rhodes to make up for dead money that is already counted towards the cap rather than use it is replace him with a better player or sign an impact player at another position.

 

[Chopper0080]

Maybe, but for cap purposes, I believe that veteran minimum salaries only account for like $600K.

I'll add in that (1) all 7 rookies probably aren't going to make the final roster, and (2) each rookie signing is going to push someone off the "rule of 51", so the rookie cap isn't going to matter all that much.

Yes. The team could have kept Rhodes, signed the free agents they have so far, and still had room for the rookie salaries.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Yes. The team could have kept Rhodes, signed the free agents they have so far, and still had room for the rookie salaries.

Perhaps they could have squeezed Rhodes at $6M under the CAP to play out his last year, but, when you see what safeties are getting on the open market, I can imagine the uproar on this board and blaming this contract for why we can't bid for the services of whomever.

 

[Chopper0080]

Perhaps they could have squeezed Rhodes at $6M under the CAP to play out his last year, but, when you see what safeties are getting on the open market, I can imagine the uproar on this board and blaming this contract for why we can't bid for the services of whomever.

I was a bit cranky yesterday, so sorry if my posts reflected that.

I agree there would be an uproar if we passed on impact players to keep Rhodes, and I would be ok if the Cards pursued a player like Dumervil with the money saved. My issue is, why cut a good player and not use the money to improve the roster when it doesn't benefit the following year. I am not a huge believer in quantity over quality in the NFL, and that is the feeling I get when I think about the Cards cutting Rhodes.

Was he worth 6 mil per year? Probably not.

Was he a better player than either Bell or Rashad Johnson? Yes.

Have we added any impact player with that 6 mil we saved in 2013 by cutting him? No, and that is my issue.

 

[GuernseyCard]

I was a bit cranky yesterday, so sorry if my posts reflected that.

I agree there would be an uproar if we passed on impact players to keep Rhodes, and I would be ok if the Cards pursued a player like Dumervil with the money saved. My issue is, why cut a good player and not use the money to improve the roster when it doesn't benefit the following year. I am not a huge believer in quantity over quality in the NFL, and that is the feeling I get when I think about the Cards cutting Rhodes.

Was he worth 6 mil per year? Probably not.

Was he a better player than either Bell or Rashad Johnson? Yes.

Have we added any impact player with that 6 mil we saved in 2013 by cutting him? No, and that is my issue.

I take all of your points, arguments and I'm in general agreement. I don't know if there are many players out there presently who fall into the "impact" category, but would like to see them get a piece on a longer term deal. Have to believe that this is being actively weighed and considered.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I was a bit cranky yesterday, so sorry if my posts reflected that.

I agree there would be an uproar if we passed on impact players to keep Rhodes, and I would be ok if the Cards pursued a player like Dumervil with the money saved. My issue is, why cut a good player and not use the money to improve the roster when it doesn't benefit the following year. I am not a huge believer in quantity over quality in the NFL, and that is the feeling I get when I think about the Cards cutting Rhodes.

Was he worth 6 mil per year? Probably not.

Was he a better player than either Bell or Rashad Johnson? Yes.

Have we added any impact player with that 6 mil we saved in 2013 by cutting him? No, and that is my issue.

You said he probably wasn't worth his contract, but you think the Cards should have kept him anyways? That logic makes no sense to me. If a player isn't worth his contract and your team is trying to rebuild than it makes no sense to hang on to that contract especially if that player isn't willing to restructure or extend.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[kerouac9]

You said he probably wasn't worth his contract, but you think the Cards should have kept him anyways? That logic makes no sense to me. If a player isn't worth his contract and your team is trying to rebuild than it makes no sense to hang on to that contract especially if that player isn't willing to restructure or extend.

Because if he's not worth $6M, he might be worth $4M. Is it worth significantly downgrading a position (which we did--no one has argued that Bell or Johnson are better than Rhodes, only cheaper) to save $2M that we're not going to spend anyway?

 

[GuernseyCard]

Because if he's not worth $6M, he might be worth $4M. Is it worth significantly downgrading a position (which we did--no one has argued that Bell or Johnson are better than Rhodes, only cheaper) to save $2M that we're not going to spend anyway?

We don't know what was offered and refused, and we certainly don't know how all of the $$$ will be spent in FA, etc.

 

[kerouac9]

We don't know what was offered and refused, and we certainly don't know how all of the $$$ will be spent in FA, etc.

That's immaterial to the question at hand (Although I think the reasonable expectation is that the Arizona Cardinals will go into the regular season with a ton of salary cap space available).

 

[GuernseyCard]

That's immaterial to the question at hand (Although I think the reasonable expectation is that the Arizona Cardinals will go into the regular season with a ton of salary cap space available).

A reasonable expectatioon based on what beyond a jaundiced view of the present FO?

There are teams with consoiderably more CAP space who've barely entered the market, how does one explain that?

 

[kerouac9]

A reasonable expectatioon based on what beyond a jaundiced view of the present FO?

There are teams with consoiderably more CAP space who've barely entered the market, how does one explain that?

Based on what is being reported from inside and outside the organization (Somers and Urban, specifically).

Who are these teams sitting on cap space? Is it encouraging that the Cards are keeping company with these teams? I believe the Jacksonville Jaguars are one such franchise.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Based on what is being reported from inside and outside the organization (Somers and Urban, specifically).

Who are these teams sitting on cap space? Is it encouraging that the Cards are keeping company with these teams? I believe the Jacksonville Jaguars are one such franchise.

You are substantive one moment and deliberately obtuse the next. Somers and Urban have reported that the Cards are prepared to sit on CAP space? Really and why? And, if you take a moment you'll find teams with better pedigrees than Jacksonville who've stayed out of deep commitments in FA, so far.

 

[kerouac9]

You are sustantive one moment and deliberately obtuse the next. Somers and Urban have reported that the Cards are prepared to sit on CAP space? Really and why? And, if you take a moment you'll find teams with better pedigrees than Jacksonville who've stayed out of deep commitments in FA, so far.

Somers and Urban have reported that the Cards are substantially done in free agency. There aren't any seven-figure players left out on the market. What we're going to see going forward are one-year deals for close to the veteran minimum with small (if any) guarantees.

You're the one asserting that there are competitive organizations out there sitting on tons of cap space. Justify your assertion with evidence. I can't prove a negative.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Somers and Urban have reported that the Cards are substantially done in free agency. There aren't any seven-figure players left out on the market. What we're going to see going forward are one-year deals for close to the veteran minimum with small (if any) guarantees.

You're the one asserting that there are competitive organizations out there sitting on tons of cap space. Justify your assertion with evidence. I can't prove a negative.

It isn't abouit proving a negative when a quiick google will show you a host of teams with considerably more space than the Cards. And lower end deals doesn't mean that at the end of day the Cards are sitting on CAP space. In the end, we will have the arithmatical answer, not assertions before the fact.

 

[kerouac9]

It isn't abouit proving a negative when a quiick google will show you a host of teams with considerably more space than the Cards. And lower end deals doesn't mean that at the end of day the Cards are sitting on CAP space. In the end, we will have the arithmatical answer, not assertions before the fact.

Look: if it's so easy to prove, then just prove your point. I can't prove a negative. I have no doubt that there are teams sitting on cap space--I even named one and said that it was a terrible organization to be in the company of: the Jacksonville Jaguars.

If you want to assert that there are model franchises sitting on cap space, then substantiate that assertion.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Look: if it's so easy to prove, then just prove your point. I can't prove a negative. I have no doubt that there are teams sitting on cap space--I even named one and said that it was a terrible organization to be in the company of: the Jacksonville Jaguars.

If you want to assert that there are model franchises sitting on cap space, then substantiate that assertion.

Ha, ha... and have you bang on about the definition of model. No thanks.

At the end of process, we'll have a better idea as to whether decisions were wise and money well spent. Given the orthodoxy of your views, I doubt we'll find you anywhere near satisfied.

Cheers....

 

[Cheesebeef]

A reasonable expectatioon based on what beyond a jaundiced view of the present FO?

There are teams with consoiderably more CAP space who've barely entered the market, how does one explain that?

Maybe it's explained by the fact that some of those teams weren't one of the worst teams in the league and don't need to go out and get actual impact makers and can afford to sit back... Or they're terrible like us? I don't know. You're making Tge claim about these other teams. Why don't u tell us who you're talking about and we can look at reasons from there?

 

[Cards Czar]

For all who want to know as who has more cap space then the cardinals.

http://www.spotrac.com/cap-tracker/nfl/

 

[GatorAZ]

For all who want to know as who has more cap space then the cardinals.

http://www.spotrac.com/cap-tracker/nfl/

Dayyyum.. The Ohio teams might have trouble reaching the Salary Cap floor. I think it's 114M this season.

 

[Duckjake]

Because if he's not worth $6M, he might be worth $4M. Is it worth significantly downgrading a position (which we did--no one has argued that Bell or Johnson are better than Rhodes, only cheaper) to save $2M that we're not going to spend anyway?

I don't see how fans can't grasp this concept. Is the goal of an NFL franchise to put the best players they can on the field in an attempt to win a championship or is it to make sure they don't over pay any players?

 

[Mulli]

I don't see how fans can't grasp this concept. Is the goal of an NFL franchise to put the best players they can on the field in an attempt to win a championship or is it to make sure they don't over pay any players?

I wonder if the Rhodes thing was Keim trying to prove he could be a GM saying look at me Mr. Bidwill I am able to be a big boy and cut a guy because he makes too much (because we have to make up for what we had to pay the last coach).

 

[Arizona's Finest]

so... worse player, but cheaper.

Yeah exactly. What about that doesn't make sense? It's called economics. By and large you are going to get a better or more established player when you spend more money.

The difference is VALUE. Bell at 950K >>>>> Wilson 5m

Simple stuff really cheese.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I don't see how fans can't grasp this concept. Is the goal of an NFL franchise to put the best players they can on the field in an attempt to win a championship or is it to make sure they don't over pay any players?

After running a business for 2+ years now I could talk for hours on this subject. This isn't fantasy football. It's like a puzzle. Pieces all have to fit together and at the right price too. It's not how much you invest it's ROI. Same in football as it is in business.

 

[Duckjake]

After running a business for 2+ years now I could talk for hours on this subject. This isn't fantasy football. It's like a puzzle. Pieces all have to fit together and at the right price too. It's not how much you invest it's ROI. Same in football as it is in business.

I run two businesses. One for 15 years. But neither is a monopoly with a guaranteed income like an NFL franchise. Winning has to be more important than saving a few bucks in payroll because with an NFL franchise your ROI is far greater at 11-5 than 5-11. Especially when you paid $35,000 for an asset worth a billion dollars.

 

[Mulli]

I run two businesses. One for 15 years. But neither is a monopoly with a guaranteed income like an NFL franchise. Winning has to be more important than saving a few bucks in payroll because with an NFL franchise your ROI is far greater at 11-5 than 5-11. Especially when you paid $35,000 for an asset worth a billion dollars.