OT: Lofa signs extension

[cardsfanmd]

no one named cardmd even posted in this thread.

I assume he was talking about me. Why he did here or anywhere remains a mystery.

 

[SeaChicken]

Here's the problem with that scenario and I've talked about this previously. We didn't know until Dec. 2007 that Fitz was going to hit all the incentives in his contract, so there was nothing to dicuss until that point. That was exactly 4 months ago and negotiations have been going on for 3 months.

You're right in one respect. They didn't "know". But they did know based on the previous four years that it was a distinct possibility. As I said in the previous post, at least a 50/50 shot. So if you know you've got a great player that you want to keep with the franchise, why not try to work out a deal with him a year early and avoid the possibility of him hitting the incentives? Again, they may have been trying to get something done and we just didn't hear about it.

And on the other side of the coin, if you were Fitz or his agent and thought you had a realistic chance to make the incentives in your contract, would you redo your contract before you hit those incentives and take less dollars?

It's a nice thought, but neither side had incentive to do so.

Again, I disagree. Why does any good player sign an extension when there is the possibility of more money if they just wait another year? Like the old adage says, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Case in point. If Lofa waited until his contract was up, he may have been able to make an extra $6-10M given the way contracts are increasing every year. Or, he could have blown up his knee before getting to the pay day and never cashed in. If they approached Fitzgerald with a 6 year deal with $32M in guarantees last year, I'd be willing to bet he would have taken it. Just like the Cardinals didn't know what kind of year Fitz would have, neither did he. By offering him the contract last year, Fitz would have been taking a major risk in turning it down. By not making him the offer last year, the Cardinals took the risk... and lost.

Point being, if Fitz is a great player who has the potential to make it to a Pro Bowl every year (and he is), why would you not try to lock him up ASAP, especially if there might be a steep penalty if you don't? I honestly don't get it.

 

[40yearfan]

You're right in one respect. They didn't "know". But they did know based on the previous four years that it was a distinct possibility. As I said in the previous post, at least a 50/50 shot. So if you know you've got a great player that you want to keep with the franchise, why not try to work out a deal with him a year early and avoid the possibility of him hitting the incentives? Again, they may have been trying to get something done and we just didn't hear about it.


Again, I disagree. Why does any good player sign an extension when there is the possibility of more money if they just wait another year? Like the old adage says, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Case in point. If Lofa waited until his contract was up, he may have been able to make an extra $6-10M given the way contracts are increasing every year. Or, he could have blown up his knee before getting to the pay day and never cashed in. If they approached Fitzgerald with a 6 year deal with $32M in guarantees last year, I'd be willing to bet he would have taken it. Just like the Cardinals didn't know what kind of year Fitz would have, neither did he. By offering him the contract last year, Fitz would have been taking a major risk in turning it down. By not making him the offer last year, the Cardinals took the risk... and lost.

Point being, if Fitz is a great player who has the potential to make it to a Pro Bowl every year (and he is), why would you not try to lock him up ASAP, especially if there might be a steep penalty if you don't? I honestly don't get it.

See bolded. The point you are missing is that Fitz already had the money in his contract. Fifteen million this year for sure and maybe 17 million next year if the Cards didn't release him. The incentive wasn't there for Fitz to negotiate last year, so regardless of what the Cards wanted, you can't negotiate without both sides doing so. I realize that hind sight is 20-20 and it's easy to say now that the Cards should have acted earlier, but there wasn't a soul on here who was espousing that last year.

Lofa's situation was different in the fact that he didn't have fourteen million dollars in this year's contract otherwise he would have been a little more difficult to deal with.

 

[SeaChicken]

See bolded. The point you are missing is that Fitz already had the money in his contract. Fifteen million this year for sure and maybe 17 million next year if the Cards didn't release him. The incentive wasn't there for Fitz to negotiate last year, so regardless of what the Cards wanted, you can't negotiate without both sides doing so. I realize that hind sight is 20-20 and it's easy to say now that the Cards should have acted earlier, but there wasn't a soul on here who was espousing that last year.

Lofa's situation was different in the fact that he didn't have fourteen million dollars in this year's contract otherwise he would have been a little more difficult to deal with.

The point I think you're missing is that Fitz had the money already in his contract only if he made it to the second Pro Bowl (which hadn't happened yet at this point last year). That's the whole point I'm making. For all Fitz knew, he might not make those incentives and many things could have affected that from him getting an injury to poor QB play. At this point last year, Fitz didn't already have those guarantees banked. That didn't happen until the completion of the 2007 season when he was voted to the Pro Bowl.

I'd be in full agreement with you if Fitz had come into the 2007 season knowing that he was scheduled to make $15M the next year no matter what happened. But that was not the case as you're implying in your post. In other words, if Fitz had a down year (or even a few more guys had spectacular years that eclipsed him whether he deserved the Pro Bowl or not), he had no guaranteed $32M over the next two years. So if the Cardinals had offered him a contract for 6 years with $32M guranteed (as an example) last year, he would have had plenty of incentive to deal. He could have taken the $32M in guaranteed money then or rolled the dice and hoped he didn't have a down year or major injury in 2007. I guarantee you that if a lucrative long term deal with a lot of guaranteed money had been offered last year, he would have strongly considered it.

 

[40yearfan]

The point I think you're missing is that Fitz had the money already in his contract only if he made it to the second Pro Bowl (which hadn't happened yet at this point last year). That's the whole point I'm making. For all Fitz knew, he might not make those incentives and many things could have affected that from him getting an injury to poor QB play. At this point last year, Fitz didn't already have those guarantees banked. That didn't happen until the completion of the 2007 season when he was voted to the Pro Bowl.

I'd be in full agreement with you if Fitz had come into the 2007 season knowing that he was scheduled to make $15M the next year no matter what happened. But that was not the case as you're implying in your post. In other words, if Fitz had a down year (or even a few more guys had spectacular years that eclipsed him whether he deserved the Pro Bowl or not), he had no guaranteed $32M over the next two years. So if the Cardinals had offered him a contract for 6 years with $32M guranteed (as an example) last year, he would have had plenty of incentive to deal. He could have taken the $32M in guaranteed money then or rolled the dice and hoped he didn't have a down year or major injury in 2007. I guarantee you that if a lucrative long term deal with a lot of guaranteed money had been offered last year, he would have strongly considered it.

SC, why on earth would the Cards or Fitz renegotiate his contract at the start of 2007? You are using hind sight to make your point. And I will guarantee you that the Cards had absolutely no thoughts of paying Fitz 32 million dollars guaranteed for any amount of years. He was going into the 4th year of a 6 year contract. How many teams do you know who redo a 6 year contract after only 3 years have expired?

You can argue this point all you want, but it makes no difference. You are wrong. There was no thought on either side to redo this contract at the start of the 2007 season and no reason for them to do it. Not one single person on this web-site or one single news caster was predicting dire straights for the Cards because they weren't redoing Fitz's contract. Things worked out the way they did because Fitz hit his incentives. Until he did that, any one saying the Cards should have acted sooner is not being realistic or fair.

 

[SeaChicken]

SC, why on earth would the Cards or Fitz renegotiate his contract at the start of 2007? You are using hind sight to make your point. And I will guarantee you that the Cards had absolutely no thoughts of paying Fitz 32 million dollars guaranteed for any amount of years. He was going into the 4th year of a 6 year contract. How many teams do you know who redo a 6 year contract after only 3 years have expired?

You can argue this point all you want, but it makes no difference. You are wrong. There was no thought on either side to redo this contract at the start of the 2007 season and no reason for them to do it. Not one single person on this web-site or one single news caster was predicting dire straights for the Cards because they weren't redoing Fitz's contract.

I kind of laughed at the line in your post when you said "No matter what, you're wrong." It kind of says, "No matter what point you make - even if it's valid - I've made up my mind." Bit of a discussion killer.

But I'm more than fine with agreeing to disagree. I don't really see what "nobody talking about it" had to do with anything. I'd venture a guess that most people weren't talking about it because people outside of the front office aren't generally aware of the escalators in peoples contracts until they hit them. In fact, I haven't heard anything this offseason about upcoming escalators in anyone's contracts but I'd think we'd both agree that there are in fact other contracts with escalators out there. And even if escalators were well known to all, so what? Just because fans and reporters weren't being critical, does that mean it's okay for the front office not to deal with the very real possibility that the escalator's would be reached? Regardless of whether the public knew the specifics of what was written into the contract, the front office did. They knew that Fitzgerald had already been to one Pro Bowl and had the skills to make it to the next. But it's okay for them not to deal with it? Is it hindsight for a fan to ask "Why did they wait?" Sure it is. But not for the GM. It's absolutely his job to be looking at least a couple of years into the future at the state of the franchise. As far as me being "unfair", I've said several times in my posts that they very well may have been trying to make a deal with Fitz last year but we just didn't know it. The sole purpose of that caveat was indeed to be fair.

While you're right, you don't see many people re-doing a 6 year deal in the third year, I don't know that I've ever heard of a contract that kicks a players salary into outright orbit in the fifth year if they hit a VERY attainable escalator. This wasn't a garden variety contract by any means.

Things worked out the way they did because Fitz hit his incentives. Until he did that, any one saying the Cards should have acted sooner is not being realistic or fair.

This is how you ended your post and this is the crux of my problem with it. In these two statements, you've basically said it's "not realistic" and "unfair" to expect your front office to show a shred of foresight. Your position is tantamount to saying that laying down in the middle of the street isn't a problem unless a car comes and anyone who says you should have foreseen getting run over is only speaking from hindsight and isn't being realistic or fair. All due respect but it's ludicrous.

Larry Fitzgerald has been playing at a Pro Bowl level since the first time he took the field for the Cardinals. It's a well known fact around the league. The front office gave him a contract that jumped to astronomical costs in the fifth year if he made two Pro Bowls. Fitzgerald had already made one Pro Bowl coming into 2007 and was showing no signs of decline. Anyone with a pulse knew that Fitzgerald at least had the potential to make the Pro Bowl coming into last season. It is the front office's responsibility to anticipate situations that jeopardize the team's cap health over the next few seasons.

Please tell me which statements in the above paragraph are either "wrong", "unrealistic", or "unfair". I don't see a single one. This situation was about as unpredictable as a sunrise. It should have been dealt with sooner. But since we both think the other is "wrong", how about we just agree to disagree?

 

[40yearfan]

I kind of laughed at the line in your post when you said "No matter what, you're wrong." It kind of says, "No matter what point you make - even if it's valid - I've made up my mind." Bit of a discussion killer.

But I'm more than fine with agreeing to disagree. I don't really see what "nobody talking about it" had to do with anything. I'd venture a guess that most people weren't talking about it because people outside of the front office aren't generally aware of the escalators in peoples contracts until they hit them. In fact, I haven't heard anything this offseason about upcoming escalators in anyone's contracts but I'd think we'd both agree that there are in fact other contracts with escalators out there. And even if escalators were well known to all, so what? Just because fans and reporters weren't being critical, does that mean it's okay for the front office not to deal with the very real possibility that the escalator's would be reached? Regardless of whether the public knew the specifics of what was written into the contract, the front office did. They knew that Fitzgerald had already been to one Pro Bowl and had the skills to make it to the next. But it's okay for them not to deal with it? Is it hindsight for a fan to ask "Why did they wait?" Sure it is. But not for the GM. It's absolutely his job to be looking at least a couple of years into the future at the state of the franchise. As far as me being "unfair", I've said several times in my posts that they very well may have been trying to make a deal with Fitz last year but we just didn't know it. The sole purpose of that caveat was indeed to be fair.

While you're right, you don't see many people re-doing a 6 year deal in the third year, I don't know that I've ever heard of a contract that kicks a players salary into outright orbit in the fifth year if they hit a VERY attainable escalator. This wasn't a garden variety contract by any means.


This is how you ended your post and this is the crux of my problem with it. In these two statements, you've basically said it's "not realistic" and "unfair" to expect your front office to show a shred of foresight. Your position is tantamount to saying that laying down in the middle of the street isn't a problem unless a car comes and anyone who says you should have foreseen getting run over is only speaking from hindsight and isn't being realistic or fair. All due respect but it's ludicrous.

Larry Fitzgerald has been playing at a Pro Bowl level since the first time he took the field for the Cardinals. It's a well known fact around the league. The front office gave him a contract that jumped to astronomical costs in the fifth year if he made two Pro Bowls. Fitzgerald had already made one Pro Bowl coming into 2007 and was showing no signs of decline. Anyone with a pulse knew that Fitzgerald at least had the potential to make the Pro Bowl coming into last season. It is the front office's responsibility to anticipate situations that jeopardize the team's cap health over the next few seasons.

Please tell me which statements in the above paragraph are either "wrong", "unrealistic", or "unfair". I don't see a single one. This situation was about as unpredictable as a sunrise. It should have been dealt with sooner. But since we both think the other is "wrong", how about we just agree to disagree?

It is hind sight pure and simple. If the Cards should have known that Fitz would probably hit his incentives, why would you think Fitz was so stupid that he wouldn't realize that also? Of course he knew he had a real shot at making them. As such, there was no incentive to redo his contract. That is my whole point and the obvious point that the writer above has clearly missed. You are trying to play both ends against the middle. Fitz had the same knowledge the Cards FO had and regardless of what you think of him, he isn't stupid.

In the first place, the Cards would not have offered him $30,000,000 at the start of 2007. If they had of, he might have accepted it and RG would have been crucified for handing out such a ridiculous contract to a WR who hadn't even hit his incentives. That's the problem with using hind sight. It only makes sense after the event has happened and you know the outcome.

So your whole premise of the Cards offering $30 million at the start of 2007 makes absolutely no sense. With that in mind, why would Fitz settle for a lesser amount when he had the same info the Cards had, the info that you have stated makes them boobs for not renegotiating before the 2007 season? That's where you are playing both ends against the middle. Using hind sight to reach a conclusion and then ignoring the other side of the equation having the same knowledge.

I know this is hard for you to understand and I've tried to make it as simple as possible so you could follow it. It's probably in vain as you have shown a great propensity to overlook facts that won't support your suppositions. Don't worry. I have a lot of patience.

 

[SeaChicken]

It is hind sight pure and simple. If the Cards should have known that Fitz would probably hit his incentives, why would you think Fitz was so stupid that he wouldn't realize that also? Of course he knew he had a real shot at making them. As such, there was no incentive to redo his contract. That is my whole point and the obvious point that the writer above has clearly missed. You are trying to play both ends against the middle. Fitz had the same knowledge the Cards FO had and regardless of what you think of him, he isn't stupid.

In the first place, the Cards would not have offered him $30,000,000 at the start of 2007. If they had of, he might have accepted it and RG would have been crucified for handing out such a ridiculous contract to a WR who hadn't even hit his incentives. That's the problem with using hind sight. It only makes sense after the event has happened and you know the outcome.

So your whole premise of the Cards offering $30 million at the start of 2007 makes absolutely no sense. With that in mind, why would Fitz settle for a lesser amount when he had the same info the Cards had, the info that you have stated makes them boobs for not renegotiating before the 2007 season? That's where you are playing both ends against the middle. Using hind sight to reach a conclusion and then ignoring the other side of the equation having the same knowledge.

I know this is hard for you to understand and I've tried to make it as simple as possible so you could follow it. It's probably in vain as you have shown a great propensity to overlook facts that won't support your suppositions. Don't worry. I have a lot of patience.

Hmmm... And all this time I genuinely thought we were having a respectful discussion. While I don't claim to be the smartest individual in the world, I'm pretty sure you just called me stupid. That's alright I've got thick skin.

Maybe that's the problem though. You're looking at this as an argument that I'm trying to win. There's nothing to win here. Just opinions being shared. Nobody is taking a flaming stab at your front office. Remember, one of the guys that engineered this "brilliant" piece of paperwork that we call Fitzgerald's contract is none other than our current cap guy, John Idzik. In fact, I opened a thread on the Seahawks board when this all happened asking the question of what this situation might mean for our own contract negotiations. So for clarity, nobody is trying to mock your front office. I just honestly think they handled this one wrong. Hopefully that will keep you from thinking I'm trying to "play both ends against the middle" (which I don't think is the cliche' you're meaning to use here since "trying to have it both ways" is actually far more appropriate).

But since you're saying I'm ignoring each side of the argument to make my point, let me address both:

The Cardinals:
So you're saying that Rod Graves would have been "crucified" for handing Fitzgerald $30M last year? Why? I think most people would have been fine with Fitzgerald getting $30M on a six or seven year deal given that he had already been stellar for three years. He's a top 10 (and probably top 5) receiver in the NFL. People understand that those guys are going to demand big bucks. If Graves hasn't been "crucified" yet for giving the man $30M guaranteed on an extremely short deal, why would they have crucified him last year on a long deal? Because he hadn't "hit the incentives"? Who cares? Nobody even knew about those incentives until he hit them this year so what difference would that have made?

You keep focusing on hindsight but you're ignoring the opposite - foresight. Do you not expect foresight from your front office? Are you actually saying that this situation was unforseeable? They couldn't have known that Fitzgerald might make the Pro Bowl next year and put his salary through the roof? These are the guys that wrote the contract. It is their job and no one elses to go "You do realize what happens if this dude makes the Pro Bowl, right?" In fact, they should have had that conversation the second he made the first Pro Bowl. I get that you're saying "Fitz had no incentive..." but we'll get to that in a minute. How can you justify the team not opening discussions based on what they knew could happen? Are you really saying they weren't required to avert a disaster that had at least a 50% chance of coming true?

Larry Fitzgerald:
What you're saying makes no sense when you really think it through. Why? Because you keep talking about Fitzgerald's "incentive". Well if you think about it, Fitzgerald had less incentive to sign the deal he just signed than he would to have signed a longer deal for the same amount in guarantees last year. Last year, staring at a 6 year/$48M deal with $30M in guranteed money (as a random example with random figures), Fitzgerald would have had to ask himself "Do I pass on all these millions and bank on the fact that I won't have an injury that brings my future into question or suffer a down year that makes me not as marketable?"

Remember, if Fitzgerald hadn't made the Pro Bowl last year (and at the beginning of the year, there was no guarantee that he would have), he would have been effectively losing money in the short term because he probably was not scheduled to make an average of the $8M/year that the new contract would have paid him in those last two years of his original deal. You see what I'm saying? You're using hindsight to say "but he was guaranteed $15M and $17M in those last two years." That's hindsight. Going into 2007, Fitzgerald didn't know how his 2007 would go.

But according to you, Fitzgerald signed the new deal presumably because he now has incentive? Doesn't make sense. Fitzgerald has less incentive than he had before. At this point, Fitz was guaranteed to make over $14M for one years work, even if he got hurt in the first year. So why sign a deal now? Because he wanted all $30M guaranteed. So if he was willing to sign a deal for $30M guaranteed at the end of the 2007 when he knew he had almost half that banked anyway, how can you possibly believe that he wouldn't have signed for $30M guaranteed when he probably only stood to make about 1/6th of that coming into the 2007 season? Don't worry if you're not getting it. I too have patience.

Fitzgerald had more incentive to sign a long term deal last year than he did last month. He had much more leverage at the end of the season than he did at the beginning which is why he was unwilling to sign anything longer than a four year deal. So give it four seasons and you'll be right back in the same position after having paid him a TON of cash already. How in the world do you call that good front office work?

Both:
You're saying that I'm claiming that each side had incentive and forgetting the other's position when I make my argument. But there again is where you're not understanding. I'm not saying they had different motives. I'm saying they had the same one: uncertainty. The fact that neither one knows what will happen is the incentive for each. It's why any long term deal is signed early. The club is thinking "sign the guy now and don't risk a situation where he can get away from us". The player is thinking "let me get this money now because I don't know for 100% sure that it will ever be offered again." The uncertainty is the incentive that everyone has to get something done. But once the Cardinals let Fitzgerald get to a point where a large part of the money was "certain", it was game over.

I think I put that out there pretty plainly but please let me know what sneaky tricks you think I'm using and I'll come up with new creative ways to put it out there in plain English: the Cardinals should have seen this coming sooner and at least TRIED to deal with it. Maybe they did. We'll never know.

 

[Sandan]

Gentleman, if you are going to have an argument, please keep you posts shorter.

That way I figure if you are having one

 

[40yearfan]

Hmmm... And all this time I genuinely thought we were having a respectful discussion. While I don't claim to be the smartest individual in the world, I'm pretty sure you just called me stupid. That's alright I've got thick skin.

Maybe that's the problem though. You're looking at this as an argument that I'm trying to win. There's nothing to win here. Just opinions being shared. Nobody is taking a flaming stab at your front office. Remember, one of the guys that engineered this "brilliant" piece of paperwork that we call Fitzgerald's contract is none other than our current cap guy, John Idzik. In fact, I opened a thread on the Seahawks board when this all happened asking the question of what this situation might mean for our own contract negotiations. So for clarity, nobody is trying to mock your front office. I just honestly think they handled this one wrong. Hopefully that will keep you from thinking I'm trying to "play both ends against the middle" (which I don't think is the cliche' you're meaning to use here since "trying to have it both ways" is actually far more appropriate).

But since you're saying I'm ignoring each side of the argument to make my point, let me address both:

The Cardinals:
So you're saying that Rod Graves would have been "crucified" for handing Fitzgerald $30M last year? Why? I think most people would have been fine with Fitzgerald getting $30M on a six or seven year deal given that he had already been stellar for three years. He's a top 10 (and probably top 5) receiver in the NFL. People understand that those guys are going to demand big bucks. If Graves hasn't been "crucified" yet for giving the man $30M guaranteed on an extremely short deal, why would they have crucified him last year on a long deal? Because he hadn't "hit the incentives"? Who cares? Nobody even knew about those incentives until he hit them this year so what difference would that have made?

There were people on this board having fits when RG gave him $30mil. after he made the incentives. They were saying he totally caved in and gave Fitz everything he wanted. If he would have done that in pre-season 2007, they would have tarred and feathered him and rode him out of town on a rail. Truthfully, I might have been in the lynch mob myself. You have to get yourself out of 2008 and remember what it was like in 2007.

You keep focusing on hindsight but you're ignoring the opposite - foresight. Do you not expect foresight from your front office? Are you actually saying that this situation was unforseeable? They couldn't have known that Fitzgerald might make the Pro Bowl next year and put his salary through the roof? These are the guys that wrote the contract. It is their job and no one elses to go "You do realize what happens if this dude makes the Pro Bowl, right?" In fact, they should have had that conversation the second he made the first Pro Bowl. I get that you're saying "Fitz had no incentive..." but we'll get to that in a minute. How can you justify the team not opening discussions based on what they knew could happen? Are you really saying they weren't required to avert a disaster that had at least a 50% chance of coming true?

The problem with your "foresight" is that it is through the glasses of hind sight that you are applying it. Now it is easy to say that the Cards should have done such and such because you know what the results were after the fact. That's the part that isn't fair. If RG had extended Fitz to a huge contract and Fitz would have gotten injured, RG might be out looking for a job today. If you plan on changing one thing in the past, you are going to change the outcome as we know it today. That's why you can't use hind sight. The final result will be different.

Larry Fitzgerald:
What you're saying makes no sense when you really think it through. Why? Because you keep talking about Fitzgerald's "incentive". Well if you think about it, Fitzgerald had less incentive to sign the deal he just signed than he would to have signed a longer deal for the same amount in guarantees last year. Last year, staring at a 6 year/$48M deal with $30M in guranteed money (as a random example with random figures), Fitzgerald would have had to ask himself "Do I pass on all these millions and bank on the fact that I won't have an injury that brings my future into question or suffer a down year that makes me not as marketable?"

This is something you and I can only speculate on. You say it doesn't make sense to turn the money down and I say that kind of money would never have been offered. Fitz hadn't hit the incentives and no one pays a WR that kind of money especially not in pre-season 2007.

Remember, if Fitzgerald hadn't made the Pro Bowl last year (and at the beginning of the year, there was no guarantee that he would have), he would have been effectively losing money in the short term because he probably was not scheduled to make an average of the $8M/year that the new contract would have paid him in those last two years of his original deal. You see what I'm saying? You're using hindsight to say "but he was guaranteed $15M and $17M in those last two years." That's hindsight. Going into 2007, Fitzgerald didn't know how his 2007 would go.

Now this is funny. You are the one who said the Cards should have known in early 2007 that Fitz would hit the incentives and that's what this whole argument has revolved around. Now you are saying I was using hind sight when I said Fitz should have known that also. You don't see the incongruity of this? This was your statement, not mine. My whole argument has been that neither side could have known this in pre-season 2007. You've been arguing about this so long, you've forgotten the basic argument.

But according to you, Fitzgerald signed the new deal presumably because he now has incentive? Doesn't make sense. Fitzgerald has less incentive than he had before. At this point, Fitz was guaranteed to make over $14M for one years work, even if he got hurt in the first year. So why sign a deal now? Because he wanted all $30M guaranteed. So if he was willing to sign a deal for $30M guaranteed at the end of the 2007 when he knew he had almost half that banked anyway, how can you possibly believe that he wouldn't have signed for $30M guaranteed when he probably only stood to make about 1/6th of that coming into the 2007 season? Don't worry if you're not getting it. I too have patience.

Once again, your premise is wrong because the Cards would have never offered him $30 mil. or anything close to that amount pre-season 2007.

Fitzgerald had more incentive to sign a long term deal last year than he did last month. He had much more leverage at the end of the season than he did at the beginning which is why he was unwilling to sign anything longer than a four year deal. So give it four seasons and you'll be right back in the same position after having paid him a TON of cash already. How in the world do you call that good front office work?

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Fitz's contract was one of the first where the Cards offered bells and whistles just like all the other NFL teams. To now say it was wrong is silly. We wanted Fitz to hit the escalators and he hit them.

Both:
You're saying that I'm claiming that each side had incentive and forgetting the other's position when I make my argument. But there again is where you're not understanding. I'm not saying they had different motives. I'm saying they had the same one: uncertainty. The fact that neither one knows what will happen is the incentive for each. It's why any long term deal is signed early. The club is thinking "sign the guy now and don't risk a situation where he can get away from us". The player is thinking "let me get this money now because I don't know for 100% sure that it will ever be offered again." The uncertainty is the incentive that everyone has to get something done. But once the Cardinals let Fitzgerald get to a point where a large part of the money was "certain", it was game over.

Read what you just wrote here. You really know very little about human nature. Most people when confronted by uncertainty do absolutely nothing because they can't make up their mind what should be done. People will generally take the easy way out and not do anything if there are no immediate harmful results readily apparent.

BTW, the large part of the money that became certain in your last sentence didn't become certain until December of 2007 which is exactly 3 months ago.

I think I put that out there pretty plainly but please let me know what sneaky tricks you think I'm using and I'll come up with new creative ways to put it out there in plain English: the Cardinals should have seen this coming sooner and at least TRIED to deal with it. Maybe they did. We'll never know.

And there you go. Maybe they did and we know nothing about it. Doesn't that then make your whole argument mute?

 

[earthsci]

Doesn't that then make your whole argument mute?

:BIM:

moot

 

[RugbyMuffin]

And there you go. Maybe they did and we know nothing about it. Doesn't that then make your whole argument mute?

Of course it is mute. You can't hear text on the screen!

40, why are you fighting with Seattle fans anyway? Save your debating skill for arguing with people that know what they are talking about when it comes to Cardinal football.

Because the Seahawks suck.

 

[40yearfan]

:BIM:

moot

Of course it is mute. You can't hear text on the screen!

40, why are you fighting with Seattle fans anyway? Save your debating skill for arguing with people that know what they are talking about when it comes to Cardinal football.

Because the Seahawks suck.

It was a play on words with a not so subtle hint.

 

[SeaChicken]

There were people on this board having fits when RG gave him $30mil. after he made the incentives. They were saying he totally caved in and gave Fitz everything he wanted. If he would have done that in pre-season 2007, they would have tarred and feathered him and rode him out of town on a rail. Truthfully, I might have been in the lynch mob myself. You have to get yourself out of 2008 and remember what it was like in 2007.

You're coming off so educated (and a little self righteous but whatever) and yet you say things like this as if they matter at all. People on this board were having fits? Uh... so? Nobody is tarring and feathering anybody. That's all cliche' and you or all the other Cardinal fans would have done absolutely nothing more than whine a little bit. All this about "remember what it was like in 2007" is hogwash. Nate Clements signed a ******** deal as did several other players in 2007. If Graves would have signed Fitzgerald to a long term deal in 2007, people would have been ecstatic to have one of the best receivers in the league locked up long term. Hell, there are a ton of people on this board that are happy to have him locked up for just four years despite the ridiculous price. I sincerely hope that "you couldn't sign him to a deal like that one year ago" isn't your best argument. Guys sign contracts that were once unheard of every year. Why not Fitzgerald? Besides, if Graves was actually going to ever be tarred and feathered, it would have happened long ago.

The problem with your "foresight" is that it is through the glasses of hind sight that you are applying it. Now it is easy to say that the Cards should have done such and such because you know what the results were after the fact. That's the part that isn't fair. If RG had extended Fitz to a huge contract and Fitz would have gotten injured, RG might be out looking for a job today. If you plan on changing one thing in the past, you are going to change the outcome as we know it today. That's why you can't use hind sight. The final result will be different.

Newsflash: RG did sign Fitzgerald to a huge contract and he still might get hurt. Last year, this year, next year, whatever - Graves is always in danger of losing his job. What you said here barely even makes any sense. Yes, I get the butterfly effect but it doesn't apply here. Again, the subject was "foresight". Your GM has the responsibility to see a potentially disastrous event that could hit one calendar year in the future. If he can't, he has no business being an NFL GM. I'm sure every GM wishes they had fans like you that say it's not his fault that he couldn't see an event coming that had at least a 50/50 chance of coming true. The man put the escalators in the contract and yes, he does have a responsibility to keep up with how close they're getting to those escalators being hit and preparing for the consequences. He did neither.

This is something you and I can only speculate on. You say it doesn't make sense to turn the money down and I say that kind of money would never have been offered. Fitz hadn't hit the incentives and no one pays a WR that kind of money especially not in pre-season 2007.

You're right. It's speculation. But fill in the blanks with any kind of money you want. The dollar amount was never the point. You keep talking about these "incentives" as if they were the only reason to sign Fitzgerald to a long term contract. Three consecutive years of 1,000+ yards is plenty of reason to sign a WR to a long term contract. Incentives be damned. No one pays a CB $80M dollars either. But someone did. Two years ago, nobody paid a guard $7M dollars a year. But someone did. There's a first time for everything and somebody sets a new precedent every year. Why not Fitzgerald? He's probably the top receiver in the league that doesn't have any character issues. He's the poster child for the kind of guy you sign long term to a big money deal.

Now this is funny. You are the one who said the Cards should have known in early 2007 that Fitz would hit the incentives and that's what this whole argument has revolved around. Now you are saying I was using hind sight when I said Fitz should have known that also. You don't see the incongruity of this? This was your statement, not mine. My whole argument has been that neither side could have known this in pre-season 2007. You've been arguing about this so long, you've forgotten the basic argument.

This is funny indeed. Because you tweaked what I said but I'll give you the opportunity to point out where I said what you're saying I said. See the bolded statement. There is a GIGANTIC difference between "could" and "would". Don't let the whole one letter thing fool you. I've NEVER said that Fitzgerald "would" hit the incentives. I've said at least three times now that it was a 50/50. In fact, I talked about the "uncertainty" as incentive for him to re-sign. I never said the guy "would" hit the incentives. Was that a mistake on your part or an intentional "tweak"? Honest question. Get back to me on that. Hopefully your changing of my point isn't really what this whole "argument" was built upon cuz that would suck for you.

Once again, your premise is wrong because the Cards would have never offered him $30 mil. or anything close to that amount pre-season 2007.

And you know this how? You "know" the Cardinals wouldn't have given him that contract in pre-season 2007 despite them giving him a more ridiculous contract just one year later. Makes all the sense in the world.

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Fitz's contract was one of the first where the Cards offered bells and whistles just like all the other NFL teams. To now say it was wrong is silly. We wanted Fitz to hit the escalators and he hit them.

Nevermind the fact that this passage didn't even address the paragraph you quoted. You're saying that at the end of last season, your front offices "wanted Fitz to hit the escalators"? Am I losing it or are you saying your front office actually wanted his salary to shoot up to $14.4M for one year? I'm sure they wanted him to play well but I highly doubt they wanted him to make the Pro Bowl and put them over the proverbial barrel as far as cap space. And I'm the one making no sense here? Fitz hit the escalators, you guys went 8-8, and his salary shot up to nearly $15M giving you zero room against the cap and forcing you to give him the biggest sweetheart deal in the history of the league. And to hear you tell it, this all went how the team wanted it to. If you believe that then I suddenly understand why you think the front office is doing a good job.

Read what you just wrote here. You really know very little about human nature. Most people when confronted by uncertainty do absolutely nothing because they can't make up their mind what should be done. People will generally take the easy way out and not do anything if there are no immediate harmful results readily apparent.

Yeah, that's it. I know nothing about human nature. Because after all, "human nature" is what drives these contract negotiations. Are you for real? If what you're saying was true, no franchise player would ever sign a long term deal. Marcus Trufant was set to earn over $9M next year. And there's no certainty about how his next season will go. So according to you, why would he sign a long term deal if there are no "immediate harmful results readily apparent"? Why not just "do nothing" as you say and get the $9M? Answer - because that's ridiculous reasoning. Since he doesn't know what next year holds and $20M in guarantees is being offered to him, he guarantees himself the extra $11M. So much for "doing nothing". Tons of players sign long term deals every year because they're being offered more long term money. Seriously, are you even making sense to yourself? Yeah, I read what I wrote. Then I read what you wrote and laughed hysterically. If ever someone had incentive to "do nothing" in the face of uncertainty, it was Fitzgerald one month ago. And even he didn't follow the laws of "human nature" according to you.

BTW, the large part of the money that became certain in your last sentence didn't become certain until December of 2007 which is exactly 3 months ago.

Three months ago, twelve months ago or one month ago. The point still stands. Once they let it become guaranteed, it was game over. Again, once you get over the concept that the front office didn't have an obligation to see the possibility of this coming, you'll understand the sentence perfectly.

And there you go. Maybe they did and we know nothing about it. Doesn't that then make your whole argument mute?

Um... no. Giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't render anything "moot". But I do love your Pee-Wee Herman "I meant to do that" line when you mistakenly used the word "mute".

Your front office hosed the Fitzgerald situation and ended up paying him more per year than they would have paid him last year and somehow it sounds like you're saying they did the right thing because this whole situation was impossible for them to see coming just one year ago. And even if they saw it coming, the message board would have been mad if they had done anything about it because Fitzgerald never hit the incentives that nobody knew about anyway. So you guys are going to pay the guy $10M/year for the next four years just to have him bend you over or walk out on you faster than whatever rookie you draft in the first round this year. That just doesn't happen to any other team but if that's the brand of "Cardinal football" that you've come to know and love then I say "Awesome". If you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.

 

[40yearfan]

You're coming off so educated (and a little self righteous but whatever) and yet you say things like this as if they matter at all. People on this board were having fits? Uh... so? Nobody is tarring and feathering anybody. That's all cliche' and you or all the other Cardinal fans would have done absolutely nothing more than whine a little bit. All this about "remember what it was like in 2007" is hogwash. Nate Clements signed a ******** deal as did several other players in 2007. If Graves would have signed Fitzgerald to a long term deal in 2007, people would have been ecstatic to have one of the best receivers in the league locked up long term. Hell, there are a ton of people on this board that are happy to have him locked up for just four years despite the ridiculous price. I sincerely hope that "you couldn't sign him to a deal like that one year ago" isn't your best argument. Guys sign contracts that were once unheard of every year. Why not Fitzgerald? Besides, if Graves was actually going to ever be tarred and feathered, it would have happened long ago.

So now it's not just me, but all the Cardinal fans on this board? You are calling us all whiners? Way to ingratiate yourself. As usual, you have side stepped the issue and went off on a tangent. I know it's a lot to ask to have you try and remember a whole year ago, but I tried. Apparently you are incapable. Too bad.


Newsflash: RG did sign Fitzgerald to a huge contract and he still might get hurt. Last year, this year, next year, whatever - Graves is always in danger of losing his job. What you said here barely even makes any sense. Yes, I get the butterfly effect but it doesn't apply here. Again, the subject was "foresight". Your GM has the responsibility to see a potentially disastrous event that could hit one calendar year in the future. If he can't, he has no business being an NFL GM. I'm sure every GM wishes they had fans like you that say it's not his fault that he couldn't see an event coming that had at least a 50/50 chance of coming true. The man put the escalators in the contract and yes, he does have a responsibility to keep up with how close they're getting to those escalators being hit and preparing for the consequences. He did neither.

You keep confusing foresight and hindsight. Until you learn the difference, it's useless to discuss this with you.

You're right. It's speculation. But fill in the blanks with any kind of money you want. The dollar amount was never the point. You keep talking about these "incentives" as if they were the only reason to sign Fitzgerald to a long term contract. Three consecutive years of 1,000+ yards is plenty of reason to sign a WR to a long term contract. Incentives be damned. No one pays a CB $80M dollars either. But someone did. Two years ago, nobody paid a guard $7M dollars a year. But someone did. There's a first time for everything and somebody sets a new precedent every year. Why not Fitzgerald? He's probably the top receiver in the league that doesn't have any character issues. He's the poster child for the kind of guy you sign long term to a big money deal.

And we did pay him. What difference does it make if we pay him $30 million last year or this year? That's why your premise is so out of whack. It would have cost us the same amount of money. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Hello---McFly???


This is funny indeed. Because you tweaked what I said but I'll give you the opportunity to point out where I said what you're saying I said. See the bolded statement. There is a GIGANTIC difference between "could" and "would". Don't let the whole one letter thing fool you. I've NEVER said that Fitzgerald "would" hit the incentives. I've said at least three times now that it was a 50/50. In fact, I talked about the "uncertainty" as incentive for him to re-sign. I never said the guy "would" hit the incentives. Was that a mistake on your part or an intentional "tweak"? Honest question. Get back to me on that. Hopefully your changing of my point isn't really what this whole "argument" was built upon cuz that would suck for you.

So if there was so much uncertainty, why would you expect the Cards to know he was going to do it and not expect Fitz to know? You keep insinuating that Fitz is stupid. Why do you do that. I don't call your players stupid.

And you know this how? You "know" the Cardinals wouldn't have given him that contract in pre-season 2007 despite them giving him a more ridiculous contract just one year later. Makes all the sense in the world.

The contract he received isn't any more ridiculous than the one you proposed to give him pre 2007 season. Did you forget what you proposed? Go back and check your posts.


Nevermind the fact that this passage didn't even address the paragraph you quoted. You're saying that at the end of last season, your front offices "wanted Fitz to hit the escalators"? Am I losing it or are you saying your front office actually wanted his salary to shoot up to $14.4M for one year? I'm sure they wanted him to play well but I highly doubt they wanted him to make the Pro Bowl and put them over the proverbial barrel as far as cap space. And I'm the one making no sense here? Fitz hit the escalators, you guys went 8-8, and his salary shot up to nearly $15M giving you zero room against the cap and forcing you to give him the biggest sweetheart deal in the history of the league. And to hear you tell it, this all went how the team wanted it to. If you believe that then I suddenly understand why you think the front office is doing a good job.

What is the reasoning behind escalators if it isn't to encourage the player to play better to achieve them? I guess the Hawks don't do this? They are even more backward than the old Cardinals.


Yeah, that's it. I know nothing about human nature. Because after all, "human nature" is what drives these contract negotiations. Are you for real? If what you're saying was true, no franchise player would ever sign a long term deal. Marcus Trufant was set to earn over $9M next year. And there's no certainty about how his next season will go. So according to you, why would he sign a long term deal if there are no "immediate harmful results readily apparent"? Why not just "do nothing" as you say and get the $9M? Answer - because that's ridiculous reasoning. Since he doesn't know what next year holds and $20M in guarantees is being offered to him, he guarantees himself the extra $11M. So much for "doing nothing". Tons of players sign long term deals every year because they're being offered more long term money. Seriously, are you even making sense to yourself? Yeah, I read what I wrote. Then I read what you wrote and laughed hysterically. If ever someone had incentive to "do nothing" in the face of uncertainty, it was Fitzgerald one month ago. And even he didn't follow the laws of "human nature" according to you.

Sometimes I think you talk just to hear yourself talk. This whole rambling discourse makes about as much sense as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Glad you are able to laugh, even if it is hysterically. Regardless of your protest, my statement still stands. You know very little about human nature.


Three months ago, twelve months ago or one month ago. The point still stands. Once they let it become guaranteed, it was game over. Again, once you get over the concept that the front office didn't have an obligation to see the possibility of this coming, you'll understand the sentence perfectly.

And as usual, you gloss over a very important fact. The uncertainty persisted until Dec., 2007 which is only 3 months ago. The Cards started negotiating in Jan. 2008, one month later. This is an indisputable fact that you just can't overcome, so you ignore it. Guess what? I won't let you ignore it.


Um... no. Giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't render anything "moot". But I do love your Pee-Wee Herman "I meant to do that" line when you mistakenly used the word "mute".

Now you think you can read my mind? Amazing how you can know what I was thinking about this and be so obtuse when it comes to the rest of the argument.


Your front office hosed the Fitzgerald situation and ended up paying him more per year than they would have paid him last year and somehow it sounds like you're saying they did the right thing because this whole situation was impossible for them to see coming just one year ago. And even if they saw it coming, the message board would have been mad if they had done anything about it because Fitzgerald never hit the incentives that nobody knew about anyway. So you guys are going to pay the guy $10M/year for the next four years just to have him bend you over or walk out on you faster than whatever rookie you draft in the first round this year. That just doesn't happen to any other team but if that's the brand of "Cardinal football" that you've come to know and love then I say "Awesome". If you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.

Not acccording to the numbers you proposed. Fitz walk out on us? Oh, you mean like Hutchinson walked out on the Hawks? Well, we will have him for at least 3 more years now which will give us 7 good years. I'll settle for that. Maybe by that time, the Hawks will be sitting in the cellar and we will be thumbing our noses at you atop the NFL pile. Hurts to think about that, doesn't it?

 

[cardsfanmd]

I am with you SeaChicken, but you're wasting your time trying to prove this point.

 

[40yearfan]

I am with you SeaChicken, but you're wasting your time trying to prove this point.

That's all cliche' and you or all the other Cardinal fans would have done absolutely nothing more than whine a little bit.

A Sea Hawk fan calls you a whiner and you agree with him. Cardinal fans sure aren't what they used to be.

 

[cardsfanmd]

What more can I do than whine if I dont like what the Cards do. You call me a hater for bitchin about Graves from time to time Why can't he do the same?

Also, your last comment doesn't make sense at all.

 

[40yearfan]

What more can I do than whine if I dont like what the Cards do. You call me a hater for bitchin about Graves from time to time Why can't he do the same?

Also, your last comment doesn't make sense at all.

Because he's not a Cardinals fan. Blood is thicker than water.

What last comment are you talking about?

 

[SECTION 11]

Good lord. Who gives a crap what the seahawks do? They're totally irrelevant. I'm not even sure I spelled that right, but it doesn't matter, it's the seahawks.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Good lord. Who gives a crap what the seahawks do? They're totally irrelevant. I'm not even sure I spelled that right, but it doesn't matter, it's the seahawks.

Ditto.

Great post.



Plus the Seahawks only do one thing, and that is suck.

 

[cardsfanmd]

Because he's not a Cardinals fan. Blood is thicker than water.

What last comment are you talking about?

Cardinal fans sure aren't what they used to be??

 

[40yearfan]

Cardinal fans sure aren't what they used to be??

Letting a rival team's fan call them a whiner and then agreeing with them.

 

[cardsfanmd]

Letting a rival team's fan call them a whiner and then agreeing with them.

I didn't see anywhere where he called me a whiner, but if he had, I couldn't deny that I have never whined about anything this team has done. I wouldn't go buying a Hawk fan any beers, but it would be foolish IMO to consider everything he says stupid just because he doesn't root for the Cards. Sometimes people need that outsider opinion.

 

[40yearfan]

I didn't see anywhere where he called me a whiner, but if he had, I couldn't deny that I have never whined about anything this team has done. I wouldn't go buying a Hawk fan any beers, but it would be foolish IMO to consider everything he says stupid just because he doesn't root for the Cards. Sometimes people need that outsider opinion.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1670559&postcount=67

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you on this one cfm.

Only Cardinal fans have any football knowledge. All other fans would be Cardinal fans if they had any football knowledge, so therefore, they have no football knowledge.

It's known as a self-proving theory. Don't try to dissect it as it goes to infinity and has been known to drive men mad trying to disprove it.