Something Porter said concerns me

[Catfish]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I am just going to throw it out there for discussion. It concerns something that Joey Porter said in his telephone interview with Doug and Wolf recently. I have tried to ignore this, but this theme keeps playing itself over and over here in Cardinal Land.

There was a point in the interview, where Porter flat said, that he went to the Redskins in order to stimulate our FO into acting on his contract offer. That bothers me, because, when a player of Porter's stature comes in for an interview, and says he wants to play here, and makes a reasonable offer, it should not be incumbent upon that player to then need to go somewhere else in order to get our FO to act on that offer.

I know that Graves has done a decent job of contract working for the Cards. But it makes me wonder, just who, and how many, players we have not been able to sign, because they tired of waiting for Graves to act, and took themselves elsewhere.

That is the one real sticking point that I have with Graves, but it is a rather crucial one in my opinion. How much of not being able to reach agreements with Boldin or Dansby was due to Graves inability to act when the time is right? How many other players have gotten away, (even though they preferred to play here), because Graves either could not recognize the appropriate time for action, or was willing to lay back and low ball a player that was obviously worth more than the low offer tendered by Graves.

I really want to like this guy, but incidences such as these, are very bothersome. It is almost like Whiz is improving this team (despite) Graves, instead of (because) of Graves. Is this why we lost Larry Foote to the Steelers? How much better would we have been to go into the draft, having Foote signed as WILB, and needing to only take ONE ILB in the draft instead of two?

How many more good players will leave us because of Graves slow footedness and inaction?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I am just going to throw it out there for discussion. It concerns something that Joey Porter said in his telephone interview with Doug and Wolf recently. I have tried to ignore this, but this theme keeps playing itself over and over here in Cardinal Land.

There was a point in the interview, where Porter flat said, that he went to the Redskins in order to stimulate our FO into acting on his contract offer. That bothers me, because, when a player of Porter's stature comes in for an interview, and says he wants to play here, and makes a reasonable offer, it should not be incumbent upon that player to then need to go somewhere else in order to get our FO to act on that offer.

I know that Graves has done a decent job of contract working for the Cards. But it makes me wonder, just who, and how many, players we have not been able to sign, because they tired of waiting for Graves to act, and took themselves elsewhere.

That is the one real sticking point that I have with Graves, but it is a rather crucial one in my opinion. How much of not being able to reach agreements with Boldin or Dansby was due to Graves inability to act when the time is right? How many other players have gotten away, (even though they preferred to play here), because Graves either could not recognize the appropriate time for action, or was willing to lay back and low ball a player that was obviously worth more than the low offer tendered by Graves.

I really want to like this guy, but incidences such as these, are very bothersome. It is almost like Whiz is improving this team (despite) Graves, instead of (because) of Graves. Is this why we lost Larry Foote to the Steelers? How much better would we have been to go into the draft, having Foote signed as WILB, and needing to only take ONE ILB in the draft instead of two?

How many more good players will leave us because of Graves slow footedness and inaction?

That's the name of the game and one of the few tools that players have to market/enhance value of themselves.

 

[Catfish]

That's the name of the game and one of the few tools that players have to market/enhance value of themselves.

Yes-----I know that players have that card to play, but some tire easily, or are not willing to play, and simply go on about their way. This leaves Graves holding his low ball offer, or sitting on one that is doable, but failing to act on it. It would seem to me that a 'sharp' GM knows when it is time to play games, and when it is time to act. Ours doesn't seem to possess that knowlege, or at the very least, can't resist the temptation of low-balling when it is obviously not suitable to do so. He also seems to not recognize the proper time to take action with players we already have that need to be redone. Its almost like, (he gets it----but is sometimes too late when that happens).

 

[Buckybird]

I've said it from the beginning, Porters one of those "look at me guys" and always has been. Solid player, who everyone likes but at times a selfish jackass. In my book he's similar to Ocho Stinco and to a lesser degree Terrell Owens. I'm glad he's here because of youth & inexperience at OLB and hopefully age hasn't caught up to him yet.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Negotiations are meant to be a dog fight.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

This is their livelihood my man. We like to think of these player as warriors playing for the love of the game and that they would play even if they weren't being paid millions. But thats just not the facts and not even realistic IMO. I am not sure what your profession is but if you aren't looking out for whats best for you and your family, I would say you are making a grave mistake.

Bottom line is this: We cheer for the names on the fronts of the jerseys, they cheer for the names on the back. The sooner we all accept that fact, the more enjoyable following sports becomes IMO.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Yes-----I know that players have that card to play, but some tire easily, or are not willing to play, and simply go on about their way. This leaves Graves holding his low ball offer, or sitting on one that is doable, but failing to act on it. It would seem to me that a 'sharp' GM knows when it is time to play games, and when it is time to act. Ours doesn't seem to possess that knowlege, or at the very least, can't resist the temptation of low-balling when it is obviously not suitable to do so. He also seems to not recognize the proper time to take action with players we already have that need to be redone. Its almost like, (he gets it----but is sometimes too late when that happens).

Non guaranteed contracts for players is one of the main reasons you see players doing this. Hell, Warner did the same thing last year with us (and SF) when he had no intention of signing there either. Yet, Warner isn't considered a 'me first' player.....

 

[Mulli]

Non guaranteed contracts for players is one of the main reasons you see players doing this. Hell, Warner did the same thing last year with us (and SF) when he had no intention of signing there either. Yet, Warner isn't considered a 'me first' player.....

He is to me.

 

[Shane]

No issue with it.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

No issue.

If Graves get his player at a lower price, then good for hiim.

You can't bash the guy for overpaying, and not pay him on the back when he gets us a bargin.

Some players are only a good player when got at the right price. Their VALUE relative to their price tag.

Look how much we are paying LSH. That guys is an absolute STEAL at a 7th round salary. The value we are getting out of LSH is great, but if we had him at a 1st round salary he would "suck".

 

[JeffGollin]

Just tactics.

I don't sense parallel fan-rage when Kurt paid a visit to SF.

 

[Shzm13]

No issue. Im pretty sure hes not the only player who does this.

 

[Tyler]

Kurt visited the niners last year to entice us into resigning him for more money. DId you smash him for that?

 

[tnmike]

Negotiating

Negotiating is an art. I am a professional negotiator. I come in contact with amateurs daily. It doesn't suprise me to see the lack of negotiating skills that I see regularly on this site. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I can see what the agents and teams are doing when they negotiate when the average person can't. No matter what you think you know unless you are involved with the negotiations you know practically nothing and people can say whatever they want when the dust clears.

 

[Pariah]

I don't think Catfish's point was that we should be upset with Porter, but rather that we ought to raise an eyebrow at the front office's willingness to move on sealing the deal with FAs in a timely fashion.

All of the "hey, we didn't get mad a kurt" comments seem out of place.

 

[Dayman]

I would have been upset if Porter was 26 and being pursued by multiple teams. Since he's 33 years old and had a limited market along with a well known desire to play out west, I think RG handled the situation correctly.

 

[Indiana Hoosier]

Glad we got him. That's all I can say!

 

[tnmike]

The first rule of negotiating is the willingness to walk away from a deal that you don't want or like. That is a strength that is hard to learn. In other words whoever blinks first loses.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The first rule of negotiating is the willingness to walk away from a deal that you don't want or like. That is a strength that is hard to learn. In other words whoever blinks first loses.

as a fellow professional negotiator i don't necessarily agree with your assessment. your "whoever blinks first" concept works in sales, but it certainly doesn't help in repeat sales. and it really doesn't have a place in a negotiation where ongoing relationships are crucial, like a football team. in both types of relationships (institutional-repetitive sales and ongoing relationships) neither party should "win" because that means someone loses. and losers never want to be taken advantage of, thus they'll avoid working with the winner again. ideally both sides negotiate to a point of mutually agreed upon value, so they can both feel comfortable that they're not getting gouged. win-win.

 

[Metcalf Rules]

I'll bet a lot of players have thought about saying it, porter actually said it.

Maybe he's trying to get the front office to get moving on an extension for Darnell Docket.

 

[Perfectionist]

Graves used to piss the hell out of me, but a funny thing happened, we have had a couple of good seasons and I am not near as upset. We manage to get to the playoffs next year and I will be even less concerned.

Cat I hear what you are saying but I like living in a fantasy world where the Cards now have me.

 

[Rottweiler]

I don't think Catfish's point was that we should be upset with Porter, but rather that we ought to raise an eyebrow at the front office's willingness to move on sealing the deal with FAs in a timely fashion.

yah agree with what your saying that catfish is saying.. ;-)

Although I agree on people missing the point, I don't think that Graves is doing anything wrong. There was no reason to money wip Porter if no other teams were showing interest.
Also as far as Dansby and Boldin go, one we payed Big Bucks to keep around for the last few years and we were going to have to way over pay to keep, and the other had a major falling out with the organization and who knows maybe coaching too.
Your gonna loose veterans, can't keep them all until they are ready to go to pasture.

 

[tnmike]

as a fellow professional negotiator i don't necessarily agree with your assessment. your "whoever blinks first" concept works in sales, but it certainly doesn't help in repeat sales. and it really doesn't have a place in a negotiation where ongoing relationships are crucial, like a football team. in both types of relationships (institutional-repetitive sales and ongoing relationships) neither party should "win" because that means someone loses. and losers never want to be taken advantage of, thus they'll avoid working with the winner again. ideally both sides negotiate to a point of mutually agreed upon value, so they can both feel comfortable that they're not getting gouged. win-win.

I see where you are coming from and although I respect your position I disagree that someone can't win. There are winners everyday in all aspects of life and winning and losing in business is the same. Political correctness doesn't count when you are counting the beans. I think the athletes for the most part understand this, if they don't we need to take the scoreboards down and quit keeping score of the games.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Catfish is right on in his assessment. When has the waiting game ever paid off unless the Cards held all the leverage. Fitz, Warner, and Porter all got the deals they wanted from the get go. Rolle, Dansby, and Pace all saw the free agency window and were able to leave. The slow playing by Graves cost them because, in the end, it was reported that he made competitive,very similar offers to what Dansby and Rolle signed. Too bad it was too late. If he makes those offers earlier, they may still be with the Cards.

 

[Catfish]

Thanks for your input, especially you who ARE negotiators. For those of you whe missed the point, (I am not in the least upset with Porter), I am concerned that either Graves tactics, or his apparent inability to act when it is prudent to do so, has, (and will continue to), caused us to lose players that we could have and maybe should have had. My question to you is do you see what I am seeing, (or at least think I see), or am I just that uneducated in negotiations. If that is the case, I would happily back-off from my stance on this matter.

So far as the win principle is concerned, I believe each contract, (negotiation), should be a winner for each party. Thank you again for your time.