The $12M is going to be spent so stop worrying

[AZCB34]

Re: Players Asking Questions

Originally posted by Wild Card
This is scary stuff.

Mike Jurecki, on KDUS, just reported that, since KVB and Starks went down with their season-ending injuries, he's had at least a half-dozen different veterans come up to him and ask, "What's going on? Are we bringing anyone in? Have you heard anything?"

The players don't know why this money isn't being spent. The players know they're undermanned. The players know that pieces are missing. The players are asking reporters for information, because they don't understand what management is doing--or not doing.

WC

I'm sorry but there is not a single person who shouldn't be upset with this information. This is the kind of thing that erases much of what Graves has done this offseason. He did some decent things but IMO, these VETS are questioning the teams will to win and that is poisonous. Everyone should remember this when criticizing the caliber of play and coaching on the field.

Jeez, just when you think the Cards cannot go any lower, they manage to find a new way to scrape away another layer of muck.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Re: Re: Players Asking Questions

Originally posted by AZCB34
I'm sorry but there is not a single person who shouldn't be upset with this information. This is the kind of thing that erases much of what Graves has done this offseason. He did some decent things but IMO, these VETS are questioning the teams will to win and that is poisonous. Everyone should remember this when criticizing the caliber of play and coaching on the field.

Jeez, just when you think the Cards cannot go any lower, they manage to find a new way to scrape away another layer of muck.

Let's not get too carried away with the assumption of "facts" here.

...I think the more accurate comment might just as well be:

Jeez, just when you think the rumors cannot get any wilder, Jurecki and/or some of the posters here find a new way to scrape away another layer of muck.

 

[AZCB34]

Re: Re: Re: Players Asking Questions

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
Let's not get too carried away with the assumption of "facts" here.

...I think the more accurate comment might just as well be:

Jeez, just when you think the rumors cannot get any wilder, Jurecki and/or some of the posters here find a new way to scrape away another layer of muck.

On this we disagree. Most of what Jurecki does dish out is true. He speculates some, but his statement cannot be taken as speculation. He has actually had players ask these things. There is no way he risks his job covering the Cards nor his credibility but outright lying. It is one thing if he said he heard of people asking these things but what he is saying is these players have asked him.

 

[Tangodnzr]

The problem here is, that we have a situation where someone is saying what someone else said. Which creates 2 new problems:

1. What exactly did Jerecki say?
Establish that beyond doubt, THEN you can debate why he may have made whatever statement(s) he did make.

2. Is the 3rd party's interpretation of what Jurecki said totally accurate, or colored by THEIR opinion.?

I see that here all the time....someone says someone else said something, but when others actually see what the original person said, interpret it entirely different.

 

[EndZone]

Jurecki said exactly that "about a half a dozen or so Veteran players have asked him what is going on, are we bringing people in, how are they going to spend the money"

take from that what you will Tango it doesnt get any clearer, the Players want to know what is going on.

 

[Assface]

Originally posted by Wild Card
Let's look at where the NFL week 2 division leaders were at against the salary cap, as of 9/09 (per ESPN.com):

Denver Broncos $1.825 million under
Plummer, Sharpe, Price, Smith, Mcaffery
Indianapolis Colts $781,000 under
Manning, James, Harrison
Pittsburgh Steelers $842,000 under
Ward, Burress, Bettis, Porter
Buffalo Bills $2.49 million under
Bledsoe, Spikes, Milloy, Moulds
Seattle Seahawks $2.283 million under
Hasselsback, Jones, Robinson, Alexander, Springs
Carolina Panthers $938,000 under
Peppers, Morgan, Steussie, Muhammed, Davis
Minnesota Vikings $3.386 million under
Cuplepper, Moss, Hovan
Washington Redskins $4.089 million under
Coles, Gardner, Arrington, Bailey, Smoot, Trotter

These teams aren't on top because they spent a lot of money, they spent a lot of money becuase they have better players. There weren't many impact players available this offseason. Spending cap money just because it's there won't make us successful. Also we have the youngest team in the league, a players first contract is always much cheaper than the next contract. We need to save some cap room to be able to resign our core players. If someone comes along that can help the team and will be a part of the team when we are ready to make a playoff run then sign him, someone who is not a much greater improvement doesn't need to be signed.

Graves can't magically make Pro Bowl calibre players appear during the offseason. He missed out on only 2 guys that we targetted. I don't think he did that bad in with the free agents. I like the guys he drafted but I don't like giving up the 4th round pick. We got some good players this year and are in a good position for next year. How exactly could we fill up 12mil now? We would have to sign very expensive guys and release some people already on our roster.

I would like to stay as far under the cap as possible. Look at some of the guys whos contracts are up this year. Owens, Woodson, Bailey. I'd rather save the money to get a big time player or two than a couple of so so players this year.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Re: Players Asking Questions

To append to my prior post . . .

Originally posted by Wild Card
This is scary stuff.
This is WC's opinion


Mike Jurecki, on KDUS, just reported that, since KVB and Starks went down with their season-ending injuries, he's had at least a half-dozen different veterans come up to him and ask, "What's going on? Are we bringing anyone in? Have you heard anything?"

Here WC is saying "what Jurecki said". Is he using exact quotes? you'd have to ask him. He's not formatting it as exact direct quotes. I'm not saying he's inaccurate here, in fact, for the sake of argument I'll accept this as being a reasonable representation.

The players don't know why this money isn't being spent. The players know they're undermanned. The players know that pieces are missing. The players are asking reporters for information, because they don't understand what management is doing--or not doing.
This is purely WC's opinion once again. This is NOT what Jurecki said, yet the seamless transition from the last paragraph can create a little ambiguity here, and I would think make it easy for a lot of people to equate WC's opinion with "what Jurecki said".
I'm not saying WC did this intentionally, but at the same time, this is how a lot of misinformation and gossip starts and/or gets spread.


WC

 

[nidan]

Originally posted by Floridacard
There weren't many impact players available this offseason. Spending cap money just because it's there won't make us

Now you mention it I remember comments along those lines at the begining of the offseason.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by EndZone
Jurecki said exactly that "about a half a dozen or so Veteran players have asked him what is going on, are we bringing people in, how are they going to spend the money"

take from that what you will Tango it doesnt get any clearer, the Players want to know what is going on.

Hey Tango, here ya go! That's pretty damn clear to me.

Factor in that Jurecki is the proclaimed Card's Insider, and this is probably true.

Man, you remind me of the father in Moliere's great comedy Tartuffe. He had complete confidence in the pious, holy, religious man, Tartuffe. Of course, Tartuffe was a complete scoundrel. Even when, time and again, the father was presented with proof of Tartuffe's treachery, even when Tartuffe HIMSELF was expounding on how much of a scoundrel he was, the father was telling him to stop berating himself. The father refused to believe anything. It wasn't until the family and Tartuffe himself basically the father that he believed.

When will you believe something, Tango? When will you believe that something can possibly be true, even if it happens to shed a negative light on the team in some way?

I have yet to see you admit anything negative about this team. It's astonishing, really, as there is currently plenty wrong.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
The problem here is, that we have a situation where someone is saying what someone else said. Which creates 2 new problems:

1. What exactly did Jerecki say?
Establish that beyond doubt, THEN you can debate why he may have made whatever statement(s) he did make.

2. Is the 3rd party's interpretation of what Jurecki said totally accurate, or colored by THEIR opinion.?

Tango:

Scroll up to my original post. I heard the broadcast, and posted within five minutes of hearing it. It's not a tape transcription of what Jurecki said, but it's close.

It was really something to hear. Mike prefaced his comments by saying that he's covered this team for years, has established relationships with players and staff, and that he hasn't had these kinds of questions directed to him in the past.

He said that players read the same papers, see the same information that the public sees. That they've seen teammates go down/ out with injuries, believe the team still has money to spend on replacement players, but don't know what--if anything--is happening as a result.

He also mentioned some of the FAs passed on by the Cards in the offseason, players like Dan Wilkinson, Norman Hand, Chike Okeafor, Randall Godfrey. Pointed out that the Cards have now played against all four--who start for their new teams--and seen for themselves what those guys have left. Mentioned that Pete Kendall, in last week's Monday show on KDUS, said that Wilkinson's "still a player" (having just gone against him in the Lions game).

This is first-hand stuff. Unless Jurecki's making it all up--which I think is unlikely--I find it pretty disturbing.

WC

 

[JeffGollin]

1. What exactly did Jerecki say?
While it would be nice to nail this down, the important thing to consider is the impact of the non-action on the morale of the team.

i.e. do our players feel that Management did everything in its power to bring in the guys we needed to be competitive?

I realize it's just speculation, but don't we hear a lot of generalities bandied about by players and coaches during the year about "whether or not a team's ownership and management is genuinely committed to winning?"

Fairly or unfairly. Strategicaly correct or incorrect - I've got to believe this gives some players something specific to point to while saying: "Ah hah! See? What I tell you."

And I think our player's perception of whether the team's ownership and front office is committed to winning is certainly as valid a consideration as "positioning ourselves well for the future" and should be weighed into the equation accordingly.

And I'm not sure that it was.

 

[Lex]

Floridacard- we can't save salary cap money for next year. It goes in bidwill's pocket when the season is over.

BTW, I count 6 free agents on your list that we didn't get. Those teams paid these better players.

The reason we have had the youngest team in the league, is because no good established players will come here.

The reason good players won't come here, is because they don't think our ownership wants to win.

The reason good players think our ownership doesn't want to win, is because we don't spend our league allocated revenue, for players salaries.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by Floridacard
These teams aren't on top because they spent a lot of money, they spent a lot of money becuase they have better players. There weren't many impact players available this offseason. Spending cap money just because it's there won't make us successful... How exactly could we fill up 12mil now? We would have to sign very expensive guys and release some people already on our roster... I would like to stay as far under the cap as possible... I'd rather save the money to get a big time player or two than a couple of so so players this year.

FC:

Most of the division leaders were active in free agency. Some of the names that you mentioned were just picked up this year (in boldface, below):

Denver Broncos $1.825 million under
Plummer, Sharpe, Price, Smith, Mcaffery
Buffalo Bills $2.49 million under
Bledsoe, Spikes, Milloy, Moulds
Carolina Panthers $938,000 under
Peppers, Morgan, Steussie, Muhammed, Davis
Washington Redskins $4.089 million under
Coles, Gardner, Arrington, Bailey, Smoot, Trotter

Besides the marquee players you listed, there were many other player moves made by the top teams. For example, three of the defensive starters for Seattle--a defense that just shut the Cardinals out, remember--were FAs the Cards passed on, in one way or another.

I don't understand your desire to "save the money to get a big time player or two." Salary cap doesn't carry over from one year to the next. Money under the cap this year means nothing in terms of what the team will be allowed to spend next year.

The Cards probably can't spend $12 million now, at least not productively. My problems with that are the following:

(1) The Cards didn't spend that money, or much of it, when better players were still available. Now it's too late.
(2) The Cards show little apparent interest in bolstering their roster with remining free agents. As far as I can tell, they've only signed two veteran FAs, Derrick Ransom and Emmanuel McDaniel, since July.

Here's what I think will happen. The Cards will extend a couple of player contracts, and may sign one or two more veterans to cheap one-year contracts as backups. They'll end up at least $6 million under the cap for 2003. And their roster is pretty much as good as it's going to get.

WC

 

[Cardiologist]

Re: Re: Re: The $12M is going to be spent so stop worrying

Originally posted by jon_nyaz
You're missing the point. Ask yourself this question, "Would you sacrifice being mediocre THIS YEAR in favor of sucking THIS YEAR, to be extremely competitive TWO YEARS FROM NOW?". I know I would, if I had a crystal ball and could see the future and know that we'd be competing for the NFC crown.

I think you are missing the point. Just because you suck this does not mean you will be better two years from now. The Cardinals sucked two years ago and still suck today. You can't be serious to actually believe that the Cardinals will be so much better in two years that they will be able to make the playoffs without an ownership change?

 

[jf-08]

Originally posted by AZCB34
Here is some assistance Shane:

Cardinals | Breaking Down Clement's Deal - from www.KFFL.com
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:54:07 -0800

The breakdown of OT Anthony Clement's new five-year contract with the Arizona Cardinals is: the deal, as previously reported, is valued at $15 million and included a $3 million signing bonus. The base salaries are $2.4 million for all five years of the contract.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cardinals | More On Clement - from www.KFFL.com
Sat, 2 Mar 2002 20:10:45 -0800

Updating an earlier story, ESPN reports the five-year contract agreed to with the Arizona Cardinals by OT Anthony Clement is valued at $15 million and includes a $3 million signing bonus. All of last season's starters now are under contract -- T L.J. Shelton, guards Davis and Pete Kendall and C Matt Gruttadauria.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cardinals | Clement Agrees to 5-year Deal - from www.KFFL.com
Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:39:59 -0800

Alan Schuster, of AZProSports.com, reports the Arizona Cardinals have agreed to terms on a new five-year deal with ORT Anthony Clement.

LOL!!!!!! Alan was the first to report it !!!!!!!!

 

[jf-08]

Originally posted by EndZone
Jurecki said exactly that "about a half a dozen or so Veteran players have asked him what is going on, are we bringing people in, how are they going to spend the money"

take from that what you will Tango it doesnt get any clearer, the Players want to know what is going on.

I was listening this morning. This quote is verbatim of what Jurecki said.

The context was that Graves should not be applauded for the moves thus far that they are still $12 million under that cap.

During this discussion he stated "about a half a dozen or so Veteran players have asked him what is going on, are we bringing people in, how are they going to spend the money"

 

[Cardiologist]

Originally posted by jkf296
I was listening this morning. This quote is verbatim of what Jurecki said.

The context was that Graves should not be applauded for the moves thus far that they are still $12 million under that cap.

During this discussion he stated "about a half a dozen or so Veteran players have asked him what is going on, are we bringing people in, how are they going to spend the money"

I heard the same thing. What a circus that the players have to ask a reporter what is going on.

 

[Assface]

Originally posted by Wild Card
FC:

Most of the division leaders were active in free agency. Some of the names that you mentioned were just picked up this year (in boldface, below):

Denver Broncos $1.825 million under
Plummer, Sharpe, Price, Smith, Mcaffery
Buffalo Bills $2.49 million under
Bledsoe, Spikes, Milloy, Moulds
Carolina Panthers $938,000 under
Peppers, Morgan, Steussie, Muhammed, Davis
Washington Redskins $4.089 million under
Coles, Gardner, Arrington, Bailey, Smoot, Trotter

Of those guys how many could we have really gotten? Plummer doesn't count since we got rid of him. Spikes had the transition tag and since he flat out told Cincinati he wouldn't resign it wasn't worth wasting our time going after him. Milloy was cut just before the first game of the season and immediately signed with Buffalo. Can't hold that one against the Cards. I forget if Davis was traded or cut, but he wasn't a free agent at the beginning of the free agency period and we had Smith and Shipp. Coles had the franchise tag and we would've had to give up our #6 overall pick to get him.

I know you can't save money against the next years cap, but unless you sign a player to a one year deal you're paying them the next year which counts against that cap.

Look at the players we DID sign instead of who we didn't sign. Graves is trying to position the team to be able to aquire players to make us competitive before we get into cap trouble (I hope so anyway.) We're 12mil under the cap. Weren't we about 40mil in January? They spent a lot of money this year. Would I like to have gotten more/better players? Hell yeah. We could have done better but we could have done much much worse. Our D has been bad but Bell, KVB and Starks weren't hurt untill recently, AFTER the majority of good players were signed (just for the record I would have like Wilkinson, but I wasn't real high on most of the other guys that have been mentioned.) We went in to week one with 6 recievers and 3 got hurt. Sullivan is suposed to be a great WR coach and these were his guys that had great potential. Hasn't panned out so far but the potential gain was better than that of signing most of the other guys. Can't think of his name right now but I think that WR from the Bears would have been a good signing, but most of the other vet recievers have either injury issues or have lost a step.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by EndZone
Jurecki said exactly that "about a half a dozen or so Veteran players have asked him what is going on, are we bringing people in, how are they going to spend the money"

take from that what you will Tango it doesnt get any clearer, the Players want to know what is going on.

I see you've taken this to another thread.

I'll respond to just this exact comment here and then post on that thread some points that I feel are important and either getting ignored on not comprehended.

Your reply, along with a couple of others, to me, just proves the point I have been trying to make.

Taking a page out of Weak's book, I will relate the following analogy in regard to "how clear" something may be to different people.

A little girl comes to her father and asks: "Daddy, where did I come from?"
The man goes into a cold sweat, he's not sure how to best answer her question, considering how young she still is.
So he says "Excuse me honey, I'll be right back".
He then consults his wife who says: She just wants to be reassured that she is loved, you don't need to go into adult graphic detail about everything. Just make sure she knows that she's loved."
So the father goes back and says to the little girl. "Honey, Your mommy and I love each other very much, you are the result of our love and that's where you came from."
The little girl looks at him at says: "Oh, . . . my friend Carla says she came from Cleveland."

 

[Lex]

Your analogy is very good Tango.

When faced with a question that is difficult, you lie to them, tell them what you THINK they want to hear, because you know if you told the dirty truth, they wouldn't be able to handle it.

But in the end, it turns out you were wrong.

 

[conraddobler]

Originally posted by Lex
Your analogy is very good Tango.

When faced with a question that is difficult, you lie to them, tell them what you THINK they want to hear, because you know if you told the dirty truth, they wouldn't be able to handle it.

But in the end, it turns out you were wrong.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by Lex
Your analogy is very good Tango.

When faced with a question that is difficult, you lie to them, tell them what you THINK they want to hear, because you know if you told the dirty truth, they wouldn't be able to handle it.

But in the end, it turns out you were wrong.

...and to think it was you who said "this ain't rocket science". LOL
....its a good thing....that would evidently sure leave you wanting if it was true.
Your reply is so incredibly asinine.

Did you really miss the point? Or are you just acting totally ignorant on purpose?

To refer back to the analogy, AND your comment . . first of all, did he lie to her? Was there anything "wrong" with what he told her? morally or otherwise?

..now read my lips and try to follow along here if you can . . . (even though I do think you are just trying to be a horse's rear for whatever reason)

You did manage to get it about half right. He did answer the question HE THOUGHT she was asking, but as it turns out, what she was asking and what he thought she was asking were different. I sincerely hope that you did indeed comprehend that and are just being a jerk.

....anyway the point there being....When one person says something, even when its been established EXACTLY, and verbatum what the person said, there will still always be differences of opinion as to what that person "was actually saying", and THAT is determined more by each persons own particular mindset as to what they "see" or "heard".

Is that too much for you to comprehend, "smart guy"???

 

[jon_nyaz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The $12M is going to be spent so stop worrying

Originally posted by Cardiologist
I think you are missing the point. Just because you suck this does not mean you will be better two years from now. The Cardinals sucked two years ago and still suck today. You can't be serious to actually believe that the Cardinals will be so much better in two years that they will be able to make the playoffs without an ownership change?

What I believe is that the best chance the Cards have for success is NOT to randomly overpay every free agent they come across in the hopes that they will magically make the playoffs. It takes time to build a champion and teams usually do it one side of the ball at a time.

 

[nidan]

Originally posted by Lex
The reason good players think our ownership doesn't want to win, is because we don't spend our league allocated revenue, for players salaries.

And when was the last time we did that ?

 

[AntSports Steve]

Graves missed some simple free agent moves early in free agency this year.

He should have tried to sign a real NFL quality center instead of getting 3 guards and trying to convert them to a center. That alone would have made the OL much better.

He should have signed Blake faster. As the Cards dragged their feet trying to decide if they wanted Stewart or Blake, many free agents shunned Arizona because without any WRs and no QB, Arizona looked like a train wreck. Now, thinking about it, they should never have gotten into that position in the first place. Too many contracts expired at once.

Big Daddy should have been offered a contract. He played pretty well against Arizona for Det.

Also, it's been debated before, but signing Emmitt for as much as they did just doesn't make sense. It was a ticket sales only move and they even screwed that up.

And back to the early question about the cap and signing bonuses: The team can extend a players contract, and instead of giving them a signing bonus, they just redo this years deal with a huge payout. The player will consider it a signing bonus, but since it's just a huge salary, it would all count this year. Also note that they have until (i think) the 2nd week of Nov to extend players. After that, the 2003 salary figures are final.

I just don't see $12M of money being paid out as extensions. I think after this poor start, most players will not accept a new deal and instead opt to go to free agency and leave. It does take both parties to do an extension.

To me it looks like the Cards have decided they need to save $10 million this year to help with statdium overuns. They will probably do the same thing next year just to be safe. That would suck.