Today’s Rumor (03/22) - Cards are making Indy sweat it out

[kerouac9]

And there are franchises who have enough organizational stability where they can trade down and get maximum value out of those additional picks. I don't believe we are at that point as an organization especially in an off-season where our scouts spent the year scouting for a scheme that we no longer use. Our scouts have spent the year scouting defensive players for a 3-4 scheme and soft-zone CBs. Now, we are a month and a half into a 4-3 scheme and the team has to try to translate those notes into 4-3 fits.

The other issue is that there are so many roster holes or just talent deficient groups that a trade down looks best because holes are being filled with hope.

I actually don't believe you ever get value from trading down and out -- at least, not in the way that people are talking about it here. I hear people saying that instead of getting one foundational player at #3 overall, we should get three foundational players at, like #12, #56, and #70 (for example).

It just doesn't work like that. A team needs four to six foundational players at any time. These are the guys on max contracts plus young players who worked out. The question is how many of these guys are on second or third contracts vs on rookie deals.

If you have the majority of these guys on second (or third) contracts, you want to trade down because you need to fill out your red-chip players with guys on rookie contracts. You can only have four players making $15 million a year or more. This is where you find savings.

If you have the majority on rookie contracts, you want to spend your resources on mid-level free agents to accelerate their development curve and the additional flexibility of the rookie scale.

There isn't a lot of competitive logic to minimizing your opportunity for franchise-defining talent when you arguably have only one or two franchise-defining players on your roster (Murray and Budda -- assuming we move Hop).

 

[BirdGangThing]

I actually don't believe you ever get value from trading down and out -- at least, not in the way that people are talking about it here. I hear people saying that instead of getting one foundational player at #3 overall, we should get three foundational players at, like #12, #56, and #70 (for example).

It just doesn't work like that. A team needs four to six foundational players at any time. These are the guys on max contracts plus young players who worked out. The question is how many of these guys are on second or third contracts vs on rookie deals.

If you have the majority of these guys on second (or third) contracts, you want to trade down because you need to fill out your red-chip players with guys on rookie contracts. You can only have four players making $15 million a year or more. This is where you find savings.

If you have the majority on rookie contracts, you want to spend your resources on mid-level free agents to accelerate their development curve and the additional flexibility of the rookie scale.

There isn't a lot of competitive logic to minimizing your opportunity for franchise-defining talent when you arguably have only one or two franchise-defining players on your roster (Murray and Budda -- assuming we move Hop).

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Chopper0080]

I actually don't believe you ever get value from trading down and out -- at least, not in the way that people are talking about it here. I hear people saying that instead of getting one foundational player at #3 overall, we should get three foundational players at, like #12, #56, and #70 (for example).

It just doesn't work like that. A team needs four to six foundational players at any time. These are the guys on max contracts plus young players who worked out. The question is how many of these guys are on second or third contracts vs on rookie deals.

If you have the majority of these guys on second (or third) contracts, you want to trade down because you need to fill out your red-chip players with guys on rookie contracts. You can only have four players making $15 million a year or more. This is where you find savings.

If you have the majority on rookie contracts, you want to spend your resources on mid-level free agents to accelerate their development curve and the additional flexibility of the rookie scale.

There isn't a lot of competitive logic to minimizing your opportunity for franchise-defining talent when you arguably have only one or two franchise-defining players on your roster (Murray and Budda -- assuming we move Hop).

The debates next year when Budda is 28, heading into the last year of his contract, and where the Cardinals can save 14.2 mil by cutting or trading him are going to be fantastic (only 3.7 in dead money).

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The debates next year when Budda is 28, heading into the last year of his contract, and where the Cardinals can save 14.2 mil by cutting or trading him are going to be fantastic (only 3.7 in dead money).

It's why there is a good argument to trade him now. His value may not be any higher than it is now, even with the ankle.

 

[kerouac9]

It's why there is a good argument to trade him now. His value may not be any higher than it is now, even with the ankle.

I don't understand the argument that James Conner and Zach Ertz are so important to building a winning culture but Budda Baker can be sacrificed on the altar of cap space.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I don't understand the argument that James Conner and Zach Ertz are so important to building a winning culture but Budda Baker can be sacrificed on the altar of cap space.

Don't dare put that stance on me. I never even implied that.

Trading Budda away falls into the same reason why you would trade D-Hop.

 

[GatorAZ]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

.

 

[Chopper0080]

2024 is super interesting.

Right now I would say our 10 best players are Kyler, Conner, Humphries, Hopkins, Brown, Baker, Thompson, Ertz, Beachum and Simmons.

In 2024, Conner, Hopkins, Baker, and Ertz all should probably be cut due to their ages and positions.

Brown and Simmons are both FAs, and only Brown currently has an argument to be re-signed.

That leaves us with Kyler, Humphries, Beachum and Thompson as our top 4 players prior to 2024 free agency with, hopefully, Will Anderson at 5.

 

[kerouac9]

2024 is super interesting.

Right now I would say our 10 best players are Kyler, Conner, Humphries, Hopkins, Brown, Baker, Thompson, Ertz, Beachum and Simmons.

In 2024, Conner, Hopkins, Baker, and Ertz all should probably be cut due to their ages and positions.

Brown and Simmons are both FAs, and only Brown currently has an argument to be re-signed.

That leaves us with Kyler, Humphries, Beachum and Thompson as our top 4 players prior to 2024 free agency with, hopefully, Will Anderson at 5.

Cripes at Kelvin Beachum being one of our ten best players. Oof.

We'll continue to learn more, but I assume many will come in here and say that Zaven Collins is already better than Beachum and definitely will be by next year.

Also, if we draft a mid-round RB they'll likely be among our 10-best players by the end of the year.

 

[BirdGangThing]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

.

Benjamin Notbright strikes again

 

[Chopper0080]

Cripes at Kelvin Beachum being one of our ten best players. Oof.

We'll continue to learn more, but I assume many will come in here and say that Zaven Collins is already better than Beachum and definitely will be by next year.

Also, if we draft a mid-round RB they'll likely be among our 10-best players by the end of the year.

Just another frustrating part of boycotting free agency this year so far. Budda is the face of the franchise and the smart football move next season will be shipping him off. The blowback of another bad season coupled with getting rid of the face of the franchise is going to put some real pressure on Monti. I can't see Budda wanting to take less, and I don't see the justification of extending a 28 year old S at a rate of 17 per year.

 

[Totally_Red]

Benjamin Notbright strikes again

Looks like a solid guess to me.

 

[BirdGangThing]

Looks like a solid guess to me.

Looks like all the more reason to draft Will Anderson to me

 

[Shane]

Looks like all the more reason to draft Will Anderson to me

You know damn well if we draft him he’ll just be the next Andre Wadsworth

 

[BirdGangThing]

You know damn well if we draft him he’ll just be the next Andre Wadsworth

Why do want to hurt me like this Shane

 

[Shane]

Why do want to hurt me like this Shane

Because it’s sadly very likely

 

[BirdGangThing]

Because it’s sadly very likely

But if we don't draft him - he will likely destroy NFL sack records (and our quarterbacks) as a Seattle Seahawk??

lol idk which is worse

 

[Shane]

But if we don't draft him - he will likely destroy NFL sack records (and our quarterbacks) as a Seattle Seahawk??

lol idk which is worse

Exactly

 

[DVontel]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

.

Surprised you posted this before @SoonerLou did.

 

[BigDavis75]

Benjamin Notbright strikes again

So…who goes third in this scenario?

 

[BirdGangThing]

So…who goes third in this scenario?

You must be registered for see images attach

Unless the Colts are incredibly stupid I don't think the Cardinals should trade back

 

[Shane]

You must be registered for see images attach

Unless the Colts are incredibly stupid I don't think the Cardinals should trade back

Wilandre Wadserson come on down….

 

[BirdGangThing]

Wilandre Wadserson come on down….

Don't you put that hate on me Ricky Bobby

 

[Stout]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

.

If this happens I will be calling for the pitchforks for this pathetic FO. Not only not taking Anderson and then him going to a division rival to torment us forever would be a very, very Cardinals thing to do.

 

[Stout]

Looks like all the more reason to draft Will Anderson to me

Bingo.