Week 9 of the Arizona Cardinals off season. 3/04/24-3/10/24

[Krangodnzr]

Danielle Hunter had it in his contract that he couldn't be tagged this offseason. So he is available and I would throw $24M ish per year at him. Plus he played for JG when JG was coaching in Minn. so there is familiarity there.

On NFL.com he is listed as the #4 FA available now that the Franchise tags have been assigned:

Top 101 NFL free agents of 2024: Micah Hyde, Ryan Tannehill among best available

I'm not sure why you don't consider him a proven pass rusher (27 sacks over the last two seasons)? Or why you wouldn't spend big money on him?

In my offseason plan I had the Cardinals signing him to a three year contract similar to this so his cap hit this season is very manageable:

Contract Projection: Three years, $72 million ($24 million per year), $36 million total guaranteed
Year SAL CAPHIT
2024 $1.5M $10.5M
2025 $16M $25M
2026 $18.5M $27.5M
2027 Void $9M

The more I think about it, the more I think Hunter should be the target.

There are a decent number of solid DTs in this FA class. Same with the draft.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Stout]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Well, he got the article title half right, anyway.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

This is why Budda didn't push to put himself to also be released this off season.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Shane]

This is why Budda didn't push to put himself to also be released this off season.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Honestly that shouldn’t matter if he’s as good as many on THIS site claim he is. Should be able to go out and get paid no matter what. For his “leadership” and being a “tackling machine.” And of course being the “best S in the NFL”

 

[Mulli]

Honestly that shouldn’t matter if he’s as good as many on THIS site claim he is. Should be able to go out and get paid no matter what. For his “leadership” and being a “tackling machine.” And of course being the “best S in the NFL”

 

[BritCard]

Paging Monti Ossenfort

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[oaken1]

Well, he got the article title half right, anywa

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Honestly that shouldn’t matter if he’s as good as many on THIS site claim he is. Should be able to go out and get paid no matter what. For his “leadership” and being a “tackling machine.” And of course being the “best S in the NFL”

This all crushes any market to trade him.

 

[daves]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Last year perhaps Baker had leverage over the Cardinals - if they cut him on the heels of a horrible season and an offseason that hadn't moved the needle in a positive way, it diminish optimism for the future.

But this season, given the glutted market for safeties, Baker's failure to be a difference maker in 2023, and the shift of emphasis on safeties around the league, the Cardinals have leverage. If they cut Baker now, there are a lot of other good safeties who could be had for less.

If they want to keep him since he's one of the few "faces of the franchise", and assuming that forcing him to take a pay cut a year after giving him a raise would set a sour tone entering free agency, perhaps they could "commit to him" by extending him at a much lower rate, to spread his salary cap hit over more years and lower his average.

 

[Proximo]

Sounds like Chicago is likely to trade the number 1 pick and quite possibly pick MHJ ahead of us due to lack of interest in Fields.

 

[daves]

Sounds like Chicago is likely to trade the number 1 pick and quite possibly pick MHJ ahead of us due to lack of interest in Fields.

I'm sure they're hoping to maximize their return on Fields... but I doubt that whether the difference between getting a 2nd rounder for him or a 5th rounder factors AT ALL into their decision to move on and take a QB at the top of the draft.

 

[oaken1]

I'm sure they're hoping to maximize their return on Fields... but I doubt that whether the difference between getting a 2nd rounder for him or a 5th rounder factors AT ALL into their decision to move on and take a QB at the top of the draft.

Agree. The price is high right now. It will drop quite a bit by draft weekend.
A third and a fifth seems fair. Bears just won't swallow it right now

 

[Krangodnzr]

Last year perhaps Baker had leverage over the Cardinals - if they cut him on the heels of a horrible season and an offseason that hadn't moved the needle in a positive way, it diminish optimism for the future.

But this season, given the glutted market for safeties, Baker's failure to be a difference maker in 2023, and the shift of emphasis on safeties around the league, the Cardinals have leverage. If they cut Baker now, there are a lot of other good safeties who could be had for less.

If they want to keep him since he's one of the few "faces of the franchise", and assuming that forcing him to take a pay cut a year after giving him a raise would set a sour tone entering free agency, perhaps they could "commit to him" by extending him at a much lower rate, to spread his salary cap hit over more years and lower his average.

Or take Baker's money and give it to Xavier McKinney who makes more splash plays.

 

[Proximo]

I'm sure they're hoping to maximize their return on Fields... but I doubt that whether the difference between getting a 2nd rounder for him or a 5th rounder factors AT ALL into their decision to move on and take a QB at the top of the draft.

It's all a matter of how they value players, supposedly they are being offered a kings ransom for the first pick already. If they feel Fields is good enough to win, they may very well think the trade is a good idea.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Sounds like Chicago is likely to trade the number 1 pick and quite possibly pick MHJ ahead of us due to lack of interest in Fields.

yeah, the bears realized that Fields has little to no value, so they're going to keep the QB they don't want and the league doesn't value that much instead of taking the best QB in the draft.

that makes no sense, dude.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It's all a matter of how they value players, supposedly they are being offered a kings ransom for the first pick already. If they feel Fields is good enough to win, they may very well think the trade is a good idea.

if they thought Fields was good enough to win, they wouldn't have put him on the market in the first place and would have made it clear that top bidder gets the first pick.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

if they thought Fields was good enough to win, they wouldn't have put him on the market in the first place and would have made it clear that top bidder gets the first pick.

I only partially agree here. I think the right move was putting him on the market, no matter what once they had the #1 pick. Maybe they didn't know what the price was and could get more than expected.

Besides, they traded #1 last year and it turned out to be an amazing decision. They can keep it if they want and get a QB much better than last year's class.

 

[Proximo]

if they thought Fields was good enough to win, they wouldn't have put him on the market in the first place and would have made it clear that top bidder gets the first pick.

Bull. If they think the rookie is possibly better they will take him - not to mention the financial benefits of a rookie contract. That does not mean they think Fields sucks, because he obviously doesn't.

I really don't like this black and white thinking.

Fields has a certain value, Caleb Williams has a certain value, and the picks they get for trading the number 1 pick has a value.

If Fields + the picks > Caleb to the Bears they will make the deal.

 

[Krangodnzr]

It's all a matter of how they value players, supposedly they are being offered a kings ransom for the first pick already. If they feel Fields is good enough to win, they may very well think the trade is a good idea.

Good enough to win isn't the bar you set at QB. We're not talking about a starting LG here.

The Bears absolutely see what we have seen with Justin Fields, and also see what the rest of us see with Caleb Williams. Fields' ceiling looks to be "adequate" passing QB, while Williams' ceiling looks to be top five at his position.

Fields is a sunk cost at this point, and a sunk cost that Ryan Poles wasn't responsible for. He has a great shot to have a good young QB on a cheap salary, or he could pay Fields and have an adequate QB on a fairly expensive contract.

Rich Eisen did a segment on combine rumors that the worst kept secret is that the Bears are drafting Caleb Williams and moving on from Fields. Any notion to the contrary is posturing; the Bears have to make it look like they aren't chomping at the bit to get rid of one of the worst passing QBs in the NFL.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I only partially agree here. I think the right move was putting him on the market, no matter what once they had the #1 pick. Maybe they didn't know what the price was and could get more than expected.

Besides, they traded #1 last year and it turned out to be an amazing decision. They can keep it if they want and get a QB much better than last year's class.

Better than stroud? That’s a high bar for the mama’s boy.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

I was today years old when I figured out Monti is the GM of 2 AZ teams.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Krangodnzr]

Better than stroud? That’s a high bar for the mama’s boy.

Hell yeah Caleb is a better prospect than Stroud was. So is Drake Maye.

Stroud had a phenomenal supporting cast and coaching year one. That definitely helps to make a young QB look pretty good.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Better than stroud? That’s a high bar for the mama’s boy.

I meant as a prospect coming out before game play they ever snapped in the NFL.

I think that Caleb can become a better QB than Stroud, but I think Stroud is already top 7-8QB in the league so that would be hard to beat rigth away.