Guest Chappy Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1022&theme= No doubt this move would boost Philly and McNabb if it were to happen... What are the chances of this deal actually going down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Fitz is really costin the Cards......(losing Faneca, not being able to keep Pace) think the damage is done and the "Core Player" will stay in Zona......also read the Cards don't want to trade Fitz's contract problems for Sheppards contract problems..........in the meantime players like Warner/Berry/Hayes are restructuring to help the team in a real way instead of Fitz's Jive azs lip service about being a team player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 It would be nice to see Mcnabb with a top WR who isn't psychotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 It would be nice to see Mcnabb with a top WR who isn't psychotic. Larry Fitzgerald is showing some character issues... He used to be one of my favorite non-packer players... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Larry Fitzgerald is showing some character issues... He used to be one of my favorite non-packer players... I have 1,643 favorite non-Packer players. I'm not sure where fitz is on that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I have 1,643 favorite non-Packer players. I'm not sure where fitz is on that list. Good morning sunshine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Larry Fitzgerald is showing some character issues... He used to be one of my favorite non-packer players... Because he doesn't want to take less money... money that is owed to him not only by contract but by virtue of his performance? I find the character flaw in the organization that promises its star players a cetain amount of compensation, and then tries to make those players seem like selfish greedy non-team players if they don't agree to take less compensation later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chappy Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Because he doesn't want to take less money... money that is owed to him not only by contract but by virtue of his performance? I find the character flaw in the organization that promises its star players a cetain amount of compensation, and then tries to make those players seem like selfish greedy non-team players if they don't agree to take less compensation later on. WOW!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Nicely done Savage! Simply put Fitz signed a contract, has performed very well and wants to be paid what he signed on for. And now he's being made out to be the goat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Because he doesn't want to take less money... money that is owed to him not only by contract but by virtue of his performance? I find the character flaw in the organization that promises its star players a cetain amount of compensation, and then tries to make those players seem like selfish greedy non-team players if they don't agree to take less compensation later on. Spot on - but that's how the NFL does business. There's also the fact that these contracts can be terminated by the team only and NOT the player. Fitz negotiated his coin, has performed VERY well and in no way, shape or form should be considered the bad guy in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) Because he doesn't want to take less money... money that is owed to him not only by contract but by virtue of his performance? I find the character flaw in the organization that promises its star players a cetain amount of compensation, and then tries to make those players seem like selfish greedy non-team players if they don't agree to take less compensation later on. Contracts are always back loaded... Then you re-work the deal to extend it and get more bonus money up front. The character flaw is that he's saying one thing with his mouth, then doing something else with his actions. Don't say that you want to be a team player, and that you want to win, then completely handicap your franchise and every one of your teammates by refusing to re-work your contract so the team can at least re-sign players on their team, I'm not even talking about signing incoming Free Agents here... He refused a contract which would have made him the highest paid wr ever because the contract will expire when he's 30. He doesn't like that, and he wants the contract to expire when he's 28, so he can have three huge paydays. This guys focus is clearly on money first. If that's what he's about that's fine, just don't talk about wanting to win and being a team player. Edited March 9, 2008 by piratesownninjas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I also think what Fitz is doing is more detrimental than anything then what Chad Johnson is doing now, or what TO or Moss has ever done to an organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Contracts are always back loaded... Then you re-work the deal to extend it and get more bonus money up front. The character flaw is that he's saying one thing with his mouth, then doing something else with his actions. Don't say that you want to be a team player, and that you want to win, then completely handicap your franchise and every one of your teammates by refusing to re-work your contract so the team can at least re-sign players on their team, I'm not even talking about signing incoming Free Agents here... He refused a contract which would have made him the highest paid wr ever because the contract will expire when he's 30. He doesn't like that, and he wants the contract to expire when he's 28, so he can have three huge paydays. This guys focus is clearly on money first. If that's what he's about that's fine, just don't talk about wanting to win and being a team player. a couple of things: 1. the cards handicapped themselves with a deal like this, it's not fitz's doing. fitz is not handicapping anyone. 2. the cards are historically cheap. so if fitz re-negotiates, you can't guarantee they are going to go spend that money elsewhere. 3. couldn't the cards "take one for the team" and just accept his 4 year proposal? you criticize him for not taking a hit, and act like the cards aren't being just as stubborn. 4. can you blame him for wanting to possibly be ready for another team in 4 years? again, the cards are historically cheap, they obviously don't manage the cap well, and he's proposing to play there for 4 more years. let's say the cards continue to miss the playoffs for the next 4 season, which for the reasons listed above, is not a stretch, can you blame him for possibly at that time wanting to go to a team with a better chance at a ring? he's played his butt off and he's done a ton for the cardinals organization and the city of phoenix, and he's taking heat for wanting to play out a CONTRACT that TWO PARTIES signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I also think what Fitz is doing is more detrimental than anything then what Chad Johnson is doing now, or what TO or Moss has ever done to an organization. publicly trashing your own team's starting QB or admitting you take plays off is worse than wanting to play out a contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 a couple of things: 1. the cards handicapped themselves with a deal like this, it's not fitz's doing. fitz is not handicapping anyone. 2. the cards are historically cheap. so if fitz re-negotiates, you can't guarantee they are going to go spend that money elsewhere. 3. couldn't the cards "take one for the team" and just accept his 4 year proposal? you criticize him for not taking a hit, and act like the cards aren't being just as stubborn. 4. can you blame him for wanting to possibly be ready for another team in 4 years? again, the cards are historically cheap, they obviously don't manage the cap well, and he's proposing to play there for 4 more years. let's say the cards continue to miss the playoffs for the next 4 season, which for the reasons listed above, is not a stretch, can you blame him for possibly at that time wanting to go to a team with a better chance at a ring? he's played his butt off and he's done a ton for the cardinals organization and the city of phoenix, and he's taking heat for wanting to play out a CONTRACT that TWO PARTIES signed. 1. Contracts like this are not rare. I think it's assumed that you would extend the contract, as is the case nearly all the time with contracts like these. Fitz is handicapping the team. Alan Faneca's agent said word for word that Larry Fitzgerald and his contract cost the Cardinals Faneca, who wanted to play for Russ Grimm. Because Fitz's contract eats up so much cap, they can't spend anything. Regardless of how you feel about Fitz, I don't think you can argue that he's not handicapping them this off season. 2. The Bidwells have been getting better, and over the past few years have shown that they're ready to spend. How do you account for the Edgerrin James signing? That was not a cheap deal. 3. How many massive 4 year contracts go out to 24 year old players? The Cardinals are trying to show that they're not cheap and that they're committed to Fitz by offering him a long term deal. From a franchises point of view, a six year deal is for the greater good of the team, which should always be ahead of a single player. 4. The historically cheap Cardinals have been spending more over the last few years. Edgerrin James. It's hard to manage the cap well when your star receiver is saying things about wanting to win in Arizona and be a team player, then refuses to re-work an asinine deal which was backloaded in the first place, and was assumed would be extended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chappy Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I also think what Fitz is doing is more detrimental than anything then what Chad Johnson is doing now, or what TO or Moss has ever done to an organization. We certainly don't see eye to eye here. A guy wanting to be paid what he signed on for and deserves, all while trying to keep the public/fans on his side by saying that he's a team player is certainly not the same thing as guys who have acted like whining, self-centered, pris-ass athletes who rip into their coaches on the sidelines (beat them up in the locker room), half assing it through routes and whiffing on blocks (in Moss' case). TO, Moss and Chad have all created problems both on and off the field and what Fitz's is doing could never be compared to what they've done. They're not even on the same level in terms of doing detrimental things to the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) It's hard to manage the cap well when your star receiver is saying things about wanting to win in Arizona and be a team player, then refuses to re-work an asinine deal which was backloaded in the first place, and was assumed would be extended. Who gave him the 'asinine deal' in the first place? The team that now wants to back out of it. So you think it's ok to back out of an agreement? That action lacks integrity, especially when the team is trying to publicly shame him into doing so. Edited March 9, 2008 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 publicly trashing your own team's starting QB or admitting you take plays off is worse than wanting to play out a contract? We certainly don't see eye to eye here. A guy wanting to be paid what he signed on for and deserves, all while trying to keep the public/fans on his side by saying that he's a team player is certainly not the same thing as guys who have acted like whining, self-centered, pris-ass athletes who rip into their coaches on the sidelines (beat them up in the locker room), half assing it through routes and whiffing on blocks (in Moss' case). TO, Moss and Chad have all created problems both on and off the field and what Fitz's is doing could never be compared to what they've done. They're not even on the same level in terms of doing detrimental things to the team. Did Randy Moss, TO, or Chad Johnson ever put their franchises in a position where they couldn't sign their linebacker who played really well last year, or prohibit them from bringing on an elite offensive lineman? You guys are missing my point here all together. I said that if Fitz wants to be all about the money, that's fine. A ton of receivers are. Just don't talk about wanting to be a team player and wanting to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 1. Contracts like this are not rare. I think it's assumed that you would extend the contract, as is the case nearly all the time with contracts like these. Fitz is handicapping the team. Alan Faneca's agent said word for word that Larry Fitzgerald and his contract cost the Cardinals Faneca, who wanted to play for Russ Grimm. Because Fitz's contract eats up so much cap, they can't spend anything. Regardless of how you feel about Fitz, I don't think you can argue that he's not handicapping them this off season. 2. The Bidwells have been getting better, and over the past few years have shown that they're ready to spend. How do you account for the Edgerrin James signing? That was not a cheap deal. 3. How many massive 4 year contracts go out to 24 year old players? The Cardinals are trying to show that they're not cheap and that they're committed to Fitz by offering him a long term deal. From a franchises point of view, a six year deal is for the greater good of the team, which should always be ahead of a single player. 4. The historically cheap Cardinals have been spending more over the last few years. Edgerrin James. It's hard to manage the cap well when your star receiver is saying things about wanting to win in Arizona and be a team player, then refuses to re-work an asinine deal which was backloaded in the first place, and was assumed would be extended. 1. let me put it this way instead. fitzgerald's cap number may be handicapping the team, but that is not his fault. assuming anything, especially something opposite of what a contract says, is no way to run a business. 2. no, it wasn't, nor do i think it was a wise one. one signing does not erase a few decades of frugality. 3. they are also trying to stretch out as much of the money as possible, and yes, of course they are doing what's best for them. 4. i guess i'm still wondering how you feel this back-loaded "asinine" deal is fitzgerald's fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Who gave him the 'asinine deal' in the first place? The team that now wants to back out of it. So you think it's ok to back out of an agreement? That action lacks integrity, especially when the team is trying to publicly shame him into doing so. That deal was never intended to reach this point. It was written out with the intention of extending it, as is the case in the vast majority of the cases. The team isn't publicly shaming him. They've said they're trying to work out an extension, and that if they don't they're willing to live up to their part of the deal. It was Faneca's agent that said Fitz cost the cards an elite offensive lineman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 1. let me put it this way instead. fitzgerald's cap number may be handicapping the team, but that is not his fault. assuming anything, especially something opposite of what a contract says, is no way to run a business. 2. no, it wasn't, nor do i think it was a wise one. one signing does not erase a few decades of frugality. 3. they are also trying to stretch out as much of the money as possible, and yes, of course they are doing what's best for them. 4. i guess i'm still wondering how you feel this back-loaded "asinine" deal is fitzgerald's fault? 1. This isn't a normal business. Contracts are backloaded all the time with the intention of extending it. Never was the deal supposed to get this far in. 2. Two decades ago is two decades ago. And my point wasn't about if the Edge signing was a good one or not. It showed that they're willing to spend money. 3. Which teams don't try and stretch out money or do what is right for them? 4. As it was never intended to get this far, but you guys continue to miss my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chappy Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) Did Randy Moss, TO, or Chad Johnson ever put their franchises in a position where they couldn't sign their linebacker who played really well last year, or prohibit them from bringing on an elite offensive lineman? You guys are missing my point here all together. I said that if Fitz wants to be all about the money, that's fine. A ton of receivers are. Just don't talk about wanting to be a team player and wanting to win. With all due repect here I really think it is you who is missing the point. Fitz is saying what needs to be said publicly just as owners/GMs do to keep the peace. However, behind closed doors, the team wants what's best for the team and Fitz wants what both sides agreed upon when signing the original contract. I get your drift about Fitz saying he's a team player and then not showing it but Fitz wants his money and has to say the things he is saying to be professional and not sound like an all about me athlete. If Fitz came out and said, I'm not re-doing my deal because I want to be paid and can't concern myself with the problems the team is having signing players and staying under the cap, it woudn't go so well. Of course Fitz wants to be a team player (a safe statement), win the Big game but he also wants to be paid. He's just trying to handle all the fronts without creating a problem on another. Edited March 9, 2008 by Chappy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 1. This isn't a normal business. Contracts are backloaded all the time with the intention of extending it. Never was the deal supposed to get this far in. 2. Two decades ago is two decades ago. And my point wasn't about if the Edge signing was a good one or not. It showed that they're willing to spend money. 3. Which teams don't try and stretch out money or do what is right for them? 4. As it was never intended to get this far, but you guys continue to miss my point. 1/4. no point is being missed. i'll even go with your thought and ASSUME nobody intended for this contract to get this far. if that's the case, wouldn't the prudent thing to have done would be re-negotiate before it ballooned like this? the bottom line is that it's in writing, it's signed, it's presently valid, he's earned the escalators, and the cards don't want to pay it. if your point, which is well understood, is true, then the team should've extended him last year. 2. i agree, the point was not whether it was a good signing. saying "two decades ago is two decades ago" is pretty naively ignoring very recent history. 3. agreed, but what player or person in the world doesn't want to get paid what he is legally owed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 With all due repect here I really think it is you who is missing the point. Fitz is saying what needs to be said publicly just as owners/GMs do to keep the peace. However, behind closed doors, the team wants what's best for the team and Fitz wants what both sides agreed upon when signing the original contract. I get your drift about Fitz saying he's a team player and then not showing his but Fitz wants his money and has to say the things he is saying to be professional and not sound like an all about me athlete. If Fitz came out and said, I'm not re-doing my deal because I want to be paid and can't concern myself with the problems the team is having signing players and staying under the cap, it woudn't go so well. Of course Fitz wants to be a team player (a safe statement), win the Big game but he also wants to be paid. He's just trying to handle all the fronts without creating a problem on another. Thank you, I think you just made my point for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Thank you, I think you just made my point for me... by the way, the cards are using the arizona media outlets just as much if not more than fitz and his reps. while you say they are stating "we're trying to work out a deal", they are also not excepting an offer of 4 years that is in front of them, so i'm not sure why you're not criticizing them for talking out both sides of their mouth if that's what you feel fitz is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 1/4. no point is being missed. i'll even go with your thought and ASSUME nobody intended for this contract to get this far. if that's the case, wouldn't the prudent thing to have done would be re-negotiate before it ballooned like this? the bottom line is that it's in writing, it's signed, it's presently valid, he's earned the escalators, and the cards don't want to pay it. if your point, which is well understood, is true, then the team should've extended him last year. 2. i agree, the point was not whether it was a good signing. saying "two decades ago is two decades ago" is pretty naively ignoring very recent history. 3. agreed, but what player or person in the world doesn't want to get paid what he is legally owed? 1. They've been trying to extend him for over a year now. He won't. The Cardinals will pay it, as the GM has said as much. He said that a deal is a deal, and if they can't work out an agreement they would man up and pay him. 2. Two decades ago isn't recent history. What were the Patriots as a franchise two years ago? What were the Cowboys two years ago? A lot of things change in 20 years. 3. You're talking as if he's going to lose a ton of money by extending his contract... He could get a ton of money in signing bonuses to compensate for what would be lost if he resigned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.