- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 17,858
- Reaction score
- 8,870
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Most likely BS, but I figured I would pass it along
http://m.bizjournals.com/phoenix/mo...als-could-deal-away-larry.html?ana=twt&r=full
The idea in ARZ was for Floyd to take over the WR1 role, so at some point--yes, Larry Fitzgerald is going to be moved on from.
Of course, who knows when that point will be?
To say that he no longer justifies his cost would be an understatement.
wouldn't andre johnson be cheaper, give up less for and be able equal in talent? I'd rather trade for a good DT or OG before WR though
wouldn't andre johnson be cheaper, give up less for and be able equal in talent? I'd rather trade for a good DT or OG before WR though
Since the Thursday night game is 24-0 after fifteen minutes, here's what I found after a few minutes of research.
The most curious thing I found was that Kenbrell Thompkins was allegedly not waived to make room for a healthy defensive and special teams player, but to make room for Fitzgerald - even though a game has taken place since then.
PWP: Too funny!
To me that last line says a lot: that many people who write about the NFL - especially about trade rumors and speculation - do not have an adequate understanding of how the NFL's salary cap works. I believe it is a case of too many people attempting to use baseball financial logic, and apply it to the NFL.
It just doesn't work that way, since (a) the NFL has a real cap, MLB does not; (b) the NFL cap takes into account signing bonuses, which are not needed in the MLB (since their contracts are guaranteed); (c) the cap, free agency and revenue sharing make it easier for smaller market teams to compete in the NFL than they could in MLB; (d) the effect of dead money on a team's cap, and it's ability to be competitive during that time.
Personally, I think he may be a candidate to move prior to that 8 million dollar roster bonus due in March, Miguel.
The basic answer to your questions are that 1) Fitzgerald no longer justifies his salary, 2) Arizona has had success in moving Michael Floyd to their WR1 slot, 3) there have been lots of examples of people in the L.Fitzgerald "camp" who have not been happy about his lack of targets/production--most notably his father.
In a recent primetime game on Sunday or Monday night, they didn't even target Fitzgerald until 57:00 minutes into the game.
I think the writing is definitely on the wall to have ARZ move on from him, and I don't think it's a question of "if" anymore. The main question is whether we would be in the mix, and "when" he'll be moved in my opinion.
Of course, there may be financial implications that you know of that I am not taking into account.
There is also the dynamic that the reasons why Arizona would want to trade Fitzgerald:
- (a) he is a wide receiver on the wrong side of 30, who
- (b) has seen his productivity drop significantly since 2011,
- (c) is now his team's number two receiver,
- (d) is projecting to have 656 yards receiving with zero touchdowns, and
- (e) will be due an $8 million roster bonus on the 5th day of the 2015 league year, in addition to
- (f) an $8 million guaranteed base salary in 2015...
And all are the very same reasons that other teams would not want to trade for him.
Never gonna happen, just to generate clicks
We know that his leadership, attitude, talent, and professionalism would likely raise the odds of an outside receiver fitting in here. The only real question is whether or not Belichick will get the opportunity to make a deal for him, and whether or not they can agree on the specifics. Those are some big "IFs" but I think Fitzgerald is one of those kinds of players that Belichick would attempt to get if they can agree on terms.
Why would Fitzgerald agree to any type of (upcoming) pay cut right now?