PDA

View Full Version : Cruz and Free Agency, Who Gets Left Out?



gumby742
02-07-2012, 05:23 PM
I'm singling Cruz out because he obviously needs to get paid significantly more then he is now. All of a sudden we have an unforeseen star and someone needs to be left out when it comes to free agency.</P>


Ok, a portion of our free agency picture is like below.</P>


2012 - TT, Ross, Manningham among others.</P>


2013 - KP, Cruz, Beatty, </P>


2014 - Nicks, Tuck, Boley, Webster, Joseph</P>


Given that teams can usually splurge on only one big contract a year (I am completely guesstimating) , unless they've been saving cap space for a couple years (ie Eagles, or Pats from thsi year - they are 20 million under), it's safe to say we won't be able to resign half of the guys above.</P>


For fun, let's say that makes3 big contracts and that all of them ARGUABLY are worth big contracts (6 mil +). Which three do you choose? You accumulate 1 big contract per year. Meaning, you can wait until 2014 and sign 3 assuming you sign noone prior. In 2013, you get 2 if you don't sign anyone prior. In 2012 you have only 1.</P>


Me personally? I resign no-one in 2012. I resign Cruz in 2013. I resign Nicks And tuck in 2014.</P>


And I know i'm totally simplifying things. This is just an excersize to get people to think a bit on who we really want to pay and who we don't. In an ideal world, we want to resign everyone. Unfortunately, we can't do that.</P>

FBomb
02-07-2012, 05:48 PM
Well, it's unrealistic to think you can put off giving Cruz a new deal. The kid earned it and he should get it NOW.</P>


TT, pardon the pun, doesn't have a leg to stand on until he's 100%. He'll have to take what we offer or he goes the Steve Smith route. I love the guy, but we have bigger fish to fry.</P>


I hate to say it, but MM is probably gone. </P>


Ross will get a fair offer that's good for both and will probably take it.</P>

sharick88
02-07-2012, 05:54 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if Manningham ends up in New England ironically. He does deserve a nice payday and will get one somewhere. Just doubt that it is here

slipknottin
02-07-2012, 05:57 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now.

Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt.

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 05:57 PM
Nice post. I don't think anyone over $2 million or so will get resigned this year - at a stretch I can see them going somewhere like Nicks money for Manningham but that is the basic ceiling - I can't see JR and co giving a third WR more than the number 1 guy. Personally, I would love a way to see MM re-signed on a sweet 2 year deal but given the way things are and the way teams will offer him $3-4 million, I can't see anyone on their big money contract taking that much of a home town discount. He has been a super draft pick, he deserves a pay day and while I would love that to be with the Giants, if the business won't allow it, the business won't allow it.

The bottom line as well is that

1) even with KM and BJ (combined cap value $8m) off the roster; and
2) possible renogiation of vet contracts (Diehl, Manning, Webster, Rolle, Canty)

we will be very very tight on that cap if we try and bring back half the free agents I think we will need.

This offseason, for me, is about getting the key starters/role players and parts re-signed, for value. I would like to see TT and Goff re-signed on play/incentive laden deals, Weatherford signed up for his value (ie more than the punter minimum), Ballard on a solid deal. To this I would add Tolly, Grant, Bernard and Thomas as role players for another year. But essentially - yes, no big re-signs and, personally, I wouldnt want to f around with too many existing contracts to try and save for one big F/A signing.

Turning to 2013 the obvious retain is Cruz as things stand but I wouldn't be hugely worried about him right now - he's restricted anyway so if things get acrimonius (and I dont think they will) we only need to match what another team are willing to pay. I think KP will also get a decent offer, I absolutely think there will be cap room for him.

As for that 2014 class - I actually don't see a huge problem as things stand. The reason - in their next contracts Tuck, Boley and Webster will all be over 32. They have had their payday second contracts. If they are still getting performance, yes, they'll get paid on that value but not on the upside of how much the organisation thinks they may improve over the contract. In real terms pass rushers, CB's and LB's don't improve production with age. They will either take the cut in 2014 or be cut. That leaves plenty of room to give Nicks and Cruz the deals they need in 2013/2014 IF the giants can draft/keep defensive talent through the draft or cute F/A deal between now and then. The key deals by the time 2014 comes around will be Nicks, LJ (as you say).

To me, the big off seasons are this offseason and 2013 - can JR get even more applause by getting talent at value to add to the Giants core which is, like it or not, way over a third/approaching a half of the cap invested in the top 11/12 guys on the roster.

CDN_G-FAN
02-07-2012, 05:57 PM
we put off giving SS a new contract and he was making less than Cruz is today.</P>


keep in mind this was before everyone hated SS.</P>


i think they'll offer him a deal, but it'll probably include the hometown discount.</P>


We'll see if he takes it.</P>

CDN_G-FAN
02-07-2012, 05:59 PM
Well, it's unrealistic to think you can put off giving Cruz a new deal. The kid earned it and he should get it NOW.</P>


TT, pardon the pun, doesn't have a leg to stand on until he's 100%. He'll have to take what we offer or he goes the Steve Smith route. I love the guy, but we have bigger fish to fry.</P>


I hate to say it, but MM is probably gone. </P>


Ross will get a fair offer that's good for both and will probably take it.</P>


</P>


i think they'll evaluate TT vs Ross and figure out which one they're going to make the serious push for. it won't be both.</P>


MM is probably gone, Osi won't get a raise, and it'll be interesting to see what they do with Jacobs.</P>


I don't know what they do with Cruz. They'll either up Cruz or Nicks, both have their contracts technically expire next season, both are vastly underpaid.</P>

gumby742
02-07-2012, 06:06 PM
Well, it's unrealistic to think you can put off giving Cruz a new deal. The kid earned it and he should get it NOW.</P>


TT, pardon the pun, doesn't have a leg to stand on until he's 100%. He'll have to take what we offer or he goes the Steve Smith route. I love the guy, but we have bigger fish to fry.</P>


I hate to say it, but MM is probably gone. </P>


Ross will get a fair offer that's good for both and will probably take it.</P>


</P>


i think they'll evaluate TT vs Ross and figure out which one they're going to make the serious push for. it won't be both.</P>


MM is probably gone, Osi won't get a raise, and it'll be interesting to see what they do with Jacobs.</P>


I don't know what they do with Cruz. They'll either up Cruz or Nicks, both have their contracts technically expire next season, both are vastly underpaid.</P>


</P>


What's on my mind is, does it make sense to pay 2 WRs #1 WR money. What did the Colts do with Harrison and Wayne?</P>

slipknottin
02-07-2012, 06:08 PM
What's on my mind is, does it make sense to pay 2 WRs #1 WR money.

Yes.

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 06:19 PM
I agree re Cruz and leaving his contract be. If his season next year is anything like this he will get paid.

Next year the Giants barely have a nickel on the cap without cutting away elsewhere and, perhaps being contraversial here, if I had $2-3million to give to one of the receivers next year I would give it to Manningham.

This postseason proved, absolutely in my view, that this corps, as well as Eli, is both elite and will get you in the end provided you can get all of it on the field and healthy - ultimately a defense needs to double cover all of them to stop giving it up to them and that creates big holes for others, the running game, lots of good match ups. I'd like to see that for at least one more season.

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 06:35 PM
Re wide receiver cash. I think you can pay big money to two WR guys but it all comes back to the draft and assuming you have a franchise quarterback.

If you have that and if you can find through draft and draft free agency 3-5 players each off season who can perform to a high standard in the NFL you can pay a little more for weapons in luxury areas. Put simply - the first four / five years are so cheap you can put resources elsewhere during the lifetime of those contracts but it all depends on that draft.

Get it wrong - as Indy repeatedly have - at the top of the draft in particular and you have systemic talent issues in areas that dictate games - essentially OL/DL but also secondary and its mirror, receivers.

Five of the last seven superbowl winners - Packers, Steelers (x2), Giants (x2 :D) have been extremely good drafters - most of their top 2/3 picks in each round of the draft (and a fair few lower round picks) going back five years before the relevant win were with the team when they won. That, much more than win-by-free-agency, is the sign of a properly functioning organisation in the era of the salary cap.

giantsfan420
02-07-2012, 06:36 PM
i def. want mm back, but no one is talking about his knee issues he had this past season. he has some kind of tear or some injury that he was able to play on but also forced him to sit too. i doubt another team is going to take a flier on a wr with knee issues.

if he goes, we resign steve smith for great market value, we'll know what we're getting, and he fits our wr corp better than mm does imho even tho i love how mm stepped up for us. nicks is that physical, deep ball threat, smith would be that route runner possession wr, and cruz is a mix of both.

we're going to have to release jacobs unfortunately, probably diehl as he makes a bunch of money too now bc he played at LT, and we'll prob have to cut even more fat tho u hate to do so.

we need to keep our core group of players, role players will unfortunately either have to take pay cuts or just get cut.

plus, we won the super bowl so that gives us more money to work with so thats a huge plus.

i have no doubt that the FO and Reese will be able to figure something out. since we're picking 32, i'd even entertain trading down from the 32 for an additional 2nd this year and 2nd next draft to save money that we'd have to pay for a 1rst round pick and use the two 2nd round picks to get the role players we just lost.

point being, theirs definitely a way to make this all work. as i said previously, i believe our wr corp genuinely love playing with each other and wouldnt mind taking less money as long as it assured they'd get to remain a trio. but its nice we also have s.smith there as a backup plan

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 06:45 PM
MM gives us a deep threat, as The Catch shows, that SS (god love him) never really showed. He was a great slot/possession receiver but we have, I think, a better one - certainly a more dangerous one.

Rumours are that Chicago, really bad WR signers, want MM and I can understand it to the extent they obviously want to give Cutler weapns. MM, when fit, is a weapon. About 20-25 of the leagues teams could easily have MM as number two receiver on the basis of his production over the last three years.

If MM goes, its just next man up for me - take a harder look at Thomas, JJ or Barden, who needs to start showing what he's paid for considering this year he was on more than cruz and ballard combined. Stay away from WR free agency if at all possible.

calzonesays
02-07-2012, 06:49 PM
if Mario goes, give Devin Thomas a shot. I just don't think Barden is gonna pan out.

buffyblue
02-07-2012, 06:50 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if Manningham ends up in New England ironically. He does deserve a nice payday and will get one somewhere. Just doubt that it is here

Actually that is where I think he will wind up.

calzonesays
02-07-2012, 06:54 PM
I dont think Mario would go to the Patriots.

I actually think the Pats are gonna end up with Brandon Lloyd.

ELIteManning
02-07-2012, 07:19 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now.

Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt.

I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.

FBomb
02-07-2012, 07:31 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruzhad an INCREDIBLE firstseason. Without him we don't get to the playoffs. Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>

Itlan
02-07-2012, 07:41 PM
One season doesn't mean anything. Do not pay Cruz until he proves himself next year. If we're 8 games into the season and he has 800+ yards, then fine, negotiate a new contract, but until he proves he can handle the doubles he's going to see (as Nicks has) he doesn't deserve top flight money.

Sorry.

GameTime
02-07-2012, 07:46 PM
One season doesn't mean anything. Do not pay Cruz until he proves himself next year. If we're 8 games into the season and he has 800+ yards, then fine, negotiate a new contract, but until he proves he can handle the doubles he's going to see (as Nicks has) he doesn't deserve top flight money. Sorry.</P>


he doesnt deserve top tier money yet but he did set a few rocords this season and he did baol the team out with some of his play. He deserves more than a sub 500K paycheck for next season IMO.....</P>

FBomb
02-07-2012, 07:51 PM
One season doesn't mean anything. Do not pay Cruz until he proves himself next year. If we're 8 games into the season and he has 800+ yards, then fine, negotiate a new contract, but until he proves he can handle the doubles he's going to see (as Nicks has) he doesn't deserve top flight money. Sorry.</P>


he doesnt deserve top tier money yet but he did set a few rocords this season and he did baol the team out with some of his play. He deserves more than a sub 500K paycheck for next season IMO.....</P>


</P>


This</P>

slipknottin
02-07-2012, 08:03 PM
Cruz*had an INCREDIBLE first*season.* Without him we don't get to the playoffs.* Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>

Steve Smith had an INCREDIBLE season too.

FBomb
02-07-2012, 08:04 PM
Cruzhad an INCREDIBLE firstseason. Without him we don't get to the playoffs. Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.


</P>


Steve Smith had an INCREDIBLE season too.</P>


We wasn't making league minimum either.</P>


</P>

ELIteManning
02-07-2012, 08:05 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruz*had an INCREDIBLE first*season.* Without him we don't get to the playoffs.* Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>

I wasn't one bit downplaying how good Cruz has played. If that is what you pulled out of what I was saying then you completely missed the entire point. Fact is you can't pay everyone immediately just because they have an excellent season. The team would be broke. Players have a contract. He did it for 1 year. The team has no obligation to dish out a big contract YET. His time will come and when he does he will be rewarded.

FBomb
02-07-2012, 08:12 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruzhad an INCREDIBLE firstseason. Without him we don't get to the playoffs. Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>


I wasn't one bit downplaying how good Cruz has played. If that is what you pulled out of what I was saying then you completely missed the entire point. Fact is you can't pay everyone immediately just because they have an excellent season. The team would be broke. Players have a contract. He did it for 1 year. The team has no obligation to dish out a big contract YET. His time will come and when he does he will be rewarded.</P>


You said "good season"....just quoting you.</P>


Again...you guys are being unrealistic if you expect that Cruz isn't going to get more money than league minimum next season!!</P>


</P>

slipknottin
02-07-2012, 08:15 PM
We wasn't making league minimum either.</P>


*</P>

No, he was making like 700k a season, lol.

ELIteManning
02-07-2012, 08:15 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruz*had an INCREDIBLE first*season.* Without him we don't get to the playoffs.* Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>


I wasn't one bit downplaying how good Cruz has played. If that is what you pulled out of what I was saying then you completely missed the entire point. Fact is you can't pay everyone immediately just because they have an excellent season. The team would be broke. Players have a contract. He did it for 1 year. The team has no obligation to dish out a big contract YET. His time will come and when he does he will be rewarded.</P>


You said "good season"....just quoting you.</P>


Again...you guys are being unrealistic if you expect that Cruz isn't going to get more money than league minimum next season!!</P>


*</P>

I know that is what was said. You are just focusing on the wrong thing and taking it out of context of how it was stated. Perhaps they will add a little something to his contract but if they do I highly doubt they give them a big long term deal like what was being discussed.

NYGRealityCheck
02-07-2012, 08:20 PM
anyone in general agreement here about resigning Weatherford?

He's a punter, has fantastic directional punting skills, has great attitude on and off the field, has a lot of years left, and most likely won't break the bank.

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 08:21 PM
Who was the last player the Giants signifcantly upgraded a rookie contract with, in the era of the hard cap, regardless of whether that rookie was paid league minimum or was first round drafted? I'm struggling.

The main reason I think they won't change his contract is that is creates a precedent - basically everytime a rookie has a breakout year on a cheap deal he'll say Cruz got one, why can't I? And I wouldn't blame him.

FBomb
02-07-2012, 08:21 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruzhad an INCREDIBLE firstseason. Without him we don't get to the playoffs. Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>


I wasn't one bit downplaying how good Cruz has played. If that is what you pulled out of what I was saying then you completely missed the entire point. Fact is you can't pay everyone immediately just because they have an excellent season. The team would be broke. Players have a contract. He did it for 1 year. The team has no obligation to dish out a big contract YET. His time will come and when he does he will be rewarded.</P>


You said "good season"....just quoting you.</P>


Again...you guys are being unrealistic if you expect that Cruz isn't going to get more money than league minimum next season!!</P>


</P>


I know that is what was said. You are just focusing on the wrong thing and taking it out of context of how it was stated. Perhaps they will add a little something to his contract but if they do I highly doubt they give them a big long term deal like what was being discussed.</P>


Where exactly was this big long term deal being discussed? Not in this thread it wasn't....not by me. You guys were saying he should get nothing betterbecause he's under contract and I was saying how unrealistic that is.</P>


You were lumping Cruz in with "everyone who has a good season" so focusing on that comment was NOT taking it out of context. There are good seasons and then there are special seasons that deserve to be rewarded....Cruz had one of those. League minimum now would be an insult.</P>

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 08:22 PM
All in on this. ALL IN. Think a deal will get done quickly on this as well - wouldn#t be suprise if its the first deal signed.

slipknottin
02-07-2012, 08:23 PM
Who was the last player the Giants signifcantly upgraded a rookie contract with, in the era of the hard cap, regardless of whether that rookie was paid league minimum or was first round drafted? I'm struggling.

Osi. Tuck got a new deal I believe when he had one year left.

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 08:30 PM
This is great knowledge - love it.

I guess Osi's so pissed because he locked himself in to that long (cheap) contract. He had to know it was basically his main shot at the money.

Any since Tuck? My feeling is that unless you basically get the player bent over somehow, you don't/can't get it done. And I wouldnt hand out free money to someone, even VC, in a poor cap situation unless and until you positively have to.

ELIteManning
02-07-2012, 08:31 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruz*had an INCREDIBLE first*season.* Without him we don't get to the playoffs.* Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>


I wasn't one bit downplaying how good Cruz has played. If that is what you pulled out of what I was saying then you completely missed the entire point. Fact is you can't pay everyone immediately just because they have an excellent season. The team would be broke. Players have a contract. He did it for 1 year. The team has no obligation to dish out a big contract YET. His time will come and when he does he will be rewarded.</P>


You said "good season"....just quoting you.</P>


Again...you guys are being unrealistic if you expect that Cruz isn't going to get more money than league minimum next season!!</P>


*</P>


I know that is what was said. You are just focusing on the wrong thing and taking it out of context of how it was stated. Perhaps they will add a little something to his contract but if they do I highly doubt they give them a big long term deal like what was being discussed.</P>


Where exactly was this big long term deal being discussed?* Not in this thread it wasn't....not by me.* You guys were saying he should get nothing better*because he's under contract and I was saying how unrealistic that is.</P>


You were lumping Cruz in with "everyone who has a good season" so focusing on that comment was NOT taking it out of context.* There are good seasons and then there are special seasons that deserve to be rewarded....Cruz had one of those.* League minimum now would be an insult.</P>

Perhaps you should read the first line of this thread again. Do you really think you are going to resign cruz for like 2 million a year or something? because that is how you are making it sound. If you were cruz would you rather sign a 2-3-4 year deal for 4-10 million or would you take your chances of playing similar to this year being a free agent and being in a position to get paid a big long term deal. if you give him a deal now you are going to give him a big long term legit deal.

slipknottin
02-07-2012, 08:34 PM
Any since Tuck?

I cant think of anyone. I think Eli still had at least a year left, but QBs are different than any other position anyway.

The giants overall wait until a guy is in his contract year.

LondonGman
02-07-2012, 08:39 PM
THIS. And if you are re-tooling Cruz to a long term deal, why not re-tool Nicks too? It'll all end in tears - leave the contract where it is for this off season and come back in week 8 next year if/when he looks a legit long termer. The only other point I would say about Cruz is that he is an RFA, in other words, if the Giants ultimately want him come hell or high water, they'll keep him.

LvGiants
02-07-2012, 09:51 PM
Sign:
Terrell Thomas to 2 year/13 mil
Manningham 3 year/18 mil
Goff 1 year/2.5 mil
Weatherford 5 year/15 mil
Devin Thomas 2 year/1.8 mil

2013:
Kenny Phillips to 5 year/28 mil
Cruz to 5 year/44 mil
Kiwi to 3 year/24 mil
Depending on how Beatty performs, we might just let him go

2014:
Nicks to 6 year/76 mil
Boley to 4 year/40 mil
Webster to 2 year/22 mil
Joseph to 4 year/28 mil

gumby742
02-07-2012, 11:23 PM
theres no reason to pay cruz now. Look at steve smith... had a 100 catch season, the giants held off on a contract, he gets hurt. I 100% agree. You can't just PAY a guy everytime he has a good season. Players are under contracts... plain and simple. Thats part of the game. Anyone ever look to see what Wes Welker has been paid over the last 4-5 years? He has putting up some top tier numbers in the league and has made like a whopping 9 million over the last 5 years. The guy didnt make a sound about his contract he played it out like you are supposed to. Guess what...he will get paid now. just because cruz had a good year doesnt mean you have to run out and pay him immediately. If you did that you would have 15 players on your entire team because your cap would be ruined.</P>


"good season"??</P>


Cruz*had an INCREDIBLE first*season.* Without him we don't get to the playoffs.* Asking him to continue to play for the minimum is unrealistic.</P>

By paying a guy early it's really just a hedge. You run the risk of a guy having a career ending injury, but you also are able to potentially save yourself many millions a year, but extending a guy earlier then later.

I don't have an issue with either option. Totally making up these numbers btw, resign him to 5 million now, risk him being a bust, over knowing he's the real deal and having to pay him 8 million ... hmmm.