Hitting Bradford where it hurts

[greediron]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...allenging/

Ouch.  Benched, then demoted to inactive to save $4 mil.

[Guest]

He’s still pulling down 16m... poor guy!  B)  

edit: I actually think this is quite petty of Cardinal’s ownership, I’m pretty sure the players do as well!

[Guest]

Lol. That might hurt a little but not that much considering how much money he has made in his career. He is still going to make 16 million this year. I think he will still be able to pay his bills. 

[Guest]

I don't want to come across as believing he is getting hosed making 4x that much regardless of whether or not he is active... 

I think that situation is shit for a professional player. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a player signed to his deal is weaseled into inactive to recoup a small percentage.  I get he wasn't playing well; I don't get how they sign him to the deal they do less than a year ago in free agency only to scheme up a way to keep him entirely off the field to save 1/5 of the money offered in a contract. Actions like this will only make the "outrage" over NFL contracts louder, and it will incline agents and players to force more "guaranteed" offers. Every free agent from here on out should consider how a team taking an action like this after signing would affect their own personal bottom line...

I just get a shitty feeling from it. Bring in a guy you hope is a stud, call it a $20 million dollar deal, lose a couple games and "**** it, we're not paying that guy $20 million! We can save $4?! Hell ya!!"  

would the Cardinals be forced to eat the $4 million in savings by releasing him?  If i'm meeting in the middle on this issue, let them cut his ass and save the $4 million over their financial/roster scam and let him play and compete somewhere else...

lol maybe somewhere Sam Bradford reads this and thinks, "shut the hell up man $16 million for this is sick!" B) I'm not taking issue with the loss of $4 million as much as I am with the complete non-injury shut down of a player they backed the money truck up to just 7 months ago and the scummy way of basically saying "F U for sucking, enjoy being inactive" The action alone is ridiculous - only saving $4 million makes it seem even pettier...  and sure he's made enough money (for nothing) in his career... 

It's just the principle more than anything to me.

[Guest]

@"BlackMagic7" said:
I don't want to come across as believing he is getting hosed making 4x that much regardless of whether or not he is active... 

I think that situation is shit for a professional player. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a player signed to his deal is weaseled into inactive to recoup a small percentage.  I get he wasn't playing well; I don't get how they sign him to the deal they do less than a year ago in free agency only to scheme up a way to keep him entirely off the field to save 1/5 of the money offered in a contract. Actions like this will only make the "outrage" over NFL contracts louder, and it will incline agents and players to force more "guaranteed" offers. Every free agent from here on out should consider how a team taking an action like this after signing would affect their own personal bottom line...

I just get a shitty feeling from it. Bring in a guy you hope is a stud, call it a $20 million dollar deal, lose a couple games and "**** it, we're not paying that guy $20 million! We can save $4?! Hell ya!!"  

would the Cardinals be forced to eat the $4 million in savings by releasing him?  If i'm meeting in the middle on this issue, let them cut his ass and save the $4 million over their financial/roster scam and let him play and compete somewhere else...

(lol maybe somewhere Sam Bradford reads this and thinks, "shut the hell up man $16 million for this is sick!" B) ) 

Probably doesn't enjoy running the scout team, but yes, $16 mil for wearing a sweatshirt on game days?  Sign me up.

But you are correct, they were stupid enough to give him $20 mil.  That is why I posted this, without feeling sorry for the man, it is definitely not right.

[Guest]

not a good way to attract free agents in future years. the mistake was theirs, not his

[Guest]

LOL Mike Greenberg was actually right about something.  I remember after the Bradford/Cardinals deal was announced Greeny tweeted the Cards may as well have just set the money on fire.

[Guest]

I would hope he and his agent knew the upside and downside to the deal they accepted.  TBH I was surprised anybody was willing to pay him that with his track record, still hasn't had a winning record or playoff appearance and has only played 3? complete seasons while making a BOATLOAD of $$.

On the other hand it makes the team look bad to any potential big FA's, but then money talks.  Tantalizing arm talent but hasn't been able to accomplish much with it.

[Guest]

@"greediron" said:

@"BlackMagic7" said:
I don't want to come across as believing he is getting hosed making 4x that much regardless of whether or not he is active... 

I think that situation is shit for a professional player. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that a player signed to his deal is weaseled into inactive to recoup a small percentage.  I get he wasn't playing well; I don't get how they sign him to the deal they do less than a year ago in free agency only to scheme up a way to keep him entirely off the field to save 1/5 of the money offered in a contract. Actions like this will only make the "outrage" over NFL contracts louder, and it will incline agents and players to force more "guaranteed" offers. Every free agent from here on out should consider how a team taking an action like this after signing would affect their own personal bottom line...

I just get a shitty feeling from it. Bring in a guy you hope is a stud, call it a $20 million dollar deal, lose a couple games and "**** it, we're not paying that guy $20 million! We can save $4?! Hell ya!!"  

would the Cardinals be forced to eat the $4 million in savings by releasing him?  If i'm meeting in the middle on this issue, let them cut his ass and save the $4 million over their financial/roster scam and let him play and compete somewhere else...

(lol maybe somewhere Sam Bradford reads this and thinks, "shut the hell up man $16 million for this is sick!" B) ) 

Probably doesn't enjoy running the scout team, but yes, $16 mil for wearing a sweatshirt on game days?  Sign me up.

But you are correct, they were stupid enough to give him $20 mil.  That is why I posted this, without feeling sorry for the man, it is definitely not right.

To most of us, it sounds great. But does anyone think Bradford, or any pro athlete, really enjoys being relegated to inactive status? I know there are people who hated Bradford so much that they claimed he was emotionless and not even competitive. That never made sense to me, as it would be hard to win the starting QB job on a college team contending for a national championship, win a Heisman, etc., if a person was anything but competitive.
Cardinals also signed Mike Glennon for $4M per year, so they have 2 veteran backups for Rosen - it sure seems like the Cards did not think they would be able to draft one of the top QBs.
The question in my mind is whether Bradford will get another deal next year. This season hardly pads his resume, but I could see him saying he is rested and "healthier than he has been in years" and get another chance, rather than retire at 31.