Kyler Murray and Cardinals agree to extension (46.1M / yr)

[NudeTayne]

.

Edited July 30, 2022 by NudeTayne

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, NudeTayne said:

It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse.

Not my intention at all. This is my opinion:

The Cardinals putting that clause in was a colossal mistake. The Cardinals keeping the clause in would double down on that mistake. The best thing the Cardinals could have done was not include it, or privately take it out, but the second it became public, they needed to admit it was a mistake publicly and take ownership rather than leave it to the player to talk about it. And in terms of timing, can't beat July since no one cares about sports right now.

[squire12]

8 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Not my intention at all. This is my opinion:

The Cardinals putting that clause in was a colossal mistake. The Cardinals keeping the clause in would double down on that mistake. The best thing the Cardinals could have done was not include it, or privately take it out, but the second it became public, they needed to admit it was a mistake publicly and take ownership rather than leave it to the player to talk about it. And in terms of timing, can't beat July since no one cares about sports right now.

So what was the downside of having the clause in the contract to begin with?

 

I am trying to understand why you feel that was a colossal mistake.

[Chiefs_5627]

The season can't start soon enough 😆

[NudeTayne]

19 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Not my intention at all. This is my opinion:

The Cardinals putting that clause in was a colossal mistake. 

They didn't put the clause in, though. It was agreed upon by both sides. For all we know the Cardinals weren't even going to give him the contract amount and guarantees if it weren't for the clause. Murray's side played public perception to their advantage (to have their contract cake and eat it too) by leaking it IMO, though of course perhaps we'll never get the truth on who did what with leaking.

In retrospect because they caved one can now say it was a colossal mistake to put the clause in, but they didn't have to cave. Arizona could have been firm and forthright when asked about it, which would have made us respect the organization more for having gumption. The team and player could have been in lockstep. But they aren't and that is what we are all seeing. That's a terrible sign and only confirms--perhaps wrongly, but we'll all see soon enough--that Kyler has questions.

But they didn't so now I agree with you on your assessment about it being a mistake (but only because the Cardinals are cowardly).

19 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The Cardinals keeping the clause in would double down on that mistake.

I disagree with this mostly, but it really comes down to how the team managed the relationship with Kyler. If he was a true leader he wouldn't have come out sulking but instead could have come out owning it, saying something like, "I am a student of the game and have no problem with such a clause. I'm gonna be in the film room twice as long per week" etc. etc. But yeah, here we are and it's going to be a mess going forward no matter what. No one is g to forget this.

19 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The best thing the Cardinals could have done was not include it, or privately take it out, but the second it became public, they needed to admit it was a mistake publicly and take ownership rather than leave it to the player to talk about it. And in terms of timing, can't beat July since no one cares about sports right now.

Agreed. Every bad headline should go through the NFL news cycle now, if teams are smart about the PR effects.

Edited July 29, 2022 by NudeTayne

[ramssuperbowl99]

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

So what was the downside of having the clause in the contract to begin with?

 

I am trying to understand why you feel that was a colossal mistake.

It's insulting. It's micromanaging a player that they're paying a quarter billion dollars to. If you're paying him that much money, you have to trust that he's putting the work in.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they put it in. We all do. I wouldn't have extended Murray, or drafted him #1, and if I was a Cardinals fan I'd be hoping they'd trade him for a haul instead of extending, but that is totally separate from how the Cardinals should be treating him since they did decide to pay him like a franchise QB. 

[squire12]

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It's insulting. It's micromanaging a player that they're paying a quarter billion dollars to. If you're paying him that much money, you have to trust that he's putting the work in.

If Arizona had questions/ concerns on Murray's commitment to continuing to develop with addition film work ( outside of possible CBA limitations...not sure if there are total hour limits) when potentially in the previous years had not been done, the clause could be viewed as some level of accountability for a quarter of a billion dollars. 

Murray ( and his team ) agreed to the clause, so at some point were on board with it being included as part of the contract.

If it was that insulting, then Murray should have not signed the deal.  

Maybe people that need micromanaging need to be micromanaged

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they put it in. We all do. I wouldn't have extended Murray, or drafted him #1, and if I was a Cardinals fan I'd be hoping they'd trade him for a haul instead of extending, but that is totally separate from how the Cardinals should be treating him since they did decide to pay him like a franchise QB. 

I am with you on personally not signing Murray to this contract, but that is another topic. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

They didn't put the clause in, though. It was agreed upon by both sides. For all we know the Cardinals weren't even going to give him the contract amount and guarantees if it weren't for the clause. Murray's side played public perception to their advantage (to have their contract cake and eat it too) by leaking it IMO, though of course perhaps we'll never get the truth on who did what with leaking.

In retrospect because they caved one can now say it was a colossal mistake to put the clause in, but they didn't have to send could have been down and forthright when asked about it and it would have made us respect the organization more for having gumption.

But they didn't so now I agree with you on your assessment about it being a mistake (but only because the Cardinals are cowardly).

Personally I view publicly admitting mistakes as a sign of strength, not weakness, but fair enough. Either way, I don't think PR or how fans or the sports media will feel is important in the grand scheme of things compared to the morale of the face of the franchise moving forward.

I totally agree with you that apologizing and owning the mistake doesn't un-do it and there's no going back. The Cardinals wrote down "we don't trust you" in a contract, it's going to change how Murray views them. But any type of sincere apology is better than doing nothing. Their immediate priority should be not actively pissing off their franchise QB, even if they are embarrassed publicly as a result. 

Quote

I disagree with this mostly, but it really comes down to how the team managed the relationship with Kyler. If he was a true leader he wouldn't have come out sulking but instead could have come out owning it, saying something like, "I am a student of the game and have no problem with such a clause. I'm gonna be in the film room twice as long per week" etc. etc. But yeah, here we are and it's going to be a mess going forward no matter what. No one is g to forget this.

So for sure there's plenty of blame to go around for why the Cardinals are motivated to put that clause in. I totally get that. But if they decide to guarantee him 8 figures, they have to get over it. 

If my employer put in a specific clause that said something like "ensure I shower before work every day", I'd be fuming dude. Of course I'd read that as "stop coming into work smelling like crap". I'm not going to say "hey this is something I'd do so no problem at all", if it's that basic, it should go unsaid. Kyler is justified to take it as an insult, even if part of the reason it's insulting is because it hit too close to home.

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

If Arizona had questions/ concerns on Murray's commitment to continuing to develop with addition film work ( outside of possible CBA limitations...not sure if there are total hour limits) when potentially in the previous years had not been done, the clause could be viewed as some level of accountability for a quarter of a billion dollars. 

Murray ( and his team ) agreed to the clause, so at some point were on board with it being included as part of the contract.

If it was that insulting, then Murray should have not signed the deal.  

Maybe people that need micromanaging need to be micromanaged

I agree with you Murray shouldn't have signed the deal with that included.

In general, you can't micromanage your franchise QB. He has to be the leader, and you can't micromanage someone and expect them to lead other people, it just doesn't work. I agree that the clause could be viewed as accountability (though I'm skeptical on it's practical effectiveness), but accountability isn't the same thing as ownership. The Cardinals need Murray to take ownership and want to study football. Babysitting him won't do that.

If Arizona really had concerns about his work ethic, the move was to trade him. Once you hand the dude a truckload of money, you're committed and he has to be treated like an adult.

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I agree with you Murray shouldn't have signed the deal with that included.

In general, you can't micromanage your franchise QB. He has to be the leader, and you can't micromanage someone and expect them to lead other people, it just doesn't work. I agree that the clause could be viewed as accountability (though I'm skeptical on it's practical effectiveness), but accountability isn't the same thing as ownership. The Cardinals need Murray to take ownership and want to study football. Babysitting him won't do that.

If Arizona really had concerns about his work ethic, the move was to trade him. Once you hand the dude a truckload of money, you're committed and he has to be treated like an adult.

It was an option for Arizona to " have an out" from the contract if Murray didn't meet the terms he agreed to .  That may be gone now.  

Once the topic of homework requirement is brought up in negotiations,  the trust is lost.  It being in the contract is well past the point of issue on things.

Maybe it's me, but higher ups holding someone accountable is far from micromanaging.

[ramssuperbowl99]

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

It was an option for Arizona to " have an out" from the contract if Murray didn't meet the terms he agreed to .  That may be gone now.  

I mean, I doubt it. If I'm Kyler's agent, for 5% of $45M/year, I've got someone staring at that iPad for way more than 4 hours a week. Like, this guarantees the Cardinals, what, 400 hours of total film study over the life of the thing?

EDIT: And even if they could void the deal, would they really? You're Kingsbury and the GM and you're attached to the hip with the guy, so you're really gonna look the owner in the eye and go "yeah just think we're one more franchise QB away, just gotta move past that other dude real quick". Everybody is getting canned if Murray's contract goes up in smoke.

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Once the topic of homework requirement is brought up in negotiations,  the trust is lost.  It being in the contract is well past the point of issue on things.

I don't see how you can think this and then disagree that putting it in would be a mistake. Completely agree the motivation to put it in is the problem, and that's the result of Kyler's behavior, so it doesn't start there and everyone has screwed up along the way, but formally writing it down on the memo of a quarter billon dollar check does damage, so it's a mistake.

17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Maybe it's me, but higher ups holding someone accountable is far from micromanaging.

The difference between holding someone accountable and micromanaging is in how it's done, and clockwatching is micromanaging. 

Judging people on non-important process adherence is micromanaging too. It doesn't matter if Kyler is studying on an iPad or in a home theatre or with paper printouts, what matters is that he knows the information. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by ramssuperbowl99

[squire12]

25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I mean, I doubt it. If I'm Kyler's agent, for 5% of $45M/year, I've got someone staring at that iPad for way more than 4 hours a week. Like, this guarantees the Cardinals, what, 400 hours of total film study over the life of the thing?

EDIT: And even if they could void the deal, would they really? You're Kingsbury and the GM and you're attached to the hip with the guy, so you're really gonna look the owner in the eye and go "yeah just think we're one more franchise QB away, just gotta move past that other dude real quick". Everybody is getting canned if Murray's contract goes up in smoke.

Who knows the genesis of the clause?  Maybe the owner wanted some insurance on the biggest deal in team history? 

Agree that if Murray doesn't develop,  the HC and GM are probably gone, hence the accountability to get said development to happen. Is it the best way, who knows.  What else was tried, who knows.

Trying something and it not be successful is better than not trying.  

25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I don't see how you can think this and then disagree that putting it in would be a mistake. Completely agree the motivation to put it in is the problem, and that's the result of Kyler's behavior, so it doesn't start there and everyone has screwed up along the way, but formally writing it down on the memo of a quarter billon dollar check does damage, so it's a mistake.

Once it is discussed, the genie is out.  It being in the contract means it is now terms of the deal....accountability.   it was agreed on to be in the deal.  

 

25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The difference between holding someone accountable and micromanaging is in how it's done, and clockwatching is micromanaging. 

This is our expectation.   Here is how we are going to do it and how we will follow up on the process.

We can disagree on where the line of holding someone accountable and micromanaging begins.  Bit of a beauty in the eye of the beholder.

25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Judging people on non-important process adherence is micromanaging too. It doesn't matter if Kyler is studying on an iPad or in a home theatre or with paper printouts, what matters is that he knows the information. 

I don't think NFL HC would view film study would be "non-important process adherence". 

Control freaks want control.  

Edited July 30, 2022 by squire12

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

We can disagree on where the line of holding someone accountable and micromanaging begins.  Bit of a beauty in the eye of the beholder.

It's proportional to the importance of the job, and clockwatching a guy you think is worth a quarter of a billion dollars is micromanaging to the point of it being an insult.

[ET80]

Easy, everyone.

[Kael]

7 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It's proportional to the importance of the job, and clockwatching a guy you think is worth a quarter of a billion dollars is micromanaging to the point of it being an insult.

I see what you are saying, but Kyler is being paid for his talent and for the potential of that talent. Far more so than his work ethic.

I am sure there are people out there who once played QB who had a better work ethic than Kyler. It doesn't matter, they are no longer playing football. Why? Because they did not have the talent Kyler has. 

Sports players, actors, musicians all get paid for the very specific talent they have that the rest of the population simply doesn't have. No matter how hard one works. Not because they are hard workers, or want it more than everyone else. That is just a fairy tale we tell ourselves.

The fact that Arizona negotiated that clause with Kyler's agent says far more about Kyler than it does about Arizona. The fact they felt that they needed to negotiate that clause says everything it needs to say.

Kyler's team simply out maneuvered Arizona with that unscheduled press conference.