There are 42 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

We should have paid Crabtree what he demanded in July

  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,272
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by KRS-1:
Originally posted by Oldschool9erfan:
It would have been Crazy to give Crabtree that money that he wanted.

1) It would have shown the Niners to be weak in the front office and sent a message to the league that the Niners were desperate.
2) It would have screwed up our draft for next year.
3) We all know the Darrius Heyward Bey shouldnt have been drafted at 7 but that doesn't mean the Crabtree should be paid like him.

It's unfortunate that Crabtree took bad advice from his agent and yes we could have used him earlier in the season, but at least he came to his senses and we signed him and most importantly the Niners held their ground and showed him no disrespect so he can stay a Niner hopefully for a long time. He looked good on Sunday with limited practice time.....he should be lighting it up by year end.

By the way Vernon Davis is awesome the Niners better lock him up!

1- Did the Cards FO look weak when they paid Fitz a better deal than Eli Manning ?

2- Did it screw up the Cards draft the following year ?

3- The Chargers made the right pick at #1....a QB because Brees had not shown he was the guy to lead that team...

Manning the #1 pick traded to the team at #4 got 6 years 54 million 20 million guaranteed.

Rivers drafted #4 traded to the team who sat at #1 got 6 years 40.5 million 14.5 million guaranteed.

Fitz drafted #3 overall got 6 years 60 million 20 million guaranteed.

Fitz never should have gotten a better deal than Manning yet Eugene Parker made it happen and the Cards never suffered any repercussions with the result. They believed in the player they took (and they already had Q in the fold so they did not have to give in to the demands) gave him a fat wad of cash and it paid off nicely for them.

Good job your argument failed.

Looking at it, there's arguments to be made both ways so no one is right here. No, giving into a rookie's exorbitant demands doesn't necessarily mean your team will suffer in the long run, but it doesn't mean that it will help either. Again, at BEST it's pure speculation to say that if Crabs started from day one we'd have a better record.

You simply don't know that as a fact.

Right. They're opinions. Which is really the purpose of this forum...to express opinions.
  • KRS-1
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 26,793
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by KRS-1:
Originally posted by Oldschool9erfan:
It would have been Crazy to give Crabtree that money that he wanted.

1) It would have shown the Niners to be weak in the front office and sent a message to the league that the Niners were desperate.
2) It would have screwed up our draft for next year.
3) We all know the Darrius Heyward Bey shouldnt have been drafted at 7 but that doesn't mean the Crabtree should be paid like him.

It's unfortunate that Crabtree took bad advice from his agent and yes we could have used him earlier in the season, but at least he came to his senses and we signed him and most importantly the Niners held their ground and showed him no disrespect so he can stay a Niner hopefully for a long time. He looked good on Sunday with limited practice time.....he should be lighting it up by year end.

By the way Vernon Davis is awesome the Niners better lock him up!

1- Did the Cards FO look weak when they paid Fitz a better deal than Eli Manning ?

2- Did it screw up the Cards draft the following year ?

3- The Chargers made the right pick at #1....a QB because Brees had not shown he was the guy to lead that team...

Manning the #1 pick traded to the team at #4 got 6 years 54 million 20 million guaranteed.

Rivers drafted #4 traded to the team who sat at #1 got 6 years 40.5 million 14.5 million guaranteed.

Fitz drafted #3 overall got 6 years 60 million 20 million guaranteed.

Fitz never should have gotten a better deal than Manning yet Eugene Parker made it happen and the Cards never suffered any repercussions with the result. They believed in the player they took (and they already had Q in the fold so they did not have to give in to the demands) gave him a fat wad of cash and it paid off nicely for them.

Good job your argument failed.

Looking at it, there's arguments to be made both ways so no one is right here. No, giving into a rookie's exorbitant demands doesn't necessarily mean your team will suffer in the long run, but it doesn't mean that it will help either. Again, at BEST it's pure speculation to say that if Crabs started from day one we'd have a better record.

You simply don't know that as a fact.


From my previous post in this thread :

Originally posted by KRS-1:
Had we paid him his money in July there is a chance that we are better than 3-3 right now or that our offense looks less anemic than it did through that 6 game stretch.
Originally posted by jrg:

Originally posted by KRS-1:
Originally posted by Oldschool9erfan:
It would have been Crazy to give Crabtree that money that he wanted.

1) It would have shown the Niners to be weak in the front office and sent a message to the league that the Niners were desperate.
2) It would have screwed up our draft for next year.
3) We all know the Darrius Heyward Bey shouldnt have been drafted at 7 but that doesn't mean the Crabtree should be paid like him.

It's unfortunate that Crabtree took bad advice from his agent and yes we could have used him earlier in the season, but at least he came to his senses and we signed him and most importantly the Niners held their ground and showed him no disrespect so he can stay a Niner hopefully for a long time. He looked good on Sunday with limited practice time.....he should be lighting it up by year end.

By the way Vernon Davis is awesome the Niners better lock him up!

1- Did the Cards FO look weak when they paid Fitz a better deal than Eli Manning ?

2- Did it screw up the Cards draft the following year ?

3- The Chargers made the right pick at #1....a QB because Brees had not shown he was the guy to lead that team...

Manning the #1 pick traded to the team at #4 got 6 years 54 million 20 million guaranteed.

Rivers drafted #4 traded to the team who sat at #1 got 6 years 40.5 million 14.5 million guaranteed.

Fitz drafted #3 overall got 6 years 60 million 20 million guaranteed.

Fitz never should have gotten a better deal than Manning yet Eugene Parker made it happen and the Cards never suffered any repercussions with the result. They believed in the player they took (and they already had Q in the fold so they did not have to give in to the demands) gave him a fat wad of cash and it paid off nicely for them.

Good job your argument failed.


The escalators in Fitzgeralds rookie deal FORCED the Cardinals to re-do his deal early or they risked paying him $30 Million over 2008 and 2009. In his new four year deal $30 million of the $40 million deal is guaranteed . . . great for Fitz . . . he deserves it. But as it sits today the Cards are less than $1 Million under the cap and will continue to struggle to keep guys like Dansby and Boldin.
So basically the point of this thread is to rip Scott and the organization because you think somehow our record would be much better than 3-3? No chance Crab makes a difference in the Atlanta game so at best we are 4-2 if you think he would have won that game for us.

I think they did absolutley the right thing because:
1) They locked up Crabtree for an additional year ( 6 yrs)
2) They did not set a precedent which would hurt them in future yrs
3) They did not totally overpay and screw their salary cap situation for future yrs
4) They saved $$$ which hopefully can be used to get a FA Offensive lineman

I know the forum is to express opinions and that is yours. However, your opinion is really whacked on this one my friend. This time this organization did exactly the right thing.
No, Crabtree should have accepted this same deal back in July. By holding out, he gained a few unreachable incentive deals and most likely postponed what looks to be a lucrative second contract by a year.

Crabtree might have made a difference in our first 5 games, but both sides failed to get the deal done. How about blaming him as well?
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
So basically the point of this thread is to rip Scott and the organization because you think somehow our record would be much better than 3-3? No chance Crab makes a difference in the Atlanta game so at best we are 4-2 if you think he would have won that game for us.

I think they did absolutley the right thing because:
1) They locked up Crabtree for an additional year ( 6 yrs)
2) They did not set a precedent which would hurt them in future yrs
3) They did not totally overpay and screw their salary cap situation for future yrs
4) They saved $$$ which hopefully can be used to get a FA Offensive lineman

I know the forum is to express opinions and that is yours. However, your opinion is really whacked on this one my friend. This time this organization did exactly the right thing.

Nice post! Couldn't have said it any better.
  • JC49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 169
Originally posted by crzy:
We'd be way better than 3-3 if he started the first five games.

We did the right thing. Crabtree shouldn't have punished us for being the team to have faith in his abilities. In his favor I don't think he was. We never heard a peep out of him during his hold out. I think he did the smart thing and let his agent handle it. Unfortunately as it dragged out it got less and less smart. Parker messed everybody up. Teamwise we needed to take the long view.

Two of our losses were very close and any number of things could have tipped the scales for us.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home