Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT
I don’t get the passion on either side of this debate.
Ballard’s history says he won’t sign Bell for the money he wants.
Just about everyone agrees Bell has proven he is a great player.
We have an embarrassment of cap space.
If Ballard did sign him, it would be a departure from what Ballard has done so far.
If Ballard did sign him, he would probably excel here and be very exciting to watch.
If Ballard signs him, IMO he’s earned enough credit to get the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he will ruin the team’s culture to sign Bell. If he thinks Bell is a good player to bring in, I’ll believe that until I have a reason to stop.
If Ballard doesn’t sign him, our offense will probably still be very exciting to watch, and will be improved next year. And we’ll have that much more money to use elsewhere.
|
Ballard has also said that he has to re-evaluate his free agent spending this next offseason because he didn't expect the rebuild to be progressing this quickly. That tells me that he purposely didn't spend much previously because he thought it would be wasted if he spent too much too early in the rebuild. So now he realizes that this team is closer, and he will be willing to spend more in free agency to go along with that to fill in the voids and get talent.
In other words, I wouldn't go much on Ballard's history so far.