Bucs Employee Says Ward Cut Was About Money
September 1st, 2010
About 4 p.m. yesterday, TJ Rives, the longtime Buccaneers Radio Network talking head and former local sports radio personality, explained to his Twitter followers what he knew about the release of Derrick Ward.
Gasp! Rives’ Tweet says money was an issue in the decision.
Hearing that Derrick Ward release was combo of salary (2 be backup), bad attitude and 2 other guys (Huggins/Smith) who are younger/cheaper
Joe can’t believe that money would be a consideration. After all, Joel Glazer said “money will never be an issue” when it comes to building the product the Bucs put on the field.
Apparently, Rives’ insider sources think money is, in fact, an issue.
If Bucs fans think this comment conflicts with Bucs policy, consider a crazier comment by one of Rives’ gameday colleagues earlier this year.
Joe is so confused.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:25 pm
But I thought you said yesterday this proves the Glazer’s aren’t cheap!
September 1st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Why would any team want to pay a guy 3 million who isn’t even a good backup? Seems like a smart move by the organization. Whatever the reason, I applaud the move. Huggins was head and shoulders better than Ward in TC and preseason.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
maybe ur sayin in the wrong way, money is not an issue when u wanna great pleayers, but will be an issue if u dont see results, ward money is an issue bcuz is high money about almost no production, maybe the same with Clayton, but at least Clayton es a hard worker, D Ward was not even close!!!, thats my opinion
September 1st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Anyone want to bet against the Bucs having the lowest or second lowest payroll in the NFL for 2010??? That would make them bottommfeeders for seven years overall. Ward actually looked like a football player last week. Welcome to the soccer years.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Obviously money is an issue with the Bucs and the other 31 teams in the league.
Which is what makes the Glazer boy comment so condescending and rediculous.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:40 pm
really? money is an issue when your play is worthless? do tell!
although I’m not totally happy with the cut, our O-depth was non-existent already…
September 1st, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Why would anyone want to pay millions more for an underachieving locker room cancer???
This move was about common sense.
Now, with Clayton, since the money is already in the bank, is this the last year on his contract? And for the Bucs, what is Clayton’s contract number for this year?
September 1st, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Oh almost forgot, the Glazers definition of Commen Sense is to keep trimming away million dollar contracts if the team isn’t expected to contend anyway.
And there inlies the continual cash cow, for it makes sense to cut salary when there are ZERO EXPECTATIONS!!!
“Hey guys, we are rebuilding young and sticking with the plan.” said Glazer Brats.
When Clayton goes, will this make Dom the worst GM in the NFL?
September 1st, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Joe,
On a related note, why no mention of the Glazers being delinquent on more real estate payments as well as entirely defaulting on others. Also, a story out today says Man U did not meet their ticket sales target. And for JimBuc and others, I am not saying the Glazers are broke, but it appears they are having “problems” with finances.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Joe here,
lightningbuc – Joe was actually working on the shopping mall thing, but Joe found a lack of clarity in the various reporting, so Joe let it go. As for the ManU ticket sales, written about that before. But I’ll look at the latest to see if it’s significant. Thanks.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Even Steinbrenner didn’t like wasting money. Let’s face it, Ward really didn’t look good, and Huggy looked great. Considering that along with Ward’s 17 million dollar salary, money may have been the final straw for Dominik.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Joe is confused? So is JimBuc.
When the St. Pete Times and PR report that the Bucs are unhappy with Zuttah both citing inside sources, Joe says the Bucs are NOT unhappy with Zuttah until someone from the Bucs is quoted saying so.
TJ gives a “tweet” that never says the source and yet it a) becomes a “Buc employee” in the headline amd b) it becomes the truth? (or at least truthful enough to imply a contradiction?)
Joe, what happened to the Bucs did NOT cut Ward for money until someone from the Bucs is quoted saying so?
Yeesh . . . .
By the way, TJ tweets “2 be backup” doesn’t that mean that someone at the Bucs (maybe that mysterious “employee”) concluded that Ward was . . . wait for it . . a “backup”? If so, doesn’t that mean the money, if even a consideration of the phantom “employee” was a secondary consideration? In other words, he was worth it as a starter but not a backup?
Just throwing it out there . . .
September 1st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
If Ward is underperforming and expensive, totally justifiable to cut him for money reasons. No reason to overpay a back-up, regardless of the owner’s comments on money.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Anyone hating on the Glazers for cutting Ward apparently wasn’t watching the Buccaneers last season (not that I can blame you; they were pretty bad). I understand that the Glazers have a reputation for being cheap, but there is a difference between being cheap and being smart. Ward was old and never lived up to his billing. He had a reputation for focusing on off-field things. That doesn’t sound like a guy the Buccaneers want on their roster. They like young guys with a competitive fire. Guys like their franchise QB, big Josh Freeman. Guys like Kareem Huggins. They didn’t want Ward, who apparently was content to sit on the payday he made after running behind the Giants’ OL in 2008. I didn’t want Ward. I’m glad he’s gone.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
It IS money related when you are paying a dude TOP money to be a #2 back in combination with, he just isn’t very good. Huggins, while inexperienced, is MUCH better and far cheaper. Frankly, it’s just good business sense.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
If it was your business and you had to decide whether to invest your money on something expensive, old, non-productive, problematic, or you could spend it on something much cheaper,better, and more likable, what would you choose? One of the biggest keys to running a successful business is investing your money wisely. Ward was not a wise investment. So in that regard, yes, it was about the money.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I would rather see this Brown guy get some snaps at RB than Peanut.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
JimBuc,
I was a bit confused at the headline as well. But I think Joe is saying that Rives is the Buc employee.
September 1st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
lighningbug — Not to get off topic, but you should read the whole article about ManU:
ManU missed its SEASON ticket GOAL by . . . wait for it . . 2,200 seats. The same article notes that the English economy is stuggling (just like here where most NFL season ticket sales are also down)
ManUstill selling more tickets than any other team
Manu still essentially sold out –“United, whose Old Trafford stadium seats 76,000, had more than 75,000 people watch its consecutive 3-0 league victories at home over West Ham and Newcastle”So game day tickets still nearly sell out . . . against a mediocre team and a recently elevated team.
Just saying that the ManU stuff is not all that some make it out to be.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Think you are right about the employee question. I see that now. I am sure TJ sits down with the Glazers all the time for lunch.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Peanut, a.k.a : The Galloping Gout
September 1st, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Where is the logic in that tweet. Its not about the money. Its about FOOTBALL! Its called making a roster spot for somebody than can help the team. We still have to pay Ward anyways so how could it be about the money? You all are fools for getting caught up in the perception.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Outstanding!
September 1st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Come on Joe give it a rest with the money isn’t an issue line. It’s getting tired.
Just because Joel said money wouldn’t be an issue doesn’t mean that they’re going to just throw money down the drain for a guy to sit on the bench.
I don’t think that anyone can look at Wards performance and say his being cut was purely for money reasons. If he had been a solid performer and been cut then it would be a different story.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I don’t think the Glazers are cheap. I think they meant money is not an issue in getting the right free agents. But as we see that is a gamble all teams face. They show that they are willing to cut underachievers no matter what. Smart move!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Not sure what’s so confusing about this. Cutting Ward because of money and the Glazers being cheap are two separate issues.
The Bucs didn’t cut Ward because he makes too much money. They cut him because he makes too much money to suck.
And they’re not going to ask him to take less money because ANY money is too much to pay someone who sucks.
The Glazers are cheap but not in this instance. They just cut a crappy player who just happened to make a lot of money. When no one picks Ward up, that will be proven.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Looks like the Rams are not interested… looked bad on tape.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:07 pm
We all know the Glazers are broke so why do we keep harpng on it?
This does not prove anything. EVERY team in the NFL would go with the younger, cheaper guys if they showed they are just as good and don’t have an attitude.
I do not see why this is relevant.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
“Rams don’t appear interested in Derrick Ward:
There’s a good chance the Rams’ backup running back to Steven Jackson isn’t on the roster yet, but apparently Derrick Ward won’t be the guy.
Rams coach Steve Spagnuolo was in New York with Ward and called him during free agency 18 months ago. But Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports the team doesn’t still appear to be interested.
The reason? The eye in the sky doesn’t lie.
“Simply stated, Ward looks awful on tape,” Thomas said. “One league source said he looks almost disinterested.”
Someone is always watching. And if the Rams aren’t interested, we doubt anyone will be watching Ward in an NFL uniform this year.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/01/rams-dont-appear-interested-in-derrick-ward/
September 1st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Tom, none of that! It’s about the money. Gene Deckerhof said so.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:39 pm
The very talk of the Glazers being cheap is absolute non-sense Joe. We are talking about billionaires here… They have given this franchise a lot and we should be grateful for what they have done. This is all a business, PERIOD. I would much rather have smart, conservative owners than someone who spends money where it doesn’t need to be spent (Bruce Allen was good at that) Otherwise this franchise wouldn’t last. Anybody who’s not being ‘cheap’ (I call it ‘conservative’ in our nations current economic state) wouldn’t last very long in any financial decision making for very long. It’s just plan non sense to call anyone cheap nowadays.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:49 pm
They gotta be cheap, because no one is going to pay those expensive ticket prices for a product that the ownership is not investing any money into.
Lower ticket revenues will force them to continue to be cheap.
Catch 22.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Somehow I knew these comments would be full of the same whining as usual.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
If the Bucs are truthful about the rebuilding plan.It will be good to be a lot under the salary cap when its time to start picking up the missing pieces in free agency. Anyone remember when we were in salary cap hell.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:39 pm
No one remembers that we as fans didn’t like paying Booger’s salary so we shipped out one of the better players we have had here Culpepper. And Booger did what???? If he even had 1/3rd of Pepper’s sacks I would be Excited… But alas no Booger is not even in the top ten in sacks so we promoted a Player who had a Big salary instead of Big Production… Was that Cheap? No Booger got a Ring and Pepper has 33 sacks 6 all time in our history… Sorry I am not sad or thinking that the cutting of ward has anything to do with Money, it was his play or lack there of. That got him cut!
Peanut AKA The Galloping Fumbiling Gout.
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:50 am
Joe, what’s up? When they say money is not an issue it does not mean they will throw it away! I think you know that too. Ward proved to be a bad investment, so it was time to cut ties. Why not look at the young guys, cheaper or not, if they are going to produce better results.