Skip to content

Rhodes may have rejected offers in March, but he’s still getting no interest now

Rhodes Getty Images

So why isn’t safety Kerry Rhodes currently on an NFL team?  The fact that there’s no buzz at all about Rhodes coupled with Internet rumors regarding Rhodes’ sexuality (Rhodes strongly denies he is gay) creates the impression he has been shunned by the NFL after eight years of service.

But there’s another side to the story.  After we posted our item regarding the Deadspin article highlighting Rhodes’ absence from the league, multiple league sources reached out to explain that Rhodes could have been on a team for 2013, but that he wanted too much money.

It started with the Cardinals, who were due to pay Rhodes $5.5 million in 2013.  One source claims the Cardinals offered Rhodes a reduced contract before cutting him on March 13.  Rhodes, however, wanted more than the Cardinals were willing to pay.

Mike Jurecki of 910-AM in Phoenix reported Friday that Arizona actually offered Rhodes a one-year, $3 million guaranteed deal.  Per Jurecki, Rhodes wanted to “roll the dice” in free agency — and only the Bengals were interested.

Another source told PFT that one team other than the Bengals contacted Rhodes in the offseason.  The team in question viewed Rhodes as a player who deserved to earn a contract in the one-year minimum range, but the team learned that Rhodes wasn’t interested in playing unless his compensation was “significant.”

Yet another source said the Rhodes is “just really OK and doesn’t really like football.”

Other sources have characterized these claims as “he said/she said” contentions, pointing out that, regardless of the events that resulted in the Cardinals cutting Rhodes, there’s been no interest since the early days of free agency.  One source explained that, in recent months, there have been and continue to be no opportunities or interest even at the minimum salary level, which for Rhodes would be $840,000.

No matter how the dominoes fell for Rhodes in Arizona, the end result is that Rhodes currently is drawing no interest, and that he apparently didn’t draw much in the first place.  If the Cardinals truly deemed him to be worthy of a one-year, $3 million contract in March, why would no one offer him anything in May, June, July, August, or September?

Coincidentally, the rumors regarding Rhodes’ sexuality hit the Internet in April.

Based on the timeline, it’s possible that Rhodes priced himself out of the market in March, and that the market otherwise decided after April to avoid him for reasons other than his contractual expectations.  The reality of situations like this is that the employers who are steering around a given employee will never admit that they’re doing so for reasons that aren’t legitimate.

For Rhodes, the reality is that the Cardinals reportedly wanted to give him $3 million guaranteed in April, and that no one wants to give him anything now.  And so the end result continues to be that, like the Chewbacca defense, Rhodes’ ongoing unemployment does not make sense.

Permalink 40 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
40 Responses to “Rhodes may have rejected offers in March, but he’s still getting no interest now”
  1. cali49er707 says: Sep 14, 2013 7:03 AM

    It should have been Ray Rhodes

  2. kd75 says: Sep 14, 2013 7:05 AM

    As the saying goes, it is better to have one bird in hand than two in the bush. Especially in a finite career like NFL football.

    Besides, aren’t we all underpaid?

  3. pipedreamer79 says: Sep 14, 2013 7:18 AM

    It blows my mind that the Eagles didn’t take a chance on this guy. He certainly can’t be any worse than the garbage playing on the back end of their defense right now.

  4. wearethesteelers says: Sep 14, 2013 7:34 AM

    Rhodes could have been our third stringer and been around a real trophy case. Too bad.

  5. peytonsneck18 says: Sep 14, 2013 7:35 AM

    well after seeing the pics, just go ahead and be free rhodes and come out, teams want u for yr playing skills not the type of rainbow fans u bring, and im sure other players arent afraid of your lifestyle, if they are mature enough to handle it

  6. billsfan1 says: Sep 14, 2013 7:40 AM

    Hope there is an underlying reason. If this is because of his sexuality then the league should just fold up and die off.
    i mean, Trent Edwards keeps getting jobs, how is this guy not

  7. eagleswin says: Sep 14, 2013 7:45 AM

    He overplayed his hand and now no one wants him. Am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who turned down 3 mill for 1 years work?

  8. deepfreezerob says: Sep 14, 2013 7:49 AM

    He should heed the story of Latrell Spreewell

  9. lololnpnp says: Sep 14, 2013 7:53 AM

    So the original sentiment was false? Teams have been interested he’s just wanted a few million and teams aren’t willing to pay it for a safety his age. The league minimum means nothing if he’s not willing to accept it. Maybe Deadspin will post an update to the article.

  10. wryly1 says: Sep 14, 2013 8:28 AM

    It is telling that Ray Horton, who was his defensive coordinator in AZ last year is now the DC of the young, inexperienced Browns – who have a need for an experienced Safety, but have shown zero interest in Rhodes.

  11. howiefeltersnatch says: Sep 14, 2013 8:33 AM

    Nothing else to stir the pot up about? I hope he is black balled for being gay just because I’m getting sick of hearing about it.

    And if they force Snyder’s hand to change the name of the Redskins, I’m done with the NFL.

  12. briang123 says: Sep 14, 2013 8:40 AM

    It makes perfect sense. He wanted more money than NFL teams want to pay. If he wants to play for the veteran minimum, he’ll be signed when someone gets hurt. If not, then you can add this and the Redskins name change as filler stories when there is nothing else going on in the NFL besides games.

  13. 49erstim says: Sep 14, 2013 8:50 AM

    That last line ruined the article for me. It is week 2. Coaches and teams want guys in camp and getting some game time in preseason. Kerry Rhodes is simply not good enough to command the money he wants. I don’t think this has anything to do with his “persuasion” as much as it does that he priced himself out of the market. SF let Goldson go for that reason. They just weren’t willing to pay for what the player thought he deserved. End of story. That last line throws an implication out that’s a bit dangerous and in my opinion you should be a little embarrassed. I think the league would embrace a player of that “persuasion” and I’m not even of the opinion that it is an acceptable lifestyle. However you do not have to agree with it to accept it.

  14. joerevs300 says: Sep 14, 2013 8:54 AM

    James Harrison learned this the hard way last year and cost himself about $4M bucks.

    Tim Tebow is costing himself at least $1M or so by his stubborn insistence he’s a QB, when all of the evidence overwhelmingly says he cannot succeed in the NFL as one.

    Honestly, players still have next to no leverage in this game. The owners will cut them and ask them to take salary cuts at will, all while these players keep making them billions of dollars and increases their teams value.

    I’m not saying NFL players are “poor”. But there is some synergy between college players not getting paid and making multi-millions for their colleges, and NFL players making billions for their team’s owners, yet the salary cap is probably about 1/2 of what it COULD be, except the owners claim “oh no, I’d lose too much money!”. Yeah, right.

  15. oldbyrd says: Sep 14, 2013 9:18 AM

    Is he better than Patrick Chung on the Eagles. Hey Chip take a look!

  16. osiris33 says: Sep 14, 2013 9:18 AM

    How is not wanting to have an expensive distraction in your locker room not a “legitimate” reason to avoid hiring someone? If he’s openly gay, that’s a major distraction from the focus on winning football games.

  17. realdealsteel says: Sep 14, 2013 9:28 AM

    Everyone knows what’s going on with Rhodes.

  18. ragingmouse says: Sep 14, 2013 9:40 AM

    “Touché ” Kd75!

  19. stephenolszewski says: Sep 14, 2013 9:51 AM

    I’m surprised the Browns didn’t go after him with Horton being the DC and our need for a FS next to Ward

  20. nyfootballgiants says: Sep 14, 2013 10:01 AM

    Ok I get it now. Brandon Lloyd and Brian Uhrlacker are also out of the league too. So,they must be gay too.

  21. lionsfan2014 says: Sep 14, 2013 10:07 AM

    The Lions secondary is weak, so they’re probably passing on him because he’s gay.

  22. nananatman says: Sep 14, 2013 10:09 AM

    Sanchez is not underpaid.

  23. Rick Spielman is a Magician says: Sep 14, 2013 10:13 AM

    Sounds to me like he just wants more money than he’s worth and he doesn’t feel like playing for less than that. I know you desperately want there to be some conspiracy against gay players, but that isn’t the simplest explanation here.

  24. gbrim says: Sep 14, 2013 10:44 AM

    If he wants more money to play football than any team is willing to pay, there may be no other factors in play here. Lots of veterans ended up taking one-year minimum deals trying to prove they are worthy of more lucrative longer term deals–Rhodes chose otherwise.

  25. TheDPR says: Sep 14, 2013 10:44 AM

    I’ve yet to read a story this week that even mentions his agent. That speaks volumes both about Rhodes’ career and the current state of journalism. I’m not sure which is in worse shape.

  26. smuggs1 says: Sep 14, 2013 10:44 AM

    we are the steelers says:

    Rhodes could have been our third stringer and been around a real trophy case. Too bad.

    how, you guys are broke..

  27. silverhornet says: Sep 14, 2013 11:01 AM

    “howiefeltersnatch says:
    Sep 14, 2013 8:33 AM
    Nothing else to stir the pot up about? I hope he is black balled for being gay just because I’m getting sick of hearing about it.

    And if they force Snyder’s hand to change the name of the Redskins, I’m done with the NFL.”

    Well, for me, I’m much more concerned about rule changes, the constant subjectivity in referee decisions, and specific team bias than the two things you mention. Those are certainly more damaging to the long term integrity of the game than a name change and the closet opening.

  28. goawayeverybody says: Sep 14, 2013 11:05 AM

    I long for the day when being gay is not regarded as “a distraction” by American society.

  29. broncostevenp says: Sep 14, 2013 11:13 AM

    I’ve seen the pictures. Dude is super gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that

  30. jollyjoker2 says: Sep 14, 2013 11:14 AM

    its his call. I would like a couple million to but I don’t think I can find too many offers.

  31. bmue42 says: Sep 14, 2013 11:37 AM

    I could care less who sleeps next to in bed, I think he could help us when ball games, come to green bay

  32. MostlyRight says: Sep 14, 2013 12:12 PM

    Should have taken the 3 million and had some fun in the backfield with Patrick Peterson and Honey Badger.

  33. msclemons67 says: Sep 14, 2013 12:14 PM

    No one has made Terrell Owens an offer and some teams have horrible receivers.

    Could it be?

  34. ghost26 says: Sep 14, 2013 12:21 PM

    Yeah…Probably just a coincidence that no team has shown interest in Rhodes after those photos came out. LOL. The NFL & it’s players are trying to be politically correct in what they say publicly about this but the reality is that teams are afraid of how a gay player would be received in a locker room.

  35. ghost26 says: Sep 14, 2013 12:37 PM

    I still can’t believe Riley Cooper wasn’t cut from the Eagles. If Cooper can get a job in the NFL after what he said which was insane & inexcusable it’s pretty sad if no one is willing to take a chance of Kerry Rhodes.

    Talent is supposed to trump everything but apparently not in the case of a player being gay. However if it’s racism & the team needs a 3rd or 4th WR badly enough then it’s okay to keep the player. Just a bizarre decision by the Eagles organization with no punishment from the league??? This is the same NFL that fines players for wearing different color socks right??? Goodell should wear a Ronald McDonald costume on Sundays b/c he’s a freakin’ clown.

  36. 1oldpro says: Sep 14, 2013 12:51 PM

    Maybe it’s “D.” all of the above.
    Plus the fact that he wouldn’t be game ready for several weeks because of being out of shape and not knowing another team’s defensive plays.

  37. goawayeverybody says: Sep 14, 2013 12:59 PM

    Okay, so now that I have actually read the entire article (tsk tsk), I think Kerry Rhodes was crazy not to take the one year $3 million deal. I mean, for a defensive back over 30 years old, a $3 million guaranteed income is fantastic. Geez Louise.

  38. sweetnlow44 says: Sep 14, 2013 3:02 PM

    Ghost26… Go back and read your post and see if you can spot the glaring contradiction. Talent trumps all? Yeah, there’s your answer to why Cooper still has a job.

    Rhodes isn’t unemployed because he’s gay, either. He’s unemployed because he thinks he’s worth more than he is. He gambled and lost.

  39. delusionalcardsfan says: Sep 14, 2013 3:02 PM

    Cards just cut Fleming. Come on back Kerry!

  40. mackcarrington says: Sep 14, 2013 8:13 PM

    Just saw those pictures.
    Oh… my… goodness!!!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!