But it’s easy to understand not wanting to give up a high pick for someone who could want to “make a splash” next year.

Probably a bunch. Pursuing parallel courses to achieve the same end is a wise course of action. Better to work both at the same time than lose your chance on one. We saw a similar situation with Anderson and Whitehurst. It does also make you wonder if the Cards do have a connection over in Cleveland or if it’s entirely coincidence.

to the questions you posed. I’m thinking the Cleveland connection comes from having coached against them so long while he was at Pitt, the familiarity he has with them probably leaves little doubt in his mind as to how they’ll perform.

Wimbley, for the right price, probably was option #1. He’s younger than Porter so in theory should be coming into the prime of his career. More often than not, the perceived value tends to be the determining factor of who gets kept/traded for/signed over those who don’t. Case in point, Leonard Davis. The F.O. conceded they liked his peformance, but that it still didn’t match what he would have gotten paid to stay. I’m thinking it was the same deal with Wimbley and Porter, obviously with Porter being considered the better deal for the performance he’ll likely bring.

While we’re picking up Browns players, can we go ahead and get Josh Cribbs?

This sums everything up.