ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando

The Kent Somers story we linked to this morning touches on the type of "problem" quite a few teams wouldn't mind experiencing. It's one the Cardinals will have to address in the coming months: what to do with Kurt Warner when contract talks arise.

	Geoff Burke/US Presswire
	Kurt Warner gives the Cardinals the best immediate return on their rich investment in wide receivers.

Warner is earning $4 million this season in the final year of his deal. As Somers notes, anything the Cardinals do with Warner affects 2006 first-round choice Matt Leinart. I don't see re-signing Warner as problematic in the least. A few reasons why:

• Warner clearly gives the Cardinals their best chance at winning. The team doesn't have a strong ground game. Warner can make the passing game work anyway. The Cardinals won't find another quarterback better equipped to maximize their investment in a very talented receiving corps.
• Leinart's contract counts only $2.6 million against the salary cap in 2009. Escalators can inflate that number beginning in 2010. Front-loading a contract for Warner becomes a lot easier if Leinart isn't also making starter money.
• The Cardinals do not know if Leinart will become a good quarterback. Warner has shown himself to be a Pro Bowl-caliber player. Giving up on the known (Warner) for the unknown (Leinart) doesn't make sense.
  
• The franchise is gaining credibility among its fan base. Warner is a big part of that equation. The franchise needs to keep that going.
  

The question becomes how to structure a deal. Warner might be playing as well as Drew Brees or any other quarterback. But he's also 37 years old and more valuable to the Cardinals than any other franchise. The team can't reasonably hand Warner the type of contract a team would pay a 25-year-old version of Warner. What to do?

Warner is in position to force the Cardinals' hand. The situation calls for a front-loaded deal balancing guarantees with incentives. If Warner starts and plays well, he gets big money. If not, the contract becomes more palatable for Arizona. That's easier said than done, but that type of deal would work best for everyone.