Let's not change the question. You said he still had two years left in him. If you could have aligned his cap hit with his projected production, why would it have been prudent to cut him?
If you think his production is about to fall off "any day now" that's one thing. It's a gamble... we'll have to see how it plays out.
But if you think he's still got two years left, straight up releasing him is not prudent. Releasing him with no compensation in return even less prudent.
Anyone thinking releasing Andre for nothing in return is prudent is lying to himself. Our division rival, unquestionably the better team since the inception of our team, thought enough of him to give him a three year $21M contract. Could we not have gotten something for a $7M/yr asset?
By high sell low, ditch your assets invest in fodder....
This whole thing stinks from the get go & if you're blaming Andre, you're sheep. Plain & simple. Sheep.
I didn't answer your question b/c its completely hypothetical and goes against everything we know and was most likely to happen. & It was the prudent move for the FO to make on a 34 year old WR owed 16 million on the back end of his career....one who was likely not going to be around anyway for the complete rebuild.
AJ knew the team was getting ready to go through another rebuild...that's why he went to the Texans FO and tried to get his 2015 salary guaranteed. He also, uncharacteristically went on record last year saying it might be time for him to move on... or something to that effect. ...This we know.
Now, do those actions really lead you to believe that he was going to
allow the FO to "align" his salary with his projected production?
especially after having allowed the FO to restructure his contract
3 times prior for the sake of the team? Hell no! He played his cards and forced the FO's hand.
You likely weren't going to get any great compensation for him either considering his salary owed over the next few years and his age. Furthermore, you risk alienating him even more if you place him on the trade block & you
don't trade him..... for whatever reason that would've been.
Dude wanted out, the FO knew he wanted out & rather than insult him and try to put him on the trade block and/or ask him to voluntarily take over a 50% pay cut given BoB's 40 catch scenario, they told him about his probable diminished role......which in this system was actually a very real possibility.
The problem with your question is that it implies he would've been ok with not getting a half way decent shot to play for a contender again and make it to a SB. Well, him signing with the Colts for less money while turning down more money from SD is proof that he wasn't.
It hurts now, but the Texans will be better for it in the end.