Even if you are right, which I don't think is the case, it's really not that much difference. Either he wanted to be cut or wouldn't accept the role the team wanted. Either way, you've got to cut him.
Now Warner did end up being better long term than Bulger, sure. But on the Rams, that's just your opinion and I highly doubt it.
It took him YEARS to get back up to that level again AND as Faulk even agreed with in the article Prime Time posted, with the offensive line issues we had, he may NEVER have gotten there again. And unless he agreed to a major pay cut (and I don't think he would have), those two factors doom any storybook fantasy of him taking our teams of the time back to the Super Bowl in the late 00's (what does one even call that decade)?
EDIT: Actually, I was wrong. I found an article (
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/rams/2004-04-20-warner-cut_x.htm) that says the Rams informed Warner he'd be cut (thus letting him negotiate with other teams). While it doesn't say he didn't request the cut, I'll grant some benefit of the doubt there. But as I said above, I don't see it being some huge difference, and still don't think he could have been traded.
And while Martz might regret certain aspects of how the whole thing was handled (and I've admitted certain things WERE mishandled), I don't think that translates into keeping Warner, nor do I think Warner could have come back to being as good as he was in St. Louis.