At what price do you (Rams) keep Sam Bradford?

[-X-]

he;s coming back. at 16 large. get over it

16 large is $16,000.00.

Works for me.

 

[reggae]

16 large is $16,000.00.

Works for me.

let's make that 16xxl

 

[-X-]

let's make that 16xxl

16 grips.

 

[jrry32]

What folks need to remember is that we're Rams fans. We've seen first hand for years now what Sam can and can't do(the negative and mostly the positive). On the open market concerning 31 other NFL GM's it's going to be a different animal.

He's the former Heisman trophy number one overall QB who has been injured off and on for six years now, has missed a ton of games,is coming off consecutive ACL tears...and has compiled a career 58.6 completion percentage, a QB rating of 79.3 and a win-loss record that has been sitting at 18-30-1 since October over a year ago.
Just sayin fellas. Thats who Sam Bradford is outside of this message board.

NFL GMs and scouting departments will have done their research on the guy.

Yea, those are his CAREER numbers. But he's also a guy that has 28 TDs to 11 Ints and a 86.7 QB Rating over his last 16 starts despite having a mediocre to poor rushing attack, a mediocre to poor OL, and mediocre to poor targets in the passing game. He's a guy who had to learn 3 different offensive systems in his first 3 years.

NFL GMs will be aware of all that. And you can bet there will be some NFL GMs willing to talk themselves into giving Bradford a nice "prove it" deal based on that and the fact that his competition will be Mark Sanchez, Jake Locker, Brian Hoyer, etc. on the free agent market with a draft class that is weak at the QB position outside of the top 2 QBs(and both of those guys have SERIOUS question marks).

If the Rams let Bradford hit FA, he's gone. He'll get a 1-2 year deal somewhere else at $8-10 million a year imo. A team like Buffalo or Washington(how ironic would that be) or Tennessee or Tampa Bay would pounce on the guy.

Some will wonder why Tampa Bay or Tennessee when they are picking near the top of the draft? Just my opinion but based on Lovie Smith's past and Ken Whisenhunt's past, I think they're the type to go after a solid veteran starter over a rookie.

But you look at all the teams that need QBs and I bet you that AT LEAST two or three would go after Bradford. He would be the best option on the market. And yes, he has risks. But he wouldn't be on the market if he didn't have risks.

Now, if Cutler, Kaep and Eli are let go/available, that could change things.

 

[Yamahopper]

Aaron Rodgers in 2013 signed a 5 year / $110 million contract with the Green Bay Packers, including a $33,250,000 signing bonus, $54,000,000 guaranteed, and an annual average salary of $22,000,000.

How much would a twice wrecked knee MVP Aaron Rodgers command next spring if he was Bradford's age(27)?

About the same.
It's all about calculated risk.
The way owner's would look at it and this would be a owners decision is if he can hold together one season they could win a SB. And that would more than pay for his contract.
The amounts in these contracts are chump change to the owners. Cost of doing business.
Rodgers is older now than when signed that contract. If he hit the open market he would make now he would get even more. Talent gets paid

 

[OnceARam]

2 year deal. $20M. $13M guaranteed over the two years.

I'm not a fan of his, but that deal is realistic. There's no where else to spend our QB dollars. If that fact changes, or we draft a QB high, then we have more leverage.

 

[OkieRamFan]

These are my thoughts from a previous similar thread. I think it is still valid.

Here's the deal. The Rams don't have a lot of good options at QB. There are few if any "franchise" quarterbacks in next year’s draft, and the ones that will be highly regarded will be long gone by the time the Rams make their first selection. Now how many really good quarterbacks become available in free agency these days, only two recently, Peyton Manning and Bret Favre. Only very special circumstances allowed those two to happen, namely Andrew Luck and Aaron Rogers. So the FA route to a very good QB doesn't look too good either.

Besides we already have our "franchise" guy in Sam Bradford. Sam will be the starting quarterback on someone's team next year. The question will it be the Rams or someone else. I think the Rams situation is similar to what the Colt's faced in 2012. They had an injured guy that might not play anymore, luckily for them Andrew Luck was available to them, and do you think that they would have cut Manning without the Luck option, of course not. Now Sam is not Peyton Manning, not even close yet, but he's still far better than the other options, and he is currently signed to this team. My guess is that the Rams may want him to take a pay cut or restructure his contract, which he might do, but if he doesn't they will keep him on his current contract. They have already factored that cost in two next year’s cap.

So here's the plan. Keep Sam and draft a developmental guy in the first few rounds. Let him study and learn behind Sam next year. If Sam stays healthy and successful, then we have a young quality backup or future quality guy to trade. If Sam gets snake bit one more time again let him step in.

 

[dieterbrock]

Extend his deal a year and move around the money so he gets $8-10 million in each of the two years rather than $13 million in one.

If we don't want to extend him because we don't trust him, I leave his deal as is.



I think he's saying extend him but move the money around so the cap hit is spread.

I think that's the best chance we have at lowering his cap number.

Extending his contract though will make the 13 mill guaranteed. So either they push the cap hit to 2016, or spread the hit between the 2 years.
I can't see where sam would extend without adding any guaranteed money, so I'm not seeing how a restructure or an extension helps.

 

[Ramathon]

Sam Bradford was really starting to prove himself as being a capable QB in the redzone last year. Sam's ability to get 6, sets him apart from Hill and Davis.

Talk about 'faint praise'.

 

[Ramathon]

I'd pay him ACL X 2 type money.
Sam doesn't have any leverage here(or anywhere else). I'll keep harping on it until i'm proved wrong.

IF the FA QB market turns out to be as weak as everyone says this offseason, I suspect he has some.

 

[jrry32]

Extending his contract though will make the 13 mill guaranteed. So either they push the cap hit to 2016, or spread the hit between the 2 years.
I can't see where sam would extend without adding any guaranteed money, so I'm not seeing how a restructure or an extension helps.

Not necessarily.

But yes, if they want to restructure or extend him, they'll have to guarantee money. Quid pro quo.

Extending it helps by lowering the cap number this year but gives Sam the added benefit of another year...if the market value is fair.

 

[duckhunter]

A torn shoulder and 2 ACLs, what else could possibly go wrong?

 

[dieterbrock]

Not necessarily.

But yes, if they want to restructure or extend him, they'll have to guarantee money. Quid pro quo.

Extending it helps by lowering the cap number this year but gives Sam the added benefit of another year...if the market value is fair.

I'm not a contract expert but everything I've read seems to indicate that they can't lower that that 13 mill salary, nflpa wouldn't allow it. So they could offset the hit this year (already at 3.5 mill in dead money) by giving a low base and a signing bonus but would merely push the remainder of that 13 mill to rhe back end which on a 1 year extension would mean next year.
So unless I'm missing something, under his current deal if he's on the roster sep 1 that 13 mill is guaranteed.
Please elaborate if there's something I'm missing.

 

[duckhunter]

From the cheap seats, possibly rushing Sam and Long back to the start of the season worked so well for us last year, many have us doing that again. From what I've read a second tear of the same ACL needs a much longer recovery time which makes sense to me.

Maybe the rams might want to slow his return from injury and both sides approach the contract from that perspective. The Rams could also approach the offseason back up plan geared with that in mind. If you think he is the long term answer why rush it? Set a goal for Sam maybe returning NLT the middle of the season. Just a different approach that might improve his chances of returning in tact.

Personally, I'm ready to move on.

 

[jrry32]

I'm not a contract expert but everything I've read seems to indicate that they can't lower that that 13 mill salary, nflpa wouldn't allow it. So they could offset the hit this year (already at 3.5 mill in dead money) by giving a low base and a signing bonus but would merely push the remainder of that 13 mill to rhe back end which on a 1 year extension would mean next year.
So unless I'm missing something, under his current deal if he's on the roster sep 1 that 13 mill is guaranteed.
Please elaborate if there's something I'm missing.

NFLPA can't do anything about it.

And yes, if he's on the roster the first day of the season, his deal becomes guaranteed. But that's not relevant. The extension would happen far before that.

 

[Boston Ram]

So you're saying cut him and re-sign him? How much of that 20 mill is guranteed?

No, I'm saying restructure him. Guarantee most or all and I'm sure he will take it. Makes sense for both teams IMO. Bradford gets a new deal and chance to prove he can stay healthy, if he plays well will get another huge payday. For the Rams, it's a relatively affordable option for a position they have little to no options with.

This defense is championship level. They need a QB who can improve the offense. Like him or not I don't see a better realistic option.

 

[Amitar]

Just look at what the Rams have now. The Rams have to keep Bradford. Quality QB's are hard to find. Why do you think the Bears signed Cutler. Not because he is a super duper QB but because he is better then average and right now that is valuable.