Danny Amendola Free Agent Value Meter

[CGI_Ram]

This topic will be beat to death this offseason. But, I'm still trying to place a value on this guy. I have no idea what it is. None.

Today he was 2 for 5yds. The last two weeks combined he's 8 for 63.

Here is what we know:
1) He's had durability issues.
2) He gets the most attention out of our WR core when on the field.

Have teams caught up to him? Is he more of a niche player? Is he banged up?

His FA value will be one of the most intriguing things this offseason.

 

[-X-]

I think he's still a little banged up. Not 100%. And man, that shot he took today was pretty bad. Givens was also gimpy today and that's why (probably) we didn't see the normal separation out of him either. Credit to the Bucs' DBs though. They played really tight man coverage and didn't give an inch.

Danny's a guy you have to retain. The Rams can't (again) get caught up in worrying about his future durability. He's gonna get nicked up because he plays balls to the wall every single snap. If they can scheme around that and utilize his strengths to the fullest, then we're only going to benefit as a team. It was probably within their game plan to take him out of the offense. I mean, that's who *I* would try to blanket if I was their DC.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

6 year 50 mil 27 guaranteed sounds about right

 

[bluecoconuts]

6 year 50 mil 27 guaranteed sounds about right

Probably steeper than needed.


I'd say 4-6 million per year is probably good range for him. Because of the injury issues. We need to get someone else who can return kicks/punts so we can save Amendola from the big hits. Granted his injuries seem to come from playing receiver, but either way.

I'm sure he's a little banged up still. As other receivers develop we wont come to a full stop if he doesn't play, but he's someone we should have for a long time if we can.

 

[CGI_Ram]

6 year 50 mil 27 guaranteed sounds about right

See, that's what I'm talking about. That seems WAAAAY too high.

Here are the top 20 salaries at WR:

 

[-X-]

Didn't VJax sign a 5 year 55M contract though?

I don't think Danny's in that class, so I would dial that figure back a little.
A lot, actually.

Or if you want to pay him top receiver money, make most of it attainable with incentives and roster bonuses.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

6 year 40 mil 21 guaranteed? deal? Lol

 

[libertadrocks]

6 year 40 mil 21 guaranteed? deal? Lol

I think that's about right. IMO it should be in the ballpark of what Pierre Garcon got. He signed a five-year $42.5 million (20.5 guaranteed) deal.

He should get more, but his durability concerns and slot receiver role will drag down his open market value IMO.

 

[GcBean]

What options do the Rams have on this? Since he's a FA, they can't trade him, right? Either sign him, or let him explore other teams. Too bad we can't get a trade. I think the Rams can get by without him.

 

[bwdenverram]

6 year 40 mil 21 guaranteed? deal? Lol

I think that's about right. IMO it should be in the ballpark of what Pierre Garcon got. He signed a five-year $42.5 million (20.5 guaranteed) deal.

He should get more, but his durability concerns and slot receiver role will drag down his open market value IMO.

As much as I love DA and think he should be signed, I don't think 6 years is the best idea for someone that unfortunately has had issues staying healthy. I would be surprised if it's more than 4 years offered. 5 max.

That's just the business/reality side of it. Fan side of me says whatever, but from a front office standpoint, you can't invest that long in someone that has the track record of injuries.

He could be a 1,000 yard guy if he can stay on the field. But so far that's been a big if.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Some things transcend the stat sheet.

Amendola's block on the Kendricks TD was an exceptional display of effort. That's what DA brings to the table. That stuff is infectious.

 

[BatteringRambo]

Contracts of Holmes, Breaston, Robinson and DHB

 

[classicpony]

2 yrs 2 mill each year 250,000 each year signing bonus :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Ramhusker]

I love the way DA plays but if I were GM, I would wait to see what the market dictates on him. He is probably more valuable to the Rams than most other teams but his durability will bring his price down. My guess is more like 5 yr/ 30M with 18M guarantee. Sorry DA, it's a business you know.

 

[libertadrocks]

I find this thread interesting. After the first 49er game the consensus was Danny was indispensable and we needed to retain him at all costs, even if that was via the franchise tag. Now it seams the consensus is that we would all like to retain Danny but there is a more business conscience attitude in that the deal need to be right for the franchise.

 

[Ramhusker]

I find this thread interesting. After the first 49er game the consensus was Danny was indispensable and we needed to retain him at all costs, even if that was via the franchise tag. Now it seams the consensus is that we would all like to retain Danny but there is a more business conscience attitude in that the deal need to be right for the franchise.

True, what is right for the franchise is the priority. That means to me doing what it takes to win. If DA is the key, then you have to pay him what it will take to retain him. Of course, that highly depends on how the Rams feel about their other WRs. And I think we can agree, most of the other WRs are improving, making DA a little less vital. Is Gibson a keeper? Is Pettis going to continue to develop? Can Givens continue to make plays and get better? Is Quick going to be the #1 that they thought he was going to be? I think from the outside looking in, Steve Smith is one and done. What FAs can provide what DA does for the same or better price? DA's injuries really have put a big ? into the equation.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I find this thread interesting. After the first 49er game the consensus was Danny was indispensable and we needed to retain him at all costs, even if that was via the franchise tag. Now it seams the consensus is that we would all like to retain Danny but there is a more business conscience attitude in that the deal need to be right for the franchise.

I don't think anyone denies the fact he can be explosive and give defenses a fit. He's a vital part of our offense this year and hopefully next year.

But; when you think of the big name receivers, Danny is a tier or two down no question. No way would the Rams franchise him.

It's a quandary.

 

[brokeu91]

I find this thread interesting. After the first 49er game the consensus was Danny was indispensable and we needed to retain him at all costs, even if that was via the franchise tag. Now it seams the consensus is that we would all like to retain Danny but there is a more business conscience attitude in that the deal need to be right for the franchise.

I don't think anyone denies the fact he can be explosive and give defenses a fit. He's a vital part of our offense this year and hopefully next year.

But; when you think of the big name receivers, Danny is a tier or two down no question. No way would the Rams franchise him.

It's a quandary.

That is definitely a legit argument. But we all saw what happened to the offense when Danny went out. Our WR cannot beat press coverage/man to man coverage many times. Sam will just get hit waiting for someone to get open. I do think Quick and Givens need more time, but DA is really the best weapon we got at WR. We can't let him go; he understands the offense and has a good chemistry with Sam. In fact he's probably a lot more valuable to the Rams then he would be with any other organization.

The Rams really should be trying to resign him. The only problem is his durability. The guy plays like he weighs 450lbs, i.e. with reckless abandon, but he's a smaller guy. He's going to get hurt, and we've already had our fair share of injuries.