- Joined
- Jun 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,308
That's just my guess . . .but Sam must have 20-30 million in the bank by now and he can play a couple years for less, and if he delives get incentives and bigger salary in 2017-2018
The only thing standing between the Rams organization and Bradford is his agent.
I just don't understand why so many insist they have to redo his deal. It appears that people are under the impression that Bradford somehow owes the organization a "rebate" and "should" volunteer to take less $$$ than is contractually owed to him.
My question, how many of those who seem so strong about this position, would be willing to take a "heavy pay cut" and rework the final year on the contract, without some sort of protection (extension) if they were in Bradford's position?
It's easy to say he "has made enough" and "can afford to take a reduced amount".... But why would he? Players just don't give back money without getting some guarantees that they will make it back in more years, etc. And if the Rams play hardball with him, what contingencies would they have in place that wont' cost them a similar $$$ amount? (trade for a comparable starter?)
Let's follow that line of thought for the purpose of discussion.....
What do those who want him to "rework" his deal, think would be a fair $$$ amount?
Also, lets just say he agrees to play for $6-7M with incentives. When you factor in the prorated cap hit, his "number" would still be in the $11 - 12M range. How much are you saving? At $13M, he isn't even in the upper echelon of contracts for a starting QB.
The only way to make this doable from Bradford's perspective, would be to extend him beyond the 2016 season. Given his recent injury issues, would the Rams be willing to do that?
I guess my point is, while it makes for a good discussion, IMO, it's not a slam dunk that his contract will be reduced at all prior to next year. If he comes back and shows he is healthy and capable of being the QB that Fisher and Snead think he is, then I could see them extending him and working on his SECOND contract.
I agree, but there is possibility it can be reworked to lower cap hit, which would have to involve an extension. I think there are some who have an anti-Sam agenda, but those of us who like Sam realize that and extension could lower cap hit but not necessarily be less money. But, in terms of market value for his second contract he has not done what was needed to get one of those $100 million deals . . . he'll make less than he would had he not been injured for last year and a half. At least, that's my view.I just don't understand why so many insist they have to redo his deal. It appears that people are under the impression that Bradford somehow owes the organization a "rebate" and "should" volunteer to take less $$$ than is contractually owed to him.
My question, how many of those who seem so strong about this position, would be willing to take a "heavy pay cut" and rework the final year on the contract, without some sort of protection (extension) if they were in Bradford's position?
It's easy to say he "has made enough" and "can afford to take a reduced amount".... But why would he? Players just don't give back money without getting some guarantees that they will make it back in more years, etc. And if the Rams play hardball with him, what contingencies would they have in place that wont' cost them a similar $$$ amount? (trade for a comparable starter?)
Let's follow that line of thought for the purpose of discussion.....
What do those who want him to "rework" his deal, think would be a fair $$$ amount?
Also, lets just say he agrees to play for $6-7M with incentives. When you factor in the prorated cap hit, his "number" would still be in the $11 - 12M range. How much are you saving? At $13M, he isn't even in the upper echelon of contracts for a starting QB.
The only way to make this doable from Bradford's perspective, would be to extend him beyond the 2016 season. Given his recent injury issues, would the Rams be willing to do that?
I guess my point is, while it makes for a good discussion, IMO, it's not a slam dunk that his contract will be reduced at all prior to next year. If he comes back and shows he is healthy and capable of being the QB that Fisher and Snead think he is, then I could see them extending him and working on his SECOND contract.
It's less how you put it and more that due to Bradford's low ROI so far (even though there are reasons for it), it would be financially irresponsible of the Rams to pay him that much money. Nor will any other team offer him that kind of money.I just don't understand why so many insist they have to redo his deal. It appears that people are under the impression that Bradford somehow owes the organization a "rebate" and "should" volunteer to take less $$$ than is contractually owed to him.
It's less how you put it and more that due to Bradford's low ROI so far (even though there are reasons for it), it would be financially irresponsible of the Rams to pay him that much money. Nor will any other team offer him that kind of money.
So as long as he's going to take a pay cut anyway no matter what, he might as well take it here.