Is any team(s) really willing to trade for Sam Bradford?

[dieterbrock]

Well, unless I'm mistaken, any trade involving that contract would likely be negotiated in principle with player and agent before the final trade was made. I don't think teams are forced to pay the contract amount as is. I'm pretty sure it could be restructured by converting a chunk to a signing bonus and/or guarantees over a couple of years.

I don't know about that, a player doesn't need to consent to a trade for it to occur, like Shady McCoy going to Buffalo.
Seems to me that the Rams would only trade Bradford if they could not agree to an extension or some sort of salary relief. And a team wouldn't be able to negotiate terms with Sam until either the trade was already consummated, or I guess they could put together a trade where terms of the trade were agreed upon pending an agreement that Sam would be able to come to terms. But I cant recall anything like that happening in the NFL?
There were the reports that the Rams allowed Sam's camp to see his trade value, but that wouldn't include contract terms

 

[Rmfnlt]

Reminds me of an article published on a Rams board a few years ago, which has sort of critical of Sam. Those who agree thought it was "blunt and honest". Those who liked Sam thought it was a farce. What reminded me of it was "intimate history". Whatever you thought of Sam, this particular article was oddly written, more like a Harlequin romance. It weas written by a young guy, new to football, European if memory serves.

So, leave out personal feelings, just enjoy the verbiage. It's good for some laughes.

Interesting!

I thought it was a pretty even-keeled piece.

And yes, interesting "style".

Thanks for sharing.

 

[-X-]

I don't know about that, a player doesn't need to consent to a trade for it to occur, like Shady McCoy going to Buffalo.
Seems to me that the Rams would only trade Bradford if they could not agree to an extension or some sort of salary relief. And a team wouldn't be able to negotiate terms with Sam until either the trade was already consummated, or I guess they could put together a trade where terms of the trade were agreed upon pending an agreement that Sam would be able to come to terms. But I cant recall anything like that happening in the NFL?
There were the reports that the Rams allowed Sam's camp to see his trade value, but that wouldn't include contract terms

I didn't mean a team would need Bradford's consent in as much as I meant that the salary would be discussed with he and Condon prior to a trade. I mean, the Rams can't force him to another team, can they? There has to be a willing partner. Let's say the Bills, for example. The Bills could inform Condon (and Bradford) that they'd be willing to accept a trade with the Rams if it meant they could be permitted to turn a portion of his 2015 salary into a signing bonus and another portion of it into guarantees over the following two years. Then his contract isn't as prohibitive as you suggest.

 

[dieterbrock]

I didn't mean a team would need Bradford's consent in as much as I meant that the salary would be discussed with he and Condon prior to a trade. I mean, the Rams can't force him to another team, can they? There has to be a willing partner. Let's say the Bills, for example. The Bills could inform Condon (and Bradford) that they'd be willing to accept a trade with the Rams if it meant they could be permitted to turn a portion of his 2015 salary into a signing bonus and another portion of it into guarantees over the following two years. Then his contract isn't as prohibitive as you suggest.

They could I suppose, although I cant recall where a team allowed another team to negotiate a contract with their player? Talk about leverage... What I do know for sure is that if that did happen, we'd have heard about it from just about every media source.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I didn't mean a team would need Bradford's consent in as much as I meant that the salary would be discussed with he and Condon prior to a trade. I mean, the Rams can't force him to another team, can they? There has to be a willing partner. Let's say the Bills, for example. The Bills could inform Condon (and Bradford) that they'd be willing to accept a trade with the Rams if it meant they could be permitted to turn a portion of his 2015 salary into a signing bonus and another portion of it into guarantees over the following two years. Then his contract isn't as prohibitive as you suggest.

But according to yet another source Bradford is unwilling to renegotiate his contract. And if that is the case since we are all supposed to believe these mythical sources then if he will not take less from the Rams then he will not take less from the Browns, Bucs, Titans, Eagles,Bills or whoever else wants oh so badly to trade for his services.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

And you take a notion with no evidence "I'm sure they picked up the phone....and then hung it up quickly."

So, we can take Cole's story, or yours.

Who has more gravitas?

Cole, no dog inthe fight, you: dislike Bradford based on your posts.

Hmmm . .. not a tough call.

We all have our right to an opinion, but if you base your opinion on nothing then others have a right to show you where you err and are letting personal feelings get in the way, thus discounting your "common sense" theory.

I have more Gravitas because I know more about the Rams than Jason Cole. And besides you like to cherry pick your arguments and also make claims with which you have no idea what you are talking about. I have supported Bradford, defended him ever since he became the Rams QB. What I dislike is Bradfords injuries. He is a very good QB that cannot stay healthy. Have I given up on him? Yes. Do I dislike him? No. I wish he was healthy and the Rams had their QB. So you don't really know anything now do you? I wonder who knows less, You or Jason Cole.

No team wants to pay an injured QB 12 million until they feel comfortable that he can stay healthy, which means Sam has to play a full season to prove it. Otherwise they want him on a Show-me deal, which they won't get. If anyone is getting that kind of deal it will be the Rams, unless they find a better option and release him.

Reading comprehension 101 and common sense. Sorry if you lack both.

 

[Mikey Ram]

I didn't mean a team would need Bradford's consent in as much as I meant that the salary would be discussed with he and Condon prior to a trade. I mean, the Rams can't force him to another team, can they? There has to be a willing partner. Let's say the Bills, for example. The Bills could inform Condon (and Bradford) that they'd be willing to accept a trade with the Rams if it meant they could be permitted to turn a portion of his 2015 salary into a signing bonus and another portion of it into guarantees over the following two years. Then his contract isn't as prohibitive as you suggest.

I would guess your comment is hypothetical and generic...If he told any team that he would do what you mention, it seems to me that he would be would be willing to do it with the Rams...If he won't do it for the Rams, why would he do it for any other team ???

 

[Blue and Gold]

I have more Gravitas because I know more about the Rams than Jason Cole. .

Good one! I love it when people make sarcastic comments like that.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Good one! I love it when people make sarcastic comments like that.

I am going to guess that you are in your teens or twenties. Am I right?

 

[-X-]

I would guess your comment is hypothetical and generic...If he told any team that he would do what you mention, it seems to me that he would be would be willing to do it with the Rams...If he won't do it for the Rams, why would he do it for any other team ???

Yes, it is hypothetical. And we don't know that he's not willing to do it with the Rams ... yet. Lotta rumors going on, but no direct word from Demoff, Condon or Bradford.

Good one! I love it when people make sarcastic comments like that.

I am going to guess that you are in your teens or twenties. Am I right?

You guys done yet?

 

[-X-]

They could I suppose, although I cant recall where a team allowed another team to negotiate a contract with their player? Talk about leverage... What I do know for sure is that if that did happen, we'd have heard about it from just about every media source.

I don't know why what I'm saying isn't landing.

I didn't say another team could a negotiate a contract with a player already under contract with another team. I said, "in principle", another team could negotiate with that player's agent and the COO of the team that player is on, about how to sign said player to a restructured contract. And agreeing to a trade of said player would be dependent upon the ability to restructure the current salary. Again, all theory, but it has to have happened before. I'm not aware of that being illegal and I've checked the bylaws.

 

[Prime Time]

That's plain retarded.

Cole is not a Bradford fan, nor a Bradford hater

You can leave out personal feelings when analyzing whether there is trave value for Sam and not knee-jerk say there is or isn't based on "intimate history with Bradford"

And besides you like to cherry pick your arguments and also make claims with which you have no idea what you are talking about.

Stick to analyzing your fellow member's posts instead of implying that someone is a retard, a hater, has a knee-jerk reaction, or has no idea what they're talking about. Thanks.

 

[drasconis]

I don't know why what I'm saying isn't landing.

I didn't say another team could a negotiate a contract with a player already under contract with another team. I said, "in principle", another team could negotiate with that player's agent and the COO of the team that player is on, about how to sign said player to a restructured contract. And agreeing to a trade of said player would be dependent upon the ability to restructure the current salary. Again, all theory, but it has to have happened before. I'm not aware of that being illegal and I've checked the bylaws.

I know it has happened before, but I haven't had a chance to look for an example. Obviously such negotiation needs to be approved by the team with the players rights or else it is tampering. usually it is over a player unhappy with his current team as I recall. (watch my memory be faulty here).

 

[-X-]

I know it has happened before, but I haven't had a chance to look for an example. Obviously such negotiation needs to be approved by the team with the players rights or else it is tampering. usually it is over a player unhappy with his current team as I recall. (watch my memory be faulty here).

Right. I haven't looked for examples yet, but I can't imagine it would be against league rules. I read most of them as they relate to trades and I couldn't find a rule against what I propose would be a viable option for teams taking over Bradford's contract.

 

[Mikey Ram]

As sometimes happens in a game, this conversation seems to have become a bit chippy ....

 

[Blue and Gold]

I am going to guess that you are in your teens or twenties. Am I right?

I guess that means you were serious in your comment. You have more gravitas than a 20+ NFL reporter.
That's even funnier.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Stick to analyzing your fellow member's posts instead of implying that someone is a retard, a hater, has a knee-jerk reaction, or has no idea what they're talking about. Thanks.

When someone makes a claim that Cole's source is a janitor, that is retarded. Sometimes it has to be said. Someone may disagree with Cole's report, but to dismiss it based on that shows something less than objectivity. And saying something is retarded does not mean the person is retarded. I was fair, precise, and specific in my posts. I didn't call names, the "hater" was in reference to Cole not being a lover or a hater of Bradford, which shows his objectivity, and does not refer to any poster.

I did stick to analyzing posts. If they read more into it, then they should be reminded that part of the exchange is if they post something, then others can disagree.

Reading comprehension 101 and common sense. Sorry if you lack both.

When you do your policing, try and be even-handed if you are able.

 

[drasconis]

Right. I haven't looked for examples yet, but I can't imagine it would be against league rules. I read most of them as they relate to trades and I couldn't find a rule against what I propose would be a viable option for teams taking over Bradford's contract.

I think Brandon Marshall 2010 trade would be an example...he was traded and signed an extension the same day. I can't find anything that says they talked beforehand, but it is tough to believe they didn't...will do more looking when I can.

 

[Prime Time]

When you do your policing, try and be even-handed if you are able.

I've had enough of your condescending remarks. This isn't the first time. Knock it off or leave.

 

[-X-]

As sometimes happens in a game, this conversation seems to have become a bit chippy ....

Shut up or I'll McLeod you.