Aaron Donald’s contract situation

[Merlin]

Maybe they can get nickels or dimes on the dollar, but you're not going to get some unbelievable windfall when the team trading for him also has to sign him (he's unlikely to play another game without a new contract). IMO You'd be lucky to get 1 1st round pick, maybe could get 2 or 3 mid-round (2-5) picks or maybe 1-2 of their good, but not great or elite, players on the last year of their contracts. That is the max I think they could get.

You pay the player, not the position. That is the mistake the Rams made with London Fletcher.

Hopefully we won't get to see. But I think you're way off here.

 

[jrry32]

If his agent is insulted by that then he can just sit and we either trade him or he spends the next three years in his prime not playing football. He holds no leverage In this.

If he held no leverage, we'd offer him nothing. He holds quite a bit of leverage, as do the Rams.

 

[TSFH Fan]

How likely would it be for an established player to still be around 6 years later??

There is value in having players cheaply for four seasons, even if they leave after that. Jenkins was very good for 4 seasons. Bailey was useful for very cheap, until he was shot. He was a vet by the time he got shot - could have happened to a vet that was traded for. Stacy had that nice season for cheap, then got replaced by someone better. Ogletree was good, then got put into a different position, and sucked. And then the Rams got a pick for him. Robinson was a bomb - of a sort unlikely for the Rams to pick again.

Most importantly, while I don't expect every draft pick to be a success, I trust the current Rams administration to have a solid draft success rate.

That's part of the point there - with AD + extension, I have a high level of confidence that we'll have a player playing a spot at a pretty high level for the next 6 years. Draft picks? Not so much.

Not having to play the lottery to address a position of need also has a value.

Bailey and Stacy were replacement level players and/or near RLP's -- pretty much JAGs. Sure Bailey was "useful" but I didn't see anything above average there. You can compare Stacy's production to Benny Cunningham, maybe throw in Daryl Richardson's stats, as a near comparison (sure drafted late, not the point). If you're trading an All Pro, getting value is nice, but not JAGs, that doesn't cut it.

So basically, people want to say that JJ and Tree for short term is a good trade off for an All Pro, longer term. I don't agree. "Solid success rate" isn't enough.

I get it, marketing has made "the draft" into a transformative EVENT, but in the vast majority of cases it isn't. Draft picks = fool's gold.

 

[yrba1]

Curious to see how Donald's potential holdout will impact CBA negotiations after the 2020 season for the rookie wage scale: Could see it either adding contract clauses on outstanding performance or repercussions on rookie holdouts.

 

[Akrasian]

That's part of the point there - with AD + extension, I have a high level of confidence that we'll have a player playing a spot at a pretty high level for the next 6 years. Draft picks? Not so much.

Not having to play the lottery to address a position of need also has a value.

Bailey and Stacy were replacement level players and/or near RLP's -- pretty much JAGs. Sure Bailey was "useful" but I didn't see anything above average there. You can compare Stacy's production to Benny Cunningham, maybe throw in Daryl Richardson's stats, as a near comparison (sure drafted late, not the point). If you're trading an All Pro, getting value is nice, but not JAGs, that doesn't cut it.3

So basically, people want to say that JJ and Tree for short term is a good trade off for an All Pro, longer term. I don't agree. "Solid success rate" isn't enough.

I get it, marketing has made "the draft" into a transformative EVENT, but in the vast majority of cases it isn't. Draft picks = fool's gold.

Okay, first, I didn't mention Brockers since you had already conceded him as a valuable return on the RG3 trade. Since that has seemingly been forgotten, add him in - a guy who is plausibly in the pro bowl conversation at least every season.

Secondly, not addressed is that if AD gets his extension - and in context it will be well above $21 million supposedly - you have to address the players the Rams lose in free agency because of it, or who they can't sign, having to go with cheaper vets instead. In the case of the Rams, it would be likely that the Rams would lose several OL they might have kept, for instance. Without cheap players coming in via the draft, it becomes impossible to pay all of a team's desirable free agents. That was part of the value of JJ, for instance. For 4 seasons the Rams had an above average CB, at a fraction of the cost a comparable post free agency CB would cost. That allowed the Rams to put limited resources elsewhere.

Keep in mind that it is NOT a sure thing that AD would give the Rams 6 years of elite performance. Injuries happen. Players do lose a step as they head into their 30s. It could easily be the case at some point that AD would not be worth his elite contract. As Rams fans, we certainly have seen that before. Heck, that's why the Rams were able to grab Suh on a one year contract this offseason.

I would like the Rams to keep AD, if it is reasonable and in their best interest. However, I am not confident of that, since they have many important contracts coming due; since this is the second season in a row he has held out; and since last season he gave a big FU to the team and his teammates by reporting to the team in time to get his week 1 paycheck, but too late to actually play that week - even though he had known well in advance he was going to report. As I've said, I wouldn't have been averse to the Rams exploring the trade market before the league year began, to see if they could get enough for him when his value was at the highest.

 

[Mackeyser]

I think we're faced with one of two options.

1) The Rams FO let ADs camp know they would try to sign as many players as possible so that they could be on the same page with front loading his historic contract that's likely going to be about $21M/yr with massive guarantees. They're good with that and we're just letting the dust settle before the contract is signed. This scenario, while seemingly best for everyone, seems in light of recent revelations, less likely.

2) AD and his agent want to completely reset the contractual playing field with the best defender being paid in the same neighborhoods as the better QBs. We all know that's not going to happen. If the Suh and Haynesworth contracts proved anything, it's that massive contracts for DTs can really hurt an organization. Even JJ Watt's contract hasn't helped the Texans as he's been injured.

That's basically it. Either the Rams and AD's team are close and it's just dotting I's and crossing T's or this is intractable, AD and his agent really do want money the Rams will never pay and it's just a matter of time.

The upside is that if Suh plays well, we might just sign him to a reasonable deal and just keep AD for a year or two and then move on.

This is all up to AD. We know he hates losing, but if prioritizes this record contract above all else, there's nothing we can do and essentially he's already gone.

We'll know because if the Rams realize there's nothing they can do, they might leak the offer just to let fans know they made a legit effort.

I hope AD wants to stay, but he may have a massive chip on his shoulder for being so underpaid for so long.

All we can do is wait and see.

 

[snackdaddy]

I think we're faced with one of two options.

1) The Rams FO let ADs camp know they would try to sign as many players as possible so that they could be on the same page with front loading his historic contract that's likely going to be about $21M/yr with massive guarantees. They're good with that and we're just letting the dust settle before the contract is signed. This scenario, while seemingly best for everyone, seems in light of recent revelations, less likely.

2) AD and his agent want to completely reset the contractual playing field with the best defender being paid in the same neighborhoods as the better QBs. We all know that's not going to happen. If the Suh and Haynesworth contracts proved anything, it's that massive contracts for DTs can really hurt an organization. Even JJ Watt's contract hasn't helped the Texans as he's been injured.

That's basically it. Either the Rams and AD's team are close and it's just dotting I's and crossing T's or this is intractable, AD and his agent really do want money the Rams will never pay and it's just a matter of time.

The upside is that if Suh plays well, we might just sign him to a reasonable deal and just keep AD for a year or two and then move on.

This is all up to AD. We know he hates losing, but if prioritizes this record contract above all else, there's nothing we can do and essentially he's already gone.

We'll know because if the Rams realize there's nothing they can do, they might leak the offer just to let fans know they made a legit effort.

I hope AD wants to stay, but he may have a massive chip on his shoulder for being so underpaid for so long.

All we can do is wait and see.

I suppose until we hear from Donald himself everything is just hearsay. But these leaks all coming out now are concerning. I'm beginning to think highest paid defensive player isn't going to be enough. And Donald is going to lose support among fans. We all know its a business. For fans the business is about winning.

Paying someone an amount that would cripple their ability to build a better team is not good business for the team or the fans. I'd love to see him locked up long term, but if the Rams are not going to pay him top tier quarterback money, I would have to side with them on it.

 

[Mackeyser]

I suppose until we hear from Donald himself everything is just hearsay. But these leaks all coming out now are concerning. I'm beginning to think highest paid defensive player isn't going to be enough. And Donald is going to lose support among fans. We all know its a business. For fans the business is about winning.

Paying someone an amount that would cripple their ability to build a better team is not good business for the team or the fans. I'd love to see him locked up long term, but if the Rams are not going to pay him top tier quarterback money, I would have to side with them on it.

Oh, same here.

If he wants a record deal with record guarantees in line with the appreciation that occurs with these record contracts (typically 5%, Suh's 15% was an historical aberration), then somewhere between $20M-$21M is appropriate and the Rams could do that.

If he's looking for $25M plus, then absolutely not.

We just don't know the deal.

At some point someone's going to say something and then we'll know. It seems to be going in one direction, but we really have no solid information as of yet. If the leak is to believed (and joe curley just vouched for the guy who posted the leak), then it's not looking great...at all.

 

[Loyal]

Wait a couple of years for an Aaron Donald contract and it gets all "Lord of the Flies" up in here...and Piggy's glasses have just been taken

 

[dang]

I think we're faced with one of two options.

1) The Rams FO let ADs camp know they would try to sign as many players as possible so that they could be on the same page with front loading his historic contract that's likely going to be about $21M/yr with massive guarantees. They're good with that and we're just letting the dust settle before the contract is signed. This scenario, while seemingly best for everyone, seems in light of recent revelations, less likely.

2) AD and his agent want to completely reset the contractual playing field with the best defender being paid in the same neighborhoods as the better QBs. We all know that's not going to happen. If the Suh and Haynesworth contracts proved anything, it's that massive contracts for DTs can really hurt an organization. Even JJ Watt's contract hasn't helped the Texans as he's been injured.

That's basically it. Either the Rams and AD's team are close and it's just dotting I's and crossing T's or this is intractable, AD and his agent really do want money the Rams will never pay and it's just a matter of time.

The upside is that if Suh plays well, we might just sign him to a reasonable deal and just keep AD for a year or two and then move on.

This is all up to AD. We know he hates losing, but if prioritizes this record contract above all else, there's nothing we can do and essentially he's already gone.

We'll know because if the Rams realize there's nothing they can do, they might leak the offer just to let fans know they made a legit effort.

I hope AD wants to stay, but he may have a massive chip on his shoulder for being so underpaid for so long.

All we can do is wait and see.

What the WHAT is "but he may have a massive chip on his shoulder for being so underpaid for so long".

The ball has been in Donald's court on what he was to be paid ever since he initially signed with the Rams:

1) Donald and his agent signed a 4 year contract knowing there was an optional 5th year.
2) The Rams could not renegotiate a contract with Donald until after his 3rd year
3) The Rams reportedly offer a contract extension coming into 4th year that would have made him the highest paid defensive player - which Donald did not agree to
4) The Rams reportedly offer a contract extension coming into 5th year that would make him the highest paid defensive player - which so far Donald hasn't accepted and reportedly Donald/agent are insulted by

If this is accurate the ball is in Donald's court to remove that chip and live with the past decisions/predicaments.

 

[TSFH Fan]

Okay, first, I didn't mention Brockers since you had already conceded him as a valuable return on the RG3 trade. Since that has seemingly been forgotten, add him in - a guy who is plausibly in the pro bowl conversation at least every season.

Secondly, not addressed is that if AD gets his extension - and in context it will be well above $21 million supposedly - you have to address the players the Rams lose in free agency because of it, or who they can't sign, having to go with cheaper vets instead. In the case of the Rams, it would be likely that the Rams would lose several OL they might have kept, for instance. Without cheap players coming in via the draft, it becomes impossible to pay all of a team's desirable free agents. That was part of the value of JJ, for instance. For 4 seasons the Rams had an above average CB, at a fraction of the cost a comparable post free agency CB would cost. That allowed the Rams to put limited resources elsewhere.

Keep in mind that it is NOT a sure thing that AD would give the Rams 6 years of elite performance. Injuries happen. Players do lose a step as they head into their 30s. It could easily be the case at some point that AD would not be worth his elite contract. As Rams fans, we certainly have seen that before. Heck, that's why the Rams were able to grab Suh on a one year contract this offseason.

I would like the Rams to keep AD, if it is reasonable and in their best interest. However, I am not confident of that, since they have many important contracts coming due; since this is the second season in a row he has held out; and since last season he gave a big FU to the team and his teammates by reporting to the team in time to get his week 1 paycheck, but too late to actually play that week - even though he had known well in advance he was going to report. As I've said, I wouldn't have been averse to the Rams exploring the trade market before the league year began, to see if they could get enough for him when his value was at the highest.

So basically, people want to say that JJ and Tree for short term and Brockers long term is a good trade off for an All Pro, longer term. I don't agree. "Solid success rate" isn't enough.

Not addressed is what the Rams will do for a pass rush if they don't keep their only proven pass rusher and the only player (past this year) who commands a double team. Yeah, opportunity cost argument w/e. . . pass rushers are going for over 16 million per year. If the Rams get rid of AD, they'd need to pay for a pass rusher. Insane to rely on a rookie draft pick. So they don't "save" 21 million by not keeping AD, more like 5. Not keeping Saffold makes up for that -- so net neutral. (Saffold has been on my do not keep list.)

Uh, injuries happen? Yeah, true, but we're not talking Sam Bradford here. Someone will know AD's injury history. I don't know it off hand. Shoot, since injuries happen, maybe the Rams shouldn't sign anyone to more than a 1 week contract. Again, I have a high level of confidence that we'll have a player playing a spot at a pretty high level for the next 6 years -- if others disagree, so be it. Player eval is largely about risk assessment -- up to Snead, et al. to earn their pay.

Exploring the trade market is nice and all, but the seemingly popular lay opinion that draft picks should be the crux and sole asset category of the trade is misguided. Draft picks = fool's gold.

 

[VegasRam]

I don’t think I’ve posted in this thread.
I will say that, call it human nature, testosterone, gamesmanship, pissing contest, whatever - things generally NEVER get done until the last minute.
NEVER.
Anybody owns or works at a business knows this.

R E L A X.

Personally, my only thought/concern is AD’s a Pittsburgh fan/local, and might be looking at the Steelers, but they are not really known for paying guys, including QBs.

And the people’s republic of California does take a 15% bite, which is significant, but that would be offset by “LA” endorsements.

And I’m squarely on the fence - if Demoff and Snead are cool with it, so am I.
If they are not, c’est la vie.

 

[majrleaged]

I suppose until we hear from Donald himself everything is just hearsay. But these leaks all coming out now are concerning. I'm beginning to think highest paid defensive player isn't going to be enough. And Donald is going to lose support among fans. We all know its a business. For fans the business is about winning.

Paying someone an amount that would cripple their ability to build a better team is not good business for the team or the fans. I'd love to see him locked up long term, but if the Rams are not going to pay him top tier quarterback money, I would have to side with them on it.

I just know that the sports media is very good at making news where there is none. Mostly speculating and giving opinions or phrasing things like they believe..... He is going to sign but don't expect it until a week or 2 before the season. maybe just before the season.
One of the things I hate about this is it is all the media talks about. Nothing about the other players or the LB position or anything on the field related. Just how can the Rams not pay the best defensive player blah blah blah.

 

[Akrasian]

So basically, people want to say that JJ and Tree for short term and Brockers long term is a good trade off for an All Pro, longer term. I don't agree. "Solid success rate" isn't enough.

Not addressed is what the Rams will do for a pass rush if they don't keep their only proven pass rusher and the only player (past this year) who commands a double team. Yeah, opportunity cost argument w/e. . . pass rushers are going for over 16 million per year. If the Rams get rid of AD, they'd need to pay for a pass rusher. Insane to rely on a rookie draft pick. So they don't "save" 21 million by not keeping AD, more like 5. Not keeping Saffold makes up for that -- so net neutral. (Saffold has been on my do not keep list.)

Uh, injuries happen? Yeah, true, but we're not talking Sam Bradford here. Someone will know AD's injury history. I don't know it off hand. Shoot, since injuries happen, maybe the Rams shouldn't sign anyone to more than a 1 week contract. Again, I have a high level of confidence that we'll have a player playing a spot at a pretty high level for the next 6 years -- if others disagree, so be it. Player eval is largely about risk assessment -- up to Snead, et al. to earn their pay.

Exploring the trade market is nice and all, but the seemingly popular lay opinion that draft picks should be the crux and sole asset category of the trade is misguided. Draft picks = fool's gold.

Okay, first off - nobody in this thread has said only get draft picks. I know I suggested a young guard might be a target, for instance. However, realistically draft picks are going to be the majority of the value. It is exceptionally unlikely that another team trades a star to the Rams at this point for Donald. Training camp is opening, no team wants to open up a hole. That is one reason why I wouldn't have minded AD being traded at the beginning of the league year, if the Rams had any indications that his demands were going to be as high as reported (hopefully those reports are false). In any case, your expectation of high-quality vets is unlikely at best.

If the Rams trade AD now, the question of pass rush is moot, since it would mean he was refusing to play. In the offseason, yes, I have expectations that the Rams and Wade would be able to find a pass rusher or two, with the extra money and picks. And not for $16 million out of the box.

My point about injuries (and aging) is that you were acting like it was a sure thing that AD would be elite for 6 seasons. But the history of elite players is that it's rare that they stay elite for 6 years straight in their late 20s/early 30s. He could be an exception, but the odds are against it.

The thing is - signing AD very well may take the cap room of one star, plus additional cap room to upgrade players at several other positions. Trading him would save that money, and give picks/young cheap players too. All of us want him signed, but there is some indication that it would take more cap space than a team with multiple stars might have. Other teams might have different situations, and the Rams could benefit if he is unwilling to work with the team.

Also keep in mind that the Rams have 3 free agents on the OL after the season, and the other two starters are probably gone in 2 years or so. That needs to be addressed. The easiest way to add resources for that would be trading a player who wants to shatter the pay level for his position, and getting picks back.

 

[bubbaramfan]

:sleepz: :sadwalk: :blah: :blah::rant:

 

[SteezyEndo]

This thread is going to be the bane of RODs existence... I think overall I stopped caring, I just want this team to succeed with or without Donald...Just get to a commonground already with a contract solution.

 

[Jacobarch]

If he held no leverage, we'd offer him nothing. He holds quite a bit of leverage, as do the Rams.

We offered what we could afford

 

[dang]

I doubt anyone would trade for one year contract when Donald is possibly willing to sit out the year. So the question is what team is willing to pay the @$25m/yr that he is reportedly seeking.

 

[RamFan503]

Kroenke isn't going to oppose a salary cap.

You don't and can't know this. With the belief SK has in his business acumen, he may very well feel it would give him an edge in the 2nd largest market in the world and largest entertainment area known to man. But even if he wanted to, good luck getting smaller market teams to go along.

You think the parties to an agreement can't agree to later alter that agreement?

Can they? Of course. Are they likely without having to renegotiate the entire CBA? No. But you are trying to make this about fans choosing Kroenke over AD because he is either unwilling to put the team in a bad position to pay the man or he is singlehandedly unwilling to rally the owners to raise the cap so he can pay one player at record levels.

Realistically, as far as THIS situation goes, SK has very little to do with these negotiations except to say if he is willing to spend up to the cap or maybe be involved in HOW they will spend to the cap. He has not been one to not pony up in anything so far, so why would he here?

This is silly Jrry! What business man if given an option would? The players union is just as much to blame as the owners for the current CBA so quit trying to blame just one side for it, it's disingenuous.

Exactly. It's a negotiated contract. As in EVERY negotiated contract, there is a give and take. Those with more power during the negotiations give what they have to. In the case of the CBA, the players had a fair bit of power - but not as much as the owners. A deal was done.

Several of these owners made their money outside of football. So excuse me if I don't find a great deal of fault with them trying to make as much money as they can with this or any other business.

But this has ZERO to do with AD's contract situation. Stan CAN'T just pay the man and we DO have to operate within the constraints of the cap. If you pay one player more, you have to pay another or others less. It really is that simple. AD is not a bad guy in this. He should try to make as much money as he reasonably can. If he or his agent are being unreasonable and their demands would screw the team, then the Rams simply should not make that deal. The only bad guys would be if one side is being unreasonable - low or high.

They could do it today if they wanted. The owners don't want to do it. They want more money in their pockets.

Of course the owners want more money in their pockets. But there are also figures that I don't think you seem to care about. Some teams make more than others. There is a lot to owning a team - much like owning any other billion dollar company. Just because an owner has 53 players that you determine are the product, the game itself is the product. And just like the coach, trainers, equipment guys, stadium workers, grounds keepers, and the thousands of other employees and contractors help make that product just as much as a janitor helps make a light bulb.

So how much should players make compared to an owner? Is there a figure? Or should it be negotiated EXACTLY as they have and have both sides make their best deal?

There's nothing disingenuous about it. That's a bullcrap response. Donald gets hated on for playing the game. I'm telling people that they're backing the billionaire over the millionaire. Kroenke and the owners acted in their best business interest in enacting the salary cap to protect their profits, and Donald is acting in his best business interests now by trying to get max value on his contract. Donald should not be expected to take less so that Kroenke can make more. Don't hate the player; hate the game.

So why hate the owner if they are both "playing the game'? Are you saying that a player is more right to demand money just to be the highest paid? Personally I think that is a BS argument.

Not with the salary cap. But that's the point. People argue Donald making more hurts us, but the salary cap is an artificial constraint created so the owners can retain their profits.

The salary cap is a negotiated amount to balance the concerns of owners and players. Owners of a billion dollar business should be able to expect to retain their profits. A league with 32 teams all expected to play by the same rules on the field, is arguably stronger with a salary cap. It can be argued that the very reason the NFL is so strong and able to pay this kind of money for 16 games is largely due to having a cap. So while it is an artificial constraint, it is not only about retaining profits but also about maintaining a level playing field. And unlike most industries, the NFL is more like a single corporation with 32 offices.

My point is that you are trying to make this simple to the benefit of your argument.

We don't need a social justice warrior just because some of us are getting a little tired of ADs agent's angle if he is really turning down record money. It's a take and I doubt most even think of Stan K when it comes to these negotiations.

I very likely am all those things, but Article 70 Section 9 of the CBA allows for its modification at any time by a written agreement signed by the authorized reps of the NFL and the NFLPA.

And you believe that this could happen without having to renegotiate the entire agreement.

The point I'm making is that changing it is against Kroenke's interests, which is why he won't vote to do so. AD doesn't owe us a duty to take less money because the owners have put artificial constraints on what teams spend because it benefits them. It's a business. Both sides are playing the game.

In the short term, it very well could be in Kroenke's interest. Would it be healthy for the league? Not too sure about that. AD doesn't have a duty to take less money any more than we have a duty to pay him in such a way that prevents us from paying other star players. If the Rams value a once in a generation DT/DE at or around a QB's contribution level, then they pay him what he's apparently asking. If they don't, then that is not a knock on them either. And I think that is what most fans siding with the Rams organization are saying.

It may actually be in his interests - as one of the richer owners. I suppose its debatable whether he would make more money being able to field a superior team year after year or if the NFL would suffer league wide if half of the teams were never really competitive. But the "poorer" owners would certainly never vote for it.

Exactly. I'm thinking Cincy would be a hard sell. I'm a free market capitalist but I really view the NFL as one corporation competing in a sports entertainment market. In that scenario, a cap works.

I also know damned well and explained damned well who wants the salary cap in place. You're conveniently ignoring that point which puts everything you quoted into a very clear and intellectually honest context.

Actually, I don't think you "explained damn well" who want the salary cap in place. I have heard players in the past state that they understood why the cap was there.

And the bolded is a real eye roller. It sure seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

The Rams are a billion-dollar business owned by a billionaire. It's exactly what you're doing. In fact, it's a testament to the NFL that they've been able to build such strong brand loyalty that fans see themselves more as part of the "team" than customers of extremely profitable businesses. I'm guilty of that too, but I'm not going to feel some type of way about a player trying to maximize his value.

Good for you. We are customers of many billion dollar businesses. The NFL is a high profile sports entertainment business. It's natural that we feel part of the team more so than when we buy a bar of soap. It's the nature of the business that we even KNOW that an employee is negotiating a contract. The fact that the Rams are owned by a billionaire has nothing to do with any of this.

The NFL has a structure and CBA. The fact is that the Rams - whether you like it or not - are obligated to operate under that structure. So trying to make Kroenke into your own personal fall guy is pretty weak. Show us where he has underspent on ANYTHING involving the LA Rams.

Curious. What is the monetary value that YOU would put on Donald?
AD deserves to be the highest paid defensive player in the game. I however don't feel that he should be the highest overall player in the game.
Imo, 20 mill a year is a fair deal

Apparently whatever he can squeeze out of our evil owner.

Around $22 million per year.

Around? Is it possible they are ALREADY around that number? And is $21 million around that figure?

I care about the team AND the players. The players are the product. I know what they're putting on the line, so I'm not going to begrudge them for wanting their fair due from a bunch of super rich people who aren't making the same sacrifices.

There is a shitload more to the product than the players. Sure they are what we turn out to see or watch on TV. But a TV is a product. Everyone who works for the division that makes that TV is as much a part of that product.

What business man wouldn't want a cap on the total he had to pay his employees! Good lord even that has nothing to do with the fact that right now in today the real world the Rams are capped on what they can play their players. It's fine to live in another reality where you want to change things but the fact is the CBA has to be agreed to by both sides. Owners want what they want and the players want what they want. They negotiate and in the last round of negotiations the players were happy with the salary cap structure or they wouldn't have signed the deal. Either that or there were things that were more important to them. So be mad at the owners all you want that changes nothing with the reality of the CBA. You think I'm ignoring think I'm ignoring what the owners want when I'm not, I just blame both sides for the CBA, you seem to think only the owners created it. Which of us is ignoring anything?

But but but… evil billionaires vs stomped on millionaires....

Why would I "blame" the players for something they don't want? Feel free to blame the players for the things they did want, like less padded practices. But I'm going to blame the owners for creating the artificial limitation that people keep shrouding themselves in when they try to claim this isn't a dispute between a millionaire and a billionaire.

P.S. Why wouldn't a businessman want to get paid more money? Yet, Donald is still getting criticized for that.

It's a negotiation. What part of that don't you get? The negotiated CBA is what the Rams are operating under. What part of THAT don't you get? The players traded things like padded practices - as you so eloquently pointed out - in exchange for things LIKE THE SALARY CAP.

It's not about choosing sides between millionaires and billionaires. YOU are really the one making that argument. Most of the rest of us get that it is a business and there is a CBA within that business. We get that we have a certain amount to spend on our players. We want a sustainably very good team. So knowing that the cap is there and real, it is difficult to fathom how a fan of a team would like a player demanding a salary that would harm that potential - especially when it DOES seem to be mainly about being simply the highest paid defensive player - and by a fair margin. Fans generally cheer for a team - not ONE player. They want championships - not one or two great players. They want winning - not the record for the highest paid player at a position.

First off I'm not criticizing AD for wanting the biggest payday he can get from the Rams. You're assuming that I am. Secondly and most importantly, you seem to not want to acknowledge this, if the players didn't want this cap structure why did they sign the CBA?

Because they obviously can't negotiate as well as some of us here on the internet.

Kalil Mack didn"t show up for camp either, and I'll bet none of you guys care. It's just business, right? BTW, Aaron Donald is better than Mack and should be paid more- lol!

Um - not a Ram so don't care.

If he held no leverage, we'd offer him nothing. He holds quite a bit of leverage, as do the Rams.

Yep. But does he have the loftier position just because he's only a millionaire?

 

[kurtfaulk]

I don’t think I’ve posted in this thread.
I will say that, call it human nature, testosterone, gamesmanship, pissing contest, whatever - things generally NEVER get done until the last minute.
NEVER.
Anybody owns or works at a business knows this.

R E L A X.

Personally, my only thought/concern is AD’s a Pittsburgh fan/local, and might be looking at the Steelers, but they are not really known for paying guys, including QBs.

And the people’s republic of California does take a 15% bite, which is significant, but that would be offset by “LA” endorsements.

And I’m squarely on the fence - if Demoff and Snead are cool with it, so am I.
If they are not, c’est la vie.

There's no way, if it comes to it, that he would go to the Steelers. They don't offer huge guaranteed money. Just ask leveon bell, they offered him $10m guaranteed money.

.