Aaron Donald’s contract situation

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rainram said:
That’s be fair neither the Broncos nor Dolphins have a good QB. And by extension, their offenses are truly lacking as a whole. To top it off...their drafts have been quite unspectacular!

My point would be that there are many recipes for success. Funds can be allocated a number of ways so long as the team makes good personnel moves (drafts, mid-level roster spots), and has great coaching.
Click to expand...

Of course, the flipside is that the Broncos and Dolphins don't have a large number of other high end players who are about to get paid too. But in any case, neither team by their actions seems particularly happy in retrospect about giving out such big contracts to defensive players, yet those are the contracts being cited as justifications.

There may well be some teams that such huge cap killing contracts make sense. I and others have repeatedly pointed out the Browns for instance - needing to improve rapidly, desperately need to make a splash, have a ton of cap room and do not have top players about to look for top contracts. They could frontload a contract, have a great player on defense, and before other big contracts were required the front loading could be past. There may be other teams like that too, they are just the most obvious examples.

However, for the Rams not to be crippled in the medium term they would need to make consistently good personnel moves - and I think it's bad policy to make moves that require such a high percentage of other moves to work out. And since the history of these huge contracts to defensive players is NOT good, I see no reason to gamble in that way. The Rams really should have traded him at the beginning of the league year if they knew he was demanding that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
LoyalRam said:
But there is absolutely no reason to not sign now, except to be even more ready for Week One vs Oakland, which is a pretty damn good reason!
Click to expand...
My point is that Donald's ego-feeding agent has convinced him that nothing negative will happen as a result of standing firm and pushing this out as far as possible. Probably indicating it will result in a concession on one/or more of the finer points of contention.

However - Donald is smart and a gamer and knows he would enter into new territory if he impacted his availability and readiness for the regular season. I don't think he will stand for this going impacting the regular season especially with SOOOO much $$$$ on the table. Thus my optimistic take he has no reason for Donald to sign before this coming weekend - but will shortly thereafter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MachS and Classic Rams
It's looking like it, but the Rams need to show that they can still play solid defense without him in the first few games. Perhaps then he will come around and end the shenanigans for qb money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Farr Be It
Alex, I'll take contracts for $800.
Question: in 2018 The Los Angeles Rams paid a record setting amount for this player:
Who is Tavon Austin? No ......................... beep beep.
Aaron Donald. Aaron Donald.
 

Yeah, a team cutting a good player with $22.2 million in future cap hits is NOT an endorsement of them having made a good decision on the contract. It's saying that the contract is so bad that they're better off getting out of it rather than continuing to pay more money than the player is worth. It is amazingly blatantly the opposite of saying they gave him a good contract. Seriously - over $22 million in cap hits when he's not with the team? And they tried to push the cap hits forward and keep him, but the restructuring was just kicking the cap hit forwards, making it worse. And this is one of the contracts cited as justification for giving Donald $22 million or more per year? It was a disaster for the Dolphins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain and Karate61
Merlin said:
606ca3c75ac54dc978d02156fbb0ff3d--anchorman-quotes-uk-eu-referendum.jpg
Click to expand...
Exactamundo.
 
Akrasian said:
Yeah, a team cutting a good player with $22.2 million in future cap hits is NOT an endorsement of them having made a good decision on the contract. It's saying that the contract is so bad that they're better off getting out of it rather than continuing to pay more money than the player is worth. It is amazingly blatantly the opposite of saying they gave him a good contract. Seriously - over $22 million in cap hits when he's not with the team? And they tried to push the cap hits forward and keep him, but the restructuring was just kicking the cap hit forwards, making it worse. And this is one of the contracts cited as justification for giving Donald $22 million or more per year? It was a disaster for the Dolphins.
Click to expand...

please don't use the dolphins organisation to make a point about anything football related. they suck. suh had no chance to make a difference there and just went for the money.

he can see what the rams are and came to them to win.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karate61

But that's not the case. You are claiming that the Dolphins were happy, or at least not upset, by paying Suh what they have. But somehow, they decided it was better to pay him $9.1 million this year for cap purposes, PLUS the salary of the player they replaced him with, rather than $17.5 million - oh and owe him an additional $13.1 million the next year. So to save $8.4 million (minus at least league minimum, so closer to $7.9 million) they will owe $13.1 million. That's not pushing money to next year to save interest or whatever. That's an acknowledgement that the contract is far too costly for what a star DT brings, so better to bite the bullet now, than have it slow down the team for years to come.


Yes, other teams are willing to pay him - though it is far easier to justify paying for one year than for multiple years. And of course, we don't actually know what teams were willing to pay. What we do know is that huge defensive contract after huge defensive contract is ended years prematurely, and that the ones that haven't been ended yet have been renegotiated. Teams like the idea of great defensive players - but want to kick the cap hit down a few years, hoping for a miracle, or hoping that their FO careers will either be saved by everything working out right - though it normally doesn't - or that they will be pushed out anyway before the cap hell hits.

But there is zero way that the Dolphins thought when they cut Suh "Gee, he's been worth the money, so let's not have him contribute anymore, and just absorb a cap hit of over $22 million rather than get his performance, just because." That is a crippling amount of cap hit - the only way it was desirable is that keeping him would have been even worse. But no team can survive intentionally taking on that much dead money at the time they signed the contract.
 
tklongball said:
And, Denver did win a SB with Von Miller as SBMVP, so there's that. He must have been kind of important to them winning... at least that game.
Click to expand...

Won under his rookie contract, NOT the extension. Under his extension, they had to renegotiate AND trade a pro bowl CB for a 5th so they had room to make needed moves, after two years of his extension. Of course, the renegotiation increases his costs in future years, but they felt it better to kick the cap hit forward and be able to do something this year, at the cost of a good cornerback.
 
Akrasian said:
Won under his rookie contract, NOT the extension. Under his extension, they had to renegotiate AND trade a pro bowl CB for a 5th so they had room to make needed moves, after two years of his extension. Of course, the renegotiation increases his costs in future years, but they felt it better to kick the cap hit forward and be able to do something this year, at the cost of a good cornerback.
Click to expand...
But I was told that players should be paid based on how much they help you win. Which is an argument in futility, because it is impossible to quantify, but whatever. We get it, you don't want the Rams to pay Donald a lot. Fine. Nothing in this thread will have any bearing on the negotiations, nor is it likely to change anyone's mind, no matter how much you argue it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotanez
well, the broncos situation isnt quite exactly the way you say...

denver traded AT because as AT said, it was economics, his own contract, not VM's was the reason he was moved... and as he said, they had young guys ready to step up, so he had to go..

i don't know that much about the suh sitch, but i'm thinking you're right, and suh just didn't match the cost for his contribution (play)...

don't get me wrong, i don't agree with paying 20+m to an interior d-lineman, however, if there is an exception, AD is that... but i still don't like it..

and i sure as heck don't want to see him jump around from team to team, and end up landing with the 49'rs ala jack reynolds...

go rams

slo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Akrasian
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back