It is not yet clear if either the Raiders or Giants are offering enough for the Rams to consider trading Stafford, a move that would cost Los Angeles more than $45 million in dead money, per Spotrac. Schultz has previously reported that a first-round pick is believed to be the Rams' asking price to move their 37-year-old quarterback.I wonder, if Matt leaves and the Rams have more cap space, do they keep Kupp to help Jimmy G with 3rd and long? lol
So the raiders and stafford came to "a common ground" on a contract.
Haven't heard that one anywhere else - so either this dude has elite sources or that's some BS.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. The Rams front office knowing this makes it understandable that they would let Matt hear what other teams would offer.It is not yet clear if either the Raiders or Giants are offering enough for the Rams to consider trading Stafford, a move that would cost Los Angeles more than $45 million in dead money, per Spotrac. Schultz has previously reported that a first-round pick is believed to be the Rams' asking price to move their 37-year-old quarterback.
Bonsignore reported the Raiders "will be hesitant" to trade the No. 6 pick of the upcoming draft, while The Athletic's Dan Duggan previously wrote the Giants "won't consider" dealing the No. 3 pick.
Lack of movement on these first-rounders could provide the Rams further impetus to work out a new contract with their incumbent starter. In that case, the Raiders would need to look elsewhere for their next QB1.
Seems like it wouldn't be a cap space clearing move at all - which to me seems like another reason to not do it unless its a big haul in return.
Could it even be both? Rodgers starting and Jimmy backing up again? Doubt teams are banging the door down to have Jimmy start.Yeah, I think it's pretty clear at this point that if Stafford goes, it'll be Rodgers or Jimmy. And we'll need a QB behind either who has ability because Rodgers is old and Jimmy has had a lot of durability issues.
Raiders have the second highest cap space and the third most draft capital. It's the only team that could give Stafford buckets of money and still offer the Rams big picks.One thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the Raiders would want to shell out much money or give Stafford multiple years?
It's not like their roster is close to winning - doesn't make any sense.
Sorry. Not even a little bit to me.I’m sorry but I really think Rodgers would produce just as well as Stafford in this offense especially if he brought Adams with him. You gotta admit it would be a little cool lol
$ that has already been paid by the Rams and received by Stafford but has not yet hit the Rams' cap.I am so confused....how would "no guaranteed money left on the contract" still lead to that much dead money?
I could see that. That future pick is quite appealing to me because next year's QB class has far more potential. I'd love to have trade-up ammo.I'm guessing their 2025 2nd & 5th rounders and a 2026 2nd rounder.
I’ll set the alarm.This is all so damn stupid. It's like the Rams feel like they have to create drama every year since they moved back to LA. Must be a "Hollywood" thing. Regardless, absolutely nothing good can come from any of this bullshit.
I honestly don't think I care at this point. I also don't think the Rams are a SB WITH Stafford next season, and I believe the weather was the main reason they were able to make that Eagles game so close. The Eagles are just a far better team IMO.
Wake me up in September...
View: https://x.com/AllbrightNFL/status/1895180461288169555
Sounds to me that the Giants might have eyes for Ward rather then Stafford.
So the bleacher report article (at the top of this thread page) shows a link to a Spotrac tweet that says the Rams would incur a 45.3M dead cap hit in 2025 if MS is traded.$ that has already been paid by the Rams and received by Stafford but has not yet hit the Rams' cap.
Taking the big hit now and not having a much bigger one in future years when the team will be trying to sign it's young talent.So the bleacher report article (at the top of this thread page) shows a link to a Spotrac tweet that says the Rams would incur a 45.3M dead cap hit in 2025 if MS is traded.
Since you understand the cap as well or better than anyone on here.... does this 45.3 M number sound accurate to you?
If so, this would seem to be a gigantic disincentive to trade MS. What the hell's the point in "saving money" if the 2025 dead cap hit is so huge?