Rams surely want to “pay the man”; the challenge is coming up with the right number/PFT

[DCH]

Calling BS here....
Donald deserves to be paid amongst the highest paid defensive players in the league. Any less than that is a disrespect. And if you were as good at your job as he is at his, and as underpaid proportionally as he is you would feel as disrespected. Especially if you shared an workspace with others far overpaid
Its ludicrous to argue otherwise.

You can call BS all you want, but the fact remains that if the two sides cannot come to an agreement on a mutually-beneficial contract, one side postponing the negotiations is not disrespect unless the other side's ego is so fragile it cannot comprehend the way businesses operate.

 

[dieterbrock]

I just want to respond to some of your points but only quoting this..

It's the Rams choice to negotiate with Donald, but the here are the issues as I see them:

You risk alienating Donald - your points are valid in that there's not much he could do if the Rams went the no raise/franchise/franchise tag route - but there's a reason why this tactic alienates players - they're human beings. This would assuredly upset Donald, and the most likely negative result of this is that other players will see how we're treating him and it will impact our future roster.

I am actually not opposed to trading Donald - I don't believe any team will ever win a super bowl with a defensive tackle paid like that - but the Rams HAD to know that he wouldn't want to negotiate too much - it's pretty simple if I'm Donald - make me the highest paid defensive player in NFL history.

And keep in mind that the Patriots can afford to play hardball with players because of Tom Brady and their culture. The Patriots in this situation would stand firm on a salary or trade Aaron Donald IMO for a nice draft haul and retool their team. The Rams don't have Tom Brady.

BUT, having said that - it makes sense for the Rams to pay Donald up front money since we don't have a QB at this time. Whether Goff pans out or we draft another (assuming we don't end up with Cousins next year) - we can afford to pay Donald big money while we don't have a highly paid QB on the roster.


Those are some random thoughts all in one post lol

That's a great post.
Agree with a lot of it, disagree with some but you make some points I didn't think about

 

[dieterbrock]

You can call BS all you want, but the fact remains that if the two sides cannot come to an agreement on a mutually-beneficial contract, one side postponing the negotiations is not disrespect unless the other side's ego is so fragile it cannot comprehend the way businesses operate.

Good grief.
That is so silly.
Its not "postponing" negotiations, its using leverage which allows the Rams to say 'take it or leave it". They have him by the contract, they have the upper hand. In any event, its regurgitating the same thing over and over that you are just going to refuse to acknowledge. Its all good.
Not sure why a fair weathered fan is so invested in it, but to each their own.

 

[DCH]

Good grief.
That is so silly.
Its not "postponing" negotiations, its using leverage which allows the Rams to say 'take it or leave it". They have him by the contract, they have the upper hand. In any event, its regurgitating the same thing over and over that you are just going to refuse to acknowledge. Its all good.
Not sure why a fair weathered fan is so invested in it, but to each their own.

It's not the Rams saying 'take it or leave it,' it's them saying 'negotiate and give us back value for abdicating these two years of control.'

Try not to devolve into personal insults, it implies you're not confident in the merits of your argument.

 

[dieterbrock]

It's not the Rams saying 'take it or leave it,' it's them saying 'negotiate and give us back value for abdicating these two years of control.'.

Nope. If the Rams walk away from the table, they are saying take it or leave it

Try not to devolve into personal insults, it implies you're not confident in the merits of your argument.

Lol.
If you are insulted by being a fair weather fan, that's on you. And that was a cute back handed insult yourself there, so being hypocritical doesn't help the cause either

So I'll just stick with what I've been saying all along, if the Rams use their leverage and allow Donald to play on his rookie deal, they are disrespecting him.

 

[MauiRam]

So explain to me what the common ground is if the Rams allow Donald to play 2017 on his rookie deal?
Maybe you should reread what you posted.

Common ground, when reached, is the result of give and take. Both sides are negotiating at this juncture. Will they establish some common ground? I am just a fan - I can't predict what the outcome will be. My guess is that an agreement will ensue. The Rams need Donald, and Donald appears inclined to remain a Ram.

The Rams do not wish to overpay, and impair their ability to retain other good players. Donald being arguably one of the top 5 defensive players in the league doesn't want to leave any money on the table. Let them continue to negotiate until both sides arrive at something each can live with - common ground ...

 

[dieterbrock]

Common ground, when reached, is the result of give and take. Both sides are negotiating at this juncture. Will they establish some common ground? I am just a fan - I can't predict what the outcome will be. My guess is that an agreement will ensue. The Rams need Donald, and Donald appears inclined to remain a Ram.

The Rams do not wish to overpay, and impair their ability to retain other good players. Donald being arguably one of the top 5 defensive players in the league doesn't want to leave any money on the table. Let them continue to negotiate until both sides arrive at something each can live with - common ground ...

I don't disagree. And I am not assuming they wont work something out.
What I am saying is that if they cant meet Donald at his request, OR meet at a middle ground and THEN make him play on his rookie deal, that is a one sided outcome. That isn't meeting on common ground.

 

[DCH]

Nope. If the Rams walk away from the table, they are saying take it or leave it


Lol.
If you are insulted by being a fair weather fan, that's on you. And that was a cute back handed insult yourself there, so being hypocritical doesn't help the cause either

So I'll just stick with what I've been saying all along, if the Rams use their leverage and allow Donald to play on his rookie deal, they are disrespecting him.

As I have said all along, the Rams should use the leverage of their control over him for the next two to four years as a negotiation tool to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial. If he refuses to budge off of wanting a record-setting deal, Suh/Miller money, that's on him, and to acquiesce and "just pay the man" would be the actions of a middling-to-poor front office.

 

[DCH]

I don't disagree. And I am not assuming they wont work something out.
What I am saying is that if they cant meet Donald at his request, OR meet at a middle ground and THEN make him play on his rookie deal, that is a one sided outcome. That isn't meeting on common ground.

I begin to think we're not that far apart in our thinking... I'm not saying that they should force him to play on his rookie contract, but rather that giving him better pay the next two years must be a bargaining chip to get him to accept a contract that both pays him well and is beneficial to the Rams. He's not a UFA, therefore expecting a contract that pays him what he'd make as a UFA would be ridiculous, and if he is demanding what he'd make on the open market and not budging, then walking away from negotiations is both necessary and not disrespectful.

 

[dieterbrock]

As I have said all along, the Rams should use the leverage of their control over him for the next two to four years as a negotiation tool to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial. If he refuses to budge off of wanting a record-setting deal, Suh/Miller money, that's on him, and to acquiesce and "just pay the man" would be the actions of a middling-to-poor front office.

So if they pay him a record deal, they are a middling or poor front office?

 

[DCH]

So if they pay him a record deal, they are a middling or poor front office?

If they pay him what he'd make as a UFA, throwing their extremely valuable bargaining chips away, then yes, they are a middling to poor front office that cannot be counted on to do what is in the best interests of the team.

 

[DCH]

Interesting point. That probably gives Donald a bit more leverage; although, it's interesting that the top of the 3-4 DE earnings list is Muhammed Wilkerson, who is making an AAV of $17mm, vs. Suh who is just under $20mm.

Do the franchise tags distinguish between 3-4 and 4-3 players? I assume not... the highest-paid 4-3 DTs are Suh ($19mm), Cox ($17mm) and Short ($16mm) while the highest-paid 3-4 DTs are Brockers ($11mm), Williams ($10.5mm) and Hankins ($9mm).

 

[dieterbrock]

If they pay him what he'd make as a UFA, throwing their extremely valuable bargaining chips away, then yes, they are a middling to poor front office that cannot be counted on to do what is in the best interests of the team.

Well then thru all the posts, here is where we disagree. I think he should be paid now as if he were an UFA. Essentially throwing out the last 2 years of the deal.
Its similar in what they did for Tavon, so drawing the line for him just doesn't make sense.

 

[DCH]

Well then thru all the posts, here is where we disagree. I think he should be paid now as if he were an UFA. Essentially throwing out the last 2 years of the deal.
Its similar in what they did for Tavon, so drawing the line for him just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, this is where we diverge. Doing it for Tavon was a mistake, and I don't think doing the same thing again is a good idea. I know Donald is a great player whereas Tavon isn't, but I don't think making a negotiation mistake with a great player is a good way to make up for making the same mistake with lesser players.

 

[dieterbrock]

How is the 5th year salary determined? The first 4 were obviously based on his draft position, but the 5th year option is based on his position?

 

[dieterbrock]

Yeah, this is where we diverge. Doing it for Tavon was a mistake, and I don't think doing the same thing again is a good idea. I know Donald is a great player whereas Tavon isn't, but I don't think making a negotiation mistake with a great player is a good way to make up for making the same mistake with lesser players.

They screwed up on Tavon contract, then screwed up by not signing Jenks long term and in effect are over paying Tru. I don't see how they solve those mistake by not rightly paying the man who /earned the top dollar. Which then leads me back to the disrespect idea, that if he is going to get less money because they "screwed up" on Austin and Tru, then that is pretty disrespectful.
@flv I have a contract question/thought- if they cant agree to a long term extension at this point, can they sign him to a 1 year extension on his current deal, where he gets a signing bonus now? Like a 1 year 20 mill deal where he gets a 15 mill signing bonus and a 5 mill base salary in 2019? Then table talks for a long term deal after the season?
Just trying to figure out a middle ground scenario where our best player isn't disgruntled and a long term deal not reached

 

[DCH]

They screwed up on Tavon contract, then screwed up by not signing Jenks long term and in effect are over paying Tru. I don't see how they solve those mistake by not rightly paying the man who /earned the top dollar. Which then leads me back to the disrespect idea, that if he is going to get less money because they "screwed up" on Austin and Tru, then that is pretty disrespectful.
@flv I have a contract question/thought- if they cant agree to a long term extension at this point, can they sign him to a 1 year extension on his current deal, where he gets a signing bonus now? Like a 1 year 20 mill deal where he gets a 15 mill signing bonus and a 5 mill base salary in 2019? Then table talks for a long term deal after the season?
Just trying to figure out a middle ground scenario where our best player isn't disgruntled and a long term deal not reached

That's a highly unlikely scenario. They've got his 5th-year option coming up in 2018 for something like $6.5 million, and he would likely balk at a one-year extension.

I'm not sure Tru should be considered in the conversation, since he's franchise tagged... again. It's an overpay, but no long-term $$ is going to him and he doesn't have the security NFL players look for in a longer-term contract.

And here's part of the issue, too - if they take the same bad tactic on Donald that they took on Austin, they push this down the line where other players are going to want big $$ several years before they approach the open market. If Donald should get it because Austin got it, then who will want it because Donald got it? Goff? Gurley? If Kupp turns out to be a big-time receiver, is he going to be demanding a new contract after the 2018 season approaching Julio Jones money? This cannot be normal if the Rams want a healthy franchise.

If Donald wants to get UFA money for the 2019, '20 and '21 seasons, he'll likely have to accept less average money for the '17 and '18 seasons. Likewise, if he wants a raise now, he'll have to accept that his post-rookie-contract years won't have the same AAV they would have otherwise. Between front and backloading his money for cap purposes it might not look quite like that, but he shouldn't expect a contract from 2017 through whenever that looks like what he'd get as a UFA in 2017. Extending him early provides him with value; he and his agent have to figure that value into the process.

 

[dieterbrock]

That's a highly unlikely scenario. They've got his 5th-year option coming up in 2018 for something like $6.5 million, and he would likely balk at a one-year extension.

I'm not sure Tru should be considered in the conversation, since he's franchise tagged... again. It's an overpay, but no long-term $$ is going to him and he doesn't have the security NFL players look for in a longer-term contract.

And here's part of the issue, too - if they take the same bad tactic on Donald that they took on Austin, they push this down the line where other players are going to want big $$ several years before they approach the open market. If Donald should get it because Austin got it, then who will want it because Donald got it? Goff? Gurley? If Kupp turns out to be a big-time receiver, is he going to be demanding a new contract after the 2018 season approaching Julio Jones money? This cannot be normal if the Rams want a healthy franchise.

If Donald wants to get UFA money for the 2019, '20 and '21 seasons, he'll likely have to accept less average money for the '17 and '18 seasons. Likewise, if he wants a raise now, he'll have to accept that his post-rookie-contract years won't have the same AAV they would have otherwise. Between front and backloading his money for cap purposes it might not look quite like that, but he shouldn't expect a contract from 2017 through whenever that looks like what he'd get as a UFA in 2017. Extending him early provides him with value; he and his agent have to figure that value into the process.

Its not a bad tactic on Donald and just because they screwed up on Austin, shouldn't prevent them from doing the right thing on Donald.
If a player out plays his contract like Donald has, and if they prove to be the best player in the league like Donald has, then I would certainly go this route again.
If Goff is the best QB in the game, I would hope they wouldn't play hardball with him. I would expect them to pay him early like Seattle did with Wilson, the Raiders with Carr, the Pats with Brady....

 

[DCH]

Its not a bad tactic on Donald and just because they screwed up on Austin, shouldn't prevent them from doing the right thing on Donald.
If a player out plays his contract like Donald has, and if they prove to be the best player in the league like Donald has, then I would certainly go this route again.
If Goff is the best QB in the game, I would hope they wouldn't play hardball with him. I would expect them to pay him early like Seattle did with Wilson, the Raiders with Carr, the Pats with Brady....

Carr was bought out of the last year of his deal - they didn't have the leverage of a 5th-year option. Same with Wilson. And Brady is a weird case, because he is willingly the 14th-highest-paid QB in the league despite being the best (or in the top 3 at least).

And part of my argument here is that Donald has not played out his contract. He needs to realize that getting paid more for this year and next constitute value beyond the raw numbers on any extension and negotiate understanding that. And in the end, I suspect he does, and you and I are just going 'round in a bout of breeze-pissing.