That's just silly. "We would like to negotiate a new contract" is a beginning point for negotiations. If what he wants is ridiculous and they can't come to a consensus, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "Well, we tried. Let's pick it up next year."
Rams surely want to “pay the man”; the challenge is coming up with the right number/PFT
- Thread starter den-the-coach
- Start date
-
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.
First of all, it's not. The team has leverage and his rights for two to four seasons, depending.
Second of all, if you can't come to a deal with a guy, you walk away from negotiations. Negotiating a contract is not just a matter of saying "Tell us how much you would like to make and we'll pay it." Cutting off discussions at an impasse is a necessary part of the process. Bad teams sign players - even great ones - to stupid contracts and spend money when they don't have to. Good ones use their leverage and the value of players on rookie deals to build a great team.
Correct, using the "leverage" is what causes the disrespect. If they had less leverage, they would be more inclined to meet his terms.
If the Rams aren't willing to pay him market value then let the market pay him.
They've already agreed he's underpaid, so making him pay for less than what they all agree he's worth is disrespect.
So he holds out. The Rams lose.
Meanwhile the ridiculously overpaid players suit up.
Donald needs to understand that getting paid early doesn't mean you get everything you want. You get security, undoubtedly some of the best DT money in the game, but maybe not the top contract.
If I'm the Rams I offer him better term for longer security and it would allow for a bigger signing bonus. Go seven years, which allows for a bigger bonus than what Watt got, and frontload the money so when Goff and some of these kids they're drafting hit their FA window the cap figure for AD won't be too out of control.
If I'm the Rams I offer him better term for longer security and it would allow for a bigger signing bonus. Go seven years, which allows for a bigger bonus than what Watt got, and frontload the money so when Goff and some of these kids they're drafting hit their FA window the cap figure for AD won't be too out of control.
nighttrain
Legend
So how does your seven years work? Is that a 6 year extension plus his 1.8 million for this year?
That's more Ram risk.
If Donald had more leverage, he'd use it. This is business. Throwing around the word "disrespect" in a contract negotiation and trying to use it to get the Rams to throw away any advantage they have in building a deal is just ridiculous.
The job of the Rams is to build a winning football team, not to ensure that Aaron Donald is happy. If those two don't jive, then the team outweighs one of the 53 players on it.
This is a misleading statement. The market CANNOT pay him, because he is under contract with the Rams for the next two years. If the market wants to pay him UFA market value money, they can wait until he's a UFA. Otherwise, any team is going to need to give up a huge deal to get the Rams to trade him, which will also likely result in them lowering what they're willing to pay because his compensation package, from their perspective, includes multiple 1st-round picks.
This is how the NFL works - rookie contracts are low-risk gambles for teams. Players don't get to say "I want more money, never mind that I'm under contract for multiple years, you should pay me like I was a UFA right now!"
Not to offend, but you sound like more of an Aaron Donald fan than a Rams fan...
He can, certainly. What happens if the Rams say 'no, you have to honor your contract just like everyone else, and we're not trading you'? He sits, his career is impacted way more than the Rams' 2017 season is impacted, and nobody wins - certainly not Donald.
KNUCKLEHEAD
I won't say it unless you don't.
@DCH ...You've got a lot of nerve running around here making so much sense.
Negotiation: Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.
Both sides are in the process of doing their due diligence. The Rams are not disrespecting Donald, and Donald is being a professional, and keeping his mouth shut. I believe they will find common ground - some give and take from both sides will eventually win the day.
KNUCKLEHEAD
I won't say it unless you don't.
Changing contracts before they're up makes for bad precedent. Teams keep doing that and every player who has a good year will want to "re-negotiate". Keep doing it and it will lead to teams doing every player to year to year contracts.
It's a risk that is worthwhile for AD. I'm not worried about the risk stuff discussed in the article. AD is a rare talent at a position that is hard to find in the draft (interior pass rusher).
What I'm concerned with is timing of his cap hit. It's all I'd be worried about. AD is a guy who is motivated, team-first, with elite production from day one. I'd roll the dice for him, provided the cap hit doesn't hurt us with the key guys we'll be needing to lock up.
So if it was me, I'd make it 7 years starting this year, with the biggest DT bonus ever, just ahead of what JJ got. But hopefully over the 7 years the cap hit will be manageable and of course it would be front loaded for now.
I love Donald and want him to continue to be a Ram for yeas to come but is he or any DT worth that much of your Salary Cap? How many scores does he affect? How many games have the won because of his play? How many more would they have lost without him?
Great player but the team would just be screwing up again if they give him a new contract for $25M per when they have him under control for so much less. He is just a piece, a very nice piece but not a player that a winning franchise has to have to continue winning.
Great player but the team would just be screwing up again if they give him a new contract for $25M per when they have him under control for so much less. He is just a piece, a very nice piece but not a player that a winning franchise has to have to continue winning.
That kind of thinking comes from immature me first players who don't know anything about the business side of the business. The Rams have been historically bad and have continued to screw things up with contracts like TA's if they are ever to become a perennial contender like the barf Patriots they have to get better at handling contracts as well as on the field performance.
Aaron Donald is a me first player now?
The Rams have been bad at over paying mediocre players top dollar so the solution to that is not pay the top player top money? That makes sense how?
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.