Rams trying to trade Tru J.

[Riverumbbq]

I'd rather have Tru and it's not close.

I'll take the depth previously mentioned, the added ability to extend Donald and whatever draft pick(s) come with the trade. And it's not even close.

 

[simonblaze]

Ideally we would have locked up JJ or TruJo long term but we didnt..looking at things now, do you guys really think Trujo is worth top 3-5 CB money? I dont. I have faith in the personnel side of the staff to replenish the defensive side of the ball just like they did Snead and Co. were first hired. I wouldnt mind if he played out his tag this year and we re up via the draft. IMO that 16.7 million or whatever would be better spent at extending Donald and adding more depth to the defensive backfield through a combination of FA and the draft.

 

[tempests]

I've never heard of anyone thinking that the current rookie wage scale was unfair.

Well, I have. Sure the old system was broken. But this one needs to be overhauled.

What is unfair is a rookie with 0 games played against NFL talent getting paid more than players who have put in solid years.

Well that's how the NFLPA saw it. The owners were just tired of ballooning rookie salaries. No one who negotiated the 2011 CBA really cared about the rookies or looked out for their interest.

I'd venture it's unfair to delay free agency through the exercise of fifth year options and franchise tags. More than 2/3 of NFL players are 27 or younger. The average NFL career length is 3.2 years. You should be paid sooner rather than later, or at least be allowed to determine your worth before a career ending injury slams the window of opportunity shut on your fingers.

That Les Snead can kick back in his office chair, put his feet up, and smugly declare that an Aaron Donald extension is "on the horizon" is garbage. He knows the Rams can delay Aaron's free agency for a further three years, four if they want to. Fans can beg the Rams to "pay him", but they have absolutely no reason to. This is what needs to change in 2020.

 

[tempests]

Tru had 1 good season and was paid what the rookie scale called for. Last year he was nowhere near "worth" 14 mill
He's good, not upper echelon, cant stay on the field for 16 games and his DC isn't even sold that he can fit in the system.
He's like Bradford, great at making money playing football despite not being great at playing football

I'm only going to say it once. Trumaine Johnson and Sam Bradford should never be in the same sentence together. That Son of Kent has cashed $96 million in NFL paychecks. It's not even close.

Yeah, Tru's great at making $, not so much before though. Take 2013, where he tied for the team lead in INTs and made 12 starts, but teammate Cortland Finnegan's salary was 25 times greater making only five starts.

We have had worse draft picks, certainly made worse FA signings. And there likely won't be any Johnson salary on the books beyond 2017. That will be replaced by the newest target of fan's ire. Give him a break.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Well, I have. Sure the old system was broken. But this one needs to be overhauled.



Well that's how the NFLPA saw it. The owners were just tired of ballooning rookie salaries. No one who negotiated the 2011 CBA really cared about the rookies or looked out for their interest.

I'd venture it's unfair to delay free agency through the exercise of fifth year options and franchise tags. More than 2/3 of NFL players are 27 or younger. The average NFL career length is 3.2 years. You should be paid sooner rather than later, or at least be allowed to determine your worth before a career ending injury slams the window of opportunity shut on your fingers.

That Les Snead can kick back in his office chair, put his feet up, and smugly declare that an Aaron Donald extension is "on the horizon" is garbage. He knows the Rams can delay Aaron's free agency for a further three years, four if they want to. Fans can beg the Rams to "pay him", but they have absolutely no reason to. This is what needs to change in 2020.

i agree something needs to be done. they should be able to sign an extension after 2 years if they have outperformed their draft contract. and if the team doesn't want to do that there should be some kind of trigger that pays them more money after 2 years if they meet some performance targets. after playing for nothing in college they should be able to earn more money quicker in the nfl than the 4 year wait they have now.

.

 

[1maGoh]

Well, I have. Sure the old system was broken. But this one needs to be overhauled.



Well that's how the NFLPA saw it. The owners were just tired of ballooning rookie salaries. No one who negotiated the 2011 CBA really cared about the rookies or looked out for their interest.

I'd venture it's unfair to delay free agency through the exercise of fifth year options and franchise tags. More than 2/3 of NFL players are 27 or younger. The average NFL career length is 3.2 years. You should be paid sooner rather than later, or at least be allowed to determine your worth before a career ending injury slams the window of opportunity shut on your fingers.

That Les Snead can kick back in his office chair, put his feet up, and smugly declare that an Aaron Donald extension is "on the horizon" is garbage. He knows the Rams can delay Aaron's free agency for a further three years, four if they want to. Fans can beg the Rams to "pay him", but they have absolutely no reason to. This is what needs to change in 2020.

I see that you carefully ignored the rest of the post. You're also ignoring economics. The players have a small market for their skills. There are 32 places in the entire world where they can make the kind of money they do while doing what they do. They have zero leverage until they price their worth. They enter into contracts bad on their perceived value at the time of signing the contract. That's how it works in a free market economy. If they want the opportunity to negotiate better deals at the outset of their career and get the deals they want, then they need to abandon the union. That's how individuals players will get paid like individual players.

 

[jrry32]

I see that you carefully ignored the rest of the post. You're also ignoring economics. The players have a small market for their skills. There are 32 places in the entire world where they can make the kind of money they do while doing what they do. They have zero leverage until they price their worth. They enter into contracts bad on their perceived value at the time of signing the contract. That's how it works in a free market economy. If they want the opportunity to negotiate better deals at the outset of their career and get the deals they want, then they need to abandon the union. That's how individuals players will get paid like individual players.

This is terrible advice, and it will never happen.

 

[dieterbrock]

We're kind of goin around in circles here so the last note I'll make on this particular conversation is that Phillips does consider him a fit, otherwise the Rams would not have franchised him. You don't franchise a guy in the hopes you can trade him, that way lies madness and the unemployment line.

This is why I see it the way I do: they have to see him as capable of excelling in this defense by virtue of the tag, but they are willing to move him because know they're going to lose him and this is a deep CB draft. It's that simple IMO.

Ok, but that's not what they are saying. They don't know if he fits so they gave a him a 1 year prove it deal. Thats what they are saying.

 

[RamsFlash80]

Has there been any reports if Tru just doesnt want to extend with the Rams? Or maybe the Rams dont want to commit to Tru? This seems odd that I havent seen any news about negotiations or anything. Usually we see reports about players and teams being close on a deal or both sides are far apart from a deal.

 

[1maGoh]

This is terrible advice, and it will never happen.

I agree. For them it is a terrible idea to leave the players association. But if they are a part of a group they will get paid like a group. Individual talent and skill will be ignored to an extent in order to facilitate doing what makes sense for the group at large.

 

[jrry32]

I agree. For them it is a terrible idea to leave the players association. But if they are a part of a group they will get paid like a group. Individual talent and skill will be ignored to an extent in order to facilitate doing what makes sense for the group at large.

Abandoning the union doesn't change the CBA. But it does make the union weaker the next time the CBA is negotiated. The strength of the union is key to its ability to negotiate favorable terms for the players, including revenue sharing.

Individual talent and skill don't get ignored in this system. They don't get paid like a group. You have rookie UDFAs making $465,000 while the top players making $16 million to $22 million per year.

And getting rid of the union entirely would hurt both the NFL and the players.

 

[1maGoh]

Abandoning the union doesn't change the CBA. But it does make the union weaker the next time the CBA is negotiated. The strength of the union is key to its ability to negotiate favorable terms for the players, including revenue sharing.

Individual talent and skill don't get ignored in this system. They don't get paid like a group. You have rookie UDFAs making $465,000 while the top players making $16 million to $22 million per year.

And getting rid of the union entirely would hurt both the NFL and the players.

I know that unions work better when they're stronger. I didn't mean one player abandon the union. Then that player couldn't play.

I'd like to point out to things though, before I stop arguing about economics on a football forum. First, if there is no union then the CBA is irrelevant. The CBA is negotiated and signed by the union and the NFL. If the union doesn't exist, then... there isn't anyone to uphold that end of that agreement. Players would negotiate alone. That's a very bad place for them to be.

Second, you mentioned two groups in trying to refute that players are treated in groups: UDFA rookies and top play makers. The later is a less formal group that's not legally defined, but other groups are. Veterans have one minimum salary, non veterans another. Certain rules apply to RFAs. Players under a franchise tag are grouped by position. The CBA lumps players into groups and applies rules based on those groups. Not always related to salary, but always related to participation and employment within the league. If there's a rookie first round pick who doesn't want the team to have a fifth year option, he's SOL, because he's lumped into the first round pick group. He's not treated like an individual player. He's treated, to a very large extent, like a member of a group.

I'm sorry for ruffling feathers. I'm going to slowly back away now. I didn't mean to derail this so far off topic.

 

[jrry32]

I know that unions work better when they're stronger. I didn't mean one player abandon the union. Then that player couldn't play.

I'd like to point out to things though, before I stop arguing about economics on a football forum. First, if there is no union then the CBA is irrelevant. The CBA is negotiated and signed by the union and the NFL. If the union doesn't exist, then... there isn't anyone to uphold that end of that agreement. Players would negotiate alone. That's a very bad place for them to be.

Second, you mentioned two groups in trying to refute that players are treated in groups: UDFA rookies and top play makers. The later is a less formal group that's not legally defined, but other groups are. Veterans have one minimum salary, non veterans another. Certain rules apply to RFAs. Players under a franchise tag are grouped by position. The CBA lumps players into groups and applies rules based on those groups. Not always related to salary, but always related to participation and employment within the league. If there's a rookie first round pick who doesn't want the team to have a fifth year option, he's SOL, because he's lumped into the first round pick group. He's not treated like an individual player. He's treated, to a very large extent, like a member of a group.

I'm sorry for ruffling feathers. I'm going to slowly back away now. I didn't mean to derail this so far off topic.

But he'll have his chance to get paid like an individual down the line because the union exists.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. I'm just confused. It sounded like you wanted them to opt out of the union, but the bolded contradicts that.

I recognize that the CBA doesn't exist without a union. That's why I said it would be very bad for both the NFL and the players if they got rid of the union entirely. But as far as I know, players can choose not to be part of the NFLPA. That doesn't change the rules of the CBA, though.

So I'm very confused as to what you were saying? It sounded like you wanted NFL players as a whole to abandon their union to get better deals? Anyways, we can take it to PMs if you want to clarify there.