UDFA Matt Daniels: Quotes, Notes and Emotes

[RamFan503]

And why would they even want to restructure his contract? If they think he has value then they pay him. You don't go around subtracting money from players who play well. If they don't like his play then they replace him. Plus, they have plenty of cap space in 2013 so what's the issue.

There really isn't an issue here.

You know they are going to have plenty of cap space to sign everyone they want to sign? I'm sure the dude will have value but if the value to THE RAMS isn't as great as his salary would dictate, then why WOULDN'T they restructure - or try - if it becomes a matter of needing to pay a more crucial player more to keep from losing him? I don't think we can really say until then if there is an issue or not.

 

[-X-]

And why would they even want to restructure his contract? If they think he has value then they pay him. You don't go around subtracting money from players who play well. If they don't like his play then they replace him. Plus, they have plenty of cap space in 2013 so what's the issue.

There really isn't an issue here.

You know they are going to have plenty of cap space to sign everyone they want to sign? I'm sure the dude will have value but if the value to THE RAMS isn't as great as his salary would dictate, then why WOULDN'T they restructure - or try - if it becomes a matter of needing to pay a more crucial player more to keep from losing him? I don't think we can really say until then if there is an issue or not.

Well, the only way to do that is to let him test the waters. OR. Take a look at what the top safeties make in the league and spreadsheet his production against those 1 or 2 other guys. Ya know, IMO of course.

 

[RamFan503]

And why would they even want to restructure his contract? If they think he has value then they pay him. You don't go around subtracting money from players who play well. If they don't like his play then they replace him. Plus, they have plenty of cap space in 2013 so what's the issue.

There really isn't an issue here.

You know they are going to have plenty of cap space to sign everyone they want to sign? I'm sure the dude will have value but if the value to THE RAMS isn't as great as his salary would dictate, then why WOULDN'T they restructure - or try - if it becomes a matter of needing to pay a more crucial player more to keep from losing him? I don't think we can really say until then if there is an issue or not.

Well, the only way to do that is to let him test the waters. OR. Take a look at what the top safeties make in the league and spreadsheet his production against those 1 or 2 other guys. Ya know, IMO of course.

Wouldn't you instead rank him against the safeties commensurate with his skill level or level of play from the previous season? If he is even in the ballpark - you probably do nothing but pay the man. If his production doesn't warrant his salary, why can't a team do the same thing a player does when he exceeds his production value (for lack of a better term)?

 

[-X-]

And why would they even want to restructure his contract? If they think he has value then they pay him. You don't go around subtracting money from players who play well. If they don't like his play then they replace him. Plus, they have plenty of cap space in 2013 so what's the issue.

There really isn't an issue here.

You know they are going to have plenty of cap space to sign everyone they want to sign? I'm sure the dude will have value but if the value to THE RAMS isn't as great as his salary would dictate, then why WOULDN'T they restructure - or try - if it becomes a matter of needing to pay a more crucial player more to keep from losing him? I don't think we can really say until then if there is an issue or not.

Well, the only way to do that is to let him test the waters. OR. Take a look at what the top safeties make in the league and spreadsheet his production against those 1 or 2 other guys. Ya know, IMO of course.

Wouldn't you instead rank him against the safeties commensurate with his skill level or level of play from the previous season? If he is even in the ballpark - you probably do nothing but pay the man. If his production doesn't warrant his salary, why can't a team do the same thing a player does when he exceeds his production value (for lack of a better term)?

Yeah. That's what I said. You compare him against the top 1 or 2 safeties in the league and that's how you determine what his salary is worth. That's what they do when they tag a guy. I get what you're saying though, and yes, I agree with that too. If he's exceeding production (no matter what those other guys are being paid), you pay the man. In that same vein, guys who aren't living up to the production of guys making less *should* and often *do* have their pay scale reevaluated. We've already seen that happen to two guys on this team.

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah - I was never a big fan of restructuring contracts unless both parties see the need. But ever since players started doing that (ahem... ED...), I figure the teams should be able to as well.