Quote
dzrams
Quote
CeeZar
Its interesting to see how threads and subtopics evolve.
The point was made that only AD can keep AD "off the field". This is definitively true as it will be his decision not to report if the Rams tag him.
Does it matter? Who knows?
Pedantic? Probably.
Such is the board when there is nothing much else going on....
Definitely pedantic. Technically it would be him who kept himself off the field.
Practically both sides would likely have some culpability. As an extreme example, if the Rams offered him the vet min to play, he would be the one to turn it down and stay off the field but practically most would blame the Rams for offering such a ridiculously low amount.
This is one of those cases where you can have the law of the letter right but miss the spirit of it.
I wonder why it's even framed as an issue of "culpability." It's business (as you know) and will not play out as a "culpability" issue. In fact "culpability" will not matter either way. If it came to this, Donald says, I want a trade. Rams will be more or less forced to do it. If they didn't trade him and he sat out for a year or 2, no one in the league is going to approach it as "well AD did it to himself." Rather it would be pretty clear that the tag amount falls short of his market value and that 5 years of that is enough. As a rule teams just do not punitively refuse to trade players. They are also smart enough to realize that if he's not going to take the field for US it's better to get something for him.
Honestly, it just won't get framed as an issue of "whose fault it was." It will get framed as "where is Donald going to play and how much will the Rams get for him."
That's so completely true that I honest don;t get why the "culpability" language even came up. It serves no purpose. It isn't the way the issue will get framed.
...
