Quote
dzrams
Quote
Rams43
Quote
zn
Quote
RockRam
He's a signed player.....not an unsigned player.
He already has a contractual obligation for this year.
I have no doubt the Rams would prefer to come to an amicable deal.
But the Rams have their bottom line just as AD does.
AD doesn't care (or have to care) about putting a team together. He just has to worry about getting the best deal he can.
The Rams have to field 53 good players and a few stars to vie for a Superbowl shot. If the Rams can't see a way to meet AD's demands and sign the other players they need to keep, then they are going to tag him for a couple of years.
It's the CBA. Rams are in full control now and for at least 2 more years. AD is free to not report. Retire. And make not a dime. That'll be the day. This is not a Curt Flood thing; this is a player wanting more money than any defensive player has ever made.
They can't tag him till next year. He will play this year, new contract or no new contract. And not a single person is saying otherwise. After this year, if he isn't signed yet and they try to tag him, as I say in my other response, he would demand a trade...and the Rams would have no choice but to trade him.
I think you're mixing your years up. No one is saying what you are arguing against.
Anyway, this whole "be tough with labor" rhetoric doesn;t work in situations like this.
....
FWIW, I resonate more with Rock’s position.
If AD demands a trade, I think that the Rams trade him if, and only IF they think it’s in their own best interests.
Rock seems to be talking more about this year. We all agree that that he will report this year. Rock's fighting a battle that no one is waging.
The point of disagreement is what happens next year when the Rams tag AD. But I know you knew that and can tell based on your responses.
I agree with your last sentence. I don't think the Rams will trade him if it's not in their best interests. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a scenario where the Rams tag AD for $14M, he insists he won't play and demands a trade, and the Rams decide it's best not to trade him.
I don't see it. They'd have a huge expenditure on their cap. The relationship with player likely beyond repair at that point, and they're vying for a SB. At that point, wouldn't you already know if you'll ever be able to get close to his demands or not?
It seems to me their best move would be to be decisive like Belichick. Get what you can for him, draft picks and players who can contribute that year, and maybe sign an alternative DT (like Suh). If they call his bluff and lose that will really hurt their interests.
I guess it comes down to, if he demanded a trade, how serious do they think he is and could the relationship be repaired at that point.
Adding to this...as per our entire discussion of the trade scenario, no one could think of examples of visible starters who demanded a trade and were NOT traded.
[
ramsrule.com]
On top of it, Donald would have a deep interest in not signing a lowball tag and holding out till traded. He would not be under contract at that point. The Rams meanwhile as has been said would be in a situation where he counted against the cap, plus as I just said teams (as was demonstrated) trade starters who sit out and demand trades. Rams would be at a disadvantage if they didn 't trade him...otherwise they would be getting nothing for him while he counted against their cap
....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 09:33AM by zn.
