Quote
Rampage2K-
Quote
zn
Quote
RFIP
When you are the best at something you deserve to be paid as the best. Not to mention these pin heads running the Rams are apparantly too dumb to understand that if they pay him now they will be paying a LOT less than in 2 years.
I agree with the idea that there's a business side to all this and those considerations means you seek your best contract.
But I see 2 assumptions running through the Donald discussions. Not everyone says these things but they're fairly prevalent. In fact they're opposite assumptions.
1. Donald is trying to gouge the Rams in "disgruntled player demands new contract" style.
2. The Rams are lowballing Donald.
I don't see any evidence to support either assumption.
In fact the local reporters with some knowledge of what's going on don't see any of this in either of those 2 possible ways.
...
I dunno zn,
Andrew kinda let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he said on air that the Rams "have a huge offer on the table, but it's not enough for Donald who wants to be highest paid player on defense" type money.
Andrew is pretty well connected to the Rams, so it Sounds and looks to me like it's Donald holding out for more money then the Rams trying to stiff him.
No, sorry.
That's just partial reporting and empty enough for people to make what they want of it. "Huge" could mean actually not as big as necessary. It could mean that the issue is not the pure amount but the structure---how much guaranteed, how much front or backloaded. Andrew S. basically didn't say anything.
The same thing happened when Faulk was getting his new deal in 99 and held out till it was finalized. The Rams then, unlike now, used public antagonism to stir things up, so they let it be known that the offer was big and Faulk wanted more. Poor us dealing with this greedy player, kind of thing, from the JZ Rams. Well as it turns out that had nothing to do with it. The ACTUAL issue was contract structure---how the contract was organized. Faulk wasn't "demanding more." That was just a fiction.
I knew about what Andrew S. said when I wrote that local reporters in the know are not representing this as an antagonistic thing. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind supporting the idea that this is the old "greedy player demanding more from a generous team" narrative. (There's also no evidence that the team is lowballing.) I knew what Andrew S. had said when I wrote what I wrote and since he actually didn't really say anything, I went ahead and said what I said.
...