Quote
RamsFanSinceLA
Quote
zn
Quote
RAMbler
After the Cooks & Gurley deals... there is no logical reason to believe the Rams are low balling Donald. So, I don't think it's just V.B.'s opinion.... I am beginning to believe it's a lot of peoples belief that it is the Donald camp that is balking.
So it looks to me like:
1. There is a deal in place, and for what ever reason, all parties have agreed to announce it at the right time.
2. Donald's camp is asking for more than the Rams feel is fare.
I hope it's #1.
I don't think his logic is sound at all. He's making a bunch of assumptions and basing a lot of it on not knowing real figures.
If you read different people on this, you come away with different impressions. Some put the delay on the Rams because they are not coming through with what you should pay the best defender in the league in 2018.
Are they right?
We don;t know if they are anymore than we know if VB is.
AGREEMENT WITH VB IS JUST ON THE INDIVIDUAL POSTER...that is, if you share his assumptions, then, he looks good on this issue. If you don;t, he doesn't. AND THERE IS NO *REAL* WAY TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Not with what we actually know.
So I would say the people who think VB's more pro-management take is good, were just inclined to see it that way themselves. Those people who in contrast agree with less pro-management oriented takes are doing the exact same thing. That's just how they personally are inclined to see it. THE FACTS do not support ANY view right now though.
To me VB is only "logical" if you're inclined to share his assumptions.
Other than that, to me, VB is just one view among other writers who are saying different things about all this. Without real facts to make a real judgment, all we are really going to get at this point is just different views, with no REAL way to choose between them.
....
From the article:
"The Rams have demonstrated they are willing to pay at the top of a position market – as they did with Gurley to reset the running back market – or competitively by making Cooks among the highest-paid receivers in the game. It stands to reason they’d do the same for Donald, coming off a 2017 season in which he was named the NFL Defensive Player of the Year and racked up 91 quarterback pressures in 14 games.
Given the Cooks and Gurley contracts, you’d be on the safest of grounds to deduce the Rams have offered Donald a deal that makes him the highest-paid defensive player in the history of the NFL and makes him the first non-quarterback to break the $20 million per year threshold. "This doesn't sound logical? Or is it too "pro-management" for you? He's not saying he knows anything, he is making a logical argument, which again I find pretty sound.
I've read every post on the AD contract situation and no matter how hard you try to come across as fair and balanced you clearly have a bias towards AD, and that is perfectly fine. Just be honest about it.
An argument based on assumptions to that extent doesn't lead to logical conclusions. The assumptions become the hang-up. VB just plain assumes that the problem is Donald. There are other writers out there who just plain assume the problem is the Rams.
What I claim to be objective about is the info we have. I claim quite openly that until there is info to go on, we don't know, and leaping to conclusions isn't knowing.
I long ago announced that I tend to be pro-player in these things. That goes all the way back to defending Warner in 2000 when Zygmunt was publicly wondering if Kurt had earned a high 2nd contract, and a number of posters sided with him. Those arguments were very similar to this one. I definitely defended Warner. That was controversial then, too. Actually it was before that. When Faulk held out of camp in 99 until a new contract was signed, I defended Faulk then too. That included debating a lot of people who questioned Faulk as a player (that happens at contract time...the money is the issue but many try to act as if the player is. I remember at the time there were people saying Faulk was not worth the money and that the hold-out destroyed his credibility as a player).
And in fact if the reveal is true that the Rams are holding for 21 M and the Donald camp is asking for more, my view is that the Rams are not right to hold at 21 M and that a good compromise is 23-24 M a year with 80 M guaranteed. I think 21 M is too low and that it does not represent market value.
So even if VB wrote that AFTER real numbers came out, I would still disagree with his premise that the problem is just Donald. He's taking sides, which is only "logical" to people who take the same side I guess. To me it's just better to say he wrote an editorial supporting one view of this.
...
....
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 12:33PM by zn.
