Quote
Rams43
Quote
dzrams
Quote
Rams43
Quote
dzrams
Quote
RockRam
We've been down this road before.
On the one hand you state that his market value is sky high, and could reasonably be beyond best Defensive player, because he is a generational talent and has no peer.
Then you turn around and lump him in with generic "starters". Every team has at least 25 starters. Does every team have 25 Aaron Donalds? ONE AD?
Decide which it is ZN. Is his leverage the same as merely a good starter? Or is he the best D player in the league and an exception to every rule as regards salary for a certain position?
The fact is that since the new CBA, there have been NO generational talent/Superstars traded during their prime, when they are still under contract, because THEY demanded it and got it. FAs? Sure. Guys past their prime and fading? Sure. 27 year old generational superstuds? No. And there's a reason for that. It's because they have no leverage. "Holding out" isn't much leverage when that cost to the team is loss of service of the player, but the cost to the player is earning a big fat ZERO. Might be more true at the QB position; but not at DT.
But you can't just stick AD in just any bushel basket of starters, or even Superstars, and for all eras, and then make a comparison.
Donald's is a very specific situation. And the Rams is a very specific situation. Rams hold a Royal Flush. Donald holds a pair of 2's.
How many teams can have a Donald hold out and then substitute for his absence with Suh?
Rams aren't the least bit concerned. They have a championship D with or without Donald; acknowledging that they indeed are better with AD than without. But this is almost like arguing the old college "who has not just an A, but the highest A". It's less about practicality and more about nuance.
We have been down this road before and the first time down you didn't establish your position with any evidence.
In that first discussion, you mentioned holding out and franchise tags as examples of a players leverage. But when I countered that holding out and franchise tags are all tools that existed in previous CBAs - thus making previous CBAs not much different when it comes to a players leverage - I got no response back on why the different CBAs so dramatically changed things that we can't use lessons learned from previous years.
There is one thing you mention here that is true: there have been no generational talent/Superstars traded during their prime under the 2011 CBA. But when you extract the meaning from that, you err in overlooking the reason why not.
There have been no players that fit your very narrow criteria that have demanded trades. The reason isn't because they have no leverage; it's because we have a whopping sample size of zero.
The Rams have a great D with or without Donald
this year. But this contract extension discussion is about the long term and anticipates a relationship far beyond this year.
And in a long term context, loss of service of a Donald type superstar is huge leverage. Are you really willing to say, in that regard, that a superstar has less leverage than an average starter?
Whose services will the Rams miss most? Matt Longacre or Aaron Donald? I bet Longacre holding out would put no pressure on the Rams but AD holding out would.
Two things that you might be overlooking here in this particular post, dz.
Rams do have the option of extending Suh for a few years if AD can’t be extended, for whatever reason. And Suh could be extended for less than AD money, I’m sure. So, yeah, that is tremendous Ram leverage. Their SB aspirations remain either with or without AD. That is beyond huge.
The other thing is that we must remember that AD is under contract and will be for 3 years, at least. Meaning that the Rams will have final say on any trade destinations AND on compensation from acquiring teams. Also meaning that UFA type monies are not gonna be on the table for AD.
I haven't done a full cap analysis but I don't know if the Rams will be able to do all this:
Tag AD for at least $14M (could be $17M if he successfully argues that he's a DE in a 3-4 scheme)
Sign Suh to a lucrative contract - let's say $18M
Resign Saffold
Resign Joyner
Resign Havenstein and Brown
Valuable pieces in Matt Longacre, Ethan Westbrooks, Troy Hill, Cory Littleton, Malcolm Brown, Easley, Shields, and more....
BTW, if they tagged AD and signed Suh to my estimated contract, that would be
$43M they have locked into their DL.
Can they afford to do that? I have my doubts. Serious doubts!
While the Rams will have final say on trade destinations and compensation, if they can't afford to keep a tagged AD and Suh on the books, they lose leverage.
Either 1) they sign Suh, teams and AD know that they are then forced to move him lessening the offers, or 2) they don't sign Suh to retain flexibility but face the prospect of not having either future HOF DT if they don't work it out with Donald.
Tough choice either way.
The point is, the Rams face some tough choices too and it may be painful. I understand that as Rams fans, we don't want to look at that but it's not full analysis if we don't.
Even if they can keep both on the books, it's gonna affect who they retain out of their other pending free agents. If they had planned on keeping Joyner, that would now be unlikely.
IMO, this is why they need to determine if they will be able to work out a deal with him.
If they can, get it done. If they can't, trade him and move on.
No only do they avoid all of the headache and potential threat to winning and culture but they also will be able to plan adequately for the future.
An excellent and nuanced reply, dz!
I agree that it will be a stretch to tag AD in ‘19 and pay Suh the $18 million. But I think it’s doable if the Rams make other sacrifices.
I’m prepared to lose Joyner, Saffold, Hav, and JB next year, even if AD extends and we don’t need to extend Suh. Personally, I think we might be able to extend a couple, but it might not happen.
Good drafting, smart FA moves, and great coaching might have to overcome all 4 player losses. None of those guys are “core” players as you have posted elsewhere.
Littleton is the only player you listed above that they might really press hard to extend, and that’s only assuming that he has a bangup year this year. Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of those guys but none are “core” players. Shields is a 1 year rental, Easley has injury issues and has been inexpensive, anyway. Troy Hill is a gem and should be affordable, Longacre is injured a lot and should be another fairly affordable extension, Westbrook’s should be affordable, and Malcolm Brown is either affordable or expendable.
Tbh, this FO and coaching staff have impressed me with their ability to bring in and develop talent via draft, trade, and FA. This reduces my fear of losing players as was the case with the previous 3 regimes.
I just now have a wonderful feeling of confidence in the Rams’ ability to fill holes opened by the inevitable loss of 2nd tier FA players.
I agree with much of what you say. I feel like we're making progress.
I see three scenarios:
1) Tag AD who is still demanding too much, Sign Suh, and let Joyner, Saffold, Hav, JB plus others go
2) Trade AD who is still demanding too much, Sign Suh, and retain some of Joyner, Saffold, Hav, JB plus others
3) Sign AD by coming up more, Don't sign Suh, and retain some of Joyner, Saffold, Hav, JB plus others
Maybe you go option 1 if you think you can eventually get AD to submit. You sacrifice team balance because too much money is tied up in the DL. This option strikes me as the Rams wanting to win these negotiations at all cost and teaching AD a lesson but IMO it doesn't seem like the best option for overall team health.
Option 2 is the making the best of a bad situation. No one wants to trade him but if it comes to that signing Suh is not a bad alternative. You would also have an additional $18-20M to retain some of your other players in addition to the trade comp garnered.
Option 3 is my preference. Instead of sacrificing so many of the non-core to keep both AD and Suh on the books, why not just "overpay" a bit on the AD deal and let Suh walk. I think that was the original plan anyway btw. I'd rather they keep the younger, better DT especially since Suh says he may only play for another two years. If they're not spending money on both, they should be able to retain more of the non-core but important role players.