Quote
SoCalRAMatic
Youngblood and Faulk? Okay, don't remember the Youngblood situation, but was he under contract? Faulk got traded. AD has a valid signed contract and isn't reporting to work. I actually agree that he's worth more than his number this year. That was never my argument. He probably should. And when his contract is up. End of this s season he could not report because he has no contract. This all started last season when he had two years left in his contract. His agent can demand whatever he wants but the Rams don't have to pay a nickel over 6.8. AD can hold out but won't be paid because he's missing games and he's paid to play in the games. He's already missed three paychecks and is running up non reporting fines. If he had reported he probably would've been paid to stand on the sidelines with the rest of the D and maybe would've played for 7 total plays. This is costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars. He has no leverage. Our D is damn good without him. Better with. But they could pitch shutouts anyway. Loved Youngblood. Guy played in the Super Bowl with a broken leg. Really can't compare that kind of dedication to this spoiled brat.
Yes, Youngblood (along with Jim Youngblood, Brooks, and Harrah) were all under contract and held out.
Faulk was under contract. Strictly speaking, you trade contracts, not players. He got traded because he asked for a new contract and part of the situation was that the Rams did work on a new contract, but it took a while--he missed 2 weeks of camp. So yes he was under contract when he held out.
I know your argument against holding out, I just don't agree with it. Holdouts are a part of the negotiation process and though they don't always happen, they do happen, and have for years. The Rams entire approach to this is to never criticize him for holding out, to waive all fines, and to treat it as just part of the process. I agree with their approach to it.
He is not going to hold out during the season so that was always a moot point. BUT if he DID it would be because the Rams were not negotiating in good faith and not making a fair offer--or at least because he believed that---and in that case you sacrifice the short-term money for a fair longterm contract. But that's all speculation because it's not going to happen.
Players in that position do not care what they lose short-term, they care about the contract itself, which is not only money, it's a symbol of how they are valued and respected by the team and in the league.
And he always had leverage. This too is about an event that is not going to happen, but all he has to do is holdout and demand a trade. In the meanwhile, he counts against the Rams cap and (in this hypothetical scenario) unless they trade him, they have both the cap hit and his absence. Routinely namebrand players in that situation get traded.
...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2018 09:34PM by zn.
