Thomas5737 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Gurley, Donald, Goff and Cooks will account for about $80 million in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showtime Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 This is great. I love when players get the most that they can just because Donald definitely deserves every penny. Great deal for the Rams because they lock up the best defensive player in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Is this where we talk about them not being able to afford to resign any players now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Ducks Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 6 hours ago, TitanLegend said: Nope, because: Russell Wilson has gotta be up there though. Damn. 5'11 master race checking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 2 hours ago, jrry32 said: 2 hours ago, SwoleXmad said: I'll use some examples then, no rookie contracts and they have to be within the top 15 players paid at their position so I can't just cherry pick. https://www.spotrac.com/redirect/player/14514/ Devonta Freeman, Very good RB at 8,250,000/yr. https://www.spotrac.com/redirect/player/12316/ Zach Ertz, Very good TE at 8,500,000/yr. https://www.spotrac.com/redirect/player/14444/ Joel Bitonio, Very good G at 8,500,000/yr At roughly the 24-25 million Aaron Donald is supposedly getting. The whole point of a hypothetical is a "what if" it's an unlikely event you'd have to choose between *Insert 3 very good players* or Aaron Donald. I'll take the 3 random players since they will overall have a bigger impact than one player. None of those players were signed in 2018, and none of those players play on the defensive line. I'm also not sold that those three players do have a bigger impact than Aaron Donald. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/stephen-gostkowski-4587/ Stephen Gostkowski at $5M this year https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/johnny-hekker-10414/ Johnny Hekker at $3.5M/year Pick a long snapper, any long snapper. $1.5M/year. Those 3 cost ~$10M. Extrapolating, there's obviously no reason the Rams couldn't get 7 starters for Aaron Donald's money. #sabermetrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 hour ago, SwoleXmad said: I'll use some examples then, no rookie contracts and they have to be within the top 15 players paid at their position so I can't just cherry pick. https://www.spotrac.com/redirect/player/14514/ Devonta Freeman, Very good RB at 8,250,000/yr. https://www.spotrac.com/redirect/player/12316/ Zach Ertz, Very good TE at 8,500,000/yr. https://www.spotrac.com/redirect/player/14444/ Joel Bitonio, Very good G at 8,500,000/yr At roughly the 24-25 million Aaron Donald is supposedly getting. The whole point of a hypothetical is a "what if" it's an unlikely event you'd have to choose between *Insert 3 very good players* or Aaron Donald. I'll take the 3 random players since they will overall have a bigger impact than one player. Well, it helps when you present relevant contracts. And sorry, but every player you cited there has a contract that involved them re-signing with their respective teams before their rookie deal was done. It was an extension, not a free agent contract. So either you're suggesting that somehow an on-the-open-market free agent is going to accept a market-at-best contract when he has multiple suitors bidding for his services (or rather 3 of them) are going to sign with the Rams or that the Rams are running the risk of not being able to extend 3 "very good players". In the more likely, the second, scenario this ignores devices such as the tenders (RFA, franchise tag, 5th-year options) which can be used to buy time while/until available cap space is shifted around, and that's just the start of it. You're not arguing an unlikely event, that's doing it a disservice. You're arguing a sub-1%-probability event. If resigning out best pass-rusher and one of the best pass-rushers in the league long term costs us our starting safeties (again, the safety market is low right now, guys simply aren't finding the money they're expecting as FA's out there), I'm completely fine with that; this front office has shown a knack for identifying quality young safeties in the draft process. Realistically, as long as it doesn't cost us our ability to re-sign Goff after his 5th-year option has been used (which will be after a new CBA is negotiated) and Peters, which it shouldn't because for all the people that want to gawk at the salaries in 2020, I'm willing to bet most haven't bothered to take a look at the salaries that come off the books in 2020 and what players' guarantees run out in 2020. We're not in any position that teams who have locked up their young cores haven't been in in the past - as long as you continue to draft effectively (generally the process that got you into that position to begin with), you'll be just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 minute ago, The LBC said: Well, it helps when you present relevant contracts. And sorry, but every player you cited there has a contract that involved them re-signing with their respective teams before their rookie deal was done. It was an extension, not a free agent contract. So either you're suggesting that somehow an on-the-open-market free agent is going to accept a market-at-best contract when he has multiple suitors bidding for his services (or rather 3 of them) are going to sign with the Rams or that the Rams are running the risk of not being able to extend 3 "very good players". In the more likely, the second, scenario this ignores devices such as the tenders (RFA, franchise tag, 5th-year options) which can be used to buy time while/until available cap space is shifted around, and that's just the start of it. You're not arguing an unlikely event, that's doing it a disservice. You're arguing a sub-1%-probability event. If resigning out best pass-rusher and one of the best pass-rushers in the league long term costs us our starting safeties (again, the safety market is low right now, guys simply aren't finding the money they're expecting as FA's out there), I'm completely fine with that; this front office has shown a knack for identifying quality young safeties in the draft process. Realistically, as long as it doesn't cost us our ability to re-sign Goff after his 5th-year option has been used (which will be after a new CBA is negotiated) and Peters, which it shouldn't because for all the people that want to gawk at the salaries in 2020, I'm willing to bet most haven't bothered to take a look at the salaries that come off the books in 2020 and what players' guarantees run out in 2020. We're not in any position that teams who have locked up their young cores haven't been in in the past - as long as you continue to draft effectively (generally the process that got you into that position to begin with), you'll be just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 40 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said: Is this where we talk about them not being able to afford to resign any players now Still roughly $28M under next season's projected cap still (if we assume he pulls in the $24M APY of the contract), and Whitworth's, Talib's, Brockers', and likely Woods' (guarantees will have run out) contracts coming off the books in 2020. Clearly the team will draft (over the course of 2 drafts) to replace a likely majority of those guys. Obviously you, can't count on hitting on every draft pick, but the situation isn't nearly as bleak as a lot of people want to paint it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 minute ago, SwoleXmad said: Clearly you do or you wouldn't be bothering to respond. But I'll accept your use of snarky GIF as submission. You're excused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Just now, The LBC said: Clearly you do or you wouldn't be bothering to respond. But I'll accept your use of snarky GIF as submission. You're excused. That's not a gif. That's a 2-frame blurred out picture of what I'm guessing is a man having a stroke. That is the internet equivalent of those crappy flip books you made in like 1st grade that when you paged through them really quick nothing happened because you were in 1st grade and didn't have the attention span to finish it. Unexcused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 2 hours ago, The LBC said: Still roughly $28M under next season's projected cap still (if we assume he pulls in the $24M APY of the contract), and Whitworth's, Talib's, Brockers', and likely Woods' (guarantees will have run out) contracts coming off the books in 2020. Clearly the team will draft (over the course of 2 drafts) to replace a likely majority of those guys. Obviously you, can't count on hitting on every draft pick, but the situation isn't nearly as bleak as a lot of people want to paint it. There certainly isn't anything bleak at this point but they may have to be creative. It isn't a bad thing, every fan wants a QB, RB, #1 WR and pass rusher that they believe are great to be under contract and that is going to cost money. Even with Whitworth's contract expiring you will have to get lucky in the draft or spend money at that position to keep your QB upright. If you have great players at the most important positions you can hide a lot of average or below average players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 20 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said: There certainly isn't anything bleak at this point but they may have to be creative. It isn't a bad thing, every fan wants a QB, RB, #1 WR and pass rusher that they believe are great to be under contract and that is going to cost money. Even with Whitworth's contract expiring you will have to get lucky in the draft or spend money at that position to keep your QB upright. If you have great players at the most important positions you can hide a lot of average or below average players. I don't disagree but I'd add in a couple tweaks. Our OL coach puts a higher priority on big-time guard play than he does having outstanding OT's. You can pretty much see his fingerprints all over the Bears' OL (assuming it can stay healthy for once and we can actually see it the way it was designed/drafted) and before that the Saints' OL that featured Nicks and Evans and later Nicks and Grubbs. Those teams have gotten by with the likes of Charles Leno (a good OT, mind you, but certainly wasn't someone teams were falling over themselves to draft) and Jermon Bushrod at LOT. I honestly won't be surprised to see us draft a player in the mold of a Kyle Long, Brandon Scherff (in that I mean someone most people are penciling in as an OT, but who our coaches are looking at as a guard), Forrest Lamp, or Zack Martin if a similar such prospect is available to us in the bottom of the 1st. Noteboom needs to get stronger, that's clear, but if they can put a really standout guard next to him, that, especially in our system and blocking scheme, makes his job much, much easier. The bigger concern - and why re-signing Donald was an absolute necessity - is that we are going to have to address the other traditionally mega-expensive position (EDGE) via the draft, because otherwise our best hope to fill that spot is only short-term solutions and those are truly only going to be affordable if we can actually make it to a Super Bowl because then you can at least hold out hope for ring-chasing older vets who were cap-casualties (and more times than not, those guys tend to be better as complementary pieces rather than "the guy"). And, as we've all seen, the guys with the athleticism to rush from the edge go at an absolute premium in the draft. This isn't something that will be easy, I'm not trying to convey that, but it's also not as out-and-out difficult-to-impossible as some folks have seemed to want to make it out as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Wow must take alot to live in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Don't care about the Per year average, it's all about the Guaranteed Money. While the numbers might/probably will be absurd it's the reality of NFL contracts these days. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said: Don't care about the Per year average, it's all about the Guaranteed Money. While the numbers might/probably will be absurd it's the reality of NFL contracts these days. Good for him. That's really not a crazy AAV either. The Rams probably generate ~$500M of revenue per year. $24M/year of that is about 5% of the total. The LA Angels generate ~350M revenue per year according to Forbes. Mike Trout is getting about $34M/year, so about 10% of the total. And he signed a deal further away from free agency than Donald did, so the Angels had less leverage. Even if you say that a baseball roster is half the size of a football roster and chop Trout's fraction in half (which isn't accurate since larger rosters tend to reduce the contracts of the "middle class" of free agent eligible players), it's about an equal fraction of revenue. The Edmonton Oilers generate around $150 in yearly revenue, again Forbes. Connor McDavid is getting an average of $12.5M/year, or ~8%. Again, even with a smaller hockey roster, the math more or less checks out in terms of total fraction of revenue. And the NHL has a salary cap at almost exactly the same fraction of league revenue as the NFL, so even if you start looking at cap space instead of revenue, there's really nothing all that crazy about what Donald is making. You can do similar exercises for the NBA or European soccer, but it gets weird because the NBA has maximum salaries based on service time and because soccer contracts aren't reported consistently (some are after tax and some are before tax, which is a big deal when the tax rate gets to 50%). The general point being, if you are a professional sports team spending 5% of yearly revenue on a superstar player is reasonable from a business perspective. It's not crazy that Donald is making that much money, because NFL teams are making a crazy amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.