Jump to content

Jalen Ramsey traded to the Rams


Scalamania

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, soflbillsfan said:

You are making the move for this year and next. The rams are strapped for cap space with 4-5 guys taking up 2/3 of your cap in 2020. Whether you know it or not this move is strictly for the now and not the future. You dont give up 2 high draft picks to win later because this team will be blown up by then if they dont win. This move is putting a target on your back to say we have to win now which is why I do not get the move. Desperate teams who have GMs and HCs needing to win now in order to save their job do moves like this not guys who are coming off of a superbowl run. 

We're not cap strapped, we're still in the thick of things this year, and Ramsey will sign a long-term deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeotheLion said:

There's clearly a comparison. Each team traded an elite defensivd player that wasn't signing a 2nd deal and wanted to get value before FA. Whether or not the value was the same is one thing but the deals are very comparable. 

Did Mack say he wasnt re-signing with Oakland? I just thought they didn’t want him long term and thats why he was dealt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Did Mack say he wasnt re-signing with Oakland? I just thought they didn’t want him long term and thats why he was dealt

My understanding is he was willing to sign but Oakland either a) didn't want him or b) couldn't afford him with the escrow. I remember b being the reason but could be wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

My understanding is he was willing to sign but Oakland either a) didn't want him or b) couldn't afford him with the escrow. I remember b being the reason but could be wrong. 

Thats what i thought. I didnt think it was a similar scenario where Mack simply wasnt staying so Oakland had no choice but to take the best offer they could get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Will he take a backloaded contract though? Dont most players want it up front?

Honestly, no one here can answer that. We don't know what he values in terms of length, bonuses, winning, etc. I just don't see Snead making this move without being fully prepared to get the deal done.

If I'm wrong and he doesn't get extended, I'll be shocked. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JonStark said:

Honestly, no one here can answer that. We don't know what he values in terms of length, bonuses, winning, etc. I just don't see Snead making this move without being fully prepared to get the deal done.

If I'm wrong and he doesn't get extended, I'll be shocked. 

No doubt. Anyone thinking they aren’t signing him long term is wrong. You dont trade that much for a rental or then franchise him. I think the contract stuff overall is overblown and they can do it with some wiggle room but it will be very interesting to see it play out.

i can only speak on my teams perspective where we got as much as we could for someone who wasn’t staying. Is Jalen better than whoever we draft with those 3 picks combined? Probably but the fact he wasn’t ever going to play again(“back issues”) kind of left us with no choice. I think we won the trade in the sense that we got more than the comp pick if he hit FA but i don’t necessarily think the Rams lost either

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Thats what i thought. I didnt think it was a similar scenario where Mack simply wasnt staying so Oakland had no choice but to take the best offer they could get

The only difference in the scenario is we know Jalen wasn't willing to play. Mack was just holding out but he presumably wasn't going to play until he got a new contract. 

I see the point that it is slightly different but at the end of the both teams appeared to get good value despite not having much leverage given the players they gave up were never going to be signed longterm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

The only difference in the scenario is we know Jalen wasn't willing to play. Mack was just holding out but he presumably wasn't going to play until he got a new contract. 

I see the point that it is slightly different but at the end of the both teams appeared to get good value despite not having much leverage given the players they gave up were never going to be signed longterm. 

The Raiders simply didnt wanna pay so he kind of had to holdout. Wasnt like they we’re lowballing him. They were no-balling him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...