howard on turk

*general counsel* · #1 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

according to howard balzer, who i consider to be the single best source of ACCURATE rams related information, the rams have offered turk a one year contract for the vet minimum.

That is a disgrace. As howard points out, they paid more for steussie and they have the same kind of need for turk. How can you blame turk when he has a super year and all the rams offer him is the minimum.

I am a big defender of the front office, but on this point, i am going to blast away if we lose turk. There is no justification for an offer of the vet minimum to a guy that not only is very very good, but is truly a position of need for the rams. This is NOT a marginal punter who can be easily replaced.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*81~BIG-GAME* · #2 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

I agree that is a disgrace,if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.Turk has proved his worth,end-off.He is a top ten punter and finding another isn't easy as our revolving door at that position in recent years testifies..:l

**AvengerRam** · #3 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Its not a question of trusting Balzer, thought. I have no doubt that Howard is reporting exactly what was told to him... by Turk or his agent (I seriously doubt that the Rams front office is divulging the amount of a rejected offer).

So, there is one other possibility... Turk and/or his agent is LYING to gain fan sympathy.

Its not like that's never happened before.

If, in fact, the Rams have truly offered nothing more than a one year vet miniumum deal, then I'd agree that is a foolish lowball approach.

But... if that's the case, why hasn't Turk signed with another team?

*general counsel* · #4 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Av, its a fair point to say that the information might be accurate. As to why turk has or hasnt signed with other teams, i am not concerned with what he is worth to other teams, only what he is worth to the rams. The point of my post was that if all we offered him was the vet minimum, its a disgrace and if we lose him to someone who pays him market value, i will be very very disappointed. We should be willing to pay market value for a top notch punter given our cap situation.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

**Nick** · #5 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

If that's the best the Rams are willing to offer at this point, then I don't blame Turk at all. I'm not sure why our front office would want to be stingy on one of our better special teams players. Maybe the new coach isn't a fan?

**txramsfan** · #6 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Sorry gc, but this does not surprise me at all coming from the Rams front office. This is old hat. If the position doesn't put behinds in the seats, they don't open the checkbook.

*bruce4life* · #7 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Sorry gc, but this does not surprise me at all coming from the Rams front office. This is old hat. If the position doesn't put behinds in the seats, they don't open the checkbook.

good ole' georgia.... dont you guys love our owner???

**RamDez** · #8 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce4life

good ole' georgia.... dont you guys love our owner???

with respect, but this has nothing to do with "Georgia"

*tomahawk247* · #9 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

so we finally get a punter that improves our punting game and we do this? terrible!

i can understand the thinking behind the offer though, If Turk is offered vet minimum and no other team offers him a deal, then he will come to the Rams. But thats not a way to treat a player that played very very well for the Rams last year

*RealRam* · #10 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

It's disappointing, to say the least. But I don't think my auntie Georgia is to blame -- someone else in the FO is being the miser and playing the smart alec.

Maybe part of the reason Turk hasn't been signed by another team is his age but, Sean Landeta played until he was 71 and I think Matt is a better punter right now, much needed by us!

I hope we wake up from this lethargic deal making and, offer, at least, a more reasonable contract to MT. He is certainly not 'empty'...

PS: I hadn't seen Dez' reply on my auntie when I wrote my post.

*RAMMAN68* · #11 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomahawk247

so we finally get a punter that improves our punting game and we do this? terrible!

i can understand the thinking behind the offer though, If Turk is offered vet minimum and no other team offers him a deal, then he will come to the Rams. But thats not a way to treat a player that played very very well for the Rams last year

I guess they are playing chicken hoping that another team will not sign him. I wonder if they are looking at someone in the draft. I don't even know if there is any able body punters coming into the draft.

**AvengerRam** · #12 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Daniel Sepulveda from Baylor (who is built like a LB at 6'2, 230) is considered by some to be one of the best prospects at the position in years. He probably will go in the 3rd or 4th round, though, so the Rams would have competition if they want him.

**RamWraith** · #13 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Don't open the check book my a$$. It is the same ol' story from Ram fans every year. We all cry that they didn't sign this one and that one. Truth is the guy is as old as dirt and hasn't been all that healthy the last couple of years. Do you want to put all your eggs in one basket when there is potential to get better. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy had a great year last year, but then there were people screaming that they couldn't believe we signed that guy then.

I can not believe some you people. This team has signed better free agents and retained the ones that matter, yet you continue to criticizes management. The fans have become spoiled rotten. We haven't made all the best decisions in the world or the worst. But damn...I think the front office has at least gone balls out for the most part for many years and have attempted to put a winner on the field.

Maybe for once we could cut the team a break and not criticize every move they make or don't make.

PS

Here was one of the best stories of 2004. I can not believe the Rams didn't pay Hartwell. He would have been a great addition.

Would of, should of, could of....I guess that is why none of us will ever get the opportunity to sit in their shoes. If only one of us would have gone to school to be a GM then this team would be in a much better place.

Sorry just venting ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Sorry gc, but this does not surprise me at all coming from the Rams front office. This is old hat. If the position doesn't put behinds in the seats, they don't open the checkbook.

**txramsfan** · #14 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

That's cool Wraith.....purging does wonders for the soul.

Recent moves I have liked that the Rams did:

1. Signed Bruce last year.
2. Kept Torry Holt happy
3. Brought in Stephen Davis last year
4. Brought in Travis Minor this year. Minor will be one heck of an addition to our special teams.
5. Drafted Tye Hill. The kid played great last year.

I'm not totally negative, but you have to admit that it is strange how at least 65% of the Rams salary cap spending in the 2000's has been on offense. It's not a coincidence. However, the Rams should be fun to watch. :sfosux:

*jjigga3000* · #15 (**permalink**) -22-03-2007

Have you ever thought that maybe the Front Office knows something that we don't. Oh and by the way people do lie,