JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. More evidence of what this regime was afforded

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    RamTime Guest

    More evidence of what this regime was afforded

    Article from 2002

    Howard Balzer of and ProFootball Weekly has shared with us some specifics on the new deal signed by Marshall Faulk. Though bits and pieces regarding the contract appear elsewhere, Howard has put together the most complete (and, by all appearances, the most accurate) explanation of the terms.

    The bonus is $9.3 million, and the salaries for 2002 and 2003 are $2 million and $700,000, respectively.

    The salary for the first two years is guaranteed, which is still an unusual facet of NFL contracts.

    The final five years are relatively flat, coming in at $6.4 million in salary per season.

    The low 2003 salary specifically was intended to make it easier on the Rams in a season where there will be significant salary cap issues, including a new deal for left tackle Orlando Pace. Faulk's cap number for 2003, according to Balzer, is only $2.03 million.

    In our view, this deal shows true class on the part of arguably the best player in the NFL. Faulk, who could have voided his remaining contract after the 2002 season, most likely would have been in line for a much greater payday, if he'd hit the open market.

    Instead, he's staying put -- and he's helping the team stay strong by not insisting on a disproportionate piece of the salary-cap pie.

    In turn, the Rams are making a big investment in a skill-position player who's pushing 30. By committing $6.4 million per year in future salary to Faulk, the Rams are counting on him staying at a high level.

    The intrigue will come in 2005 or so, when Faulk might start to lose a step. At what point will the Rams nudge him out the door, if he doesn't leave on his own?

    The real issue is whether the Rams will be willing to keep paying Faulk for past services, or whether come 2005 they'll be focusing on creating cap room for the development of the next generation of Hornheads.

    For now, it's all hugs and kisses in St. Louis. But seven years is a long time, and we'll be interested to see whether Faulk will be willing to reduce his future salary figures if/when the ravages of time and artificial turf make him something less than a $6.4 million man.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Glenrothes, SCOTLAND
    Rep Power

    Re: More evidence of what this regime was afforded

    This is and was interesting at the time. So now that we have got to that point, what does everyone think?

    Do we ask Marshall to reduce his final years salary?
    Do we "nudge" him out the door?
    Or do we do what I hope most of us think should happen?

  3. #3
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Morgantown, WV
    Rep Power

    Re: More evidence of what this regime was afforded

    We ask him to restructure. We can't keep him at his current salary if he's splitting carries. Bruce should probably be approached about this as well, even though he's put up some good numbers this season and really deserves that money. Nature of the beast, however.

Similar Threads

  1. With new regime, Rams still aren't fixed
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-14-2006, 08:42 AM
  2. Linehan vs Martz Regime
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: -06-20-2006, 01:26 PM
  3. Replies: 100
    Last Post: -01-26-2006, 10:20 AM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: -07-08-2005, 08:03 PM
  5. Salary Cap Request
    By HUbison in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: -12-31-2004, 02:48 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts