Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90
  1. #61
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    I guess making fake Bernie M threads is more worthwhile talking about.
    I guess so.

    I have yet to read any post that explains how the Rams' offer is not merely "too low" but is, in fact, an unfair "lowball" offer.


  2. #62
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Well, it's not a one year contract as I believe you have stated before. You're entitled to your opinion, but "lowball" remains open to interpretation. We're just going to have to wait and see how this all shakes out before we know how that interpretation manifests itself.
    Agreed completely. I believe it's inaccurate to continue to represent this deal as if it were a one-year contract for $5 million. That would be a great deal. Unfortunately though, there are two years on the end of the contract in which Bruce would only be making $2 million per year.

    Also, obviously Bruce's earned money is going to be bigger than Holt's because Holt's is from a pre-existing contract while Bruce is signing a new deal, which means guaranteed bonus money in the first year.

    If both Bruce and Holt were up for new deals and Bruce got more or similar amount than Holt, I think this would be a valid point. But it's clear that Bruce is making more money because of timing and the fact that he's signing a new deal while Holt is in the middle of his current one. That's why you have to look at the entire deal instead of just one year, and the entire deal is not great for Bruce at all.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  3. #63
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    None of that explains how the Bruce offer is a lowball.

    Again, there's a difference between "too low" (entirely subjective) and "lowball" (in part, objective).

    If I see a house on the market I like for $500,000 and I offer $499,000, that may be, in the seller's eyes, "too low." But nobody would, should or could call that offer a "lowball."

  4. #64
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,814
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    I guess so.

    I have yet to read any post that explains how the Rams' offer is not merely "too low" but is, in fact, an unfair "lowball" offer.
    The real nonsense are the Bernie M threads, sad that you don't see that.

    2 mil in years 2 and 3 of the contract are the lowball part of the offer for his calibur of player. No wonder he didn't take it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    Tre was running great against an awful NYG run defense. 5.8 YPC yet he only gets 13 carries. I can't wait until the Rams abandon you, Schotty.

  5. #65
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Look folks, its late, and I've had about enough of this, so let me just give you all a cold slap of unrestrained candor here...

    Bruce is not the player he used to be. That said, he's still a capable and valuable player. The Rams, as a business, made an offer that reflects that status. Bruce rejected it. We don't know what he was asking for, but obviously it was more than the Rams felt it was appropriate to offer.

    Now, some of you want to take it out on the Front Office. You are so mad about the potential of losing Bruce that you'll lash out at them, along with anyone who might suggest that they are doing what is right for the team as a whole.

    We've seen this before... every time an aging player or a player who is overvalued in the free agent market is allowed or compelled to leave, there are always fans who will immediately blame the Front Office.

    Perhaps, in this case, both sides are at fault. My impression is that the lion's share of the blame is on Bruce's side - but that's just my opinion.

    However, when you start throwing out terms like "lowball" to describe the Rams offer, you are taking the position that the Rams either don't want Bruce back or want him back but want to screw him on his contract. There's no evidence that either of those scenarios is present here.

    I think the use of the term "lowball" in the context of the offer made is nonsense. I make no apologies for expressing my opinion in this regard.

    Instead of taking offense at this, or trying to deflect my pointed criticism by trying to make "BernieM" part of the discussion, why not actually support your position.

    Explain how, compared to the market for 33 year old receivers coming off an injury-plagued season in the salary cap age, the offer made to Bruce qualifies as a "lowball" offer.

    Nobody has explained that, and nobody can, because its... well... nonsense.

    Good night.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -03-07-2006 at 02:35 AM.

  6. #66
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    However, when you start throwing out terms like "lowball" to describe the Rams offer, you are taking the position that the Rams either don't want Bruce back or want him back but want to screw him on his contract. There's no evidence that either of those scenarios is present here.
    I think that's an inaccurate representation of the term lowball, for one.

    My understanding of the definition of the word lowball is when an offer is made that's intentionally below fair value. I've never heard a definition of lowball where it's an offer that's lower with the intent to try and screw the player, so I don't know where you're getting that.

    But the Rams are making him an offer that is deliberately below the fair or appropriate value in my opinion, and they're doing so because they want more cap room.

    It's deliberate, it's low. Thus, again in my opinion, they're lowballing him.

    I think if Bruce signs elsewhere, it's going to be for more than $3 million a year. And yes, the contract averages to $3 million a year, no matter how much some want to focus on only the first year. I guess we'll have to wait and find out. If Bruce ends up signing a deal that pays him less than $3 million a year over the span of the deal, then I'll be the first to congratulate the Rams' front office for a job well done in properly gauging Bruce's value.


    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    Explain how, compared to the market for 30+ receivers coming off an injury-plagued season in the salary cap age, the offer made to Bruce qualifies as a "lowball" offer.
    Injury plagued season? Bruce missed five games. How is missing five of sixteen games in a season injury plagued?

    Anyways, I would point to what Muhsin Muhammad, a receiver less than a year younger than Bruce and certainly less productive over his career, got as a free agent from Chicago last year. Six years, $30 million, $12 million in bonuses.

    Compare that to the contract Bruce is being offered - half the length, but a mere third of the total value, and less than half the guaranteed money.

    Obviously I'm not trying to say Bruce should be getting the kind of contract Muhammad got. Muhammad was coming off a great year, and was rewarded for it.

    So with that in mind, I would expect Bruce's offer to be less. But so much more less? A third of the total value despite half the length? An average of $2 million less per year? All that because of an injury which sidelined Bruce for five games and of which he came back from and played well to close the season?

    Also, it's my opinion that right now, Bruce may be a year older, but he's a more polished and more talented receiver with more production over his career than Muhammad is.

    That's one of the reasons I believe Bruce is being lowballed. According to what I've heard from Howard Balzer in terms of short commentary on the deal, it sounds as if he feels the same way. If that's the company I keep, I'm more than content.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  7. #67
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,086
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    Bruce is not the player he used to be.
    This statement pretty much sums up the sticking point of this entire debate, and is a statement that is entirely open to interpretation.

    I offer the following for consideration:

    1999 77 Catches for 1,165 Yards 12TD's
    2000 87 Catches for 1,471 Yards 9 TD's
    2001 64 Catches for 1,106 Yards 6 TD's
    2002 79 Catches for 1,075 Yards 7 TD's
    2003 69 Catches for 981 Yards 5 TD's
    2004 89 Catches for 1,292 Yards 6 TD's

    I think these numbers speak for themselves and give an indication that Ike is most definitely not slowing down, losing a step or declining in production.

    You make the call.

  8. #68
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,814
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    Look folks, its late, and I've had about enough of this, so let me just give you all a cold slap of unrestrained candor here...

    Bruce is not the player he used to be. That said, he's still a capable and valuable player. The Rams, as a business, made an offer that reflects that status. Bruce rejected it. We don't know what he was asking for, but obviously it was more than the Rams felt it was appropriate to offer.

    Now, some of you want to take it out on the Front Office. You are so mad about the potential of losing Bruce that you'll lash out at them, along with anyone who might suggest that they are doing what is right for the team as a whole.

    We've seen this before... every time an aging player or a player who is overvalued in the free agent market is allowed or compelled to leave, there are always fans who will immediately blame the Front Office.

    Perhaps, in this case, both sides are at fault. My impression is that the lion's share of the blame is on Bruce's side - but that's just my opinion.

    However, when you start throwing out terms like "lowball" to describe the Rams offer, you are taking the position that the Rams either don't want Bruce back or want him back but want to screw him on his contract. There's no evidence that either of those scenarios is present here.

    I think the use of the term "lowball" in the context of the offer made is nonsense. I make no apologies for expressing my opinion in this regard.

    Instead of taking offense at this, or trying to deflect my pointed criticism by trying to make "BernieM" part of the discussion, why not actually support your position.

    Explain how, compared to the market for 33 year old receivers coming off an injury-plagued season in the salary cap age, the offer made to Bruce qualifies as a "lowball" offer.

    Nobody has explained that, and nobody can, because its... well... nonsense.

    Good night.
    The only reason I brought up the "Bernie M" threads is because you decided that the term "lowball" was nonsense. I pointed out that the real nonsense is your Bernie M obsession and fake threads, there's no deflection, you said enough already, this is nonsense, threw in some sarcasm after I said it was just my opinion, so I threw some back, and pointed out the real nonsense.

    Nick, r8rh8r, and myself have already explained it. Just because you don't agree and or choose to think it hasn't been explained when it has, well I can't help that. The Rams offering 2 mil for years 2 and 3 to Bruce is a steal for the Rams, below fair value, lowball offer, the Rams know it, and so does Ike. Bruce isn't a typical 33 year old WR that's on the market, so there aren't any fair comparisons to be made. If he was typical we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    Tre was running great against an awful NYG run defense. 5.8 YPC yet he only gets 13 carries. I can't wait until the Rams abandon you, Schotty.

  9. #69
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Look, this can all be summed up quite easily:

    Wait until Bruce signs a contract.

    If his deal averages more than $3 million per year or pays Bruce more than $5 million in guaranteed bonus money, then we'll know the Rams lowballed Bruce in an effort to save as much cap space as possible.

    If Bruce signs a deal here or elsewhere for less than what the Rams were offering, then we'll know the Rams made him a fair offer and should be congratulated for accurately gauging Bruce's market value.

    The only wrench to be thrown in this cog is if Bruce tests the market and chooses to take less money to sign with a contending team in hopes of winning another championship in the latter stages of his career, which is a possibility.

    But having listened to Sirius NFL Radio for a good portion of the day today, I'll say this - if the fan interest in Bruce is anything like the interest he's going to get from organizations, then I think it's very likely he gets a better contract than what we're offering him. Teams like Philadelphia, Atlanta, New England, Miami, Detroit, Denver, and even division rivals like Seattle and San Fransisco could all be serious contenders to sign Bruce, whom I think is the best free agent WR on the market.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #70
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    For what it's worth, there's no way the Rams lowballed him on their last contract offer. That offer compares very well with other top tier receivers around the league, and as an absolute value it is not lowball.

    You may be of the opinion that it doesn't reflect his previous performances and importance in terms of leadership, but I've never seen a business that rewards people for performances outside of a current appraisal year.

    Lowball is always used to infer sharp practice. I just don't see what the Rams have to gain by indulging in it. If they don't have cap room they were forced into it, if they do they're lowballing. Whatever happened to the middle ground and just being sensible? Look at the furore it's caused on this board, and across the league. As much as I feel the FO can stink the place up I don't think they're that dull.

    That offer also reflects the Rams need to move on in their succession plan, a plan that they absolutely must have. Curtis needs to be kept, Holt is gathering big money this year, Bruce is 33 and not going to get younger. It all goes back to that thread I posted a couple of weeks back, exactly when is the right time to start thinking these unthinkable thoughts? For some people, never..................

    I've seen some suggested rosters recently from folks who only want the best for this team.Most of them look like Madden rosters or fantasy football, how the hell would you pay for them? Unless your name is Snyder or you want to live in "cap hell" and do a Titans ,where it takes seasons of purgatory and several unpalatable releases to dig your way out, this kind of move on behalf of the Rams is sensible.

    Cold, but sensible.

    I want Isaac back, but want him to be true to his word and be "easy" about this. He's being anything but and must share some of the responsibility for this.

    $5mil ladies and gentlemen, when you have professed to be "easy" about it, is not chump change.
    Last edited by Fat Pang; -03-07-2006 at 10:10 AM.

  11. #71
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    This statement pretty much sums up the sticking point of this entire debate, and is a statement that is entirely open to interpretation.

    I offer the following for consideration:

    1999 77 Catches for 1,165 Yards 12TD's
    2000 87 Catches for 1,471 Yards 9 TD's
    2001 64 Catches for 1,106 Yards 6 TD's
    2002 79 Catches for 1,075 Yards 7 TD's
    2003 69 Catches for 981 Yards 5 TD's
    2004 89 Catches for 1,292 Yards 6 TD's

    I think these numbers speak for themselves and give an indication that Ike is most definitely not slowing down, losing a step or declining in production.

    You make the call.
    You forgot one:

    2005 35 Catches 525 Yards 3 TDs

    That was in 11 games (10 full games). Even if you take the per game average (based on the lower number, 10 games) and project it to a 16 game season, the totals for 2005 would still only be:

    56 Catches 840 Yards 5 TDs

    That's well below his average level of production and, more importantly, its nearly identical to the production of Kevin Curtis, who is several years younger than Bruce:

    2005 Curtis
    16 games (9 starts)
    60 Catches 801 Yards 6 TDs

    Curtis is only being paid $1.5 million this year, so I guess that's really a lowball offer, right?

  12. #72
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,050
    Rep Power
    172

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Look, this can all be summed up quite easily:

    Wait until Bruce signs a contract.

    If his deal averages more than $3 million per year or pays Bruce more than $5 million in guaranteed bonus money, then we'll know the Rams lowballed Bruce in an effort to save as much cap space as possible.
    To quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

    The Rams, who have an established #1 WR (Holt) and just resigned a very capable #2 WR (Curtis) offered Bruce 3 years, $9 Million ($5 Million for the first year).

    If a team like San Francisco, which does not have a clear, established, NFL #1 receiver, were to offer Bruce 3 years and $12 Million, with $6 million for the first year, that would not prove that the Rams' offer was a "lowball."

    It would only prove that San Francisco has a greater need for a WR of Bruce's caliber and, within their cap budget, they value his services at a higher price than the Rams do. In the long run, that might prove to be consistent with his performance, or it might prove to be a vast overpayment of an aging star.

    It seems like you think there are only two options: (1) offer as much as any other team might offer, or (2) lowball.

    There's a big range of offers that are above "lowball" level.

    If the Rams had offered Bruce a three year, $3 million deal, with a distribution of $1.5 Million/$1 Million/$500K, I'd say "that's a lowball offer."

    Three years, $9 Million ($5M/$2M/$2M), though perhaps not the most that any team would pay Bruce, is not a lowball offer.

    Which brings me back to my original point. What is Bruce's goal here?

    Does he want to simply make as much $ as he can before he retires? If so, I don't dispute his right to do that. But it would be inconsistent with his statements about being "easy" and wanting to retire a Ram.

    The Rams have already offered Bruce more than they'd offer any other 33 year old WR. Of that, I am supremely confident.

    If Bruce is not willing to accept that (or something close to that) because he wants to squeeze a few more dollars out of another team... again, that's his choice.

    But if that's the case, then I'd have to blame Bruce for his premature departure from the Rams.

  13. #73
    BernieM's Avatar
    BernieM is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    St. Louis
    Age
    49
    Posts
    222
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    I don't know what AvengerRam is talking about.

    Bruce has always been good at catching the low ball. He's also good at catching the high ball. He's good going over the middle and he's good on the outside. He's just good.

    What I don't understand is why everyone wants Bruce to retire a Ram. I don't think Bruce should be forced to retire this year at all.

  14. #74
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    It's simple.

    If the Rams were intent on not playing fair in these negotiations on the basis that they didn't want him back (after all, why the hell else would you do it?) why on earth would they tender an offer at all?

    Save yourself the effort just cut him.

    Again, $5 mil, in absolute terms is not anywhere near being "lowball". In relative terms it's more than fair.

    He was offered, he didn't sign, the onus lies with him.

    In answer to AV's question regarding Bruce and his possible goal, he may have felt that there was no way the team would cut him and that given the imminent deadline and the Rams cap room, he had the whip hand in any negotiations.

    This may be down to poor advice from his agent however.

    Now he's been disabused of that notion and promptly cut, discovering that there is interest out there, we may discover just how 'easy' Isaac may be.

    Not only might he receive a better offer ( marginally better IMO if anything) but he might be guaranteed the number one spot thereby accelerating his chances of first ballot election to the HOF.

    There's a lot for him to consider, and I for one hope he makes the right choice.

  15. #75
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,698
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: As it sinks in, I'm more and more angry at Bruce (and his agent)

    Maybe Bruce does not want to be involved with the Rams organization any longer?

    Maybe he is angry with them?

    Whatever the reasons are, I am of the opinion that the offer was quite fair and hardly "lowball".




Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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