Zyggy claims Rams did make Baker an offer

**Nick** · #1 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

Rams | Zygmunt responds
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:31:08 -0800

Jim Thomas, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports St. Louis Rams president of football operations Jay Zygmunt offered a different version of reality than the one presented by free agent P Jason Baker (Panthers) concerning Baker not signing with the Rams. Baker told the Post-Dispatch Thursday, March 23, that the Rams did not make him an offer. "We did make an offer," Zygmunt said Friday, March 24. "It's a joke. I think it's sort of funny. He certainly isn't the first player that rejected one of our offers, and I know that he won't be the last. That's his prerogative. That's part of the business. That's free agency. We wish him the best."

*general counsel* · #2 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

Hopefully, this will enable some of the critics of the front office on this alleged non offer to not jump the gun so quickly next time.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*RamsFan16* · #3 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

After this I'm taking no sides. This is what I'm leaving it at. Its to bad that we couldn't sign him, I wish we could have worked something out because I'm not at all happy with the Turk signing.

*sbramfan* · #4 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

There was something about Baker saying that they mentioned the league minimum or something and he thought they were joking?

Um, they fly you in and buy you a steak....I don't think they'd be joking about money.

But I agree, we should have signed him. It sounded like he wanted to be here, and that he is the better of the 2. We have run out of money and can no longer afford any quality players and are filling up the rest of the holes with guys who will sign for the minimum.

You gotta do what you gotta do, but once again, our priorities are on everything but special teams. It will probably bite us yet again.

*UtterBlitz* · #5 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

I'll be as critical of the front office as I want to be. They have earned no trust from me and the beautiful thing is that I don't work for them, so I can say whatever I want to say, unlike in the working world.

I certainly hope that they are not focusing on all the big money, big name deals and brushing off the small ones that still have big impact on the team. A punter is not a glamorous position, but it is one that can make a huge impact on where you are on the field.

Special teams is an important piece of the game and it is one that the Rams FO often neglects to consider.

*ramsbruce* · #6 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

Hopefully, this will enable some of the critics of the front office on this alleged non offer to not jump the gun so quickly next time.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

Exactly. We offered him a contract according to Ziggy, and it wasn't enough for him, so we move on. There are only a couple yards difference between Baker and Turk and people are acting like it's the end of the world. Baker has been on 5 teams in 5 years, what's the reason for this? Surely if he was as great as some make him out to be he would have stuck with a team longer than 1 year.

The front office has done a better job with filling holes this year than ever before. There should be no complaints about what they have done this year. Even if some of these signings don't work out, at least they tried this year, unlike the past.

*general counsel* · #7 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

Does it appear utter that they are ignoring the small stuff? We signed a corner for depth, we signed a #3 running back who plays special teams. There is a difference between saying we are ignoring it and that someone doesnt like the guy we signed to address it. We also resigned massey to a four year deal and resigned wahlroos, two key special teams guys for us.

I have never said that anyone shouldnt criticize the front office, that is certainly your and everyones perogative. The point i was making was that people jumped the gun on this one based on bakers statements that no offer was made when an offer was made according to the rams. The decision to pay the money or not pay the money is a fair game topic on which reasonable people can differ as far as i am concerned.

Ramming speed to all

general counsel

*RAMMAN68* · #8 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

I think the FO has done a good job thus far signing the right people for this team. Lets just hope this continues thru the draft.

*UtterBlitz* · #9 (**permalink**) -25-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

Does it appear utter that they are ignoring the small stuff? We signed a corner for depth, we signed a #3 running back who plays special teams. There is a difference between saying we are ignoring it and that someone doesnt like the guy we signed to address it. We also resigned massey to a four year deal and resigned wahlroos, two key special teams guys for us.

I really don't know how to answer this question gc. I don't know enough of the small stuff myself to know if they are paying attention to it or not. As much as I love the Rams, they are not my main focus in life. I am sure there must be lots and lots of small stuff that has impact on the team. Are they paying attention to it?

If we signed Fisher for special teams purposes, I say great. If he is the #3 RB, than I think we have people who don't know what they are doing running the show. Hey but this is just my opinion....

*tanus* · #10 (**permalink**) -26-03-2006

um, whats the problem in signing fisher to be the #3 RB?

*Scidog68* · #11 (**permalink**) -26-03-2006

Re: Smith signing-
"Plus, he was exceptional on special teams. I said from the beginning that our
depth players were going to impact our special teams and give us a boost there,
too. So that made him that much more attractive."

Small things, eh Utter?

*RAMMAN68* · #12 (**permalink**) -26-03-2006

I've seen Fisher play when he was on the Packers, and he seemed to do ok. He's still young and will help the ST. This not only fills a need, but also reduces a need to draft a RB. I'm not saying they won't , but it's not much of a priority.

*tim* · #13 (**permalink**) -26-03-2006

so much fuss over a punter with an ego...

*Varg6* · #14 (**permalink**) -26-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAMMAN68

I've seen Fisher play when he was on the Packers, and he seemed to do ok. He's still young and will help the ST. This not only fills a need, but also reduces a need to draft a RB. I'm not saying they won't , but it's not much of a priority.

yeah, its definitely a good idea, ESPECIALLY if Faulk doesn't come back, which I hope he does come back, but if not, we can rely on this guy...I hope this draft goes well, and we don't waste it on stupid guys like Jay Cutler...whom we don't need