Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

    Here are two recent comments regarding the Rams' ability to sign Sam Bradford if they draft him in Round 1:

    First, Statement #1:
    Bradford’s contract strategy already is the topic of brewing of speculation in NFL circles. There’s chatter that Bradford will refuse to sign a deal with the Rams before the draft. If Bradford doesn’t sign in advance, he gains leverage — because the Rams would be under the gun to get their franchise QB into a routine as soon as possible to maximize his rookie-year development. If Bradford held out a long time — even as far as holding out from training camp — it would be a public-relations nightmare for the Rams.
    Kind of a scary prospect, huh? Makes you wonder whether the Rams should take Bradford, doesn't it?

    Now here's Statement #1:
    Again, much overreaction over very little. The Rams are prepared to pay what it takes to sign Bradford. If his agents want to play a little game, good for them. But he'll get signed. The agent gains leverage if Bradford waits until after the draft to talk contract.
    Well, that one isn't too bad, is it? Sounds like this commentator is aware of the possible bargaining tactics, but isn't too worried about it impacting the Rams' ability to select and sign Bradford.

    These two statements were published within hours of each other.

    So... who is the author of Statement #1?

    Bernie Miklasz.

    And... who is the author of Statement #2?

    Bernie Miklasz.

    WHAT!??!?!? How could this be? How could the same person publish a nightmare scenario in one article, then post on his message board that the Rams aren't worried about such scenarios??????

    Could it be that he (along with several other writers from tabloid sites like PFT and from wishful-thinking Washington sportswriters) is just trying to stir up some controversy to keep interest up in the three weeks remaining before the draft?

    Who cares about honesty, real sources, or reasoned analysis. Just throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see if it sticks.

    If the Rams don't take Bradford (and I'd say its about a 95% chance that they will), it will be either because they get a "can't refuse" trade offer or because something happens to call Bradford's health into question. They're not going to pass on the guy because they're worried that his agent will try to get top dollar. That is entirely expected.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

    I agree with everything you said Av, but you know me, I worry about every little thing. It just pains me to see speculation like this for the Rams. It seems like it's never smooth-sailing for us, there's always drama and it stresses us fans out. I know that there is more than likely little to no merit with half of these articles but it does make one wonder...

    I'm not going to say, "Well, if Bradford or his agent aren't commenting on this it obviously isn't true." but at the same time I'm not going to believe everything I read...

    As a fan you can't help but be excited to think perhaps we have our QB of the Future and I'd just like to not have so much other crap attached to it.
    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

      I don't see why Bradford wouldn't sign a deal with the Rams. We'll probably offer him an 80 million dollar, 6 year deal with 45 million guaranteed. This is probably the last year he'll get that kind of money as I expect a rookie pay-scale to come in. He'd be stupid to hold out and re-enter the draft next year because not only will he be picked later, he'll also make much less money. He also doesn't seem like the type and he and Spags have met a couple times and seem to get along pretty well (Spags was the first NFL rep to congratulate Bradford after his workout). Also, in all the interviews, Bradford talks about how he'd fit in well for the Rams.

      I'm not worried, I think Bradford and the Rams will have an agreement in place before his workout and it will get signed after the private workout, 3 days before the draft. They'll negotiate with Suh, and take calls for the pick just in case, but I don't expect this to be a problem.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

        Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
        So... who is the author of Statement #1?

        Bernie Miklasz.

        And... who is the author of Statement #2?

        Bernie Miklasz.

        WHAT!??!?!?
        You dont know how hard im laughing right now. People at the library are starring at me.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

          the more i read about washington and shanahans expertise...the more i worrty that maybe he is a better fit there but i doubt the rams will let it slide

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

            The "better fit" stuff is speculation as well.

            How about this one...

            Would Bradford, who is part Cherokee, want to play for the "Redskins"???

            Oooooooooh.... intriguing!

            Or not.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

              Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
              The "better fit" stuff is speculation as well.

              How about this one...

              Would Bradford, who is part Cherokee, want to play for the "Redskins"???

              Oooooooooh.... intriguing!

              Or not.
              Well, we can certainly rule out the Cowboys then. And I bet he can't wait to get a shot at Buffalo; he'll kill 'em!
              The more things change, the more they stay the same.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                Or... maybe Bradford is worried that he'll get sacked more in St. Louis. After all, the Rams must have given up more sacks than the Redskins last year, right?

                Wrong.

                Rams: 44 sacks allowed in 583 pass attempts.

                Redskins: 46 sacks allowed in 579 pass attempts.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                  Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
                  Or... maybe Bradford is worried that he'll get sacked more in St. Louis. After all, the Rams must have given up more sacks than the Redskins last year, right?

                  Wrong.

                  Rams: 44 sacks allowed in 583 pass attempts.

                  Redskins: 46 sacks allowed in 579 pass attempts.
                  lmao man i love u modulators...keep this board grounded....man these rumors are hectic!.... i just hope this damn ownership thing plays out well and soon....gawd i hate Adam Shefter

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                    Very nice thread

                    Avenger your on a roll today

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                      Originally posted by ludairv View Post
                      lmao man i love u modulators...keep this board grounded....man these rumors are hectic!.... i just hope this damn ownership thing plays out well and soon....gawd i hate Adam Shefter
                      You know, Schefter did say we were taking your boy Bradford back a couple of months ago.

                      EDIT-and I would like to know if we do have a "no we're not going above this" salary number on the first round pick. If Bradford insists on $85-$90 million and there is no price ceiling, well....hopefully there isn't a salary cap any time soon.

                      /Personally, I'd get firm numbers from both Suh and McCoy and tell Bradford, "we're paying you in the vicinity of this."
                      Last edited by PeoriaRam; -03-30-2010, 02:21 PM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                        Originally posted by PeoriaRam View Post
                        You know, Schefter did say we were taking your boy Bradford back a couple of months ago.
                        ya and apparently everyone else is now....: S guess he lucked out? lol:|

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                          I can also be a rebel and say in 20 years I'll still be alive and wearing a hat, if im right, if anyone remembered me saying it, it'd be at least weird or thought provoking. if im wrong, who cares?

                          Schefter just heard from Devaney that the Rams were very interested in Bradford from some guy in the Rams camp. Seems to have got it right, yay....

                          AV beat me to the sack number but Redskins had most of their starters the entire season including Campbell. We tallied a ridiculous amount of sacks in a few games including 8 in one game because our line was utterly depleted..

                          Kind of says alot when their guy still gets sacked more than ours.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                            Originally posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
                            I can also be a rebel and say in 20 years I'll still be alive and wearing a hat, if im right, if anyone remembered me saying it, it'd be at least weird or thought provoking. if im wrong, who cares?

                            Schefter just heard from Devaney that the Rams were very interested in Bradford from some guy in the Rams camp. Seems to have got it right, yay....

                            AV beat me to the sack number but Redskins had most of their starters the entire season including Campbell. We tallied a ridiculous amount of sacks in a few games including 8 in one game because our line was utterly depleted..

                            Kind of says alot when their guy still gets sacked more than ours.
                            Not necessarily. Did Washington change their entire offense prior to the start of the season to emphasize, almost exclusively, quickly developing short pass plays and handing off to the tailback? Sacks alone don't tell the whole story.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Bradford Contract: Which is the more reasonable statement?

                              Here are some recent QB deals signed

                              Jamarcus Russell 68 mil with, 31.5mil guaranteed
                              Matthew Stafford 72 mil(could be 78), 41 mil guaranteed
                              Ben Roethlisberger 102 mil 33.2 mil guaranteed
                              Philip Rivers 98 mil 38.2 mil guaranteed
                              Eli Manning 107 mil 35 mil guaranteed

                              My guess is Bradford is going to make 75-80 mil. The guaranteed money is where there is going to be hangups IMO. He is going to make 41 plus, but how much more is going to be where the hangup is, especially with Rivers being the most recently signed deal. Russell to Stafford went up 10 mil in guaranteed. It Will ultimately end being somewhere between 41-52 mil but it could be a struggle to get there.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse
                              • MauiRam
                                Bernie: Bradford should cut Rams a break
                                by MauiRam
                                By Bernie Miklasz

                                Oh, goodie ... it's your lucky day! Time for another hot take on Rams quarterback Sam Bradford. And I'm sure there will be many more before he moves on, or the Rams move on, or whatever happens next in their unfortunate, unsuccessful relationship.

                                Let's start by getting a several preliminaries out of the way:

                                * Bradford is entering the final season of his six-year rookie deal worth $76 million. Bradford is scheduled to make $12.985 million in salary this season, but he'll count $16.58 million against the team's salary cap.

                                * It's not Bradford's fault that he got stuck with a terrible football team, or that he was the last No. 1 overall draft pick before the NFL and the NFL players' union changed the system for rookie compensation in 2011. Bradford's $76 million was pretty much locked in as soon as the Rams picked him at the top of the 2010 draft. There were no negotiations. He was going make as much money as a Wal Mart heir no matter what he did during the life of the contract.

                                * Our Jim Thomas -- the former star running back at Southwest High School on the city's south side -- has reported, on multiple occasions, that the Rams would like Bradford to restructure the contract and play 2015 at a lower salary.

                                * Our man Thomas also reports that the Rams and Bradford's agent Tom Condon have been unable to reach an agreement. There is resistance in the Bradford camp.

                                * Despite the fact that Bradford has had two knee surgeries ... since the fall of 2013 ... and that he's missed the last 25 regular season games ... and that he has started only 49 of a possible 80 games during his first five seasons ... and that his injury problems date back to his final season of college ball and missing most of the games at Oklahoma in 2009 ... the Rams LOVE him. Coach Jeff Fisher and GM Les Snead and offensive coordinator Frank Cignetti and QB coach Chris Weinke have all made that abundantly clear. To quote the famous poet 50 Cent, the Rams' bosses LOVE Sam Bradford the way a fat kid love cake. (And I do love cake, by the way.) Heck, Fisher basically sought Bradford's approval before promoting Cignetti and hiring Weinke.

                                * When the Rams' folks talk about Bradford, I have to go for the Q tips to clean my ears and make sure I'm hearing things correctly; the Indy Colts don't carry on about Andrew Luck the way the Rams slobber over Bradford. My late father Bernie Sr. never talked about Johnny Unitas the way Fisher pumps up Bradford.

                                * It's one of the most remarkable things I've seen, considering that the Rams have WON 18 GAMES WITH BRADFORD AS A STARTING QB since the beginning of the 2010 season. ... yes, a whopping 18 WINS ... Goodness, the way this is going, I fully expect Rams owner Stan Kroenke to go to Bradford to seek Sam's permission to move the team to Los Angeles or keep it in St. Louis. I'm surprised that Rams Chief...
                                -03-06-2015, 12:00 AM
                              • Nick
                                More rumblings about Bradford not signing before the draft
                                by Nick
                                Take it for what it's worth. Best case scenario, we add another name to the list of those we can chuckle at if Bradford does, in fact, sign prior to the draft. But there are some interesting points in there (ie. leverage, etc)....
                                -04-15-2010, 10:09 AM
                              • r8rh8rmike
                                The Daily Bernie Bytes: Why Bradford Isn't A Lock
                                by r8rh8rmike
                                03.30.2010 10:30 am
                                The Daily Bernie Bytes: Why Bradford Isn’t a Lock
                                By Bernie Miklasz


                                Good morning…

                                With so much Sam Bradford hysteria swirling, I thought it might be interesting to go the other way. While I believe Bradford is well on track to be the Rams’ pick (No. 1 overall) on April 22, let’s identify reasons why things could change.

                                1. A trade down. In the words of Rams’ GM Billy Devaney: “Every man has his price. If some team wants to pay a king’s ransom for the pick, we’ll listen.” The Rams have many holes. They need players. They’d benefit from having extra, premium choices in what’s been touted as a deep draft. This is another reason why the Rams were so thrilled by Bradford’s excellent showing on Pro Day; the display only enhanced his value. Is trading Bradford a realistic option? Well, probably not but …

                                2. The Washington Redskins have the 4th overall pick and seem to be keen on Bradford. They seem to want him. At least that’s the buzz out of Washington. And has been for some time. Based on his history in Denver, new Redskins head coach Mike Shanahan isn’t shy about taking a chance to get a coveted quarterback. In Denver he did business with the Rams, trading up a few spots to draft QB Jay Cutler in 2006. (The Rams ended up with CB bust Tye Hill.) And then there’s Redskins owner Daniel Snyder. He’s among the most aggressive NFL owners. He does not hesitate to be bold, or to throw money around. If any owner would push for a high-stakes trade to snatch that No. 1 overall pick from St. Louis, it’s Snyder. And if the Rams have any thoughts about dealing the pick, their unease would be comforted by having to slide down to Washington’s Np. 4 spot. The Rams wouldn’t want to move too far down in the first round. Would the Rams be happy to take, say, Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen with the No. 4 overall pick? I don’t sense a lot of excitement at Rams Park over Clausen, but he’s yet to have his official visit and sitdown with Rams’ folks in St. Louis. BTW: The Redskins are hosting Bradford on April 14.

                                3. Suppose Bradford really, really wants to play for the Redskins? And why wouldn’t he? I mean, seriously. If you’re Bradford, who would you want in charge of your development: Mike Shanahan or Rams QB coach Dick Curl? Moreover, Mike Shanahan’s offensive coordinator is his son, Kyle Shanahan, who last season coordinated the NFL’s top passing attack (in terms of total yards) in Houston. Who would you want to play for: a team that’s close to contending, or a team that’s 6-42 over the last three seasons? Who would you want to play for: a financially elite franchise with a secure future and locked-in owner or a declining franchise that’s being sold, is in transition, and does not have a long-term owner in place? Please. I wouldn’t blame the kid if he wanted to go to Washington. And then there’s this: the esteemed Dr. James Andrews, who performed...
                                -03-30-2010, 11:07 AM
                              • VegasRam
                                Bernie on Bradford
                                by VegasRam
                                Bradford a good fit for Rams, Midwest

                                Sports Columnist Bernie Miklasz
                                [More columns]
                                By Bernie Miklasz
                                ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
                                04/25/2010

                                For a young man who would grow up to become a St. Louis quarterback, Sam Bradford was born under a good sign.

                                Sam's date of birth was Nov. 8, 1987.

                                On that very Sunday afternoon, within the cookie-cutter confines of Busch Stadium II, the old St. Louis football Cardinals pulled off the greatest fourth-quarter comeback in NFL history.

                                After three quarters, the Cardinals were seemingly down and out, trailing the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 28-3. But quarterback Neil Lomax threw a touchdown pass to tight end Rob Awalt, linebacker Niko Noga returned a fumble for a touchdown, and Lomax connected with wide receiver J.T. Smith for late TD passes of 11 and 17 yards. Amazingly, the Cardinals prevailed 31-28.
                                "A miracle," Smith said after the game.

                                And 500 miles away in Oklahoma City, a child was born …

                                OK, I'm getting carried away.

                                However, it really was Bradford's birthday, and the Cardinals really did erase a 25-point deficit in 12 minutes.

                                I'm just saying.

                                But we can agree that Bradford is the so-called face of the franchise now. No disrespect to running back Steven Jackson, who is the force of the franchise. The Rams' best player. But SJ39 has been around since 2004, and the Rams are 6-42 over the last three seasons. So the No. 1 overall draft pick instantly becomes the symbol of a new era, a symbol of hope.

                                The early returns are encouraging for the Rams, who fielded hundreds of phone calls inquiring about season tickets in the first 48 hours after Bradford was selected No. 1 overall. Friday night, the Rams carted Bradford to a VIP reception for sponsors and suite holders at Grant's Farm. There, Bradford received an enthusiastic greeting as he briefly spoke to a crowd of 350.

                                It was a sign that the Rams plan to market Bradford to pump up interest and ticket sales. Which is a smart plan. But Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff says Bradford is just one part of a wider marketing strategy that will feature Jackson and several of the team's emerging stars including James Laurinaitis, Jason Smith, Chris Long, Donnie Avery, etc.

                                "That said, there's genuine excitement in the community over the Bradford pick," Demoff said. "We hope it provides the kind of energy we can build on. As we start a youth movement, this is the piece that helps tie it together."

                                Bradford is aware of his off-field value to a franchise that must replenish its customer base. But he won't lose sight of a more important priority.

                                "Obviously, I do understand that there are certain responsibilities that come with that, but I'm a team guy," Bradford said. "I love being...
                                -06-02-2010, 08:27 AM
                              • Varg6
                                Talk mounts that Bradford won't sign a pre-draft contract
                                by Varg6
                                Talk mounts that Bradford won't sign a pre-draft contract

                                Posted by Mike Florio on March 29, 2010 7:55 PM ET
                                Amid reports that the Rams are talking to the agents for multiple players who could be the first overall pick in the 2010 draft, there's increasing chatter that, as to one of the players, there may not be much to discuss.

                                We're hearing from multiple league and media sources that Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford could refuse to sign a pre-draft contract with the Rams.

                                In the past four drafts, the only top pick not signed in advance of the commencement of the selection process was Raiders quarterback JaMarcus Russell. He ultimately held out into the regular season.

                                If Bradford declines to agree to terms before being picked, and if the Rams ultimately don't select him, Bradford would slide to the Redskins at No. 4, at worst. (He also could end up going second or third, if a team that needs a quarterback moves up.) Operating from the four hole, Bradford likely would then attempt to invoke the so-called "quarterback premium" in the hopes of getting more than the first overall pick, just as Matt Ryan did from the third spot two years ago.

                                If the Rams pick Bradford without a contract in place, the leverage then flips to the player, with the Rams compelled to get the guy signed in the hopes of justifying the pick and turning around a franchise that seems far longer than a decade removed from a Super Bowl win.

                                We also don't rule out the Rams picking Bradford and then attempting to trade him, like the Chargers did six years ago with Eli Manning.

                                Either way, Adam Schefter's prediction could end up being wrong -- but not because Bradford won't be regarded as the best player in the draft. The Rams could decide that they won't take Bradford if he makes it clear that he won't sign a contract.
                                -03-29-2010, 06:19 PM
                              Working...
                              X