No announcement yet.

More evidence of what this regime was afforded

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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?

    Keeping the Rams Nation Talking


    • #3
      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.


      Related Topics


      • RamWraith
        Contract info on Faulk
        by RamWraith
        This is what Howard Balzer is saying:

        Here are the facts as they relate to Faulk's contract (he would not count more this year than he already does if released or he retired):

        *The base salaries are not guaranteed.
        *He counts a little over $4 million against the cap this year. His abse salary is $1.9 million, but there is also a $100,000 reporting bonus to make his compensation this year $2 million.
        *If he were to retire or be released, the $2 million would disappear and the Rams would save $2 million against the cap. He would still count $2 million for his signbing bonus.
        *After this year, there is $4 million of bonus remaining to account for. However, to split it over 2007 and 2008 (assuming he can't play again) would mean waiting until after June 1 for him to be released or retire. Because his base salary in 2007 is $2.6 million, he would count $4.6 million for most of the off-season.
        Of course, he could retire or be released before June 1, and the hit would be $4 million, the same it would be if he were released or he retired now.

        There is no rush to do anything now because the Rams have the cap room to sign their draft picks. And, there are no players out there that would count $2 million against the cap this year. However, money is often needed during the season to replace injured players.

        Personally, I believe an excellent compromise on both sides is that Faulk agrees to reduce his base salary to the minimum ($810,000) or even $1 million, giving him money and the Rams $1 million extra in cap space.
        -07-22-2006, 10:27 AM
      • ZigZagRam
        Faulk's New Deal - The Article
        by ZigZagRam
        Faulk, Rams renegotiate contract
        By Jim Thomas
        Of the Post-Dispatch

        INDIANAPOLIS -- By signing what is believed to be a two-year, $6 million contract, running back Marshall Faulk is literally taking one for the team.

        It's not as if Faulk needs the money. After 11 seasons in the NFL, he has made millions upon millions over the course of his career.

        But as Rams coach Mike Martz said Thursday night at the NFL Scouting Combine, taking less money shows, ``that's who the guy is, and why it's hard not to have great admiration for him. Even with all the money he's made, (a pay cut) can still be a bitter pill to swallow for anyone of his stature.''

        According to team sources, Faulk is scheduled to make $2 million in base salary in both the 2005 and 2006 seasons. He also gets a signing bonus of $2 million.

        Before the restructuring, Faulk had just completed the third year of a seven-year deal. He was to have made $6 million in base salary and workout bonuses in '05 under the old contract, and was to have counted $7.527 million against the cap.

        Including unamortized signing bonuses from past contracts, money which must be counted into the cap figures for the new two-deal, the Rams still save about $1.5 million in cap money this season.

        ``This really helps with the cap,'' Martz said. ``This puts us in position for free agency.''

        It also all but ensures that Faulk will retire as a Ram, whether it be at the end of the '05 season or at the conclusion of the '06 campaign.

        ``It's important to all of us, obviously, that this ends up the right way,'' Martz said.

        Martz said he met with Faulk a few weeks ago in San Diego to discuss the contract restructuring, and also the reduced role for Faulk in the backfield behind Steven Jackson.

        ``I wanted to make sure he was very clear about what was going on,'' Martz said.

        Interestingly, Martz said it was Faulk who actually approached him during the 2004 season about moving Jackson into a more prominent role in the backfield.

        ``He said, `I can see where this is going,' '' Martz said. `` `Steven needs to have a larger role.' But he also thought that it could lengthen his career and help him have more of an impact.''

        Faulk's production has dropped steadily since the Rams' 2001 Super Bowl season. His rushing yards have dipped from 953 in '02, to 818 yards in '03, to 774 yards in '04. At the same time, his yards per catch as a receiver has dropped from 6.7 in '02, to 6.4 in '03, to 6.2 in '04.

        But Martz feels that Faulk, who turns 32 Saturday, can still be an effective back if used properly.

        ``If he had had (knee) surgery at the end of the year, maybe not,'' Martz said. ``But he's healthy for the first time in four years. He feels great. Hopefully, we...
        -02-24-2005, 07:16 PM
      • RamWraith
        Salary cap is obstacle for Rams
        by RamWraith
        By Jim Thomas
        Of the Post-Dispatch
        Thursday, Jan. 27 2005

        In today's NFL, it's no longer the offseason. It's the business season. And now
        that the Rams' season is over, the challenge for team management, the personnel
        department and the coaching staff is to improve the roster within the
        ever-tightening constraints of the salary cap.

        The Rams have 44 players under contract for the 2005 season or beyond. Those
        players count $71.3 million against a 2005 cap that is expected to be around
        $86 million. That leaves the Rams with nearly $15 million to fill out their
        53-man roster, assemble a practice squad and replace injured players during the
        Jay Zygmunt, the Rams' president of football operations, has skillfully managed
        the salary cap during the team's 10-year stay in St. Louis. But largely because
        of last June's release of Kurt Warner, what's known as "dead money" is becoming
        an issue in the team's salary cap picture.
        Dead money is money that counts against a team's salary cap for players no
        longer with the team. All told, the Rams have $7,774,000 in dead money, which
        is roughly 9 percent of their projected 2005 cap: Warner counts $6.7 million
        against the cap; center Dave Wohlabaugh counts $1 million; and safety Jason
        Shivers counts $74,000.
        The total in dead money could climb, depending on whether offensive tackle Kyle
        Turley and running back Marshall Faulk return. Early indications are that Faulk
        will be back, but Turley seems intent on talking his way out of town, even if
        his back is healthy.
        As things stand, the Rams have six players under contract who count $4.5
        million or higher against the cap in 2005:

        Wide receiver Isaac Bruce: $9.34 million.

        Faulk: $7.53 million.

        Warner: $6.72 million.

        Turley: $5.57 million.

        Defensive end Leonard Little: $5 million.

        Wide receiver Torry Holt: $4.52 million.

        Combined, those six players account for $38.68 million of 2005 cap space.
        That's a lot of money for a handful of players. Only four teams in the NFL have
        more than six players under contract who count $4.5 million or more against the
        cap in 2005: Cleveland, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Tennessee have seven
        apiece. (The league average is four such players per team.)
        Now assume for a moment that the Rams place the franchise tag on left tackle
        Orlando Pace for the third consecutive season. Team president John Shaw
        consistently has said the team will do just that if unable to reach agreement
        on a multiyear deal. Whether Pace's lackluster play in the Rams' playoff loss
        to Atlanta changes Shaw's mind is uncertain.
        In the 2005 season, a franchise...
        -01-28-2005, 04:46 AM
      • RamWraith
        Howard on the cap situation
        by RamWraith
        Howard has this to say;

        According to my figures, the Rams have 32 players under contract for 2006 with a cap charge of around $71 million. I am not sure of the cap hits for McCollum, Trev Faulk and Noll, but the other 29 players count $69.7 million.

        That doesn't include the $5.7 million charge for Turley. There's probably some other dead money, but not much. It also doesn't include tenders to restricted free agents Curtis, Furrey, Groce, Harris, Chris Johnson, McDonald and Aaron Walker; if they tender them all. If Curtis gets the middle tender and the others get the lowest, that's about $5 million. There are 11 potential exclusive rights free agents. Their tenders would be at the minimum salary, but even at an average of $300,000 a player, if all get tenders, that's another $3.3 million.

        Here are some decisions to watch regarding roster bonuses due: Butler, $2M; Claiborne, $500,000; Timmerman, $500,000; Coakley, $250,000; M. Faulk, $100,000; Bruce, $1.5M.

        Bruce counts $10.04 million, and $8M of it is in that roster bonus and base salary. If the Rams extended his contract two years and guarantee $7M of the $8M, and paid him the minimum base salary this year, his cap charge would fall to about $5M this year.

        The Rams currently have four offensive players (Bruce, Holt, ace and Bulger) that count $32M against the cap. Throw in Faulk and Timmerman and it's $39.1M.
        -01-24-2006, 01:34 PM
      • RamsFan16
        Rams | M. Faulk potential cap victim
        by RamsFan16
        Rams | M. Faulk potential cap victim
        Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:21:56 -0800

        The New York Times reports St. Louis Rams RB Marshall Faulk is a potential salary cap victim.

        If this happened. Do you know how many fans would be pissed?
        -03-02-2006, 09:25 PM