Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Balzer, Wagoner, and others on Bradford & rumors & contract talks
- This topic has 19 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
Herzog.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 18, 2015 at 2:48 pm #18676
znModeratorSnead says he’s not ready to ‘delete’ Sam Bradford
By Howard Balzer
INDIANAPOLIS — Rams general manager Les Snead was nearly through his 15-minute session with the media Wednesday at the NFL Scouting Combine when he was asked about a report from cbssports.com that the team had given quarterback Sam Bradford permission to seek a trade.
Never mind that another team trading for a player coming off his second torn ACL as a pro and entering the final season of a contract that pays him just under $13 million makes little sense. It was left to Snead to react sarcastically to the NFL’s never-ending, 24/7 reporting cycle by saying, “That’s breaking news is what that is. You know what I mean?”
Earlier in comments about Bradford, Snead had said: “Let’s don’t delete him; that’s not the answer. I think the answer is providing insurance in case you go through more bad luck.”
Then, after his “breaking news” comment, Snead reiterated: “I did say deleting him is not the answer. I don’t know if that solves our riddle. He’s a good quarterback. If some team was interested, I don’t blame them, but I’ll stick to what I said earlier: Deleting him is not the answer.”
The quarterback conundrum is the most pressing issue the Rams’ hierarchy faces this offseason. Bradford is the only quarterback under contract on the St. Louis roster. Shaun Hill is scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent, while Austin Davis will be restricted. But it’s entirely possible both will be back with the Rams this fall — as backups to Bradford.
Snead said the dialogue has begun regarding a contract restructuring that would lower Bradford’s salary. He also said talks are ongoing with Hill and that the club is close to deciding the tender Davis will receive. The lowest tender would be about $1.6 million, which would net the Rams no compensation if Davis were to receive an offer from another team — an offer the Rams assuredly would elect not to match because he entered the league as an undrafted free agent.
A tender of about $2.4 million would result in a second-round pick as compensation. “We haven’t totally decided yet, but we have a good feel for it,” Snead said.
The Bradford situation could be sensitive depending on how much of a cut the Rams want him to take and what the level of performance bonuses would be to earn some, if not all, of the money back. It’s certainly plausible that agent Tom Condon has been given the go-ahead to gauge the level of interest around the league.
Still, it’s noteworthy that the source of the report, Jason La Canfora, interviewed Snead on a cbssports.com podcast just minutes before the report was tweeted, and that Snead told La Canfora the team wants Bradford back.
That’s clearly what the Rams want, but Bradford has a certain amount of leverage because the reality is that the pool of veteran quarterbacks and rookies might not provide the team with an upgrade over Hill and Davis.
“Deleting them is not the answer, either,” Snead said. “The pool of (available) quarterbacks is usually the slimmest of any of the pools of players, and that definitely comes into play. But let’s get Sam healthy and when he’s healthy let’s let him go compete because he has the chance to be a heck of a starting quarterback.”
Perhaps Snead’s most eye-opening comment was that keeping Hill and Davis wouldn’t rule out other options.
“Let those guys evolve and you bring in some more,” he said. “Let’s have a starting pitching lineup of QBs. There’s some reasoning behind it. You may keep more quarterbacks on your roster so if you draft one, you go with one you need to develop and have the time to develop him.”
Yet, Snead acknowledged again that more might not mean better. “Quarterbacks are hard to find,” he said. “You have to turn over every stone. There are a lot of avenues where you can add options. There are a lot of stones to turn over, but people don’t want to give you good quarterbacks.”
When it was noted that there don’t appear to be many stones out there, Snead laughed. “Oh, there’s stones out there,” he said, “but when you turn them over, there’s nothing under them.”
February 18, 2015 at 2:48 pm #18643znModeratorJason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora
Sam Bradford has permission to seek a trade. Finding compensation to Rams’ liking will be difficult. But his agent can speak to other teams
In the end, Rams working out a restructured contract w/Bradford still may be most likely outcome. Thought it’s been slow process thus far
I doubt there’s a team that will value Bradford more than the Rams do, and GM Les Snead told us he wants Sam back. Few QB options out there
====
round The NFL @AroundTheNFL
Les Snead makes light of report of Sam Bradford being given permission to seek trade. “Deleting him is not the answer.”
Chris Burke @ChrisBurke_SI
Les Snead asked about Bradford rumors. Kinda, sorta denied them. “Wouldn’t blame a team for being interested. Deleting him not the answer.”
Dan Hanzus @DanHanzus
Sounds like the Rams are taking extremely cautious approach with Sam Bradford ACL recovery. This makes sense, given history involved.
====
Rams QB Sam Bradford has permission to seek trade
by Igor Mello | CBSSports.com
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 2:18 PM ET
Rams quarterback Sam Bradford has permission to request a trade, and his agent will speak with other teams this offseason, reports CBSSports.com NFL Insider Jason La Canfora. Because the Rams may have a high asking price for Bradford, the team may prefer to restructure his deal, which could be the most likely outcome, according to La Canfora.
In response to La Canfora’s report, general manager Les Snead said “deleting him (from the roster) is not the answer,” per the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram.
Bradford, the No. 1 overall draft pick by the Rams in 2010, is coming off his second torn ACL in as many years, and is scheduled to make $12.98 million in base salary in 2015, the last year of his contract. Releasing Bradford would save the team $12.98 million of Bradford’s $16.6 million cap charge. Bradford has a career 58.6 completion percentage with 11,065 yards and 59 touchdowns.
===
February 18, 2015 at 3:01 pm #18644
znhaterBlockedWell well, very interesting. I wondered if it wasn’t lip service saying they were going with him.
February 18, 2015 at 3:07 pm #18645znModeratorWell well, very interesting. I wondered if it wasn’t lip service saying they were going with him.
None of this changes anything. That is, nothing said here changes anything.
The player may use seeking a trade as a means of testing his market choices. (If in fact that’s even true.) The TEAM didn’t say they WOULD trade him or were interested in trading him…in fact, they say the opposite.
If a team wants to trade a player, they just do it…they don’t have the player do it, as a rule.
This looks to be mostly about testing market value as part of a negotiation process as they work on an extension or re-structured deal.
February 18, 2015 at 3:16 pm #18646znhaterBlockedOk, but if he is seeking a trade that says Alot imo. Snead said they gave the agent permission so it must have some legs.
February 18, 2015 at 3:17 pm #18647
joemadParticipantSince his second knee injury in Cleveland, I’ve often thought about how Bradford feels about staying with the Rams.
1) Does he feel snake bit in STL
2) Does he look forward to playing in STL in potentially a lame duck season in a half empty home stadium or a stadium that consists of 50% opposing fans?
3) if given the option would he rather play with the Jets, Tampa, Titans, Bears, Texans or even Cleveland markets that have more passion for the team?Personally I love the guy to be the RAMS starter, but has anyone thought about how he feels after being in STL for 5 years with really nothing to show for except for bad luck? I know football players are not as superstitious are baseball, but maybe he wants a change of scenery…..
February 18, 2015 at 3:20 pm #18649znModeratorPersonally I love the guy to be the RAMS starter, but has anyone thought about how he feels after being in STL for 5 years with really nothing to show for except for bad luck?
I’ve thought about that, and listened to him while I was thinking about that. Fwiw, this is what I came away with–he is dedicated to coming back, feels there’s unfinished business, likes this team, and recognizes what continuing with the same players and same system means.
What I see here? “Seeking permission to trade” is just the agent playing hardball trying to get his client a good deal.
Nothing in this indicates he wants to go, or that the Rams want him to go.
February 18, 2015 at 3:21 pm #18650
wvParticipantWell well, very interesting. I wondered if it wasn’t lip service saying they were going with him.
Enh. I think the “permission to seek a trade” stuff
is meaningless. I think its just kinda
“standard procedure” for this kind of situation.
Let the agents test the waters to get an idea
of his worth, etc.w
vFebruary 18, 2015 at 4:12 pm #18654znModeratorOk, but if he is seeking a trade that says Alot imo. Snead said they gave the agent permission so it must have some legs.
Well the way I see it, he’s not seeking a trade. For one thing, apparently the report is not true; and for another, the “permission to seek a trade” thing means the agent is trying to get a picture of the market. For him to actually seek a trade the Rams would have to be willing to do it…and, they have given no indication of that. The language for what you’re talking about is “XYZ wants to be traded.” That would make it sound less like a pure negotiating tactic.
Anyway here’s JT on that.
Jim Thomas @jthom1
Rams GM emphatically denies that Bradford has been given permission to seek a trade. Says the Rams aren’t “deleting” Bradford from roster.
February 18, 2015 at 4:51 pm #18656
DakParticipantHe’s probably been given permission to test the waters as to what other teams would be willing to pay him if they acquired him in a trade. That would mean that teams would have to be willing to trade for him, but also realize that they wouldn’t necessarily meet the Rams’ asking price. It’s kind of a way of testing what Bradford’s value might be on the open market if he were actually on the open market. Who knows? Maybe someone makes the Rams an offer they can’t refuse? I would think that offer would have to include a veteran QB who could start now plus draft choices. In this year’s draft, those choices don’t seem as valuable as normal, especially at QB.
February 18, 2015 at 8:39 pm #18672znModeratorLes Snead offers more support for Sam Bradford
By Nick Wagoner | ESPN.com
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/
INDIANAPOLIS — St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher offered strong support for quarterback Sam Bradford last Friday as he introduced Frank Cignetti as the team’s offensive coordinator. On Wednesday, general manager Les Snead did the same at Lucas Oil Stadium.
Amidst reports that the Rams gave Bradford permission to seek a trade, Snead was asked repeatedly where he sees Bradford in the team’s future. And each time, his answer was clear.
“I did say deleting him is not our answer,” Snead said. “I don’t know that that (trading him) solves our riddle. … He’s a good player. If some team was interested I certainly don’t blame them. But I’ll stick to what I said earlier, deleting him is not the answer.”
If indeed the Rams believe that to be true — and everything they’ve said and done this offseason would indicate it is — then reports of a trade have little to do with actually trying to trade Bradford and everything to do with helping to gauge what his price tag will be for 2015.
As it stands, Bradford is scheduled to count $16.58 million against the cap. The Rams have made it clear that’s a number they would like to reduce. And though in-person discussions with agent Tom Condon might not happen this week, the line of communication between the two sides is open.
“We’ve had dialogue with Sam and his people so you might need to talk to his people about that,” Snead said.
So, what then, does either side have to gain by allowing Condon to see Bradford’s value in potential trades? Well, the Rams wouldn’t say no if a team came and blew them away with an offer but the more likely outcome is that Condon’s side can use the time to figure out what a realistic price for Bradford would be if he were to hit the open market.
Once that’s established, the two sides could then use that number to come to a fair agreement to keep Bradford in St. Louis. In short, there’s still some work to be done in terms of bringing Bradford back at an agreeable price but the fact remains that barring a major upset, he’ll remain in St. Louis with plenty of other options behind him.
“So let’s don’t delete him,” Snead said. “I don’t think that’s the answer. I think the answer is providing insurance in case we do go through more bad luck. Let’s rehab (Bradford). Let’s see if he can reach his potential. But let’s do insure the position.”
February 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm #18673znhaterBlockedI for one will be glad when he’s gone. Five years of him has been enough for me. Fisher is really going out on a limb sticking with him imo. Oh well.
February 18, 2015 at 9:39 pm #18675
WinnbradParticipantHis agent is seeing what he can get for Bradford. That’s the agent’s job.
If a team is willing to give up a LOT for Bradford, the Rams will trade him. All it takes is the right price.
But the Rams ain’t trading Bradford.
Let the hardball begin.
February 18, 2015 at 10:03 pm #18679znModeratorplaceholder (it’s technical)
February 18, 2015 at 10:07 pm #18681znModeratorIMO Balzer’s is the best article on this.
February 19, 2015 at 1:26 am #18688znModeratorBradford’s not on the trade block
By Jim Thomas
INDIANAPOLIS • To be clear, Sam Bradford isn’t demanding a trade. And the Rams aren’t interested in trading Bradford.
So a tweet by CBSSports on Wednesday afternoon stating that the Rams had given Bradford permission to seek a trade was at least a little off the mark.
General manager Les Snead emphatically denied that the Rams are shopping Bradford, and was genuinely surprised when asked about it Wednesday at the NFL Scouting Combine.
“Deleting him (from the roster) is not our answer,” Snead said. “I don’t know that that solves our riddle.”
Snead continued his answer, but first by taking a playfully sarcastic tone to the questioner.
“That’s breaking news is what this is — you know what I mean?” he continued. “Do you want to trade for Sam? Do you have a deal?”
And then he returned to reality.
“He’s a good player,” Snead said. “If some team was interested, I certainly don’t blame them. But I’ll stick to what I said earlier — deleting him is not the answer.”
What the Rams have told Bradford agent Tom Condon during the course of negotiations is that if he wants to check around and see if there is a market for Bradford, go ahead.
Since executive vice president Kevin Demoff joined the Rams in 2009, he frequently has told agents of prospective free agents if they want to see what other teams are willing to pay for their client, feel free.
It’s a negotiating technique, and it’s a way of helping to set the market for a player.
That’s a long way from seeking a trade.
The only difference here is that Bradford is under contract for the 2015 season — due to make $12.985 million in base salary and count $16.58 million against the salary cap.
The Rams would like to lower that cap number by reducing Bradford’s base salary, perhaps working in incentives to give Bradford the opportunity to get back most or all of the $12.985 million if he stays healthy, reaches certain statistical plateaus or is part of specified team achievements.
It’s clear at this point that the sides are stalemated.
The Rams want a salary reduction; Condon doesn’t.
Condon declined comment Wednesday. Demoff’s only public comment was: “We’ve had good discussions with (Bradford’s) group.”
Condon and Demoff are in Indianapolis for the Combine. They have no formal meetings scheduled here, but are expected to talk on the phone.
The Rams are only about a million dollars below the current salary cap projection of about $143 million per team, obviously not nearly enough space to sign their draft picks, re-sign some of their own free agents, and have money to sign an outside free agent or two.
But they have plenty of ways to create cap space. Defensive end Kendall Langford, offensive tackle Jake Long, center Scott Wells, wide receiver Chris Givens, and running back Isaiah Pead all could be subject to pay cuts or outright release to free up millions in cap space.
In addition, the Rams could create as much as $8 million in additional cap space simply by converting defensive end Robert Quinn’s $10.233 million roster bonus into signing bonus.
Even so, without some kind of reduction of Bradford’s base salary, it makes the desired offseason moves more difficult cap-wise.
It’s still early in the negotiating process, but if the stalemate continues through the start of free agency March 10 and on through the draft April 30-May 2, perhaps a trade is possible if the Rams can come up with an alternative to Bradford.
But that’s a doomsday scenario at this point.
At the moment the Rams are almost boxed into keeping Bradford for 2015. For one, he is the team’s only quarterback under contract. Shaun Hill is scheduled for unrestricted free agency in March, while Austin Davis is scheduled for restricted free agency.
All indications are that Bradford wants to stay in St. Louis. And last Friday, coach Jeff Fisher and newly-named offensive coordinator Frank Cignetti made it very clear that a healthy Bradford figured heavily into their plans for 2015. Snead echoed those thoughts Wednesday.
Snead conceded that Bradford’s injury history, including back-to-back ACL knee injuries in 2013 and 2014, was a red flag.
“It’s flying high,” he said. “It’s definitely a red flag.”
But he reiterated: “Let’s don’t delete him. I don’t think that’s the answer. I think the answer is providing insurance in case we do go through more bad luck. Let’s rehab (Bradford), let’s see if he can reach his potential, but let’s do insure the position.”
Whether you call it having “competition” or “options” or “insurance” the Rams need another quarterback on the roster who can do more than walk and chew gum at the same time.
Easier said than done in the NFL, particularly in a year where there’s a thin draft class and an unappealing group of unrestricted free agents.
“Quarterbacks are hard to find, aren’t they?” Snead asked. “You have to turn over every stone.”
Trouble is, there aren’t many stones this year.
“There’s stones out there, but when you turn them over, there’s nothing under them,” Snead said, joking. “People don’t want to give you really good QBs, so a lot of times you’ve got to go find them.”
Keeping in mind that Bradford’s second ACL tear happened two months earlier than his first — meaning he has more time to rehab — Snead said there is no timeline for Bradford’s return.
February 24, 2015 at 7:51 pm #19002znModeratorNo team has contacted Rams regarding Sam Bradford
By Chris Wesseling
Around the NFL WriterDespite recent reports of interest from the Buffalo Bills or Cleveland Browns, a Sam Bradford trade remains highly unlikely.
As of Tuesday, no team has contacted the St. Louis Rams about trading for their enigmatic quarterback, NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported, via sources informed of situation.
Because Bradford has missed the majority of the past two seasons and will have to compete to keep his starting job, the Rams have pressured him to accept a reduction in his $13 million salary that counts $16.6 million against the salary cap in the contract’s final year.
After balking at that request, Bradford’s agent was allowed to contact other teams to gauge the quarterback’s value. To this point, that has not sparked movement.
While a trade is theoretically possible, Bradford’s perceived value is diminished by an outsized salary no longer befitting an underperforming player coming off a twice-torn ACL.
Per Rapoport, it would take an extraordinarily desperate team to satisfy the Rams’ demand for compensation (second-round draft pick?) while also taking on Bradford’s bloated contract on a one-year rental.
While he’s certainly a more attractive option than EJ Manuel or Johnny Manziel, Bradford has never lived up to the regard in which he’s held by NFL scouts. He has too often been skittish in the pocket and scattershot with his accuracy, stifling the offense.
Bradford’s agent can’t be blamed for seeking a team willing to shell out the full salary, but the Rams believe the best-case scenario for both sides is a pay cut to finally rebuild his value as St. Louis’ franchise quarterback.
Are the Rams underestimating the level of Bills’ desperation in a bleak quarterback market? That’s what Bradford’s camp is selling.
February 24, 2015 at 9:13 pm #19009
rflParticipantThe key thing is the injury history.
I would find it easy to imagine that a team would want and be willing to pay for Sam as a player. The league knows he’s a good QB.
But no team is going to pay either money or trade assets commensurate with his skills given his injury history.
Only the Rams have a decent reason to bet much on his health this year. He’s in the system and already on the payroll with a year of control. The Rams don’t have to pay out to get him.
Every other team would have to pay out. And they will NOT give enough to make it worth while for the team to make a trade. They just won’t.
The injuries are the keys.
By virtue of the absurd ...
February 25, 2015 at 1:55 pm #19056znModeratorAbout those daily Sam Bradford rumors
By Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16535/about-those-daily-sam-bradford-rumors
EARTH CITY, Mo. — In the latest churn of the Sam Bradford rumor mill, reports surfaced Tuesday that the Buffalo Bills are considering making a trade offer for the St. Louis Rams quarterback.
As is becoming increasingly common in this age of social media, those reports were summarily shot down with reports that no team has actually really pursued a trade for Bradford. The Buffalo rumors came on the heels of rumors that the Cleveland Browns had similar interest in Bradford. And those rumors followed speculation that Bradford had been given permission to seek a trade.
In addition to all of that, there have been other reports that Bradford does not want to take a pay cut and instead of being traded would prefer to be outright released.
For what it’s worth, Rams coach Jeff Fisher and general manager Les Snead have dismissed most of those rumors. Fisher went so far as to call the trade permission rumor as “inaccurate” at last week’s NFL scouting combine.
“When we’ve had him, he’s 5-2-1 in our division,” Fisher said. “And we weren’t very good when we got here, so we’re counting on him. I’m betting on him and if that doesn’t happen, then we’ll win games with somebody else.”
So what do we make of all this? It’s not unusual at this time of year and in these situations for these types of rumors to run rampant.
We do know the Rams would like to bring Bradford back at a cap number below his projected $16.58 million and a base salary less than his expected $12.985 million. We also know that there isn’t an agent in the league — especially one representing a high-priced quarterback — that would like to take a pay cut for a client.
That means it’s in the best interest of Tom Condon, Bradford’s agent, to do all he can to get the best deal possible out of the Rams. Rumors of other teams willing to trade or sign Bradford to big-money deals theoretically only drives the price up. It also doesn’t mean that any of those possibilities are real or that an agreement won’t eventually be reached.
If, indeed, some of those rumors materialized into legitimate offers then perhaps the Rams could consider it. While the Rams have repeatedly made it clear they are committed to having Bradford in 2015, it doesn’t mean that a big offer wouldn’t change their mind. Any player can be had for the right price, especially one coming off two consecutive torn ACLs.
But it’s also worth noting that if these teams were legitimately interested in Bradford, it stands to reason the Rams would have similar interest in keeping him. It’s not like the Rams have a better option waiting in the wings and the list of available quarterbacks in free agency or ones they could realistically get in the draft don’t offer a clear upgrade, either.
Simply put, Bradford is every bit as valuable to the Rams, probably more so, than he would be to other teams. It’s Condon’s job to figure out what that happy medium is. So even if at this very moment Condon would prefer not to take a pay cut for his client, it doesn’t mean he won’t after he gets a chance to gauge what Bradford might get if he were to come available.
And from a Rams’ perspective, there’s not necessarily a pressing need to get something done with Bradford. They need cap space but have other ways to obtain it by releasing players like tackle Jake Long, center Scott Wells and/or defensive tackle Kendall Langford or converting some of end Robert Quinn’s base salary to signing bonus.
People close to Bradford insist he wants to stay in St. Louis in 2015. The Rams insist they want to keep him. What shape that takes will reveal itself in time but in the meantime, don’t be surprised if the rumors persist.
February 25, 2015 at 3:59 pm #19067
HerzogParticipantSnead wants Bradford to see that nobody wants to trade for him. And I bet that’s true…..if not for the cap hit alone. I love Bradford the player, but we’re now going on a very bad injury track record dating back to Oklahoma. If you look at the last seven years, I don’t know why you would expect that to suddenly change now.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Herzog.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
