That's not what was reported at the time. The Rams had decided that Goff wasn't it partially because of Wolford's play which opened McVay's eyes.
A holdout doesnt mean a trade, and even when it goes down that path, a trade offers no guarantee of a new contract
He's getting a new contract, there's zero doubt about that. The question is who will give it to him. Not all teams are in the same cap situation as us so they'll have more money to blow. Do you really think the Rams would do Stafford like that and trade him somewhere he wouldn't get paid what he wanted? Rams do good by their former players when traded more often than not. Stafford has been nothing but good for the Rams.
This is a good point but if we zoom out in the aggregate, Stafford can make money many other ways both football (broadcasting, etc...) and non-football (he has those Arby's in Telluride) related as early as this year.
This is a good point. The Rams have done very well by their players, often trading them to destinations they've requested.
I remember. I also remember we all speculated that the Rams were privy to the Stafford situation before the end of the season and that the Cabo story was cover.
Shanahan can win with Garoppolo (and Purdy) and McVay cannot?
He has a contract with the Rams, and like last year, he doesnt need a new one. There is no other team, that's just fan fodder.
Cave? What a silly statement. They took out the guaranteed money from 2025 and pushed it to 2024 without paying him more than what he was already getting. Comments like this are baffling, the 2 sides are not opposed to one another, they are on the same team
I don't recall that speculation but I believe you. They very well could have heard he was available before the end of the season. That doesn't guarantee though that they would win the bidding war for his services. Remember, the 49ers were heavy contenders to trade for him.
I'm well aware what they did. The Rams didn't want to do what he was requesting. That's why it took so long for them to agree to his demand.
If they change the terms, like they did last year, its considered new as its been changed dollars wise. Yes, the million or millions dollar question is what is he asking for. He already said he isn't retiring so its all about guaranteeing his contract for 25 at the very least. If he doesn't get what he wants, he's probably going to be traded as the Rams probably will go with whatever their plan B is. Not many QBs out there that are difference makers like Stafford so I'd guess Jimmy G with a young QB drafted? I honestly don't know as I'm assuming the Rams don't truly know until they try to hammer out a deal with Stafford. If he somehow gets traded, which I keep saying I don't think will happen, he's going to get that guaranteed contract elsewhere.
Well I think Stafford has a lot more to lose here than what folks are considering. He doesnt need money, he doesnt need a ring, he's basically playing for his legacy at this point. And if he were to force his way out of LA over money, and ends up elsewhere, he could end up looking like another Favre/Rodgers. His whole image is the good old boy who loves to play the game, I'd hate to see that tarnished.
Stafford lost big time, seriously. All he did was get guaranteed money which was irrelevant because his contract was 100% guaranteed after game 1. The only thing accomplished was getting LESS guaranteed money this year.
No, that's false. A simple restructure is not a new contract. In many cases a player doesnt even need to agree. Adding void years and the like is a different story. Even an extension doesnt necessarily require a new contract
