Matthew Stafford Contract Status

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder, if Matt leaves and the Rams have more cap space, do they keep Kupp to help Jimmy G with 3rd and long? lol
 
RAMSinLA said:
I wonder, if Matt leaves and the Rams have more cap space, do they keep Kupp to help Jimmy G with 3rd and long? lol
Click to expand...
It is not yet clear if either the Raiders or Giants are offering enough for the Rams to consider trading Stafford, a move that would cost Los Angeles more than $45 million in dead money, per Spotrac. Schultz has previously reported that a first-round pick is believed to be the Rams' asking price to move their 37-year-old quarterback.

Bonsignore reported the Raiders "will be hesitant" to trade the No. 6 pick of the upcoming draft, while The Athletic's Dan Duggan previously wrote the Giants "won't consider" dealing the No. 3 pick.
Lack of movement on these first-rounders could provide the Rams further impetus to work out a new contract with their incumbent starter. In that case, the Raiders would need to look elsewhere for their next QB1.


Seems like it wouldn't be a cap space clearing move at all - which to me seems like another reason to not do it unless its a big haul in return.
 
  • Like
  • High Five
Reactions: 99Balloons, André and RAMSinLA
Ellard80 said:
So the raiders and stafford came to "a common ground" on a contract.

Haven't heard that one anywhere else - so either this dude has elite sources or that's some BS.
Click to expand...

Elite sources is probably correct. Therein lies one of the problems. As I recall one of the stickiest criticisms of Vinny is that he seems to be a willing mouthpiece for people who want things made public. He seemed to be Mark Fabiani's mouthpiece in the stadium saga.

Aside from that, yeah "common ground" on what a potential "new contract would look like" leaves considerable wiggle room.
How does the contract look? 12-point font? No Comic Sans?
None of it matters until they sign the line that is dotted.
 
  • High Five
Reactions: Mackeyser and XXXIVwin
Ellard80 said:
It is not yet clear if either the Raiders or Giants are offering enough for the Rams to consider trading Stafford, a move that would cost Los Angeles more than $45 million in dead money, per Spotrac. Schultz has previously reported that a first-round pick is believed to be the Rams' asking price to move their 37-year-old quarterback.

Bonsignore reported the Raiders "will be hesitant" to trade the No. 6 pick of the upcoming draft, while The Athletic's Dan Duggan previously wrote the Giants "won't consider" dealing the No. 3 pick.
Lack of movement on these first-rounders could provide the Rams further impetus to work out a new contract with their incumbent starter. In that case, the Raiders would need to look elsewhere for their next QB1.


Seems like it wouldn't be a cap space clearing move at all - which to me seems like another reason to not do it unless its a big haul in return.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up for me. The Rams front office knowing this makes it understandable that they would let Matt hear what other teams would offer.
 
jrry32 said:
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear at this point that if Stafford goes, it'll be Rodgers or Jimmy. And we'll need a QB behind either who has ability because Rodgers is old and Jimmy has had a lot of durability issues.
Click to expand...
Could it even be both? Rodgers starting and Jimmy backing up again? Doubt teams are banging the door down to have Jimmy start.
 
  • Like
  • Cheers
Reactions: Noregar, Ram Ts and XXXIVwin
Ellard80 said:
One thing that doesn't make sense to me is why the Raiders would want to shell out much money or give Stafford multiple years?

It's not like their roster is close to winning - doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Raiders have the second highest cap space and the third most draft capital. It's the only team that could give Stafford buckets of money and still offer the Rams big picks.

They aren't a total train wreck. Decent o line. Elite TE's. Need a RB and WR1. They were competitive against AFC West opponents with Aiden O'Connell last season.

Recent management and coaching moves look like adult decisions. I could see Stafford talking himself into it for the money on the theory that they are positioned for a turnaround.
 
  • High Five
  • Like
Reactions: Ram Ts and XXXIVwin
man...

i'm having a hard time with all the raider crap...

kirk cousin signed a 180 mill 4 year deal...

i want the bozos on the radio to convince me, that the rams can't one up that deal and keep staff..

think about it,,, we were 14 yards away from sending the eagles out to pasture..

and we may not have won the superbowl after that win ...

but i'll tell you right now we would have been mother fucken favored...

damn it... these trade scenarios all seem stupid... but the stupid raiders keep rolling up in the back of my mind...

what a fricking nightmare that would be...

i really have a hard time believing the rams would trade 2 years at least, of superbowl contention for a first and second...

man, that's just not fiscal responsibility...

i'm standing with stafford staying...

go rams

slo
 
  • 3High Five
  • Like
Reactions: RAMSinLA, jetplt67, RamsFanOH and 1 other person
Psycho_X said:
Not really anything new.

View: https://x.com/SumerSports/status/1895211398134931554
Click to expand...

One more note about this Jourdan interview.

She reminds us of how the last stalemate ended, in 2024, on the very day training camp was set to start. Stafford's agent and the Rams had been having a "tough negotiation" for months and months and months and never resolved anything. Finally, on the first day of camp, Stafford and McVay met in a room and talked over things (presumably with Pastoors and Sexton etc. available by videoconference as needed). Finally, McVay and Stafford set the parameters for the "band aid" deal that allowed Stafford to get a slight raise for 2024 along with the understanding they'd return to the negotiating table the following off-season. They emerged from the meeting after a 3-hour delay and Stafford signed his deal and was in camp.

My take: this story makes me wonder if that's how this saga will end as well, at the very last and final stage. McVay and Stafford face-to.-face in a room with the FINAL say. And with McVay caving a bit and agreeing to overpay.
 
I am so confused....how would "no guaranteed money left on the contract" still lead to that much dead money?
 
  • Like
Reactions: XXXIVwin
Legatron4 said:
I’m sorry but I really think Rodgers would produce just as well as Stafford in this offense especially if he brought Adams with him. You gotta admit it would be a little cool lol
Click to expand...
Sorry. Not even a little bit to me.
 
  • High Five
Reactions: majrleaged
Faceplant said:
This is all so damn stupid. It's like the Rams feel like they have to create drama every year since they moved back to LA. Must be a "Hollywood" thing. Regardless, absolutely nothing good can come from any of this bullshit.

I honestly don't think I care at this point. I also don't think the Rams are a SB WITH Stafford next season, and I believe the weather was the main reason they were able to make that Eagles game so close. The Eagles are just a far better team IMO.

Wake me up in September...
Click to expand...
I’ll set the alarm.
 
  • HaHa
Reactions: Faceplant and Neil039
Flatlyner said:

View: https://x.com/AllbrightNFL/status/1895180461288169555


Sounds to me that the Giants might have eyes for Ward rather then Stafford.
Click to expand...

From what I've read trading up for Ward would be the Giants backup plan if they cannot get Stafford.

But, it's also being reported that the Cowboys reached out to the Titans regarding the #1 overall selection.
If true, my guess is they want Abdul Carter so they can replace and trade and thus not have to pay Parsons.
 
Allen2McVay said:
$ that has already been paid by the Rams and received by Stafford but has not yet hit the Rams' cap.
Click to expand...
So the bleacher report article (at the top of this thread page) shows a link to a Spotrac tweet that says the Rams would incur a 45.3M dead cap hit in 2025 if MS is traded.

Since you understand the cap as well or better than anyone on here.... does this 45.3 M number sound accurate to you?

If so, this would seem to be a gigantic disincentive to trade MS. What the hell's the point in "saving money" if the 2025 dead cap hit is so huge?
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: majrleaged
XXXIVwin said:
So the bleacher report article (at the top of this thread page) shows a link to a Spotrac tweet that says the Rams would incur a 45.3M dead cap hit in 2025 if MS is traded.

Since you understand the cap as well or better than anyone on here.... does this 45.3 M number sound accurate to you?

If so, this would seem to be a gigantic disincentive to trade MS. What the hell's the point in "saving money" if the 2025 dead cap hit is so huge?
Click to expand...
Taking the big hit now and not having a much bigger one in future years when the team will be trying to sign it's young talent.
 
  • Like
  • Cheers
Reactions: Noregar, XXXIVwin and thirteen28
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back