Matthew Stafford Contract Status

[DzRams]

He wouldn't have traded Goff if he wasn't getting what he thought was a better QB in return. Wolford had nothing to do with the decision.

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.

Don't you recall the words from Snead and McVay right after the season ended? Things to the effect of "Goff is a Ram...for now."

This was before they knew they could trade for Stafford.

 

[dieterbrock]

If he holds out, he'll likely be traded and get paid. Rams don't hold players hostage.

A holdout doesnt mean a trade, and even when it goes down that path, a trade offers no guarantee of a new contract
So the Rams trade him to Cleveland who also dont agree to renegotiate the contract.
That's a win for Stafford?

 

[El Chapo Jr]

A holdout doesnt mean a trade, and even when it goes down that path, a trade offers no guarantee of a new contract
So the Rams trade him to Cleveland who also dont agree to renegotiate the contract.
That's a win for Stafford?

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.

 

[gabriel18]

I really like Stafford , but how much money do you need ?
Maybe use the money on a big reviver , oline or a ILB. That’s his best chance to win another Lombardi. I’d also want a commitment for the next two seasons. Going through this every year is not a good look. I hope they figure it out , because I want another SB victory in my lifetime.

 

[Loyal]

Rams have all the leverage. Stafford is under contract for two more years. The only leverage Stafford has is to hold out.

He could retire and the Rams would be screwed. He has ALL the leverage.

 

[WestCoastRam]

Stafford's only leverage is to make 0$
If he retires or holds out, he doesnt get paid

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.

Stafford has been to the top of the mountain already by winning a Superbowl. But Stafford says he wants to play next year.

It's a game of chicken and I'd say when you add everything up neither has an outsized amount of leverage on the other this offseason.

 

[DzRams]

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. The Rams have done very well by their players, often trading them to destinations they've requested.

There is zero chance they trade him to Cleveland. Allright, maybe I'm exaggerating. There's a 0.001356% chance they trade him to Cleveland.

 

[majrleaged]

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.

Don't you recall the words from Snead and McVay right after the season ended? Things to the effect of "Goff is a Ram...for now."

This was before they knew they could trade for Stafford.

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.
Whether or not that was true and the Stafford thing was just great fucking timing, Wolford couldn't have been more than their fall back if nothing else was available.
Also, if Stafford didn't happen, I doubt anything else would have happened so fast. In which case the company line or posturing could be nothing more than trying to kick Goff in the ass to let him know even he wasn't secure in his job and he needed to do more to keep his job. And of course, they would probably had Goff on the market to see what else was available. No way in hell they could have thought Wolford was the next guy the team full of Vets would rely on going into the season.

 

[Memphis Ram]

McVay is smarter than that

Shanahan can win with Garoppolo (and Purdy) and McVay cannot?
O'Connell can win 14 games with Darnold?

If McVay is the genius everyone says he is I suspect he could win on offense without a former #1 overall pick at the position.

 

[Merlin]

Stafford needs the Rams, and the Rams need him.

For Stafford you introduce a ton of unknowns if he pushes his way out, and if he retires then he misses out on potentially capping his career with Lombardi number two and retiring on top in epic fashion, knowing that gold jacket is a certainty.

For the Rams anyone else they bring in is going to be a downgrade from Stafford. And when they find themselves in that win or go home situation in 4 minute in the playoffs and it's a lesser option they will experience that moment where they wish they had the soultaker behind center.

 

[dieterbrock]

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.

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.
The question is, and we clearly dont know what the answer is, what does he want? If he truly is hinting at retirement, then there's no point in guaranteeing more than 2025. Both sides have been honorable and I dont see where that will change

 

[dieterbrock]

Agreed. Leverage he was willing to use last year that caused the Rams to cave.

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

 

[DzRams]

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.
Whether or not that was true and the Stafford thing was just great fucking timing, Wolford couldn't have been more than their fall back if nothing else was available.
Also, if Stafford didn't happen, I doubt anything else would have happened so fast. In which case the company line or posturing could be nothing more than trying to kick Goff in the ass to let him know even he wasn't secure in his job and he needed to do more to keep his job. And of course, they would probably had Goff on the market to see what else was available. No way in hell they could have thought Wolford was the next guy the team full of Vets would rely on going into the season.

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 skeptical on the Rams slow playing things. Have you seen Snead and McVay operate? Snead has a saying: "if it's inevitable, make it immediate!" And we've seen with McVay, that once he's done with someone, he's DONE! (See Exhibit Ernest Jones)

McSnead's "for now" statements on Goff indicated that he was out...pronto.

The point with Wolford was not so much that McVay was going to anoint him as the starter. It was that Wolford opened his eyes to the fact that he could win with someone else other than Goff.

I have no idea what they would have done if the fortuitous Stafford trade hadn't happened but the plan didn't include Goff. IMO.

 

[DzRams]

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'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.

What's silly, and naive, is pretending like the sides were holding hands singing "Hakuna matata."

Edit: The evidence that there was some contention is that it's something McVay doesn't want repeated this year.

 

[El Chapo Jr]

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.
The question is, and we clearly dont know what the answer is, what does he want? If he truly is hinting at retirement, then there's no point in guaranteeing more than 2025. Both sides have been honorable and I dont see where that will change

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.

 

[dieterbrock]

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.

Stafford has been to the top of the mountain already by winning a Superbowl. But Stafford says he wants to play next year.

It's a game of chicken and I'd say when you add everything up neither has an outsized amount of leverage on the other this offseason.

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.

 

[El Chapo Jr]

Stafford needs the Rams, and the Rams need him.

For Stafford you introduce a ton of unknowns if he pushes his way out, and if he retires then he misses out on potentially capping his career with Lombardi number two and retiring on top in epic fashion, knowing that gold jacket is a certainty.

For the Rams anyone else they bring in is going to be a downgrade from Stafford. And when they find themselves in that win or go home situation in 4 minute in the playoffs and it's a lesser option they will experience that moment where they wish they had the soultaker behind center.

I want him in horns as well. Any other option will be equivalent to a brutal nut punch.

 

[dieterbrock]

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.

What's silly, and naive, is pretending like the sides were holding hands singing "Hakuna matata."

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.
He got his money that he was already getting and the Rams freed up cap space, so yes they both won

 

[dieterbrock]

I want him in horns as well. Any other option will be equivalent to a brutal nut punch.

Amen brother
That's what we all should want

 

[dieterbrock]

If they change the terms, like they did last year, its considered new as its been changed dollars wise.

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