POLL: Do the Rams Trade Stafford?

  • 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.

Do the Rams trade Stafford?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 23.6%

  • No

    Votes: 81 76.4%
  • Total voters
    106
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Voted yes. Let's get as much as we can for him and Kupp, spend the money on our younger players (Nacua, Turner, Verse, Fiske, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Badfinger
Voted yes, not because I want that but because I now feel that the odds are higher that he's traded than not traded.
 
Londoner said:
I voted yes.

The Rams will need that money to pay all the emerging young stars in the next few years; you can't keep giving more and more money to an ageing player who may already be in decline. The other thing is that Stafford's reported demands go completely against the Rams' "We, not me" culture.

Trade Stafford for a first and second this year, and go from there.
Click to expand...

how much overlap will the be between the contracts from stafford and these emerging players? other teams have figured out overlap. do the rams even have overlap?
 
This is essentially a three-way trade. You need the Rams, another team, and Stafford to agree to terms. Stafford can't veto a trade outright but who wants to trade for him if he could decide to retire at any moment?

How do you make all three happy? It depends on the desperation of the trading partner. Rams FO is not playing from desperation (no all-in effort for Lombardi next year).

Stafford really isn't desperate either - he'd like more money but he probably isn't chasing money just to pad his stats with a mediocre team for a couple more years. His HOF case is borderline - his best chance to solidify it is to finish with at least one more deep playoff drive - and the Rams give him the best chance.
 
  • Like
  • High Five
Reactions: Rambitious1, Lunchbox and RamBall
Turducken said:
This is essentially a three-way trade. You need the Rams, another team, and Stafford to agree to terms. Stafford can't veto a trade outright but who wants to trade for him if he could decide to retire at any moment?

How do you make all three happy? It depends on the desperation of the trading partner. Rams FO is not playing from desperation (no all-in effort for Lombardi next year).

Stafford really isn't desperate either - he'd like more money but he probably isn't chasing money just to pad his stats with a mediocre team for a couple more years. His HOF case is borderline - his best chance to solidify it is to finish with at least one more deep playoff drive - and the Rams give him the best chance.
Click to expand...
Why the hell would you need three teams?
 
  • HaHa
Reactions: RamFan503
Turducken said:
This is essentially a three-way trade. You need the Rams, another team, and Stafford to agree to terms. Stafford can't veto a trade outright but who wants to trade for him if he could decide to retire at any moment?

How do you make all three happy? It depends on the desperation of the trading partner. Rams FO is not playing from desperation (no all-in effort for Lombardi next year).

Stafford really isn't desperate either - he'd like more money but he probably isn't chasing money just to pad his stats with a mediocre team for a couple more years. His HOF case is borderline - his best chance to solidify it is to finish with at least one more deep playoff drive - and the Rams give him the best chance.
Click to expand...
We’ve been down this road in the other thread.
Stafford isn’t retiring. He’s committed to playing. If Rams trade him and he retires, it doesn’t screw the Rams it screws the team that trades for him.
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: nighttrain
I think Stafford's a goner for the Rams.

Just a feeling. I'm not an expert, but just a feeling seeing how other Rams quarterbacks and players were traded. It always starts with the "free to seek a trade" reports, and the majority of those times the trade has gone down.

What's scary is the Rams without a top-rated QB. There was a stretch before signing Everett where the Rams had garbage QB's and losing records. Guys like Dan Pastorini, TJ Rubley, Jeff Kemp, Dieter Brock, etc.

Playoff teams have the best QB's in the league 90%+ of the time. Rams will go nowhere without a top qb, and I fear that's where this organization is heading for the near future, even if they get a number of pics in return for the trade.

On the bright side...We're all used to dealing with all of the above. Been there, done that!
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: Ramhusker and Ramstien
DzRams said:
Voted yes, not because I want that but because I now feel that the odds are higher that he's traded than not traded.
Click to expand...
I think that's the interesting question, what are the odds vs people arguing whether or not it should happen or if it's absolutely happening or not.

I'm pegging the odds at 75% he signs a new deal with that Rams but that's a 1 in 4 chance he's gone, up from about 1 in 5 for me a week ago.

I think that's about right.
 
I voted no, but maybe that's just due to flashbacks of all those losing years with a carousel of bad qbs. I also think we would be more likely to trade him had we had a bad playoff performance, but we were about 10 yards away from hosting the NFC championship. Use the draft to tweak the offense, shore up the D a bit in FA, and we could have a legitimate shot next year - but only with a talented QB behind center.
 
WestCoastRam said:
I think that's the interesting question, what are the odds vs people arguing whether or not it should happen or if it's absolutely happening or not.

I'm pegging the odds at 75% he signs a new deal with that Rams but that's a 1 in 4 chance he's gone, up from about 1 in 5 for me a week ago.

I think that's about right.
Click to expand...
My odds he signs are much lower. It's 40% he signs and 60% he's traded.

This is new territory but it's rare when the Rams work out an agreement with a player they invited to explore the market.
 
Do they? I voted yes.
Should they?…I don’t want them to but only time will tell.
 
Voted yes, but I'm not really sure.

I've felt like it was a strong possibility when Snead didn't say he was still a load barring wall when interviewed and McVay opened that final press conference addressing Stafford wife's comments about his ribs.

If Jimmy Sexton comes back to the Rams with a team willing to pay Stafford 2 years $110 million fully guaranteed, I don't believe the Rams would match that offer and he'd be gone.
 
Last edited:
den-the-coach said:
I believe the team that will swoop in and make a big trade for Stafford will be the Las Vegas Raiders. Rams will sign Garoppolo to a two year deal, sign Zach Wilson to back him up.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree although I believe it will be the Giants who will make the best offer to the Rams and Stafford.
 
  • Like
Reactions: den-the-coach
DzRams said:
My odds he signs are much lower. It's 40% he signs and 60% he's traded.

This is new territory but it's rare when the Rams work out an agreement with a player they invited to explore the market.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not quite there but basically a 2 in 5 chance, certainly doesn't seem unreasonable
 
  • Cheers
Reactions: DzRams
DzRams said:
My odds he signs are much lower. It's 40% he signs and 60% he's traded.

This is new territory but it's rare when the Rams work out an agreement with a player they invited to explore the market.
Click to expand...
I think what I'm saying is we need to start a betting market on the site for the offseason! Though I think people would get really quiet real quick once money was involved.
 
  • High Five
Reactions: DzRams
Karate61 said:
It always starts with the "free to seek a trade" reports, and the majority of those times the trade has gone down.
Click to expand...
I hear ya.

But 3 counter-arguments:

1. The "free to seek a trade" scenario often seems to be accompanied by grumblings that there is some discontent-- either from the player or the team or both. In this case, the Rams obviously want him back, and MS has unequivocally stated that his "first choice" is to remain a Ram.

2. The "free to seek a trade" scenario also often involves a player in his prime who is looking to get lifetime financial security by scoring it big on either his second or third contract. In this case, we've got an aging player working on his FIFTH contract who has already banked 400 million (!!!) in career earnings. My guess is that MS is significantly motivated by his legacy and the chance to win more playoff games. Yes, money is of course a consideration, but at this point MS wants to add to his HOF resume.

3. McVay agrees with you. McVay knows we are screwed without an elite QB. And how lucky and rare it is to have one. So I don't think McVay allows MS to leave unless MS is a total stubborn unreasonable a-hole in negotiations. And my guess is that MS won't let money ALONE ruin things.

Just my 2 cents and why I'm still optimistic MS will stay at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Cheers
  • Like
Reactions: Karate61, Ramstien, RamFan503 and 1 other person
Karate61 said:
It always starts with the "free to seek a trade" reports, and the majority of those times the trade has gone down.
Click to expand...
Is this actually true? I feel like there are actually a ton of times that it doesn't. Aiyuk and Lamar Jackson are two recent ones that come to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karate61
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back