Offseason player acquisition thread

[JayNM]

Do it

when Roquan Smith was available, I was adamant that he was worth the trade.Then he became a Raven for very little, draft capital wise, and salary wise for the amount of value he brings

LBs are one of the few "under"valued (and underrated) positions out there, who still play 100% of plays potentially. Even if we overpay, in 2 years it will be worth it, if he plays to his Eagles level

To me is a no brainer

 

[Hugepatsfan]

If a situation arose where rham was involved in a trade to aquire a game changer on defense you wouldn't entertain it?

It's just hard for me to imagine such a scenario where any team covets Rham like this. Even if you're telling me their could be a deal for a "game changer" that Rham is a part of, I can't imagine that same player couldn't be acquired without Rham.

We already need more depth at RB as is. That's a spot you usually want to keep 4 players at. We only kept 3 because we didn't have a 4th NFL caliber player last year. I already view us as probably needing to add 2 NFL caliber talents at RB to the roster. So I don't see a point in moving one of the 2 we already have since I doubt anyone is valuing him highly anyway.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

I don't understand who is trading for Rham at that contract, as it's that contract why we want to trade him.

You're factoring in signing bonus already paid. His contract from this point on for us and for a team trading for him would be...

2025 - $2.75M salary (guaranteed), $250K offseason workout bonus, $1M in per game roster bonuses (only paid if he plays)
2026 - $4.75M salary ($3.25M guaranteed), $250K offseason workout bonus, $1M in per game roster bonuses (only paid if he plays)
2027 - $8M salary in salary/bonuses but none guaranteed
2028 - $10M salary in salary/bonuses but none guaranteed

The cap numbers for all 4 years for our team are inflated by $1.6M per year because of the signing bonus he got last year, but that wouldn't transfer over to a new team. It would count as dead money for us if we traded him though, which further disincentives it.

Stevenson's contract for us, and for any acquiring team is effectively a 2 year, $8M deal (salaries plus workout bonus) with up to $1M extra incentives each year for games played to bring it to 2 years, $10M. It's hardly a big contract. At the RB spot in free agency, you kind of pick your poison... sign an older vet with better track record but bank on him staving off decline. Or someone less accomplished but in their physical prime. Stevenson is the latter and it's a very fair contract for him in that light.

Again, the $8M signing bonus last year doesn't look like something they really needed to do, but that just further disincentives trading him since it becomes dead money. And it inflates the cap number to make it look like someone worth moving on from, until you consider that it's on our cap either way and won't go to a new team. It's a sunk cost. Remove it from your consciousness when looking at his deal and only consider the figures I showed above because that's all that is relevant for us or any other acquiring team moving forward.

 

[JayNM]

It's just hard for me to imagine such a scenario where any team covets Rham like this. Even if you're telling me their could be a deal for a "game changer" that Rham is a part of, I can't imagine that same player couldn't be acquired without Rham.

We already need more depth at RB as is. That's a spot you usually want to keep 4 players at. We only kept 3 because we didn't have a 4th NFL caliber player last year. I already view us as probably needing to add 2 NFL caliber talents at RB to the roster. So I don't see a point in moving one of the 2 we already have since I doubt anyone is valuing him highly anyway.

McDaniels love RBs by commitee and sure-handed guys. Contractually Rham is the workhorse, then again we're not scrapping the barrel

We are at least getting one full time receiving back, for sure

 

[Real fan 02]

It's just hard for me to imagine such a scenario where any team covets Rham like this. Even if you're telling me their could be a deal for a "game changer" that Rham is a part of, I can't imagine that same player couldn't be acquired without Rham.

We already need more depth at RB as is. That's a spot you usually want to keep 4 players at. We only kept 3 because we didn't have a 4th NFL caliber player last year. I already view us as probably needing to add 2 NFL caliber talents at RB to the roster. So I don't see a point in moving one of the 2 we already have since I doubt anyone is valuing him highly anyway.

It's all just us presenting a scenario really there is nothing that indicates the teams moving rham anyway. So he's likely here for now.. it's not like they need to create any cap room so I see no reason for them to logically move rham. I agree RB depth is an issue. Harris is on the PS.. I saw some flashes from him that could warrant him a roster spot this camp why not.. need all the healthy camp bodies a team can have. We probably end up drafting another RB anyway in the later rounds.

 

[Huckleberry1]

If a situation arose where rham was involved in a trade to aquire a game changer on defense you wouldn't entertain it?

You aren’t going to get a “ game changer” on defense for Rham right now.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Read what I wrote… The Rams have plenty of cap space and a massive hole at left tackle… one of the most important positions in football.

Also, comparing yourselves to one of the worst run franchises in football is no measuring stick at all. The Giants sucked with Barkley.

I read what you wrote. You said they shouldn’t go after free agents whose team wasn’t trying to keep them. Saquon Barkley was never offered a contract by the Giants after July 23’, and he went to the Eagles in March 24.

It’s not my fault you said something stupid.

 

[Huckleberry1]

If the Rams don't compete for their starting left tackle, if they don't want him... neither do we.

…Clear as can be.

 

[Pacific Coast Patriot]

I kinda want a splashy player in the draft but if I'm being pragmatic and GM was my livelihood:

O Line - worst to first within 2 years:
Draft Will Campbell hope he plays tackle
Trade back into R1 for a starting G (Conerly from Oregon or similar)
Sign the top FA O line

WR - Improved with a bandaid, but work in progress:
Trade mid-rounder for Kupp (improves WR room culture, helps develop Drake for 1-2 years)
Draft WR high in 2026 - by then you know if Baker/Polk are cut or not for sure
Sign next top WR FA in 2026 (Jameson Williams, Drake London)

Rest of our FA money and draft this year goes on upgrading D (any of Milton Williams, Baun, Sweat, Bolton).

 

[Vindicate]

Do it

when Roquan Smith was available, I was adamant that he was worth the trade.Then he became a Raven for very little, draft capital wise, and salary wise for the amount of value he brings

LBs are one of the few "under"valued (and underrated) positions out there, who still play 100% of plays potentially. Even if we overpay, in 2 years it will be worth it, if he plays to his Eagles level

To me is a no brainer

Big area of need as well. Bentley is solid but not who you want to be resting your laurels on. If Bentley doesn't have the be the mic/big guy on campus, even better.

 

[Wozzy]

I read what you wrote. You said they shouldn’t go after free agents whose team wasn’t trying to keep them. Saquon Barkley was never offered a contract by the Giants after July 23’, and he went to the Eagles in March 24.

It’s not my fault you said something stupid.

No genius, I specifically said the Rams have cap space, desperately need a starting tackle and if they aren’t willing to bid for Jackson then we probably shouldn’t either. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to comprehend.

 

[Wozzy]

…Clear as can be.

Maybe read the entire conversation.

 

[Huckleberry1]

No genius, I specifically said the Rams have cap space, desperately need a starting tackle and if they aren’t willing to bid for Jackson then we probably shouldn’t either. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to comprehend.

The Giants had cap space and could have signed Barkley but never offered him a deal. So genius, your take was idiotic. Teams move on from good players all the time, it’s called free agency, and it hits in a couple of weeks. You should read up on it, you might learn something.

My mistake, you already know it all.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Maybe read the entire conversation.

Maybe don’t say stupid things.

 

[Huckleberry1]

No genius, I specifically said the Rams have cap space, desperately need a starting tackle and if they aren’t willing to bid for Jackson then we probably shouldn’t either. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to comprehend.

I quoted what you said in full. It’s your problem, not mine.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I kinda want a splashy player in the draft but if I'm being pragmatic and GM was my livelihood:

O Line - worst to first within 2 years:
Draft Will Campbell hope he plays tackle
Trade back into R1 for a starting G (Conerly from Oregon or similar)
Sign the top FA O line

WR - Improved with a bandaid, but work in progress:
Trade mid-rounder for Kupp (improves WR room culture, helps develop Drake for 1-2 years)
Draft WR high in 2026 - by then you know if Baker/Polk are cut or not for sure
Sign next top WR FA in 2026 (Jameson Williams, Drake London)

Rest of our FA money and draft this year goes on upgrading D (any of Milton Williams, Baun, Sweat, Bolton).

I would be fine with Campbell, but I really like the idea of taking Hunter or Graham at 4, then trading back into the first for Conerly.

 

[Wozzy]

I quoted what you said in full. It’s your problem, not mine.

So you’re too lazy to read the actual conversation and comment out of context. Got it.

 

[Wozzy]

I quoted what you said in full. It’s your problem, not mine.

On a quick reply post…. read the conversation.

 

[Huckleberry1]

So you’re too lazy to read the actual conversation and comment out of context. Got it.

If you need to correct your post go do it, I read what you said and replied to it. And I quoted it fully. There’s an edit feature you can use, or you can just admit that what you said was stupid.

 

[captain stone]

I don't understand who is trading for Rham at that contract, as it's that contract why we want to trade him.

That, and the fumbles.