sports.yahoo.com
Yes, and despite some on here assertation, the Bidwill's don't have a quarter Billion in cash sitting around to pay upfront bonuses like that. Kroenke does.
Explaining how the Rams can afford so many big contracts for their stars
This offseason alone, the Rams paid Stafford, Donald, Kupp, Robinson and Wagner. Where are they getting all this money from?
LA opted to re-sign their core instead of paying $20M a year for a 33 year old Miller to which if they need a pass rusher they can do what they've done the last couple of years and trade for a major piece they need.
And Miller was damn good and they have no comparable replacement on their roster. It's essentially the same cast of characters they had before they traded for Miller. It's a stretch to just say they can find a player like that every year....and they don't really have much draft capital to make that trade either.
Williams is an outside corner, Hill is a slot corner. Different positions. David Long was awful last year and their other corners were even worse.
It's comical that people on this board act like Bidwill can replicate the spending of true billionaires, billionaires that would be billionaires even if they didn't own an NFL team.
The debate is clearly circular. Bidwills could easily spend $300M on signing bonuses if they leveraged some of their assets. They clearly don't want to, and I understand why they don't. I'm not sure I would either. But again, it is a choice whether to do so or not.
What assets other than the Cardinals can they leverage?
What else do they need?
So you’re asking them to borrow 300 million against their only asset versus an owner like Kroenke that can just pay it from today’s cash flow.
Yep. That is exactly what I am asking. They can easily do so if the wanted to. It is the entire point I, and others are making. It is a choice for them to do it or not.
And people are making it seem like we want the Bidwills to sign six players to massive deals to improve the team like the Rams. That’s crap. We would have settled for ONE major impact signing or restructure. We literally got ZERO while losing talent elsewhere.
Exactly! They would be essentially borrowing against themselves. Once the TV money came in, it would be paid back plus a whole lot more...
Didn't they sign Bobby Wagner?
Yes, but they play different LB positions...
It's pretty funny. It's a fairly common practice to move money from anticipated future gains into today to make capital investments.
So the rebuttal is to roll your eyes. Do you admit that this team is not as talented as last year?
Ding ding ding. Virtually every medium to large business does this. It took Amazon 14 years to even make a profit.
no. They get less. Teams still have a max amount they can spend and when they pump it all into a few stars...blue collar guys have to take less money.
The eye roll is his accusation towards posters for things that haven't happened yet.
Weird way to respond, since you are the one that rolled your eyes. lol
