More thinking on the Rams gamble with Atogwe
Everyone knew that the St. Louis Rams’ offer to RFA Oshiomogho Atogwe at the lowest, first right of refusal level would likely result in another team making him an offer. No team has presented Atogwe with an offer yet, but he is officially on one team’s radar: the Dallas Cowboys.
If the Cowboys, or any other team, make Atogwe an offer, the Rams have the right to match it and retain the services of the free safety or decline the opportunity to match it and let him walk…for no compensation.
Therein lies the rub. Because Atogwe is a fifth-year player, the RFA rules of the no-cap year treated him a bit differently, mandating that any other RFA offer would have paid him $6.9 million, 110 percent of the salary he received last year playing under the team’s franchise tag.
Probably, the thinking inside Rams Park was that they did not want to pay Atogwe almost $7 million, remarkably high for a safety who is good but hardly a game changer. Using the lowest tender gives the Rams a window to work out a long-term deal with the safety – with no offer by June 1, they have to either pay him the $6.9 million or let him walk. It also gives other teams the chance to talk with Atogwe, testing the market so to speak.
Of course, the Rams risk losing Atogwe by going this route because another team could insert a so-called "poison pill" into an offer, making it all but impossible for the Rams to match. That seems very unlikely to happen, and I bet the farm that GM Billy Devaney and VP Kevin Demoff gambled wisely on that probability in their decision to go this route with Atogwe.
Why is a poison pill unlikely? The owners hate it and have unofficially conspired not to use it in the wake of the Steve Hutcheson drama in 2006. That was the last time such an offer was used, to the great chagrin of the players union.
Now, the first paragraph about the Cowboys being interested scares lots of people because they’ve got money to play with. However, Jerry Jones is frightened of the poison pill, and even spoke out about the need to address the issue in the next CBA. So sayeth Jerry Jones:
Those are called unintended consequences there. What turns into trying to be competitive among clubs and what turns into trying to be fair for a player turns into being a disadvantage for the clubs.
According to the link at PFT, Jones feels vulnerable because the Cowboys could lose WR Miles Austin via that route. In fact, there’s speculation that his comments could shut down the RFA market entirely, a market that very rarely has much activity anyway. From PFT:
…the hidden genius of Jones' remarks could be that he possibly has foreclosed teams from choosing to sign any restricted free agents to offer sheets, since his comments arguably now compel use of the poison pill. Though the union can still cry collusion if no RFAs are pursued, it will be very easy for teams to argue that they prefer not to sacrifice draft picks in what many regard as the deepest pool of incoming talent in years.
Anyway, long story short, I don’t think you have to worry about any team using the poison pill to nab Atogwe, especially since he’s not enough of a difference maker to merit owners going that dangerous route. Now, some other team could very well make him an offer still, but it’s unlikely that he’ll get a deal that would pay him. Don’t believe it still? The Steelers resigned FS Ryan Clark to a four-year, $14 million deal with $5 million guaranteed and a $3 million signing bonus. I wouldn’t be surprised if Atogwe got a deal like that eventually.
Bottom line: O.J. Atogwe is not going to get $6.9 million per year, not from the Rams and not from any other team, and the Rams still have a good chance of hanging onto Atogwe. The Rams made a move that looks like a head-scratcher, but was a pretty smart calculation/gamble.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
If this works out, savvy. If not, foolhardy.
Either way, to get this team back on track, we’re going to have to take risks, both on the field and off.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
Paying him well above what any other team is willing to pay him is foolhardy as well.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
Not as bad as losing one of the few impact players
since financials shouldn’t have a huge impact on rebuilding. I think overpaying is something we can afford over the next two years. Now, if you’re the Cowboys and you drop an ass bomb like the Roy Williams trade, or the Redskins giving the GDP of a small country for Albert Haynesworth, you’ve just capped your own chances.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Mar 11, 2010 6:33 PM CST up reply actions
I'm sorry,
I just don’t see Daniel Fells as an “impact” player.
Sometimes I think Randy McMichaels’ ineptitude has warped our sense of what it is to truly be considered a factor.
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
I thought we were talking about Togs?
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Mar 12, 2010 7:41 PM CST up reply actions
Well, maybe you were
and, probably the rest of the commenters here were, but obviously I was talking about Daniel Fells………..
And I stand by my statement!!!
(trying to somehow save face…..)
Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.
- John Wayne
Why even try and sign him now?
If the Rams don’t want to sign him to that much money, they’ll have to let him walk regardless. I doubt he’d sign with us. I don’t think he’s worth that much money, but with a better front 7, he can be quite the “difference maker” people don’t make him out to be.
The House of Spears reigns supreme
Atogwe....
I think it’s a good move on the Rams part…. If a another team wants to pay Atogwe close to $7 million a year, I say go for it! The Rams are smart in not doing so.
I agree that Atogwe is good but he’s not Troy Polamalu! I think the Rams will eventually retain Atogwe at a lower amount of salary. Enough to make him happy still.
If they lose him then so be it. The Rams went 2-14 & 1-15 with him. Can’t be much worst without him. There are other needs right now.
I know I should know this...
but could someone explain a little more about what a “poison pill” is? What exactly happened with Hutchinson? I am not familiar with this concept. Thanks for the help.
The Poison Pill
A poison pill is is a term referring to a strategy to increase the likelihood an adversary does self-harm when attempting to make a move against you. In other words, make their agression hurt them as much as it hurts you.
in March 2006, the Seattle Seahawks held the right to first refusal with Steve Hutchinson, meaning if any other team offered him a contract, Seattle had the opportunity to give him the same exact contract and keep him (just like Rams have with Atogwe right now).
The Vikings offered Seahawks G Steve Hutchinson a seven-year, $49 million contract ($16 million guaranteed). The contract offer had two poison pills in it designed to make it too painful for the Seahawks to match it.
One Poison Pill was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. For the Seahawks, that would have been a serious problem.
The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks’ opportunity to match the contract offer. The Vikings wouldn’t even be effected by that clause….it was strictly to keep Seattle from being able to match the offer.
The Seahawks retaliated, maybe unwisely, by offering Vikings wide receiver Nate Burleson a contract which was structured as….yes, a seven year, $49 million deal! The contract given to Burleson also had a couple of very unique poison pill clauses.
First, it stipulated that if Burleson were to play five or more games in the state of Minnesota during any single season over the life of the contract, the entire $49 million would become guaranteed. Secondly, if Burleson were to earn more per year on average than all of his team’s running backs combined, the $49 million would be guaranteed.
Since the Vikings play in Minnesota, and their running backs combined earned less per year than the $7 million in Burleson’s contract, Minnesota was unable to match it.
by CoachConnors on Mar 11, 2010 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Amazing explanation Connors..
That was really interesting and informative for me. I appreciate you taking the time to type it up.
I think I am ok with a team giving a huge first year cap hit to a player by giving him a large salary. That hurts them as well, but they would only do it if they could afford it. I think that is a fair way to go about it even if it is a little sneaky. However, the other clauses are just ridiculous. The # of games played in MN or the highest paid player on the offensive line stuff is just unfair wording to handicap the team with the player and I don’t think it should be allowed.
Anyway, I totally get it now. Thanks again for the awesome explanation.
Not yet
Thus the underlying whispers of collusion amongst the owners. It’s a loophole that they will want closed in the next CBA, and I’m thinking if anyone of them uses it again he’ll alienate the others during a time when they need unity more than the players, in that what they want additionally is to cut the players percentage down from 60. Since it’s an obviously effective strategy and no one can come up with another explanation, and there is no cap this year, collusion should be easy to prove.

by 

























