Teams Call On Steven Jackson

[TheImmortalGoud]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8564087/steven-jackson-st-louis-rams-rb-drawing-trade-interest-sources

The St. Louis Rams have fielded trade inquiries about running back Steven Jackson over the past few weeks in advance of Tuesday's NFL trade deadline, according to league sources.

Multiple teams have called the Rams to discuss Jackson's availability, and while the Rams are not proactively shopping Jackson, or any other player, they are willing to listen to offers.

Teams such as Arizona, Green Bay, Dallas and Pittsburgh each have dealt with injuries at the running back position and make sense as potential trade partners. Green Bay, in particular, has coveted Jackson in the past.

With another round of games Sunday and the trade deadline looming, Jackson's name is likely to surface again if a running back-needy team looks to make a last-minute push.

[f16harm]

Contract makes a trade nearly impossible

[mcstl25]

Contract makes a trade nearly impossible

How so? His contract was recently changed to void the final year of his deal, which was next year.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Contract makes a trade nearly impossible

no

If anything, his contract makes him very attractive for a trade.

Anyway, they might as well trade him, seeing as they never use him. My one critique of the Fisher regime is their odd inclination to not use their best offensive player.

[f16harm]

yes.

Has nothing to do with his voided contract year. A team would have to give up a 3rd or 4th, maybe a 2nd depending on how crazy the price is....plus pay $3 million to him in salary for the remainder of this season...plus then negotiate a new contract with him at the end of the season for a 30yr old RB (the age of death for RBs)

[NAHSTE]

yes.

Has nothing to do with his voided contract year. A team would have to give up a 3rd or 4th, maybe a 2nd depending on how crazy the price is....plus pay $3 million to him in salary for the remainder of this season...plus then negotiate a new contract with him at the end of the season for a 30yr old RB (the age of death for RBs)

Why would any team that acquires him for the rest of this season have to negotiate a new contract? Couldn't they just let him walk away?

[f16harm]

Why would any team that acquires him for the rest of this season have to negotiate a new contract? Couldn't they just let him walk away?

My guess is that the team that would do that, their GM won't be there for very long in the NFL if you are giving up 2nd/3rd/4th/decent player PLUS $3 million in money for a RB on the verge of 30yrs old with no future contract, for 8 or 9 games

[NAHSTE]

My guess is that you won't be a GM for very long in the NFL if you are giving up 2nd/3rd/4th/decent player PLUS $3 million in money for a RB on the verge of 30yrs old with no future contract, for 8 or 9 games

Who says any GM would do that? So far only you have even suggested such a possibility exists. Obviously the return would be a late round pick at best. You are arguing with a hypothetical dumb GM that doesn't exist.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Why would any team that acquires him for the rest of this season have to negotiate a new contract? Couldn't they just let him walk away?

He's moving the goalpost because he didn't realize Jackson had a very team friendly deal.

See, first it was the contract that made him 'nearly impossible' to trade, now he's making it about age and what the trade partner would have to give up.

[f16harm]

What? You asked a question why would someone have to give him a contract at the end of the year. I gave you the logical answer. I see NO team/GM who is going to give up all of that for an old RB for 8-9 games. He's not going to do much as a rental at that price for a team in 8-9 games.

[f16harm]

He's moving the goalpost because he didn't realize Jackson had a very team friendly deal.

See, first it was the contract that made him 'nearly impossible' to trade, now he's making it about age and what the trade partner would have to give up.

No I'm not, his contract is still the problem, he has a guaranteed salary of $7 million this year. No one is trading for someone they have to pay the remaining $3 million in salary to for 8-9 games. Then have to try and resign them at the end. Nice try at continuing the argument though via your homeristic Rams view of the trade potential.

[Warner2BruceTD]

No I'm not, his contract is still the problem, he has a guaranteed salary of $7 million this year. No one is trading for someone they have to pay $3 million in salary to for 8-9 games. Then have to try and resign them at the end. Nice try at continuing the argument though, homer.

lol

Let me try to help you out, here. After mcstl & myself informed you that Jackson had a very tradeable contract, instead of being stubborn and moving the goalposts, you should have just said something like this:

Oh wow, yeah, I didn't realize he is barely owed any more money moving forward, thanks guys. Good info.

[mcstl25]

I really don't think the salary will be much of an issue if a team has the cap room. For teams like the Packers that really need a running back, a guy like Jackson could put them over the top. There's no way that the Rams would get a 2nd or even 3rd round pick for Jackson, but a 4th or 5th could be possible.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I really don't think the salary will be much of an issue if a team has the cap room. For teams like the Packers that really need a running back, a guy like Jackson could put them over the top. There's no way that the Rams would get a 2nd or even 3rd round pick for Jackson, but a 4th or 5th could be possible.

Yeah, the contract is clearly not an issue here, that isn't even a lot of money to squeeze under the cap for the rest of the season.

[RyanLeaf16]

No I'm not, his contract is still the problem, he has a guaranteed salary of $7 million this year. No one is trading for someone they have to pay the remaining $3 million in salary to for 8-9 games. Then have to try and resign them at the end. Nice try at continuing the argument though via your homeristic Rams view of the trade potential.

Yeah, I have to agree with W2B. You first argued that his current contract would be a issue. Then, the point was made that his contract is actually team-friendly due to some changes. Once that was posted, you continued to "clarify" what you originally stated by making it sound like the compensation to acquire Jackson, and the rest of the contract for this year, plus the need to possibly renegotiate after the season made acquiring him unattractive. However, like a previous poster stated, you simply are molding your argument around hypotheticals and "what-ifs" rather than what is.