(04-24-2020, 11:16 AM)Bullseye Wrote:

(04-24-2020, 11:01 AM)Rico Wrote: I don't get what you wanted them to do.  Force him to sign/play?

1.  Don't alienate your star level talent.

2.  If that is unavoidable and you trade the star level talent, make the most out of the pickks you get from him


The Rams were a cheap organization when thy were first in Los Angeles, and RB Eric Dickerson was constantly bickering with the team over his contract.

Finally it became unbearable for the team, and they traded him away to the Colts.

They got a huge haul fom the trade.

  

Quote: the Rams got running backs Greg Bell and Owen Gill, along with six draft picks three each from the Bills and Colts, including each teams’ first and second round picks in 1988.

Read More: Halloween, 1987: Eric Dickerson Traded To Colts | https://espn1420.com/halloween-1987-eric...m=referral



Now if 3 picks for one player who doesn't want to be here is good, then certainly the rams made out like bandits, right?

The only thing is they botched the overwhelming majority of the picks!  That trade should have set them up for success for years.  Instead, it set them up for failure.

By the fans perspective, getting rid of a player you deem to be a malcontent has value.

But I submit a talented but unhappy player is less of a headache than having a team of less talented players.

You do know there was no salary cap in 1987...right?

Let's add to the fact that he was a malcontent and was not going to play here regardless.  Two firsts for Ramsey was a fantastic haul, especially since we don't have to pay him some ridiculous salary.  I can't say that I necessarily liked what they did with the pick they got this year.  But you cannot factor that in when the trade was made.

I can't even see how the highlighted is even relevant.  A talented and unhappy player has exactly what value when he refuses to play?

---