[Elvis]

Another scenario, seems unlikely, but since we're spit balling: Maybe someone is willing to give Stafford 3 or 4 years at $50 mil and the Rams simply aren't willing to go there. If that is the case, i certainly wouldn't blame the Rams, but like i said, seems unlikely...

[ramsman34]

Desperate teams will do that deal and then eat the dead cap hit in the last year, or two. It’s why those teams suck.

[PARAM]

"How many yachts can you water ski behind? How much is enough?"

"It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a Zero Sum game – somebody wins, somebody loses."

- Wall Street

I think that's how many in sports think (certainly, the agents do). Players also seem to equate money with "respect."

I'd like to think that, if was me, I'd be willing to trade some $$$ for the sake of legacy, continuity, loyalty and public persona. However, I've never been in a position in which the trade-off is in the seven to eight figure range.

What I do know, though, is that, if this is resolved, everyone will go back to not worrying about the money (as long as Stafford stays healthy and performs, that is!).

Yeah, sometimes in sports there's a legacy to consider. But seriously, look at rich people......Musk, Trump, Buffett, etc......the more they have, the more they want. Some consider legacy there too (Gates) but IMO it's rare. It occurs more often in sports than in the Fortune 500 class.

Stafford? A lot of people say he's old. Injury is more likely now than 10 years ago. So why the hell shouldn't he want guarantees? In the end, regardless of his bargaining slot, I think he negotiates fairly due to the fact the Rams got him out of a hell hole and a chance for a Lombardi.