These passages have been edited for length and are selected to give a sense of the wide range of reaction.

Zack Neruda 3/17 9:04 am

What is starting is the Rams front office hard-balling an agent.

IE. If Warner were already under contract, I would foresee no problems. The problems come when Zygmunt gets involved.

Do you really believe that Martz said those things? Or is it more like he is being spoken for?

Remember the Faulk negotiations? "Unnamed Rams sources" saying that Faulk was not an elite back?

After Charley Armey had already publicly said Faulk was one of the 2 or 3 best backs in the league? (And Armey had been in NE, in the AFC East, facing Faulk twice a season...he knew better.) Same thing. Only this time it has the power to cause real, genuine harm.

I will say this. Months ago, when this issue came up, Vermeil said anything that happened with the QBs would be "handled with class." Well. He's gone now.

Billy_T posted on 3/17 9:34 am

Edelstein is a journalist. He wants to sell his . . . whatever it is that he writes and wants to sell. Much of this is HIS sensationalism at work. I don't believe the bulk of the article anyway. I'm also willing to wait for concrete proof.

However, if I were guessing, I'd have to say that Warner has a very very aggressive agent now, and this agent is causing the turmoil (if indeed it does exist). The Front Office has to react to that.

Again, IF all of this is true(and I really doubt that it is), then it means that our hero is not the boy scout so many wanted us to believe he was/is. Remember, he said several times that money didn't matter to him at all, he just thanked the Lord, etc. etc. etc. Also, remember, the Rams gave him $500,000 dollars. They didn't have to. That was classy, Zack. Can you admit that?

If the Rams are willing to pay Warner 4 Mil, and Warner doesn't accept this and holds out, then I put the blame on Warner and not the Front Office. As we all know, the Cap presents some major obstacles. The Front Office has got to live within its parameters. Warner should take a deep breath, tell this agent to piss off, and realize if he has another great year, then the keys to the kingdom are his.

progRAMmer 3/17 9:30 am

IF, the mumbo jumbo stated in that article is true. AND, Warner is talking holdout..

I say.. let him sit. I have ZERO tolerance for pro-athletes sitting out, not following the rules and honoring contracts.

I don't care if he just saved the planet from destruction, much less won a Super Bowl.. I'd let him sit-out and play hard ball. He wouldn't tie up any cap space and he'd screw himself because he's not getting any younger.

I read some of the posts below going off on the Rams for only offering 4 mil for 1 year.. 4 mil ?, we're only obligated to pay him around half a mil. Not saying it would be right to do that, but those are the rules. Like em or not.

We have other responsibilities we've got to take care of. Some of you are so blinded to this that you'd give up half the team to keep Warner. That's BS...

If Warner pulls this crap.. I hope the Rams pull a "Barry Sanders" on him.. like the Lions did. The following year he'll be in the same boat.. Warner has ZERO leverage with Green in the background.. If he starts this crap.. let him sit..

In this instance, I'm pro-Rams.. Warner is obligated to play for the minimum.. anything else is a bonus.. If he doesn't like it.. play out the season and become an UFA.. those are the rules agreed upon by the NFLPA and the NFL.. If he was currently an UFA, I'd be different about it...

Bring on Green...

JustaFan posted on 3/17 10:37 am

Anyone who has been a participant in a negotiation should understand how this works. Its about leverage, posturing, and the process.

If you’re buying a car, your first offer is lower than what you will settle for and the salesman will cry and bleed everywhere hearing your first offer. He counters at a ridiculously high price and the game begins....

In this case Warner has no real leverage, because of the rules, and the Rams would be stupid to give away their flexibility next year to make Warner’s agent happy. Remember here, Warner’s agent will get a nice percentage cut of whatever the contract amount is, and the way that agents work these days is to first tell the player that "I'm working for your benefit and I know what I'm doing, so you need to let me do my job and not interfere with the tactics I am going to employ."

Some truth and some fiction in there. True they are the professionals in terms of contract negotiations, but it's the player’s image and career that they are playing with, and the benefits are shared by the agent but not the costs of the tactics.

I feel it is fairly absurd for the Warner camp to feel that the Rams should give away all their flexibility in terms of dealing with him next year by signing him to a long term deal now. Why should they do that? What is their motivation for doing that? The parameters of a players options are clearly defined by the collective bargaining agreement. What Warner’s agent is asking for is clearly outside what would be considered fair.

Seems to me that a lot of this is just Warner’s agent attempting to improve his bargaining position and get as much as he can in a tough spot. The rules clearly do not support their position, and neither does the morality.

Justa my opinion
Justa fan

OkieRam posted on 3/17 10:16 am

I love watching all of the possibilities and angles that everyone brings up in the new Warner vs. Rams controversy. I wouldn't tell anyone "you can't go there" or "you don't know" because NONE OF US knows. It's going to be fun to see how all of this pans out. We can make our cases for how we think Warner or the Rams are going to play this due to what we perceive of them, but we're going to have to wait and see.

There are a couple of things, however, that are bottom line facts in this issue that go a long way in how this is all going to shake out.

1. The Rams organization holds every single advantage in negotiating with Warner. In the absolute worst case scenario - the Rams go to war next season with Trent Green and Germaine as SB’s, with Warner under contract but holding out. The fallout wouldn't be pretty: bad PR, internal strife and the possibility of a watered down product on the field. The Rams cannot be held up in any way in 2000-2001 by the contract status of Kurt Warner. This fact directly leads to point #2...

2. Kurt Warner is in the worst "hold-out" position of any athlete in current memory. The absolute only thing Warner could gain in a holdout would be a "I'm sticking to my principles" reputation. A Warner holdout eliminates any leverage he had as a starter. It probably would put him as backup the entire 2000 season. A holdout damages the reputation as a strength and character over professional athlete persona that he worked very hard for last season. A holdout virtually insures that he would not be with the Rams after next season. A holdout certainly wouldn't push his $$$$$ up with his next contract, and could definitely push them down. Kurt has very, very little to gain in a holdout and a whole, whole lot to lose in a holdout.

To me, these are the facts, and they are incontrovertible.

Zack Neruda posted on 3/17 10:25 am

No---the Rams do NOT hold every single advantage. They risk completely alienating their fan base. This is the single most successful Rams QB and most nationally visible and popular Rams player EVER. The old technique of slamming the player and trying to make him look bad (something they tried with Faulk) is simply not going to work in this instance. It could actually backfire.

The issue is not a Warner hold-out. The issue is WHO SAID that a hold-out is even possible? Was it the player's agent, trying to hardball? Was it the Rams front office, trying to slam the player? Did the agent let it be known that it was possible? Or did the agent mention it in the midst of tough negotiations and then, to further corner the agent, did the Rams front office repeat it?

THE ISSUE IS NOT A HOLD OUT
THE ISSUE IS NOT "GREEN IS BETTER"

The issue is who is SAYING THOSE THINGS and WHY.

JamesJM posted on 3/17 11:47 am

My "hunch" on what Warner wants... in a word "Security".....in all this I see very little, if any, hard evidence of anything speculated...except one thing:

"IF Warner gets injured without a long term deal, he loses his future." That is a scary truth.

I believe Warner and his agent ARE aware of the cap situation facing the Rams....they are without doubt also aware that the Rams will most likely try to portray their position with the cap as worse than it actually is.

Both sides of the negotiating party adopt radical positions...it's the way business is done. What needs to be determined, especially by us, IMO...is what is the ultimate goal all parties are seeking.

IMO..Warner's goal is "security". Find a way to provide this and still allow the Rams to deal with the cap, and then the rest of the roster, and you have the answer.

I don't see an impediment to structuring a long term deal, or even a one year one, that secures Warner’s future and eases the cap pressure facing the Rams. - JamesJM

Zooey posted on 3/17 12:44 p.m.

Kurt Warner hasn't said anything about this.

At all.

And nothing is "nasty" yet. All we have is Edelstein, who while he sometimes contributes good information, also has a reputation for bombast. There may be a story here. And there may be a writer filling dead air.

To me, this just looks like the opening round of negotiations. Warner's agent knows that he can leverage Warner's popularity and success here. It's his greatest tool at the moment. And, frankly, that's his job. And the Rams greatest leverage at the moment is Trent Green and the fact that legally they don't have to pay Warner anything due to his "junior" status as negotiated in the CBA. These tools are going to be played against each other. I don't think anybody here is the Bad Guy, yet.

I don't believe for a second that Warner will hold out. Absolutely everything we saw of Warner through this year seemed completely genuine to me.

And he hasn't threatened to hold out. Edelstein doesn't even claim that he has made that threat. All he said was that Warner and his agent "discussed the possibility of a holdout."

Well, I would think they would. They should talk about this deal from every possible angle and make evaluations. That's the agent's responsibility. And whether Warner holds out or not, he should consider everything, right? That's all that's really happened here. And the threat of a holdout itself holds a certain weight. It puts some pressure on the Rams.

I think everybody should just relax a bit here. Getting in a twist over one article by a bombastic journalist is a little flighty.

The opening kickoff doesn't determine the outcome of the game. There is a LONG way to go with this story, and because an amicable signing is in the best interests of both camps, I still anticipate that.

SactoRam posted on 3/17 3:30 PM

We know very little about very much in nearly everything...

So let's look at what is reasonable based on our experience.

First, do you think it's a reasonable assumption to believe that Warner will be asking for significantly more $ than Green? The numbers thrown out in the article of $6 million/year with a $15 million bonus seem reasonable to me, given his S. Bowl status and performance and overall popularity. That is significantly higher compensation than Green's.

If you buy into the fact that Warner is going to seeking a significantly greater compensation than Green, then the question is, "Is he worth it?" If you believe he is, you pay him, trade Green, and take the consequences - not signing some other players, and maybe not making the right decision on who is the better player.

If you don't believe he's worth significantly more, then Warner hits the road and you take the consequences of the bad PR and possibly making a bad decision.

I don't see how this conflict is easily resolved, unless Warner is a *real* nice guy like Ricky Williams and the Rams get a sweet-heart deal. Sure, Warner could take the one year deal. However, you still have the same problem or worse next year. If he thinks he signed for less than market value (and $4 mill is less than market value), it's only natural that he should want that much more to make up the difference. The conflict then becomes even worse next year. So I don't see this as being much to do about nothing. It's definitely a real issue and it will have some real consequences depending upon how the Rams brass deals with it.

CaptChaos posted on 3/17 12:33 P.M.

A twist to the Warner vs. Green puzzle

I think a lot also depends on how the Rams feel about Germaine. Why would they want to give a long term deal to Warner if they are high on Germaine. Maybe they feel with Green and Warner for another year to have insurance against injury. Then Germaine would be ready to step in after a year or two. I hope to god this isn't true. I am thinking out load here is all. Just a theory that is PURE speculation.

WV.Ram posted on 3/17 8:02 am

The coming storm: Kurt Warner

This may sound odd coming from someone who recently posted that KW is my all time 'favorite' player, but....I dot know what to do about Kurt Warner. I love him for what he did last year, and I always will, but, I dot know that I would sign him to a huge multi-year contract. I'm not sure. I dot know enough about the cap.

It seems to me the Rams MUST keep Carter (I'm taking you people's word on his greatness, cause I dot see it) and they must keep Bruce (his talent is nonpareil) and they must keep Faulk and they must keep... Warner OR Green?.

Those four are the playmakers, the difference-makers.

But what if they simply CANT keep Warner and the other three. Which one is most easily 'replaced' or duplicated? That would probably be Warner, wouldn’t it?

All indications are that Martz has great faith in Trent Green. Would there be a significant drop-off if Warner was traded after next year and Green was kept?

I would love to see Kurt finish his career with the Rams. But what if his contract demands are so high that it would mean losing Ike or Carter...what then? Do the Rams keep Warner then? Would he be worth 'that' price?

I'm hopeful that all this media stuff is just more of the usual Ram front-office-crap. I'm hoping its just 'negotiation-through-the-media' similar to what they did to Faulk. I'm hoping that the Rams and Kurt will make a deal that will keep him and still allow them to sign Ike and Carter and keep Faulk.

Maybe they should just give Kurt 4-6 million for one year and then see what happens.

I am now 'officially' worried, however.