I have been preaching AGAINST a 1 year deal for KW for a long time. And, to beat this recumbent equine yet one more time, let me work out some projections.

Somebody yesterday--I think either Zooey or James--asked me why I assume that a 1 year deal with Kurt makes it likely he won't be with us more than a year.

Well, let's think it through.

Suppose we do what most (not all! I stand corrected for using that hyperbole yesterday!) of the board wants us to do: start Kurt and keep Trent as a back-up.

And, suppose we do what reports have the Rams wishing to do: sign Kurt for 1 year at 4 mill.

I'll even toss in this supposition: suppose Trent and Kurt are both good soldiers about this.

Suppose 1 more thing, though. Suppose the Ram coaches still believe in Trent!

OK. The year begins. What are the possibilities?

Best case scenario: Kurt goes out and blows the league away--again! MVP. Deep in the playoffs. Maybe another Super Bowl ala Favre.

Now it is next off-season. What is Kurt's VALUE on the football market? I think he is scheduled to be a RFA? He was not drafted, but someone said we could tender him to cost a 1st rounder. Well, do you think there might be a team that would spend a 1st rounder to get a 2-time monster QB who had produced championships?

Now imagine our situation next year.

We may have Ike yet to be re-signed. He may have the Franchise tag already. If not, whom do you tag: Ike or Kurt? (How's that for a board debate?) We also have a raft of other guys up for contracts. Fletch will be an UFA, I think, and probably damn close to an All pro MLB. Lyle will be up--will we be ready to let him go? Wistrom? I don’t remember the whole list, but you have a LOT of guys to resign. Based on what we have seen this year, their market values will all be inflated by the team's success.

What will Kurt COST under those circumstances? How much money will other teams offer him? And how many other players will it cost us to re-sign Kurt?

Now think of this. In the middle of all that roster pressure, you have 2 more years of the rights to Trent Green. He would cost you peanuts. And the coaches love him.

The roster/cap ECONOMY of that situation argues very powerfully against keeping Kurt.

On the other hand, you would have the PR nightmare. If Kurt gave the fans another great year, they would want him forever.

So maybe we go ahead and do that deal--which would cost the moon--because listening to the dictates of the roster/cap economy would be PR suicide. And in doing so we weaken the team around Kurt. I would suggest that significantly weakening the other positions would hurt the team much worse than replacing Kurt with Trent possibly could.

Summary of best case scenario: if we sign Kurt for one year, and he has another monster year, the team will be strapped across a huge rock. Keeping him would weaken the team; letting him go would be PR disaster. Yet the Ram management has been known to accept PR black eyes if there was profit in it. In that scenario, I think there is a very good chance they would revert to Trent. Actually, I would prefer that to breaking the team bank for Kurt.

Lesser Scenario:

Let's say Kurt has less than a brilliant year--for whatever reason. He doesn't play as well. He gets hurt. Whatever. He isn't "hot" any longer.

In that case, the Randall Cunningham Syndrome kicks in. Remember--this is one reason why people suggest the 1-year deal: "Let's see if '99 was a fluke!" If Kurt fell to earth with a thud, his market value would drop. He would not be able to command the huge salary. That would work in our favor, eh?

Well, it would ease the economic pressure of the roster and cap!

But what would it do for the chances of keeping Kurt?

Remember what we said above? We have all that team-wide economic pressure. Most likely, we would still have a pretty good season and we would have a number of very valuable players to re-sign.

And Kurt would still cost pretty serious money. He is still a one-time double MVP QB. When you see the Scott Mitchell's and Tony Banks and so forth of the league getting gigs, you can bet Kurt would still have suitors.

And there sits Trent. 2 years left on his contract at 2 mill a year. And the coaches still love him.

And notice something else. If Kurt had less of a year, the fan pressure to keep him would back off very, very fast. Fans' love for players is incredibly fickle--more fickle than the players' loyalties about which those same fans complain so often. If Kurt had some bad games, the Cunningham Syndrome would quickly affect the fans, who would start remembering Trent. Suddenly, the PR pressure to keep Kurt would lessen dramatically and the team could bow to the roster/cap pressures of the situation. Keeping Trent and letting Kurt go would dramatically increase our ability to keep other players.

Indeed, if the Rams really want a 1 year deal, this scenario HAS to be in their minds. As has been speculated about in these vague rumor/journalism reports we see.

The Rams have 2 QB assets. But PR pressure is enormously against seeing one of those assets as being liquid. But, after a year, if Kurt is mortal, then the front office is inoculated at least to some extent from fan backlash if it decides to trade in its Kurt chip and keep the Trent chip, which will in any case be far less expensive.

But don't forget: this scenario has a cost, too!

It costs us the value of the Kurt chip!

Because, at the end of a 1 year deal, we will have far less control of the situation than we do now. If Kurt's value drops significantly, then we are most likely to be in the position of merely letting him go--we wouldn't have his contract to trade. We might pull one of those deals where we get some compensation for letting a team sign him as we did with Jenkins. But the value of that will be far lower if Kurt has a poorish year and we really don't own his contract.

The 1 year plan has a cost!

Worst Case Scenario: Kurt goes deeply into the tank. He plays horribly. He has a devastating injury that strips him of most of his value. In one way or another, his value drops to a minimal point.

This is the one scenario in which the 1 year deal works well for the Rams.

It also means that Kurt is gone.

And it really isn't very likely.

Oh--and even this scenario has a cost: we would in this circumstance never have a chance to get any trade value for EITHER of our QB assets.

Any way you look at the future, a 1 year deal is trouble for the team.

Furthermore, a 1 year deal sends a message: "We like Kurt, but we like Trent, too. And we aren't sure Kurt is our answer long term."

Folks, if the Rams truly believed in Kurt, they wouldn't be farting around with a 1 year deal. They would sign him long term--NOW! Then, they may or may not keep Trent for a year. But they would not hesitate to make that commitment to Kurt.

The fact that they are messing around with 1 year tells me AT THE LEAST that they see their forgotten asset, Trent, as a valuable asset, especially considering the fact that they own his butt for 3 years for very cheap money.

If they push for a 1 year deal, they MUST BE AT THE VERY LEAST considering the possibility of staying with Trent long term.

Kurt and his agent know this, too.

Trent knows this. And his position this year will be difficult because of this. "Jeez, here I am, the possible long-term QB of this team, and they can't give me a chance to start because it would be PR suicide."

I keep hearing this: 316 said it on the other board today. "Making any move to replace Kurt would be PR suicide." It's not that this is an untrue statement--it is true--so far as it goes.

But it creates a false position. 2 QBs equally valued by coaches, one of whom is much more affordable but cannot be given a chance to play because of PR pressure. That is a strange situation.

Oh, and BTW, if the coaches didn't see Trent and KW as equals, they would trade Green in a heartbeat.

Again. I don't know the answer. And I understand the FOOTBALL value of having both QBs.

But it is complicated. And I will say this. If you want both QBs--fine. You can perhaps do that for a year.

But if you want to have both QBs, be men, step up to the plate, and sign KW for 4 years at least.

The worst possible outcome to this thing is that we have to try to re-sign Kurt again next year.