View Full Version : Rams not making progress with Bruce's contract, maybe cut.
Jim Thomas, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports the St. Louis Rams have not been able to work out a restructured with WR Isaac Bruce. According to league sources, the contract impasse between Bruce and the Rams has reached the point where the club might release Bruce rather than carry his $10 million salary cap figure into the 2006 season. As things stand, Bruce is due a $1.5 million roster bonus Monday, March 6. Rather than pay that bonus Monday, the club is considering releasing Bruce in the absence of a new contract. The team is offering Bruce $9 million over three years, including $5 million this season in the form of roster bonus and signing bonus, according to league sources. Bruce is due $8.1 million alone in 2006 under his current contract, the last year of a seven- year deal signed in 2000. That $8.1 million breaks down as follows: the $1.5 million roster bonus; $6.5 million in base salary; and a $100,000 offseason workout bonus. Those close to Bruce say he would be willing to take a pay cut if the team was in a bad cap position, but the Rams are believed to be more than $10 million under the current projected cap of $94.5 million. Bruce's agent, Jimmy Sexton, said: "I know that Isaac really wants to finish his career as a Ram. Hopefully, something can be worked out."
-------
If cut would like him in Denver?
Billy Clyde Puckett
03-05-2006, 01:27 PM
I'd take him over TO and any other current FA in a heartbeat. Use that cap room with him and keep the draft choices
Jason in LA
03-05-2006, 01:38 PM
Looking at the money they are offering him, he should take the pay cut. The guy is past his prime. Getting $5 million upfront, and $9 mil over three years is a very good deal for somebody his age. It will be hard for him to get that type of deal anywhere else.
Kaylore
03-05-2006, 01:38 PM
He's 34 years old.
Borks147
03-05-2006, 02:01 PM
He's 34 years old.
TO's 33
Billy Clyde Puckett
03-05-2006, 02:10 PM
Rod is 35
DBroncos4life
03-05-2006, 02:36 PM
yes, but then again I think of all the other old WRs that we brought in that never did anything for us. Still you would think he would be a good #3 WR.
I'd take him over TO and any other current FA in a heartbeat. Use that cap room with him and keep the draft choices
Bruce over Terrell Owens? You must have fallen off your mountain. Be a hater but do not start this kind of crap talk. TO is not only better than Bruce ever was, but Bruce had slowed down so much and his production is even slower/lower than ever.
TO = play maker
IB = Old guy in the twilite of his career
DBroncos4life
03-05-2006, 02:42 PM
Bruce over Terrell Owens? You must have fallen off your mountain. Be a hater but do not start this kind of crap talk. TO is not only better than Bruce ever was, but Bruce had slowed down so much and his production is even slower/lower than ever.
TO = play maker
IB = Old guy in the twilite of his career
I guess the fact that TO is Cancer, scratch that if cancer could get cancer it would get TO, doesn't matter too you. Which is fine but I don't think we are making this choice based on the ability of the player.
Billy Clyde Puckett
03-05-2006, 02:50 PM
Bruce over Terrell Owens? You must have fallen off your mountain. Be a hater but do not start this kind of crap talk. TO is not only better than Bruce ever was, but Bruce had slowed down so much and his production is even slower/lower than ever.
TO = play maker
IB = Old guy in the twilite of his career
Beat me to it DB - Some people always forget football is a team sport.
DBroncos4life
03-05-2006, 02:55 PM
Beat me to it DB - Some people always forget football is a team sport.
Im not one to shy away from a guy with some problems, pretty sure I've made that known but TO goes to another level.
ludo21
03-05-2006, 03:35 PM
id take TO over Bruce still.
But lets scratch them both out and make a trade for Holt! ;D