PDA

View Full Version : Ragone traded


Frills
06-20-2006, 11:29 AM
Bengals trade QB Ragone to Rams for draft pick

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2492402&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

texan279
06-20-2006, 11:44 AM
He's going to be battling for the #3 spot with the Rams? I guess Kubiak made the right decision.

the wonger need food
06-20-2006, 11:46 AM
Well I'll be.... so we could have gotten a draft pick for him and didn't???

blockhead83
06-20-2006, 11:57 AM
Well I'll be.... so we could have gotten a draft pick for him and didn't???

Daaaaaaamn you Casserly!.... Wait, wait......Daaaaaaamn you interim Texans Management!

Runner
06-20-2006, 11:59 AM
And now he is where he wanted to be, with Linehan.

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 12:02 PM
Well I'll be.... so we could have gotten a draft pick for him and didn't???

Exactly what I was thinking. :brickwall

nunusguy
06-20-2006, 12:24 PM
This is not good at all and it makes the Texans look like a team of foolish
spendthrifts ! As I recall, Kubiak wanted to give Ragone a jump on the market
to find a team to play for, but the Texans are one of the last teams in the
NFL that should be making a gift to another organization.
My guess would be that McNair will be seriuosly steamed when he gets wind
of this event.

the wonger need food
06-20-2006, 12:30 PM
This is not good at all and it makes the Texans look like a team of foolish
spendthrifts ! As I recall, Kubiak wanted to give Ragone a jump on the market
to find a team to play for, but the Texans are one of the last teams in the
NFL that should be making a gift to another organization.
My guess would be that McNair will be seriuosly steamed when he gets wind
of this event.

It could have just been an issue with timing. Wouldn't the Rams have rights of first refusal over Cincinnati. If that is the case, then they (and a bunch of other teams) obviously passed on him.

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 12:37 PM
Hopefully it's only a 7th round pick so we don't look as bad...but with that pick this year we could have gotten Andre Hall...:hmmm:

nunusguy
06-20-2006, 12:56 PM
It could have just been an issue with timing. Wouldn't the Rams have rights of first refusal over Cincinnati. If that is the case, then they (and a bunch of other teams) obviously passed on him.
There may be logic in what you say, but I've been uncomfortable about this ever since we released Ragone and got nothing in exchange. This only tends to reinforce my concern that we did not even make a luke-warm effort to shop him round for trade value, let alone a thorough, exhaustive attempt to
work a deal out for a QB who was being released basically because he was
simply not suited for the new offensive schemes.

TommyS
06-20-2006, 01:58 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2492402

yeah, i know we let him go a month ago, but some people obviously see good things in Dave...

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 02:03 PM
Hopefully it's a 7th rounder so we don't look like idiots :brickwall

powerfuldragon
06-20-2006, 02:04 PM
http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=24275
Posted two hours ago. We don't get anythign out of it.
bengals -> Rams.

infantrycak
06-20-2006, 02:45 PM
Hopefully it's a 7th rounder so we don't look like idiots :brickwall

As stated above, the Rams could have nabbed Ragone in front of the Bengals off the waiver wire. They didn't so obviously they wouldn't have given up a pick to get him.

Hulk75
06-20-2006, 02:50 PM
Good for Rags that is were he wanted to be anyways, back with his old coach from college.

Bet he is happy to have the 2 towers on each side of him, with Jackson, Maybe Faulk, Bruce and Holt..............Good for him.

TheOgre
06-20-2006, 02:50 PM
I wish him the best.

edo783
06-20-2006, 03:48 PM
Not a bad spot for Dave. Hope he does well.

David's Busted Carr
06-20-2006, 04:44 PM
"Rams acquired Dave Ragone from the Bengals for an undisclosed draft pick.
It's probably a conditional late-round pick. Ragone, just claimed by the Bengals last month, played under Rams coach Scott Linehan while they were both at Louisville. This should bump Jeff Smoker off the Rams' roster, while Ragone competes with Ryan Fitzpatrick for the No. 3 quarterback job."

Jun. 20 - 10:48 am et


Granted it's probably not a high pick, but nice to see we DUMPED this guy for nothing while the Bengals claim him and turn him into a draft pick in a month.

Did I mention how happy I am that Casserly is gone?????

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 04:53 PM
http://houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=24275

srstex
06-20-2006, 04:56 PM
This one I had to question, with no NFL game experience to speak of we let go a young sharp eyed quaterback, and go and get Rosenfeld from Miami. I trust our coaching staff but this one stumps me.

Texans start the regular season 1 - 0 .

El Tejano
06-20-2006, 05:00 PM
I think at the time nobody was trying to trade with us for QBs. We still could've got something out of it.

TexansFanatic
06-20-2006, 05:08 PM
"You can't have enough quarterbacks."

What an atrocious waste of a pick....

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 05:14 PM
"You can't have enough quarterbacks."

What an atrocious waste of a pick....

Casserly probably got greedy and tried to get lucky and pull another Henson deal :rolleyes:

Hervoyel
06-20-2006, 05:14 PM
"You can't have enough quarterbacks."

What an atrocious waste of a pick....

Yes it was. One of the stupidest moves this team made in it's first four years. It's just impossible to ignore things like this and it explains clearly why our first coach and our first GM are no longer here.

Lucky
06-20-2006, 05:38 PM
Casserly probably got greedy and tried to get lucky and pull another Henson deal :rolleyes:
Ragone was taken in the same draft, 3 rounds earlier. And yes, Casserly thought Ragone would become a valuable commodity. That did not transpire. The Henson deal did reel in a 3rd round pick. Charley's foray into the '03 QB stock market netted a sum total of zilch.

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 05:43 PM
nice sig Lucky :heh:

But yes Henson worked out but Ragone didn't...even though it might have been able to work out if we just gave him some playing time last year. Why not experiment and try new things when your down to try and find ways to win the next year?

Lucky
06-20-2006, 05:51 PM
Why not experiment and try new things when your down to try and find ways to win the next year?
Because if you are the head coach, there might not be a next year.

Frills
06-20-2006, 05:55 PM
Wow breaking news...:P

Caphorn
06-20-2006, 06:32 PM
Good thing they passed up NFL starter Chris Simms for this guy. The hits never end.

Hutch13
06-20-2006, 06:44 PM
i wish him the best of luck and hopefully he will be 3rd string QB

Bobo
06-20-2006, 06:45 PM
He's going to be battling for the #3 spot with the Rams? I guess Kubiak made the right decision.

So you are judging a move based on where he fits on the depth chart on another team? Corey Bradford says, "Hi!"

Bobo
06-20-2006, 06:48 PM
Yes it was. One of the stupidest moves this team made in it's first four years. It's just impossible to ignore things like this and it explains clearly why our first coach and our first GM are no longer here.

Umm, ever think that perhaps it will go down as one of the current regime's stupidest moves? Remember, Ragone will be an unrestricted FA next year. It will be interesting to see what happens with him in 2007.

Runner
06-20-2006, 06:49 PM
i wish him the best of luck and hopefully he will be 3rd string QB

I suspect he'll be given a real opportunity to compete in St. Louis and move up the depth chart.

TexanFan881
06-20-2006, 10:56 PM
Good move for Ragone. Good move by Cinci. Good move by St. Louis. Horrible move by the Texans. Sounds right :rolleyes:

texan279
06-21-2006, 12:33 AM
from www.kffl.com

Bengals | Ragone trade has little effect on Bengals
Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:49:16 -0700

Bengals.com reports the Cincinnati Bengals trade of St. Louis Rams QB Dave Ragone will have little effect on the team. The trade will allow the team to focus on QB Anthony Wright or QB Doug Johnson in training camp as the backup quarterback and possible opening day starter, if QB Carson Palmer (knee) is not healthy enough to start the season. The move will also give the team a better look at rookie free agent QB Erik Meyer as he attempts to make the practice squad.

So basically Cincy's people didn't think Ragone was good enough to be their #3 QB and was traded so they could take a better look at their rookie free agent QB?

Hookem Horns
06-21-2006, 12:38 AM
And to think, Chris Simms was on the board when we drafted Ragone. It worked out better for Simms because he is now a starter but it would have been nice having him behind Carr or even there to take Carr's job if he continues to flop.

Edit: Just saw that someone else mentioned Simms. Guess I should read the whole thread before I reply. :)

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 01:09 AM
Just to let you guys know after reading the Bengals message boards and articles it sounds that if Ragone makes the team the Bengals will recieve a 6th or 7th round pick in compensation otherwise no pick will be rewarded. Basically the trade is along the lines of the Joey Harrington deal.

texan279
06-21-2006, 01:15 AM
Just to let you guys know after reading the Bengals message boards and articles it sounds that if Ragone makes the team the Bengals will recieve a 6th or 7th round pick in compensation otherwise no pick will be rewarded. Basically the trade is along the lines of the Joey Harrington deal.

So basically he has little to no value at all, which is probably why we just released him.

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 01:28 AM
So basically he has little to no value at all, which is probably why we just released him.

Yup. Make's me feel better :fireball: :bowser:

the wonger need food
06-21-2006, 09:11 AM
And to think, Chris Simms was on the board when we drafted Ragone. It worked out better for Simms because he is now a starter but it would have been nice having him behind Carr or even there to take Carr's job if he continues to flop.

Worked out best for Carr. He probably wouldn't have that extra $8 million in his pocket if we would have drafted Simms.

Runner
06-21-2006, 09:24 AM
I don't understand why the Rams didn't pick Ragone up off waivers before the Bengals rather than wait a couple of weeks and then trade to get him from the Bengals. Is there a subtlety in the waiver process somewhere? I'm sure Ragone has remained on Linehan's radar through all this, so I doubt the Rams just missed the first opportunity.

El Tejano
06-21-2006, 09:56 AM
i wish him the best of luck and hopefully he will be 3rd string QB
WIth the Rams, I am not sure he isn't competing for the 2nd string job. Noone is really behind Bulger to my knowledge.

Lucky
06-21-2006, 10:19 AM
WIth the Rams, I am not sure he isn't competing for the 2nd string job. Noone is really behind Bulger to my knowledge.
Gus Frerotte is the backup.

Malloy
06-21-2006, 02:52 PM
Ragone traded to the Rams from the Bengals, that was a quick stop for him. And the Bengals got a draft pick for him, I wonder why we did not.

Sad to see him leave us, but happy to see that there's some interest in him. :)


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9519468

jerek
06-21-2006, 03:01 PM
So basically he has little to no value at all, which is probably why we just released him.

Try telling that to a minor but loud contingent of this board just six months ago, back when Carr was "struggling" and we had Mr. NFL Europe MVP on our bench. Which, incidentally, was right where he belonged, but according to a few people on here, Ragone was the sweetest thing since sliced bread and it was only blind Carr love that prevented him from getting his go.

Ragone is terrible. Was, and is. Funny to see all of these voices now happy that we cut him loose.

the wonger need food
06-21-2006, 03:01 PM
"This should bump Jeff Smoker off the Rams' roster, while Ragone competes with Ryan Fitzpatrick for the No. 3 quarterback job."

So if Ragone beats out Fitzpatrick we should definitely pick this guy up. In our game against St. Louis last season he made David Carr look like Dave Ragone.

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 03:19 PM
I don't understand why the Rams didn't pick Ragone up off waivers before the Bengals rather than wait a couple of weeks and then trade to get him from the Bengals. Is there a subtlety in the waiver process somewhere? I'm sure Ragone has remained on Linehan's radar through all this, so I doubt the Rams just missed the first opportunity.

The Rams obviously must have thought the QB position was stronger than it is...if he doesn't make the team they don't lose anything so why not?

Runner
06-21-2006, 03:27 PM
Try telling that to a minor but loud contingent of this board just six months ago, back when Carr was "struggling" and we had Mr. NFL Europe MVP on our bench. Which, incidentally, was right where he belonged, but according to a few people on here, Ragone was the sweetest thing since sliced bread and it was only blind Carr love that prevented him from getting his go.

Ragone is terrible. Was, and is. Funny to see all of these voices now happy that we cut him loose.

On the other hand, it may have made been a good football decision to let him play a couple of games to see his performance on the field rather than in everyone's "mind's eye". This may have:

1) Shown the team that he has some skill and we kept him
2) Possibly increased his trade value
3) Saved some wear and tear on our franchise QB and his confidence in an offense that had totally fallen apart for myriad reasons
4) Proved that Ragone wasn't worth anything

Since he never played outside of a couple of games his rookie year, as a team we were only left with the assumption of option 4. That seems unwise in an already lost season.

mexican_texan
06-21-2006, 03:27 PM
Try telling that to a minor but loud contingent of this board just six months ago, back when Carr was "struggling" and we had Mr. NFL Europe MVP on our bench. Which, incidentally, was right where he belonged, but according to a few people on here, Ragone was the sweetest thing since sliced bread and it was only blind Carr love that prevented him from getting his go.

Ragone is terrible. Was, and is. Funny to see all of these voices now happy that we cut him loose.
Don't you know? The second-string QB is the best QB on the team. :yahoo:

hollywood_texan
06-21-2006, 03:28 PM
Isn't there a policy of the Texans to cut guys loose so they can find other jobs quickly? Maybe that is why people weren't interested because they knew he was gone from the Texans roster.

humbleone
06-21-2006, 04:03 PM
According to ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2492402

Ragone has been traded to the Rams for an undisclosed draft pick in '07

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 04:13 PM
http://houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=24275 :)

infantrycak
06-21-2006, 04:16 PM
According to ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2492402

Ragone has been traded to the Rams for an undisclosed draft pick in '07

Folks, please look around in the appropriate forums for existing threads before starting new ones. We have had about 5 threads started on the Ragone trade alone. Thanks.

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 04:20 PM
On the other hand, it may have made been a good football decision to let him play a couple of games to see his performance on the field rather than in everyone's "mind's eye". This may have:

1) Shown the team that he has some skill and we kept him
2) Possibly increased his trade value
3) Saved some wear and tear on our franchise QB and his confidence in an offense that had totally fallen apart for myriad reasons
4) Proved that Ragone wasn't worth anything

Since he never played outside of a couple of games his rookie year, as a team we were only left with the assumption of option 4. That seems unwise in an already lost season.

#2 is the reason why Ragone should have seen some playing time. I know he's not as good as Carr or maybe not even Tony Banks but it was obvious he wasn't going to get much playing time and that he could be released/traded. If he could've gotten maybe a quarter to play at the end of the Kansas City game where we got killed than maybe his stock could've raised. We'll never know now but it would have been nice to see how well he could perform.

TexanSam
06-21-2006, 05:08 PM
Ragone was taken in the same draft, 3 rounds earlier. And yes, Casserly thought Ragone would become a valuable commodity. That did not transpire. The Henson deal did reel in a 3rd round pick. Charley's foray into the '03 QB stock market netted a sum total of zilch.

I'm trying to see how he thought Ragone would be a valuable commodity. Maybe he was thinking Carr would get hurt from all those sacks, that Tony Banks would play poorly so the coaching staff would have no choice but to play Ragone. Then all of a sudden the line would protect Ragone when they couldn't protect Carr or Banks! I wonder if Ragone's value went up when he completed the pass to himself...

Kookus
06-21-2006, 06:21 PM
Just saw an article on NFL.com. Apparently the Bengals are picking up our cast offs and trading them for draft picks. I wonder why our front office could not make a deal like that. Why cut him when he obviously has value. I hate to say this, I have for the most part liked the moves Kubiak and company have made but I have treated each one with skeptism. I am fully behind the new coaching staff but lets face it, Kub is an unproven commodity at this point. And making or NOT making the right personnel deals is still under scrutiny by the fans in Houston in my opinion.



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9519468

infantrycak
06-21-2006, 06:25 PM
Make that 6.

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 06:27 PM
Make that 6.

:heh:

beerlover
06-21-2006, 06:27 PM
Just saw an article on NFL.com. Apparently the Bengals are picking up our cast offs and trading them for draft picks. I wonder why our front office could not make a deal like that. Why cut him when he obviously has value. I hate to say this, I have for the most part liked the moves Kubiak and company have made but I have treated each one with skeptism. I am fully behind the new coaching staff but lets face it, Kub is an unproven commodity at this point.


I would chalk these moves up to the GM (former GM Charlie Casserly & cap management VP) not Kubiak. Lets wait and see what Smith can do from here on out and just accept the price paid to the former rejects.

hollywood_texan
06-21-2006, 06:34 PM
I think this is something to not make an issue of. If it is, they need to rethink the policy of releasing guys early.

The Texans release guys early so they have a chance to get on with another team. It appears we may have lost a little value here, but showing something beneficial to the players I believe is more important than trying to squeeze every little thing out of them.

In other words, player morale and trust of the organization is more important than trying capitalize on a low draft pick potential opportunity.

TexanFan881
06-21-2006, 07:18 PM
It's a real late pick. 6th or 7th round. Who cares? It's barely anything. Sure you can make the argument that Tom Brady was a 6th round pick but what are the odds of that happening again.

hollywood_texan
06-21-2006, 08:37 PM
It's a real late pick. 6th or 7th round. Who cares? It's barely anything. Sure you can make the argument that Tom Brady was a 6th round pick but what are the odds of that happening again.

Actually, the later round picks are becoming more and more important because of improved scouting.

Take a look at this article, http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2492348.

Basically, this guy is saying you are going to have less and less undrafted free agents making the squad because of better drafts.

Don't discount the later round picks, they are going to become more important in the next few years.

As for getting value for Ragone, it seems to be policy for the Texans to release guys early so they can land somewhere else. They have made a decision it is more important to show good faith to the personnel than try and squeeze every drop out of them.

TheOgre
06-22-2006, 10:19 AM
Why cut him when he obviously has value. I hate to say this, I have for the most part liked the moves Kubiak and company have made but I have treated each one with skeptism.


Lets keep this in perspective. The Rams could have claimed him off of waivers back when we cut him. They were higher on the list than the Bengals. If they really wanted him, they could have gotten him without expending a draft pick at that time.

jerek
06-22-2006, 11:37 AM
On the other hand, it may have made been a good football decision to let him play a couple of games to see his performance on the field rather than in everyone's "mind's eye". This may have:

1) Shown the team that he has some skill and we kept him
2) Possibly increased his trade value
3) Saved some wear and tear on our franchise QB and his confidence in an offense that had totally fallen apart for myriad reasons
4) Proved that Ragone wasn't worth anything

Since he never played outside of a couple of games his rookie year, as a team we were only left with the assumption of option 4. That seems unwise in an already lost season.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not Carr should have been benched, other than that, I feel every game in a 16 game season should be fought tooth and nail for. I don't now and didn't then believe in conceding the season, whether for rights to Bush or any other reason. I can buy into benching Carr for purposes of avoiding damaging him any further, assuming we had a legitimate contender waiting in the wings (which we did not), but at the same time, I don't favor it for any of the other reasons you list.

Benching Carr for purposes of "giving Ragone a go" or somehow upping his trade value doesn't work. You can't ask an NFL coach to play a guy with the idea of building trade value; just doesn't happen, never has, and if you can point to any coach, winning or otherwise, who has explicitly done so I'd like to hear of it.

Athletes earn the right to play through practice, and Ragone was a joke in practice. And pointing to Capers and saying "well he's a boob, what does he know?" isn't a valid defense in this case as two other coaches have since taken it a step further and dealt Ragone from their roster. Sure, Kubiak could be wrong and Ragone may some day prove me wrong, but in the meanwhile, it seems safe to assume that Ragone couldn't hack it and was dealt accordingly. If you disagree then so be it and we'll simply disagree, but Carr started 16 games last year because he was the best player 16 games last year.

IMO the "let's just play with the lineup, we can't do any worse" is a bad coaching philosophy. I have played on good teams and bad teams at the college level and the "let's just start shuffling things" manuever only contributes to a team's lack of trust in leadership and loss of direction. It only further demonstrates that the coaches really have no idea what they hell they are doing (which yes, this was already pretty obvious last year, but no good coach does this. Again, show me a successful coach that has.) As much as we the fans only see 60 minutes of gametime, players and teams and units are gelled through ten times that amount of practice time. Random changes made to those lineups harm continuity.

Athletes are made and proven through practice. To be sure, a "workout warrior" isn't a guaranteed success on the field, but there isn't a player I'm aware of in the history of sport that has consistently performed at a high level without demonstrating repeated success in practice. Ragone sat because he never made it past this initial proving ground, in comparison to other quarterbacks on the team.

Again, it's absolutely nothing personal and may he have success wherever he ends up for all I care. Just pointing out the irony in everyone clamoring for Ragone over Carr, and then, lo and behold, he's dealt twice in as many months, a decision initiated by our new coach that most of us are all quite high on. Not really to say "I told you so" ... but yes, actually, to say, I told you so. Not you personally, but any one who was up in arms about sitting Ragone at the time.

If I'm wrong, great and so be it, and I'll freely admit to it. There have been quarterbacks in this league who were no-name trade fodder early on in their careers, yet went on to do big and glamorous things, and who knows, Ragone may yet be one of those names. Just made me laugh at the time and it makes me laugh now.

thunderkyss
06-22-2006, 11:57 AM
Benching Carr for purposes of "giving Ragone a go" or somehow upping his trade value doesn't work. You can't ask an NFL coach to play a guy with the idea of building trade value; just doesn't happen, never has, and if you can point to any coach, winning or otherwise, who has explicitly done so I'd like to hear of it.


Wow....... really great post, through and through.

I agree with the whole thang....... Backups are backups, and they have to earn a spot on the field..... for the backup QB, that means having to be prepared to play and produce, with little preperation(practicing with the second team).

But I do agree that Carr should have been benched..... not to see what Ragone has got or anything goofy like that..... not to concede the season.... we don't belong to be in this league, if we don't try to win every game regardless of circumstance.

But 68 sacks in one season..... that's just cruel.

Looking back I admit that doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Benching Carr early, may have meant that we wouldn't have been so close to winning as we were, in as many games as we were.

as it stands, it looks like Capers didn't care very much at all about protecting our QB.

the wonger need food
06-22-2006, 12:21 PM
Just saw an article on NFL.com. Apparently the Bengals are picking up our cast offs and trading them for draft picks. I wonder why our front office could not make a deal like that. Why cut him when he obviously has value. I hate to say this, I have for the most part liked the moves Kubiak and company have made but I have treated each one with skeptism. I am fully behind the new coaching staff but lets face it, Kub is an unproven commodity at this point. And making or NOT making the right personnel deals is still under scrutiny by the fans in Houston in my opinion.



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9519468

At this point, we really don't know how it all went down. I'm guessing that his salary may have had something to do with preventing a trade. By waiving him another team could sign him to the league minimum, which I'm guessing is a lot less than he was scheduled to make.

Either way, I think we would all like an explaination, but this was a deal for a conditional pick, meaning that if he doesn't make the roster the Bengals probably get nothing. And if he's fighting with Fitzpatrick (who totally lit up the Texans defense last year... not saying much, but still) for the 3rd spot, he is more than likely going to get cut. I can see Ragone in the Arena League next year.

And to think that the previous regime spent a 3rd round pick on this guy... that's the most sickening part.

rafterticket
06-22-2006, 12:28 PM
Don't you know? The second-string QB is the best QB on the team. :yahoo:

Whew! I never believed that here.

I think everyone knew that Ragone wasn't the right type of quarterback for Kubiak. With that, don't you think people in the know would have easily guessed that he wasn't gonna stick around? That would have completely eliminated his trade value.

Lucky
06-22-2006, 12:41 PM
I'm guessing that his salary may have had something to do with preventing a trade. By waiving him another team could sign him to the league minimum, which I'm guessing is a lot less than he was scheduled to make.
When the Bengals picked Ragone off waivers, they also assumed his $721,600 salary. If Ragone had cleared waivers, he could have been signed for the 4th year vet minimum (not sure what that is this year).

Vambo, the Marble Eye
06-22-2006, 01:03 PM
When the Bengals picked Ragone off waivers, they also assumed his $721,600 salary. If Ragone had cleared waivers, he could have been signed for the 4th year vet minimum (not sure what that is this year).

Okay, that makes sense then.... I think.

So the building "trade value" (playing him in Europe, etc) is somewhat accurate. The promoting Ragone to the rest of the league serves to build interest with the rest of the NFL to increase his chances of being claimed on waivers, right? (Yes, I'm ignoring that he didn't pan out at the level we drafted him.)

Porky
06-22-2006, 01:09 PM
Can we fire Casserly again. :shoot:

Exascor
06-23-2006, 11:26 AM
Update from the Rumor Mill (http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm)

RAMS "STUPID" FOR TRADING FOR RAGONE

If the first official move of the Tony Softli regime in St. Louis was to swing a trade with the Bengals for quarterback Dave Ragone, then that Lombardi trophy in the team's case is going to continue to be lonely for a long while.

A league source tells us that it was a "stupid, stupid move" by the Rams, because the Bengals were getting ready to cut Ragone -- and that "everyone" knew it.

Everyone, of course, but the Rams.

The other strange aspect of the move, as our pal Howard Balzer of USA Today SportsWeekly pointed out to us earlier in the week, is that the Rams could have had Ragone for nothing after he was cut by the Texans. Only the Bengals and the Colts had put in waiver claims, and St. Louis would have been awarded the rights to Ragone by virtue of having a 2005 record worse than either of those teams.

Instead, the Rams will owe a seventh-round pick to the Bengals in 2007 if Ragone makes the roster in St. Louis.

edo783
06-23-2006, 01:12 PM
I love how some sports sites/writers try to make something out to be a major disaster. Sure they could have maybe done it cheaper, but it's hardly like a 7th round pick ONLY if he makes the team, is a major deal. Has to be the shortage of real information in the offseaqson.

Runner
06-23-2006, 02:03 PM
I love how some sports sites/writers try to make something out to be a major disaster. Sure they could have maybe done it cheaper, but it's hardly like a 7th round pick ONLY if he makes the team, is a major deal. Has to be the shortage of real information in the offseaqson.

Agreed. I don't think it is a disaster that we missed out on getting a 7th round pick for him either.

I'll go on record here - he'll make the team.

----------

Question: The Texans did give Ragone an RFA tender, so early in the off-season they must have considered keeping him. At that point in time (say pre-OTAs), had we been offered that conditional 7th round pick from the Rams, do you think the Texans would have made the trade?

infantrycak
06-23-2006, 02:08 PM
Question: The Texans did give Ragone an RFA tender, so early in the off-season they must have considered keeping him. At that point in time (say pre-OTAs), had we been offered that conditional 7th round pick from the Rams, do you think the Texans would have made the trade?

There is an early March deadline for RFA tenders or the players become UFA's. As to whether they would have made the trade--seems probable but who knows.

TexanFan881
06-26-2006, 08:24 PM
RAMS "STUPID" FOR TRADING FOR RAGONE

If the first official move of the Tony Softli regime in St. Louis was to swing a trade with the Bengals for quarterback Dave Ragone, then that Lombardi trophy in the team's case is going to continue to be lonely for a long while.

A league source tells us that it was a "stupid, stupid move" by the Rams, because the Bengals were getting ready to cut Ragone -- and that "everyone" knew it.

Everyone, of course, but the Rams.

The other strange aspect of the move, as our pal Howard Balzer of USA Today SportsWeekly pointed out to us earlier in the week, is that the Rams could have had Ragone for nothing after he was cut by the Texans. Only the Bengals and the Colts had put in waiver claims, and St. Louis would have been awarded the rights to Ragone by virtue of having a 2005 record worse than either of those teams.

Instead, the Rams will owe a seventh-round pick to the Bengals in 2007 if Ragone makes the roster in St. Louis.

And before anyone concludes that Ragone is merely a cap arm whom the Rams will cut come September, consider this -- the Rams (we're told) gave him a $100,000 signing bonus.

:stooges: :thud:

Runner
06-26-2006, 10:48 PM
And before anyone concludes that Ragone is merely a cap arm whom the Rams will cut come September, consider this -- the Rams (we're told) gave him a $100,000 signing bonus.

Maybe that is a $100K bonus and the 4 year vet minimum salary (maybe $500K?????????). That is cheaper than his 720K RFA tender - if he makes the team. I'm pretty sure Linehan wants him on the team.

Question 1.14 at this link http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp has some interesting info about vet minimum contracts, including this:


4. All minimum salaries for veterans (plus up to $40,000 signing bonus) with at least four years of experience will only count $425,000 against the team salary cap for qualifying contracts.


Maybe there were some salary cap issues involved in all of this?

TwinSisters
06-26-2006, 10:54 PM
Finally they fixed that!

The veteran's pay no longer counts against the cap.

Runner
06-26-2006, 10:57 PM
Finally they fixed that!

The veteran's pay no longer counts against the cap.

Not ALL of it anyway if I read that link write and it is accurate information.