Turf Show Times
No, the Los Angeles Rams will not trade for Micah Parsons and Aaron Donald won’t come out of retirement to play with him this season. It’s a fun idea to generate clicks though, courtesy of Donald himself.
Donald did make an Instagram comment on Tuesday teasing that he might have to return to football if the Rams trade for Parsons, who is currently in a contract standoff with the Dallas Cowboys, but let’s be adults about this and admit it is all for laughs. Even if Donald would seriously consider returning to the NFL to play with Parsons in L.A., that would require the Cowboys to first trade him to the Rams.
That is also not going to happen.
Parsons joined in the fun by replying to AD by implying that he was down for it and tagging his agents, but again this is not even a player decision. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones does not intend to trade Parsons, which means that a team would have to overpay by a considerable margin to convince him to do it anyway. Les Snead has made a lot of wild moves in his past, but now is probably not the time to trade the farm for a pass rusher looking to be paid the largest contract for a non-QB in NFL history.
Believing this is anything other than a bored retired player and a perpetually online human being is childish fan fiction.
With T.J. Watt signing a contract this offseason that pays him $41 million per season and $108 million fully guaranteed, Parsons is undoubtedly looking for bigger numbers on both accounts given that he is almost five years younger and maybe playing at a higher level very recently. Typically edge rushers of his level do not change teams this early over a contract dispute, but we did see it happen to Khalil Mack in 2018.
The Raiders traded Mack to the Bears for two first round picks and more. No NFL player has been traded for a first round pick since 2022, but Parsons would clearly not be moved by Dallas for anything less than two of them.
The Rams do have two first round picks in 2026, but they have something else that’s even more important and a good reason not to trade for Parsons: Jared Verse.
Yes, putting Verse opposite of Parsons would be the NFL’s best tandem, most likely, but is it necessary? The Rams have Verse and he’s very cheap and he’s two years younger than Parsons. In two years, L.A. may have to pay Verse a $40 million salary of his own, making it possible that trading for Parsons now means potentially trading Verse in 2027. Would the Rams have won a Super Bowl by then and made it worth it, similar to getting Matthew Stafford?
Anything is possible. But the risk to trade for Parsons because you think he’s going to help you win the next Super Bowl carries a huge downside if he doesn’t:
-...
