5723 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I understand but odds are odds. Maybe they're not tangible per se but the universe tends to work that way.

No, it doesn't. This is really flawed logic.

If you flip a fair coin twice and it's heads both times...what are the odds the next flip is tails?

[makoman]

I’ll admit there’s some there from my angle too, sure. But at least I’m using a track record. He didn’t win big games at Louisville. He largely hasn’t here, on a rookie contract with a well rounded roster. Also, did Manning and Brees have 1,400 collegiate and pro carries at 26?

Regardless, I don’t want to get into this. No one is changing their mind at this point. And people can’t help but try and make you feel unreasonable for preferring option B, as I do.

There are no victims here. Maybe you don't see how many people think that he's a quitter who can barely pass anyway and anyone who wants to pay him is crazy. I don't think either side is that bad here on this board, but elsewhere there's lots of extremists both ways. But both sides have valid views and like Jamie just said it's just become really polarized. I would just like it to be done with so I can figure out who I'm going to be rooting for and how I want the team to be built.

[mdrunning]

The worst-case scenario is not getting this thing resolved sooner rather than later. Either sign him to an extension or trade him. Both scenarios provide long-term certainty if nothing else.

[PrimeTime]

No, it doesn't. This is really flawed logic.

If you flip a fair coin twice and it's heads both times...what are the odds the next flip is tails?

 

Your logic is flawed because a coin flip is a 50-50 proposition. Finding a QB prospect that can lead an NFL franchise is certainly not a coin flip proposition. 

[Mackus]

Your logic is flawed because a coin flip is a 50-50 proposition. Finding a QB prospect that can lead an NFL franchise is certainly not a coin flip proposition. 

 

You can't possibly be serious. 

[makoman]

Your logic is flawed because a coin flip is a 50-50 proposition. Finding a QB prospect that can lead an NFL franchise is certainly not a coin flip proposition. 

If we're going down this route, instead of framing it as beating odds, I'd think the fact that they've developed their last two QB picks under the same HC with many of the same FO decision makers might suggest that we should be more confident that they will be able to pick and develop the next one, because they have shown they know what they're doing.

[SouthRider]

The more and more I roll this around in my head, I think the Ravens have to get a deal done with Jackson. 

 

Looking at it from a global perspective, the Ravens are 2 for their last 2 in selecting franchise QBs in the draft. Odds are they won't be so fortunate the next time. So even if you trade Lamar for a haul of draft picks, you're hoping to hit the football lottery again, while also trying to acquire an adequate veteran placeholder to keep the team competitive while the rookie QB develops.

 

With the roster we currently have and the heavy investments on the defensive side of the ball, I don't think the Ravens are in the position to start over entirely and I highly doubt Harbaugh wants to oversee a rebuild; EDC said as much at the presser and common sense would corroborate that position.

 

I wouldn't espouse giving Lamar the moon and the stars to bring him back but there has to be an olive branch the Ravens can offer to get a deal done. We need the Lamar issue settled so that the rest of the off season can move forward. Quite frankly, I think the organization is paralyzed until we square things regarding Jackson.

 

 

I don't consider replacing Lamar with Garoppolo or Carr,  plus three first round picks, a rebuild.  I call that an open window.  

[PrimeTime]

You can't possibly be serious. 

 

Why wouldn't I be? You don't think there are variables involved in selecting and developing a college quarterback to perform at the pro level that go beyond the simplicity of heads or tails?

 

I guess I'm completely missing your point and perhaps it's best that we just move on.

[PrimeTime]

I don't consider replacing Lamar with Garoppolo or Carr,  plus three first round picks, a rebuild.  I call that an open window.  

 

I don't consider that a rebuild either; perhaps I was unclear. My assertion is that we can't really go into a rebuild because of the money we have invested in key players on defense. 

 

I think if we trade Lamar, draft a QB and acquire a veteran "transitional" QB, we would likely be treading water. Good enough to be in the playoff hunt but not good enough to legitimately compete for a championship.

[hallas]

That's fear based decision making, Jamie. 

 

The playoff track record speaks for itself - and won't get any easier with less of a roster around him IMO. I'd rather miss on our next guy, than settle for the kind of ceiling he provides. 

 

He's not going to have a full 47 or 48 million cap hit each year.  It will be significantly lower years 1 and 2 (lower than the 2022 cap hit, and with a larger cap) and we will likely get 1 more year with a lower cap via restructure if we want it.  (obviously we pay for this later via a dead cap hit after the deal is done, but the cap will be bigger and we can restructure again if we need to, or take the cap hit and rebuild.)

[mdrunning]

He's not going to have a full 47 or 48 million cap hit each year.  It will be significantly lower years 1 and 2 (lower than the 2022 cap hit, and with a larger cap) and we will likely get 1 more year with a lower cap via restructure if we want it.  (obviously we pay for this later via a dead cap hit after the deal is done, but the cap will be bigger and we can restructure again if we need to, or take the cap hit and rebuild.)

How do you restructure a fully-guaranteed contract, if that's truly what Lamar wants?

[Mackus]

How do you restructure a fully-guaranteed contract, if that's truly what Lamar wants?

 

Same way they restructure any contract.  Convert current year salary into a bonus that is spread out against the cap among the remaining years.

 

The money being guaranteed or not is irrelevant to restructuring for cap purposes.  Teams actually even have the right to do these types of simple restructures without the player's approval.  And it makes sense, it'd basically be like if your job decided to pay you your entire salary in January instead of paid out in even portions every 2 weeks.  No downside for the player.

[makoman]

How do you restructure a fully-guaranteed contract, if that's truly what Lamar wants?

The same way you restructure any contract? You pay him more now as bonus so you can spread it over years, and less base salary later. Yes it was guaranteed either way, but he benefits by getting it now.

 

I could be wrong (I don't think so because I've seen talk of restructuring Watson) but I don't see why guarantees would change that. 

[mdrunning]

Same way they restructure any contract.  Convert (current year salary into a bonus that is spread out against the cap among the remaining years.

 

The money being guaranteed or not is irrelevant to restructuring for cap purposes.  Teams actually even have the right to do these types of simple restructures without the player's approval.  And it makes sense, it'd basically be like if your job decided to pay you your entire salary in January instead of paid out in even portions every 2 weeks.  No downside for the player.

Typically the idea of a re-structure is to convert non-guaranteed money (base salary) into a bonus (guaranteed) in order to kick the can down the road cap-wise. In this instance, it'd be converting guaranteed money into guaranteed money in another form. The only benefit to the player is that he'd get that bonus money up front rather than having to wait for it, but he isn't gaining any dollars from such a move. 

[hallas]

The same way you restructure any contract? You pay him more now as bonus so you can spread it over years, and less base salary later. Yes it was guaranteed either way, but he benefits by getting it now.

 

I could be wrong (I don't think so because I've seen talk of restructuring Watson) but I don't see why guarantees would change that. 

 

Having looked at a few contracts, nearly all high-dollar NFL contracts of 5 or more years are structured so that year 1 is nearly all signing-bonus, year 2 is an option bonus that's guaranteed at signing, and the remaining years are base salary.  The NFL also allows you to do a "simple" administrative restructure without requiring player consent, converting any year's base salary to an option bonus for the remaining years of the deal.  In order to gain more flexibility with this you can extend the number of years on the contract by including void years or non-guaranteed years that are wink-and-nod cut years unless the market goes absolutely nuts.

 

 

Typically the idea of a re-structure is to convert non-guaranteed money (base salary) into a bonus (guaranteed) in order to kick the can down the road cap-wise. In this instance, it'd be converting guaranteed money into guaranteed money in another form. The only benefit to the player is that he'd get that bonus money up front rather than having to wait for it, but he isn't gaining any dollars from such a move. 

 

 

Base salary and roster bonuses can be made guaranteed at signing.

[Mackus]

In this instance, it'd be converting guaranteed money into guaranteed money in another form. The only benefit to the player is that he'd get that bonus money up front rather than having to wait for it, but he isn't gaining any dollars from such a move. 

 

Yes.

 

The player still likely approves since payment up front is better than amortized.  And if the player doesn't approve, in many cases the team still do the restructure without the player's approval.  

[makoman]

No, converting non-guaranteed money isn't the typical driver.  Often the salary being converted is not technically guaranteed and then becomes so with a bonus, but the present year salaries are effectively guaranteed in most cases and would definitely be paid out.  The guys who get restructured aren't guys who are at risk of being cut, they are positive value to the team, so they are gonna see the money due them in the coming season.  Or often the season has already begun and the salary is indeed guaranteed but the team still does a restructure to improve the cap situation.

 

There isn't much benefit to a player of a restructure, they do get the lump sum which is better than interest-free deferrals for a few months, but that is a relatively minor benefit.  There is zero downside though, and that's why players almost always do it when there approval is needed and why teams now have the right to do these types of restructures unilaterally in most cases.

I will add that per overthecap Stanley's base salary in 2021 and 2022 was guaranteed at signing, and he was restructured the past two years, so there's an example. Restructuring is almost always just about pushing today's cap hit into the future, not to mess with or add to guarantees (though that may also happen incidentally). And any player should be happy to be paid earlier when no interest is involved.

[PrimeTime]

The biggest drawback for a team in giving a fully guaranteed deal is that they're tied to player, for better or worse, as there is no cap savings if they need to move on from the player during the course of the contract. 

 

What I'm not sure of are the ramifications if the player gets traded during the contract. I don't know what cost the team has to absorb when moving the player.

[makoman]

The biggest drawback for a team in giving a fully guaranteed deal is that they're tied to player, for better or worse, as there is no cap savings if they need to move on from the player during the course of the contract. 

 

What I'm not sure of are the ramifications if the player gets traded during the contract. I don't know what cost the team has to absorb when moving the player.

I would assume it's just like always. The new team would be on the hook for base salaries for time played with the new team, the old team would have dead money for pro-rated bonuses that haven't hit the cap yet. I suppose they could have different rules if they wanted though.

[bmore_ken]

My biggest fear is the same thing happens with Rutschman

Book it.