5723 replies to this topic

[Slidemaster]

Bisciotti is not going to be the second owner dumb enough to give a player a 100% guaranteed contract. Unless Lamar backs off his demands (if in fact he is demanding a fully guaranteed contract), his days in Baltimore are most certainly numbered.

In other words, Bisciotti is not going to lose this staring contest (if indeed that's what this is).

I agree. I think the chances of that aren't quite zero, but very close to it.

[makoman]

Fully guaranteed deals are only any different than non-guaranteed if you're going to release the guy. Having that flexibility after one or two years is huge for the team for most players, but for QBs where even the salary that wasn't guaranteed at signing becomes guaranteed 18 months ahead of time, its a lot less of a factor. Everyone else, you release the guy and you don't have to pay them. QB deals you release the guy and you still gotta pay them for the coming season in most cases on the big deals we've seen recently. The difference is you take on about one APY worth of risk, give or take depending on the structure, for a fully guaranteed deal compared to a typical QB contract where the 2024 salary would become guaranteed this March a few days into when the 2023 league year begins.

The Browns can release Watson, they'd just have to pay him everything left on the deal. So if they release him now, they're basically paying him for 4 seasons they didn't get. If they release him after 2023, they eat 3 years...after 2025, they eat 1 year.

The Cardinals guaranteed a bit more than two years APY worth of Murray's deal at signing, and then each year we move forward another year out becomes guaranteed. They can release him now and only have to eat 3 years of money (compared to 4 for Watson). If they wait and release him after next year, they eat the equivalent of 2 years of money (compared to 3 for Watson).

So its like 20% riskier, if we're looking at 5-year contracts which seems to be the norm. Its not as big of a difference as $235M guaranteed at signing vs $103M guaranteed at signing would indicate.

Yeah, how many star QBs are cut within 5 years of their rookie deal? 4? That’s the main risk of guaranteed, so long as you believe he’s a star.

[mdrunning]

There can still be signing bonuses and roster bonuses in a fully guaranteed model. Just depends on how it's structured.

But it being all salary actually makes it easier to restructure in any given season, not less. For example if Lamar signs a 5 year deal...after Year 2, you could convert his $40M 2025 salary to $10M salary and $30M bonus prorated across the remaining 3 years and the cap hit goes down from $40M to $20M (with the extra $10M held until the 2026 and 2027 caps).

And what good does that do when you only have five years to work with. Sure, as you said, you could lower the cap number in a given year by converting guaranteed to, well, guaranteed, but then those remaining two cap years balloon to almost unworkable numbers. Again, on a straight salary five-year deal, there's very little flexibility because there simply aren't extra years to use as deferral.

 

Look at the Patrick Mahomes deal. Until the later years of his contract, payouts are mostly roster bonuses that become fully guaranteed one or two years ahead of time. He's protected in case he gets hurt, and the Chiefs have assurances that they're continuously getting the player they're paying for. The longer term also allows for restructures should the Chiefs need to create cap room, or even renegotiate new money in the latter years. It's a pay-as-you-go system.

[mdrunning]

Fully guaranteed deals are only any different than non-guaranteed if you're going to release the guy.  Having that flexibility after one or two years is huge for the team for most players, but for QBs where even the salary that wasn't guaranteed at signing becomes guaranteed 18 months ahead of time, its a lot less of a factor.  Everyone else, you release the guy and you don't have to pay them.  QB deals you release the guy and you still gotta pay them for the coming season in most cases on the big deals we've seen recently.  The difference is you take on about one APY worth of risk, give or take depending on the structure, for a fully guaranteed deal compared to a typical QB contract where the 2024 salary would become guaranteed this March a few days into when the 2023 league year begins.

 

The Browns can release Watson, they'd just have to pay him everything left on the deal.  So if they release him now, they're basically paying him for 4 seasons they didn't get.  If they release him after 2023, they eat 3 years...after 2025, they eat 1 year.

 

The Cardinals guaranteed a bit more than two years APY worth of Murray's deal at signing, and then each year we move forward another year out becomes guaranteed.  They can release him now and only have to eat 3 years of money (compared to 4 for Watson).  If they wait and release him after next year, they eat the equivalent of 2 years of money (compared to 3 for Watson).

 

So its like 20% riskier, if we're looking at 5-year contracts which seems to be the norm.  Its not as big of a difference as $235M guaranteed at signing vs $103M guaranteed at signing would indicate.

Have you seen DeShaun Watson's dead cap numbers should the Browns release him before the contract comes to term? You could drain and refill Lake Erie with the dead money they'd have to absorb.

[Mackus]

Have you seen DeShaun Watson's dead cap numbers should the Browns release him before the contract comes to term? You could drain and refill Lake Erie with the dead money they'd have to absorb.

 

I figure they'd try to do something creative like suspend him from the team with pay or try to release him with a grievance, somehow keep the payments in the year they are due while also maintaining an extra roster spot. 

 

But if they can't do that, then they'd have to choose between a huge dead cap number versus keeping him but just not letting him play and having one man short on the roster.

[Mackus]

And what good does that do when you only have five years to work with. 

 

I'm very confused.  It does you a lot of good, which is why teams rework guys all the time to generate cap space.  Not many contract are longer than 5 years.  I just gave you an example of how a simple restructure could save $20M against the cap.

 

You can't rework guys who are in the final year of their deal, that's always true, and why Marcus Peters wasn't a candidate for a restructure to generate cap space midseason this year but Mark Andrews was.

[mdrunning]

I'm very confused.  It does you a lot of good, which is why teams rework guys all the time to generate cap space.  Not many contract are longer than 5 years.  I just gave you an example of how a simple restructure could save $20M against the cap.

 

You can't rework guys who are in the final year of their deal, that's always true, and why Marcus Peters wasn't a candidate for a restructure to generate cap space midseason this year but Mark Andrews was.

Mahomes deal was for 12 years if you count the final two years of his rookie deal.

[hallas]

I have a question for the guys for whom the fully-guaranteed part is a hangup:  if we are in a worst case scenario with Lamar, are you envisioning some sort of soft landing with him?  Taking Watson's deal out of the picture, if you use Wilson's and Murray's deals as comps, you're likely looking at about 3 years fully guaranteed, with year 4 becoming fully guaranteed at the conclusion of year 2, and year 5 becoming fully guaranteed at the conclusion of year 3.  There is almost no scenario where the Ravens are ready to walk from Lamar before year 3, so the only scenario where this saves the team money is if Lamar suffers a catastrophic injury or passes away; If he tears an ACL next season we're just going to let him rehab it out.  If he tears an ACL in year 3, we're letting him rehab it out.

 

The only possible situation where maybe it would come into play is if Lamar turned out to be a giant asshole and was toxic.  But he'd have to be unbelievable levels of toxic for the Ravens to be willing to cut him, and at least as of right now he seems to have a fair amount of goodwill in the clubhouse.  He'd have to be worse than Earl Thomas.

[Mackus]

Mahomes deal was for 12 years if you count the final two years of his rookie deal.

 

OK, but no other deals are really like that.  I think everyone has been talking moreso about the structure of deals that Allen, Watson, Wilson, and Murray have now gotten as being a more likely model for Lamar.

[Mackus]

The only possible situation where maybe it would come into play is if Lamar turned out to be a giant asshole and was toxic.  But he'd have to be unbelievable levels of toxic for the Ravens to be willing to cut him, and at least as of right now he seems to have a fair amount of goodwill in the clubhouse.  He'd have to be worse than Earl Thomas.

 

This is really the only catastrophically worse scenario between full guarantee and typical big QB contract.   An injury there isn't much difference, because the typical contracts guarantee a pretty high percentage for injury (beyond the slightly lower fully guaranteed at signing money).  Mediocre play there isn't much difference, because you're still gonna be waiting at least 3 years into a deal before you move on like you said.

[hallas]

This is really the only catastrophically worse scenario between full guarantee and typical big QB contract.   An injury there isn't much difference, because the typical contracts guarantee a pretty high percentage for injury (beyond the slightly lower fully guaranteed at signing money).  Mediocre play there isn't much difference, because you're still gonna be waiting at least 3 years into a deal before you move on like you said.

The other one is a catastrophic injury, like Damar Hamlin or Bo Jackson level.

[Mackus]

The other one is a catastrophic injury, like Damar Hamlin or Bo Jackson level.

Right but I tried to say that it's not that different in that scenario than the other model.

Murray's deal for example...$103M fully guaranteed but $189M guaranteed for injury (from memory, apologies if number is off). $189M sunk for a career-ender isn't that much worse than $235M sunk. Worse, sure, but only like 20% like I mentioned earlier.

Needing to get out nearly immediately for character reasons would be the main scenario where fully guaranteed model is dramatically worse than a more typical massive QB deal like Allen or Wilson or Murray.

[Mackus]

20% isn't trivial, so it's definitely a bigger risk to go for the full guarantee over the standard massive QB deal. But I do think people generally overstate just how much riskier it is. It's spoken about as if it's massively different, which I think is misleading.

[Steve55]

Burrow & Herbert won't get full guarantees. Their team owners don't have the escrow cash. Maybe Trevor Lawrence. Jags owner wants a winner.

[ivanbalt]

Have you seen DeShaun Watson's dead cap numbers should the Browns release him before the contract comes to term? You could drain and refill Lake Erie with the dead money they'd have to absorb.

When it's all said and done, the Watson deal will be the worst in the history of professional sports.

[Mashed Potatoes]

When it's all said and done, the Watson deal will be the worst in the history of professional sports.

 

It is hard to imagine the opposite scenario where this deal becomes the standard for star QBs, though I guess still possible. Also wondering when the next LT makes a similar demand.

 

Lamar's situation is so tense in part because it's not just about his contract, it's about whether the league as a whole will make this seismic shift moving forward, or if Watson will become an aberration, a historical footnote. Many vested interests at play beyond Lamar.

[ivanbalt]

It is hard to imagine the opposite scenario where this deal becomes the standard for star QBs, though I guess still possible. Also wondering when the next LT makes a similar demand.

 

Lamar's situation is so tense in part because it's not just about his contract, it's about whether the league as a whole will make this seismic shift moving forward, or if Watson will become an aberration, a historical footnote. Many vested interests at play beyond Lamar.

With Watson, it's not just the guaranteed salary but also the 3 first round picks.  And that they gave all that to him with his off the field issues as well as his best season resulted in a 4-12 record.

[Mackus]

Lamar's situation is so tense in part because it's not just about his contract, it's about whether the league as a whole will make this seismic shift moving forward, or if Watson will become an aberration, a historical footnote. Many vested interests at play beyond Lamar.

 

Agree completely with this.  The negotiation has way larger implications for the owner's and the union that it does for just the Ravens and Lamar.  Which is really unfortunate because it makes it harder to get a deal done.  Especially if either local side is strongly in lockstep with their larger entity, which kind of seems like is the case for both sides.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Hey its got a simple solution.

 

Give him a bigger deal than Watson. Use the 5/$250 number for giggles. Then tell him since the last two years he has only played 60% of the season that the deal on paper is really going to be 5/$150M. Don't like that fine by me go play someplace else. The kind of money being tossed around for a guy with recent injury history is just nuts.

[Mackus]

Hey its got a simple solution.

 

Give him a bigger deal than Watson. Use the 5/$250 number for giggles. Then tell him since the last two years he has only played 60% of the season that the deal on paper is really going to be 5/$150M. Don't like that fine by me go play someplace else. The kind of money being tossed around for a guy with recent injury history is just nuts.

 

Getting Lamar to agree to a below-market deal would indeed be one solution!