5723 replies to this topic

[makoman]

This is almost certainly an intentional leak by the Ravens to a reporter to get their side of the story out without explicitly revealing the private details. It's not some lower level person sharing info without authorization. It's intentional and planned and purposeful. This happens in all industries that have heavy media scrutiny.

This isn't like the Roe v Wade overturn leak from the Supreme Court. There won't be any hunt to find the leaker. It was info given away freely to make a point publicly.

Yeah, there was a lot of outcry over him not signing, and certain media personalities have been painting the team/owner as cheap. Getting out the info that they offered something like 6/290+ helps go against that narrative, even if the details are murkier. These things aren't from "spies" they are intentional. 

 

It also could have been the NFLPA. Benefit to them of leaking is less clear cut though. Maybe to get out there their support for guarantees, or to show that they were helping Lamar with advice, I don't know.

 

It certainly wasn't anyone from Lamar's side.

[bmore_ken]

I don't know if that's how Ken feels but that's my opinion 100%. I'd love to have someone put a mic in front of Lamar's face and quote all these "reports" and watch how he breaks into hysterical laughter.

You are absolutely correct that is not how I feel at all. To be honest I've seen like six or seven different reporters with six or seven different sets of numbers that Lamar supposedly turn down. I've actually seen one report where he turned down 250 guarantee which would have been more than Watson's contract. So if there's any truth to that report why would he turn that down since it's more than what Watson's contract is. Everybody wants to be the one to get the story that's the bottom line.

[Mackus]

You are absolutely correct that is not how I feel at all. To be honest I've seen like six or seven different reporters with six or seven different sets of numbers that Lamar supposedly turn down. I've actually seen one report where he turned down 250 guarantee which would have been more than Watson's contract. So if there's any truth to that report why would he turn that down since it's more than what Watson's contract is. Everybody wants to be the one to get the story that's the bottom line.

Can you link that report? Or recall who it was from? I haven't read anything close to that.

You can't, well you can but you shouldn't, lump every twitter rumor or talk-show caller in with reports from professional journalists. It's still rumor, but some have more reason to be believed at least in an approximate sense and more likely to have been sourced from someone who might actually know. Ideally multiple sources but that doesn't happen as often anymore.

[bmore_ken]

Can you link that report? Or recall who it was from? I haven't read anything close to that.

You can't, well you can but you shouldn't, lump every twitter rumor or talk-show caller in with reports from professional journalists. It's still rumor, but some have more reason to be believed at least in an approximate sense and more likely to have been sourced from someone who might actually know. Ideally multiple sources but that doesn't happen as often anymore.

I'll see if I can find it. It's been awhile since I read it. 

[JStruds]

I'll see if I can find it. It's been awhile since I read it.

I think he was actually asked that during the post game one press conference and he scoffed at it. So that may narrow your search to the week or so before game one.

[bmore_ken]

I think he was actually asked that during the post game one press conference and he scoffed at it. So that may narrow your search to the week or so before game one.

The report I read was before week 1. Unless you're talking about a preseason game

[CantonJester]

Yeah, there was a lot of outcry over him not signing, and certain media personalities have been painting the team/owner as cheap. Getting out the info that they offered something like 6/290+ helps go against that narrative, even if the details are murkier. These things aren't from "spies" they are intentional. 

 

It also could have been the NFLPA. Benefit to them of leaking is less clear cut though. Maybe to get out there their support for guarantees, or to show that they were helping Lamar with advice, I don't know.

 

It certainly wasn't anyone from Lamar's side.

 

The NFLPA is Lamar’s side. 

[makoman]

The NFLPA is Lamar’s side. 

Sorta, but their interests are not entirely aligned. The risk of career ending injury is low but exists, and doesn't really affect them while they use this situation to push full guarantees. 

[Nigel Tufnel]

So who gets a bigger contract - Lamar or Judge?  Both likely get $300M+.

[Mackus]

So who gets a bigger contract - Lamar or Judge? Both likely get $300M+.

If they both sign within the next year...Judge.

[CantonJester]

Sorta, but their interests are not entirely aligned. The risk of career ending injury is low but exists, and doesn't really affect them while they use this situation to push full guarantees. 

 

Lamar’s allowed himself to be exploited by going rogue, and the NFLPA, being pretty much the worst organized labor in American professional sports is reduced to using case studies out in the wild to move its agenda forward. I tried to paint Lamar in a more courageous light a few weeks about this, but the way I see it? Bisciotti understands what a fully guaranteed deal means coming from a team known for fiscal responsibility. And Lamar, being agent-less, perhaps aint gonna learn what he don’t wanna know (h/t Bob Weir). 

[Mike B]

If they both sign within the next year...Judge.

Agreed.  One league has no salary cap, and teams like the NYM, NYY, and  LAD, who do not give a rip about luxury taxes, while the other has a cap and league owners who are watching to see if Biscotti blinks and guarantees everything.

[CantonJester]

Agreed.  One league has no salary cap, and teams like the NYM, NYY, and  LAD, who do not give a rip about luxury taxes, while the other has a cap and league owners who are watching to see if Biscotti blinks and guarantees everything.

 

Guggenheim Mgmt, and Steve Cohen have no problem paying the luxury tax, but Hal Steinbrenner certainly does. My guess is it's why Brian Cashman still has a job. 

[mweb08]

https://twitter.com/...LrfyKN-rHg&s=19

[Mike in STL]

Here is what a 2-time MVP, MVP and AFC Champion, contract could look like. Thoughts?

 

Estimated salary cap based on Over the Cap's estimation that it could rise roughly $17M a year going forward.

 

Benchmarks: 

$50.3M AAV would be highest ever. Rodgers, $50.1M AAV

$75M signing bonus would be highest ever. Prescott, $66M

$250M guaranteed, highest ever. Watson, $230M

$140M cash in hand after three years, highest ever. Watson, $138M

 

Outs:

2028, $50M dead money, $7M savings. 

2029, $25M dead money, $32M savings

2030+, $0 dead money, $57M, $60M, $62M savings

 

Lamar gets the highest, everything.

The Ravens have the option to have him up to age 35, instead of 31 like their original offer. Incase he's still a beast.  But with the outs can get out after age 31 if there is serious decline.

Lamar never accounts for more than 20% of the salary cap, even a little leeway in there incase OTCs estimation is a little off, and maybe it only goes up $13M one year, or something. But if the cap explodes now that we are post pandemic, even better for the Ravens.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I still feel the same. 

 

Nobody is asked to do more for his team than Lamar.
He's got a great chance to win a 2nd MVP this year.
If the Ravens win a Super Bowl this season, he'll be the primary reason why. 

I'm not interested in giving him or anyone so much guaranteed $. 

But great point about the escalating cap, and the lowered impact of the dollars tied to him. 

I do think a deal with the Ravens gets done.

[Mackus]

Looks reasonable to me at a quick glance.  If you've guaranteed the $50M in '28-29 for roster bonuses, I don't think he's cuttable those years though.  It's not just the dead money but the actual cash having to be paid out to have him not play for you.  He'd have to have a devastating injury or colossally bad off-field problem for the team to give him $50M to go away.  

 

Also only accounting for the signing bonus over the first 5 years is strange.  You can carry cap forward, so its always better to space that out over the entire contract.  

[makoman]

Looks reasonable to me at a quick glance.  If you've guaranteed the $50M in '28-29 for roster bonuses, I don't think he's cuttable those years though.  It's not just the dead money but the actual cash having to be paid out to have him not play for you.  He'd have to have a devastating injury or colossally bad off-field problem for the team to give him $50M to go away.  

 

Also only accounting for the signing bonus over the first 5 years is strange.  You can carry cap forward, so its always better to space that out over the entire contract.  

Signing bonus can only be prorated over the first 5.

 

You can do option bonuses later to prorate over additional later years, up to 5.

 

Roster bonuses don't get prorated, I believe.  

[Mackus]

Signing bonus can only be prorated over the first 5.

 

Thanks, either didn't know or forgot that stipulation.

[weird-O]

Agreed.  One league has no salary cap, and teams like the NYM, NYY, and  LAD, who do not give a rip about luxury taxes, while the other has a cap and league owners who are watching to see if Biscotti blinks and guarantees everything.

If Bisciotti guarantees everything, that will be the new standard. And then it won't be too long before WRs start asking for the same thing. 

 

It's a tough call. If the Ravens don't go 100%, speculation is that other teams will. If true, that new standard will be in place, whether the Ravens set it, or someone else does.