128 replies to this topic

[mdrunning]

Exactly with no quotes.

That report came from a union source. 

[mdrunning]

The union definitely wants Lamar as a test case in this instance as they push for the normalization of more fully guaranteed deals.

 

I wonder, however, if anyone is advising Lamar as to the union's full intent. They're not so much concerned with him individually as they are with similar players who could come along later and benefit from Lamar's situation as it stands right now. That's the ultimate job of a labor union: to collectively raise the earning power of its constituency. If Lamar ultimately gets what he wants, great. It benefits him and others to follow. But if he ultimately has to back off his demands or (God forbid) suffers a career-ending injury, well, that's someone else's problem. Another player, another time. 

 

Anyone thinking the Ravens are just going to franchise Lamar and trade him for a passel of draft picks might be disappointed. Teams have got to be looking at some of these recent mega-deals and taking notice of the results thus far. Russell Wilson has been awful since Denver traded away a boatload of picks and then signed him to an extension. DeShaun Watson has been arguably the worst starting QB in the league since his return and Kyler Murray hasn't wowed anyone, either. 

 

While the union wants to see the Watson contract as a bellwether, clubs may be looking more toward the Chiefs' deal with Patrick Mahomes. They can use the 10 years on that deal to make adjustments in order to gain cap flexibility. Now next season and 2024 get quite pricey, but from there the large bonuses and smaller salaries gradually flip with time. The guarantees kick in on the third day of the previous league year, thus providing protection for Mahomes and cap management for the Chiefs. 

[cprenegade]

I can see how teams would be a bit leery after seeing the return the Browns are getting from DeShaun Watson.  But I think that's misguided to a point.  IMO, DeShaun Watson is the most over-rated QB I have ever seen.  The fact that the Browns gave him that contract confirms what everyone already knew; they are a bad organization.  

 

Watson made some good ESPN highlight film plays.  He also had a pretty good team in Houston and won a grand total of 1 playoff game.  He had a 24-0 lead in the playoffs against KC after one quarter and could only drive his offense to one more TD the rest of the game.  I thought when he came into the league he was seriously hyped to be better than he was.  I thought he was over rated.  I now think I was wrong.  I think he was WAY over rated.  The Browns might be in the basement of the AFC North for the next 3 years or more.  

[bmore_ken]

Anyone thinking the Ravens are just going to franchise Lamar and trade him for a passel of draft picks might be disappointed.

I've been saying the same thing since pre season.

[Mackus]

Anyone thinking the Ravens are just going to franchise Lamar and trade him for a passel of draft picks might be disappointed.

 

I'm not hoping for a trade, but without knowing exactly what trade package you're guarding against, the draft return will be significant.

 

There should be no doubt that someone would sign him away if he were on the non-exclusive tag and surrender their next two 1st round picks.  So that's the minimum return that anyone need to consider having to settle for.  And its likely to be a good bit more than that.  3 firsts seems attainable, or 2 firsts and multiple day 2 picks.  And of course not all 1sts are equal, so if they get a really high pick in the 2023 draft, that itself could be effectively the same value as the two #1s from a team signing him off the tag, for example.

[mdrunning]

I'm not hoping for a trade, but without knowing exactly what trade package you're guarding against, the draft return will be significant.

 

There should be no doubt that someone would sign him away if he were on the non-exclusive tag and surrender their next two 1st round picks.  So that's the minimum return that anyone need to consider having to settle for.  And its likely to be a good bit more than that.  3 firsts seems attainable, or 2 firsts and multiple day 2 picks.  And of course not all 1sts are equal, so if they get a really high pick in the 2023 draft, that itself could be effectively the same value as the two #1s from a team signing him off the tag, for example.

I mostly agree with what you're saying but all of this comes back to how much are teams willing to give up, and particularly if Lamar insists on fully guaranteed money? If they put the exclusive tag on him, does he sign it? He might be jeopardizing some $43 million in guaranteed pay, but if he's getting advice from the union, they might recommend he do so in order to force the Ravens' hand.

 

It would certainly screw up their offseason because they'd be limited in what they could do roster-wise due to the uncertainty. And while I don't think any team needing a quarterback desperately enough would flinch at the two first-rounders as compensation, would they ultimately be willing to give him what he wants and perhaps hamstring themselves cap-wise? One advantage to the non-exclusive tag from the Ravens' standpoint is that it would allow them to gauge Lamar's market without having to do anything themselves. It would also absolve them of the accountability of giving Lamar a fully-guaranteed deal even if they were to match the offer sheet. They didn't make the offer; someone else's stupidity forced them to do so in order to protect their most valuable asset.

[jamesdean]

I mostly agree with what you're saying but all of this comes back to how much are teams willing to give up, and particularly if Lamar insists on fully guaranteed money? If they put the exclusive tag on him, does he sign it? He might be jeopardizing some $43 million in guaranteed pay, but if he's getting advice from the union, they might recommend he do so in order to force the Ravens' hand.

 

It would certainly screw up their offseason because they'd be limited in what they could do roster-wise due to the uncertainty. And while I don't think any team needing a quarterback desperately enough would flinch at the two first-rounders as compensation, would they ultimately be willing to give him what he wants and perhaps hamstring themselves cap-wise? One advantage to the non-exclusive tag from the Ravens' standpoint is that it would allow them to gauge Lamar's market without having to do anything themselves. It would also absolve them of the accountability of giving Lamar a fully-guaranteed deal even if they were to match the offer sheet. They didn't make the offer; someone else's stupidity forced them to do so in order to protect their most valuable asset.

The X factor in all of this is whether Lamar even wants to be here anymore.  For all we know, once Hollywood was sent packing, he made up his mind he was heading out the door once his rookie contract was up.  We'll find out soon enough.  He hasn't helped his cause financially the past two years with mediocre play and injuries.  Someone else mentioned that if teams are using 2022 as a litmus test, quarterbacks involved in recent trades making big money have stunk up the field.  They weren't the answer to those team's woes after all.  I think when it's all said and done, Lamar is probably going to wish he had agreed with the Ravens offer last year.  Everyone keeps saying the union is filling his head with delusions of grandeur but if they want him to stick to Watson's contract or nothing, he's in for some disappointment in my opinion.  But first he has to want to stay in Baltimore before anything can get done and that hasn't been established. 

[Steve55]

The union definitely wants Lamar as a test case in this instance as they push for the normalization of more fully guaranteed deals.

 

I wonder, however, if anyone is advising Lamar as to the union's full intent. They're not so much concerned with him individually as they are with similar players who could come along later and benefit from Lamar's situation as it stands right now. That's the ultimate job of a labor union: to collectively raise the earning power of its constituency. If Lamar ultimately gets what he wants, great. It benefits him and others to follow. But if he ultimately has to back off his demands or (God forbid) suffers a career-ending injury, well, that's someone else's problem. Another player, another time. 

 

Anyone thinking the Ravens are just going to franchise Lamar and trade him for a passel of draft picks might be disappointed. Teams have got to be looking at some of these recent mega-deals and taking notice of the results thus far. Russell Wilson has been awful since Denver traded away a boatload of picks and then signed him to an extension. DeShaun Watson has been arguably the worst starting QB in the league since his return and Kyler Murray hasn't wowed anyone, either. 

 

While the union wants to see the Watson contract as a bellwether, clubs may be looking more toward the Chiefs' deal with Patrick Mahomes. They can use the 10 years on that deal to make adjustments in order to gain cap flexibility. Now next season and 2024 get quite pricey, but from there the large bonuses and smaller salaries gradually flip with time. The guarantees kick in on the third day of the previous league year, thus providing protection for Mahomes and cap management for the Chiefs. 

 

 

Let's see how the union handles Hurts, Burrow & Herbert.

[CantonJester]

Let's see how the union handles Hurts, Burrow & Herbert.

 

All three of those QBs are represented by licensed agents. 

[bmore_ken]

All three of those QBs are represented by licensed agents.

And I would bet my house that neither of them are going to be asking for a fully guaranteed contract

[Mackus]

And I would bet my house that neither of them are going to be asking for a fully guaranteed contract

Wow. Hope you have generous friends and family

[PrimeTime]

Out of curiosity, does anyone recall how the Deshaun Watson deal came to fruition? Was there ever any inkling that Watson sought a fully guaranteed deal? Or was that just the Browns being the Browns?  

 

I've said it a few times before and I'll say it again, I don't blame players at all for attempting to land a fully guaranteed deal. Given the tenuous nature of an NFL career and the limited time for earning power, I totally get it. However, there is still just the one example of a fully guaranteed deal for a QB that still stands as the outlier, which was followed by a big contract for the next QB in line to get extended and a new deal for a former SB champ/multiple time All Pro, neither of which were fully guaranteed. I simply don't see the Ravens or any other team for that matter budging on the fully guaranteed deal for any QB without a dramatic rise in the salary cap in the coming years. 

[Mackus]

Out of curiosity, does anyone recall how the Deshaun Watson deal came to fruition? Was there ever any inkling that Watson sought a fully guaranteed deal? Or was that just the Browns being the Browns?  

 

I think the popular theory is that it's what the Browns had to do to get him to agree to the trade.  A couple days before the deal went down it was reported that they had been eliminated by Watson.  Then boom, fully guaranteed deal and they're back in the running.

[PrimeTime]

I think the popular theory is that it's what the Browns had to do to get him to agree to the trade.  A couple days before the deal went down it was reported that they had been eliminated by Watson.  Then boom, fully guaranteed deal and their back in the running.

 

Ah, that's right. I forgot he had a list of teams that he didn't want to go to and the Browns were on it.

[Ravens2006]

The Browns will continue Browning until we're all dead and gone, I'm convinced...

[Mackus]

Signing a serial sexual assaulter at all was a very Browns decision. Thinking Deshaun Watson is an elite level QB was a very Browns decision. Giving out the fully guaranteed deal is only a very Browns decision because of the earlier two mistakes, if they were actually signing an elite guy who isn't a POS, then its a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I'd have no hesitation signing Mahomes or Allen or Burrow or a few other guys on a fully guaranteed deal.

And yes, Lamar is one of those elite level guys in my view. That evaluation is debatable and it may come back to be a bad choice overall, but the worth of such a player isn't questionable, IMO.

[mdrunning]

Ah, that's right. I forgot he had a list of teams that he didn't want to go to and the Browns were on it.

Right, Watson had the leverage of a no-trade clause, as did Russell Wilson. Washington reportedly was ready to offer three first-round picks to Seattle for him, but they were on his no-fly list.

[mdrunning]

And I would bet my house that neither of them are going to be asking for a fully guaranteed contract

If they're smart, they'll take more team-friendly deals in order to allow their respective clubs enough cap flexibility in order to put competitive teams around them, sort of like Brady did in New England. 

[Mackus]

If they're smart, they'll take more team-friendly deals in order to allow their respective clubs enough cap flexibility in order to put competitive teams around them, sort of like Brady did in New England.

Anyone here give back money to their employers so that the company can do better? I don't.

Brady had a billionaire wife, allows for some financial flexibility. I don't begrudge any player for getting all they can.

Also a few million against the cap doesn't really make much of a difference for the team. How much less you suggesting guys take? 25%?

[mdrunning]

Anyone here give back money to their employers so that the company can do better? I don't.

Brady had a billionaire wife, allows for some financial flexibility. I don't begrudge any player for getting all they can.

Also a few million against the cap doesn't really make much of a difference for the team. How much less you suggesting guys take? 25%?

Does that company have a hard salary cap? A budget, yes, but a hard cap? Probably not.

 

Brady never had a cap share of more than 12.21 percent--and that was only in 2018. In four of the Pats' other championship years, it was below nine percent. Compare that to Peyton Manning, who exceeded 13.1 percent in eight of his 18 seasons and won just two. There was an interesting piece I came across not long ago (and if I can find it again, I'll share it) which argued that once a player's cap share reaches 13.1 percent, it becomes virtually impossible to win a Super Bowl. 

 

Now to be fair, there have been teams that reached a Super Bowl with one player reaching that percentage, but regardless, the argument is something with which most fans (and NFL GMs) would agree. It's never a good idea to expend too much of a team's cap space on just one guy.

 

Structured properly (again, I'd reference the Patrick Mahomes deal), it's possible to give a player the contract he deserves without completely compromising the club's ability to put adequate talent around him.