• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The 2023 Offseason Thread

Davesta said:


I’m sold! Give me a Florida WR! They different!
Click to expand...


lol that 2nd rep was trash - routes on air not vs what the DB is giving you lol, 3rd rep (any long-developing crosser) shouldnt be allowed in 1v1s because it's not fair to the DB

he's always gonna rinse people in 1v1s because he's fast - the knock on him isn't that he's slow lol

look how tiny he is and especially look at his lower body - dude might get snapped in half like a twig if he runs a drag route through Warner or Roquan or CJ Mosley's zone in coverage lol or if he catches a screen and someone like kyle hamilton is bearing down on him...
 
rossihunter2 said:
some reports suggested that one of the ravens later deals to lamar before the close of the negotiating window before the season was a 6 year deal
Click to expand...
Yup. And without knowing exactly what Lamar wants, I would be a large sum of money that pretty much any offer the Ravens will make will be either a 5 or 6 year deal. I think they'll only come down from that if Lamar tells them he doesn't want a deal that long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdp
Don’t read the comments tho
 
QtR Nevermore said:
Let's say they do 5.

Years 1 & 2 will be guaranteed for all good QBs, so we can take them out of the picture - it's only Years 3, 4 and 5 where it's worth discussing the difference between fully guaranteed vs conventional QB contracts.

The worst case scenario is career ending injury for Lamar within the first 2 years. The Ravens would pay for 3 additional years of injury vs. a conventional QB contract.
For every QB, the current season is guaranteed, so a Y3 career-ender would mean 2 additional years of cost, a Y4 would mean 1 additional year and Y5 would be a wash because every QB is guaranteed.

So an early career ending injury, the nightmare scenario on a fully gtd deal, would result in a max. of 3 additional lean cap years where it's hard to compete- but it is quite an unlikely scenario.

That should be weighed against the far higher likelihood that the Ravens will struggle to compete if they lose their star QB and have to find a replacement. (And the draft picks we have to pour into that quest should be weighed against any trade compensation.)

The second worst result would be a severe, but not career-ending injury, that reduces Lamar's effectiveness.

In this case, the gap between a fully gtd deal and every other QB contract is narrower. Every team is going to keep hold of their star QB while he recovers, and they're going to give them every chance to play themselves back into form. Over that time, QBs with conventional contracts are going to trigger some of their current year guarantees anyway. That scenario is unlikely to leave the Ravens more than 2 years of salary worse off than without a fully Gtd deal.

The other risk is that Lamar's play declines and the Ravens want to cut him for performance reasons. That's a risk you take with all contracts but there are never enough QBs. There are always teams who believe they can revive the careers of struggling QBs (eg Wentz). The Ravens would be able to trade Lamar and get out from his contract fairly easily.

A 4 year deal would lessen all these risks but be less cap friendly.
Click to expand...
And I agree with all of this. The only problem I have is that, to an Owner, the salary cap is irrelevant. I'm not convinced Steve really gives a shit about salary cap at all. Eric does, but that's what Eric is paid to care about.

Owners care about cash flow. They care about profits. The idea that they'll just assume the risk of "well maybe they'll have to pay him 1-2 years if he's injured" or "they'll just have to eat one year at the end of his play drops off", is something fans have the luxury of minimalizing, because it costs the fans nothing to do it. They don't sign the checks.

One year of "risk" is probably $40-50M of risk in this case. I've seen people on here be like "well yeah what's the difference if you're giving him $200M guaranteed compared to $240M guaranteed". Well, the difference is $40M of the Owner's money that he'd like to have control over and input before he spends it. Maybe he'll spend it the same way, maybe he won't.

Regardless of whether its a market reaction or comp or not, this is about as great an exercise as any for fans to understand how Billionaire become Billionaires. They didn't get this because they won the Powerball. Most of them didn't get this way because they inherited their parents money. Most of them got this way because they're far less cavalier with material sums of money than the public is. The public is elite at spending other people's money. They're dreadful at spending and earning their own.

That's the difference. It's that an Owner doesn't have to take these risks. He's got alternatives.

And this is all before we get to the usual caveat of paying Lamar doesn't guarantee anything. Doesn't guarantee we win anything, ever. Doesn't guarantee what we saw the last five years isn't exactly what we'll see for the next five.
And moving on from him doesn't guarantee we'll be better or worse, because the uncertainty isn't something anybody can objectively measure and evaluate.
 
rossihunter2 said:
lol that 2nd rep was trash - routes on air not vs what the DB is giving you lol, 3rd rep (any long-developing crosser) shouldnt be allowed in 1v1s because it's not fair to the DB

he's always gonna rinse people in 1v1s because he's fast - the knock on him isn't that he's slow lol

look how tiny he is and especially look at his lower body - dude might get snapped in half like a twig if he runs a drag route through Warner or Roquan or CJ Mosley's zone in coverage lol or if he catches a screen and someone like kyle hamilton is bearing down on him...
Click to expand...
Tbh, he is already probably better than proche and duv.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
And I agree with all of this. The only problem I have is that, to an Owner, the salary cap is irrelevant. I'm not convinced Steve really gives a shit about salary cap at all. Eric does, but that's what Eric is paid to care about.

Owners care about cash flow. They care about profits. The idea that they'll just assume the risk of "well maybe they'll have to pay him 1-2 years if he's injured" or "they'll just have to eat one year at the end of his play drops off", is something fans have the luxury of minimalizing, because it costs the fans nothing to do it. They don't sign the checks.

One year of "risk" is probably $40-50M of risk in this case. I've seen people on here be like "well yeah what's the difference if you're giving him $200M guaranteed compared to $240M guaranteed". Well, the difference is $40M of the Owner's money that he'd like to have control over and input before he spends it. Maybe he'll spend it the same way, maybe he won't.

Regardless of whether its a market reaction or comp or not, this is about as great an exercise as any for fans to understand how Billionaire become Billionaires. They didn't get this because they won the Powerball. Most of them didn't get this way because they inherited their parents money. Most of them got this way because they're far less cavalier with material sums of money than the public is. The public is elite at spending other people's money. They're dreadful at spending and earning their own.

That's the difference. It's that an Owner doesn't have to take these risks. He's got alternatives.

And this is all before we get to the usual caveat of paying Lamar doesn't guarantee anything. Doesn't guarantee we win anything, ever. Doesn't guarantee what we saw the last five years isn't exactly what we'll see for the next five.
And moving on from him doesn't guarantee we'll be better or worse, because the uncertainty isn't something anybody can objectively measure and evaluate.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying but, to give Stevie Biscuits credit, he does spend up to the cap every year, so the money will be spent, whatever happens, and he usually trusts his guys to decide how to allocate it.

I don't think he'd have any more issue with paying an injured Lamar than he did paying an injured Ronnie. I don't think it's football competitiveness he's worried about - it's setting a fully guaranteed precedent he has an issue with - he all but said so.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
I see what you're saying but, to give Stevie Biscuits credit, he does spend up to the cap every year, so the money will be spent, whatever happens, and he usually trusts his guys to decide how to allocate it.

I don't think he'd have any more issue with paying an injured Lamar than he did paying an injured Ronnie. I don't think it's football competitiveness he's worried about - it's setting a fully guaranteed precedent he has an issue with - he all but said so.
Click to expand...
Ronnie got hurt less than 24 hours after getting paid
 
QtR Nevermore said:
Why is Duv getting caught in the crossfire? He was looking pretty effective last season until Roman suddenly decided to cut him out of the offense and he barely got a target for the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
He got a proven-performance escalator for making the PB as a returner and for playing time. He made $1M last season and is now due $4.3M this coming year, of which like $4M of it is straight cap savings if we moved on.

Realistically, $4M is a lot to spend for a kick returner, and depending on how the WR room shakes out, he'd probably be no better than the #4 WR, meaning he's just depth and wouldn't get much usage offensively.

I think there's a pretty strong chance they either cut him, or try to extend him at a pretty cheap rate. He's squarely one of the guys who's in the "what happens with Lamar" camp. I think they'll keep him if Lamar gets extended, and possibly move on if he plays under the tag.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
I see what you're saying but, to give Stevie Biscuits credit, he does spend up to the cap every year, so the money will be spent, whatever happens, and he usually trusts his guys to decide how to allocate it.

I don't think he'd have any more issue with paying an injured Lamar than he did paying an injured Ronnie. I don't think it's football competitiveness he's worried about - it's setting a fully guaranteed precedent he has an issue with - he all but said so.
Click to expand...
Right but he has no problem paying an injury Stanley because Stanley only got like 3 years of guaranteed money at roughly 1/3 of his contract isn't guaranteed. So obviously significantly less risk.

In terms of the Ravens spending, they're up against the cap most years, but that's not necessarily a reflection of actual cash spend. I'd have to go back and see if I can find the article, but the Ravens I believe are typically middle of the pack or lower in annual cash spending in recent years (a heavy criticism from cap enthusiasts). Hence the whole "cash over cap" phenomenon. Basically some Owners are willing to lay out large cash outlays up front (i.e. signing and roster bonuses) that push cap down the road, while others prefer to tie their comp up more in Base Salaries, which spreads out the cash distribution a bit more.

Also cap spending is deceiving, since cap spend includes dead money. Dead money isn't cash. It's just salary cap that was spent in cash in years prior.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Right but he has no problem paying an injury Stanley because Stanley only got like 3 years of guaranteed money at roughly 1/3 of his contract isn't guaranteed. So obviously significantly less risk.

In terms of the Ravens spending, they're up against the cap most years, but that's not necessarily a reflection of actual cash spend. I'd have to go back and see if I can find the article, but the Ravens I believe are typically middle of the pack or lower in annual cash spending in recent years (a heavy criticism from cap enthusiasts). Hence the whole "cash over cap" phenomenon. Basically some Owners are willing to lay out large cash outlays up front (i.e. signing and roster bonuses) that push cap down the road, while others prefer to tie their comp up more in Base Salaries, which spreads out the cash distribution a bit more.

Also cap spending is deceiving, since cap spend includes dead money. Dead money isn't cash. It's just salary cap that was spent in cash in years prior.
Click to expand...
So that's how cincy is considered a cheapskate!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top