Lamar Jackson

[Simba]

See, this is where us mere fans suffer! I don't know the total ins and outs, man, of the f@cking abilities these rich guys can pay their players!

So sign him to a 25 year contract that pays him a whatever the going rate is now. Something less than Doucheshawn Watson yearly, but overall a haul for Lamar.

You get where, I'm going, Ross? Think Bobby Bonilla...

Not how it works in the NFL. Can only prorate bonuses over 5 years. Everything thereafter would be a roster bonus (aka an option bonus) and Lamar would never accept that.

 

[drjohnnyfever]

idk who that is lol

Worth a look up for sure

...jersey worthy, right?! lol

 

[drjohnnyfever]

Not how it works in the NFL. Can only prorate bonuses over 5 years. Everything thereafter would be a roster bonus (aka an option bonus) and Lamar would never accept that.

I don't mean it as a bonus, tho. Is there a creative way to sign a guy to a ridiculously long contract, beyond his potential to play in today's estimation and still fulfill the bindings of the NFL contract requirements? I mean if the Pats had known Brady would be playing after 20 years on from his first SB and had won a couple more, wouldn't/couldn't they might have figured out a way to keep the guy theirs forever with some creative contract back in 2004/5?

I mean if a player is signed to a 10 year deal, the team isn't bound to pay the damn thing off in 5 years. They could pay it all at year 10 if they chose, right?

So, Bobby Bonilla him. Sign him to play for 20 years and agree on amount to be guaranteed over that time.

 

[Simba]

I don't mean it as a bonus, tho. Is there a creative way to sign a guy to a ridiculously long contract, beyond his potential to play in today's estimation and still fulfill the bindings of the NFL contract requirements? I mean if the Pats had known Brady would be playing after 20 years on from his first SB and had won a couple more, wouldn't/couldn't they might have figured out a way to keep the guy theirs forever with some creative contract back in 2004/5?

I mean if a player is signed to a 10 year deal, the team isn't bound to pay the damn thing off in 5 years. They could pay it all at year 10 if they chose, right?

So, Bobby Bonilla him. Sign him to play for 20 years and agree on amount to be guaranteed over that time.

You literally cannot do it. That's the point. There are contract rules in place that prevent it.

Look at Mahomes contract. He signed a 10 year deal but those numbers are inflated in roster bonuses after year 5 and it'll almost surely be redone after then if not sooner.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I don't mean it as a bonus, tho. Is there a creative way to sign a guy to a ridiculously long contract, beyond his potential to play in today's estimation and still fulfill the bindings of the NFL contract requirements? I mean if the Pats had known Brady would be playing after 20 years on from his first SB and had won a couple more, wouldn't/couldn't they might have figured out a way to keep the guy theirs forever with some creative contract back in 2004/5?

I mean if a player is signed to a 10 year deal, the team isn't bound to pay the damn thing off in 5 years. They could pay it all at year 10 if they chose, right?

So, Bobby Bonilla him. Sign him to play for 20 years and agree on amount to be guaranteed over that time.

So several problems I see...
1. If the player's under contract, that means he's either on your active roster (which means Lamar is taking up a 53 man roster spot 20 years from now) or he's not. If he's not, the dead money remaining on his deal becomes due essentially immediately.
So the moment Lamar retires, any remaining balance he has left on his contract becomes due, against the cap, immediately.
2. I'm not sure why you're stuck on this Bonilla thing. That works in MLB because MLB doesn't have a salary cap. Their business is almost entirely cash basis, and Owners will gladly defer salary for as long as the player will allow them to. Incredibly advantageous for Owners.

In a salary cap sport, I don't know of any mechanism where you can continue to charge cap hits for a player who retired several years prior.

Basically, in order to do what you want to do, you have to sign Lamar to a 20 year contract. But once he retires, that 20 year contract, from a cap perspective, shrinks to whatever the last year was.
I have no doubt that a team, could, theoretically, pay a player for 50 years if a player is willing to defer. But that's cash, not cap.

And by the way... I know a lot of the ignorant public likes to mock the Mets for still paying Bonilla. Those people, of course, are idiots. It's a home run idea for any MLB owner.
Basically it's like eating at Five Guys today, not paying, and paying the exact same price... only you pay 5 years from now. Owner gets to keep all the inflation, all the money, make interest off of it, etc., while the player gets nothing but his original agreement.
Only reason players would even consider it is because they don't trust themselves to not piss their money away.

 

[RavensMania]

...and when Dallas had those picks, they used them to fortify a team that won 3 Super Bowls. I would take that in a hot minute. Emmitt Smith, Darren Woodson... That was a haul.

The Saints traded for Ricky Williams, the Vikings traded for Herschel Walker

 

[RavensMania]

...pay him a billion dollars over a billion years, like Bobby Bonilla got from the Mets. While he's retired, sitting on the NFL Gameday set when he's 50, he's still getting 125K from us with that cap hit on the 2054 team... something like that. It's like the 401K that keeps giving and giving and giving and bonilla-ing and bonilla-ing...

of course that 401k is now worth 201k with the market the way it's been performing!

 

[BoredMarine13]

We all know

of course that 401k is now worth 201k with the market the way it's been performing!

lol This hurts more than current gas prices...

 

[Tank]

And drinking a ginger ale. This mf got ANOTHER stomach bug

always has the shitz. wtf is he eating? lol

 

[ndub]

We all know

lol This hurts more than current gas prices...

Ladies and gents, we see the results of having a piss poor leader… thankfully Lamar is a great one

 

[RavensMania]

We all know

lol This hurts more than current gas prices...

I've been through multiple downturns in the market and they have always come back. Some take longer than others, but unless you need it now don't worry about it. I would recommend doing a roth option in your 401k if your company has the option. Reason is I'd rather pay the taxes on the seeds vs the harvest and I believe taxes are only going up in the future.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I've been through multiple downturns in the market and they have always come back. Some take longer than others, but unless you need it now don't worry about it. I would recommend doing a roth option in your 401k if your company has the option. Reason is I'd rather pay the taxes on the seeds vs the harvest and I believe taxes are only going up in the future.

Tax aspect is always tricky. I'm not a big believer that taxes will perpetually increase (at least not for the lower/middle class), but its hard to predict what the future will hold. Many would argue tax brackets have relatively never been lower than they are now, and compared to 20-30 years ago, they're significantly lower for most working Americans.

The other biggest variable is predicting future income vs current income. Most people earn less income in retirement than they do when they were working. So not only do you have to predict whether future tax rates will be higher or lower, you also have to predict whether future income will be higher or lower, and guess which bracket that will put you in.

Generally speaking, the more income you have now, the more likely I'd be to use a Roth. If I were a public school teacher making $50K a year, I'd rather have the tax break now. Most money managers would tell you deferring taxes, generally, is always a good approach.

 

[RavensMania]

Tax aspect is always tricky. I'm not a big believer that taxes will perpetually increase (at least not for the lower/middle class), but its hard to predict what the future will hold. Many would argue tax brackets have relatively never been lower than they are now, and compared to 20-30 years ago, they're significantly lower for most working Americans.

The other biggest variable is predicting future income vs current income. Most people earn less income in retirement than they do when they were working. So not only do you have to predict whether future tax rates will be higher or lower, you also have to predict whether future income will be higher or lower, and guess which bracket that will put you in.

Generally speaking, the more income you have now, the more likely I'd be to use a Roth. If I were a public school teacher making $50K a year, I'd rather have the tax break now. Most money managers would tell you deferring taxes, generally, is always a good approach.

Ted Benna who started the 401k has called it the biggest monster due to what it has become. I'm a Fiduciary Investment Advisor and have seen clients start to take the 401k in retirement and their income has stayed up....much higher than expected.

Will taxes go up, in my opinion I believe it will have to go up, but that is just my opinion.

The only way my wife and I can have a roth is through my wifes 401k, because I'm self employed and make more than a standard Roth IRA would allow.

It is old school of thumb that deferring a good idea and you are wrong about that and I'm not going to argue that fact as it is my business.

BTW, the wealthy and smart investors have Whole Life and use it as a living benefit and tax free benefit. Life insurance isn't an investment but it's the foundation of any good plan.

 

[BoredMarine13]

I've been through multiple downturns in the market and they have always come back. Some take longer than others, but unless you need it now don't worry about it. I would recommend doing a roth option in your 401k if your company has the option. Reason is I'd rather pay the taxes on the seeds vs the harvest and I believe taxes are only going up in the future.

Yeeeeep. I’m just not looking at it, still blows my mind to see people selling away assets at 35-40% loss

 

[rmcjacket23]

Ted Benna who started the 401k has called it the biggest monster due to what it has become. I'm a Fiduciary Investment Advisor and have seen clients start to take the 401k in retirement and their income has stayed up....much higher than expected.

Will taxes go up, in my opinion I believe it will have to go up, but that is just my opinion.

The only way my wife and I can have a roth is through my wifes 401k, because I'm self employed and make more than a standard Roth IRA would allow.

It is old school of thumb that deferring a good idea and you are wrong about that and I'm not going to argue that fact as it is my business.

Sure, but a lot of that is predicated on maximizing 401K usage. Same with an IRA. You got people with six figure incomes who contribute 5% or less to a retirement account. Even with average market growth over 25-30 years, they got little to no chance of getting back to annual income levels.

Best tax advantaged retirement account I can think of is an HSA. Sadly, a lot of people can make it really useful, but are too scared to or don't have access to it. HDHP usually scare people off, because they think they'll go broke without heavily-backed insurance.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Yeeeeep. I’m just not looking at it, still blows my mind to see people selling away assets at 35-40% loss

Agree. The view they're taking is "I don't want to lose more". Can't recover losses once you sell.

 

[RavensMania]

Sure, but a lot of that is predicated on maximizing 401K usage. Same with an IRA. You got people with six figure incomes who contribute 5% or less to a retirement account. Even with average market growth over 25-30 years, they got little to no chance of getting back to annual income levels.

Best tax advantaged retirement account I can think of is an HSA. Sadly, a lot of people can make it really useful, but are too scared to or don't have access to it. HDHP usually scare people off, because they think they'll go broke without heavily-backed insurance.

I'm not against tax deferred money, I just feel the Roth IRA and Whole Life with quick cash value accumulation is the better way to go long term. For people that aren't planners and that's the majority of people, than tax deferred is going to be better for them. People who are planners for the most part a Roth would be better for them.

The thing is you can do both. You can have a Traditional IRA in your own brokerage account and a Roth 401k.

Best tax Advantaged retirement account is Bank On Yourself (BOY) designed Whole Life and it's not even close. I put 40k a year into Whole Life and will get a lot more back in retirement than I ever put into the policy tax free, plus I use it along the way for expenses while staying liquid in my own bank account. HSA's are good but no where near as good as a BOY policy. BTW, I agree regarding the HDHP.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I'm not against tax deferred money, I just feel the Roth IRA and Whole Life with quick cash value accumulation is the better way to go long term. For people that aren't planners and that's the majority of people, than tax deferred is going to be better for them. People who are planners for the most part a Roth would be better for them.

The thing is you can do both. You can have a Traditional IRA in your own brokerage account and a Roth 401k.

Right. I do the opposite. Traditional 401K, Roth IRA.

I have term life insurance, both through employer (which is obviously much cheaper) and separately. I'm aware that Whole Life is significantly better, but end of day, its the same concept as encouraging max contributions to a 401K or IRA... what's the cost?

Even a baseline Whole Life insurance policy is going to cost, what, $2-3K per year, minimum, in premiums? Easily 2-3x that if you're 40-50 years old or if significant history of medical issues.
Very much continues to have the stigma of a "rich person" asset. Plus you're got to sell it to people that I'm paying my own money so that my family can live more comfortably when I die.

I have term for about a decade while my kids are young and the home loan is still significant. 10 years from now, if I die, my wife makes sufficient income that she can bury me, keep the house, pay the bills, etc. So I'll find life insurance a waste at that point.

 

[BoredMarine13]

Ladies and gents, we see the results of having a piss poor leader… thankfully Lamar is a great one

All I know is my RS5 and truck are not thriving in this market. Think it’s time to bum some rides off the smug guy down the street with a Tesla

 

[RavensMania]

Right. I do the opposite. Traditional 401K, Roth IRA.

I have term life insurance, both through employer (which is obviously much cheaper) and separately. I'm aware that Whole Life is significantly better, but end of day, its the same concept as encouraging max contributions to a 401K or IRA... what's the cost?

Even a baseline Whole Life insurance policy is going to cost, what, $2-3K per year, minimum, in premiums? Easily 2-3x that if you're 40-50 years old or if significant history of medical issues.
Very much continues to have the stigma of a "rich person" asset. Plus you're got to sell it to people that I'm paying my own money so that my family can live more comfortably when I die.

I have term for about a decade while my kids are young and the home loan is still significant. 10 years from now, if I die, my wife makes sufficient income that she can bury me, keep the house, pay the bills, etc. So I'll find life insurance a waste at that point.

The Whole Life Policies that I design are base 500.00 month and many much much more going over 100k per year. Thing is in year 4 or 5 you are putting less into the policy than the cash value is growing. It's almost like getting the life insurance for free at this point. People don't use the Whole Life policy as a death benefit, they are using it as a living benefit. Also we reduce the death benefit in these policies to lower the commission and fees to the agent while adding Paid Up Additions. A paid up addition turbo charges the cash value growth within the policies and 94% of every dollar goes directly to cash value, which is your bank in the policy. The other 6% buys more whole life. We also add term into these policies so the client can overfund the policy more if they so choose. These policies aren't for everyone but they have been around forever, since the beginning of whole life a couple hundred years ago. These plans used to be just for the wealthy, but they are available to everyone now.

I'm not a fan of term insurance, but it has it's place. Term to me is like renting while Whole Life is owning. Again it has it's place but in the end Term insurance costs more than Whole Life and I can prove it to you with an illustration. Bank On Yourself policies aren't. your traditional whole life policy. I'm going to refer you to BankOnYourself.com for more information. You can also read about the Infinite Banking Concept from Nelson Nash's book Becoming Your Own Banker and Pamela Yellen's Bank On Yourself Revolution. These are all good resources if you want to learn more. Nelson Nash was an Austrian Economist and past away a few years ago.

BTW, because these policies are for the cash value and not the death benefit it doesn't matter what age or your medical issues. They just buy the policy on a spouse or a child and as long as they own the policy they have access to the cash value. BTW, my average client is 55 years old and have them as young as college age doing bank on yourself plans.

Also, high income earners can't do a Roth IRA in their own account as the laws don't allow for it. It's the only way my wife can do it because we are above the income limits. If that's the way you do it, then that is what is best for you.

This is better for a phone conversation and not back and forth on a message board. If you'd like to learn more I'd be happy to discuss it with you won't get any sales pressure from me as I never do that. I treat my clients and prospects the way I want to be treated.