If LJ really was pushing for a fully guaranteed contract and that's just not something The Ravens want to do then they probably have to let LJ test the market so he can see his value. Of course they will still need to tag him so they can atleast trade him and get something back in return but a fully guarantee contract just doesn't make sense in this sports league where teams are limited on what they can do spending wise due to the cap.
I’m no cap guru but, the concern(real or not) is we’ll struggle to field a competitive team around him, especially in the later years of the deal. If the Ravens can pay him what he wants while maintaining a talented core than I’m all for it. Even with the injuries the risk is well worth the reward.
If not, then it feels irresponsible to throw out a blank check.
A couple things here:
1. If you tag him, that pretty much takes him finding "market value" off the table, because he won't be able to negotiate with others. You could, theoretically, do a non-exclusive tag and allow other teams to set the contract terms, but you're only getting two 1st round picks if you won't do the contract, and that's not sufficient trade value for Lamar. Plus, it's basically letting another team decide how much and how to structure a deal for Lamar, which is super risky. Would only really work for a team flush with cap space and basically able to structure anything, which we are not.
2. I don't think the concern over a fully GTD contract has anything to do with cap flexibility or roster construction. Frankly, that's an issue regardless. The AAV is going to be what it is (probably at least $48-50M a year), its going to be multi-years (at least 3-4) and the cap hits on the back end will be enormous. BUT, you can manipulate all of that. If he signs a 5 year deal, and the cap hits are huge in years 4-5, then you just do another extension to push the cap further down the road. It's what all teams with a franchise QB do. As long as they're playing well, it will just be extension after extension until they're done.
The fully GTD conversation is about two things... precedent, and risk. The Owners don't want to set the precedent (which maybe the Watson deal did, but it'll probably require 2-3 similar for it to become "the norm") of fully GTD contracts for star players, AND, most importantly, they don't want the financial risk.
Some would argue the risk isn't really that high, which I sort of agree with. But with a fully GTD contract, if there's a catastrophic injury, you're stuck, and if there's severe decline in performance, you're stuck. There's no real way to get out of it.
And we can argue all day long about whether its risky that Lamar would decline quickly or get injured, but Russell Wilson is at least somewhat of an example of a QB that seems to have declined very rapidly, and now the FO is literally counting the years until they can move off that deal. And imagine that happening when you lock a QB into a 4-5 year, fully GTD contract.
Salary cap is important, but cash flow is way more important to the business, since that's how the business is actually evaluated in the real world. And the last thing any Owner wants is a long term commitment towards a declining or non-contributing player (injury) of large amounts of cash flow, with no way of getting out from under it.
