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

Lamar Jackson

I'm done with this media circus. I know @Ice Bowl has to be tired of hearing the same about Rodgers. Feels like so much is trying to see what sticks.

On the other hand... if the NFLPA is helping with negotiations, that explains why we haven't got a deal done in the past year or so. Guarantee they are feeding Lamar so much BS and hurting our chances of re-signing him.
 
ravenslord said:
Then don’t fault the Ravens when he doesn’t get the deal he wants .

Odds of Lamar returning is about 10 % .

No way we gonna play him on franchise tag with his fully guaranteed demand

It’s the right business decision by the Ravens .

Lamar is a good kid but if the Ravens had known it would come to this they would have never drafted him .
Click to expand...
I'm worried it's gonna hurt our negotiatians with other teams if the only way they can sign him is if it's fully guaranteed.
 
JO_75 said:
I'm done with this media circus. I know @Ice Bowl has to be tired of hearing the same about Rodgers. Feels like so much is trying to see what sticks.

On the other hand... if the NFLPA is helping with negotiations, that explains why we haven't got a deal done in the past year or so. Guarantee they are feeding Lamar so much BS and hurting our chances of re-signing him.
Click to expand...
The Ravens are probably tired of the media circus . Not returning. Calls from the GM is a BAD sign and I believe this has been happening .
 
JO_75 said:
I'm done with this media circus. I know @Ice Bowl has to be tired of hearing the same about Rodgers. Feels like so much is trying to see what sticks.

On the other hand... if the NFLPA is helping with negotiations, that explains why we haven't got a deal done in the past year or so. Guarantee they are feeding Lamar so much BS and hurting our chances of re-signing him.
Click to expand...

I think there is some truth to this.

The media knows that Lamar Jackson is one of it's biggest stars and they will continue to press the issue for the clicks
 
QtR Nevermore said:
Of course the owner wants 'outs' but very rarely is it going to be as clear cut as that.

The chances are that Lamar's performance won't decline so much that the Ravens simply want to cut him anyway, except for injury. Even then, most teams are going to give their star QB time to recover in the hope that they return to form. Meanwhile, more of any contract becomes guaranteed with each year that passes.

More often, when a franchise QB declines, we see them traded to a QB hungry team, hoping they can revive his career. Guarantees wouldn't prevent that.

So we're really talking about a severe injury that happens early enough for Lamar to recover and for the Ravens (and every other team) to see that he has definitely lost it as a player, before the team gets any real advantage from the ability to simply cut him. That's a narrow window.

So narrow, that it's clear to me that the Ravens/Bisciotti are against guarantees because of the precedent, not for football reasons. So why are Ravens fans opposed to guarantees? Fucked if I know.
Click to expand...
1. Correct, its not as clear cut as that. Just like Lamar expecting more gtd $ than Watson, or expecting the Ravens to act irrationally like the Browns did, isn't clear cut either. Some would say its irrational.

2. Actually, trading a declining player with a bunch of gtd $ left on their deal would largely prevent that. You'd be hard pressed to come up with examples where it didn't. In pretty much any case, there's MAYBE one year of gtd $ left, and in most cases, there's none. The purpose of the team acquiring him is to set a contract on their terms in most cases, not to assume the bad contract of another team. Hence why most traded of high $ or caliber players end up with some sort of restructure or extension, because the acquiring team doesn't want the other teams baggage.

3. I agree precedent is a factor, but precedent alone is meaningless without reason behind it. The reason the precedent is problematic is because of the inherent risk that comes with it. Hence, the fear of precedent.
Plus every Owner knows that IF it does become precedent, there's another CBA around the bend that they'll leverage to get what they want out of the negotiations (i.e. smaller cut of the Revenue pool for players, in exchange for guaranteed contracts).
 
ravenslord said:
Some dumb team like the Falcons or Jets will offer him a fully guaranteed deal . I’m convinced of it .
Click to expand...
We'll see but that is defintely setting the standard. The more I see it we might have to go non-exclusive and either take the picks or match. Thank you Brownstains!!!
 
Willbacker said:
I'm not sure of the legalities of just simply deferring unless you're talking about non guaranteed extensions and tacking money on. And as a fan and a fan only I don't want somebody thats not on the team no more sucking up 20-25% of cap. And iuf they did just release they did it cuz they was sucking in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
Deferred means they'll sign another extension, take whatever base comp he has left on his current deal, turn it into a bonus, and then stretch it out over the extended deal. Ravens have done it plenty of times. They did it with Flacco. He got an extension three years into a six year deal. The extension did nothing more than take non-guaranteed money left on his original deal, guarantee it, give it to him in chunks up front, and then flatten the cap hit out longer.

As long as the player keeps performing, the franchise will do that until he's not for a franchise QB.

So if Watson is playing well, and he has a $65-70M cap hit in 2026 (which he probably will), they'll just sign him to an extension, and push that cap hit out into future years.

For 2023, there's a 0% chance Watson has a $55M cap hit. It will be lowered. And it'll be lowered by taking his current year salary, turning it into a bonus, and prorating it over future years. Wouldn't surprise me if they added void years to the end also.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
$13M over the cap is just a few cuts and restructures for an NFL team. It's nobody's disaster.

The Seahawks were able to trade a declining QB in his 30s for a haul. We could do the same if Lamar declined.

Fans view the picks we'd get for Lamar in a vaccuum but we should also consider how many of those picks we'll need to burn to find a QB, either in a trade, or by trading up, with no guarantee that we'll find a good one - meaning there's a good chance we'd need to go back to the draft or trade market again.
We could end up burning through the equivalent of all those picks and still be without an answer at QB.
Click to expand...
Sure. But you also think we'll be terrible with Huntley, and assume those picks will be used this year. Realistically, most of the picks we'll get will likely be 2024 and future draft picks, since really nobody has the draft capital for the haul he'd get to give us all 2023 picks.

So if we'll suck under Huntley and have a haul of picks, it sounds like we may not need to do that much maneuvering in the draft to get somebody we like. We'll certainly have the capital to get anybody.

Then its just a question of whether they're good or not. Maybe they'll be better, maybe they'll be worse. I don't think the fear of the unknown should drive that thought process, given that the guy we're trying to keep wasn't somebody who required a high draft pick or even a lot of capital to obtain himself.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Deferred means they'll sign another extension, take whatever base comp he has left on his current deal, turn it into a bonus, and then stretch it out over the extended deal. Ravens have done it plenty of times. They did it with Flacco. He got an extension three years into a six year deal. The extension did nothing more than take non-guaranteed money left on his original deal, guarantee it, give it to him in chunks up front, and then flatten the cap hit out longer.

As long as the player keeps performing, the franchise will do that until he's not for a franchise QB.

So if Watson is playing well, and he has a $65-70M cap hit in 2026 (which he probably will), they'll just sign him to an extension, and push that cap hit out into future years.

For 2023, there's a 0% chance Watson has a $55M cap hit. It will be lowered. And it'll be lowered by taking his current year salary, turning it into a bonus, and prorating it over future years. Wouldn't surprise me if they added void years to the end also.
Click to expand...
Even if the salary is guaranteed they can turn it into a bonus? He's getting it regardless.
 
ravenslord said:
Then don’t fault the Ravens when he doesn’t get the deal he wants .

Odds of Lamar returning is about 10 % .

No way we gonna play him on franchise tag with his fully guaranteed demand

It’s the right business decision by the Ravens .

Lamar is a good kid but if the Ravens had known it would come to this they would have never drafted him .
Click to expand...
Oh idc either way.. i want him to get paid what he think he deserves and is respect ravens decision if they dnt wanna pay him.. regardless he gonna get paid and im gonna be happy for him.
 
Read somewhere that the Browns win in all of this because the Ravens may lose Lamar and the Bengals won't be able to keep all those weapons because of what Joe B might get.


INSANE LMFAOOOOO
 
This is going to get incredibly messy

4B0B20B4-AE59-487B-A00E-0AF8D9736B86.jpeg
 
JAAM said:
This is going to get incredibly messy

View attachment 4647
Click to expand...
Yep. Just what I thought. Should've traded him last year. We could've got bank. It's almost at best bet now to go non-exclusive tag and take the 2 1st rdrs. It's gonna be hard to trade and I'd just let other teams do the footwork and figger out the contract. Gives us also the option to match and it's a hell of a lot more affordable than the exclusive tag by a lot.
 
Yall can bash me all yall want but Lamar is being selfish. I know some of yall say give the man what he wants but he doesn't deserve a fully guaranteed contract. Let's be real his greatest asset is his legs and how long is that going to last? Take away his legs, do you still want him?
He already looked slower last year and less elusive. His passing hasn't improved either even when he supposedly was working on his mechanics. In a what have you done for me lately league what has he done? I'm sorry but his stand with the contract is making me like him less and less as this drags on.
 
Random thought cause I'm bored. Trade Lamar. Trade for Rodgers. All in next 2 years. His cap hit isn't crazy. Packers most likely to ship him out of conference. The compensation can't be anywhere near what we get for Lamar. We would have still have plenty of picks and the ability to fill holes at cb and wr either thru draft or trade. Most important have decent cap space and the most expensive position secured(momentarily). And I understand the baggage Rodgers comes with. Jesus I hate the early portion of the offseason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top