Jump to content

Ravens extend CB Marcus Peters (3 years, $42M, $32M GTD)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, berlin calling said:

look at the structure of this contract and tell me with a straight face it is going to be a problem for the Ravens.

If indeed his play falls off its an easy out after year 1. Amazing.

 

Ends up being a great contract for the ravens 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, berlin calling said:

look at the structure of this contract and tell me with a straight face it is going to be a problem for the Ravens.

If indeed his play falls off its an easy out after year 1. Amazing.

 

If he plays badly it is going to be a problem. I've never understood the logic that if a contract has outs because it is front-loaded it can't be a bad deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

If he plays badly it is going to be a problem. I've never understood the logic that if a contract has outs because it is front-loaded it can't be a bad deal.

You are missing the point. It's not a front loaded contract. The signing bonus is only 6M. They pay him like a top corner as long as he's on the roster for 2020. $15 against the cap that year. If he sucks, they cut him amd only have $4M more to count against the cap. So the worst case is that he's terrible and we pay him one year of top corner money. 

This is an excellent deal for Baltimore. The franchise tag would have definitely cost more for 2020, and we wouldn't have the option to keep him for 10-11M annually if he plays well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

You are missing the point. It's not a front loaded contract. The signing bonus is only 6M. They pay him like a top corner as long as he's on the roster for 2020. $15 against the cap that year. If he sucks, they cut him amd only have $4M more to count against the cap. So the worst case is that he's terrible and we pay him one year of top corner money. 

This is an excellent deal for Baltimore. The franchise tag would have definitely cost more for 2020, and we wouldn't have the option to keep him for 10-11M annually if he plays well.

I'm not missing the point. Peters is set to make a lot of money in year 1. If he doesn't play well, it is a bad contract for the Ravens. They could have used that $ elsewhere. It is the same logic we heard when the Chiefs paid big on Watkins that it is only for 2 years in Mahomes rookie window. The $15M could go to a lot better player if Peters regresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

I'm not missing the point. Peters is set to make a lot of money in year 1. If he doesn't play well, it is a bad contract for the Ravens. They could have used that $ elsewhere. It is the same logic we heard when the Chiefs paid big on Watkins that it is only for 2 years in Mahomes rookie window. The $15M could go to a lot better player if Peters regresses.

Same could be said for literally any contract ever. "Yeah well if this guy who is playing great just suddenly plays bad next year then it's a bad contract!" - and I disagree, it's a bad contract if you allow yourself to be tied down to that player for several years after they start playing bad (see: Joe Flacco contract extension in 2014 or DeMarco Murray's contract in TEN, or Albert Haynesworth's contract in WAS, or Brock Osweiler anywhere, etc. etc.).

Giving a guy essentially a 1-year deal with several outs past that is not in any way a "bad deal if he plays bad".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Same could be said for literally any contract ever. "Yeah well if this guy who is playing great just suddenly plays bad next year then it's a bad contract!" - and I disagree, it's a bad contract if you allow yourself to be tied down to that player for several years after they start playing bad (see: Joe Flacco contract extension in 2014 or DeMarco Murray's contract in TEN, or Albert Haynesworth's contract in WAS, or Brock Osweiler anywhere, etc. etc.).

Giving a guy essentially a 1-year deal with several outs past that is not in any way a "bad deal if he plays bad".

It cannot be said for every contract. This is a lot of money for 1 player. I said the same thing when the Rams signed Fowler last year. It was just 1 year but I hated the price. To his credit he played better than I thought he would but you have to look at the opportunity cost of spending big on Peters. And it isn't like it would be any bit surprising for a guy like Peters to regress next year.

I will say on a side note I have no idea how the math works on the numbers that tweet has. How is $32M guaranteed if he can be cut after 1 year of $15M with only $4M in dead money? It seems like I either don't understand the contract or the guaranteed piece is off.

Edit: I read elsewhere that the 2nd base year becomes guaranteed after the 5th day of the league year 2020. So if that is right its a 2 year guarantee and the table will change in March. 

Edited by LeotheLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeotheLion said:

I'm not missing the point. Peters is set to make a lot of money in year 1. If he doesn't play well, it is a bad contract for the Ravens. They could have used that $ elsewhere. It is the same logic we heard when the Chiefs paid big on Watkins that it is only for 2 years in Mahomes rookie window. The $15M could go to a lot better player if Peters regresses.

Welp, aside from him having played very well this year, as far as we know he doesn't have a degenerative knee issue or anything like that, so that's good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Never said he did... 

Oh i know you didn't. Just happy he doesn't have any knee problems or anything - because THAT would be concerning to invest in imo.

Also good news that he's at a premium position where production isn't incredibly easy to replace, like, say, a running back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ray Reed said:

Oh i know you didn't. Just happy he doesn't have any knee problems or anything - because THAT would be concerning to invest in imo.

Also good news that he's at a premium position where production isn't incredibly easy to replace, like, say, a running back.

I don't know your point. Because Peters is healthy and a corner it's a good signing in your book? 

Do Ravens fans on this site have interest discussing football or just want to troll? It's pretty tiring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LeotheLion said:

I don't know your point. Because Peters is healthy and a corner it's a good signing in your book? 

Do Ravens fans on this site have interest discussing football or just want to troll? It's pretty tiring. 

Because Peters is playing at a very high level, because he is young, because he is healthy, at a premium position, and because the Ravens lose a grand total of $4m in dead money if Peters' play magically regresses after a year (which tons of Rams fans are predicting because he didn't work out in LA) if we cut him, yes, due to all of those things - coupled with the Ravens having a ton of cap space the next few years for the first time in forever - it's a good signing in my book.

And no one's trolling you lol if you're that sensitive idk what to tell you man. There's bad deals done in the NFL. Especially with non premium positions with a history of knee issues. This isn't that. It's a good deal. Sorry about it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...