baltimoreRebel Posted February 15, 2023 Share Posted February 15, 2023 1 hour ago, Ray Reed said: Id switch the 24 1st to this year’s first. We’d def want some legit ammo in the first this year to potentially draft one of the 3-4 first round QBs That or Arthur Blank’s haunted mansion People are underrating what were about to get for Lamar. If it's the Falcons, they're giving us no less than this if I'm EDC. 2023 1st & 2nd 2024 1st & 2nd That's just a starting point for me. Considering what Russel Wilson got. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baltimoreRebel Posted February 15, 2023 Share Posted February 15, 2023 5 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: 1. I did not know about this. 2. I do not like this. 3. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Because Lamar is being unreasonable. You can't cave and give this guy the world, especially a fully guaranteed deal. I love Lamar but damn. A fully guaranteed deal cripples us. He's as good as gone if he won't move off his stance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, Ray Reed said: As a guy who is on record guaranteeing Lamar will be a Raven long term, this is 100% what I expect to be said. In the midst of negotiations and talking to a bunch of people, almost all of whom are going to be working for competitors, anything you say will leak out. I actually take it as a good indicator that Monken, who has a lot of demand/leverage, chose to go here based on the read that he got. Edited February 16, 2023 by wackywabbit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, baltimoreRebel said: Because Lamar is being unreasonable. You can't cave and give this guy the world, especially a fully guaranteed deal. I love Lamar but damn. A fully guaranteed deal cripples us. He's as good as gone if he won't move off his stance. I don't know how we can say Lamar is being unreasonable given how much information we have. Also there's no reasons for fans to be up in arms about fully guaranteed money. I said this example before, but if in 2013 Joe Flacco signed a 6 year $110M fully guaranteed contract (which would have been considered outrageous at that time) instead of 6 year $120.6M $52M guaranteed contract, we would have had more cap space over that era. If you are worrying about guarantees as a fan, you are planning for a scenario where Lamar is bad enough to cut for nothing, but the Ravens still being some cap space away from being a contender during the next 5 years. If Lamar is going to dive to that level, we are going to suck anyway. It would be far more understandable if the Ravens said they can't afford $XXM AAV and stock the rest of the roster, than anything about guaranteed percentage. We are not going to sign Lamar to a monster deal, then decide to cut him after 1-4 years and still be close to a SB before the end of year 5. Edited February 16, 2023 by wackywabbit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, baltimoreRebel said: Because Lamar is being unreasonable. You can't cave and give this guy the world, especially a fully guaranteed deal. I love Lamar but damn. A fully guaranteed deal cripples us. He's as good as gone if he won't move off his stance. Honestly I think the Ravens have to understand that they themselves can’t also be unreasonable here. We don’t want to give Lamar fully guaranteed, cool. But are we offering him record money then? Because Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, and Kyler Murray are all getting $50m/year (well Kyler is at $49.2m so same difference.) Are we willing to offer Lamar the $51-52m/year to get him to move off guaranteed money? Because if we’re not and are expecting him to perhaps take a deal worth for example $44-47m/year, then why would he not equally ask for fully guaranteed? Thats a VERY reasonable ask based off the current QB market and how Lamar stacks up talent wise. Any top 5-10 player of a position group when he comes up is looking to break some sort of record and has been the trend since before we were handing out deals to Joe Flacco, Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Ed Reed, and Haloti Ngata. Typically we offset the higher contract amount by giving higher guaranteed amounts, generally we’re setting the guaranteed records in our deals. If we’re using the same strategy with Lamar-which makes sense for overall team building from a cap perspective, then the Ravens EQUALLY need to understand that either they break the record for QB guarantees or pay Lamar the highest APY over a short contract. Taking off the Ravens color purple goggles, this is a business and they shouldn’t be surprised that Lamar isn’t going to settle for not getting some sort of “record” as otherwise it comes across as disrespectful as well as hurts the overall QB market too. If a unanimous MVP is accepting a discount, shouldn’t Burrow or Herbert or Hurts as well? (that would be the arguments teams will use to agents at least.) This isn’t about having or not having an agent either because if I were Lamar’s agent, I would be telling him the same thing. The Ravens need to be doing one of: 1. Record APY 2. Record signing bonus 3. Record guarantees Otherwise they’re the ones being unreasonable, not Lamar. Roquan signed not because he’s a good ole boy, he signed because they gave him a record APY. Give Lamar $53-54m APY over 3-4 years and I’d be shocked if he also doesn’t sign. But would that be ideal from a cap perspective? Probably not. I think it makes sense for both sides to settle on breaking the guaranteed deal, but just not go “fully guaranteed” so that the Ravens can save face towards the league. Meeting in the middle IMO is guaranteeing Lamar like $232.5m using option year activation signing bonuses where Lamar signs with a no trade clause, thus either we cut him directly if we’re not interested in picking up his option years in years two and three OR he can control where he goes within any trades if the team would rather move on from him, but prefer to get value for him in the process after feeling he’s peaked with the team. Edited February 16, 2023 by diamondbull424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 11 minutes ago, wackywabbit said: I don't know how we can say Lamar is being unreasonable given how much information we have. Also there's no reasons for fans to be up in arms about fully guaranteed money. I said this example before, but if in 2013 Joe Flacco signed a 6 year $110M fully guaranteed contract (which would have been considered outrageous at that time) instead of 6 year $120.6M $52M guaranteed contract, we would have had more cap space over that era. If you are worrying about guarantees as a fan, you are planning for a scenario where Lamar is bad enough to cut for nothing, but the Ravens still being some cap space away from being a contender during the next 5 years. If Lamar is going to dive to that level, we are going to suck anyway. It would be far more understandable if the Ravens said they can't afford $XXM AAV and stock the rest of the roster, than anything about guaranteed percentage. We are not going to sign Lamar to a monster deal, then decide to cut him after 1-4 years and still be close to a SB before the end of year 5. Agreed. I’m in the same boat. However I can understand the Ravens apprehension and wanting to save face with the league and not go “full guaranteed.” So if they want to do that, they should be prepared to structure the deal so as to be 6 or 7 years and the guarantees are prorated in a way that it’s basically fully guaranteed, but not be “fully guaranteed.” Using maneuvers such as roster bonuses in like year three and option/signing bonuses similar to what Denver did within the Russell Wilson contract. But I agree there’s enough precedent out there that I think both sides will ultimately get a long term deal done. If I were a betting man, Lamar isn’t chasing fully guaranteed as much as record guarantees. The fact that he came out last year and stated the Ravens were offering $160-$180m in guarantees vs saying they were offering that “fully guaranteed” makes me think and be optimistic that he and his team are using “fully guaranteed” as a screen to target a package that presents them with the highest guarantees in lieu of the fully guaranteed label. That’s their “start high” positioning if I had to guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 Completely agree. He didn’t want to take shots, but when Josina Anderson sources information, she’s direct quoting what they’re saying. Yet some of these other players in the media simply say “sources” and then either regurgitate old news or spout off or state irrefutable assumptions. How can anyone refute a story where the Ravens would let any candidate know that a player who is not signed has a chance of not being signed or with the team in 2023? He’s literally not adding any “News” To the equation but dressing it up as if he is. I remember when media used to provide news, now they’re main goal is to provide hype and drama as that sells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 14 hours ago, wackywabbit said: As a guy who is on record guaranteeing Lamar will be a Raven long term, this is 100% what I expect to be said. In the midst of negotiations and talking to a bunch of people, almost all of whom are going to be working for competitors, anything you say will leak out. I actually take it as a good indicator that Monken, who has a lot of demand/leverage, chose to go here based on the read that he got. I think the Ravens are thinking worst case they’ll franchise him and have him for another year. It’s all going to come down to whether or not Lamar will play on the tag in that scenario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 16 hours ago, baltimoreRebel said: Because Lamar is being unreasonable. You can't cave and give this guy the world, especially a fully guaranteed deal. I love Lamar but damn. A fully guaranteed deal cripples us. He's as good as gone if he won't move off his stance. He’s being unreasonable. Don’t let people try and psy-op you into thinking the Ravens are lowballing him. It is what it is. Jeff is way more in the know than anyone on here pretends to be. Edited February 16, 2023 by Ray Reed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 Jeff Z's tweets and the Monken hire could absolutely indicate that Harbaugh wanted an OC who could both thrive with and without Lamar, which Monken certainly can. I just cannot and will not bring myself around to the idea of not having Lamar on this team, but damn it seems more and more likely... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ray Reed said: He’s being unreasonable. Don’t let people try and psy-op you into thinking the Ravens are lowballing him. It is what it is. Jeff is way more in the know than anyone on here pretends to be. It's an extreme take that the Ravens are disrespecting Lamar with insulting Lamar with terrible offers. No one here has said that that I've seen. Any offer to an MVP QB is going to be historic in some way or another. Lamar doesn't have to accept any specific amount and the Ravens don't have to offer any specific amount. That doesn't make anyone unreasonable. If there is a huge gap then I encourage the team to let Lamar talk to other teams to see his market. Again that would happen between the tag date and the new league year date. I don't expect any significant news until then. Edited February 16, 2023 by wackywabbit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 5 hours ago, Ray Reed said: I think the Ravens are thinking worst case they’ll franchise him and have him for another year. It’s all going to come down to whether or not Lamar will play on the tag in that scenario We haven't seen anyone holdout since the new CBA, have we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 1 hour ago, wackywabbit said: We haven't seen anyone holdout since the new CBA, have we? Good point. Actually not sure on that…was Bell under the new one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, wackywabbit said: It's an extreme take that the Ravens are disrespecting Lamar with insulting Lamar with terrible offers. No one here has said that that I've seen. Any offer to an MVP QB is going to be historic in some way or another. Lamar doesn't have to accept any specific amount and the Ravens don't have to offer any specific amount. That doesn't make anyone unreasonable. If there is a huge gap then I encourage the team to let Lamar talk to other teams to see his market. Again that would happen between the tag date and the new league year date. I don't expect any significant news until then. No but we do have more information than you alluded to in your prior post. You said we can’t assume Lamar is being unreasonable because of the lack of information we have. Jeff Z saying he’s turning down top 2-3 $ in the league and the most $ in the league up front seems to be pretty solid information. Edited February 16, 2023 by Ray Reed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 22 minutes ago, Ray Reed said: No but we do have more information than you alluded to in your prior post. You said we can’t assume Lamar is being unreasonable because of the lack of information we have. Jeff Z saying he’s turning down top 2-3 $ in the league and the most $ in the league up front seems to be pretty solid information. 6 hours ago, Ray Reed said: He’s being unreasonable. Don’t let people try and psy-op you into thinking the Ravens are lowballing him. It is what it is. Jeff is way more in the know than anyone on here pretends to be. This again is not new information. Rumors were they offered Lamar $250m over 5 years, with $133m guaranteed at signing. That’s the same ESPN story from last season.https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34569529/lamar-jackson-declined-baltimore-ravens-250m-extension-offer-wants-deal-fully-guaranteed-signing-sources-say?platform=amp Jeff Z isn’t saying something new or “plugged in.” He’s regurgitating this same old news from last year. And this deal is undercutting Lamar. If the team wants a loyalty discount, the team should be willing to pay a loyalty guarantee, otherwise the market is the next guy up that’s a top QB resets the market with the top deal. Murray was a fringe top 10 QB, while Lamar is a top 5 QB when healthy, he’s at the level of resetting the market or at least getting a nice deal fully guaranteed, they have to pick their poison. But teams aren’t loyal and thus a loyalty discount makes sense as long as that loyalty discount is guaranteed. Now if Lamar wants top QB money PLUS fully guaranteed, perhaps that’s something else entirely. However we don’t have that information. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.