JohnJohnson

It's not totally unreasonable to say that if Flacco hadn't demanded such a large contract, the FO might have felt more comfortable with extending Boldin for a year or two and pushing some of his cap hit into the future. Here's the simplistic reasoning that I am arguing against: Person A: If Flacco hadn't demanded a huge contract we might have been able to keep Boldin. Person B: Not true! Flacco's cap hit this season is only $6.8 million, it had nothing to do with us losing Boldin! Person B is oversimplifying the situation. The FO is not only concerned with this season and next season. They have to plan according to their future obligations. With Flacco's contract, we have large future obligations that must be accounted for. It's really not that difficult to understand, I don't know why some are so unwilling to admit that Flacco's contract is a significant burden. You don't get something for nothing.

Do I need to repeat myself? Do you truly believe that the impact of Flacco's contract is fully mitigated by the contract's "cap friendliness?" Yes, the contract will be redone, if Flacco is satisfied with the terms. If not, then the Ravens will be forced to choose between cutting Flacco and dealing with significant cap constraints. We're in that situation right now with Ngata and Suggs; we don't want to cut them and we're also hesitant to offer them the type of extension that they would likely demand if they were to agree to a restructured contract. You don't get something for nothing. I never said that Flacco's contract was "crippling" this team. But it's certainly a significant issue.

Myth: A contract's impact on a team's ability to sign players is completely determined by the cap hits in the first year or two of the contract.