B-more Ravor

Oh, I don't disagree at all. I just think this deal is going to be tougher to reach than a lot of people think. But, I agree, in the end, it will (or at least, should) get done.

I'm sure they can very easily figure out - and agree - on how to reduce his 2016 Cap number. The tough (contentious) issues are going to be the other terms of the deal and just what Linta is going to push for as far as yearly average, guaranteed money, etc. I think it will get done too, but I also think it's going to be painful.

I'm not really sure they are comfortable with leaving it as is, but that's what they've got to say at this point because that's how negotiations go. There's now way they were going to say anything about needed to get it done because that would have played right into Linta's hands. Do they HAVE TO get his restructured/extended? No. Do they need the Cap space from a restructure/extension? Yes, likely so. Otherwise, they are going to have to find it from somewhere else and that could mean parting with players that they'd rather otherwise keep.

I hear ya, but there's another guy involved too - Linta, Flacco's agent. If Flacco lets him drive the negotiations, who knows?!? The other issue is that it's not just getting his Cap number down for 2016, that's probably something they can figure out very quickly. It's the other terms to the deal - yearly average, how much is guaranteed, the length of deal, whether Linta's going to want to set it up to for another restructure in 3 years, etc, that are more problematic and could cause problems, IMO.

This. Not to mention that Joe has already received all (not most) of his guaranteed money - that's what the $25.85M in dead money is. Joe's new deal is going to average more than $20M/yr (as his current one already does) and he's likely to get more like $30M between bonus and salary (as opposed to the $18M in salary he's supposed to get under the present deal). That chance for that big check is about the only leverage ( enticement) that the Ravens have to get a new deal done. OK, that and needing the Cap space to get other things done.

Yeah, may be. Monroe's deal was pretty upper market (as opposed to "top of the market") when it was signed. But, there have been 3 or 4 signed since then that have changed to complexion of the market a bit. I still don't think Osemele gets to Monroe's deal, but he might get close, I guess.

I don't see how KO would get more than Monroe. Monroe got a upper market LT deal. While KO looked good for 3 games, I don't know if that's enough to warrant a upper market LT deal. That said, IF KO got the exact deal that Monroe got, the 1st year Cap number would be $3.2M. If Monroe is released, the Cap savings is $2.1M, which would go a long way toward covering the $3.2M Cap # for KO.

Spotrac used $154M for their projection.

That assumes a $154M Cap, so hopefully, but it may not reach that high. It also only includes the 47 players currently under contract. It also doesn't include a lot of things that go into the Cap - 2015 carryover, incentives adjustments, ERFA and RFA tenders, etc. This gives a more clear, accurate picture of where they presently are - before cuts and Flacco's Ext -> http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/01/04/baltimore-ravens-salary-cap/2016-salary-cap-preview-v2-0/

The list is a little off (for instance, Gordon and James are no longer on the team), but most of those named will be under the Ravens' control with either a ERFA or RFA tender. They will likely tender all of the ERFAs because they are the cheapest of the cheap and likely only tender 1 RFA - Aiken. Some of the other RFAs they may decide to not tender and attempt to re-sign them to lesser deals (as they've done in the past with Levine, McClellan, etc).

Certainly not saying that it's going to happen, but they could get it there. However, it would mean releasing about 8-9 players, many of whom would be considered leaders on the team. The benefit - along with create the Cap space - would be to clear the unwanted contracts off the books in 2016, so that they would have a relatively clean Cap (sans bloated contracts) heading into 2017.

Here's the article: http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/01/04/baltimore-ravens-salary-cap/2016-salary-cap-preview-v2-0/ But, keep in mind that for every player released there is a player added to the Rule of 51 Cap calculation, so for all of those release figures, there'd be a corresponding addition to the Cap of $525K.

Not really the issue in this case though. It has nothing to do with the agent. What was decline was a "simple restructure", which means they offered to take most of his $5.5M base salary and pay it to him in March, instead of in 17 installments over the course of the season. He wasn't getting any less, he was just getting it early, in one big check. To be honest, I've never heard of a player declining to take the money "now". Can't really conceive of why he would decline, but certainly not a team friendly act. The FO was PISSED, and rightfully so, IMO. Instead, they were forced to restructure Suggs (thereby adding future dead money to a deal with an older player), which now looks bad given his injury and the long rehab needed to come back.

This goes back to mid-Oct, but much of the issues are still the same: http://russellstreetreport.com/2015/10/22/baltimore-ravens-salary-cap/ravens-2016-salary-cap-preview/ Also, remember that the team's rookie pool (Cap) is going to be much higher this year than in past years. Due to the interplay with the Rule of 51, the team's rookie cap usually only had a minimal impact ($1-2M) on the team's overall Cap, but with the much higher draft position, it's going to be more like $5M this year. Something else to remember, it's easy to say "just release all these guys and we'll have $20M+ in Cap space, but for every guy you release, they leave that many more players that are needed to be signed to get back up to a full roster. So, right now, with just 46 players under contract, for everyone you release, it means that they are replaced by someone making at least ~$500K on the Cap. That, obviously, then eats into the "savings" that comes from the release.

To be clear, the total dead money is $6.6M. Those numbers listed are the dead money that would apply if released in each of those years. This is the decision the team will need to make.

Not that I think this is a big deal or anything, but has anybody notice how Preston is usually the only one getting quotes from Ozzie? I'm most certainly not a Preston fan - I generally don't like his snide ways of insulting players - but I also do have a strong belief that there are times when he carries the water for the FO (mostly Ozzie). When Ozzie wants a message out - like "Hey, Siz, how about returning my damned calls!" - it's usually Preston who delivers them. Whether it's about players wanting new contracts or the like, I have no doubt that Ozzie on occasion using Preston - via the media - to deliver messages. Much like Preston's tweet today about Eugene Monroe.

Since the issue of dead money and its impact on the 2016 Cap comes up often - and there is a lot of confusion about that: http://russellstreetreport.com/2015/10/29/baltimore-ravens-salary-cap/the-myths-about-salary-cap-dead-money/

This. Webb was paid the going rate for a CB of his caliber at the time of the signing. Injuries have changed that since, but those are he breaks (of which, we're getting none right now). I think Webb could be a candidate for release - either pre- or post-June 1, depending on what exactly happens with Pitta. I could see one going pre-June 1 and one post-June 1. And, it's not that I think Webb has been that bad, but the accumulation of injuries leads me to believe they aren't going to risk paying him $5.5M in salary next year. The savings is less if released prior to June 1 ($3.5M), but I'd think they'd prefer to spend that Cap space on a more reliable player.

This. They took Upshaw, not to be a "Suggs"-type OLB, but to be a "Jarret Johnson"-type OLB. I do think they felt that Upshaw would develop into more of a pass rusher than he has, but he wasn't ever expected to be a 10+ sack kind of guy. He was - like JJ - expected to be an edge setting, run stopping OLB, who could also contribute some to the pass rush.

He's still listed by the NFLPA and I never saw an official release on the NFL's daily transaction reports, so either they changed their minds, couldn't reach a settlement or Zrebiec was just speculating. If they couldn't reach an agreement on a settlement, he can always be released later if he can pass a physical, which the team can ask him to do at any time.

Haven't looked through the entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been done, but there is some needed context here: UFAs: Justin Tucker Matt Schaub Courtney Upshaw Albert McClellan Kelechi Osemele Morgan Cox Jeremy Ross Allen Reisner Chris Givens Asa Jackson Sheerce Wright RFAs: Brynden Trawick Kamar Aiken Marlon Brown ERFAs: Zach Thompson Ryan Jensen Terrence Magee Raheem Mostert Micajah Reynolds

Yes. And, that money can become available for signing their draft picks - if they didn't have enough space prior to that - or to carry into the season (as we've seen, injury replacement funds can become critical).

This absolutely. Unless the market for KO is way under who anyone would expect, there's no way to keep him, given how their Cap is likely to shape out. Pay 2 Guard at the top of the market isn't very wise - especially if you have what appears to be a viable option in place - and, as you mentioned, Wagner is also coming up for a deal and you'd rather pay for your RT than your Guard.

Yes, no difference. If he retires and the team would prefer post-June 1 treatment, they would ask him to hold off and wait to file his retirement papers until after June 1. Otherwise, if they could always release him prior to his retirement and use the June 1 designation. Either way, though, for any post-June 1 retirement/release (Pitta or anyone else), the Cap savings isn't realized until after June 1, so the player still counts fully against the Cap until June 2. So, the $5M in Cap savings if Pitta is dealt with as a post-June 1 transaction isn't available until then.

Depends on whether it's pre- or post-June 1. Pre-June 1: $600K in savings and all $6.6M in dead money against 2016 Cap (but none on 2017 Cap) or Post-June 1 (or using post-June 1 exemption): $5M saved against 2016 Cap with only $2.2M in dead money in 2016, but $4.4M in dead money pushed onto 2017 Cap