B-more Ravor

A comprehensive look at the Ravens 2016 Salary Cap - http://russellstreetreport.com/2015/...y-cap-preview/ HINT: The starting position (after all/most ERFA/RFA tenders) is negative Cap space.

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 1m1 minute ago Pro Bowl guard Marshall Yanda's new deal with Ravens averages $7.1 million per year. Still need way more details, but FWIW, his last deal averaged $6.4M/yr, so 5 years later, this part sounds pretty good.

This. It doesn't matter who they were going to sign, they were going to need the Cap space (especially since it's only week 6 and they are probably going to have more injuries and have more injury replacement costs). The alternative would have been to only carry 52 players or not carry guys on the PS for the rest of the year.

Based on media reports and the NFLPA information, the breakdown of Will Hill's new deal would be: https://twitter.com/RavensSalaryCap/...48101910687748 http://russellstreetreport.com/2015/08/29/baltimore-ravens-salary-cap/examining-will-hills-contract-extension/

As is often the case, Spotrac appears to be confused - or, at least, if you believe Hill himself, who said it was for 2015 and 2016. Jeff Zrebiec ‏@jeffzrebiecsun 8h8 hours ago Will Hill said the deal covers the 2015 and 2016 seasons. Edit: Not to mention that Spotrac still lists his $1.542M RFA tender salary as his 2015 salary, which is also going to change with the new deal.

Only real surprise I saw was that Campanaro was running with the 3rds and 4ths and didn't see any time (that I saw at least) with the 1st and 2nds. With Webb out, Pointer saw a lot of action with the top units (ahead of Asa and Tray Walker) and seemed to hold his own pretty well, especially considering he's someone we know - and have heard - very little about. On another note, Waller is huge. I know we all knew that, but when you see him out there standing with the WRs, it's really startling. He's not a natural catcher with his hands, but I didn't see many drops from him.

Was able to be at practice today and was pretty impressed with Perriman. He had one drop on a long pass that he probably should have had and a drop in drills early, but otherwise, he was catching everything with his hands and definitely attacking the pass - with his hands and at the height of his jump. Definitely looked a lot different from Torrey (not trying to bang on Torrey, but it definitely was not one of his strengths).

Michael Jackson (1201 yds) and Derrick Alexander (1099), 1996, would disagree.

Brian McFarland ‏@RavensSalaryCap 18s18 seconds ago Brian McFarland retweeted Mike Reiss Need more details obviously, but Gostkowski's deal would seem to set market for Ravens and RFA PK Justin Tucker. https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/621382791629041664 … Mike Reiss @MikeReiss Filed to ESPN: Patriots and kicker Stephen Gostkowski beat franchise-tag deadline and agree to four-year deal. Ballpark total value of $17m.

Oooooo, both of those are very good candidates. Mitchell might be the tops as far as worst IMO.

You guys need to go further back into the early years. They were 16-31-1 in those 1st 3 years and the defense was epically bad. Guys like CBs Donny Brady and Isaac Booth (Langham, too) - they were likely IMO the worse (of guys that actually got to see the field). Kip Vickers (although playing out of position) was one of the worse RT we've had (and there have been more than a few stinkers). I'd also agree with the mentions of Harper LeBel and David Pittman.

Yup, if Jimmy holds his block longer - of mugs his guy like the others did - that would have been the last play of the SB!

Sure, but only an extension for Osemele would likely add to the Cap. Much like with Koch, an extension for Tucker or Yanda would likely create some additional space (and more than just "some" for Yanda).

Brian McFarland ‏@RavensSalaryCap 24m24 minutes ago Depending on exact terms of deal, Koch's new contract could save Ravens up to $830K against Cap. Deal not done for Cap, but to secure Koch

Yup. The dead money comes from his $11M signing bonus that was paid in 2014 (which, per the CBA, is prorated over 5 years and counts $2.2M each of those years). If a player retires, is traded or released, the team must still account for the yearly prorations that haven't yet counted against the Cap. Which, as of right now, is this year's $2.2M and the $6.6M that would otherwise count against the 2016-18 Caps (if he's still around).

There is - the $4M guaranteed base salary would not longer be owed/guaranteed. They could then place him on the reserve/retired list and would get a $4M credit against the Cap (w/ $2.2M remaining on the 2015 Cap). But.......they would have to eat $6.6M in dead money against the 2016 Cap. Otherwise, he plays, is on PUP or IR this year and gets the $4M. Next year, unless he's proven to be fully recovered, he's likely released and they still take the $6.6M in dead money on the 2016 Cap (or $2.2M in 2016 and $4.4M in 2017 w/ a post-June 1 release/designation).

1. Any extension for Flacco is going to increase the long term Cap hit. That's inescapable. Whenever it happens, he's very likely to get a top of the market deal. That's life in the NFL with a top caliber QB. That means a fat bonus (or two), sizeable guarantees and big Cap numbers. So, it's a matter of doing it now, while the extension can arguably be contained within his prime years or extended later and possibly be extended into declining years. 2. Most seem to think the Cap will at least hit $150M in 2016. With just a $5M/year increase thereafter the Cap would reach $175M in 2021. That's in the range that I stated and I don't think that is an unreasonable estimate. The NFL prints money, I don't see that changing. 3. Back end Cap numbers of $26-28M on deal that averages $22M aren't really balloon cap hits, IMO. Especially, for QB in 2020-21. Plus, the 2021 figure in my example is basically fluff when you consider that there's only $2.2M in dead money still on the books at that point. If he's still playing well he likely gets an extension, if not, he's gone with marginal Cap implications. 4. I do agree that a Flacco extension may not be requirement, but I do think it is something that they will most certainly pursue - and Bisciotti has already indicated they would try - and I do think it is prudent. But, that's my preference, your mileage, obviously, varies.

I don't see how he isn't going to get a sizeable amount of upfront money no matter what. Rodgers has a very flat contract, but he still got a $33.25M bonus (and that was in 2014). So, by 2016 or 2017, I don't see how Flacco isn't looking at something at least similar, and like higher. Regarding leverage - there's no doubt Flacco will have plenty, but the longer it goes - the closer he gets to being a FA - the more leverage he gets. That is, unless his performance falters. So, it's a matter of degrees, but I think that his leverage will be somewhat muted in 2016, compared to what it would be by 2017. I'm not sure I'm following you here. The dead money that presently exists is going to be there no matter what. That's unchangeable. The dead money from the new deal is going to be what it is going to be. Unless they feel that he's not going to perform at a high level, then there's no reason to fear the dead money. I mean there's going to be a sizeable amount of potential dead money no matter what. But, if dead money is the fear, then getting him signed to an extension sooner makes more sense IMO because you are somewhat protecting against a decline in performance in the 2020-21 range, as opposed to having him signed until 2022. That is, unless they are unsure of whether they want to re-sign him at all (which I don't think is the case). Not sure I agree with that - nor, I would submit, does the NFLPA. Obviously, that remains to be seen. Either way, though, I'd still prefer Flacco at a Cap number of $26-28M with a $170-180M Cap (2020-21), than at $28-31M with a $150-160M Cap (2016-2017). But, those numbers are in 2019-21 and are the same or lower than what he will count in 2016-17 under the present deal. And, again, at a time when the Cap is higher than it will be in 2016-17. It saves $10M in Cap space in 2016-17 and provides what would be reasonable Cap numbers for a QB during those later years. Heck, you're arguing that they can accommodate those numbers in 2016-17, so how are those "very high numbers" in the later years? Flacco's extension - whenever it comes - is likely to average $23-25M in "new money" average. I don't see how you expect them to avoid that? Well, waiting and seeing certainly didn't help them much last time around and only increased Linta's leverage. Doesn't mean it will be the same this time around, but it's pretty clear that Bisciotti signaled their desire to get something done in 2016 and not do anything that would swing the leverage in Flacco's direction any more than it already is. If Flacco's contract was structured differently - ie without the balloon 2016 and 2017 - then waiting might be of more interest to me, but I think having a extra $10M in Cap space in 2016-17 would be of great help to the team. That's more than just marginal $$.

Yes, thanks to the more sizeable increases in the Cap, it's no doubt an easier situation than we most envisioned it would be, but I still think 2016 is the better year to extend - mainly for 2 reasons: 1. If they wait until 2017, all the leverage is back in Linta's hands. The last time that happened, the structure was anything but friendly to the team (and is why we are now having this discussion). With some flexibility in 2016, they can arguably say "we'd like to get something done that works for both of us - ie a big bonus for Joe - but we don't have to". If they wait til 2017, they pretty much have to get an extension done, IMO. 2. If we are worried about dead money, then why not get an extension done sooner and remove any possibility of dead money when Flacco is then 1 year older. He's likely to get 3 additional years - whether the deal is done in 2016 or 2017 - so IMO, it makes more sense to get it done a year earlier and not have Flacco one-year older on the last year of that deal. I know Flacco said something about playing til 40 and I hope he can do so at a high level, but I'm not sure I want to bet on that and I would think it would be better to have a deal that he could more reasonable complete - while playing at a high level. The longer the new deal goes, the more possibility that that doesn't happen. So, if they are going to have to do an extension at some point, it would IMO make more sense to do it in 2016 and structure it to gain a bit of Cap space in 2016 and 2017 and still be able to flatten it out enough that the back end Cap numbers aren't so out of whack - especially, as you said, with the increases in the Cap making those back-end Cap numbers not so high anymore when compared to where the Cap will be at that point. For instance, in the proposal I posted on page 1, the highest Cap number wouldn't happen unto 2121 and that is pretty much exactly the number they would hope to avoid in 2016 by extending him.

I do have to agree with rmcjacket23 that this one is lack a bit of context. They do look to be $20M under right now, but a lot of guys who are presently counting are UDFAs, who will likely not be around in 2016. So, they really have just 43 (real) players under contract for 2016, for about a $128.6M commitment. Once RFAs and ERFAs are added in, they will have less than $20M in Cap space since all of those players will make more than what the UDFAs are presently counting. So, I'd say they are going to be more near $15M under (assuming another $10M increase in the Cap). As I said earlier in thread, I do think they can play with Flacco at $28+M, but I also do think they will try and reduce that. As far as the "dead money" part of this discussion goes, I don't think that is too much of a consideration in this instance, since the present dead money is pretty much gone by 2018, so whether they extend him in 2016 or 2017, they only really have to deal with "double" dead money (ie sizeable bonus bonus prorations from TWO contracts) for those 2 years. By 2018, the final prorations from Flacco's initial deal is down to $4.75M, so they have plenty of flexibility by then. The other factor they have in their favor (hopefully) is that with a bit more Cap space (ie flexibility), they can increase his base salaries (as I tried to do in the example above), which will mean less bonus prorations and less dead money going forward. In my example, he would only (ha!) get $37M in bonus money, as opposed to the $51M he got in his last deal. Still sizeable, obviously, but when considered over a 6-year deal, that is more than a $2M/yr difference in potential dead money.

1. Agreed. 2. Agreed. With the now larger increases in the Cap, I think they will definitely be able to flatten it out and accommodate the higher Cap hits, instead of the structure of the last deal. At least, I hope so. 3. Agreed. I don't think they need to create a lot of Cap space, just smooth out those 2016 and 2017 Cap hits. So, a $4-5M Cap savings each year will provide them with some relief, while protecting against huge increases in the later year Cap numbers.

Yes, I think it's possible and I expect the Ravens to tell Flacco and Linta just that. But, I have no doubt they will want to get something done next year, just the same. If they don't, it will be really tight and they would then be forced to go into 2017 absolutely needed to restructure the deal and then - again - all of the leverage will be back in Linta's hands. Things - as far as the structure and the need to redo the deal after 3 years - didn't work out so well for the team the last time that happened.

Yup. Here's an example: Present: Yr/Base/Proration/Cap# 2016: $18M $10.55M $28.55M 2017: $20.6M $10.55M $31.15M 2018: $20M $4.75M $24.75M Estimated Deal: 2016 Signing Bonus - $27M 2017 Option Bonus - $6M 2018 Option Bonus - $4M Total deal: $132M Averge/yr: $22.5M 1st 3 yr Payout: $70M New money: $73.4M New Numbers: Yr/Base/PresentProration/NewProration/Cap# 2016 $9M $10.55M $5.4M $24.95M (reduction of $6M) 2017 $10M $10.55M $6.6M $27.15M (reduction of $4M) 2018 $14M $4.75M $7.6M $26.35M 2019 $17M 0 $7.6M $24.6M 2020 $19M 0 $7.6M $26.6M 2021 $26M 0 $2.2M $28.6M

To be clear, I don't think Elam is going anywhere either, but the main difference between the 2 (if Elam were to get released) is that none of Swearinger's remaining contract is guaranteed. So, any team that was awarded him on waivers can also cut him at any time with no Cap consequences. It's basically a free look. Elam, OTOH, has the $1M guaranteed salary, so that is why I think it might be different for Elam if it ended up going that way.

No, if he's claimed on waivers the team that claims him gets the remainder of his contract, so the guaranteed base salary transfers to that team. That said, given his poor play - and what would have to be even more poor play to get released - I doubt anyone would claim him. A team that was interested would likely pass on taking on the contract and instead take their chances at signing him to the 3rd year minimum of $585K.