B-more Ravor

16 hours ago, jazz1988 said:

The  Ravens could have up to atleast 30+ million dollars in cap space with minimum dead cap space if they can possibly be successful with asking players to take a pay cut or reach  contract extensions  with certain players. Shareece Wright(5 million), Mike Wallace(8 million), Doom(8 millon) , Ladarius Webb(7 million), and Dennis Pitta(7 million) can all be asked to take a pay cut or get  a extension to lower their cap hit.  I feel like players that may need to take a pay cut would no doubt be Wright, Pitta, and Doom which I find   hard for them to not accept because they not going to get more as free agents and I think all three can still contribute to the  team in a positive way..

IDK, this is a weak FA class and there are teams with just incredible amounts of Cap dollars to burn.  Those two factors, IMO, make it harder to get players to accept paycuts. Not to mention, we aren't the playoffs every year Ravens of 2008-2012 that players might want to stick around for. 

Plus, as Jacket said, paycuts alone aren't going to create that much Cap space.  They most certainly are going to need to release some of those players.

Lastly, dead money is what it is.  It's not as scary or terrible as it's made out to be and is a natural part of most team's salary cap.  Yes, the year with Ray Rice's ~$10M in dead money was bad, but that was an extreme circumstance.  The dead money from most of the guys mentioned is a sunk cost - it's going to either be part of their Cap number or will be dead money if they are released.  Again, it's going to be there one way or another (just different columns, so to speak).  So, the real question with most of these decisions isn't about the dead money, it's the Cap savings.  If the Cap savings is enough, the team isn't concerned about the resulting dead money.

8 hours ago, terrynjulia03 said:

Why would a guy with 9 years in the league need a QB coach? If you look at other teams, paying their QB as much as we are, the OC is / QB coach. And sure they have a assistant QB coach, which means someone to go grab the coffee. If after 9 years Joe needs a babysitter telling him to work on his mechanics than something is wrong. 

Not sure what you're talking about, but plenty of teams have separate QB coaches that aren't the OC.  In fact, other than NE, it looks like most teams have a separate QB coach.  Luck has one. Rodgers has one. Ben has one.  Brees has one.  Eli has one. Ryan has one. Rivers has one. Wilson has one.  Newton has one. 

And Peyton pretty much had one his entire career.

9 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

Tbh if I'm dennison I'd let harbs know I'm interested in the qb job and try and get him to hold off on his decision while he's waiting for the broncos hc position to get filled out and see if he's kept on board - I reckon his dream scenario is shanahan comes onboard in Denver and keeping him on

If the new Denver HC does not retain Dennison, then I'm certain he'll be very much in the Ravens plans.  Don't know what kinds of other opportunities he may have, but hopefully, the Ravens will be in his plans too!

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Is Pitta's cap hit accurate? Didn't he reach some significant incentives in 2016 that would trigger higher compensation in 2017? Or did he take just a straight paycut?

I thought I had read elsewhere that he earned back a substantial amount of his 2016 paycut, which would push to 2017, thus making his cap hit even higher (and include guarantees in it).

40 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

From my understanding, and Ravor can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it necessarily affects his cap number, per se.  It does add it to the cap but it goes in the form of a "debit" I believe.

Yes, correct.  Incentives are paid if earned and count (in this case, since they were NLTBE) against the following year's Cap as a negative adjustment on the Cap, but don't affect the player's Cap number (and, hence, the dead money involved).

Sometimes players have escalators that do affect the following year(s)' base salaries if earned.

In this case, Pitta's were incentives, not escalators.

43 minutes ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Wait Zach Orr is a udfa???

so its b.will, wagner and orr as priority 

Orr is a RFA, not a UFA, so they will tender him (likely the 2nd round tender, IMO) to maintain control over him for 2017.

Zorn hasn't coached in the NFL since 2012 (or, anywhere, it seems), so I doubt they'd ever consider him.  He's also a bit of an odd ball and didn't mess well with a lot of people (other than Joe, it would seem).

2 hours ago, Davesta said:

What's the savings if we cut pitta? He needs to go. Can't block and Joe looks to him too much before anything else can develop. I'm afraid he start again and stall the development of maxx and Waller. 

Savings for Pitta is $3.3M if released before June 1 or $5.5M if released after June 1.

9 hours ago, terrynjulia03 said:

Um barring Johnsons contract, which is as you stated is a LT contract, the top 10 RTs in the league are only making a max of 6m per year. With a bottom level of 5.5m. I think Wagner falls into the top 10, but certainly not the top and no other team is gonna think that either. He comes back in the range of 5.7m a year. Easily. 

Also leaving Johnson out, there are 8 RTs making at least $6M/year, 5 of whom are making more than $6M/year.  The two most recent signings were Schwartz ($6.6M/yr) and Cannon ($6.5M/yr).

Most importantly, Wagner is also a FA now, prices always go up when the market opens and there are teams with incredible amounts of Cap to spend.  I don't think it's much of stretch to expect Wagner to make at least $6M/year (whether he deserves to be in that stratosphere or not).

16 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

Agreed, but I think that depends on how they're treating the team right now.  Do they still think they can remain competitive?  In that case, I'd extend Webb.  If they're looking at a mini rebuild of sorts, then definitely let him go.

The main reason I'm amenable to the idea of extending Webb is that I don't see it as a huge cap commitment for the future.  I think Webb also realizes he's on the downside of his career, so I can't see him pressing for too much at this point.

As I said, I don't really disagree.  It's just a matter of how agreeable to a reasonable - very reasonable - extension (which is going to have to include a "paycyut" IMO) he's going to be.

7 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

I still think you have to look at giving Webb some sort of small extension.  There were a couple of rough moments early on but he really came on strong down the stretch.  I think you have to look at getting a replacement this season as well, but I'd hold onto Webb for the time being because I'm not sure you're going to get anything better, unless it's Hooker as you mentioned.  He's been pretty amenable to contract changes in the past and I'd think he would be again.

Not saying I disagree - he may very well be amenable and he did seem to improve as the season went on - but I'd be careful in extending a player who appears to be on the downside of his career.  That's only going to push possible dead money into the future, whereas there is none under his column at this point. 

Or, said another way, I'm ready to see them start cleaning up their Cap, not find ways to push today's problems down the road.

4 hours ago, Ravensfan23 said:

why not? He speculates all the time. Most recently about Marty being fired. Even went as far to say Flacco's and Pitta's comments should be views as them not wanting to throw him under the bus more so than a vote of confidence for him. 

I'm not trying to imply that he's not credible or discredit any sources he has, but it's just hard for me to believe that the usually tight lipped Ravens would allow any info like that to leak out. 

I agree.  He definitely has his sources, but there's no way to be sure if anything (or everything) in that article is just opinion or "informed" opinion based on sources. 

As you said, he did say he believed that MM was going to fired, so that was clearly opinion, so there's no way to really know which one it is in this case.

6 hours ago, Cillmatic said:

Why do we need a safety?

Well, at this point Weddle, Webb and Lewis are under contract; Huff is a RFA and Levine and Elam are FAs.  IMO, it's very possible that Webb and Lewis are released and Huff is non-tendered (can't see him being tendered at $1.8M).  So, that could leave Weddle as the only Safety under contract or under team control as of March.  That doesn't mean they will draft one in the 1st round (although if Hooker from OSU somehow gets that far, he'd be hard to pass up), but they definitely may very well need to restock the position.

7 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Or is signing another, cheaper RT in FA or looking to grab one in the draft a back-up plan?

 

Yes, if they lose Wagner, I would expect them to sign a veteran RT and draft another OT/G like Lewis (and, to a much lesser extent, the soon to depart Hurst).  Then the 3 of them would fight it out for RT.

14 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

Yeah I saw you tweet that out today.  That's a good sign that they like him, but that's really the only sign I've seen to this point, and that was only announced today.  I don't doubt that they like him, as I do too.  I just thought the original poster was pumping Skura up based on his own opinion, with no real basis, as it's actually been pretty quiet on him.

 

Oh, absolutely. Liking him is all well and good, but expecting him to make the jump from the PS to the starting C is a bit much, I would agree.  Would be great, but really can't expect it.

9 hours ago, redlobster said:

I like Williams and his play but think he is easier to replace especially at the pay he will probably get vs Wagner. Would be a shame to lose a top 5 RT and have to start over again.

 

Still baffles me that Lewis didn't get the start at RT vs Bengals and instead Hurst did, especially if Wagner was not planning on being re-signed. Unless they think Lewis will stick at LG and a RT will be drafted.

9 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yeah I've considered this also. I'm not convinced that Lewis is just being handed the RT job. Wouldn't surprise me if you see somebody else there next year.

9 hours ago, The Raven said:

Not happy about not locking up Wagner. To me, he's the clear pick over Williams. Not even close to me. 

I think we'll see Alex Lewis do better at RT than at LG but still. That opens up a hole at LG and possibly a hole at center, too.

I have thought all along that the plan was for Lewis to take the RT spot, but based on Harbaugh's comments at the presser - which, granted, may well have been the first shot of pre-draft misinformation - it looks like they see Lewis as the LG.  That, or they are still hoping to re-sign Wagner, in which case Lewis would play LG, and if that plan fails, then they will consider Lewis at RT (the back-up plan).

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:28 AM, rmw10 said:

I'll go a step further.  Can you even point to any article or tweet or any supporting documentation for the team liking Skura as much as you say they do?  I feel like that's in your head, because I did a little bit of digging and I can find very little on Matt Skura other than that we signed him.

 

I can't give any insider knowledge, but I can tell you that they up Skura's weekly practice squad salary from the minimum PS salary of $6,900 up to the rookie minimum ($450K/17 = $26,471).  So, even though he was still on the PS, his base salary for those weeks was the same as a rookie who was on the 53-man roster.  I've never seen them give a PS player that much in weekly salary.

So, that tells me that (1) they do like him, (2) some other team was trying to sign him to their 53 and the Ravens offered the same money to keep him (even though on  the PS) and (3) he chose to stay and then re-sign for 2017 because he must see this as a good opportunity for himself.

2 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

Did I miss something? Someone said Wagner won't be re signed?

2 hours ago, allblackraven said:

Zrebiec's sources.

39 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

Do you have a link to the article? I searched the Sun and Twitter and couldn't find it. 

Here's the article:  http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-news-notes-and-opinions-20170105-story.html

Here's what Jeff said:

"It also means that if Wagner departs, and the bet here is he will, the Ravens will be in the market for a right tackle......"

Now, that could be just an opinion or it could be a informed opinion, who knows?

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 6:48 AM, Tank 92 said:

Rick did grade out near the top.  Correct? 

I think they have to commit to the O line and this is the immediate "must do".  If that's the number, that's the number. 

Rick graded out pretty well, but both Schwartz and Cannon just earned 2nd team All-Pro status today.

That said, Wagner is about to be a FA and prices go up year to year, so I think we can expect to see Wagner get paid in at least the $7M/year range.

4 hours ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Has anyone broke down the dead money & savings cap to see the chance of us keeping both Brandon & Wagner?   

2 hours ago, The Raven said:

CC: @B-more Ravor

 

All you need is right here - a full breakdown of the present Cap status and a projection of where they will be after ERFAs, RFAs, incentives and other Cap adjustments:

http://russellstreetreport.com/2016/12/27/baltimore-ravens-salary-cap/ravens-2017-offseason-preview/

4 hours ago, terrynjulia03 said:

Barksdale in SD just signed a 4yr 22M. Gilbert 2 years ago signed a 5 yr 30m. Basically around 5.5- 6m per year. I'd like to see something like 5 yr for 27m.

Mitchell Schwartz (KC) just got $33M/5 yrs last Spring. Marcus Cannon (NE) got $32.5M/5 yrs in November.  Prices will go up as FA approaches, so I'd think Wagner is going to end up around $7M/year.

From a Cap perspective, nothing is likely to change. Forsett stays on the Cap at $3M and is entitled to termination pay, meaning he can request payment of the balance of that $3M salary. He has until the end of the season to elect to take it (players can only do so once in their careers). If he for some reason doesn’t, then the Ravens would get credit of 13/17ths of the $3M in 2017. Assuming there isn’t some agreement not to do so (the working of “parting by mutual agreement” is a bit interesting), he will likely make that election. Since the balance of the $3M continued to count this year, there is no carryover for 2017.

Keep in mind that with contract dynamics, it's always easy to paint the number how you'd like.

For instance a 5 year deal at $4M per year is a $20M deal.

Not saying they did - but if the Ravens then offered an alternative deal of 4 years at $4.5M (a higher yearly rate), the total is only $18M.

So, the total value is LESS than the prior offer, but at a higher yearly rate and the shorter deal gets Tucker back on the FA market sooner (to cash in again at a young age).

Shorter deals also means less bonuses and less guarantees. So, "less" also applies there.

But, whether it is or not, remains to be seen though, without the details.

Also, remember Ozzie urged Reed to take a shorter deal, but when he didn't, Reed complained about the deal in the later years. I think Ozzie would always like shorter deals, but most agents and players don't want to take the risk.

23 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Yea i know how the cap works - idk why but i had stuck in my mind the number for pre june 1st release in which we wouldve absorbed the full $6.6m dead money this year.

I also didnt realize that salary cap space could roll over in 2017 as well. I thought that cycle ended in 2016, but it actually does extend to 2017... which matters bc if it hadnt and they didnt end up using all or much of the space they just created, the fact that they did create it wouldnt matter much. But it in fact does, so ill relinquish that point as well.

So, for example a move like this next year wouldnt make any sense unless they had an immediate plan to use the cap space created for an extension or to sign another player. This happens to be the last year under the CBA that even if they dont use it they can roll it over which is valuable.

 

The CBA allows teams to roll over Cap space every year of the deal (thur 2020). There is no prohibition for doing it after 2017 (or any other year after that).

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

No. If he had played this year and then been cut after the season I don't believe any dead money would have carried to next year. 

He would've made $8.5m this year against the cap this year, and $0 against it next year. 

By releasing him now he counts $2.2m this year and $4.4m next year. That's only a $2m difference. 

The $4.4m only carries to next year bc he's a post June 1st cut which spreads out the remaining dead money over two years.

Thats exactly how you look at it. 

Think of it as a 2 year deal. You can either keep him 1 year and get nothing from him the 2nd year and pay a total of $8.5m OR get nothing from him either year and pay a total of $6.5m. 

Point to me where they're "saving $6.5m."

 

Edit:

I could be wrong in that the dead money would've been there next year had we kept him for this year. Spotrac which is usually my go to for cap implications is already updated. 

If so, you're right on the $6.5m savings. 

Monroe got an $11M bonus, which is prorated over the 5 years of the deal and initially counts $2.2M against the Cap each year.  Since he was released after June 1, only this year's $2.2M remains on the Cap and the team get the $6.5M in Cap savings (the amount of his base salary).  They do, though, still have to account for 2017 and 2018's prorations of $2.2M each.  So, both of those accelerate and count $4.4M in 2017. 

As I said, they were going to have to account for those either way, you can't escape Cap charges for bonus prorations because they are Cap charges for money already paid. 

So, again, assuming he wasn't going to be on the team next year - one way or another  - then that $4.4M was going to count in 2017 either way.

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 9:38 AM, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

We saved a whole $2m basically. Save $6.5m this year, but take on $4.4m in dead money next year.

Dont really see the sense in it either. Sorry you couldnt work out a trade in the ONE day you gave yourself.... but no one was in desperation mode either. Hold him, wait until someone loses their starting LT and has a sense of urgency to grab him in a trade. Or, hold on to the insurance in case Stanley goes down or something.

These are grown men. I just dont see any situation in which the FO or coaching staff should have put the petty differences ahead of whats best for this football team in terms of on field performance.

Can't really look at it that way, though, because the $4.4M was going to count one way or another at some point.  So, unless you expect that he would have played out the contract to completion (2018), they were going to have to deal with the $4.4M next year anyway.  That's basically a sunk cost due to the bonus prorations that can't be avoided.  So, it still comes down to whether they were going to pay him $6.5M to "compete" for a starting spot (and it appears that he's not interested in playing RT or G).  Teams do care about cash too and that's too much for them to pay Monroe (highest base salary on team).  Given his history and given that they had already paid him $17.5M for 2 subpar years, there was no way IMO that they would dream of risking another $6.5M on the possibility that he may stay healthy this time around.