How Can the Ravens Lower Flacco's Cap Number Next Year?

[rmcjacket23]

Extending later in the contract is ALWAYS preferable to earlier because there is less dead money. Extending him earlier just means more dead money down the road and high cap numbers for the forseeable future. Did you see the numbers bmore ravor posted? That is not ideal, but the Ravens knew what they were getting into when they structured it the way they did.

This is how the NFL works in case you haven't been paying attention. Players on their rookie contracts make up close to 50% of rosters to allow for the high priced contracts, for the Ravens it is probably even higher than that and fortunately the Ravens are good enough at drafting to field a high quality roster with so many young players.

That has literally nothing to do with anything I said. At no point in time did I even give the impression that it was better to extend him earlier and i don't even see how you could of gotten that impression.

 

This is about as late in the contract as it gets (after 2015). Most contracts of high-quality players never get played to the end anyway... they either get extended or released, this is why everybody tells you to just "look at the first three years" of a deal. In most cases, the dead money is less than the cap hit after year 3, and decision making comes into play.

 

In case you haven't been paying attention, that's NOT how NFL contracts work. In fact, you'd have a tough time providing even a single example of a contract that's close to Joe's in terms of structure. Can you provide an example of large contract that has a $14M increase in cap hit in a single offseason? Or a contract that had a $20M average annual salary that had three straight years of sub $20M cap hits?

 

For some comparisons:

 

Matt Ryan: Averages $20.75M per season, cap hits of at least $17.5M in each of the last five years of his deal, never jumps more than $5M in a single season from years 2-6.

 

Cam Newton: Averages $20.76M per season, cap hits of at least $19.5M in each of the last five years of his deal, never jumps more than $1.7M in a single season from years 2-6.

 

So we know the reality is that you can, in fact, sign people to large contracts without backloaded the deal in such a way that Joe's is. And this is what I expect Ozzie to do. I'm not expecting him to be carrying any more $12-15M cap hits on whatever deal he signs, because its really not beneficial to either party in the long run.

[gabefergy]

That has literally nothing to do with anything I said. At no point in time did I even give the impression that it was better to extend him earlier and i don't even see how you could of gotten that impression.

This is about as late in the contract as it gets (after 2015). Most contracts of high-quality players never get played to the end anyway... they either get extended or released, this is why everybody tells you to just "look at the first three years" of a deal. In most cases, the dead money is less than the cap hit after year 3, and decision making comes into play.

In case you haven't been paying attention, that's NOT how NFL contracts work. In fact, you'd have a tough time providing even a single example of a contract that's close to Joe's in terms of structure. Can you provide an example of large contract that has a $14M increase in cap hit in a single offseason? Or a contract that had a $20M average annual salary that had three straight years of sub $20M cap hits?

For some comparisons:

Matt Ryan: Averages $20.75M per season, cap hits of at least $17.5M in each of the last five years of his deal, never jumps more than $5M in a single season from years 2-6.

Cam Newton: Averages $20.76M per season, cap hits of at least $19.5M in each of the last five years of his deal, never jumps more than $1.7M in a single season from years 2-6.

So we know the reality is that you can, in fact, sign people to large contracts without backloaded the deal in such a way that Joe's is. And this is what I expect Ozzie to do. I'm not expecting him to be carrying any more $12-15M cap hits on whatever deal he signs, because its really not beneficial to either party in the long run.

Once again you are completely missing the point. I'll make it simple for you.

1. The Ravens don't need to change his cap number for next year. Yes, his contract is unusual but it is NOT crippling to the team's ability to sign FAs.

2. This is because most of the Ravens important players are locked up already, many of them on inexpensive rookie deals.

3. The Ravens will have ~20M in cap room in 2016 if the cap increase projections are accurate.

4. The Ravens also have a number of easy cuts to make to free up more cap space if necessary.

5. Many teams have highly paid QBs or other elite players now: Brees-$26.4M cap hit 27.4 next season. Romo will be $24.7 in 2017 and $25.2 in 2018. Ryan will close to $24 in 2016-17.

6. What could have been done doesn't matter because Flacco's contract is what it is. Extending him soon doesn't change that, it just exacerbates it in the long term.

[rmcjacket23]

Once again you are completely missing the point. I'll make it simple for you.

1. The Ravens don't need to change his cap number for next year. Yes, his contract is unusual but it is NOT crippling to the team's ability to sign FAs.

2. This is because most of the Ravens important players are locked up already, many of them on inexpensive rookie deals.

3. The Ravens will have ~20M in cap room in 2016 if the cap increase projections are accurate.

4. The Ravens also have a number of easy cuts to make to free up more cap space if necessary.

5. Many teams have highly paid QBs or other elite players now: Brees-$26.4M cap hit 27.4 next season. Romo will be $24.7 in 2017 and $25.2 in 2018. Ryan will close to $24 in 2016-17.

6. What could have been done doesn't matter because Flacco's contract is what it is. Extending him soon doesn't change that, it just exacerbates it in the long term.

1. Simple not a statement of fact, because you can't possibly know that at this time. His reduction in cap space by even a few million dollars could be the difference between keeping both guards or keeping one. No way to know that right now. 

 

2. $20M in cap space is all great and cute and all, except it lacks perspective. Currently, that number would rank us about 22nd in the league in cap space. There's only four teams in the entire NFL who aren't projected to have at least $15M in cap space, and there's 10 teams in the league that are projected to have at least double the space that we have. Just saying $20M seems like a lot of money, except its really not in comparison to the teams we would be competing with to sign players potentially.

 

3. Easy cuts aren't guaranteed either. Its entirely possible a guy like SSS or Daryl Smith won't be cut, because we don't even know if we've got somebody on the roster or will get somebody on the roster who will be any better or even close to as good.

 

4. Ironically, two of the three teams you just listed are incredibly struggling to find even replacement level players at many key positions, largely driven by those QB cap hits, amongst other bad contracts (which the Ravens have as well). You've seen one of those teams basically have a firesale already, luckily the Ravens did that earlier.

 

5. We aren't exacerbating anything, because that would imply that any extension we give him would be more detrimental than the current deal he's on, which is essentially impossible. Even the contract Ravor outlined is beneficial in every single year of the 2016-2018 seasons for the Ravens than the current deal he's under... and Joe gets more money now, which is great for him. There's nothing to exacerbate.

[gabefergy]

1. Simple not a statement of fact, because you can't possibly know that at this time. His reduction in cap space by even a few million dollars could be the difference between keeping both guards or keeping one. No way to know that right now. 

 

2. $20M in cap space is all great and cute and all, except it lacks perspective. Currently, that number would rank us about 22nd in the league in cap space. There's only four teams in the entire NFL who aren't projected to have at least $15M in cap space, and there's 10 teams in the league that are projected to have at least double the space that we have. Just saying $20M seems like a lot of money, except its really not in comparison to the teams we would be competing with to sign players potentially.

 

3. Easy cuts aren't guaranteed either. Its entirely possible a guy like SSS or Daryl Smith won't be cut, because we don't even know if we've got somebody on the roster or will get somebody on the roster who will be any better or even close to as good.

 

4. Ironically, two of the three teams you just listed are incredibly struggling to find even replacement level players at many key positions, largely driven by those QB cap hits, amongst other bad contracts (which the Ravens have as well). You've seen one of those teams basically have a firesale already, luckily the Ravens did that earlier.

 

5. We aren't exacerbating anything, because that would imply that any extension we give him would be more detrimental than the current deal he's on, which is essentially impossible. Even the contract Ravor outlined is beneficial in every single year of the 2016-2018 seasons for the Ravens than the current deal he's under... and Joe gets more money now, which is great for him. There's nothing to exacerbate.

1. Could be. It doesn't mean that is a bad decision. The Ravens aren't going to overpay for a guard especially when they have a good one already waiting in the wings on a cheap deal.

 

2. I gave plenty of perspective. The Ravens will have  cap room and won't have a multitude of FAs that need to be retained. It isn't a situation where the team is in that bad of a place like some of the other teams you have referenced. They will have cap room to sign players.

 

3. I never said cuts are guaranteed but they provide other options to create cap room other than extending Flacco.

 

4. Good thing the Ravens aren't struggling either with the cap or with their roster. It's one of the best rosters in the NFL due to the FO's ability to draft, develop, and retain talent.

 

5. Anytime you are extending a contract with that amount of dead money still on it, it is exacerbating the problem. That is capology 101.

[rmcjacket23]

1. Could be. It doesn't mean that is a bad decision. The Ravens aren't going to overpay for a guard especially when they have a good one already waiting in the wings on a cheap deal.

 

2. I gave plenty of perspective. The Ravens will have  cap room and won't have a multitude of FAs that need to be retained. It isn't a situation where the team is in that bad of a place like some of the other teams you have referenced. They will have cap room to sign players.

 

3. I never said cuts are guaranteed but they provide other options to create cap room other than extending Flacco.

 

4. Good thing the Ravens aren't struggling either with the cap or with their roster. It's one of the best rosters in the NFL due to the FO's ability to draft, develop, and retain talent.

 

5. Anytime you are extending a contract with that amount of dead money still on it, it is exacerbating the problem. That is capology 101.

LOL, no dead money doesn't do that. Its a fixed cost. Capology 101 (also known as Economics 101) would tell you that dead money is 100% irrelevant to decision making, because there is no decision that can be made that changes the dead money. If he gets extended, the dead money exists at the exact same number. If he plays under the current contract, the dead money exists under the current number. If he gets cut, the dead money exists under the current number. If he gets arrested and sentenced to prison, the dead money exists under the current number. 

 

Its completely irrelevant to a decision making process. If it was really that important, then there would be no logic behind any franchise signing any player to an extension prior to their deal expiring, yet its incredibly common among all 32 NFL teams.

 

You're also talking about a contract that would have less than 20% of the overall contract value left in dead money after this season, so when you add perspective to it, its even less relevant. 

[arnie_uk]

Yous are just arguing for the sake of it now. Yous have both said the same thing. Flacco doesn't NEED to be extended next summer, but he will be the summer after at the latest.

[Tenacious Faulker]

This is an easy thing to do now that he said he'll play into his 40's.  Give him the biggest extension in NFL history.  

[gabefergy]

LOL, no dead money doesn't do that. Its a fixed cost. Capology 101 (also known as Economics 101) would tell you that dead money is 100% irrelevant to decision making, because there is no decision that can be made that changes the dead money. If he gets extended, the dead money exists at the exact same number. If he plays under the current contract, the dead money exists under the current number. If he gets cut, the dead money exists under the current number. If he gets arrested and sentenced to prison, the dead money exists under the current number. 

 

Its completely irrelevant to a decision making process. If it was really that important, then there would be no logic behind any franchise signing any player to an extension prior to their deal expiring, yet its incredibly common among all 32 NFL teams.

 

You're also talking about a contract that would have less than 20% of the overall contract value left in dead money after this season, so when you add perspective to it, its even less relevant. 

We aren't really saying different things, but you don't seem to understand how the cap works so I am going to stop arguing with you. Dead money clearly affects the cap moving forward because it affects the amount of base salary that has to  be converted to bonus up-front to lower the cap number now. It's a simple concept that Ozzie has talked about a million times. They don't like to kick the can down the road when they don't have to.

Edited June 14, 2015 by gabefergy

[rmcjacket23]

We aren't really saying different things, but you don't seem to understand how the cap works so I am going to stop arguing with you. Dead money clearly affects the cap moving forward because it affects the amount of base salary that has to  be converted to bonus up-front to lower the cap number now. It's a simple concept that Ozzie has talked about a million times. They don't like to kick the can down the road when they don't have to.

That'd be true.... IF no years were added to the deal. The kicking the can down the road concept is based on the idea of converting non-guaranteed salary into a guaranteed signing bonus in order to lower the cap number IF there is no additional years added to the deal. This is what is known as a common contract restructuring, and the Ravens rarely do it.

 

IF you are doing that AND adding years to a deal (which is what will happen in this case), then that kicking the can down the road concept doesn't exist, because its the exact same as if you ripped up the last three years of his contract and signed him to a completely new one. B-More Ravor already outlined this concept and explained it to you, which is literally the exact same thing I'm saying. The dead money from the prior contract still exists, as it would regardless of any decision you made... hence why its called dead money.

 

The irony of your first sentence though made me chuckle quite a bit...

[B-more Ravor]

3. The Ravens will have ~20M in cap room in 2016 if the cap increase projections are accurate.

 

 

 

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.

Edited June 15, 2015 by B-more Ravor

[gabefergy]

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).  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).

Tenders and rookie contracts will take up some space of course, but the Ravens won't be cap strapped. There are tough decisions to be made every single season and not every FA can be retained. I'm not arguing that Flacco's contract isn't cumbersome, but I do think there are ways to work around it instead of changing it, at least for the next season. 2017 may be harder to deal with, but once again the number of important FAs will not be that significant if my estimations are correct.

 

The longer they wait to extend him the flatter the new deal will be, and I think it is important to consider the increases in salary cap when talking about perspective. $30M against the cap is a lot different when the cap is at $125M than when it is at $160M. Numbers that seemed ridiculous 3 years ago are going to become regular pretty soon. If his eventual extension can hit the cap in the $22-24M per year range instead of $26-28M it will  benefit the club in the longterm.

[rmcjacket23]

Tenders and rookie contracts will take up some space of course, but the Ravens won't be cap strapped. There are tough decisions to be made every single season and not every FA can be retained. I'm not arguing that Flacco's contract isn't cumbersome, but I do think there are ways to work around it instead of changing it, at least for the next season. 2017 may be harder to deal with, but once again the number of important FAs will not be that significant if my estimations are correct.

 

The longer they wait to extend him the flatter the new deal will be, and I think it is important to consider the increases in salary cap when talking about perspective. $30M against the cap is a lot different when the cap is at $125M than when it is at $160M. Numbers that seemed ridiculous 3 years ago are going to become regular pretty soon. If his eventual extension can hit the cap in the $22-24M per year range instead of $26-28M it will  benefit the club in the longterm.

Sure, there's plenty of ways to navigate a big cap hit contract, but its clearly far from ideal. Nobody really has anything to gain from keeping Joe under his current cap number, and we would likely have to cut a player or two, potentially even starting-caliber players, in order to have enough to spend the way we want to. There's not much upside to cutting a guy we may have kept otherwise, just because we don't want to redo a deal that both sides clearly benefit from.

 

Plus, at $15M in cap space (which is largely chump change in the present day NFL anyway), one contract extension to a Yanda or Osemele could wipe out at least a third of it, if not more. Now you're playing in the $10M range, which is basically the same spot we were in the past offseason.

[B-more Ravor]

 I'm not arguing that Flacco's contract isn't cumbersome, but I do think there are ways to work around it instead of changing it, at least for the next season. 2017 may be harder to deal with, but once again the number of important FAs will not be that significant if my estimations are correct.

 

The longer they wait to extend him the flatter the new deal will be, and I think it is important to consider the increases in salary cap when talking about perspective. $30M against the cap is a lot different when the cap is at $125M than when it is at $160M. Numbers that seemed ridiculous 3 years ago are going to become regular pretty soon. If his eventual extension can hit the cap in the $22-24M per year range instead of $26-28M it will  benefit the club in the longterm.

 

 

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.

Edited June 15, 2015 by B-more Ravor

[gabefergy]

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.

In terms of leverage, Flacco and Linta are in the driver's seat no matter when an extension happens. I don't see how extending him earlier changes that, if anything it's what Flacco and Linta want. More money upfront. 

 

I am concerned about dead money, and as you are aware the farther he gets into the contract, the less dead money there is. At which point, the team does have some leverage again. They could realistically let him play out the contract or even release him if the performance is not at a high level. Now, that is extremely unlikely to happen given his status, but I think John Eisenberg wisely alluded to this next season as something of a contract year. The FO might have to make a decision as to whether they want to extend him or not. If he has a lackluster season, or even a relatively mediocre one, adding on 3 additional seasons with significant cap hits is a tough move.

 

Also, the cap isn't projected to continue to take these big increases every year. The changes now are due to the new TV contracts that are just now affecting cap space, so there is a good chance that once the cap gets to the $160M range it will be in that range for several years.

 

The extension that you suggested, which seems reasonable in terms of length and money achieves very little IMO. It lowers his cap hit marginally in 2016 and 2017, but it sets a very high number for the next 4 seasons. Waiting a year or two more means the next 4 years could actually be a considerably lower number than the $28-30M facing the team in 2016 and 2017.

 

So in the longterm, I don't see how it hurts the Ravens to play wait and see. They wont be in dire need the cap room right away which imo is the biggest reason not to rush into an extension, and even in 2017 they could do a restructure instead of an extension and free up $4-5M in cap and just flattening out the 2017-2018 to about $28M which should be manageable. Then in 2018 the decision to have Joe finish out his career here can be made.

[rmcjacket23]

In terms of leverage, Flacco and Linta are in the driver's seat no matter when an extension happens. I don't see how extending him earlier changes that, if anything it's what Flacco and Linta want. More money upfront. 

 

I am concerned about dead money, and as you are aware the farther he gets into the contract, the less dead money there is. At which point, the team does have some leverage again. They could realistically let him play out the contract or even release him if the performance is not at a high level. Now, that is extremely unlikely to happen given his status, but I think John Eisenberg wisely alluded to this next season as something of a contract year. The FO might have to make a decision as to whether they want to extend him or not. If he has a lackluster season, or even a relatively mediocre one, adding on 3 additional seasons with significant cap hits is a tough move.

 

Also, the cap isn't projected to continue to take these big increases every year. The changes now are due to the new TV contracts that are just now affecting cap space, so there is a good chance that once the cap gets to the $160M range it will be in that range for several years.

 

The extension that you suggested, which seems reasonable in terms of length and money achieves very little IMO. It lowers his cap hit marginally in 2016 and 2017, but it sets a very high number for the next 4 seasons. Waiting a year or two more means the next 4 years could actually be a considerably lower number than the $28-30M facing the team in 2016 and 2017.

 

So in the longterm, I don't see how it hurts the Ravens to play wait and see. They wont be in dire need the cap room right away which imo is the biggest reason not to rush into an extension, and even in 2017 they could do a restructure instead of an extension and free up $4-5M in cap and just flattening out the 2017-2018 to about $28M which should be manageable. Then in 2018 the decision to have Joe finish out his career here can be made.

Think you're significantly misunderstanding...

 

1. Under your scenario, he plays out the final three years of his deal, and the total cap hit over that period of time is $84.45M, or an average of $28.15M per year. Clearly you would agree that those are very high numbers.

 

Under his scenario, the next three years would have a total cap hit of $78.45M, or an average of $26.15M per season, roughly a $2M decrease per season in cap used. So in the next three years, his deal is better.

 

2. I'm not sure why you think waiting will make his cap numbers low in the next four years. Can you provide a detailed quantitative basis for thinking that, because neither I nor B-more Ravor seem to agree with that assessment even a little bit.

 

There's only really two scenarios where I think the numbers he provided would be deemed higher than you should expect as a reasonable fan:

 

1. Joe plays terrible for at least the next two seasons, and we convince his agent that he isn't worth at least as much as we paid him before (good luck with that one). Or 2. you basically sign him to an identical contract as the last one, where you backloaded the crap out of the cap hits to make the first three years manageable. That principle directly contradicts your entire philosophy of "reducing dead money", because it creates a ton of it.

 

Ironically also, you're notion of restructuring instead of extending directly contradicts the dead money issue also, because the moment you restructure, you're essentially adding dead money, thus making future maneuverability (as you indicated) a bit more difficult. Unless you play on Joe taking a $4-5M pay cut, the only way to restructure a deal that only has two years left on it (I'm not even sure this is done very often because its largely pointless), is to take non-guaranteed base salary, convert it into a bonus (thus guaranteeing it... hence adding dead money), and spreading it out. The entire process really yields a net zero gain and accomplishes nothing.

 

Basically, the only scenario I see where your plan actually works out better for the Ravens is IF Joe plays really bad for an extended period of time. Like, at least 2013-level bad, and he probably needs to play significantly worse than that. Otherwise, he's fetching probably $20-22M annually on his next deal, with probably $50-$60M guaranteed at a minimum. If he wins a SB this season or even gets to the SB this season, your whole plan is essentially worthless, because he can largely set whatever price he wants.

[B-more Ravor]

In terms of leverage, Flacco and Linta are in the driver's seat no matter when an extension happens. I don't see how extending him earlier changes that, if anything it's what Flacco and Linta want. More money upfront. 

 

 

 

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 am concerned about dead money, and as you are aware the farther he gets into the contract, the less dead money there is.

 

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).

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the cap isn't projected to continue to take these big increases every year. The changes now are due to the new TV contracts that are just now affecting cap space, so there is a good chance that once the cap gets to the $160M range it will be in that range for several years.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

The extension that you suggested, which seems reasonable in terms of length and money achieves very little IMO. It lowers his cap hit marginally in 2016 and 2017, but it sets a very high number for the next 4 seasons. Waiting a year or two more means the next 4 years could actually be a considerably lower number than the $28-30M facing the team in 2016 and 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?

 

 

So in the longterm, I don't see how it hurts the Ravens to play wait and see. They wont be in dire need the cap room right away which imo is the biggest reason not to rush into an extension, and even in 2017 they could do a restructure instead of an extension and free up $4-5M in cap and just flattening out the 2017-2018 to about $28M which should be manageable. Then in 2018 the decision to have Joe finish out his career here can be made.

 

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 $$. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by B-more Ravor

[1/28/01]

Yous are just arguing for the sake of it now. Yous have both said the same thing. Flacco doesn't NEED to be extended next summer, but he will be the summer after at the latest.

That's all this dude does still? I'd grow tired of myself if that's how I was. Sheesh!

[gabefergy]

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 $$. 

In the end it's a matter of swallowing 1-2 years of a big cap hit or reducing it in the present while increasing the longterm cap hit.

 

The 2015 - 2016 cap increases are directly due to the recent increases in TV contracts. However, these are long-term contracts meaning they should be relatively flat once the contracts kick into the salary cap over the 2015-2016 seasons. It is certainly possible that there are increases down the road, but I don't see the $10M per year bumps continuing.

 

For the Ravens, they might have luckily structured this deal to coincide with the spike in the salary cap. If they don't need the immediate cap space that extending Flacco would provide, I see no reason to balloon future cap hits into the $26-28M range on an extension that only averages $22M per year. 

 

The Ravens will have cap room to sign players and also have options to create additional cap room if needed. A Flacco extension will certainly be one of those options, but it won't be a requirement imo.

[B-more Ravor]

In the end it's a matter of swallowing 1-2 years of a big cap hit or reducing it in the present while increasing the longterm cap hit.

 

The 2015 - 2016 cap increases are directly due to the recent increases in TV contracts. However, these are long-term contracts meaning they should be relatively flat once the contracts kick into the salary cap over the 2015-2016 seasons. It is certainly possible that there are increases down the road, but I don't see the $10M per year bumps continuing.

 

For the Ravens, they might have luckily structured this deal to coincide with the spike in the salary cap. If they don't need the immediate cap space that extending Flacco would provide, I see no reason to balloon future cap hits into the $26-28M range on an extension that only averages $22M per year. 

 

The Ravens will have cap room to sign players and also have options to create additional cap room if needed. A Flacco extension will certainly be one of those options, but it won't be a requirement imo.

 

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.

Edited June 17, 2015 by B-more Ravor

[dhstandard]

We should have a lot of space even if Flacco played on his current salary.  With that said, we have a bunch of players needing deals.