Next up: Pro-bowl, Free Agency, Draft and the Salary Cap

[Kinda_Dante]

Just now, Somerset Ravens said:

Is there any advantage to cutting him now as opposed to the end training camp ?

I don't see the any advantage to cutting him. I know some people point to the cap savings, but at this point and time we don't really need it.

[rmw10]

1 hour ago, Somerset Ravens said:

Is there any advantage to cutting him now as opposed to the end training camp ?

 

1 hour ago, Kinda_Dante said:

I don't see the any advantage to cutting him. I know some people point to the cap savings, but at this point and time we don't really need it.

Assuming the stories from last year are correct, I don't think advantages, savings, or anything like that applies to their decision.  If he's cut, I imagine it's a case of the two sides just needing to go their separate ways.  It's long been reported that there's a pretty strong frustration with Monroe's inability to stay on the field, and I'm sure his recent actions are not helping out any either.

[Kinda_Dante]

3 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

 

Assuming the stories from last year are correct, I don't think advantages, savings, or anything like that applies to their decision.  If he's cut, I imagine it's a case of the two sides just needing to go their separate ways.  It's long been reported that there's a pretty strong frustration with Monroe's inability to stay on the field, and I'm sure his recent actions are not helping out any either.

I just think you keep him because who would start if Stanley can't? Whether it be because of injury or because he needs to sit and learn for a while.

[RaineV1]

Yeah, if we cut Monroe then there won't be much depth behind Stanley. Hurst is Hurst, we lost KO, and there's no telling if Jensen can kick out to tackle and play well like KO did, It'd end up being a rookie LT being backed up by another rookie tackle (Alex Lewis) or switching Wagner over.

[rmw10]

9 minutes ago, Kinda_Dante said:

I just think you keep him because who would start if Stanley can't? Whether it be because of injury or because he needs to sit and learn for a while.

While I don't disagree, I don't think the Ravens are thinking that way necessarily.  For what we'd save, I'd rather just have him from a pure football standpoint, even with the injuries.  However, we don't know the guy all that well and the team does, and they're the ones that are rumored to have a fractured relationship with him.  To me, this is not a case of performance, money, etc.  It's a case of them either choosing to sever ties with a player that they don't thinks fits the Ravens' mantra or not.

[Kinda_Dante]

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

While I don't disagree, I don't think the Ravens are thinking that way necessarily.  For what we'd save, I'd rather just have him from a pure football standpoint, even with the injuries.  However, we don't know the guy all that well and the team does, and they're the ones that are rumored to have a fractured relationship with him.  To me, this is not a case of performance, money, etc.  It's a case of them either choosing to sever ties with a player that they don't thinks fits the Ravens' mantra or not.

Yea I guess if he does get cut that would have to be the explanation but I don't think it's fractured beyond repair. I think it was at the season ending press conference where Biscotti said that he was the starter, I know that since then we drafted Stanley but still shows a level of respect.

[rmw10]

3 minutes ago, Kinda_Dante said:

Yea I guess if he does get cut that would have to be the explanation but I don't think it's fractured beyond repair. I think it was at the season ending press conference where Biscotti said that he was the starter, I know that since then we drafted Stanley but still shows a level of respect.

I wouldn't really look into what Bisciotti said, personally.  He's not in charge of personnel, although efforts are made to appease him, of course.  I'd be much more inclined to read into what Ozzie and Harbaugh said, both of whom skirted around direct answers on Monroe.

[Sami84]

I see 0 gain in releasing monroe. It's not like yanda is a spring chicken and Stanley, while with immense potential is a rookie. We need as much talent as possible and monroe when healthy is a very solid tackle in this league. If we had KO then i'd be a-ok with letting monroe go.

[Sami84]

what about louis Vasquez? the guy is  a very good LG. He's only 28-29...?? he could slot into LG effortlessly.

[Kinda_Dante]

8 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

I wouldn't really look into what Bisciotti said, personally.  He's not in charge of personnel, although efforts are made to appease him, of course.  I'd be much more inclined to read into what Ozzie and Harbaugh said, both of whom skirted around direct answers on Monroe.

True! Regardless I don't think they will release him but you do make a good point.

[ellicottraven]

13 minutes ago, Kinda_Dante said:

True! Regardless I don't think they will release him but you do make a good point.

This is what I truly believe with regard to Monroe. If he does come back healthy, stays focused on playing football a little more than funding cannabis research, he'll stay on as LT for this year at least. However, should he not participate in the mandatory camp citing recovery, rehab, etc. and drags it on to TC, he's gone after June 1st. The reality is he is an important component of the O-line at least right now. Stanley is untested and raw regardless of his talent level. Monroe is effective when healthy and that has been borne out. So, unless he comes back fully prepared and excited to play football, I think we'll take our lumps but get rid of him.

[Cawtious]

28 minutes ago, Sami84 said:

what about louis Vasquez? the guy is  a very good LG. He's only 28-29...?? he could slot into LG effortlessly.

You've got a 25 year old 4th year guy who proved he can get the job done when he got his chance.  He can play guard, center, and also took 92 reps last year as a tackle in the preseason.  The answer to LG is staring us right in the face.  Stanley has great feet and length.  He's a consummate LT.  He looks a little light in the upper body to be effective inside.  He needs some time and development with his strength before you shove him inside.

I don't think we need to look for "the new kid in town" for LG.  We've got a mauler with a nasty streak and a great motor.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, Sami84 said:

what about louis Vasquez? the guy is  a very good LG. He's only 28-29...?? he could slot into LG effortlessly.

he also has tackle experience. But the quiet on the market for him is concerning. I think theyll wait to let the LG competition shake out since they already have potentially Stanley, Urschel, Jensen, Lewis and Ducasse all battling for it.

Id imagine if none of them really wins the job Vasquez becomes an option - or a trade with Dallas might become an option as well,

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

5 hours ago, DenverRaven said:

Do you think they'll cut Monroe? I don't, personally... But a lot of people seem to think that he's gone as soon as his injury status is cleared. Not sure how comfortable I'd be with it, but if that's the case, then yeah we should be looking at Leary.

Personally i dont think they will unless Stanley kills it in camp, bc if they do we're in the same situation as last year with no depth and a gimpy QB who we need to protect.

But if Wesley, Hurst, or Lewis proves to be a suitable replacement and they dont want to deal with Monroe anymore I guess  I could see it happening, unfortunately. I personally think itll be the wrong decision - we need to keep our best 5 players on the line, especially this year with Joe coming off an injury... but they may view it differently for whatever reasons whether right or wrong.

[jazz1988]

4 hours ago, Sami84 said:

what about louis Vasquez? the guy is  a very good LG. He's only 28-29...?? he could slot into LG effortlessly.

His asking price must be too high because he's still a free agent and I wonder how good of fit he would be for The Ravens since it's was mention that he wasn't a good fit for Kubiak zone blocking scheme.

[Winchester]

There is no point in cutting an injury free Monroe even if Ron Stanley shows he can play well. Monroe is inconsistent even before his injuries. He looks terrible at times. Then sometimes plays as good as any left tackle in football. He could play guard or tackle. He is stronger than Ron Stanley for now and even if he starts at tackle he could play guard 7f necessary while Ron Stanley plays left tackle. He could show Ron Stanley around the weights. And Monroe could actually light it up and dominate if injury free. Oline is to important to cut Monroe for a minimal savings in money.

[Winchester]

32I do not believe Monroe will be cut. There is little cap savings for a good player when he is on. He is just turning 29 so he is in his prime. And he can play tackle or guard very well if he is not injured.  Most peeps around my table right now are saying we should keep him. It is the main subject of debate tonight

[trevorsteadman]

7 hours ago, Winchester said:

32I do not believe Monroe will be cut. There is little cap savings for a good player when he is on. He is just turning 29 so he is in his prime. And he can play tackle or guard very well if he is not injured.  Most peeps around my table right now are saying we should keep him. It is the main subject of debate tonight

The 6 million in cap we would save is not enough to buy another tackle on the open market just as good or even better. So I think Monroe stays in Baltimore. I agree I do not know why everybody is against him. Unlucky situations the last two seasons when he has been injured.

[rmw10]

7 hours ago, Winchester said:

32I do not believe Monroe will be cut. There is little cap savings for a good player when he is on. He is just turning 29 so he is in his prime. And he can play tackle or guard very well if he is not injured.  Most peeps around my table right now are saying we should keep him. It is the main subject of debate tonight

 

2 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

The 6 million in cap we would save is not enough to buy another tackle on the open market just as good or even better. So I think Monroe stays in Baltimore. I agree I do not know why everybody is against him. Unlucky situations the last two seasons when he has been injured.

Again, I do not believe for one second that this is a move based on money or performance (to an extent, at least).  If we do cut him, I think it will be because we don't want Monroe, the person, anymore.  I wholeheartedly believe that's the real debate here.  Of course, that's information that we aren't privy to, so it's speculation on my part.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

34 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

 

Again, I do not believe for one second that this is a move based on money or performance (to an extent, at least).  If we do cut him, I think it will be because we don't want Monroe, the person, anymore.  I wholeheartedly believe that's the real debate here.  Of course, that's information that we aren't privy to, so it's speculation on my part.

I hear ya, and i do accept it as a possibility - i think it would be naive not to recognize it. But, im firm in that it would be a mistake. He's not a headcase, he's not failing drug tests or getting arrested, and hes not doing anything to tarnish or hurt the reputation of the franchise.

His injuries the past 2 years are difficult to swallow, but those are out of his hands. Honestly, I think they were more a result of his hardcore committed workout regiment. I recall the stories after 2013 and 2014 seasons that he was the 1st guy in the facility the very next day after our season ended at 5am hitting the weights. I dont believe he let his body rest enough which can very well lead to stress type injuries.

I think, now that hes been forced to rest a bit and rehab for a prolonged period of time that his body will hold up better - and when healthy he's easily our best option at LT for this year (unless Stanley just kills it) and even then we need depth, as i dont want a repeat of last year where one injury destroys our line and puts Joe and the run game at risk. Hurst, Lewis, Ducasse, Wagner.... whoever, i dont want any of them at LT this year.

So, if for some reason (which i cant find any legitimate reason that this would be the case) their relationship is fractured due to injuries (why would we hold that against the guy when Webb, Jimmy, Suggs, Ngata, etc... were all high paid guys that were frequently injured) or whatever else - the team, coaches, FO, whoever need to suck it up, play nice, and keep this guy around.

Best 5 play. Period.

If they let him go bc he was injured in the past or they dont like his stance on medical marijuana and him using social media as a platform for it.... I will really have to question that move. There are certain things you dont tolerate. Ray Rice, Will Hill, understandable. This would not be. We're not talking about a character flaw, a criminal, or distraction. And, youve already paid the money.... and the savings arent going to get you a replacement level player. I dont see any justifiable reason to let him go.

[rmw10]

19 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I hear ya, and i do accept it as a possibility - i think it would be naive not to recognize it. But, im firm in that it would be a mistake. He's not a headcase, he's not failing drug tests or getting arrested, and hes not doing anything to tarnish or hurt the reputation of the franchise.

His injuries the past 2 years are difficult to swallow, but those are out of his hands. Honestly, I think they were more a result of his hardcore committed workout regiment. I recall the stories after 2013 and 2014 seasons that he was the 1st guy in the facility the very next day after our season ended at 5am hitting the weights. I dont believe he let his body rest enough which can very well lead to stress type injuries.

I think, now that hes been forced to rest a bit and rehab for a prolonged period of time that his body will hold up better - and when healthy he's easily our best option at LT for this year (unless Stanley just kills it) and even then we need depth, as i dont want a repeat of last year where one injury destroys our line and puts Joe and the run game at risk. Hurst, Lewis, Ducasse, Wagner.... whoever, i dont want any of them at LT this year.

So, if for some reason (which i cant find any legitimate reason that this would be the case) their relationship is fractured due to injuries (why would we hold that against the guy when Webb, Jimmy, Suggs, Ngata, etc... were all high paid guys that were frequently injured) or whatever else - the team, coaches, FO, whoever need to suck it up, play nice, and keep this guy around.

Best 5 play. Period.

If they let him go bc he was injured in the past or they dont like his stance on medical marijuana and him using social media as a platform for it.... I will really have to question that move. There are certain things you dont tolerate. Ray Rice, Will Hill, understandable. This would not be. We're not talking about a character flaw, a criminal, or distraction. And, youve already paid the money.... and the savings arent going to get you a replacement level player. I dont see any justifiable reason to let him go.

I'm not saying you're wrong.  Again, if it was up to me, I would keep him at his price.  I don't know the situation with him personally, but I do know it's been reported that there are multiple reasons for this "fractured" relationship.

It seems it's deeper than injuries.  The team approached him about a restructure before last season and he denied it.  Now, of course, that is within his right to do so, but the team didn't like it apparently.  Zrebiec reported that the team felt slighted and that he wasn't a team player, and that it was only the tip of the iceberg in regards to some bad blood between him and the FO.  It sounds like there have been quite a few disagreements between the two sides.  The question here is the fit within the Ravens organization as a Ravens type of player, not the performance, injuries, or salary.  I'm not denying that performance, injuries, and salary are part of the equation, but I think too many people are using those as a reason to keep him.

I'd liken this more to a Bernard Pollard situation.  Did it make sense financially?  No.  Did it make sense performance wise?  No.  The team just decided that his personality was no longer a fit for the organization.  I'd guess in Monroe's case, they might be biding their time a little bit more because of the premium position and wanting to see Stanley up against some premier talent first.

I'm not saying Monroe definitely will be cut.  I'm just trying to open the possibility that it's not strictly a football related decision.  I get the rebuttal that his salary and what he can offer when healthy make it seem unlikely from that standpoint along, but I think too many people are dismissing the idea that it might not actually matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes it's a matter of two sides just needing to go their separate ways.  If (and I've prefaced 'if' all along since the report came out) the relationship is really as fractured as it's been made out to be, then I don't see him being a Raven too much longer.  I think it's very well he could stay, but my whole goal of this is to point out that the football factors are probably secondary to personal factors in this instance.

Edited May 26, 2016 by rmw10

[rmcjacket23]

20 hours ago, Kinda_Dante said:

I just think you keep him because who would start if Stanley can't? Whether it be because of injury or because he needs to sit and learn for a while.

I get the "depth" argument, and I'm usually the one advocating that side.

However, let me ask this... how many teams in this league do you know that have quality depth at LT? I mean there aren't even probably 30 respectable LTs in the entire league from what I see, so its kind of hard to envision barely any teams being like "yeah, we've got a solid backup LT". 

I get it... Hurst isn't good. I fully agree with that sentiment. Ideally, we'd have a better reserve LT. But I'm not sure if you're the coaching staff or the FO if you can say that you're willing to pay $6.5M to a backup LT, which is what Monroe will become if he loses a camp battle with Stanley. I'm aware that's not cap impact or anything, but can you as a business convince yourself to pay somebody $6.5M to ideally never play a single snap? Kind of a tough sell.

And lets not forget... there's absolutely zero scenario where Monroe is on this team in 2017, so him being "depth" would last a grand total of one season. After that, we are back to where we would be if we cut him... Stanley is the starter, no depth behind him. In that case, you've got two options. Add somebody in FA (which we could still do this season by the way) or draft somebody in the middle rounds to be a backup, which is a gamble. Hard to say that a 4th round rookie LT would do a better job than Hurst at this point if he had to make starts.

And for all we know, maybe Hurst won't even be the backup LT. Maybe, like last season and other seasons, we move a starting offensive lineman (Rick Wagner) to the left side if there's an injury to Stanley. We saw KO play just about everywhere, we've seen Yanda do a respectable job at RT, and we've got what appears to be a gigantic amount of solid depth at interior Oline, meaning shifting a Yanda to RT and bringing in an Urschel or Jensen to play RG isn't that big of a problem. A lot of teams do this... play their best five offensive lineman, regardless of position. I'm not even convinced that Hurst makes this team outright to be honest, regardless of whether Monroe is here or not.

Its quite the quandary if you ask me. Certainly one of if not the best important offseason question we have on this team. In a perfect world, I think Monroe plays LT this season, Stanley plays LG, and we field what looks like a very formidable offensive line.  

Edited May 26, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

42 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

I'm not saying you're wrong.  Again, if it was up to me, I would keep him at his price.  I don't know the situation with him personally, but I do know it's been reported that there are multiple reasons for this "fractured" relationship.

It seems it's deeper than injuries.  The team approached him about a restructure before last season and he denied it.  Now, of course, that is within his right to do so, but the team didn't like it apparently.  Zrebiec reported that the team felt slighted and that he wasn't a team player, and that it was only the tip of the iceberg in regards to some bad blood between him and the FO.  It sounds like there have been quite a few disagreements between the two sides.  The question here is the fit within the Ravens organization as a Ravens type of player, not the performance, injuries, or salary.  I'm not denying that performance, injuries, and salary are part of the equation, but I think too many people are using those as a reason to keep him.

I'd liken this more to a Bernard Pollard situation.  Did it make sense financially?  No.  Did it make sense performance wise?  No.  The team just decided that his personality was no longer a fit for the organization.  I'd guess in Monroe's case, they might be biding their time a little bit more because of the premium position and wanting to see Stanley up against some premier talent first.

I'm not saying Monroe definitely will be cut.  I'm just trying to open the possibility that it's not strictly a football related decision.  I get the rebuttal that his salary and what he can offer when healthy make it seem unlikely from that standpoint along, but I think too many people are dismissing the idea that it might not actually matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes it's a matter of two sides just needing to go their separate ways.  If (and I've prefaced 'if' all along since the report came out) the relationship is really as fractured as it's been made out to be, then I don't see him being a Raven too much longer.  I think it's very well he could stay, but my whole goal of this is to point out that the football factors are probably secondary to personal factors in this instance.

Great points and I agree... but still think its a mistake.

Had they released Pollard during 2012 and his "mutiny" i dont think we win a Super Bowl. We've been trying to find even a suitable replacement at SS since then. Granted, Pollard was somewhat of a liability in coverage, but he made big plays, put fear in WR's and TE's coming over the middle, and destroyed Patriots.

Obviously his issues fitting in with teams are well documented by his inability to stick anywhere and early departure from the league.... but still, sometimes I think you have to suck it up and deal with the shortcomings when there isnt a suitable replacement in sight.

Regardless of what the issues are between Monroe and the FO or coaching staff... i think he should be here. It's not my call, but youve got a franchise QB you just re-upped and is coming off an injury, youve invested in many weapons to boost the passing and run games. They need time and protection and Monroe is the best option.

Sure, Monroe probably shouldve taken one for the better of the team... but it seems pretty hypocritical to want to release Monroe for keeping his best interest over the teams, and the reason for the release being a selfish one that isnt in the best interest of the team. The best interest of the team is to have the best 5 lineman starting, and the next best 3-4 as depth. Monroe definitely fits into that equation somewhere. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

48 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I get the "depth" argument, and I'm usually the one advocating that side.

However, let me ask this... how many teams in this league do you know that have quality depth at LT? I mean there aren't even probably 30 respectable LTs in the entire league from what I see, so its kind of hard to envision barely any teams being like "yeah, we've got a solid backup LT". 

I get it... Hurst isn't good. I fully agree with that sentiment. Ideally, we'd have a better reserve LT. But I'm not sure if you're the coaching staff or the FO if you can say that you're willing to pay $6.5M to a backup LT, which is what Monroe will become if he loses a camp battle with Stanley. I'm aware that's not cap impact or anything, but can you as a business convince yourself to pay somebody $6.5M to ideally never play a single snap? Kind of a tough sell.

And lets not forget... there's absolutely zero scenario where Monroe is on this team in 2017, so him being "depth" would last a grand total of one season. After that, we are back to where we would be if we cut him... Stanley is the starter, no depth behind him. In that case, you've got two options. Add somebody in FA (which we could still do this season by the way) or draft somebody in the middle rounds to be a backup, which is a gamble. Hard to say that a 4th round rookie LT would do a better job than Hurst at this point if he had to make starts.

And for all we know, maybe Hurst won't even be the backup LT. Maybe, like last season and other seasons, we move a starting offensive lineman (Rick Wagner) to the left side if there's an injury to Stanley. We saw KO play just about everywhere, we've seen Yanda do a respectable job at RT, and we've got what appears to be a gigantic amount of solid depth at interior Oline, meaning shifting a Yanda to RT and bringing in an Urschel or Jensen to play RG isn't that big of a problem. A lot of teams do this... play their best five offensive lineman, regardless of position. I'm not even convinced that Hurst makes this team outright to be honest, regardless of whether Monroe is here or not.

Its quite the quandary if you ask me. Certainly one of if not the best important offseason question we have on this team. In a perfect world, I think Monroe plays LT this season, Stanley plays LG, and we field what looks like a very formidable offensive line.  

Well Monroe's cap hit is $8.7m, $6.5m dead money if hes cut, or $2.2m this year and $4.3m next year if its post June 1st.

So, in theory you're only paying $2.2m for a starter/possibly back up LT. Bc if you dont keep him you're paying $6.5m not to have him this year.... or $2.2m this year and even worse $4.3m next year not to have him. Add that to whatever our backup LT is making, and you're still spending quite a bit at your LT position and getting likely a far inferior player.

And personally, i dont like the post June 1st designation bc if youre gonna cut him, you can take the dead money hit this year - so why prolong it? I'll pay all day $2.2m for my starting LT, or probably the best backup LT in the league. Especially since your franchise QB is coming off a serious injury caused by inadequate play at the LT position.

 

But, i dont think it comes down to money at all. If that was it, i could probably justify it - if we needed the money to add an impact starter at another position of need. That to me would make sense because you're improving your team elsewhere, and a starter at another position is likely more important than a potential backup at this one.

But, since it seems the only justification for cutting him is some personal clash between him and the coaching staff or FO.... i cant get behind that. For this year, i think youve got to do whats best for the whole team. And thats having your best lineman on the roster and the best possible protection for Joe. Without Monroe theres a pretty large domino effect in the decrease of talent and effective options across the line. Your experience and talent among the starters decrease, and your effective options for backups becomes shot.

With Monroe in the fold - its easy. You have players you can count on at all 5 positions, and high potential upside players to battle them for starting snaps. Without Monroe i think you're forcing question marks into your starting lineup unnecessarily.

[rmcjacket23]

4 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Well Monroe's cap hit is $8.7m, $6.5m dead money if hes cut, or $2.2m this year and $4.3m next year if its post June 1st.

So, in theory you're only paying $2.2m for a starter/possibly back up LT. Bc if you dont keep him you're paying $6.5m not to have him this year.... or $2.2m this year and even worse $4.3m next year not to have him. Add that to whatever our backup LT is making, and you're still spending quite a bit at your LT position and getting likely a far inferior player.

And personally, i dont like the post June 1st designation bc if youre gonna cut him, you can take the dead money hit this year - so why prolong it? I'll pay all day $2.2m for my starting LT, or probably the best backup LT in the league. Especially since your franchise QB is coming off a serious injury caused by inadequate play at the LT position.

 

But, i dont think it comes down to money at all. If that was it, i could probably justify it - if we needed the money to add an impact starter at another position of need. That to me would make sense because you're improving your team elsewhere, and a starter at another position is likely more important than a potential backup at this one.

But, since it seems the only justification for cutting him is some personal clash between him and the coaching staff or FO.... i cant get behind that. For this year, i think youve got to do whats best for the whole team. And thats having your best lineman on the roster and the best possible protection for Joe. Without Monroe theres a pretty large domino effect in the decrease of talent and effective options across the line. Your experience and talent among the starters decrease, and your effective options for backups becomes shot.

With Monroe in the fold - its easy. You have players you can count on at all 5 positions, and high potential upside players to battle them for starting snaps. Without Monroe i think you're forcing question marks into your starting lineup unnecessarily.

Not talking about cap hit. I'm talking about actual cash. The Ravens will actually be paying Monroe $6.5M this season. That's straight cash. Cap spending isn't how much the player is actually making. 

I understand fully the cap situation, though discussing a pre-June 1 cut isn't really relevant anymore, because in order for that to happen, we'd have six more days to cut him. I doubt he'd even pass a physical by then, so I don't see that happening. To my knowledge, you can't cut a guy in June and then count it as a pre-June 1 cut, so once June 1 arrives, all cuts are post-June 1 I believe.

That's why, ultimately, I'm not sure the cap situation even matters. Cutting Monroe in July or August of 2016 carries the exact same cap hit (all dead money) in 2017 as it does cutting Monroe in March of 2017. He's going to count $4.4M against the 2017 salary cap regardless of whether we cut him next weekend or after the season. That's not changing... unless we cut him in the next six days, which I doubt will happen. 

So while we certainly don't need the cap space, there's also not really many decisions that change it either, so its kind of irrelevant at this point. What matters, at least in my eyes, is how much actual cash the franchise is willing to pay a guy who they don't want to ever play for them. People rarely consider this, because NFL teams appear to print money and cash isn't an issue, but a reasonable manager would probably look at this and say "what am I paying for?".

I think he stays. But I don't think salary cap has anything to do with it. The only way that would become important is if some stud happens to get cut in July/August and we need to come up with like $6-7M to sign him, which is incredibly unlikely to happen.

 

[rmw10]

3 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Great points and I agree... but still think its a mistake.

Had they released Pollard during 2012 and his "mutiny" i dont think we win a Super Bowl. We've been trying to find even a suitable replacement at SS since then. Granted, Pollard was somewhat of a liability in coverage, but he made big plays, put fear in WR's and TE's coming over the middle, and destroyed Patriots.

Obviously his issues fitting in with teams are well documented by his inability to stick anywhere and early departure from the league.... but still, sometimes I think you have to suck it up and deal with the shortcomings when there isnt a suitable replacement in sight.

Regardless of what the issues are between Monroe and the FO or coaching staff... i think he should be here. It's not my call, but youve got a franchise QB you just re-upped and is coming off an injury, youve invested in many weapons to boost the passing and run games. They need time and protection and Monroe is the best option.

Sure, Monroe probably shouldve taken one for the better of the team... but it seems pretty hypocritical to want to release Monroe for keeping his best interest over the teams, and the reason for the release being a selfish one that isnt in the best interest of the team. The best interest of the team is to have the best 5 lineman starting, and the next best 3-4 as depth. Monroe definitely fits into that equation somewhere. 

It depends.  Of course, none of us know the full extent of the alleged rift, but I highly doubt it's some made up story.

Think of it this way.  If you owned a company and a had a hard working, good employee that didn't buy into the company's overall goals, are you going to keep that employee?  Probably not if he gets in the way of achieving the mission.  Sometimes business is just business.  If he is let go, I'd imagine it's a business decision and not a football decision.

 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

4 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Not talking about cap hit. I'm talking about actual cash. The Ravens will actually be paying Monroe $6.5M this season. That's straight cash. Cap spending isn't how much the player is actually making. 

I understand fully the cap situation, though discussing a pre-June 1 cut isn't really relevant anymore, because in order for that to happen, we'd have six more days to cut him. I doubt he'd even pass a physical by then, so I don't see that happening. To my knowledge, you can't cut a guy in June and then count it as a pre-June 1 cut, so once June 1 arrives, all cuts are post-June 1 I believe.

That's why, ultimately, I'm not sure the cap situation even matters. Cutting Monroe in July or August of 2016 carries the exact same cap hit (all dead money) in 2017 as it does cutting Monroe in March of 2017. He's going to count $4.4M against the 2017 salary cap regardless of whether we cut him next weekend or after the season. That's not changing... unless we cut him in the next six days, which I doubt will happen. 

So while we certainly don't need the cap space, there's also not really many decisions that change it either, so its kind of irrelevant at this point. What matters, at least in my eyes, is how much actual cash the franchise is willing to pay a guy who they don't want to ever play for them. People rarely consider this, because NFL teams appear to print money and cash isn't an issue, but a reasonable manager would probably look at this and say "what am I paying for?".

I think he stays. But I don't think salary cap has anything to do with it. The only way that would become important is if some stud happens to get cut in July/August and we need to come up with like $6-7M to sign him, which is incredibly unlikely to happen.

 

I personally dont think the cash matters at all. They've built a plan that includes spending it. 

Now, like i said, if they need it to fill a more pressing need like at MLB by signing a vet - ok. But, if they go into the season mostly as is, i dont think they'll care what a backup is making as long as the best player is starting and theyre comfortable the backup can step in and perform.

I mean, i doubt theyd make a decision based on cash. Like, hey hurst is gonna get our QB killed but we only have to pay him $800k! I know Monroe would give us a back up better than many starters so we dont miss a beat if Stanley gets hurt or isnt ready... but we cant pay a back $6m!

I know that's not exactly what youre saying.... i just dont think money has anything to do with it. They're comfortable spending it - heck we have plenty of open cap and cash to do whatever they need to - except make a huge trade for a high paid player. If they're planning something like that, fine, get rid of Monroe.

But, going into the season with either a lesser starting LT or no LT depth... and then having to stare at $13-15m in open cap/cash just sitting there - im gonna be ticked. Theres just no reason to, other than some hurt feelings maybe. Or that he didnt put the Ravens above his family. Which, fine, he's not going to be here next year anyways. But, admitting that you need the guy here to be the best team we possibly can be is the right thing to do.

And the fact that other NFL teams dont prioritize having a very capable LT is irrelevant imo. It's not because they dont want one, its because thats a luxury and one thats often impossible to afford if you want a well-rounded team. We happen to be in a position where we can easily afford it. Using the fact that no other team is keeping a back up of Monroe's caliber around just in case, isnt a good reason to get rid of him. Its a big advantage to know that if one of the most important positions goes down to injury we can keep right on rolling without missing a beat.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

It depends.  Of course, none of us know the full extent of the alleged rift, but I highly doubt it's some made up story.

Think of it this way.  If you owned a company and a had a hard working, good employee that didn't buy into the company's overall goals, are you going to keep that employee?  Probably not if he gets in the way of achieving the mission.  Sometimes business is just business.  If he is let go, I'd imagine it's a business decision and not a football decision.

 

I cant apply that metaphor. Monroe helps this business achieve its goals more than letting him go does. The goal is to win games and win playoff games. Having him as the starting LT if hes better than Stanley, or having him as the backup if Stanley wins the job makes us a better team plain and simple.

The mission shouldnt be to have everyone conform. I know you want players that buy into a culture, put the team first, and things like that... and yes you should invest in guys like that long term before more volatile guys or ones that dont do those things. But we've already invested in the guy, and he can be cut next year with no issues. Stanley absolutely should be ready to go by then, and we will have had time to find a better back up option.

But, if theyre going to cut Monroe - probably our best starting option at LT, and if not DEFINITELY our best back up option behind a ROOKIE starter - and the selling point is that he doesnt do things the Raven way, or he didnt look out when they needed to move some money around.... ok, well then why didnt they find a better back up option in the mean time? Stanleys great, but rolling into the season with Hurst again when you planned all along to say goodbye to Monroe is not helping this company achieve its goals. Its watching what happened last season to your franchise QB and preparing to possibly go right back down the same path.

This team will largely go as Joe goes. If cutting Monroe is in the interest of the coaches or FOs business goals, then ive got to question whether they have the right goals for this business.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

And to clarify, this is all based on the assumption that they already have their mind made up that hes gone.

If Monroe doesnt show, is out of shape, starts saying stuff he shouldnt to the media or on twitter, etc.... and it gets to be an issue - yea you can cut him.

If they decide they dont have a viable MLB on the team next to Mosley and they need to trade for Player X and to fit his salary under the cap we need to cut Monroe who was losing the LT battle anyways..... yea you cut him.

If he's injured and likely wont be able to play a decent portion of the season.... yea you cut him.

 

But assuming what we actually know which is: hes supposed to be back in time for training camp, even though hes been outspoken on the maryjane its for the right reasons and hes not causing a distraction, give the team a bad name, or getting arrested, and that we havent seen Stanley enough to know if hes a better option than Monroe as our LT at this point..... you just cant cut him.

[rmw10]

11 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I cant apply that metaphor. Monroe helps this business achieve its goals more than letting him go does. The goal is to win games and win playoff games. Having him as the starting LT if hes better than Stanley, or having him as the backup if Stanley wins the job makes us a better team plain and simple.

The mission shouldnt be to have everyone conform. I know you want players that buy into a culture, put the team first, and things like that... and yes you should invest in guys like that long term before more volatile guys or ones that dont do those things. But we've already invested in the guy, and he can be cut next year with no issues. Stanley absolutely should be ready to go by then, and we will have had time to find a better back up option.

But, if theyre going to cut Monroe - probably our best starting option at LT, and if not DEFINITELY our best back up option behind a ROOKIE starter - and the selling point is that he doesnt do things the Raven way, or he didnt look out when they needed to move some money around.... ok, well then why didnt they find a better back up option in the mean time? Stanleys great, but rolling into the season with Hurst again when you planned all along to say goodbye to Monroe is not helping this company achieve its goals. Its watching what happened last season to your franchise QB and preparing to possibly go right back down the same path.

This team will largely go as Joe goes. If cutting Monroe is in the interest of the coaches or FOs business goals, then ive got to question whether they have the right goals for this business.

Is he helping this team achieve their goals though?  He's been on the trainer's table more than he's been on the field.  That, in conjunction with all of the other reported issues, don't paint him in a good light as far as staying on this team goes.

I get the desire for depth, but we can't treat Monroe like a sure thing that automatically makes this team better.  He's rarely on the field and he's been decent at best for us since we gave him that contract.  Remember that his inability to stay on the field is a big reason why our season played out (at least as far as the Flacco injury goes) as it did.

I'm still not entirely disagreeing with what you're saying.  I just think you need to realize it's not as cut and dry as him playing decently on the field so it makes no sense to cut him.  It makes a ton of sense if we choose to do so for many different reasons.

Remember that this wouldn't even be a discussion if he was a good player.  The fact that there even is a debate over whether he stays or goes says all it really needs to say.