[News] Late For Work 1/5: Simple And Straightforward Way To Lower Joe Flacco's Monster Cap Hit

[rmcjacket23]

I am not crying about how much athletes make. It was simply an observation. We are told Joe is a great competitor and he's all about winning. If he wants to win he could make sure that there is enough money for top notch OL & WR's. Then he is more likely to win and maybe even win himself a new car.

Also, I work where i can grow the pie and make more for me and my co-workers. Joe works under a salary cap. The rules are different.

True, but Joe taking less doesn't guarantee this team will be better, just like him taking the max doesn't guarantee we are a losing team.

If we draft better, and have quality players on the team who are playing on cheaper rookie deals, then there's no reason you can't contend with a $20M QB.

If I'm Joe, I'm taking a step back and asking myself "if I take less, where is that money going?". I'm looking internally and asking myself who besides KO is worth me taking less for? Sure, I could take less and maybe you go get me another mid tier FA weapon like a Steve Smith, but I'd certainly prefer to retain some of our own guys who I'm got chemistry with. The problem is... none of these guys are worth taking less for to keep around except for maybe KO. And from Joe's perspective...the reason I have to take a cut to keep KO is because the FO traded and signed a LT already who hasn't panned out.

If this were a case where he had a stud WR coming off a monster rookie contract and he wanted him long term, I'd bet he would shave a couple million off. But we don't have that.

Like I said before, if he took less, it wouldn't be a lot less. The people that think he should play for less want him to take like a 25-30% paycut. Realistically, if he plays for $18M instead of $20M, what's that going to buy us? Another Kendrick Lewis?

If I were looking at Ravens contracts and which guys we should be asking to play for less, Joe wouldn't even crack my top 5.

Edited January 6, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[jravens13]

We had an issue with it in the past with some deals, but most of the one's I've seen lately have been mostly flat against the cap...

 

Yanda: 

Starting in 2015: $4M, $7.9M, $7.8M, $8.8M, $8.8M

 

Suggs:

Starting in 2014: $7.8M, $3.95M (restructured), $7.45M, $6.95M, $6.95M

 

Monroe:

Starting in 2014: $3.2M, $7.7M, $8.7M, $8.95M, $8.95M

 

These are all recent deals they handed out. While they all increase significantly from year 1 to year 2, they also flatten out after that for the most part. There's basically only about a $1M spread between year 2 and the final year of most of these deals.

 

For the record... the gigantic majority of NFL contracts that are long-term and for mid-to-large tier money are back-loaded from a cap perspective. This is because players generally get larger signing bonuses up front with a small base salary, so the player gets more money up front and the team can prorate the signing bonus over the long term.

 

With Flacco's new extension, the overwhelming belief is that we will flatten out his cap hit over the long term, so that his cap hits are generally in the $20-25M range over at least a five year period. Certainly something that should be easily accomplished.

 

Flacco's deal is sort of outside of the norm of the typical contracts we give. We had never given a contract that size before, and I think we realized that we didn't handle it the right way. For the most part, all the other contracts we give out are fairly standard from a structural perspective.

Does the Haloti contract ring a bell? But even making a deal YR1 like the Monroe contract means you will have 1M less each year in cap space for the length of the contract instead of just paying a flat base salary throughout the contract, which would give you more space to work with down the road. It seems as if everything is designed to pay for success "this season" only and we just want to wipe the slate clean each year from a budgeting/personel perspective. I think we just keep getting in our own dang way. Keep disciplined and maybe we would have more room to play with in each offseason as guys come off of their contracts. 

[rmcjacket23]

Does the Haloti contract ring a bell? But even making a deal YR1 like the Monroe contract means you will have 1M less each year in cap space for the length of the contract instead of just paying a flat base salary throughout the contract, which would give you more space to work with down the road. It seems as if everything is designed to pay for success "this season" only and we just want to wipe the slate clean each year from a budgeting/personel perspective. I think we just keep getting in our own dang way. Keep disciplined and maybe we would have more room to play with in each offseason as guys come off of their contracts. 

Couple issues with this...

 

1. I was referencing recent contracts... all were signed in the last two years. The deals I mentioned show more of a commitment to a more "flat" cap hit. Ngata's deal was signed over four years ago.

 

2. The issue was just paying a flat base salary every year is that its certainly not beneficial for the player, and as such, they're less likely to take that deal. And if you are talking about competing with other teams to sign the player, that could mean the difference between retaining them and not retaining them.

 

The reason teams (not just the Ravens, but all teams) typically do long term deals that involve large signing bonuses and lower salaries up front is because its beneficial for both the team and the player. The player gets a large chunk of his money in the early years of the contract, which makes sense for them and the team, as that's when you'd expect the most production. The team also has the ability to spread out that signing bonus evenly across all years, so that they don't have to take a massive cap hit in year 1.

 

In theory, you could offer a contract with practically no signing bonus and just a bunch of flat base salaries, except the player probably won't be that happy about it (since he gets less money up front) AND, from a team perspective, you're probably guaranteeing the player will be there longer, regardless of production.

 

Kind of like what the Bears did with Cutler. Gave him $54M guaranteed at an average of roughly $18M per season, with mostly even salaries across the board. Seems great at first, except when he sucks in year 1 (like he did) and you regret the deal, you look down the road and realize that's he fully guaranteed at least two more years of salaries, regardless of whether he plays, doesn't play, plays terribly, etc.

 

Hence why you don't see too many of these deals. A lot of teams guarantee most of the money in the deal in the first 2-3 years, regardless of how long the deal is. The more you "flatten" out the salaries over time, the longer the guaranteed money period is.

 

Depending on the type of player you are signing, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.

[RavenManiac#7]

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Suggs retires. In fact, I'll be surprised if he doesn't. He just looks and sounds like he doesn't have it in him anymore. Hope DeCosta stays again. Ozzie won't last forever and it would be hard to find a better replacement than DeCosta. He's been here so long. He's a Raven and just doesn't belong anywhere else.

[jravens13]

Couple issues with this...

 

1. I was referencing recent contracts... all were signed in the last two years. The deals I mentioned show more of a commitment to a more "flat" cap hit. Ngata's deal was signed over four years ago.

 

2. The issue was just paying a flat base salary every year is that its certainly not beneficial for the player, and as such, they're less likely to take that deal. And if you are talking about competing with other teams to sign the player, that could mean the difference between retaining them and not retaining them.

 

The reason teams (not just the Ravens, but all teams) typically do long term deals that involve large signing bonuses and lower salaries up front is because its beneficial for both the team and the player. The player gets a large chunk of his money in the early years of the contract, which makes sense for them and the team, as that's when you'd expect the most production. The team also has the ability to spread out that signing bonus evenly across all years, so that they don't have to take a massive cap hit in year 1.

 

In theory, you could offer a contract with practically no signing bonus and just a bunch of flat base salaries, except the player probably won't be that happy about it (since he gets less money up front) AND, from a team perspective, you're probably guaranteeing the player will be there longer, regardless of production.

 

Kind of like what the Bears did with Cutler. Gave him $54M guaranteed at an average of roughly $18M per season, with mostly even salaries across the board. Seems great at first, except when he sucks in year 1 (like he did) and you regret the deal, you look down the road and realize that's he fully guaranteed at least two more years of salaries, regardless of whether he plays, doesn't play, plays terribly, etc.

 

Hence why you don't see too many of these deals. A lot of teams guarantee most of the money in the deal in the first 2-3 years, regardless of how long the deal is. The more you "flatten" out the salaries over time, the longer the guaranteed money period is.

 

Depending on the type of player you are signing, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Backloading contracts is not beneficial to players. Front-loading them would be however, but creates a higher risk as more money is already invested in a player. I understand that guys care about guaranteed money, signing bonuses, and often incentives make deals more complex. What I am saying is that Ozzie and Co. INTENTIONALLY backload contracts so they can stay under the cap in the given year. You could easily pay Monroe his bonus, AND spread his base salary evenly throughout the length of the contract so we have more room in the out years, but we REFUSE to do so. Sorry for the caps, they just highlight my frustration with the situation. 

[Joshuahill2@aol.com]

If we could only forget that awful timeout v. the Pats in 2007...

 

 

That was actually Rex who called the timeout and the players though it was Billick.

[slowboater]

Probowl receivers are completely irrelevant to winning SBs.

 

There's a reason basically all of your favorite Pro Bowl receivers are consistently playing in the Pro Bowl... its because they aren't playing in the football game that comes after the Pro Bowl.

The "Pro Bowl" verbiage was in reply to another poster who wanted the Ravens to obtain a Pro Bowl receiver. Hence, my reply.