[News] Late For Work 3/3: What They're Saying About Joe Flacco's New Deal

[surfdude]

  17 minutes ago, surfdude said:

Of course agents are greedy that is a NO BRAINIER, but so are players. So my point is I get tired of players saying that want to win but then sign a big contract knowing it will restrict the team from signing other players or great players like KO. For once I would like to see a player say this deal is fair and I'll make the rest in endorsements or other investments. I'm all for free market, just not double talk.

And if I were Joe or his agent, I'd simply say "go ask somebody else to take the paycut". Go tell Webb, Suggs, Pitta, Monroe, etc. to take a paycut and then we can keep KO around.

Why are you asking Joe to do it? Why is it his responsibility, particularly when he's clearly the most valuable? Why do I have to take the paycut so you can spend my money on another bad contract (see Monroe, Pitta, Webb, etc.)?

Then Joe should not put out the red meat to fans that all he cares about is winning. He looked straight into the camera when a reporter ask what did you give up in the talks , he smiled and pretty much didn't answer the question. Look if someone is willing to give you the money then take , but don't then play to the fans that all you want to do is win and money comes second that's BS and everyone on this board knows its BS. Stop with the double talk is all I'm saying.

[rmcjacket23]

31 minutes ago, surfdude said:

Then Joe should not put out the red meat to fans that all he cares about is winning. He looked straight into the camera when a reporter ask what did you give up in the talks , he smiled and pretty much didn't answer the question. Look if someone is willing to give you the money then take , but don't then play to the fans that all you want to do is win and money comes second that's BS and everyone on this board knows its BS. Stop with the double talk is all I'm saying.

Well if you already know that what he is going to say is a lie, then don't bother listening to it. That's like complaining about a politician not telling you the truth...

In my judgment, he's about winning and about money simultaneously. My issue is that fans seem to think you can't be about both, which of course isn't true.

[hen826957]

@surfude its all about money that how life works. If I were NFL player and then people criticize me that I got overpaid who cares what fans think of me. I would want to be the highest player in the NFL. More Money the better. The GM should pay every player they want so everybody can be happy and forget this salary cap. LOL

[jravens13]

That's how they should have structured the first deal after the SB. Inflation adjusted with cap increases. We can work with those numbers but they would be lower if we did things right the first time.

[surfdude]

i guess everyone is right about Joe's contact. Bottom line is this Ravens win and play into January all good and if they don't then ...............

[jravens13]

i guess everyone is right about Joe's contact. Bottom line is this Ravens win and play into January all good and if they don't then ...............

We reduced his cap figures for the next 3 years. AND the salary cap will increase over the next 6 years. This contract is competitive for a QB with a winning pedigree.

[FloridalovesRavens]

You won't find any other player in the NFL that is more genuine than Joe. If he smiles about the deal then good for him. He loves the game and he loves the Ravens. He has done nothing but good things for this team and I for one am glad to see this deal done and over with.

[JacktheRaven]

i guess everyone is right about Joe's contact. Bottom line is this Ravens win and play into January all good and if they don't then ...............

You're right. If the Ravens only win 6-8 games per season for the next 3, everything I've been saying is all wrong.

[riseNConquer81]

2 hours ago, jravens13 said:

That's how they should have structured the first deal after the SB. Inflation adjusted with cap increases. We can work with those numbers but they would be lower if we did things right the first time.

Joe's cap hits for the first three years of his post super bowl deal were $6.8M, $14.8M, $14.5M.

Why on earth would you want to strap us more in years with a smaller cap than the current one by making his capnumbers north of $20M all three of those years instead? How would that have helped us back then?

There's no question that when the time came Joe would be ready to negotiate a new extension, so why would you NOT give him a backloaded contracted to maximize your cap space and go after more trophies?

We did do things right the first time.

Edited March 3, 2016 by riseNConquer81

[riseNConquer81]

6 hours ago, BR News said:

No more contract restructuring will be necessary. Flacco could retire a Raven.

Technically true, but he's still probably gonna get a new extension in 2020. $28M on a single player is a steep price no matter who it is, always wanna smooth that out if you can. 

[rmcjacket23]

4 minutes ago, riseNConquer81 said:

Technically true, but he's still probably gonna get a new extension in 2020. $28M on a single player is a steep price no matter who it is, always wanna smooth that out if you can. 

Will be interesting to see what happens when 2020-2021 comes around. Joe will be 35-36 at that point, so depending on how he produces in the next 4-5 years, you'll likely be getting towards the end of the road for him. I don't expect he'll be the kind of player who still plays at a high level at 40, so it may be around that timeframe where we start considering going in a different direction.

[Matty G]

  10 hours ago, BR News said:

No more contract restructuring will be necessary. Flacco could retire a Raven.

Technically true, but he's still probably gonna get a new extension in 2020. $28M on a single player is a steep price no matter who it is, always wanna smooth that out if you can. 

I don't think so, his cap numbers seem pretty even, and 28 mill this year is a lot of dough, but three years from now I don't think will be bad at all. Also, I think his final year carries zero dead money which I think is interesting. All in all, def happy with this contract.........happy it is not back loaded, and there will be no more surprises

[Matty G]

  6 hours ago, jravens13 said:

That's how they should have structured the first deal after the SB. Inflation adjusted with cap increases. We can work with those numbers but they would be lower if we did things right the first time.

Joe's cap hits for the first three years of his post super bowl deal were $6.8M, $14.8M, $14.5M.

Why on earth would you want to strap us more in years with a smaller cap than the current one by making his capnumbers north of $20M all three of those years instead? How would that have helped us back then?

There's no question that when the time came Joe would be ready to negotiate a new extension, so why would you NOT give him a backloaded contracted to maximize your cap space and go after more trophies?

We did do things right the first time.

Are you serious? Then we would be back in the same position we are in now and would end up paying more in the long run. So so happy this contract is not backloaded. Remember you can't just buy a team. Besides, the holes the Ravens have, we could have a 100 mill in cap space and still have holes (hopefully I am wrong of course)

[hen826957]

@NCMan thanks :-)

[Maryland]

That cap hit in 2020 may be interesting. It'll be at the point when Flacco is getting old, but who knows what the NFL salary cap will be like by then. 

If they are just on the cusp of being competitive that season, they should extend Joe and sign some FA's to heavily back-loaded deals with huge signing bonuses. I advocate large signing bonuses and extensions for older players for teams with veteran QBs (like the Cowboys and Patriots now, or the Broncos in recent years). When it all becomes too much to afford, cut all of the veterans ala the 2002 Ravens. This will help fix your cap going forward and create a roster weak enough to tank the season and hopefully propel you toward the top of the draft in position to draft a new QB, whoever that may be in 2022 lol. 

[jravens13]

22 hours ago, riseNConquer81 said:

Joe's cap hits for the first three years of his post super bowl deal were $6.8M, $14.8M, $14.5M.

Why on earth would you want to strap us more in years with a smaller cap than the current one by making his capnumbers north of $20M all three of those years instead? How would that have helped us back then?

There's no question that when the time came Joe would be ready to negotiate a new extension, so why would you NOT give him a backloaded contracted to maximize your cap space and go after more trophies?

We did do things right the first time.

And how about those trophies? 2013: 8-8, 2014: 10-6 Divisional Round Exit, 2015: 5-11 It all comes down to taking more risk and banking on 2013-2015 vs. spreading things out evenly and having more flexibility. Notice how I said "Inflation Adjusted". We would be in an even better situation now had they done things right the first time. 

[rmcjacket23]

26 minutes ago, jravens13 said:

And how about those trophies? 2013: 8-8, 2014: 10-6 Divisional Round Exit, 2015: 5-11 It all comes down to taking more risk and banking on 2013-2015 vs. spreading things out evenly and having more flexibility. Notice how I said "Inflation Adjusted". We would be in an even better situation now had they done things right the first time. 

Well, maybe. Even had they structured the original deal similar to the one they did now, he would still have a 2016 cap hit of probably in the $20-25M range, depending on how even the structure truly was. Obviously, had we taken bigger cap hits earlier on, we would have had less flexibility then and probably not any more flexibility now. 

Considering the deal was for an average of $20.1M, his cap number would figure to be at least that high, which means at best, we'd be about $2M better off this year... hardly a large chunk of change. Realistically, even "flatter" structures are backloaded a little bit (like Joe's next extension is), so realistically, his cap impact in 2016 would have been about the same as it is now, just without the need for the restructure/extension we just did. In the grand scheme of things, that's also moot because by 2017-2018, we'd be talking extension again with him anyway, and it'd be for probably the same price range.

Basically, as soon as we did the extension with him that we just did, it sort of removes any of the "we could have had more flexibility now had we structured the original deal better", because the 2016 and even probably 2017 cap impact is the same in both scenarios. 

[b93333]

Seems like Joe will be eating up a large percentage of our cap space for a long time... I hope the FO knows what they are doing...

[harfordravenfan]

41 minutes ago, b93333 said:

Seems like Joe will be eating up a large percentage of our cap space for a long time... I hope the FO knows what they are doing...

They do 

[playlikeawhat]

"Give Flacco more weapons, and let him settle into the same system for a few years, and his best seasons should be ahead." As a regular season stat groupie of other allegedly 'elite' QBs, that's just...too....reasonable to ask of me. The nerve of asking me to think so sanely.