OT: Guaranteed Contracts

[CPcavedweller]

You know, as I sit here watching ESPN, with their NFLPA Representatives who happen to also be advising Lamar on what he needs to demand from the Ravens, say that owners are colluding, I wonder a few things. Is this not a "Zero-Sum Game" for owners? Everyone in the NFL is under the same Salary Cap. Not everyone spends every cent of their space but many owners spend most of it. This isn't baseball where Lamar is just demanding cash that has zero impact on the calculus of the rest of the roster (looking at you Yankees). He is literally demanding a higher guaranteed percentage of that pie that will hamper the ability of the owner and GM to build a team.

So why would there be "collusion"? Owners don't want to open the box of guaranteed contracts for star players? Bottom of the roster guys don't have any leverage to demand this, only the NFLPA during the CBA negotiations has the ability to negotiate such a demand on behalf of all players. So this will only open the flood gates for star players, and most likely only quarterbacks unless you're talking about a guy like Micah Parsons or Myles Garret.

With the understanding that only transendent talents could demand a fully guaranteed contract (absent some CBA change which would reduce the overall value of contracts paid out and would have to include some injury clause as an out I'd imagine) what "flood gates" are going to open? There isn't. It's a strawman argument by the NFLPA through media to make this seem like some watershed moment that it isn't.

The facts are this:

• Lamar is a running QB whose statistical output has declined every year since he won an MVP
• He has missed as many playoff games as he has won with injury
• The shelf life of mobile QB's, as defined by Mike Vick and Cam Newton, is not very long. Going on their longevity, you could say that Lamar is likely on the back 9 of his ability to be prolific, whether it's defenses figuring out how to play him or injuries
• Signing Lamar to a fully guaranteed contract at the level of the Browns will harm any team that does so because he plays a style that leads to injuries (missed 5 and 6 games the past two seasons) and the contract amount itself would require a restructure each off-season to sign free agents resulting in a larger cap hit each subsequent year (Check the Browns and Deshaun's restructure this year)
• Teams may not feel that Lamar is good enough, and that the risk is too high of injury, that they can't build a roster like the Chiefs did with 9 rookies and still compete for a Superb Owl

In short, it's a zero-sum game with the salary cap, Lamar isn't good enough to make-up the difference in lack of talent due to his cap hit, and he has declined the past two years while also ending up injured. There is no collusion because it's a no brainer that offering a fully guaranteed contract to a guy who can't get you to the Super Bowl because he's either injured or he can't make up the talent gap of other positions is not worth any amount of cash.

My supposition is that he should've signed a contract two years ago. He's already lost millions in potential income in retirement by not taking his cash in 2021 because the value of the dollar has plummeted since his negotiations first began. While his money could've been growing at a rate greater than inflation in investments, he bet on future dollars which aren't guaranteed. Basic business principal is that a dollar today is worth more today than tomorrow. 

Zero-sum game for owners. Just hurts the club to try to take up more of the pie regardless of whether you're healthy or not. 

[w280sax]

Lamar himself tweeted recently he turned down 3/133 fully gtd from Baltimore.  It seems reasonable to me that you can't get everything...if you get fully gtd, you may get a little less annually or less years.

The fact that he turned down a fully gtd offer seems to indicate that at least Baltimore isn't colluding with anyone.  That argument doesn't seem very valid to me.

[Ricky Spanish]

The above passing stats are for two players the past two seasons.

One is Lamar Jackson.

On is Daniel Jones.

Take a guess at who's who.

Can't tell at a glance can you?

Nah, I'm good.

 

[BrianS]

If I'm the Ravens I'm content to let Lamar play the next two years on the tag and then walk.  He'll be 28 by then, which will definitely be in the downward trajectory that these heavily mobile / running QB's seem to hit around that time.

He should have take 133 over 3 and called it a day.  Let's face it, if you can't make 133 million take you into the sunset, something is wrong.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Lamar was offered guaranteed generational wealth, despite his history of injuries and production trending downwards.

I don't know if the players union is giving Lamar bad advice or it's his close friends and associates, regardless this sort of situation is reason #1 why having an agent to cut through all the noise is well worth the expense.

Edited March 15, 2023 by NanuqoftheNorth

[Moorgan]

My basic rule is to side with players against the owners. I would have to be moved of that position by circumstances.

 In this case, Lamar should’ve used an agent as they have advantages (like illegal tampering at the combine) that he can’t take advantage of (like having owners of other clubs on speed dial). That’s not to say that the league directly punishes players without agents but they kinda do.

 Regardless, The owners never act in the best interest of the players and since the players are at the power disadvantage, I side with them, in general. But Lamar doesn’t seem to be helping himself here and I hope he gets the money he feels he’s worth.

[Khyber53]

27 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Lamar was offered guaranteed generational wealth, despite his history of injuries and production trending downwards.

I don't know if the players union is giving Lamar bad advice or it's his close friends and associates, regardless this sort of situation is reason #1 why having an agent to cut through all the noise is well worth the expense.

Him passing on the guaranteed 3 year contract says a lot about what he wants. He wants to be at the top of the pay scale and be 100% guaranteed. The Ravens are saying they can't do both.

And I can see the Ravens' point. 

I mean, Lamar wouldn't slow play coming back for an injury would he? Particularly if he wanted to negotiate and could be sure of getting the big paychecks along the way? he would never put the team at jeopardy for his own wants would he? Or has he done this already? It's something insiders there might know much better than we could.

I think they made a fair offer and he refused it  unwisely.

[WUnderhill]

25 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Lamar was offered guaranteed generational wealth, despite his history of injuries and production trending downwards.

I don't know if the players union is giving Lamar bad advice or it's his close friends and associates, regardless this sort of situation is reason #1 why having an agent to cut through all the noise is well worth the expense.

Yeah it’s just honestly stupid for him to not have an agent. Agents make athletes money and earn more than the commission they receive in return. It was agents who brokered the first branding deals for athletes, the speaking gigs, and whatever other income streams. I’m sure there are some bad ones like every profession, but I’m sure Lamar knows good ones. 

It’s like seeing somebody represent themselves in court without hiring an attorney, or sell a million dollar house for sale by owner. You aren’t frugal or smart, you’re just arrogant and stupid.

[CPcavedweller]

16 hours ago, Moorgan said:

My basic rule is to side with players against the owners. I would have to be moved of that position by circumstances.

 In this case, Lamar should’ve used an agent as they have advantages (like illegal tampering at the combine) that he can’t take advantage of (like having owners of other clubs on speed dial). That’s not to say that the league directly punishes players without agents but they kinda do.

 Regardless, The owners never act in the best interest of the players and since the players are at the power disadvantage, I side with them, in general. But Lamar doesn’t seem to be helping himself here and I hope he gets the money he feels he’s worth.

Here is the thing though, why is it better for Lamar to get what he's worth while other guys will have to take a pay cut or leave Baltimore entirely? That'd the zero-sum game here and why owners don't need to collude against guaranteed contracts. It's a zero-sum game for them. They are spending the money either way, it just comes down to how much of that pie he wants to take up.

Also, when you are fully guaranteed, what incentive do you have to do everything that usually comes with a bonus? I know the idea of meritocracy is dead or dying with young people and they just want what they want, but it really shouldn't. 

Lamar's new contract is about his projection of output over the life of the contract, not something that happened 4 years ago. The past two years he has declined statistically and has been injured. So what does that say about the next four years of the life of a mobile QB?

Jalen Hurts had an AC joint injury so if I'm the Eagles I'm also wary of a huge contract there. We saw what that can do with both Cam and Andrew Luck. Both were never the same after they suffered those injuries.

[Moorgan]

24 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Here is the thing though, why is it better for Lamar to get what he's worth while other guys will have to take a pay cut or leave Baltimore entirely? That'd the zero-sum game here and why owners don't need to collude against guaranteed contracts. It's a zero-sum game for them. They are spending the money either way, it just comes down to how much of that pie he wants to take up.

Also, when you are fully guaranteed, what incentive do you have to do everything that usually comes with a bonus? I know the idea of meritocracy is dead or dying with young people and they just want what they want, but it really shouldn't. 

Lamar's new contract is about his projection of output over the life of the contract, not something that happened 4 years ago. The past two years he has declined statistically and has been injured. So what does that say about the next four years of the life of a mobile QB?

Jalen Hurts had an AC joint injury so if I'm the Eagles I'm also wary of a huge contract there. We saw what that can do with both Cam and Andrew Luck. Both were never the same after they suffered those injuries.

Owners love to pit player vs player. It’s one way of getting people to forget that all of these players are making money for the owners.

Lamar isn’t taking money from other players, he wants a reflection of his actual value to the owner. The system, set up by the owners, restricts the pie to a finite number and thusly allows them to throw up their hands and blame the system of why the players aren’t paid according to their value.

So, operating within that system does “force” The team to make moves that affects other players but anytime someone can get closer to their value, that should be celebrated. Vilifying that is exactly what the owners want.

[CPcavedweller]

54 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

Owners love to pit player vs player. It’s one way of getting people to forget that all of these players are making money for the owners.

Lamar isn’t taking money from other players, he wants a reflection of his actual value to the owner. The system, set up by the owners, restricts the pie to a finite number and thusly allows them to throw up their hands and blame the system of why the players aren’t paid according to their value.

So, operating within that system does “force” The team to make moves that affects other players but anytime someone can get closer to their value, that should be celebrated. Vilifying that is exactly what the owners want.

So now you're blaming the salary cap? Do you know what football would look like without it? It would look like baseball, which is horrendous.

As for "getting closer to their value" look at Deshaun Watson's contract. After this year, his cap hits the next three years are $65 million. That's for a team that was garbage last year, with no draft picks, and with little cap space now.

The salary cap isn't a production to reduce player salaries. It's a function of balancing competition within the league. This is something the NFLPA and NFL Owners agree to. Yet, in typical NFLPA fashion, they complain as soon as the CBA is signed. No one is forcing anyone to play football just like no one is forcing me to work where I work.

As for Lamar Jackson, his actual value as a percentage of the salary cap is far less than what he is asking for.

Why on Earth any human would feel bad for another human for being guaranteed $130 million over three years is beyond me. 

[panther4life]

@CPcavedweller

Good post! I just read this after listening to ed mccaffrey echoing the same sentiments on his radio show this morning on nfl radio.

You’re absolutely right. If Lamar was an elite pocket passer and didn’t rely on his ability to be a dual threat he’d have more suitors and success in getting the type of fully guaranteed deal he wants and this isn’t a collusion issue or anything else. It’s just common sense from a teams perspective.

I also understand Lamar’s plight as well and perhaps an agent might have been in his ear insisting this logic to him and being as talented as he is, he didn’t want to hear it. 

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds 

[Mother Grabber]

“zero-sum” tally so far - 5

[Donald LaFell]

I understand these players are built different but it’d be hard to turn all that money down. I hope it works out for him.