JDHillFan Posted January 16, 2023 Posted January 16, 2023 https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/analysis/preston/bs-sp-preston-ravens-lamar-jackson-time-to-part-ways-20230116-lsc3onxvybadfjldn6p3r36noq-story.html Probably inaccessible but it’s the main football writer from The Baltimore Sun. Headline says it all from his view. Quote
starrymessenger Posted January 16, 2023 Posted January 16, 2023 2 hours ago, JDHillFan said: https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/analysis/preston/bs-sp-preston-ravens-lamar-jackson-time-to-part-ways-20230116-lsc3onxvybadfjldn6p3r36noq-story.html Probably inaccessible but it’s the main football writer from The Baltimore Sun. Headline says it all from his view. I agree with the writer that Lamar's stint with the Ravens is probably coming to an end. From the club's point of view trading him makes sense if they feel that 1) his demand of a fully guaranteed contract is simply a non-starter, 2) they have serious concerns regarding his durability and recovery time especially late in the season when it's most important and 3) they have decided to go in a different direction with a more pro-style balanced offence and they don't think Lamar is the best fit for that. Its possible too that they are just fed up with all the drama especially if they feel he could have played yesterday and that he was using his injury as leverage and as a message to anyone who might be interested that he's not backing down from his demand for a full guarantee. Lamar best knows whether he could have played. We hear different things regarding PCL strains, including that they generally do not require surgery and don't get worse or extend recovery time if played on. Maybe this is true only of mild strains idk. If Lamar really was physically unable to play or if playing seriously exposed his knee to more and possibly permanent damage like RGIII, then unquestionably he made the right decision. But if it was all just part of negotiating leverage I don't think I'd want him and I wouldn't blame the Raven's for deciding to move on. Regardless of what they say publicly the Raven's brass probably have, and are well positioned to have, a view one way or the other. The rumour is that the team is very frustrated with Lamar. 2 Quote
Doc Posted January 16, 2023 Posted January 16, 2023 4 hours ago, BarleyNY said: No, I think the use of the non-exclusive franchise tag is much less likely. The non-exclusive tag would allow him to negotiate with other teams and sign a contract with one. The Ravens would have the opportunity to match it and retain him - or they’d get two first round draft picks as compensation. That would take negotiating power for trade compensation out of the Raven’s hands. I don’t think they’ll do that. The exclusive rights franchise tag means that he can’t negotiate with other teams without the Ravens permission. They will want that control. Watson wasn't tagged: he was already under contract. But you're onto something as 4 of the last 5 franchised QBs got the exclusive tag. The issue is it's a difference of ~$13M ($32.5M vs. $45.3M) and if they can't get a team to bite on trading for a player who has missed that last half-ish of the past 2 seasons and wants a fully-guaranteed contract... Quote
TheFunPolice Posted January 16, 2023 Posted January 16, 2023 The Ravens are in a similar spot to where the Packers have been for a couple years. It's easy to let pride take over and make it personal. That's what the Packers did with Rodgers. He wanted out, they wanted him to retire. Now he has them over a barrel and they have nothing to show for it. He'll likely force his way out this time. Ravens should make the smart move. Lamar has reached his ceiling, imo. He's an electric player, but he's starting to miss games late in the year due to his playing style. His value right now is at its peak. Trade him for a bunch of 1st round picks/players. Don't try to prove something about how tough you are by forcing Lamar to bend to your will. In the end the player is always going to win that pissing match. 1 Quote
BarleyNY Posted January 16, 2023 Posted January 16, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: Watson wasn't tagged: he was already under contract. But you're onto something as 4 of the last 5 franchised QBs got the exclusive tag. The issue is it's a difference of ~$13M ($32.5M vs. $45.3M) and if they can't get a team to bite on trading for a player who has missed that last half-ish of the past 2 seasons and wants a fully-guaranteed contract... Whether the QBs were tagged or not is irrelevant. What teams gave up in trade - draft capital and players - and what contracts they gave the QBs are what matters. The Ravens are far too smart to mess this up. They’ll use the exclusive rights franchise tag on him if they can’t come to an agreement first. I think this is headed for a tag and trade scenario. Some QB needy team will pony up big. Also where are you getting your tag values? They aren’t what I’ve seen on Spotrac and OTC. ERFT is top five cap hits at position or 120% of previous year’s salary. Non-ERFT is top 5 salaries at position or 120%. Edited January 16, 2023 by BarleyNY Quote
Warcodered Posted February 5, 2023 Posted February 5, 2023 Not having that deal done earlier really ***** the Ravens in the playoffs. Quote
Doc Posted February 5, 2023 Posted February 5, 2023 6 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Not having that deal done earlier really ***** the Ravens in the playoffs. They were never giving him a fully guaranteed contract. 1 Quote
Warcodered Posted February 5, 2023 Posted February 5, 2023 Just now, Doc said: They were never giving him a fully guaranteed contract. And Lamar was never going to play in that game with a recovering knee when if it got hurt worse they could just walk away from him. They needed a deal whatever it was going to be, not getting it done bit them in the ass. 1 Quote
Doc Posted February 5, 2023 Posted February 5, 2023 5 minutes ago, Warcodered said: And Lamar was never going to play in that game with a recovering knee when if it got hurt worse they could just walk away from him. They needed a deal whatever it was going to be, not getting it done bit them in the ass. I don't know if Lamar could have played in that game anyway. Some have suggested he could. And without a contract I agree he wouldn't/shouldn't have. But giving him a fully guaranteed contract would be a colossal mistake. Quote
AuntieEm Posted February 5, 2023 Posted February 5, 2023 On 9/9/2022 at 11:16 AM, Beck Water said: They can tag him if need be - I think they can tag him 2 years in a row? They can tag him as many times as they want the problem occurs when the formula kicks in for the next tags compensation which grows faster than even inflation. So generally after 2 years of using the franchise tag the 3rd year cost gets to be too large to pay and that would be for any player. On 9/9/2022 at 11:16 AM, Beck Water said: Opinion here but unless he's appreciably leveled-up his passing game, Lamar is going to have some hard learnings if he moves away from Roman. I think he's a system QB right now and Roman's system is proven ideal for a running QB who can throw deep well enough to keep teams from stacking the box. Yea doubt he could thrive at any team that would want to trade for him. He doesn't bring enough skill himself to carry a young learning team. And his contract demands will limit any team ability to add weapons and players throughout the roster so the money paid to Lamarr would be wasted. There aren't that many stupid owners that will sign off on such a deal. Quote
Saxum Posted February 6, 2023 Posted February 6, 2023 4 hours ago, AuntieEm said: Yea doubt he could thrive at any team that would want to trade for him. He doesn't bring enough skill himself to carry a young learning team. And his contract demands will limit any team ability to add weapons and players throughout the roster so the money paid to Lamarr would be wasted. There aren't that many stupid owners that will sign off on such a deal. The stupidest owner already has a fully guaranteed contract. Quote
boater Posted February 6, 2023 Posted February 6, 2023 5 hours ago, AuntieEm said: There aren't that many stupid owners that will sign off on such a deal. But you do agree there are stupid owners remaining? I don't think we have run out of Arizona's, Cleveland's, or Denver's. Quote
Dr.Sack Posted February 6, 2023 Posted February 6, 2023 Letting Lamar go would be foolish but the Ravens were foolish enough to never find him a WR 1 in 5 seasons. Quote
NoSaint Posted February 6, 2023 Posted February 6, 2023 6 hours ago, Warcodered said: And Lamar was never going to play in that game with a recovering knee when if it got hurt worse they could just walk away from him. They needed a deal whatever it was going to be, not getting it done bit them in the ass. meh. Sure they could walk away. But on a practical level, walking away was never on the table. Worst case he’s hurt badly, and they tag him just like we will see now. From there, so team would give him a pretty hefty contract even if his knee exploded. Quote
Goin Breakdown Posted February 6, 2023 Posted February 6, 2023 3 hours ago, Dr.Sack said: Letting Lamar go would be foolish but the Ravens were foolish enough to never find him a WR 1 in 5 seasons. I think about this fact like I think about Josh. They are both great QBs ( Josh is way better imo) who's teams don't help him out by getting real weapons for him. I never really take the ravens too seriously because of this. I'm sure this is how many view the Bills. Quote
Dr.Sack Posted February 6, 2023 Posted February 6, 2023 30 minutes ago, Goin Breakdown said: I think about this fact like I think about Josh. They are both great QBs ( Josh is way better imo) who's teams don't help him out by getting real weapons for him. I never really take the ravens too seriously because of this. I'm sure this is how many view the Bills. Lamar and Allen scare other teams. But outside of Diggs & Andrews who scares anyone? 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.