This team won't have a chance at competing if we pay Flacco big money

**leachisabeast** · 12-20-2012, 10:18 AM

I love that 7.5 cap hit in 2013, we could certainly improve this team with only 7.5 odd million to commit to Joe next year. If Joe turns that down that, then he's not thinking of the bigger picture.

**leachisabeast** · 12-20-2012, 10:20 AM

I posted the thread which was pretty much making the same point, but we're certainly on the same page. We WONT be able to compete next year with that much committed money, we could be the next Oakland Raiders.

**AirFlacco** · 12-20-2012, 10:23 AM

Thanks. I knew we'd lose some guys and management has been hinting strongly at this but all those guys. We'd be like OAK? Damn.

Sorry if it's a duplicate thread.

**leachisabeast** · 12-20-2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

Thanks. I knew we'd lose some guys and management has been hinting strongly at this but all those guys. We'd be like OAK? Damn.

Sorry if it's a duplicate thread.

I say the Oakland Raiders, because they had a ridiculous amount of stupid contracts that caught up on them cap wise, this year they had to release a ton of talent, and it wasn't like they were any good before anyway going 8-8 twice in a row. Joe Flacco is just not worth 17 million dollars no matter how anyone debates Joe, he isn't worth that much, simple as that, end of story.

**Paintballguy** · 12-20-2012, 10:29 AM

This team has way too many holes to be paying Flacco 17 mil. I just hope they get a reasonable deal done.

**AirFlacco** · 12-20-2012, 10:37 AM

DITTO on that guys. Nobody is worth it but that's the CATCH 22
of it. So let Joe walk and we're still the OAK Raiders with someone
like Henne off the scrap pile Lord forbid.

BTW, these are the first names I've seen in print including Ray's.

Makes me sick.

**bmorecareful** · 12-20-2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by redmike34

In the same division with what looks like a pair of very solid teams (both now and in the short-term future) in Seattle and SF? Maybe, but I'd put money on Arizona being the third best team in that division, at best... particularly since they will also be getting a new coach/system and have growing pains associated with that. I'd not bet against Fisher getting the Rams into pretty good position by next year too.

NFC West has the best division record this year, and it doesn't look like they're going to slow down anytime soon. Pretty drastic turnaround for a division that was won by a 7-9 team a couple of years ago.

They might be the 3rd best team in the division, but frankly that doesn't keep them out of contention for a wild card spot. SF and Seattle are definitely better, but is Arizona with competent QB play really worse than Chicago, Dallas, Washington, or New Orleans? Those are the teams they'd be competing with for a wild card. Arizona already has a top 5, top 10 defense and a lot of great pieces on offense. Next year there could easily be 3 playoff teams from the NFC West.

The ONLY thing holding them back is offensive line and QB play. We know their OL will be better next year just because of guys coming back from injury and young guys getting more experience. They need at least average play from the QB spot, which they were getting when Kolb was healthy and the team was 4-1, problem with Kolb is that he's proven at this point that he can't start more than 8 or so games a year due to health. As soon as he got hurt the team went down the crapper because they went from average QB situation to worst QB situation in the league.

**redmike34** · 12-20-2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

They might be the 3rd best team in the division, but frankly that doesn't keep them out of contention for a wild card spot. SF and Seattle are definitely better, but is Arizona with competent QB play really worse than Chicago, Dallas, Washington, or New Orleans? Those are the teams they'd be competing with for a wild card. Arizona already has a top 5, top 10 defense and a lot of great pieces on offense. Next year there could easily be 3 playoff teams from the NFC West.

The ONLY thing holding them back is offensive line and QB play. We know their OL will be better next year just because of guys coming back from injury and young guys getting more experience. They need at least average play from the QB spot, which they were getting when Kolb was healthy and the team was 4-1, problem with Kolb is that he's proven at this point that he can't start more than 8 or so games a year due to health. As soon as he got hurt the team went down the crapper because they went from average QB situation to worst QB situation in the league.

Yeah, I absolutely agree about the Cards' defense--I think they're still leading the league in defensive passer rating, despite the fact that they're losing most games.

To me, the pertinent question there is if Whisenhunt stays. If he does, I think a Whisenhunt/Flacco combo could possibly do some damage. If not, and there's a new coach coming in... I don't see a new coach, installing a new system, being immediately competitive in that division, irrespective of who his QB is. And if they make a not-great HC selection, they might be perennial bottom-dwellers for a while, once again irrespective of who the QB is.

Arizona this year is quite the cautionary tale...

**B-more Ravor** · 12-20-2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

This is what Matt Schaub signed for this past September, and this is basically the contract I would offer Flacco if I were Ozzie and Bisciotti:

9/9/2012: Signed a five-year, $66.15 million contract. The deal contains $29.15 million guaranteed -- a $17.5 million signing bonus and Schaub's base salaries in years one and two. 2012: $4.4 million, 2013: $7.25 million, 2014: $10 million (+ $1 million in per-game roster bonuses), 2015: $12.5 million (+ $1 million in per-game roster bonuses), 2016: $14.5 million (+ $1 million in per-game roster bonuses), 2017: Free Agent

If Flacco turned this offer down, then I would use the franchise tag on him and work out a trade. The Ravens are going to be in a rebuilding mode next year anyway.

I hear ya, but Flacco is 27 and Schaub is 31. That makes a big difference when you're talking about money in a long term deal. Schaub will be 35 at the end of that deal. If Flacco got the same deal, he'd only be 31 at the end of the deal - the same age Schaub is now.

More importantly, though, if Flacco won't accept whatever deal the Ravens are offering, then how are they going to be able to trade him? He's first going to have to agree to terms with the new team and sign his franchise tender in order to be traded. If he's asking the Ravens for too much, then I don't think anyone else is going to be willing to pay that either. Plus there's the issue of trade compensation. If a team has a need, they usually don't mind making a trade or signing a FA to fill that spot, but teams rarely are interested in making a trade AND paying top dollar for a contract.

A "tag and trade" always sounds good, but in reality, it's really hard to pull off.

**B-more Ravor** · 12-20-2012, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

I'm just asking. Someone posted this on another board. I'm not a cap expert but would like to hear from some of our guys that are, especially RAVOR.

Is Joe asking for $17M and if he is, exactly who do we lose if not these guys or is there a way to know now?
__________________________________

I did the research and it is ugly. If we got rid of Birk, Reed, Ray, and Q and a couple of others, we would have about $17 million of cap room.

Sign Flacco for $17 M a year and we're done! Of course, that means Ellerbe, Cary Williams, and Kruger walk. So, we need 2 ILB, a CB, a S, and a DE just to get back to even. Plus we need a LT/LG, C, a blocking TE, and someone to rush the passer opposite Suggs. I think J. Smith, Asa Jackson, and Graham can replace Cary. So, we may just need the other positions in the draft. Sign Flacco for $13 M and we can probably keep Ellerbe, or let McClain go and sign Flacco for $15 M.

That post is all over the place.

If they had to franchise Flacco, it's $14.5M, not $17M. In that case, they would have to release a bunch of guys.

If they signed Flacco to a deal that averages $17M a year, his 2013 Cap number won't be $17M, as that posts seems to indicate, it'll be more like $5-8M, so they wouldn't have to jettison all of those players.

**Dirt1** · 12-20-2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by B-more Ravor

I hear ya, but Flacco is 27 and Schaub is 31. That makes a big difference when you're talking about money in a long term deal. Schaub will be 35 at the end of that deal. If Flacco got the same deal, he'd only be 31 at the end of the deal - the same age Schaub is now.

More importantly, though, if Flacco won't accept whatever deal the Ravens are offering, then how are they going to be able to trade him? He's first going to have to agree to terms with the new team and sign his franchise tender in order to be traded. If he's asking the Ravens for too much, then I don't think anyone else is going to be willing to pay that either. Plus there's the issue of trade compensation. If a team has a need, they usually don't mind making a trade or signing a FA to fill that spot, but teams rarely are interested in making a trade AND paying top dollar for a contract.

A "tag and trade" always sounds good, but in reality, it's really hard to pull off.

I think that Flacco's deal should be similar to the one that Schaub signed, but it doesn't have to be the exact deal. Basically, Schaub is a very good game manager, just like Flacco. A team can win a SB with Schaub or Flacco at QB, but they are not likely to win a SB because of Schaub or Flacco. Flacco is younger, so he might get a little more than that, but not much more. There have been a number of QBs who have played at a very high level at 35 years of age and even past that, so I am not sure that is a reason for a huge disparity in the contract terms. Also, the Texans probably figure that they can cut Schaub in the final year of his deal if his skills are declining without suffering too much of a cap hit. A younger player like Flacco would likely see the full value of his contract. The Ravens have had a lot of success with the right player right price approach. The price for Flacco may be higher because he is a QB, but they should not deviate too much from that philosophy.

As far as the "tag and trade" goes, I think that the Ravens could pull it off. The Patriots did it with Matt Cassell. The Ravens would tag Flacco, and then give permission for Flacco and his agent to work out a contract that is acceptable to them with another team. If that team is then willing to meet the Ravens terms with regard to the trade compensation, then the Ravens make the trade. The Ravens would probably tell Flacco and his agent plus any interested team what they would want with regard to draft picks ahead of time. Flacco could then make an assessment if there is a sufficient disparity with regard to the contract terms the other team offers and what the Ravens are offerring for him to leave.

**B-more Ravor** · 12-20-2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

I think that Flacco's deal should be similar to the one that Schaub signed, but it doesn't have to be the exact deal. Basically, Schaub is a very good game manager, just like Flacco. A team can win a SB with Schaub or Flacco at QB, but they are not likely to win a SB because of Schaub or Flacco. Flacco is younger, so he might get a little more than that, but not much more. There have been a number of QBs who have played at a very high level at 35 years of age and even past that, so I am not sure that is a reason for a huge disparity in the contract terms. Also, the Texans probably figure that they can cut Schaub in the final year of his deal if his skills are declining without suffering too much of a cap hit. A younger player like Flacco would likely see the full value of his contract. The Ravens have had a lot of success with the right player right price approach. The price for Flacco may be higher because he is a QB, but they should not deviate too much from that philosophy.

I guess the difference is that Schaub is probably as good as he's going to get, while Flacco's ceiling is certainly much higher. Whether he'll ever live up to that remains to be seen, though (and it's a big question)?!?

As far as age goes, yes, some QBs have played well into their mid-40s, but most have not. Under that deal, Schaub will never see$14.5M+ in the last year of that deal (he may not even see the 4th year). As you said, Flacco at his age could be able to earn that and, ideally, would be in line for another extension. Teams are always going to bet more on youth.

That said, I think it's either franchise him for a year and see how things go or figure out a reasonable deal (ie one both sides are comfortable with). I just don't think a tag and trade has any chance of being pulled off.