Lamar Jackson Requests Trade

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

lol cant wait until the usual suspects come in and say that everyone at the owners meetings agreeing with each other not to pay Lamar is “collution” or w/e ?

Kevin Spacey?

[Kleckineau]

He needs an agent asap.

I think Darron Lee's mother is available and she did negotiate a great deal for pee wee.

[Dunnie]

.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[The Crusher]

2 minutes ago, Pac said:

Yeah I don't feel bad if a guy might get 170 million guaranteed instead of 250 million. 

Lamar needs to realize the Watson madness isn't happening. 

That’s really what they are colluding  about. Don’t  think it’s a Lamar thing as much as Watson thing. Cleveland set a poor precedent with Watson’s contracts and rest of the owners simply aren’t going to do that. Lamar needs to hire an agent today and step away from it, him representing himself isn’t helping. 

[JustInFudge]

8 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

I have absolutely zero issues with any club seeing a RB sometimes QB demanding a guaranteed contract as a non starter .. it's just good business.



Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

You know how many years you have to go back to find 45 wins from the NY Jets?  

[jtomm]

23 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Giving any guaranteed contracts is a non starter for most clubs in a unified show.

[JustInFudge]

9 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Irsay always seems to be the one to let the cat out of the bag.

"As an owner I do not believe in fully-guaranteed contracts. I think that a percentage is one thing, but from what I’ve seen from the NBA and baseball, I don’t see it as a positive competitively," Irsay said, according to the Athletic's Zak Keefer. 

March 29, 2022, Steve Bisciotti:

“I don’t know that he should’ve been the first guy to get a fully guaranteed contract. To me, that’s something that is groundbreaking, and it’ll make negotiations harder with others. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to play that game, you know? We shall see.”

[oatmeal]

10 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Irsay always seems to be the one to let the cat out of the bag.

"As an owner I do not believe in fully-guaranteed contracts. I think that a percentage is one thing, but from what I’ve seen from the NBA and baseball, I don’t see it as a positive competitively," Irsay said, according to the Athletic's Zak Keefer. 

They really need to ban this degenerate drunk from ever speaking about anything nfl

[Scott Dierking]

4 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

That’s really what they are colluding  about. Don’t  think it’s a Lamar thing as much as Watson thing. Cleveland set a poor precedent with Watson’s contracts and rest of the owners simply aren’t going to do that. Lamar needs to hire an agent today and step away from it, him representing himself isn’t helping. 

It is exactly this. There have been a small number of sizable "guaranteed" contracts. But the recklessness of the Browns with Watson sends shivers through the old boy network. Nothing frightens them more than someone stepping out of line. 

[AFJF]

30 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Giving any guaranteed contracts is a non starter for most clubs in a unified show.

Or maybe what he's asking for is far more than any team is willing to pay?

We know he turned down $44.3 mil.  Maybe he wants $55 mil?  Maybe $60 mil? 

Maybe its "only" $45 mil but no team is dumb enough to pay that to a guy who has missed 11 of his last 25 games?

[slimjasi]

12 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

That’s really what they are colluding  about. Don’t  think it’s a Lamar thing as much as Watson thing. Cleveland set a poor precedent with Watson’s contracts and rest of the owners simply aren’t going to do that. Lamar needs to hire an agent today and step away from it, him representing himself isn’t helping. 

100%

The reality is, Cleveland is a poorly run franchise that made a rash and desperate move that looks more and more foolish as time goes on. Virtually everyone on planet earth mocked the Watson contract the moment it was announced. As I wrote months ago, it never made any sense for Lamar to hitch his wagons to the fantasy that some owner MUST give him what Watson got or more. Just because one bad owner makes a bad decision doesn't mean another owner has to follow suit. 

The advantage of a 26 year old having an agent, of course, is that the agent can backchannel things and get a realistic feel for the market quickly, telling the 26 year old what he needs to hear in a timely fashion. 

[Tranquilo]

7 minutes ago, oatmeal said:

They really need to ban this degenerate drunk from ever speaking about anything nfl

Wasn't he the guy that went into the bathroom for like an hour at some player's house or something

[jvill 51]

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Irsay always seems to be the one to let the cat out of the bag.

"As an owner I do not believe in fully-guaranteed contracts. I think that a percentage is one thing, but from what I’ve seen from the NBA and baseball, I don’t see it as a positive competitively," Irsay said, according to the Athletic's Zak Keefer. 

Yeah reading the tea leaves going back to the many many reports that the rest of the owners were outraged at the Watson contract, it was all fairly obvious what’s going on here. Nice of Irsay to down a few morning cocktails and just come out and say it though.

I do wonder what happens if Burrow (and to a lesser extent Herbert) demand a fully guaranteed deal exceeding the Watson contract. There’s no leaning on the “style of play” concerns in their cases.

[AFJF]

16 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

lol cant wait until the usual suspects come in and say that everyone at the owners meetings agreeing with each other not to pay Lamar is “collution” or w/e ?

Sent a letter to the league a few weeks ago to let them know I'd play for league minimum.  Haven't had so much as a phone call.  Damn colluding bastards.

[Beerfish]

They can't do it, they simply can't as in the owners.  The Watson contract currently can be looked at as an outlier from a dumb, desperate team.

The very moment they do the same for Watson it is the standard in the league and every QB ill demand fully guaranteed contracts.  They amounts might be smaller but they will all want the guaranteed money.  It will filter over to other position groups after that.

[Matt39]

5 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

They can't do it, they simply can't as in the owners.  The Watson contract currently can be looked at as an outlier from a dumb, desperate team.

The very moment they do the same for Watson it is the standard in the league and every QB ill demand fully guaranteed contracts.  They amounts might be smaller but they will all want the guaranteed money.  It will filter over to other position groups after that.

Lamar was offered a guaranteed contract

[LockeJET]

Mike Tyson is saying this isn’t Colluthon

[JustInFudge]

16 minutes ago, jvill 51 said:

Yeah reading the tea leaves going back to the many many reports that the rest of the owners were outraged at the Watson contract, it was all fairly obvious what’s going on here. Nice of Irsay to down a few morning cocktails and just come out and say it though.

I do wonder what happens if Burrow (and to a lesser extent Herbert) demand a fully guaranteed deal exceeding the Watson contract. There’s no leaning on the “style of play” concerns in their cases.

Honestly, if I'm Lamar.  I sit out until Burrow and Hurts get new deals, who wait for it...wait for it...both have missed games, have a bad injury history and are super risky due to their "style of play", especially Burrow who lives for getting hit and has things like this to say:

 

"It's hard to say," Burrow said when asked what it felt like. "You start to ring a little bit. I've never had any lasting effects from a concussion. I've been hit and forgot the rest of the game before. That has happened a couple of times."

[Smashmouth]

36 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

lol cant wait until the usual suspects come in and say that everyone at the owners meetings agreeing with each other not to pay Lamar is “collution” or w/e ?

Let me ask you.... Do you think that statement was based on the Owners not wanting to pay Lamar particularly or not to pay any player moving forward because the guaranteed money is out of control ? 

The entire concept of "owners" meetings is collusion my take is they are not just singling out Lamar like some seem to be alluding too.

[Warfish]

44 minutes ago, JiF said:

I'm truly enjoying the level of Lamar-based butthurt you're feeling this offseason.

[Matt39]

42 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Irsay always seems to be the one to let the cat out of the bag.

"As an owner I do not believe in fully-guaranteed contracts. I think that a percentage is one thing, but from what I’ve seen from the NBA and baseball, I don’t see it as a positive competitively," Irsay said, according to the Athletic's Zak Keefer. 

Let’s check in on the NBA

 

[Dunnie]

Yeah reading the tea leaves going back to the many many reports that the rest of the owners were outraged at the Watson contract, it was all fairly obvious what’s going on here. Nice of Irsay to down a few morning cocktails and just come out and say it though.
I do wonder what happens if Burrow (and to a lesser extent Herbert) demand a fully guaranteed deal exceeding the Watson contract. There’s no leaning on the “style of play” concerns in their cases.

Guaranteeing a contract for a QB that doesn't put himself in harms way as a runner is much more doable.

There will always be naysayers with some sort of agenda. .. but it really does come down to this.

Lamar is 80% of the offense in Baltimore. He is a running QB with an injury history.

If he gets injured ... There goes 50% (assuming the have a plan b playbook) of your offense. ..

... So the season is lost.

Do you really want to guarantee that ?????

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[dbatesman]

4 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Let me ask you.... Do you think that statement was based on the Owners not wanting to pay Lamar particularly or not to pay any player moving forward because the guaranteed money is out of control ? 

The entire concept of "owners" meetings is collusion my take is they are not just singling out Lamar like some seem to be alluding too.

100%. The agreement is clearly to never give out another fully guaranteed deal. Lamar just happens to be the first guy running into it.

[oatmeal]

27 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

Wasn't he the guy that went into the bathroom for like an hour at some player's house or something

Lmao idk but damn this is funny af, dude is a total ?

[oatmeal]

24 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

They can't do it, they simply can't as in the owners.  The Watson contract currently can be looked at as an outlier from a dumb, desperate team.

The very moment they do the same for Watson it is the standard in the league and every QB ill demand fully guaranteed contracts.  They amounts might be smaller but they will all want the guaranteed money.  It will filter over to other position groups after that.

At some point one of these generations(or maybe sooner) will finally realize that they play in the most dangerous and profitable league in American sports. 
 

Then the owners will have no choice at that point and this is not a matter of will it happen but more like when it will happen 

[Warfish]

6 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Irsay always seems to be the one to let the cat out of the bag.

"As an owner I do not believe in fully-guaranteed contracts. I think that a percentage is one thing, but from what I’ve seen from the NBA and baseball, I don’t see it as a positive competitively," Irsay said, according to the Athletic's Zak Keefer. 

He is 100% right.

Just look at the Stephen Strasburg contract the Nats thought was a good idea.

Guy coming off an amazing World Series MVP showing, only ~31 years old, had averaged almost 28 starts over the previous 8 seasons (including the WS year of 2019, one of his best years as a pro).

Was resigned to a fully guaranteed 7 year / $245,000,000 million deal.  The foundation upon which the post-WS Nats pitching staff would be built.  A key (along with Soto) to continued competitive seasons.

He got hurt.  He's pitched a total of 31 and 1/3 innings for the Nats in the three full seasons since, continues to be hurt after several surgeries, and very likely will never pitch another meaningful inning for the Nats (or anyone else) ever again at this point.

That's 245 million for 31 and bit innings, or $7.8 million per inning pitched.  Without him, and with his cost on the books, the Nats melted down, crippled financially, and lost Soto (and anyone else worth trading) and now languish in perennial last place, a problem likely that won't be solved till Stras is off the books.

If you want to know why guaranteed contracts are really, really dumb for ANY sport, much less a violent, brutal, hard-contact sport like NFL Football, just think about Stephen Strasburg.  Great for the player, horrible and massively risky for the team and fans.

/EndBitterNatsFanRant.....

[jetblue95]

7 minutes ago, JiF said:

Honestly, if I'm Lamar.  I sit out until Burrow and Hurts get new deals, who wait for it...wait for it...both have missed games, have a bad injury history and are super risky due to their "style of play", especially Burrow who lives for getting hit and has things like this to say:

 

"It's hard to say," Burrow said when asked what it felt like. "You start to ring a little bit. I've never had any lasting effects from a concussion. I've been hit and forgot the rest of the game before. That has happened a couple of times."

 

burrow tore his ACL/MCL his rookie year and hasn't missed a game since.  he's also a vastly better player than jackson and has a 5-2 career playoff record...for the freakin bengals...

hurts is the better comparable in terms of style to jackson.  since becoming a starter, he's missed 2 games in each of 2021 & 2022.  he's also been significantly better than jackson the last 2 seasons and just took his team to the super bowl.

so sure, lamar can sit out and wait for these guys to get new deals.  it will set a ceiling for what he should be paid, which is less than either

[Matt39]

5 minutes ago, jetblue95 said:

 

burrow tore his ACL/MCL his rookie year and hasn't missed a game since.  he's also a vastly better player than jackson and has a 5-2 career playoff record...for the freakin bengals...

hurts is the better comparable in terms of style to jackson.  since becoming a starter, he's missed 2 games in each of 2021 & 2022.  he's also been significantly better than jackson the last 2 seasons and just took his team to the super bowl.

so sure, lamar can sit out and wait for these guys to get new deals.  it will set a ceiling for what he should be paid, which is less than either

The Eagles are also shedding salary in preparation of signing Hurts. There is a cap. Owners profits do not count against the cap. Player salaries do. You still have to be strategic in how you build a roster. The only team who has won the SB recently with a QB on a “max deal” (still less than Watsons) is Mahomes and the Chiefs. A lot of folks ignoring some important details for whatever reason. Brady obviously had other means of earnings but the Patriots also were lucky in that regard because he took less against the cap.

[Scott Dierking]

35 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Or maybe what he's asking for is far more than any team is willing to pay?

We know he turned down $44.3 mil.  Maybe he wants $55 mil?  Maybe $60 mil? 

Maybe its "only" $45 mil but no team is dumb enough to pay that to a guy who has missed 11 of his last 25 games?

Yup, just the way mlb did it. Multiple times. Stupidly. A smart consortium would at least have a few clubs kick the tires, actually talk with the guy and give a dog and pony show. But they go balls in and really punish the guy. 

Nothing more transparent than a bunch of billionaires in a league that is a monopoly, pulling strings on players and getting them in line.

I am being a little facetious. Only a little. I have seen this act before.

[nycdan]

I firmly believe that teams taking a position of not wanting to discuss a fully guaranteed contract is sensible and not collusion.

However, there are two elements at play simultaneously here.  The other being no agent.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a black helicopters guy.  Just speculating completely with no evidence of any kind.

If any agents were implying that they would be unfavorably inclined towards any GM who signed Lamar because of the no agent thing, that would be collusion and would result in a sh-tstorm of epic proportions.  Now I firmly believe we will never see a hint of that come out, but I can't say for sure it wouldn't have happened at some point. 

If you were a GM and CAA and Drew Rosenhaus separately suggested they weren't fans of teams doing that deal, would it give you pause?  They would certainly have plenty of reason to be opposed to it becoming a trend and a big name like Lamar would shine a bright light on it for other players.

[Smashmouth]

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

He is 100% right.

Just look at the Stephen Strasburg contract the Nats thought was a good idea.

Guy coming off an amazing World Series MVP showing, only ~31 years old, had averaged almost 28 starts over the previous 8 seasons (including the WS year of 2019).

Was resigned to a fully guaranteed 7 year / $245,000,000 million deal.  The foundation upon which the post-WS Nats pitching staff would be built.

He got hurt.  He's pitched a total of 31 and 1/3 innings for the Nats in the three full seasons since, continues to be hurt after several surgeries, and very likely will never pitch another meaningful inning for the Nats (or anyone else) ever again at this point.

That's 245 million for 31 and bit innings, or $7.8 million per inning pitched.

If you want to know why guaranteed contracts are really, really dumb for ANY sport, much less a violent, brutal, hard-contact sport like NFL Football, just think about Stephen Strasburg.  Great for the player, horrible and massively risky for the team and fans.

/EndBitterNatsFanRant.....

Not only that but what about the players who received large guarantees and just mailed it in. Hanyesworth / Wilkerson sure they were not fully guaranteed but there was guaranteed money.

Players need to be judged on performance, the problem is teams started getting cute with money to avoid salary cap implications which started this whole mess to begin with. Get rid of the cap, figure out ways to better structure deals and move the **** on. Of course then the union gets involved we have a walk out  and its a sh*t show

[Scott Dierking]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

He is 100% right.

Just look at the Stephen Strasburg contract the Nats thought was a good idea.

Guy coming off an amazing World Series MVP showing, only ~31 years old, had averaged almost 28 starts over the previous 8 seasons (including the WS year of 2019, one of his beat years as a pro).

Was resigned to a fully guaranteed 7 year / $245,000,000 million deal.  The foundation upon which the post-WS Nats pitching staff would be built.  A key (along with Soto) to continues competitive seasons.

He got hurt.  He's pitched a total of 31 and 1/3 innings for the Nats in the three full seasons since, continues to be hurt after several surgeries, and very likely will never pitch another meaningful inning for the Nats (or anyone else) ever again at this point.

That's 245 million for 31 and bit innings, or $7.8 million per inning pitched.  Without him, at with his cost on the books, the Nats melted down, crippled, and lost Soto (and anyone else worth trading) and now languish in perennial last place, a problem likely that won't be solved till Stras is off the books.

If you want to know why guaranteed contracts are really, really dumb for ANY sport, much less a violent, brutal, hard-contact sport like NFL Football, just think about Stephen Strasburg.  Great for the player, horrible and massively risky for the team and fans.

/EndBitterNatsFanRant.....

I am not arguing guaranteed contracts. I am talking teams that are supposedly bitter rivals acting in a way of solidarity. Especially, after last year when one (the Browns), stepped out of lockstep. Just a little rearranging of the landscape never harms anyone. 

[AFJF]

15 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

100%. The agreement is clearly to never give out another fully guaranteed deal. Lamar just happens to be the first guy running into it.

But Lamar said the Ravens offered him a fully guaranteed deal.

[Tranquilo]

17 minutes ago, oatmeal said:

Lmao idk but damn this is funny af, dude is a total ?

Lol it was with Josh McDaniels

https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/colts-jim-irsay-bathroom-josh-mcdaniels-coach

[Warfish]

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I am not arguing guaranteed contracts. I am talking teams that are supposedly bitter rivals acting in a way of solidarity. Especially, after last year when one (the Browns), stepped out of lockstep. Just a little rearranging of the landscape never harms anyone. 

No one is acting in solidarity with their rivals.  No one is colluding. 

There are no black helicopters over your house, the 2020 election wasn't stolen, contrails aren't chemtrails, and aliens aren't visiting you to probe your bumhole.....

Individual teams GM's (and owners) are making individual decisions on a player with no agent representing/counseling him, that his demands are unreasonable for the injury risk, the passing production, the play style, and the odds of the Ravens matching any reasonable offer they might make.

Fans can whine all they want, and wear all the tin foil hats they want, this is all on Lamar Jackson.  Like RGIII before him, he thinks he's bigger than the game, and worth alot more than he is. 

Hire an agent, get real about your compensation demands, and he'd be signed, very VERY well compensated, and done at this point.