Lamar Jackson Requests Trade

[Dunnie]

12 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

never understood the race angle.  isn't watson the same race?  

Wait .. what did I miss ? There is a race angle ?

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Dunnie said:

Thank you for taking the time to write this !

It's cute that he thinks some owners are "cash strapped".

 

[Matt39]

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

It's cute that he thinks some owners are "cash strapped".

 

Mike Brown probably cannot put 300 mill on layaway for one player and pay everyone else in the org.

[32EBoozer]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Let’s check in on the NBA

 

Clark is “Da Bomb”!

[Dunnie]

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

It's cute that he thinks some owners are "cash strapped".

 

Your are probably right about that ... but isn't that a cherry pick from a diatribe of solid points ?

[Dunnie]

2 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Clark is “Da Bomb”!

I dunno isn't this more because the NBA has made it nearly impossible to watch their games for cord cutters ? 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Dunnie

[batman10023]

2 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

In the last 10 years, MLB has had 8 different champions. 

facts are fun

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

It's cute that he thinks some owners are "cash strapped".

 

Dan Synder is.  Been reported here regularly as part of his sale of the team.  So much so he had to get loans to cover the bills, loans in violation of his ownership agreements with his minority owners.  It's pretty well known here in DC that Snyder is cash-poor (at least till the sale goes through).  Not every owner is like a Jeff Bezos mate, everything is relative.

But Snyder and the 'Ders have another reason for not chasing Jackson (despite on paper him being a huge upgrade to Howell):  The sale of the team.  Snyder isn't going to sign a deal like Jackson wants for as long as he wants when the team is literally about to be sold.  And as there is no winning bidder yet, no one external is telling Snyder what to do (that just doesn't happen tbqh).

So there you go, a team that in theory would want Jackson, perhaps, but has two clear-cut reasons why they won't, without any need of collusion.

Look, you want to ignore reality and go full tin foil, be my guest.

[JustInFudge]

36 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

Honestly? The last thing Lamar should be doing is sitting out. He needs to get back on the field ASAP and remind people how good he is. 

I think what you are missing in a lot of your pro-Lamar rants is that Lamar isn't trending in the right direction. Burrow and Hurts are. It's all about "what have you done for me lately "- I know you know this. You bring up Burrow's injury history, but the fact is, after a brutal season ending injury in his rookie year, he hasn't missed a game since and has led his team to back to back AFC title games and a SB. He's trending up. Hurts has missed 4 games in the past two years, but also just had an MVP caliber season and led his team to the SB. He's trending up. Meanwhile, Lamar has failed to finish the last two seasons with his team in a playoff race (in 2021, his team was the #1 seed in the AFC when he got hurt and in 2022 they were in position to win the AFC North when he got hurt) and his numbers have steadily declined since his MVP year. He's trending down. 

If Lamar was the MVP this past season, I think he'd have a deal right now. 

It’s principle, man.  He should call the Rock about the XFL.  It’s a great product. 

[jetblue95]

9 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

It's cute that he thinks some owners are "cash strapped".

 

 

do you understand the difference between net worth and liquidity?

do you think that every owner can easily take $250 million in cash and put it into an escrow account (fully guaranteed amounts are required to be placed into escrow immediately)? 

[Scott Dierking]

5 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

Your are probably right about that ... but isn't that a cherry pick from a diatribe of solid points ?

I chose to dismiss his missive, because he has done so with mine in recent history in a passive/aggressive manner, so I thought that I would give him a taste of his own medicine, as I put it. Based upon his "voting" reaction, he does not like it. 

[JustInFudge]

36 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

I agree ... FOR THE RAVENS ... they are the only team that it makes sense to offer a contract. Why ? Because they have already customized their entire approach to football around the Lamar Jackson Experience. All of the other teams in the NFL have not.

Dunnie, they hired a new OC to get out of that terrible system.

[32EBoozer]

7 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

I dunno isn't this more because the NBA has made it nearly impossible to watch their games for cord cutters ? 

That’s certainly a part of the issue.

[Barry McCockinner]

3 minutes ago, JiF said:

It’s principle, man.  He should call the Rock about the XFL.  It’s a great product. 

The Rock bought the entire league for $15 million. You think they have $500 billion to pay Lamar? 

[jetblue95]

1 minute ago, JiF said:

It’s principle, man.  He should call the Rock about the XFL.  It’s a great product. 

 

lol - lamar is a fool for not having an agent, but he'd be a moron for following your advice.  brett hundley is the league's highest paid player at $200,000, but yeah, i'm sure someone will give lamar more than the $133 million guaranteed he turned down from the ravens

 

LOLOLOLOL

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

Agreed, teams win but we hold QB's to a different standard, not my preference to judge QB's as I think it's stupid but it's fact.  The difference here for me is, there is no player in the NFL that has a bigger impact on his team, so that's how it's relevant.  Since drafting Lamar Jackson, the Ravens are 45-16 when he plays, 6-11 when he doesnt.  So sure teams win, but apparently not the Ravens w/out Lamar.  The other factor is the points per game, top 5 w/ Lamar, worst in the NFL w/out.  So again, in general, I agree.  Team sport, team wins...but in this situation, the Ravens are the Lamar show and I'd like that on my favorite team, it has nothing to do w/ Lamar Jackson and my feelings about him as a person or player. 

I'm the guy who started a thread 2 years ago about "if you build it, they will come" pleading for JD to build a team that would eventually attract Aaron Rodgers because at that time, I never thought a 26 year old Superstar Qb would actually become available. 

 

what contract do you think would get LJ to the Jets - one that is good for us and Baltimore won't match

[Warfish]

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

I chose to dismiss his missive, because he has done so with mine in recent history in a passive/aggressive manner, so I thought that I would give him a taste of his own medicine, as I put it. Based upon his "voting" reaction, he does not like it. 

Lol, no skin off my back. 

I'm happy to let the community decide which of us has made a more reasonable/logical argument on this one.

[Barry McCockinner]

4 minutes ago, JiF said:

Dunnie, they hired a new OC to get out of that terrible system.

damn, and here I thought they custom tailored an offense to maximize Lamars skillset which helped him become league MVP. I didn't realize he had to overcome a terrible system and still managed to be league MVP. What a super 500 billion dollar stud!

[JustInFudge]

1 minute ago, Barry McCockinner said:

The Rock bought the entire league for $15 million. You think they have $500 billion to pay Lamar? 

Partial ownership in the league and profit shares? 

[Matt39]

8 minutes ago, jetblue95 said:

 

do you understand the difference between net worth and liquidity?

do you think that every owner can easily take $250 million in cash and put it into an escrow account (fully guaranteed amounts are required to be placed into escrow immediately)? 

If the answer is to remove the cap and let organizations fail then that’s a possibility. Isn’t that the soccer model? I’m sure many of these additional expenses would find their way back to the consumer too. 

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

what contract do you think would get LJ to the Jets - one that is good for us and Baltimore won't match

 

IMO there is no contract that is 'good for the Jets' and that Baltimore won't match (especially factoring in the draft picks).  

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

If a team wanted to, they could take out an insurance policy on a contract (extra cash, sure). That would not negate the cap hit if things go south, but we all know that there are ways around that.

What is fishy to me (and again, opinion) is that no one has talked with the guy. Bring him in, find out what he really wants, let him know your philosophy on such things (contract structures) and see if there is middle ground. Maybe he really likes you.

What does it hurt? And you get some goodwill from the players association and agents alike (not a bad thing). But, when you totally freeze somewhat out, it feels like solidarity. 

Just opinion. Why some here think that is so outrageous is amusing. At least to me. 

Good dog. Sit.

why would an owner take out a insurance policy on the contract?

[Barry McCockinner]

1 minute ago, JiF said:

Partial ownership in the league and profit shares? 

does the XFL make a profit or they just another one of these wanna be leagues that fail miserably?

[JustInFudge]

3 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

what contract do you think would get LJ to the Jets - one that is good for us and Baltimore won't match

If I was a billionaire owner of a team who has the most losses in the AFC since the merger and hasnt had a QB since that same time, probably a lot. 

[Matt39]

1 minute ago, Barry McCockinner said:

does the XFL make a profit or they just another one of these wanna be leagues that fail miserably?

It only works when you partner with China

[JustInFudge]

5 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

damn, and here I thought they custom tailored an offense to maximize Lamars skillset which helped him become league MVP. I didn't realize he had to overcome a terrible system and still managed to be league MVP. What a super 500 billion dollar stud!

Glad you finally see the light, not that hard. 

[Warfish]

4 minutes ago, JiF said:

Partial ownership in the league and profit shares? 

You've won me over JiF, I think this is EXACTLY what Lamar should do.  I support your idea 100%.  

[batman10023]

33 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Maybe it’s just the nature of the world now that the “poor owners” have to go. The Mara’s had to bring in the Tisch’s. I guess we will see.

the players should get rid of the rule that requires the money to be put in escrow.

they should also do a better job of taking a bigger piece of the pie.

[Dunnie]

13 minutes ago, JiF said:

Dunnie, they hired a new OC to get out of that terrible system.

Wait ... they hired a new OC after the MVP Season ... how did that turn out ?

[JustInFudge]

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

does the XFL make a profit or they just another one of these wanna be leagues that fail miserably?

Not sure but I watch and it’s fantastic. Far superior product to the NFL from a viewership perspective.  So if I feel that way, everyone will eventually.  Just like Lamar.  I’m a visionary, Barry.  Time and time again when it’s JiF vs the board, I win.  I’m winning, Barry. I’ve actually already won. 

[JustInFudge]

1 minute ago, Dunnie said:

Wait ... they hired a new OC after the MVP Season ... how did that turn out ?

No, they didn’t do that, Dunnie

[batman10023]

7 minutes ago, JiF said:

If I was a billionaire owner of a team who has the most losses in the AFC since the merger and hasnt had a QB since that same time, probably a lot. 

you are a big pro-lamar guy.  you must have a real answer to how much the Jets should offer him (and that Baltimore won't match)

[batman10023]

48 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Well, lets engage in some critical thinking, shall we?

1. Teams/Owners who already have Franchise QB's under contract.  These teams/GM's/Owners would have zero use, and zero to gain, "colluding" in re: Lamar Jackson.  They already have QB's they love who win and produce.  Jackson is not the best QB in the NFL.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they don't need?

2. Teams/Owners who are cash strapped/in salary cap hell.  These teams/GM's/Owners cannot afford Lamar Jackson.  For whatever reason, they're already either cash strapped (like the Commanders soon to be outbound Owner) or more likely, are simply salary cap strapped and unable to work the cap enough to afford a top-end cost like Jackson.  They may like him, but they simply cannot afford him.    So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they can't afford?

3. Teams/Owners who are risk averse.  These teams/GM's/owners are on the more risk-averse side of the league, call the conservative (with a little "c').  They do not take big risks, they prefer more stable, safe investments.  This includes both players and systems.   They see Jackson as risky due to his play style and his recent injury history.  They also see themselves having to change alot on their team, including possibly coaches and offensive coordinators, to make Jackson work for them.  They may not have the best QB, but they find the risk of Jackson too high.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too risky?

4. Teams/Owners who are cheap.  Different than #2 above, some NFL Owners are simply cheap.  They don't tend to spend to the full cap, they don't tend to give out huge contracts to Free Agents, they certainly aren't giving out huge long-term guaranteed contracts.  They are either milking their team for profit, or are simply (again) conservative as business owners.  They're not interested in Lamar because thats not the kind of move they make, they'd rather draft a cheap guy.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too expensive?

5. Teams/Owners who prefer to build through the Draft.  These teams/owners don't chance high-end Free Agents most years, they believe in building through the NFL Draft, finding and developing their own talent, not looking for the savior or quick fix via free agency.  Patriots, Steelers are two examples, generally/historically.  These teams might like Lamar, or want him out of their division, but they're not going to give up two #1 picks (like gold to these teams) and a huge deal for a quick fix, especially a risky quick fix like Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone that doesn't align with their team building philosophy?

6. Teams/Owners who adamantly do not believe in giving Guaranteed contracts.  Self-explanatory, these teams/GM's hate the Cleveland deal given to Watson, think it's bad for the league (esp. looking ta baseball and the NBA) and simply won't be interested on that aspect alone.  Irsay's quote pretty well exemplifies this view, which I believe is pretty commonly held around the league, without need for collusion.  It's pretty obvious from an Ownership perspective why.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of contract they oppose existing or growing in common use?

7. Teams/Owners who think the Ravens will simply match any reasonable deal they might offer.  Despite what fans think, not everything can be solved by contract poison pills.  Some teams have outright said they're not going to do the Ravens work for them, given the Ravens have the right to match any deal.  Anything reasonable they offer could be matched by the Ravens, so why waste time when the offseason is busy and short and there is a lot of other players to pursue and a draft to prepare for?  With only so many front office staff available, and time an issue, they may simply not want to waste their time, i.e. opportunity cost, pursuing Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a player they feel confident the Ravens want to keep and will match, possibly costing them shots at other players they want to sign?

8. Teams/Owners who don't like/want Run-first QB's.  As much as we might want to think every NFL team is on the cutting edge of offensive systems, they're not, there are several out there who still don't believe in the concept of the "running QB" as the route to success.  These teams prefer more traditional pocket-passer type QB's who produce passing yards, not rushing yards.  They believe RB's can provide running production at a much reduced cost (and risk!) and plan and manage a far more traditional type of offense.  They're not interested in changing system, designing rosters around a single player like a running QB, or risking it all falling apart if that QB gets hurt.  Far easier to find a thrower they believe in.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of player game-play style they don't believe in?

9. Teams/Owners who don't want to negotiate with Jackson without an Agent Representing him.  Self-explanatory, Jackson is not an agent and doesn't have one, which is a big part of his problems in some of our views.  Teams may be averse to trying to negotiate directly with a player, given how contentious that could be, and how sensitive Jackson clearly is about his health, his worth, his value, etc.  Having agents takes that issue out of play, but it's very in-play with Jackson.  Some teams may simply want to avoid that, especially if they already have any of the 8 reasons above limiting their interest.

There is more, but you get the point I'm sure.  If you eliminate any team with any of these possible reasons, how many teams are left to "collude" exactly?

You would have to believe that no one in the NFL could independently reach any of these conclusions/viewpoints on their own to believe the league, as a collective whole, must be colluding to keep Jackson unsigned.  You'd have to reject every one of these very reasonable possible reasons for teams to not chase Jackson, in order to believe only collusion (or racism, as certain others have suggested) is the likely cause for the lack of interest other than the Ravens themselves.

Personally, I find that idea laughable.  There are many reasons a team would avoid Jackson that do not require any conversations or collusion to reach.  Hell, many of us fans reached those same conclusions without having to "collude" with other fans, lol.  

Fans who only see collusion here are simply ignoring a huge amount of reasons why Jackson isn't as great or as easy or as sure-thing as they think he is.  Those fans decision to ignore reality doesn't make collusion likely.

this is an excellent post.  so many reasons he's getting the cold shoulder.

[Dunnie]

7 minutes ago, JiF said:

No, they didn’t do that, Dunnie

I was legit asking .. I don't follow their OC moves.

[Scott Dierking]

31 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Dan Synder is.  Been reported here regularly as part of his sale of the team.  So much so he had to get loans to cover the bills, loans in violation of his ownership agreements with his minority owners.  It's pretty well known here in DC that Snyder is cash-poor (at least till the sale goes through).  Not every owner is like a Jeff Bezos mate, everything is relative.

But Snyder and the 'Ders have another reason for not chasing Jackson (despite on paper him being a huge upgrade to Howell):  The sale of the team.  Snyder isn't going to sign a deal like Jackson wants for as long as he wants when the team is literally about to be sold.  And as there is no winning bidder yet, no one external is telling Snyder what to do (that just doesn't happen tbqh).

So there you go, a team that in theory would want Jackson, perhaps, but has two clear-cut reasons why they won't, without any need of collusion.

Look, you want to ignore reality and go full tin foil, be my guest.

Daniel Snyder took out loans without his minority owners being made aware of it. That is a huge problem.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/01/commanders-owner-dan-snyder-took-secret-55-million-loan-charged-4-5-million-to-have-logo-on-his-jet/

All businesses, particularly large businesses like teams in the NFL find themselves short on cash at times and take out loans (against the value of the entity) from time to time in order to dole out cash. It is a very normal thing. Stupid companies are ones that leave cash around for rainy days. Money is cheap (except for fairly recently). 

The NFL has a debt limit for $600m for each club that basically gives them free loans. It is an "A rated" professional sports league". TV revenues are $318m per club. 

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/infrastructure-project-finance/fitch-rates-nfl-league-wide-term-notes-trust-2023-xv-a-outlook-stable-27-03-2023#:~:text=Fitch calculated leverage is 1.9,per club is fully drawn.

Show me a large business that does not carry a smart debt to cash on hand ratio, and I will show you a business that is poorly run..

Oh, and Snyder is about to reap that windfall of $6b for a business he paid $750m 25 years ago.

Cry me a river.