ATL - 2023 Offseason: Gambing Suspensions

[MickeyDavis]

Thursday night flex was defeated (barely). From King:

The Giants, Jets, Chicago and Green Bay opposed the flex. For Green Bay, a ton of fans both follow them on the road and make bucket-list pilgrimages to Lambeau Field for games, and the Packers felt it unfair to have potentially thousands of fans be stuck with travel issues should a game be moved from Sunday to Thursday, or vice versa. Carolina and Denver abstained. With 24 votes needed for passage, the vote was 22 to 8 with the two abstentions. The NFL will arm-twist, most likely, prior to the next league session in late May, and unless the anti forces can muster some momentum, it’s likely the measure will pass then.

Post-meeting, Mara said: “At some point, can we please give some consideration to the people who are coming to our games? People make plans to go to these games weeks and months in advance. And 15 days ahead of time to say, ‘Sorry, folks, that game you were planning on taking your kids to Sunday at 1, now it’s on Thursday night’? What are we thinking about?”

The NFL clearly is thinking of Amazon as a long-term partner, and streaming as a long-term way of getting more money in future media deals. What’s interesting here is that ESPN had the Monday night games for years before the league acceded—this year, finally—to give ESPN a minimal number of possible flex games. Amazon’s been a partner for one year, and the league bends over backwards for the streaming service after some weak late-season ratings on Thursday games.

[LittleRooster]

Thursday night flex was defeated (barely). From King:

The Giants, Jets, Chicago and Green Bay opposed the flex. For Green Bay, a ton of fans both follow them on the road and make bucket-list pilgrimages to Lambeau Field for games, and the Packers felt it unfair to have potentially thousands of fans be stuck with travel issues should a game be moved from Sunday to Thursday, or vice versa. Carolina and Denver abstained. With 24 votes needed for passage, the vote was 22 to 8 with the two abstentions. The NFL will arm-twist, most likely, prior to the next league session in late May, and unless the anti forces can muster some momentum, it’s likely the measure will pass then.

Post-meeting, Mara said: “At some point, can we please give some consideration to the people who are coming to our games? People make plans to go to these games weeks and months in advance. And 15 days ahead of time to say, ‘Sorry, folks, that game you were planning on taking your kids to Sunday at 1, now it’s on Thursday night’? What are we thinking about?”

The NFL clearly is thinking of Amazon as a long-term partner, and streaming as a long-term way of getting more money in future media deals. What’s interesting here is that ESPN had the Monday night games for years before the league acceded—this year, finally—to give ESPN a minimal number of possible flex games. Amazon’s been a partner for one year, and the league bends over backwards for the streaming service after some weak late-season ratings on Thursday games.

Agree with Mara’s comments there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeekapaugGroove]

Flexing Thursday games is a really really dumb idea.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

[Treebeard]

I know the NFL is money, money, money focused, but the Thursday flex idea is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Give it a rest permanently Goodell and owners.

[Matches Malone]

Read on Twitter

[IrishRainbow]

Read on Twitter

Dude… what? Is that real? If so, that’s some THE dumbest shhh ever.

[Profound23]

Looks like AZ is going to cut Hopkins.

I know our cap space sucks but that would be amazing if we could snag him. I wonder if he goes to Chicago?

[Mags FTW]

Heard this interesting tidbit that pertains to Lamar on a recent podcast:

Per current league rules, all future fully guaranteed money due in a player contract must be placed in escrow at the time the deal is consummated. It's antiquated and has long been a bone of contention for the NFLPA. It was implemented long before the NFL became the 365-days-a-year revenue and content monster it is now, and it was put in place on the surface to prevent a team from defaulting on a contract to a player. Yeah, quaint, ain't it? Those days are long gone, but for decades many owners have hidden behind it as an excuse as to why they wouldn't guarantee more than a year or two. I can't go around putting $50M, $60M, $100M, in escrow every time someone wants a fully guaranteed deal. Only, well, Haslam just put about $185M in escrow to make good on what he still owes Watson beyond 2022 (and he did so by also only putting $1M in the QB's base salary to limit any financial damage to him by an upcoming suspension).

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-insider-notes-deshaun-watsons-game-changing-deal-and-its-ramifications-hottest-topic-at-owners-meetings/

Another reason owners might not want to go fully guaranteed, especially the ones that aren't uber-rich.

[RRyder823]

Heard this interesting tidbit that pertains to Lamar on a recent podcast:

Per current league rules, all future fully guaranteed money due in a player contract must be placed in escrow at the time the deal is consummated. It's antiquated and has long been a bone of contention for the NFLPA. It was implemented long before the NFL became the 365-days-a-year revenue and content monster it is now, and it was put in place on the surface to prevent a team from defaulting on a contract to a player. Yeah, quaint, ain't it? Those days are long gone, but for decades many owners have hidden behind it as an excuse as to why they wouldn't guarantee more than a year or two. I can't go around putting $50M, $60M, $100M, in escrow every time someone wants a fully guaranteed deal. Only, well, Haslam just put about $185M in escrow to make good on what he still owes Watson beyond 2022 (and he did so by also only putting $1M in the QB's base salary to limit any financial damage to him by an upcoming suspension).

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-insider-notes-deshaun-watsons-game-changing-deal-and-its-ramifications-hottest-topic-at-owners-meetings/

Another reason owners might not want to go fully guaranteed, especially the ones that aren't uber-rich.

I thought it was widely known that they had to set up escrow accounts for guarenteed money

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[Mags FTW]

Heard this interesting tidbit that pertains to Lamar on a recent podcast:

Per current league rules, all future fully guaranteed money due in a player contract must be placed in escrow at the time the deal is consummated. It's antiquated and has long been a bone of contention for the NFLPA. It was implemented long before the NFL became the 365-days-a-year revenue and content monster it is now, and it was put in place on the surface to prevent a team from defaulting on a contract to a player. Yeah, quaint, ain't it? Those days are long gone, but for decades many owners have hidden behind it as an excuse as to why they wouldn't guarantee more than a year or two. I can't go around putting $50M, $60M, $100M, in escrow every time someone wants a fully guaranteed deal. Only, well, Haslam just put about $185M in escrow to make good on what he still owes Watson beyond 2022 (and he did so by also only putting $1M in the QB's base salary to limit any financial damage to him by an upcoming suspension).

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-insider-notes-deshaun-watsons-game-changing-deal-and-its-ramifications-hottest-topic-at-owners-meetings/

Another reason owners might not want to go fully guaranteed, especially the ones that aren't uber-rich.

I thought it was widely known that they had to set up escrow accounts for guarenteed money

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

I bet a decent chunk of NFL fans don't know what escrow is. I couldn't tell you exactly what it was until I bought my house.

[humanrefutation]

Read on Twitter

[humanrefutation]

Read on Twitter

I'd be surprised if anyone offered him anything close. Signing with a Ravens team that currently doesn't have a QB seems to be all about the money.

[MickeyDavis]

Read on Twitter

[Frank Nova]

Read on Twitter

This is wild. Teams acting like Odell is still an asset is hilarious. Not that you’re better off just lighting money on fire but the Ravens just theoretically lit a boat load of money on fire.

Meanwhile, you can tell this was 100% money motivated for Odell who went to a terrible passing offense. Baltimore would’ve been smarter to give Lazard this contract who would’ve been 10x a better fit and 100x more willing to block for a run happy offense.

Makes zero sense. In the midst of a huge QB controversy no less…. Wow.

[MoMM]

You pay 18M to a broken player and at same time is not willing to pay for your young QB...

[IrishRainbow]

I’m sure that’ll convince Lamar to loosen his negotiating straps. I would be livid if the Packers did this. The only bonus (maybe not bonus, but less vomit inducing) is that it’s a prove it type deal. One year, and you get OBJ motivated for another contract. No doubt this was a cash grab, but if money is a motivator, this would be a motivated OBJ. What’s the end game for BAL though? Is this a ‘push them over the top’ move? Is that where they legitimately are? Make absolute no bones, I don’t get this move, but there has to be an avenue that can be argued right?

Now that I’m thinking of that extra gear guys seem to get in contract years I do wonder, if you could bottle that type of umbrella attribute modifier juice up, and consume it in a super hero universe, is if ARod Spite Juice > OBJ Contract Year Juice.

[Treebeard]

IF Balitimore does manage to trade Lamar, who's their Plan B at QB? Draft another QB, acquire Stafford, or retread Wentz/etal to placehold til their newbie QB is ready to run the show? I don't get the OBJ move at all.

[ReasonablySober]

I'm not seeing this as the negative you guys do. Baltimore has been firm in stating that Lamar is going to be back. This gets him a weapon (assuming he's healthy) on a one year prove-it deal. It's late in FA; who else are they going to get?

[humanrefutation]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Cactus Jack]

A 5th? That seems light.