Collusion appeal, Jackson, Murray,Wilson

[tsylvester]

The initial ruling in the collusion grievance filed by the NFL Players Association on behalf of Lamar Jackson, Russell Wilson, and Kyler Murray shed new light on the negotiations between Jackson and the Ravens that preceded his five-year deal in 2023. The appeal ruling adds a key fresh detail, too.

In two different portions of page 14 of the decision, the three-person panel writes that the Ravens twice offered three-year, fully-guaranteed contracts to Jackson.

Jackson declined both of them.

The ruling mentions none of the other key terms, like annual compensation. It’s also not mentioned whether the three-year contracts included a no-tag clause, which would have set the stage for unrestricted free agency in March 2026.

Although the Deshaun Watson contract that apparently sparked Jackson’s desire to have a fully-guaranteed contract of his own covered five years, a three-year fully-guaranteed deal gets the player all of his money along with a shorter path to another deal or free agency.

Jackson eventually signed a five-year deal with two years and part of a third fully guaranteed at signing. The rest of the third year became fully guaranteed early in the second year, and a large chunk of the fourth year ($29 million of $52 million) became fully guaranteed early in the fourth year. The fifth year has no guarantees.

But fully guaranteed is fully guaranteed. The fact that the Ravens offered Jackson a pair of three-year fully-guaranteed contracts (which is what Kirk Cousins got from the Vikings in 2018) defied the NFL’s effort as of March 2022 to persuade the teams to collude in not providing fully-guaranteed deals.

This year, plenty of the contracts signed in unrestricted free agency cover only three years. That’s better for players than having non-guaranteed back-end years, because once the full guarantees end the contracts become one-way arrangements — if the player is underperforming, the contract gets ripped up by the team; if the player is overperforming, the player is at the mercy of the team in an effort to get a raise.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/collusion-appeal-ruling-says-ravens-offered-lamar-jackson-two-fully-guaranteed-contracts

[oldno82]

OK...I admit it...I'm stumped. What does all this mean for the Ravens and Jackson at this point in Jackson's current contract? Are we committed or not committed to pay him over $84mil in 2027 and does all of it count against the cap? I am guessing that we are committed and it does count against the cap even if he's not playing here?

[tsylvester]

Yes, comitted

[papasmurfbell]

If he leaves a large chunk comes off.  Only the bonus money would count.