What now???

[TriCitySam]

Lawrence gets $21MM per year in Dallas - Russell wants $34-35MM...and Bobby wants a new contract, likely $20MM+. So that takes up about 40% of the current cap.....how do you make THAT work? Somebody is going to go.....

[NorthHawk]

Maybe they draft a stud and if he's worth it, take the place of Clark then let him go in FA next year.
If Clark doesn't want to play for $17.1 Million, then he gets nothing this year.
But the price has just gone up.

[RiverDog]

Lawrence gets $21MM per year in Dallas - Russell wants $34-35MM...and Bobby wants a new contract, likely $20MM+. So that takes up about 40% of the current cap.....how do you make THAT work? Somebody is going to go.....

Yea, isn't that crazy? The rich get richer and the poor will get poorer. The salary structure of the league is out of control when just a few players hog so much of the salary cap for themselves.

And North Hawk, Lawrences' contract is exactly what would happen if the league took the QB out of the salary cap mix. You'd have the same problem develop with the next most valuable position, ie a pass rushing DE.

I'm wondering if they could institute some sort of sliding scale where, for example, if you pay a player over a certain percentage of the salary cap, say 15%, that you can't pay anyone else more than 10%. They need to do something to force teams to spread the wealth and treat their franchise as a team rather than a loose collection of stars. Then they could go to a quarterback and tell him "You want a stud LT? You want a stud WR? Then don't make such an outrageous salary demand and allow us to sign one."

[NorthHawk]

It makes sense what you say, RD about the other players wanting to be the highest paid on the team.
The alternative is to designate 1 player per year that is 100% salary exempt. Still, the next in demand position
wouldn't be as much as a QB, as there are more of them available and if a team wanted to make a DE
that exempt player, they could. It would force them to make a big decision when they signed or re-signed
a franchise QB, though. Basically a team has more leverage with other positions than with the QB.

Edit:
Here is an article from PFT outlining the contract structure.
Expect to see something similar for Clark but with some different numbers.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... fair-deal/

[RiverDog]

It makes sense what you say, RD about the other players wanting to be the highest paid on the team.
The alternative is to designate 1 player per year that is 100% salary exempt.

That would be negating one of the purposes of a salary cap, ie to keep the big fish from swallowing up the little minnows and maintain a competitive balance. Teams like the Cowboys and Redskins with tons of money and the willingness to spend it would be able to out bid teams like the Jags and Browns for a free agent QB. There has to be some sort of penalty for a team spending that kind of money.

I'd rather see some sort of structure to the salary cap, something along the lines of what they've been doing with rookie contracts, which seems to have been working quite well since they implemented it.

[Rambo2014]

LMAO

I don't hear Bernie or OAC complaining about athletes becoming "Bullionaires"

[NorthHawk]

I'd rather see some sort of structure to the salary cap, something along the lines of what they've been doing with rookie contracts, which seems to have been working quite well since they implemented it.

I doubt the NFLPA would agree to that without some other major concession that the owners might not be willing to give up.
However it plays out, it's going to take some real leadership from the NFL, and I don't see anything that would suggest that
they have that talent at the moment.

[obiken]

Lawrence gets $21MM per year in Dallas - Russell wants $34-35MM...and Bobby wants a new contract, likely $20MM+. So that takes up about 40% of the current cap.....how do you make THAT work? Somebody is going to go.....

You don't TCS, IMHO you trade RW and Clark, keep BW and move on. There is NO good solution, any answer is going to hurt. From the time you draft a future HOFamer, your on a finite ride with him.

[RiverDog]

I'd rather see some sort of structure to the salary cap, something along the lines of what they've been doing with rookie contracts, which seems to have been working quite well since they implemented it.

I doubt the NFLPA would agree to that without some other major concession that the owners might not be willing to give up.

They might not have to give up as much as you think. Keep in mind that they would not be making the pie smaller, they'd be making the one big piece smaller and the other smaller pieces larger, and if I'm an offensive guard, that might appeal to me. I can't believe that players on the Packers are happy with Aaron Rodgers' financial status relative to their own, especially when you consider that the QB gets all the endorsement money that most big uglies don't. It's not too dissimilar to the issue with rookie contracts in the last CBA.

However it plays out, it's going to take some real leadership from the NFL, and I don't see anything that would suggest that they have that talent at the moment.

Agreed. No one on either side is thinking outside the box.

[idhawkman]

I could see the jealousy starting to creep in when the highest paid player on the team who also gets all the promotional dollars, gala invites, etc takes all the oxygen out of the air (or money out of the cap in this case.)

[NorthHawk]

They might not have to give up as much as you think. Keep in mind that they would not be making the pie smaller, they'd be making the one big piece smaller and the other smaller pieces larger, and if I'm an offensive guard, that might appeal to me. I can't believe that players on the Packers are happy with Aaron Rodgers' financial status relative to their own, especially when you consider that the QB gets all the endorsement money that most big uglies don't. It's not too dissimilar to the issue with rookie contracts in the last CBA.

I've always got the impression that the NFLPA is against any move that would restrict any salary, so they would not be in favor of restricting QB's.
I would think they would want to increase the Cap significantly if they made that concession or some other thing like perhaps pension contributions
both of which would take money out of the pocket of the owners.

[Aseahawkfan]

The modern NFL. Build around 3 or 4 star players and try to draft enough talent around them to make it work. The only person to buck this trend is Bill Belichick.

That's a lot of money to tie up into three players. It's unfortunate Russell is going whole hog on the money. This is just another result of the Super Bowl loss. If we had won, we'd probably still be getting a hometown discount.

[Hawktawk]

The modern NFL. Build around 3 or 4 star players and try to draft enough talent around them to make it work. The only person to buck this trend is Bill Belichick.

That's a lot of money to tie up into three players. It's unfortunate Russell is going whole hog on the money. This is just another result of the Super Bowl loss. If we had won, we'd probably still be getting a hometown discount.

Not sure what winning that second SB would have had to do with Wilsons worth. In the eyes of many he was ultimately responsible for the loss and still demanded pretty much top dollar for the time when his deal came up. Had he won back to back SBs he'd have driven a harder bargain IMO.

As for him going "whole hog" on the money people tend to forget he went to back to back Super bowls for a little over 1 million COMBINED and won one with as efficient and mistake free game as any QB who didn't win the MVP. Right now in its 4th year his current contract is a little over half of Aaron Rodgers deal, below Tannehills deal, way below Luck, even Garrapolo who hasn't done a damn thing in the league. All those guys have been hurt and missed games multiple times and so has Russ been badly hurt but he hasn't missed a snap OR A PRACTICE.

Last year he turned in one of the most efficient passing performances in league history throwing only 427 times but still hanging up 35 TDs and a perfect passer rating targeting Lock on long throws.Other than the SB winning season and to a degree last year hes had to run for his life behind a suspect line and has been among league leaders in sacks and still hes got numerous NFL and team records and is widely considered to be on a HOF trajectory.

Russ gave his "home town discount" the first 7 years of his career. This may be his last big payday depending on what happens in this violent league. Hes worth the record contract. Every other HC and GM in this situation has been able to figure it out and Schneider and Carroll better get on it pronto as well.

[RiverDog]

The modern NFL. Build around 3 or 4 star players and try to draft enough talent around them to make it work. The only person to buck this trend is Bill Belichick.

That's a lot of money to tie up into three players. It's unfortunate Russell is going whole hog on the money. This is just another result of the Super Bowl loss. If we had won, we'd probably still be getting a hometown discount.

Not sure what winning that second SB would have had to do with Wilsons worth. In the eyes of many he was ultimately responsible for the loss and still demanded pretty much top dollar for the time when his deal came up. Had he won back to back SBs he'd have driven a harder bargain IMO.

Yea, I'm not clear on that, either, unless the thinking is that a win and a SB MVP would have increased his market value.

As for him going "whole hog" on the money people tend to forget he went to back to back Super bowls for a little over 1 million COMBINED and won one with as efficient and mistake free game as any QB who didn't win the MVP. Right now in its 4th year his current contract is a little over half of Aaron Rodgers deal, below Tannehills deal, way below Luck, even Garrapolo who hasn't done a damn thing in the league. All those guys have been hurt and missed games multiple times and so has Russ been badly hurt but he hasn't missed a snap OR A PRACTICE.

Last year he turned in one of the most efficient passing performances in league history throwing only 427 times but still hanging up 35 TDs and a perfect passer rating targeting Lock on long throws.Other than the SB winning season and to a degree last year hes had to run for his life behind a suspect line and has been among league leaders in sacks and still hes got numerous NFL and team records and is widely considered to be on a HOF trajectory.

Russ gave his "home town discount" the first 7 years of his career. This may be his last big payday depending on what happens in this violent league. Hes worth the record contract. Every other HC and GM in this situation has been able to figure it out and Schneider and Carroll better get on it pronto as well.

Russell's going to need at least a league MVP or a SB MVP if he's going to make the HOF. He's roughly halfway through his career, so he has time, but IMO the bar is set pretty high for a QB.

I don't think the issue is whether or not Russell deserves to be the highest paid QB. IMO when you factor in his age, ie younger than Rodgers, Brady, Worthlessburger, and Brees, he's at the top of his class. In my mind, if anyone deserves to be the highest paid player in the league, it's Russell.

The issue is do we want to go that route, ie pay one player a very large percentage of the payroll? Can we resign Russell and still remain competitive? What kind of sacrifices can we or are we willing to make in order to resign him?

[c_hawkbob]

Russ is a virtual lock for the hall. If Russ broke his neck tomorrow and never played another down he's in the hall.

[RiverDog]

On a related issue, and I'm not indicating for a second that this could ever be the case with Russell and the Hawks, things are not well between the current highest paid player in the league and his team:

"Aaron Rodgers is toxic. When former players come out and talk about a player...when you went to war with a guy, for you to come out and speak ill and negatively about him, he's done some things that you have seen that has created the ability for you to go out and say that....You hear of what Jennings talked about. You hear about what Finley talked about, Aaron Rodgers and his grasp on the team..is toxic.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/04/espns- ... gers-toxic

Murphy (Packers CEO) had a message for his quarterback: "Don't be the problem. Don't be the problem." Dunne reports that Murphy is "tired of the diva stuff" relating to Rodgers.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... e-problem/

[Aseahawkfan]

Not sure what winning that second SB would have had to do with Wilsons worth. In the eyes of many he was ultimately responsible for the loss and still demanded pretty much top dollar for the time when his deal came up. Had he won back to back SBs he'd have driven a harder bargain IMO.

Yea, I'm not clear on that, either, unless the thinking is that a win and a SB MVP would have increased his market value.

My thinking is that if you're going to the Super Bowl every other year, then you can get a hometown discount like the Patriots. That second Super Bowl loss pretty much derailed our team from continuing to compete for a Super Bowl. It caused dissension, a loss of confidence in the coaching and QB, and a general slow downward spiral that has us where we are now. We win that second Super Bowl, who knows where we would be. Maybe everyone happy, riding high, and still competing for more. Lots of endorsements to to around. Less trying to max the money and more trying to keep the party going as Super Bowl champs. That second Super Bowl loss was a team killer because of the way it happened.

New England doesn't get a discount because it's the Patriot way. They get a discount because they go to the Super Bowl every other year or more. Players are willing to take less money to get a ring and all that comes with it. We lost any chance at that with that second Super Bowl loss.

[RiverDog]

My thinking is that if you're going to the Super Bowl every other year, then you can get a hometown discount like the Patriots. That second Super Bowl loss pretty much derailed our team from continuing to compete for a Super Bowl. It caused dissension, a loss of confidence in the coaching and QB, and a general slow downward spiral that has us where we are now. We win that second Super Bowl, who knows where we would be. Maybe everyone happy, riding high, and still competing for more. Lots of endorsements to to around. Less trying to max the money and more trying to keep the party going as Super Bowl champs. That second Super Bowl loss was a team killer because of the way it happened.

New England doesn't get a discount because it's the Patriot way. They get a discount because they go to the Super Bowl every other year or more. Players are willing to take less money to get a ring and all that comes with it. We lost any chance at that with that second Super Bowl loss.

Ahh, IC. That makes a little more sense.

But as we all acknowledge, New England is an anomaly in every sense of the word. They not only win/play in SB's, they're in the hunt every single year for nearly every year since the turn of the century (how many AFC East titles have they won?). IMO A team would have to do what they've been doing for at least 6-8 years to experience the kind of effect that you're speaking of.

[idhawkman]

The modern NFL. Build around 3 or 4 star players and try to draft enough talent around them to make it work. The only person to buck this trend is Bill Belichick.

That's a lot of money to tie up into three players. It's unfortunate Russell is going whole hog on the money. This is just another result of the Super Bowl loss. If we had won, we'd probably still be getting a hometown discount.

It is unfortunate but I understand why he's doing it. It will probably be his last big contract opportunity. If he signs a 5+ year deal he'll be over 35 when he comes up again and there will most likely be new talent in the league commanding the higher prices. So although I don't like it, I understand it.

[NorthHawk]

There was some talk about Wilson wanting only a 3 year deal.
That would put him in line for another big raise in 3 years as well as coincide with the end of Pete's contract
and a new CBA.
Maybe that's not a bad strategy.

[RiverDog]

There was some talk about Wilson wanting only a 3 year deal. That would put him in line for another big raise in 3 years as well as coincide with the end of Pete's contract and a new CBA. Maybe that's not a bad strategy.

I would prefer a longer deal as it would give the franchise that much more stability knowing who the quarterback is going to be, but 3 years would be better than none and/or multiple uses of the FT.

[jshawaii22]

His last contract was for 3 years. so that would make sense. Gives us 6 years or so this year + 3 + 2 FT's = 6 years. (yes, they could eliminate the FT, but you don't write a contract 3 years out based on conjecture)

[RiverDog]

It's looking like more and more that we're not going to get a deal done with Russell in 2019. Reportedly the Hawks haven't shown a lot of interest in negotiating, which according to some, was why Russell's camp released their 4/15 deadline, in order to pressure the Hawks. According to ESPN' Adam Schefter:

As of right now, the Seahawks and Wilson don't sound particularly close to a deal, which is why this information may be coming to light now. Wilson's camp may be miffed that talks aren't further along and are looking to apply public pressure by making the deadline known.

And as expected, trade rumors are heating up. Andy Benoit:

My perfect scenario if I’m John Schneider, their GM, and Pete Carroll, is we play him this year on his affordable contract and trade him next year for a boatload. That raises the question, whom are you trading with and under what conditions? And that’s where it gets harder, the rest of the NFL, they want to have this cheap quarterback advantage too. There aren’t a ton of quarterback-needy teams right now. Look at the trade market for Josh Rosen, who was a first-round pick last year. If I’m Seattle, if I can get two first-rounders for Wilson, I think I’m doing that. If I get three first-rounders for Russell Wilson, that’s a no-brainer to me if I’m the Seahawks.

Cutting off negotiations isn't going to stop the rumors and speculation such as those I've posted above. This is going to be a big time distraction as we head into the 2019 season.

[idhawkman]

Maybe JS also knows what the strategy is going to be on the side of the owners when the CBA gets redone in a couple years. Why tie yourself up if there's going to be something big happen. (I know that thought is out there pretty far but it is a slight possibility).

[NorthHawk]

If you trade Wilson, you will have to resign yourself to the idea that you won't get another Russell Wilson in return. It's going to be
a lesser QB. So if I had to trade him, I would send him to Oakland for Carr and a 1st or maybe more. We get an experienced QB
who doesn't have to win games by himself, and we get Cap relief and the ability to re-sign Clark, Wagner, Reed, and others.

But I don't think it's going to get that far. I think they will come to some agreement prior to the start of the season and his
deadline is a pressure tactic. I want either a long term contract with a high guarantee, or maybe a shorter 3 year deal that
makes him the highest paid QB, but doesn't bust the model wide open. This way we could trade him later for an early 1st
to be able to select a young QB in the draft like Trevor Lawrence or Tua Tagovailoa.

[idhawkman]

If you trade Wilson, you will have to resign yourself to the idea that you won't get another Russell Wilson in return. It's going to be
a lesser QB. So if I had to trade him, I would send him to Oakland for Carr and a 1st or maybe more. We get an experienced QB
who doesn't have to win games by himself, and we get Cap relief and the ability to re-sign Clark, Wagner, Reed, and others.

But I don't think it's going to get that far. I think they will come to some agreement prior to the start of the season and his
deadline is a pressure tactic. I want either a long term contract with a high guarantee, or maybe a shorter 3 year deal that
makes him the highest paid QB, but doesn't bust the model wide open. This way we could trade him later for an early 1st
to be able to select a young QB in the draft like Trevor Lawrence or Tua Tagovailoa.

I'm not sure we wouldn't get a replacement for him. We wouldn't get someone with experience but there's a lot of talent coming out of college that could be effective in our run first offense. We don't rely on our QB to be a thrower as much as any other team in the league. With out oline as it is now, I don't expect that will change anytime soon either.

[RiverDog]

If you trade Wilson, you will have to resign yourself to the idea that you won't get another Russell Wilson in return. It's going to be a lesser QB. So if I had to trade him, I would send him to Oakland for Carr and a 1st or maybe more. We get an experienced QB who doesn't have to win games by himself, and we get Cap relief and the ability to re-sign Clark, Wagner, Reed, and others.

I'm pretty down on Carr. Even with the better surrounding that he'd have here vs. the Raiders, I don't see him being 'the guy.' Besides, Gruden, with his accumulation of draft picks, might make a move to upgrade the position this season. I would also be surprised if Wilson would accept a trade to the Raiders. They're a hapless, rebuilding franchise at the moment.

Along those same lines and contrary to what was stated above, there appears to be a lot of interest in Josh Rosen, as the Redskins, Giants, Chargers, and Broncos have apparently expressed interest:

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news ... kbgovwro02

[NorthHawk]

I don't see anyone being 'the guy' like Wilson is so if we are to trade him, we will by definition
have lesser talent at QB. Carr can read defenses and can throw the deep ball fairly well, and if
the trend continues for us to be a run first team, he won't have to do very much outside of his
comfort zone. I think that's all you can expect from any other QB than Wilson.

[idhawkman]

I wouldn't rule out the Raiders just yet. Vegas may appeal to Ciarra.

[obiken]

I wouldn't rule out the Raiders just yet. Vegas may appeal to Ciarra.

I agree, and Pete could really sell Carr because he should have been a "Car" salesman anyway!

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't rule out the Raiders just yet. Vegas may appeal to Ciarra.

Eygads! The Raiders, but they seem to trade everything away for high picks nowadays so why not. RW for 7 picks and Carr. Ciarra will like Oakland for a season and Russ can reunite with Marshawn if he is still around.

[RiverDog]

I don't see anyone being 'the guy' like Wilson is so if we are to trade him, we will by definition have lesser talent at QB. Carr can read defenses and can throw the deep ball fairly well, and if the trend continues for us to be a run first team, he won't have to do very much outside of his comfort zone. I think that's all you can expect from any other QB than Wilson.

If all we're going to expect out of a potential RW replacement is to read defenses and not do much outside of their comfort zone, we can surely find a much cheaper replacement than the $25M we'd have to pay Derek Carr.

[Oly]

An argument for trading Clark:

"Assuming Wilson is successful in negotiating a contract which pays him $35 million a year, Clark gets a deal paying him $21 million, and Wagner seeks one paying him $15 million — since the 49ers are paying newly added linebacker Kwon Alexander $14.5 million — then the Seahawks would be shelling out at least $71 million a season. Having nearly 38 percent of the cap tied up in three players is not a winning formula in today’s NFL."

https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2019/ ... ank-clark/

Thoughts? I really don't know what the best option is here. I agree with that quoted part, but perhaps with salary structure shenanigans they can mitigate this so I don't know if the Hawks would actually be paying 38% to those three.

[RiverDog]

An argument for trading Clark:

"Assuming Wilson is successful in negotiating a contract which pays him $35 million a year, Clark gets a deal paying him $21 million, and Wagner seeks one paying him $15 million — since the 49ers are paying newly added linebacker Kwon Alexander $14.5 million — then the Seahawks would be shelling out at least $71 million a season. Having nearly 38 percent of the cap tied up in three players is not a winning formula in today’s NFL."

https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2019/ ... ank-clark/

Thoughts? I really don't know what the best option is here. I agree with that quoted part, but perhaps with salary structure shenanigans they can mitigate this so I don't know if the Hawks would actually be paying 38% to those three.

That's a really good point. I mentioned in another thread that if we sign Russell to what's being reported, ie $35M+, and that we resign Clark, that there's no way that we're going to be able to resign Bobby next season. We can't keep all 3.

Perhaps this is the reason why the Hawks are dragging their feet on Russell's contract, in order to buy time and see how the negotiations with Clark and Wagner goes. If one of those two takes themselves out of the picture...for example, Clark refuses to sign the tag, holds out, and we subsequently end up trading him, then it would free up more resources for resigning Russell.

This also could be the last season we see Bobby in a Hawks uniform. Of the 3, he's the oldest and plays a position, at least vs. QB, where there's a pretty steep dropoff in production when a player turns 30.

[mykc14]

An argument for trading Clark:

"Assuming Wilson is successful in negotiating a contract which pays him $35 million a year, Clark gets a deal paying him $21 million, and Wagner seeks one paying him $15 million — since the 49ers are paying newly added linebacker Kwon Alexander $14.5 million — then the Seahawks would be shelling out at least $71 million a season. Having nearly 38 percent of the cap tied up in three players is not a winning formula in today’s NFL."

https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2019/ ... ank-clark/

Thoughts? I really don't know what the best option is here. I agree with that quoted part, but perhaps with salary structure shenanigans they can mitigate this so I don't know if the Hawks would actually be paying 38% to those three.

It is a tough position to be in... Add in Jarron Reed who will probably earn 10+ million and it looks worse. What is even worse is in 2020 here are the cap hit numbers of people not named Wilson, Wagner, Clark, or Reed: Baldwin 13 mil, Brown 12 mil, Britt 11 mil, and Lockette 10 mil... It's going to be tough.

[obiken]

It is a tough position to be in... Add in Jarron Reed who will probably earn 10+ million and it looks worse. What is even worse is in 2020 here are the cap hit numbers of people not named Wilson, Wagner, Clark, or Reed: Baldwin 13 mil, Brown 12 mil, Britt 11 mil, and Lockette 10 mil... It's going to be tough.

lark, or Reed: Baldwin 13 mil, Brown 12 mil, Britt 11 mil, and Lockette? Could someone like River or Cbob explain to me how any of those guys are worth more than 5 million a year? Maybe Brown. Baldy is done.

[RiverDog]

It is a tough position to be in... Add in Jarron Reed who will probably earn 10+ million and it looks worse. What is even worse is in 2020 here are the cap hit numbers of people not named Wilson, Wagner, Clark, or Reed: Baldwin 13 mil, Brown 12 mil, Britt 11 mil, and Lockette 10 mil... It's going to be tough.

Clark, or Reed: Baldwin 13 mil, Brown 12 mil, Britt 11 mil, and Lockette? Could someone like River or Cbob explain to me how any of those guys are worth more than 5 million a year? Maybe Brown. Baldy is done.

I'm not a cap guru, but here's my 2 cents: Baldwin more than likely will retire, or if he doesn't, will be asked to restructure the balance of his contract if he plays in 2020. The other guys are definitely 'worth it': Brown and Britt are the foundation of our OL and are borderline Pro Bowl performers. Both are veteran players and would be almost impossible to replace at a lower cost Lockett is our top receiver and has become Russell's 'go to' guy'. Reed and Clark are our two best pass rushers, and our still forming secondary would be exposed without them. Pass rushing DL's are nearly as highly paid as QB's (see the Cowboys' Lawrence's new deal), and they're both just starting to hit the primes of their careers. They're going to want to be paid.

The point being made is that if we resign Russell, Clark, and Wagner, they'd be eating up such a huge amount of payroll that we'd have to part ways with several of those core players to make everything fit.

[mykc14]

I'm not a cap guru, but here's my 2 cents: Baldwin more than likely will retire, or if he doesn't, will be asked to restructure the balance of his contract if he plays in 2020. The other guys are definitely 'worth it': Brown and Britt are the foundation of our OL and are borderline Pro Bowl performers. Both are veteran players and would be almost impossible to replace at a lower cost Lockett is our top receiver and has become Russell's 'go to' guy'. Reed and Clark are our two best pass rushers, and our still forming secondary would be exposed without them. Pass rushing DL's are nearly as highly paid as QB's (see the Cowboys' Lawrence's new deal), and they're both just starting to hit the primes of their careers. They're going to want to be paid.

The point being made is that if we resign Russell, Clark, and Wagner, they'd be eating up such a huge amount of payroll that we'd have to part ways with several of those core players to make everything fit.

I think that it is also important to note that cap hits can be manipulated in a lot of ways to allow these larger contracts to fit. Britt and Brown are two examples of guys whose cap hit can be reduced by extending their contract (understanding that Brown is old). Baldwin is another guy who almost certainly won't count 13 mil against our cap in 2020. Either he will retire, be extended, or he will be cut. All of this, of course, depends on how he plays in 2019. Whoever we end of signing out of Reed, Wags, Clark, and RW will have cap hits that will be less than whatever their average per year salary is (for example if Clark signs for 19.5 mil/yr his cap hit won't be over 19.5 for at least 2 or 3 years, depending on how long his contract is) in 2020 and 2021. They all CAN fit, but the unfortunate reality is that not all of those guys will be with our team in 2020. Saving 10 mil by cutting Baldwin, not paying Reed 10+ mil/year, or getting a 1st and 3rd for Clark and saving 20 mil/year by not giving him a long-term contract are all very real possibilities. All of this hinges, of course, on what happens with RW.