Normative Narratives


4 Comments

Monday Morning QB: March Madness Starts Early This Year

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9036126 (link to a video of the brawl between Mexico and Canada in the WBC)

The World Baseball Classic has been about as exciting as anyone could ask for up until this point. The Italian team has been the surprise story of the tournament, emerging from a tough division along with Team USA to make it to the single elimination games. The remaining 8 teams are:

USA, Italy, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Chinese Taipei, Netherlands, Cuba, and Japan.

This list includes some surprises and some obvious names. It was nice to see team USA advance past group play for the first time. The Netherlands may come as a surprise, but players from Curacao (a small island state near Venezuela) help bolster the team’s roster. The Dominican Republic boasts a powerhouse lineup and are many peoples’ favorite to win the whole tournament. Two-time defending champion Japan, whose roster includes a whopping ZERO MLB players, have no intention of letting that happen. There is lots of talent in this WBC, and it has been fun to see some of the non-MLB players getting a chance to shine on a global stage.

It has not been so much fun for everyone; some teams suffered frustrating eliminations. Team Venezuela was expected to go far in this tournament, but could not make it out of a difficult division featuring the D.R. and P.R. Teams Canada and Mexico showed their frustration in the form of a bench clearing brawl (although Canada was not yet eliminated at that point). The Canadian team, up 9-3 in the 9th inning, bunted to get a runner on base (aggregate score is a tie-breaker for group play in the WBC). This prompted Mexican 3B Luis Cruz to tell his pitcher to intentionally hit the next Canadian batter. After several failed attempts, the batter (Rene Tosoni) was hit, and a bench clearing brawl ensued.

It is unfortunate that tempers had to boil over, as the WBC is supposed to be about different countries coming together under the umbrella of Baseball, but it just goes to show you how seriously players take this tournament. The action will only get more intense, as games are now single elimination (although I wouldn’t expect anymore brawls; you want that, go watch any Hockey game).

Congrats to Tiger Woods, whose dominant performance at Doral earned him his 17th World Golf Championship Title. Tiger has paid enough for his transgressions; it is good for him and the game of golf to see him return to championship form.

Congrats to Bernard Hopkins, who over the weekend broke his own record to become the oldest Boxing title holder at 48 years old. “On Saturday, Hopkins beat 30-year-old Tavoris Cloud for the IBF light heavyweight championship.”

Joe Flacco backed Anquan Boldin’s assertion that he will not take a pay cut to stay on the Ravens next year. Joe should really use some of that money he got to hire himself a math tutor, or at least have someone explain how the salary cap works. There was arguably no other player who was more important to Joe Flacco’s playoff success than Boldin, who “in the playoffs, caught 22 passes for 380 yards receiving (95 yards per game) and four touchdowns.” Flacco should put his money where his mouth is, and agree to shave a few million dollars of his record-setting contract in order to bring back the guy who most helped him win the Super Bowl and secure said contract. Boldin has been the Raven’s leading receiver since he came to the team from Arizona three years ago.

Flacco owes much of his success to Boldin, and a small restructure would allow Boldin to stay on the team (Boldin has stated he does not want a pay raise, but he will not take a pay cut either):

“Boldin told USA Today on Saturday he’s unwilling to slash his salary in order to stay with the team, citing “principles.”

“At no point, no matter how well I played, would I come back to the table and say, ‘I need more money.’ The contract that I signed was the contract that I intended to play out,” he told USA Today.”

I believe Boldin is right here, but Flacco “backing him” is a bit of a joke unless he is willing to structure his deal in a way that will allow the Ravens to keep Boldin. In a salary cap league, one man’s record contract is (potentially) coming out of his teammate’s pocket. A great WR can make a QB better, and Boldin’s ability to go up and get the ball has undoubtedly made Flacco better.

Two weeks ago I said that Flacco’s legacy may be determined by how flexible he is with his contract. Signing such a large deal puts a considerable amount of responsibility on Flacco to allow the Ravens the salary cap flexibility needed to ensure they can continue to surround him with championship caliber talent. I never would’ve thought such an opportunity would present itself so soon, but this is an opportunity for Flacco to prove to the city of Baltimore that money is not everything, and that winning is what is most important to Flacco (just to be clear, this would be a very small portion of Flacco’s 6 year 120.9 million dollar contract, as Boldin was only set to make $6 million next year before he was asked to restructure his deal).  

Talk is cheap Flacco. While it is nice to back your WR, it’s time to put your money (which we all know you now have more of than you could ever need) where your mouth is.

Update: It appears that Boldin has been traded to the 49ers for a 6th round pick (once he passes a physical). It’s amazing to me that the team couldn’t figure out a way to keep it’s most consistent weapon following it’s Super Bowl victory and record-setting contract for Joe Flacco, but there you have it. As former teammate and now undisputed No. 1 Ravens WR Torrey Smith put it upon learning of the trade, “This business is BS at times,”Enhanced by Zemanta.

The Ravens lost a big piece in Boldin. Boldin was not the most physically gifted WR at this point in his career, but he was a strong No. 2 WR with exceptional hands who always played bigger than he actually was. The Ravens have a True No. 1 WR in Torrey Smith, but nothing certain after that. Will they draft someone or sign a free agent? Do they believe the explosive Jacoby Jones is ready to make the next step as an every-down WR?

This could end up being a big mistake by the Ravens (I think it is), time will tell.

Advertisements


2 Comments

Transparency Thursday: Inching Our Way Towards Meaningful Gun Regulations

 

“In a possible harbinger of bipartisan support for a small piece of legislation to curb gun violence, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a measure that would make the practice of illegally buying a gun for someone else a felony, and increase penalties for the crime.

The measure, which addresses so-called straw purchasing, passed the committee by 11 to 7; the only Republican to vote in favor was Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa. Mr. Grassley’s nod on the measure, which already had two Republican co-sponsors, was significant because he is the most senior member of the committee. The panel is comprised of 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans.”

This is a good first step, imposing stricter penalties for so called “straw” gun purchases. It is a bit alarming that only one Republican Senator voted in favor of this measure, considering a recent Gallup Poll (1/23/13) showed an overwhelming majority of both Democrats (81%) and Republicans (75%) support tougher penalties for such crimes. But still, the bill passed with support from the most senior Republican Senator on the committee.

Still, harsher penalties for “straw” gun purchases amount to only a partial fix. “Most gun safety experts say they believe that straw purchasing and background check measures work in tandem. A failure by Congress to pass more than a modified straw purchasing bill would be a victory for the National Rifle Association, which opposes each measure.”

The same committee will vote on universal background checks for potential gun buyers; perhaps a longer waiting period in order to obtain the necessary information will be part of newly proposed laws. The same Gallup poll showed even greater bipartisan support for “requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales” (97% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans agree with such measures). I would argue not only should there be a criminal background check, but also a mental health evaluation, we will have to wait and see what is proposed in future bills. Hopefully the committee represents those it was elected by, and comes up with a working background check / “straw” purchase system to ensure that responsible adults can enjoy their guns while those who are not responsible enough (due to criminal or mental health history) cannot obtain guns.

I would argue that “straw” purchases and universal background checks both rely on better overall mental healthcare. Often, it is the poor who cannot afford mental healthcare; these people may then turn to violence because they are not getting the help they need. By no means should having a psychological disorder prohibit someone from owning a gun, but it should raise a red-flag that makes anyone reviewing the case pay special attention to exactly what the condition is and if it is accompanied by a history of violent and/or anti-social behavior.

“The committee is also set to consider the reauthorization of a program that provides matching grants for school safety improvements, as well as a measure that would greatly expand background checks for gun buyers, with the goal of preventing sales to people with criminal records or a history of mental illness.”

Mental health and criminal background checks must be viewed on a case-by-case basis; this may be expensive and time consuming, but it is the price we must to pay for responsible gun ownership.

While criminal records are readily available, it is harder to get information on a person’s mental health history. A “positive externality” of the Affordable Care Act is that it will expand mental health coverage to many American’s who currently do not qualify for such coverage. This will make meaningful universal background checks more feasible. The Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, will help those previously uninsured get insurance not only for physical illness, but also for mental health disorders:

“…it can be difficult for people with mental health and substance use disorders to find affordable, quality coverage in the health insurance marketplace.  Right now, estimates show that one-fifth to one-third of the uninsured are people with mental and substance use disorders.

  • Starting in 2014, substance abuse or mental illness can no longer be used by insurers to deny coverage as a “pre-existing condition” – and insurers also won’t be able to use those conditions to raise your premiums.
  • Also in 2014, mental health and substance use disorder services will be part of the essential benefits package, a set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, including all insurance policies that will be offered through the Exchanges, and Medicaid.

These reforms all work to make the health insurance marketplace a more accessible, affordable place for people with mental health and substance abuse disorders.”

Mental healthcare coverage and a mental health evaluation for purchasing a firearm are two different yet related issues. Better overall mental health coverage will afford someone reviewing a background check more information than they would otherwise be able to obtain from a single evaluation. Both are necessary steps to ensure guns are only used by responsible people.

I hope congress also re-authorizes the grant for school safety. If cash-strapped municipalities receive federal assistance, they will have more money to station armed police officers at all schools (possibly more than one depending on the size of the student body).

It seems that the Senate is enacting (or at least considering) many of the common-sense gun laws advocated here at Normative Narratives in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy (Gallup Polls show widespread support for many of these measures across the political spectrum). Non-gun owners can feel safer knowing there are stricter gun laws, while responsible gun owners can rest more easily knowing they have no fear of “having their guns taken away” (which was really never a threat to begin with). 

Again, this is the first step of many common sense gun laws needed to make America a safer place. No amount of gun laws will ever end all gun-related violence; there will always be people who are hell-bent on causing pain and no law or regulation will be able to stop them. But by putting these common sense gun laws in place, gun-related violence WILL go down (not may, will). These laws will cost money, but that is the cost of having “the right to bear arms” in contemporary America.

Enhanced by Zemanta


4 Comments

Economic Outlook: The Do-Nothing-GOP Vows to Do-Nothing

I took particular interest in a recent Politifact article highlighting House Speaker John Boehner’s assessment that “There’s no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester.” This statement should not seem right to anybody who follows politics, the news, or simply has not been living under a rock for the past few months (years?). Have the democrats really dropped the ball, or is this more political jockeying by the Do-Nothing GOP? Unsurprisingly, it is the latter. The President and Senate democrats have proposed plans, just not the plans their opponents agree on. Politifact gave Boehner’s comment its worst possible rating “Pants on Fire”.

Democrats, both in the White House and Capitol Hill, have proposed alternatives to the sequester that involve cutting bloated programs and closing tax loopholes to raise revenue. The “Sequester”, as most know by now, cuts programs indiscriminately of their importance to overall economic and social security and without taking into consideration whether the program runs efficiently or not. This undesirable result was meant to be undesirable in the hopes of forcing congress into passing a more acceptable deal. Unfortunately, Congress was unable to envision its own incompetence, and the sequester became fiscal policy starting last Friday.  

But how could Boehner openly deny Democrats having offered alternative plans, when they clearly have (you can go on the White House website and “click a prominent button that says “SEE THE PLAN.” It leads to a page titled “A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit.”?”)

The answer given by Boehner’s representative would be comical, if it did not represent such a high ranking U.S. government official:

“A plan must demonstrate it has the ability to pass a chamber of Congress to be worth anything. We’ve twice passed a plan. We’re still waiting for the Senate to pass something, anything,” Buck told PolitiFact in an email.”

So the Do-Nothing-GOP has decided the democrats have not offered an alternative plan because they have made it their party’s goal to strike down any plan the Democrats offer. This sounds more like self-fulfilling economic suicide than two sides working towards an agreement that will work for the American people.

So what does the GOP require in a plan? It requires that tax loopholes that are closed must be met with equal reductions in government spending. In an effort to be “fiscally responsible”, the GOP has taken any proposal that will raise government revenue off the table.

“’Republicans want tax reform. We want to bring rates down for all Americans so that we’ve got a fairer tax code,’ Mr. Boehner said. ‘But to arbitrarily pull out a couple of tax expenditures and to say, ‘Well, we ought to use that to get rid of the sequester.’ Listen, every American knows Washington has a spending problem.’”

Does the U.S. really have a spending problem, or do we have a revenue problem? Let’s take a look at the numbers:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=FYFRGDA188S,FYONGDA188S&scale=Left,Left&range=Max,Max&cosd=1929-01-01,1929-01-01&coed=2012-01-01,2012-01-01&line_color=%230000ff,%23ff0000&link_values=false,false&line_style=Solid,Solid&mark_type=NONE,NONE&mw=4,4&lw=1,1&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=a,a&fq=Annual,Annual&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&transformation=lin,lin&vintage_date=2013-03-06,2013-03-06&revision_date=2013-03-06,2013-03-06

The blue line represents Federal government receipts (revenue), the red line represents Federal government outlays (spending). A number of interesting takeaways from this graph:

1)      The U.S. was running a budget surplus until Bush gave that surplus away in the form of tax breaks (notice the blue line sharply going down around 2000) and spending on the “war on terror” (notice how the red line goes up when around the same time period).

2)      Federal government receipts are at their lowest point since the 1960s. This is partially due to Bush Era tax cuts (which have expired for the wealthiest Americans thanks to “Fiscal Cliff” negotiations, which is probably what the current small uptick represents) and partially due to exploitation of tax loopholes (and other forms of tax evasion, such as moving profits abroad).

3)      Government spending peaked during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and has since been on the decline since.

Government spending is supposed to rise during a recession, the only reason this is a problem is because the surplus secured under President Clinton was squandered during a period of economic prosperity by President Bush. Instead of pursuing counter-cyclical fiscal policy, (save up during the good times to spend during the bad times) Bush did the opposite. Therefore, we have had to rely on deficit spending instead of spending out of a “rainy day fund”. While not exact science, if government receipts had stayed at Clinton-era levels, it appears our deficit would be about half of what it currently is (around 40% of GDP instead of 80%).

In an ideal world, we would be able to pass another stimulus program to jump-start the economy and reduce unemployment. As interest rates remain low, the government could worry about paying back this deficit once the economy is producing at its full potential. The deficit is a manufactured problem, a legacy of “starve-the-beast” fiscal policy championed by the GOP. The problem is that starve-the-beast does not work, you can reduce the amount of resources the government has, but you cannot reduce the programs people rely on to survive (especially not during times of high unemployment). What you get instead is a large government deficit.

A balanced approach to deficit reduction would be reasonable during healthy economic times. In the current economic climate, however, the red line will continue to come down on its own as the economy recovers and less people rely on entitlement programs. The blue line is the one that requires government action.

But Obama, ever the centrist, has tried to find a mixed approach of revenue increases and spending cuts that have a chance of passing a House vote. But it seems that the more Obama offers, the more the GOP demands:

“He had written a piece suggesting that if only Republicans knew how much Obama has been willing to offer, they might be willing to make a deal. Jonathan Chait set him straight, informing him that no matter what Obama put on the table, Republicans would find a way to say that it’s not enough. And sure enough, a Twitter exchange lets Klein watch that process in real time, as a top Republican consultant, confronted with evidence that Obama has already conceded what he said was all that was needed, keeps adding more demands.

So Klein admits that Republicans just don’t want to make a deal. Their objections to the deals on the table aren’t sincere; if convinced that Obama has met their demands, they just make more demands.”

The GOP has no interest in getting a deal done if that deal involves raising revenues. This is an absurd position, as government revenue is at its lowest point in decades. A balanced approach to avoiding the “Sequester” is not what the doctor ordered; fiscal stimulus and greater government revenue is the optimal fiscal policy for the American public. But the idea that we have a spending problem, and not a revenue problem, is wrong. A balanced approach is still better than the alternative, but the GOP is refusing to consider even a balanced plan to end the Sequester.

By refusing to consider any deal increasing revenue, the GOP has doubled down on its “Do-Nothing” approach to governance, to the detriment of the American people and American economy. The GOP manufactured this deficit with “starve-the-beast” fiscal policy, now it is manufacturing a need to reform entitlement programs NOW (these are long term issues, while the Sequester and stubbornly high unemployment are immediate problems that are not being addressed). 

The GOP is the party of the 1%. and the 1% are not being hurt as badly as the rest of us by the Sequester, so why should the GOP budge if it’s constituents are happy? Hopefully in 2014 the GOP receives 1% of the seats in Congress; representation based on those it truly serves. It has become clear that the Democrats need a complete majority in the Federal government if there is any hope of reversing the high unemployment and inequality and low levels of social mobility that have come to define contemporary America.

Enhanced by Zemanta


2 Comments

Conflict Watch: Nuclear North Korea

There was a bit of optimism when North Korea’s new leader, Kim Jong-un, came to power follow his father’s (Kim Jong-il) death late in 2011. Those hopes have all but faded from memory, as it has become abundantly clear that Kim Jong-un is no more of a friend to the West than his father was. Kim Jong-un’s rule has been marked with the same lack of transparency, human rights violations, and anti-western rhetoric that came to define his father’s rule.

Kim Jong-un has been arguably even more aggressive than his father when it comes to shows of military power. Despite warnings against further nuclear testing (after 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests drew economic sanctions from the UN), Kim Jong-un authorized and conducted a third nuclear test on February 12th, 2013.

The third test has drawn the attention of the international community. Even North Korea’s largest ally, China, has condemned such tests. Kim Jong-un seems undeterred, and has vowed for further nuclear test strikes and other shows of military power in the future unless UN sanctions are suspended.

The international community is not caving the King Jong-un’s demands to stop sanctions against North Korean. To the contrary, yesterday it was reported that the U.S., China, and the U.N. had “struck a tentative deal on a draft U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution that would punish North Korea for its third nuclear test, which it conducted last month.” These sanctions are expected to be a strengthening of previously imposed sanctions following the 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests.

North Korea has replied to such threats, unsurprisingly, with more aggressive military rhetoric:

 “‘We will completely nullify the Korean armistice,’ the North’s KCNA news agency said, quoting the Korean People’s Army (KPA) Supreme Command spokesman.

The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 conflict ended in a truce rather than a peace treaty.

‘We will be suspending the activities of the KPA representative office at Panmunjom (truce village) that had been tentatively operated by our army as the negotiating body to establish a peace regime on the Korean peninsula,’ KCNA quoted the spokesman as saying.

‘Related to that, we will be making the decision in parallel to cut off the Panmunjom DPRK-U.S. military hotline.’”

While the hotline has never been used during times of diplomatic tension, it’s suspension is a symbolic move to cut off communication with the United States. By cutting off communication, Kim Jong-un is making it clear that he has no intentions of negotiating a nuclear disarmament with the United States or the “Western world”. (The U.S. is currently working on similar negotiations with Iran as well, who at least on the surface appears to be a more willing negotiating partner than North Korea).

Less symbolic, and more overtly aggressive, is the claim that North Korea will nullify the Korean armistice in response to more severe UNSC sanctions. If the armistice is nullified, North and South Korea would technically be at war, meaning that even the smallest act of aggression by either side could explode into all-out war on the Korean peninsula. The Korean peninsula is currently a “powder-keg”, but even more alarmingly, it is a “nuclear powder-keg”.

Such a war would have serious geopolitical implications, as the U.S. is an ally of South Korea while China is an ally of North Korea.

China has, so far, played the role the international community would hope it plays in the current Korea situation. By openly condemning North Korean nuclear tests, and apparently agreeing to stricter sanctions against North Korea, China has signaled it is willing to put pressure on its ally to ensure regional stability.

The issue with China, as always, is can we take China at its word? China’s own lack of transparency continues to hinder its own accession as a true world power, while simultaneously depressing the standard of living for the average Chinese citizen. China has talked the talk, but will it walk the walk? Will China really remain tough on North Korea, or is it simply telling both sides what they want to hear?

China has openly defended tyrannical dictators, such as Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad, on grounds of “national sovereignty”. While this does not amount to a lack of transparency (as China along with Russia have openly vetoed UNSC intervention in the Syrian civil war), it does show that Chinese leaders allow themselves a certain amount of moral flexibility when deciding who to align themselves with.

China’s lack of transparency, and history of supporting questionable leaders (in the spirit of fairness, the U.S. has backed some questionable leaders in the past as well), casts doubt on whether China means what it says regarding North Korea. Chinese weaponry was recently found on board an Iranian ship; if China is supplying Iran weapons, then China is directly responsible for subverting UNSC sanctions against Iran. If this is the case, why should we believe that China will remain true to its word on sanctions against North Korea? (Not to mention that Iran has become a known supplier of arms to African and Middle-Eastern conflicts, meaning China could be playing a prominent if indirect role in regional instability in these volatile regions).

Perhaps China is for real in its condemnation and proposed sanctions against North Korea. Perhaps the idea of a nuclear power so close to China’s own borders has prompted China to take a tough stance against North Korea in order to protect regional stability as well as its own national security interests.

One thing is certain—the U.S. and the “Western world” need China to take a leading role in demilitarizing North Korea. China, as an ally to North Korea, has the means to influence Kim Jong-un’s decisions in a way that Western powers cannot.

China is at a bit of a crossroads itself. With new leaders coming into power, there is hope for greater transparency, economic reform, and a more responsible foreign policy that could help China gain legitimacy in the international community. China is not North Korea; its economic growth is much more dependent on international trade and therefore global security. China has signaled it will increase its military capabilities going forward; hopefully it will use its military and diplomatic position to promote global security along with its own interests.

The lack of transparency by The People’s Republic of China has made its words cheap—we must see through China’s actions that it is serious in its stance against a nuclear North Korea. China’s opponents will point to subversion of the Iranian sanctions as a reason that China cannot be trusted as a world power. Tension in North Korea provides China with an opportunity to change its image and position in the world.  How China performs in de-militarizing North Korea will go a long way in determining its role in the international community going forward.

In a recurring theme here at Normative Narratives, we will continue to discuss Chinese-American relations. Is China a friend or foe?–time will tell.

Enhanced by Zemanta


1 Comment

Monday Morning QB: The Joe Flacco Contract Edition

First and foremost, congratulations to The New Rochelle Huguenots basketball team on their section 1 class AA New York State championship win yesterday. In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 24 hours, the Huguenots won on a 60 foot shoot with 0.1 seconds left in the game by Khalil Edney (who is also led New Rochelle to a state title in football as the QB last November). After the initial inbounds pass was stolen by Mt. Vernon, Edney rushed into action, picking up the loose ball and chucking a beautiful arching 60 foot shot all in one motion. This highlight has been on ESPN and news outlets nationwide, and I would not be surprised if it ultimately wins a 2013 ESPY. (Edney is currently undeclared as far as college goes, it will be interesting to see how this recent success affects how heavily he is recruited).

Ray Rice was happy for Edney and the city of New Rochelle for continuing its championship ways, as evidenced by his tweet following the game: “CITY OF CHAMPIONS NEW RO STAND UP WE RULE WESTCHESTER #914”

Rice is also presumably happy that his Quarterback, Joe Flacco, just signed a record-setting 6 year $120.9 million contract. Rice’s foreseeable future is with the Ravens, having signed a 5 year $40 million contract last summer. Certainly neither man will ever have to worry about personal finances again.

But is Flacco’s deal, which is the largest in NFL history, the right move for the Ravens? Certainly after coming off a dominant playoff run, capped off by a Super Bowl victory, everyone knew Flacco was in for a huge pay day. But did the Ravens give him too much money? For comparison’s sake, here’s how Flacco’s deal compares to other big deals for star QBs:

Tom Brady: 5 years $33 million

Ben Roethlesberger: $11 million next season (base $2.6 million + bonuses)

Aaron Rodgers: $9.25 million next season

Drew Brees: 5 years $100 million (2013 salary, $9.75 million)

Matt Ryan: $10 million next season

Tony Romo: $11.5 million (plus another $5.3 million against the cap)

Phillip Rivers: $12 million next season

Eli Manning: “He will make $13 million in base salary and his salary cap hit, including signing bonus tops the league: $20.85 million”

Peyton Manning: $20 million base salary next season

Joe Flacco: 6 years $120.9 million, base salary next season unknown as details of the deal remain uncertain.

There are a number of things a team can do to soften the salary-cap blow of signing such a large deal. The team could provide a large signing bonus, or make the contract “front or back loaded” (and then restructure the deal if the team needs salary cap flexibility in the future, assuming the player is willing to play ball). As I am not an expert on NFL contracts and what does and doesn’t count against the salary cap, we’ll just assume for now that Flacco will allow the Raven’s to be flexible with his contracts salary cap impact.

The issue with such a large contract is amplified in a sport with a salary cap. No one will fault Joe Flacco for cashing in on this opportunity; he is a young star QB coming off a Super Bowl MVP performance, whose value will never be higher. The issue here is are the Ravens putting too many eggs in this basket—will they be able to afford to keep the talent around Flacco needed for the Ravens to continue to be perennial Super Bowl contenders?

The best way I can think to pose this question is as a hypothetical. Had Flacco not resigned with the Ravens, would you have wanted your team to sign him to this contract? Is the contract too large, or did Flacco play up to it? When you look at that list of QBs, Flacco is set to make a lot more than some guys who have had considerably more success in the NFL than he has. Flacco’s career Passer Rating of 86.3 is impressive, but only 10th best among active QBs. On the other hand, he does have the record for road playoff wins (6), and is only now entering the prime of his NFL career.

(The road playoff record is a fickle stat; if you’ve had Super Bowl success, it becomes a defining number for “road-warriors” such as Flacco (6-4) and Eli Manning (5-1). If on the other hand you’ve struggled and never won a SB, it will become a forgotten stat, as it has been for Mark Sanchez (4-2).)

In salary cap sports we sometimes see guys take less money so there is more available to sign other guys (think of the Miami Heat’s big 3 or Tom Brady’s recent contract extension). With Ray Lewis retiring, and Ed Reed possibly following him, the Raven’s will have big holes to fill in their defense, which has historically been their strong point. Will the Ravens be able to afford All-Pro caliber replacements on defense after giving the big bucks to their offensive play-makers (Rice and Flacco)?

At the end of the day, Joe Flacco worked hard and earned this record-setting contract. How he continues to mature into an elite QB going forward, and the flexibility he allows the Ravens in restructuring his contract down the road, will go a long way in determining his NFL legacy. The Raven’s did the right thing by signing Flacco to a big deal. It is now up to him to live up this contract not only on the field but off the field as well.

Enhanced by Zemanta