The Baltimore Ravens and star quarterback Lamar Jackson are locked in an intense contract negotiation, and neither side seems read to flinch.
But if the Ravens continue to play hardball with Jackson, a four-time Pro bowler, three-time All-Pro, and two-time MVP, it could cost them.
According to NFL insider Jason La Canfora, who spoke to several agents regarding Jackson’s contract status, the 29-year-old QB requested a trade three years ago to get the Ravens to meet his contract demands, and there’s a chance it could happen again.
“A trade demand would absolutely be on the table if I was advising Lamar,” an anonymous NFL agent told La Canfora. “I’m not coming in with it, but I’m coming in with a very firm hand and I’m not putting up with any of their bullshit. And if it’s not done before training camp, we’re done talking.
“It’s pretty simple – and Lamar did a great job with this before, although the right agent could have earned that 1.5% (commission) and got it done sooner. You are giving us a significant increase on the (Dak) Prescott deal. That’s not even a discussion. We are asking for 100% guarantees, again, and not wavering … And, yes, we are absolutely willing to play that trade demand card.”
Given he’ll be 30 at the end of next season, Jackson likely has one more big $250-plus million contract left in him, so few can blame him for wanting to cash in as soon as he can.
Jackson has two more years left on his five-year, $260 million contract, but he does have an out after next season, which gives him a little bit of power, according to another agent.
“Their owner said he wanted a new deal done before free agency, right, and instead they did the max conversion. The way I read that, that puts tremendous heat on Eric and (team president) Sashi (Brown),” the second agent said.
“Kicking the can only gives Lamar more power … Lamar has them by the balls. If he doesn’t get what he wants now, he almost has to get it by March (given the $90M cap hit), or they will have to trade him. That’s where this is heading. It’s one of those two outcomes.”
