salary cap for Jets not so dire

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Look I think most people realize Rusty was incorrect that the Jets can't get 20-30 million in cap space, but the real question is whether they would want to actually do those kinds of moves. Do they really want to guarantee more of Sanchez and Holmes' money and potentially move Revis?  I would think the answer to that question is no, but who knows.  The real point remains that even after all of these moves they still only currently have 7 million in cap space to sign draft picks, replace the guys they cut and sign their double digit FA's (of which like 8+ were starters last season).  Considering they were 6-10 last year replacing any of those guys with lower cost options does not make their outlook for next season look particularly good.  Anyone who wishes the Pats managed their cap like the Jets have no idea what they are talking about imo.

    The troll keeps parroting about how they brought in lots of new players with Rex, but he forgets that they aren't in a position to hand out contracts like the one they gave to Bart Scott this time around.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     



    Not nearly the same difference. The Pats have the space to determine if they want to resign those players back or if they want to use those resources on other players. As such they have more leverage to better utelize those resources but in either case they have that choice and didn't need to subtract from that roster in order to do so. Anything they do past that point is a positive position.

    In the Jets situation they needed to cut those plays in order to create resources which they did not have. Now to create those resources they had to subtract from the current roster so they are already in a negative position to begin with. Since they had negative resources to begin with creating resources while at the expense of the roster means they need to fill those negative slots with players while under limited constants for those resources. They don't have the option to replace some of those players with similar quality players they need to take what they can find. This puts them in a position of weakness when it comes to signing players, and trust me agents know this all to well.

    So while it may appear that they might be similar it's a difference in that the Pats are coming from a position of strength with resources already available only looking to add to the current roster while the Jets are coming from a position of weakness having to create resources at the expense of their current roster. This makes a rather large difference when negotiating with agents and how you have to approach FA

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     

     



    No it is not the same difference.

     

    The Pats players they liked were able to play out  their contract at a "vlaue" the organization placed on them for their position. Whether or not they can reach a new deal with a player they wish to continue to keep at a "value" that still fits what they feel that player has to them is in question.

    The jets "cutting" a player means they had to cut a player they originally felt was of the value they signed them for as well as possibly still wanting to keep but had to make hard decisions because of salary cap reasons.

    Those are very different things.

     




    Well, that's something that is completely different,  besides Talib would not fall into that catagory being a half year rental that cost a pick.

     

    I'm talking about the $$$ it would take to re-sign or replace a lot of 1st and 2nd tier players.

    As it stands right now, the Pats don't have the $$$ to resign Talib, Welker and Vollmer, nevermind the Woody's and Edelmans and Ghost's in addition to that..

    They are going to have to let some, if not most of these guys go and replace them because they do not have the $$$ to resign all of them.

    That's no difference, except we are talking about not re-signing some as apposed to cutting them to have enough cap to re-sign some and replace others.

    If the Pats need to clear up and addition 10M to resign the ones they want to keep, they really have no choice but let others go, unless they can do it by restructuring.

    18M is not enough to replace 3 top tier guys and re-sign and, or replace  15 others.

    The jest got rid of some dead weight to produce cap.  Who do the Pats get rid of with significant savings, knowing they will also have to be replaced?

    Also, don't forget dead money.  The Pats are still paying for such" value" players as Ocho and several other "value" players that were cut.

     



    Well first I want to clear up something as I thought it might get confused.

     

    My "value" comment was not meant to suggest they got a discount signing in that sense of the word. My meaning is they set a value for a player/position. That is the "value" whether it turned out to be a value compared to how the player actually played was not my point.

    That is their fiscal philospohy, and it is sound.

    You are continuing to change from that premise however.

    Just focus on one player as to my point.

    Welker. They most likely want him but they have a figure(value) in mind to what he respresents at this point in time of his career as well as his projected role moving forwards in the next seasons perceived offensive vision.

    If Welkers $ demands do not fit that then he won't be here. I would say 90+% of the time the Ptriots to not clear space for others because they want to over reach or because they over reached in the past. (That admittdly is just finger in the air and I have no examples)

    In simplest terms I would argue that the amount they have available more than covers their perceived needs for the roles open to be filled using the "values" they have assigned to the positions.

    As far as Tlib, the rental, pick, etc. That is a whole other discussion.

    Now perhaps I misunderstood your original post but it seemd you were trying to say deciding whether to sign UFA's was the same as having to "cut" players still under contract.

    I still say they are very different.

    I understand the Pats place a value on players and normally stick to it.

    But, what I am saying is, whether they are not re-signed or cut, it still boils down to $$$$$ or the lack of it.  We are talking about some top players here and you have to evaluate value due to the market or in at least the same ball park.  Would Welker or Talib or Vol take 1 million less a year than Jax or a dog team would pay?  Probably.  But would they take 3 mill less?  IDK, but I doubt it.

    Do you really think it's possible to re-sign who the Pats would prefer to keep with the existing money available?   I don't.   The tag on just one is ~9-11 M, one just one player, depending on who.  I can't see them tagging any and spending more than half their available cap.  Even if you re-signed each at 4m (very low), it's still an issue because you have many more to either re-sign or replace.

    Then when you talk about replacing them, unless it's in the draft, you are still going to have to shell out some $$ to get someone decent.  Understand, there are teams willing to pay good money for productive FA's.  The Pats have a tendency to go after players that no one else wants to pay and I understand that from a financial stand point, but they ultimately turn out to be is a one year, multimillion dollar band-aids.  Look at all the value FA's they picked up in the past year or two.  How many are going to be here in 2013?

    Understand they can do it with signing bonus and back loaded contracts with the biggest cap hits being down the line when the cap increases but you can't have too many of those either as you will also have players to re-sign then too

      Does that leave money for those years?  IDK

    I'm not really too worried about it as I know BB has a plan and never thinks in the short term.  I'm sure he already had a plan when he knew TB was going to cost 21MM this year.

    None of us know the plans and I hope I am wrong but I just don't see how it is done without losing some valuable guys because presently, the cap space is  just not there.

    Didn't they have a lot more cap last year after they restructured TB?  They paid Welker and extended Gronk and Hern, and a bunch of jags.  That's about it.

    It's going to be more challanging, this year.  Don't you think so?

    I'm not dissing you at all.  I think you know your stuff. 

    I am curious to see how you would do it, though, cuz I'm just not seeing it done without a lot of bloodshed.   They don't have a lot of those high $$$ throw aways, like the jest did.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    I have to think we would of won at least one more if we had taken that approach with Brady.

     



    You should know better.  In 2007 we brought in Moss, Welker and Stallworth and gave out a huge contract to Adalius Thomas and we didn't win a SB.  Nothing is guaranteed in the NFL.

     




    Nothing is guaranteed, correct. The year 07...I would say we went all in that year...did it destroy us going forward as a team? That may of been one of the most enjoyable seasons I've seen without us winning it all...and let's face it, it took a miracle catch for us to lose that game. I'll take my chances with us going all in again with belichick and Brady still here.

    I will never forget how aggresive we were in free agency that year...right off the bat..boom! We go out and get Thomas, then we sign Welker, then Stallworth, then Moss over draft weekend. It was like living in football heaven as a fan. All those players helped that year...all of them.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Does anyone here in Patriot nation really give a rats @ss about the Jests woes? 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    rkarp - yes the Jets cap wasn't as bad as it looked but you still have to look at it realistically. They cut enough players to get just enough cap for their draft. In doing so they cut 2 players that were starters last year (Pace, Scott) with maybe 1 player who might or might no be able to fill their role on the roster. They will need to replace both but can't unless through the draft because they don't have the cap right now. Then they cut a T when they were already very thin at T to begin with. It was a wise move but that's another area they won't be able to address unless through the draft or if other players get cut. They already have 12 FA's with 8 being starters so when you add it all together they lost 17 players with 10 being starters and only maybe half of those starting positions can be replaced with players currently on the roster and barely enough money to cover their draft picks, because they pick so high.

    Yes they can clear out even more space, Tebow would be the obvious (1mil), but they don't have a ton of players they can move to make a lot of space. Revis being the obvious trade (9mil) and Pouha being the cut (3.8mil). But, other then Tebow the others are already starters and what you save won't be able to replace what you cut. They could covert Sanchez's and Holmes money into guaranteed money to spread it out a little but then they'd run the risk of being in the same position next year without the ability to cut either. So, trading Revis seems like the best way to get space. Now other teams know you basically have to dump Revis so you are going to get dimes on the dollar in a trade and you will have freed up enough space to replace the FA's you could potentially lose.

    Anyway you slice it because of their cap situation they will lose starting caliber players and have to replace them with sub starter quality. Yes they are going to be able to fill out a roster but since they have gone on their initial spending spree a couple years back their team has been trending downward because of the cap mismanagement. They had to replace talent and depth with mediocre players at best and that will have to continue into this year as they will become a less talented team, yet again, because they don't have the resources to find proper replacements for those they needed to cut for cap space

    [/QUO

    Exactly, the 6-10 Jets are under the cap and a little weaker than last year.

    Dire may be the perfect word

     
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Yes, the Jests will have enough money to overpay some more low life clowns and look stupid on the field again.  

     

    WHO CARES?  It's the Jests.  I don't like, care about, follow, or bother with them.  If you do, why don't you go to theganggreen.com and leave this crap out of BDC

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Only an absolute idiot would think the Jets are not in cap trouble......

     

    The Jets are currently $5.7 million under the salary cap with only ten starters under contract for 2013.

    They have fired GM Mike Tannenbaum to thank. Despite the past week's releases, the Jets are mired in one of the league's worst salary cap situations while sitting on arguably the NFL's most talent-deficient roster. More cap cuts and restructures are likely forthcoming, but Mark Sanchez isn't going anywhere.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Unless teams have guaranteed all their contracts, you can always cut players to get under the cap. But ... you then have big holes in your roster.

    The Jets have gotten below the cap as expected and they will create a little more room with more cuts and restructures. But they now have only 10 starters from last year under contract, and nobody is saying they had a really strong bench last year - heck, if the bench was strong they would have replaced a bunch of starters for poor performance. So they are looking for 12 new starters, and  upgrades to a number of those ten starters they still have with limited cap space. And because they were previously paying such big money to the players they have cut, the money they had for the rest of the roster meant they were paying a lot of minimum contracts for bodies.

    And comparing to the GB situation - GB was a well run organization with stability and a balanced roster. And they were replacing Farve who was no longer very good with a very affordable and very good Aaron Rogers. I hope no one is going to compare the Jets QB situation to the GB transition QB situation!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Just curious?

    What's the difference between the jest having to cut a number of players to get under the cap and the Pats situation.  There is a good chance none of the Pats high dollar free agents will not be cut, but not re-signed because of limited cap space. Same difference?

    Those players will ALSO have to be replaced if not re-signed, with a cheaper and probably not as good option.

    That money does not even come off the books as they are FA's.  They will have to spend $$.

    The Pats may have to replace or restructure some key players, too, as 18m to replace ~20 guys, with several of them being starters, is not great.

    So, who do the Pats trade or cut, in addition to losing some key FA's? 

    1, 10M guy or 3, 3m guys to create more cap?

    Who do they restructure to put the cap hit in 2014 or beyond?

    Something has to happen.  Right?

     

     



    No it is not the same difference.

     

    The Pats players they liked were able to play out  their contract at a "vlaue" the organization placed on them for their position. Whether or not they can reach a new deal with a player they wish to continue to keep at a "value" that still fits what they feel that player has to them is in question.

    The jets "cutting" a player means they had to cut a player they originally felt was of the value they signed them for as well as possibly still wanting to keep but had to make hard decisions because of salary cap reasons.

    Those are very different things.

     




    Well, that's something that is completely different,  besides Talib would not fall into that catagory being a half year rental that cost a pick.

     

    I'm talking about the $$$ it would take to re-sign or replace a lot of 1st and 2nd tier players.

    As it stands right now, the Pats don't have the $$$ to resign Talib, Welker and Vollmer, nevermind the Woody's and Edelmans and Ghost's in addition to that..

    They are going to have to let some, if not most of these guys go and replace them because they do not have the $$$ to resign all of them.

    That's no difference, except we are talking about not re-signing some as apposed to cutting them to have enough cap to re-sign some and replace others.

    If the Pats need to clear up and addition 10M to resign the ones they want to keep, they really have no choice but let others go, unless they can do it by restructuring.

    18M is not enough to replace 3 top tier guys and re-sign and, or replace  15 others.

    The jest got rid of some dead weight to produce cap.  Who do the Pats get rid of with significant savings, knowing they will also have to be replaced?

    Also, don't forget dead money.  The Pats are still paying for such" value" players as Ocho and several other "value" players that were cut.

    The truth is, both teams are going to have to let players go due to $$$$.

    What would you rather do, lose players you want to keep or dump some dead weight?

    I'd prefer not to lose the valuable, harder to replace, FA's, but that's just me.



    pezz, Belichick said pretty much the same thing in a press conference about a month ago when asked about the Pats' cap position.  Basically he said cap space is a meaningless number until you take into account how many players a team has signed. A lot of cap space with no one signed might be worse than a little cap space with everyone signed.  You also need to take into account cuts and restructuring of contracts that are likely to occur and the talent level and roles of the signed players before you can really tell how one team stacks up against another. The cap space number by itself isn't really that informative.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: salary cap for Jets not so dire

    Wow this is an old thread, was this supposed to embarrass someone?

     
Sections
Shortcuts