Sheldon Traded

[Bocajetfan]

3 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Funny Antonio Brown had a similar situation in a post game playoff win celebration, and got the highest WR contract ever.  The sooner you guys realize these KIDS all act like this the easier it will be to accept it when some of it gets leaked.

Do not know Browns off field history, but Richardsons one strike away from a major suspension. Couple that with continued lack of maturity and the perceived depth at the position he becomes expendable. Steelers have a strong lockeroom and head coach who as I recall had a strong inhouse response to the Brown video

[Spoot-Face]

3 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Right. If you ignore a decade's worth of sh*tty management (or if your sole grading criterion for every move is "lol the SOJFs were wrong"), the trade is fantastic. But trading a guy as talented as Richardson for this kind of return is a reflection of how fundamentally broken the team is. That's not all Maccagnan's fault, obviously, but the fact that we're doing it on the eve of his third season isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Yes, Sheldon is supremely talented, we all know that. But to saddle yourself to a player with the off-field and locker room issues that he has would also be fundamentally stupid. It's a shame, but I believe getting rid of him was the best solution, regardless of the cap and personnel issues. Sure, maybe a stronger coach could've controlled him better in the locker room, but would that have stopped him from going on his weed fueled quest at a 140 mph with his 12-year old sidekick? Some players are just gonna get into trouble no matter what (see: Josh Gordon) and some need a harsh change of scenery to turn it around (see: Austin Seferian-Jenkins). I'm in no way advocating for Mac to be given another year, but if he didn't draft Leo, than losing out on Sheldon's talent would be a lot more painful. And I'd be much more upset with Mac if he was the one who drafted Sheldon. There are plenty of reasons to hate and question Mac, and, yes, it feels 100% counter-intuitive to trade away such a young and talented player. But Mac didn't make Sheldon who he is. The Jets didn't make Sheldon who is he. And if you want to blame someone for putting us in this mess with Sheldon, then blame Idzik, the dude who drafted him, or, better yet, blame the colossal moron who's wasting his own talent.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

1 - agree someone on the staff writes the contracts, but Mac is responsible for the high level terms, and we all know the revis deal was written for woody to finally have a reason to go to Canton (another fail). I am just not sure anyone thought revis would quit like that, he was always a student of the game, hard worker but clearly took too much advice from his uncle last year, that was sad to see and a reason he is on the couch

2 - agree the competitive rebuild failed, but the 10 win season did feel good and it will be a while before we see another 10 win season

3 - agree signing Mo was a mistake, same with Fitz, Mac knew it, hence the long delay, but he should be held accountable for caving before last season

After two years he may not be better than Idzik so do you think we should have kept Idzik? or just keep rotating regimes every two years and purging the roster?  I don't like what happened either but I do not want to see a new regime come in and cut Lee and trade Leo for a second rounder since they do not fit the new scheme...  at some point we have to get through a rebuild

 

1. No, Davidson not only draws up the contracts but she's also responsible for negotiating the contracts. Why would Maccagnan do it? It's not like he had any experience. 

Next, people make this assertion regarding the re-signing of Revis and act like it's a known fact with audio evidence. The only move(s) I'm aware of where it was leaked that it was "all Woody" was cutting Decker and/or Harris this past June. Yeah I saw Woody's Revis-tampering presser in Jan '15, but that doesn't therefore mean he commanded his shiny new GM must re-sign Revis no matter how ridiculous the terms. It flies in the face of what Maccagnan has said about Woody.

2. Temporarily feeling good is not a basis for team-building. He pissed away 2 years of FA resources on veteran FAs for a team that was (at the time, no matter what revisionists want to believe) dead set on starting Geno Smith. Not that building around Ryan Fitzpatrick makes a GM any smarter, because it doesn't. And considering how many breaks had to go the team's way with the scheduling to finish with those 10 wins, the resulting failure was still a better-than-expected, best-case scenario.

3. If Maccagnan new that signing both Mo and Fitz were clear mistakes, and did it anyway, then he is indefensible as a GM. I don't believe he thought they were clear mistakes. What happened was he'd painted himself into a corner with his poor planning and negotiating.

Based on where the team was at in Jan, 2015, I think the team was right to clean house. Keeping Idzik at that point, to hire his own HC, would have been tantamount to giving him a 2-3 year extension (unless they wanted to repeat the failure of doing a GM search while forcefeeding the fired-guy's HC onto all candidates again).The problem was - and cointinues to be - the organizational setup that.

Nobody's cutting Lee, and nobody's trading Leo for a 2nd rounder. Lee is on a guaranteed contract. Leo is on his rookie contract and has a 5th year team option in 2019. Any GM would cut Mo and extend Leo before they kept Mo and traded Leo. Even if they were equal players, he's younger, hungrier, and is a better guy to have around in general.

[Sperm Edwards]

18 minutes ago, BCJet said:

Ok, so enlighten us, since Im an amateur.  Who are these young, up and coming players that we should have signed that would have all panned out?

Brandon Marshall wasn't a FA miss, he caught 100 balls for us in a 10 win season and while there is dead money, was there a single person on the board here, including yourself who foresaw revis mailing it in after a career of playing 100%, because I sure didnt see that coming.  Harris was a bag signing now too, because I'm pretty sure he had zero dead money this season.

Go take a look at all the FAs available who weren't past their prime, or entering the last year of their primes at best, and start choosing.

For you to harp on about Harris having no dead money, and cite that as a reason it wasn't a bad signing, shows there is too much I'd have to teach you about how the cap works. Go re-read some old threads; it's been gone over to death.

I had no problem with the Marshall pickup. That's one of his limited successes, it required Chicago dumping him specifically onto the Jets to serve their own draft interests, and even that ended badly after 1 season.

[Sperm Edwards]

29 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Funny Antonio Brown had a similar situation in a post game playoff win celebration, and got the highest WR contract ever.  The sooner you guys realize these KIDS all act like this the easier it will be to accept it when some of it gets leaked.

The real success with Brown's veteran contracts is the extension he got while he was still on his rookie deal. Had the Steelers waited until his rookie contract was over, it would have cost them a ****load more than the $8m/year he got. It's one of the best and best-planned contracts any team had done in the past decade (in the team's favor, not the player's). 

Brown isn't a troublemaker. I don't care if he goes a little overboard with a win celebration. Agree they all do it, but the spotlight's more on him because he's a special player.

[BCJet]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Go take a look at all the FAs available who weren't past their prime, or entering the last year of their primes at best, and start choosing.

For you to harp on about Harris having no dead money, and cite that as a reason it wasn't a bad signing, shows there is too much I'd have to teach you about how the cap works. Go re-read some old threads; it's been gone over to death.

I had no problem with the Marshall pickup. That's one of his limited successes, it required Chicago dumping him specifically onto the Jets to serve their own draft interests, and even that ended badly after 1 season.

I dont need a lesson on the cap. Nor am I going to go back and look at an old list and use 20-20 hindsight to evaluate moves, because that is what you are doing and what a typical fan does.

You dont like Mac, or but the marshall signing was ok, yea thats called using hindsight.  We traded a draft pick for a veteran WR - isn't that going against what you are saying Mac should be doing.  What if Revis didnt decide that he didnt want play hard anymore, would it still be a bad signing if he was our starting CB this year?

Mac filled a roster in 2015 with veterans that contributed to a 10 win season, while at the same time giving the organization an out to rebuild this season.  

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, BCJet said:

I dont need a lesson on the cap. Nor am I going to go back and look at an old list and use 20-20 hindsight to evaluate moves, because that is what you are doing and what a typical fan does.

You dont like Mac, or but the marshall signing was ok, yea thats called using hindsight.  We traded a draft pick for a veteran WR - isn't that going against what you are saying Mac should be doing.  What if Revis didnt decide that he didnt want play hard anymore, would it still be a bad signing if he was our starting CB this year?

Mac filled a roster in 2015 with veterans that contributed to a 10 win season, while at the same time giving the organization an out to rebuild this season.  

No, you're wrong again. I said at the time I liked it. 

You really like to presume you know what I think now or what I thought back then, make up nonsense about it, then argue against it. It's weak.

What if Revis... lol. Hey, what if this player who was a bad signing had instead played awesome every year? Yeah, sure. If Revis was playing great every year then it would have been a great signing. Except it didn't happen. This falls under the "if the queen had balls..." line of thinking.

[dbatesman]

43 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Yes, Sheldon is supremely talented, we all know that. But to saddle yourself to a player with the off-field and locker room issues that he has would also be fundamentally stupid. It's a shame, but I believe getting rid of him was the best solution, regardless of the cap and personnel issues. Sure, maybe a stronger coach could've controlled him better in the locker room, but would that have stopped him from going on his weed fueled quest at a 140 mph with his 12-year old sidekick? Some players are just gonna get into trouble no matter what (see: Josh Gordon) and some need a harsh change of scenery to turn it around (see: Austin Seferian-Jenkins). I'm in no way advocating for Mac to be given another year, but if he didn't draft Leo, than losing out on Sheldon's talent would be a lot more painful. And I'd be much more upset with Mac if he was the one who drafted Sheldon. There are plenty of reasons to hate and question Mac, and, yes, it feels 100% counter-intuitive to trade away such a young and talented player. But Mac didn't make Sheldon who he is. The Jets didn't make Sheldon who is he. And if you want to blame someone for putting us in this mess with Sheldon, then blame Idzik, the dude who drafted him, or, better yet, blame the colossal moron who's wasting his own talent.

I don't disagree with any of this. Richardson is a dickhead and getting rid of him was absolutely the best solution. My point is that it's the best solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

[Spoot-Face]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

I don't disagree with any of this. Richardson is a dickhead and getting rid of him was absolutely the best solution. My point is that it's the best solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Yes, and my point is that it's not a problem that can be pinned on anyone from this organization, aside from Sheldon himself. I see a few people using this scenario as just more proof that Mac and this organization sucks. There are plenty of other valid reasons to hate and distrust this regime. This ain't one of 'em.

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, Spoot-Face said:

Yes, and my point is that it's not a problem that can be pinned on anyone from this organization, aside from Sheldon himself. I see a few people using this scenario as just more proof that Mac and this organization sucks. There are plenty of other valid reasons to hate and distrust this regime. This ain't one of 'em.

Of course it is. We're going into year three and we're so bad that people are doing backflips because we just traded one of three good players on the roster for a #3 wideout and a pick in the low 60s. 

[bealeb319]

Of course it is. We're going into year three and we're so bad that people are doing backflips because we just traded one of three good players on the roster for a #3 wideout and a pick in the low 60s. 

A guy who we were not looking to resign next season anyway. You think we are playoff bound this season with Sheldon on the roster? We got good value for a guy who wasn't part of our future stupid to be upset about this move.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

[Saul Goodman]

I just wonder how we will replace Sheldon's 1.5 sacks from last year. Someone has to step up

[Spoot-Face]

20 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Of course it is. We're going into year three and we're so bad that people are doing backflips because we just traded one of three good players on the roster for a #3 wideout and a pick in the low 60s. 

Agree to disagree then.

FTR, I'm not one of those people who thinks this trade was an "A+++++ wow Mac is a genius". But I give it a B for Mac cleaning up (better than I thought he would) one of the few messes that isn't his.

[dbatesman]

22 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Agree to disagree then.

FTR, I'm not one of those people who thinks this trade was an "A+++++ wow Mac is a genius". But I give it a B for Mac cleaning up (better than I thought he would) one of the few messes that isn't his.

No disagreement there. But I'm seeing a lot of plaudits for the trade without a lot of consideration given to how bad a team has to be in the first place for something like this to be seen as smart. The trade itself is fine. Viewed in the context of the last five or six years, it's mostly just depressing.

[T0mShane]

30 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Agree to disagree then.

FTR, I'm not one of those people who thinks this trade was an "A+++++ wow Mac is a genius". But I give it a B for Mac cleaning up (better than I thought he would) one of the few messes that isn't his.

This is you watching Old Yeller:

 

"Ma! Ma! Get in here! This is fantastic. Travis is about to make the big call here, really seal the deal. Gotta love Trav <BLAM> YESSSSSS TRAVISSSSSSS!!! That's how you do it."

[The Crusher]

9 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

No disagreement there. But I'm seeing a lot of plaudits for the trade without a lot of consideration given to how bad a team has to be in the first place for something like this to be seen as smart. The trade itself is fine. Viewed in the context of the last five or six years, it's mostly just depressing.

its like clapping at your kids GED ceremony. Yay now he high got a high school diploma. Doesn't stop you from wondering if he is really yours. 

[Spoot-Face]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

No disagreement there. But I'm seeing a lot of plaudits for the trade without a lot of consideration given to how bad a team has to be in the first place for something like this to be seen as smart. The trade itself is fine. Viewed in the context of the last five or six years, it's mostly just depressing.

With that, I agree. It feels like it's been years of us tripping over our own clumsy feet and falling dick first into that really sharp corner of that stupid table that shouldn't even be there. And now Sheldon just punched us in that same dick, and all Mac did was kiss it to make it feel better.

Still, this is one of those scenarios that can happen to any team. It didn't happen to us because "we are the Jets", even thought it may feel like that. The Pats had it even worse with Hernandez, especially when you consider that there were apparently signs that they ignored when they drafted him. Doesn't make them a terrible franchise. Just an evil one.

[Spoot-Face]

4 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

This is you watching Old Yeller:

 

"Ma! Ma! Get in here! This is fantastic. Travis is about to make the big call here, really seal the deal. Gotta love Trav <BLAM> YESSSSSS TRAVISSSSSSS!!! That's how you do it."

If, in this scenario Sheldon is Old Yeller with rabies, then yes, shooting him was absolutely the only call to make. That's a very astute comparison, Tom. Sheldon essentially had rabies and was most likely gonna bite someone soon. He needed to be gone. And it took a real jackass to pull the trigger.

 

And, FYI, I call her "mother". Turd.

[Doggin94it]

On 9/1/2017 at 3:37 PM, whodeawhodat said:

dead money this year or next?

That's backwards.  The Jets have all savings as a result of this deal, no dead money at all.

[BCJet]

4 hours ago, dbatesman said:

No disagreement there. But I'm seeing a lot of plaudits for the trade without a lot of consideration given to how bad a team has to be in the first place for something like this to be seen as smart. The trade itself is fine. Viewed in the context of the last five or six years, it's mostly just depressing.

So Buffalo trades a second round LB, who is under contract for 3 more seasons on a rookie deal for a 4th round pick, and we trade a player who we couldn't resign, had one year left until he was a FA and makes $8 Million and it 'wasn't that great of a deal by Mac"

It was a good move by our GM, whether you like him or not. 

[RutgersJetFan]

2 minutes ago, BCJet said:

So Buffalo trades a second round LB, who is under contract for 3 more seasons on a rookie deal for a 4th round pick, and we trade a player who we couldn't resign, had one year left until he was a FA and makes $8 Million and it 'wasn't that great of a deal by Mac"

It was a good move by our GM, whether you like him or not. 

4 hours ago, dbatesman said:

The trade itself is fine. Viewed in the context of the last five or six years, it's mostly just depressing.

[dbatesman]

40 minutes ago, BCJet said:

'wasn't that great of a deal by Mac"

My favorite part was when you put this in quotes, as if it's something I said and not something you just made up

[Sperm Edwards]

55 minutes ago, BCJet said:

So Buffalo trades a second round LB, who is under contract for 3 more seasons on a rookie deal for a 4th round pick, and we trade a player who we couldn't resign, had one year left until he was a FA and makes $8 Million and it 'wasn't that great of a deal by Mac"

It was a good move by our GM, whether you like him or not. 

I'm not against this trade, but where do you get the idea from that we couldn't re-sign him?

The team with the best chance of re-signing a player is the one that owns his rights prior to hitting FA. There's been no reports leaked of the team unsuccessfully trying to bang out a deal with him beforehand.

Personally I think there's a pretty good probability we would have extended him if he was not traded by the deadline, so we wouldn't end up with literally nothing (not even a high compensatory pick), other than paying a hothead a non-guaranteed $8m in a tank season. This would be based upon Sheldon having a good season in '17 even if he stayed here, and the added possibility of Mo not having anywhere near the probowl-level bounceback year he's more or less promised he'll have in '17.

[Pac]

18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not against this trade, but where do you get the idea from that we couldn't re-sign him?

The team with the best chance of re-signing a player is the one that owns his rights prior to hitting FA. There's been no reports leaked of the team unsuccessfully trying to bang out a deal with him beforehand.

Personally I think there's a pretty good probability we would have extended him if he was not traded by the deadline, so we wouldn't end up with literally nothing (not even a high compensatory pick), other than paying a hothead a non-guaranteed $8m in a tank season. This would be based upon Sheldon having a good season in '17 even if he stayed here, and the added possibility of Mo not having anywhere near the probowl-level bounceback year he's more or less promised he'll have in '17.

^^ fake news

They couldn't wait to get rid of this clown.  Watch how absurd Sheldon financial demands will be next off season.  let some other suckers pay it.

I want no part of Haynesworth Part Deux.

[EM31]

Sheldon is going into his contract year after which he expects to get paid.  I think he would have had a monster season no matter who he suited up for.  Good trade for both teams although Seattle's 2nd rounder is likely to be close to #60 overall.

[fusionCA]

1 minute ago, EM31 said:

Sheldon is going into his contract year after which he expects to get paid.  I think he would have had a monster season no matter who he suited up for.  Good trade for both teams although Seattle's 2nd rounder is likely to be close to #60 overall.

so? its one more high pick we have instead of a player we wont have 

[Sperm Edwards]

24 minutes ago, Pac said:

^^ fake news

They couldn't wait to get rid of this clown.  Watch how absurd Sheldon financial demands will be next off season.  let some other suckers pay it.

I want no part of Haynesworth Part Deux.

Well it isn't fake "news" unless I'm suggesting a falsehood is news or am claiming false things as fact. I'm supposing what they might do if this season's events unfolded in a certain, realistic way.

This is you putting your opinion ("I want no part of") on what the team would do or what the team feels. I'm quite sure this FO has already valued players you think they should have wanted no part of, so what you or I or any fan might want, or want no part of, is of no consequence.

It's hardly far-fetched to imagine them keeping him this season, and then watch him tear it up in a contract year while Mo either got injured again or was just-ok despite perfect health. In that situation, if you believe he'd still have a 0% chance of being extended by the Jets, you're kidding yourself. 

The only "fake news" is you claiming as fact that they absolutely wanted no part of Sheldon. If that was actually true they'd have locked up Mo earlier than last July instead of trying desperately to trade him during both the 2015 and 2016 offseasons (including the several weeks before drafting Leo or knowing he'd even be available). 

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is you putting your opinion ("I want no part of") on what the team would do or what the team feels.

No way, Pac would never do this

[Pac]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well it isn't fake "news" unless I'm suggesting a falsehood is news or am claiming false things as fact. I'm supposing what they might do if this season's events unfolded in a certain, realistic way.

This is you putting your opinion ("I want no part of") on what the team would do or what the team feels. I'm quite sure this FO has already valued players you think they should have wanted no part of, so what you or I or any fan might want, or want no part of, is of no consequence.

It's hardly far-fetched to imagine them keeping him this season, and then watch him tear it up in a contract year while Mo either got injured again or was just-ok despite perfect health. In that situation, if you believe he'd still have a 0% chance of being extended by the Jets, you're kidding yourself. 

The only "fake news" is you claiming as fact that they absolutely wanted no part of Sheldon. If that was actually true they'd have locked up Mo earlier than last July instead of trying desperately to trade him during both the 2015 and 2016 offseasons (including the several weeks before drafting Leo or knowing he'd even be available). 

I'm referring to their mindset today..  not in 2015 or 2016.  They clearly have wanted to part ways with Sheldon since the trade deadline last year unless you think all the rumors have been, pardon the expression,  fake news.

We can each play the what if game but ultimately I think I win considering he's no longer on the team.

 

[Pac]

7 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

No way, Pac would never do this

I'm known for my objectivity and kindness.

[Sperm Edwards]

30 minutes ago, Pac said:

I'm referring to their mindset today..  not in 2015 or 2016.  They clearly have wanted to part ways with Sheldon since the trade deadline last year unless you think all the rumors have been, pardon the expression,  fake news.

We can each play the what if game but ultimately I think I win considering he's no longer on the team.

 

It is clear you don't know what the term "fake news" means. My supposing an opinion, based on a possible future situation that could have realistically occured, is neither news nor is it purported to be news (real or otherwise). 

My very point is that, despite what they once wanted to do with Mo (i.e. "they clearly have wanted to part ways with" to use your words), sometimes later events influence a FO into a different direction than they desired. It happened with Mo, and it could have happened with Sheldon.

Your calling this "fake news" to (unsuccessfully) score a point is not only ridiculous, but I'm sorry to say it advertises your ignorance of not knowing what the term means.

[Pac]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It is clear you don't know what the term "fake news" means. My supposing an opinion, based on a possible future situation that could have realistically occured, is neither news nor is it purported to be news (real or otherwise). 

My very point is that, despite what they once wanted to do with Mo (i.e. "they clearly have wanted to part ways with" to use your words), sometimes later events influence a FO into a different direction than they desired. It happened with Mo, and it could have happened with Sheldon.

Your calling this "fake news" to (unsuccessfully) score a point is not only ridiculous, but I'm sorry to say it advertises your ignorance of not knowing what the term means.

^^

more fake news.

[EM31]

1 hour ago, fusionCA said:

so? its one more high pick we have instead of a player we wont have 

I assume we will be paying Williams and we have already paid Mo.  You simply cannot concentrate that much of your cap in one place.  I hope to have an O-Line and some WRs worth paying some day too.

[Sperm Edwards]

14 minutes ago, EM31 said:

I assume we will be paying Williams and we have already paid Mo.  You simply cannot concentrate that much of your cap in one place.  I hope to have an O-Line and some WRs worth paying some day too.

Well not without any of them being actual edge rushers, which is still a need even with all 3 of them on the roster.

And it's not just the cap (though you are totally correct there as well). It's that they never should have used 1st round picks on 4 of them over a 5 year span in the first place. Even with 3 of the 4 panning out as above-average NFL starters, it's still piss-poor allocation of limited resources.

You draft one such player -- maybe two. Half the benefit of taking a really good one in round 1 is to not have to burn still more 1st rounders on the same position later. But we did just that -- three more times.

It's not enough for any of them to pan out as pros to consider it a good pick for the team, and is the critical flaw with this "truly best available player regardless of position" strategy. Even if it leads to drating a better player, it's not necessarily the best player for the team unless a prospect checks off all 3 boxes for BAP + team need + positional value. Just like Oakland wouldn't touch a 1st round QB in 2018 no matter how off the charts the prospect's "BAP" value may be.

[BCJet]

9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not against this trade, but where do you get the idea from that we couldn't re-sign him?

The team with the best chance of re-signing a player is the one that owns his rights prior to hitting FA. There's been no reports leaked of the team unsuccessfully trying to bang out a deal with him beforehand.

Personally I think there's a pretty good probability we would have extended him if he was not traded by the deadline, so we wouldn't end up with literally nothing (not even a high compensatory pick), other than paying a hothead a non-guaranteed $8m in a tank season. This would be based upon Sheldon having a good season in '17 even if he stayed here, and the added possibility of Mo not having anywhere near the probowl-level bounceback year he's more or less promised he'll have in '17.

I dont think it would have been wise to invest a long term contract in another 3-4 Lineman, which is why I said we couldn't/wouldnt resign him.  

I also think that Mac does actually have a plan which is to consistently try to bring in high character guys, and sheldon clearly isn't a fit with that plan. Is that the right strategy, I dont know, because it likely influenced the decision to pass on a player like Dalvin Cook, but that is why I never saw SR as a fit here after 2017.