IBleedGangGreen12 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Just reported on NFLN. Didn't hear the $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Just announced on NFLN , LB Jonathon Vilma has RESIGNED with New Orleans. I was so F'ing pissed I never listened to the terms. Jets = Take it up the butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Sucks they did it after the point where the JETS would get a better pick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Just reported on NFLN. Didn't hear the $$$ I was so pissed I missed it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 well you know they had a wink wink deal on this... now if the jets could ever prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 well you know they had a wink wink deal on this... now if the jets could ever prove it. to me it is a joke and jets should get the 2nd rd pick a shamwow shammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetfan718 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 so do we get any draft pick compensation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetkid94 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 so do we get any draft pick compensation? only a third. the deal was if vilma re-signs before FA we would get there second. if not we would automatically get there third. They probably had this planned with vilma before free agency to save there second rounder.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetfan718 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 5 years $34 million!!!...with $17 million guaranteed & $23 million in the first 3 years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Nice job Mike T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 5 years $34 million!!!...with $17 million guaranteed & $23 million in the first 3 years!!! so Scott got 1 more year, and averaged 1.2M more per year. Scott also got 4M more guaranteed, and 4M more over the 1st 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Nice job Mike T It was the top offer we received. No one wanted him all that badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Nice job Mike T Explain how it was a bad job? He got great compensation for him... considering what we traded to get Jenkins a MUCH better player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 5 years $34 million!!!...with $17 million guaranteed & $23 million in the first 3 years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I think it's fair to say a GM will never again leave a trigger clause in the hands of the other team for conditional picks tanny got schooled oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I think it's fair to say a GM will never again leave a trigger clause in the hands of the other team for conditional picks tanny got schooled oh well Not really.... the Saints had to pay more for him by waiting because he could have easily taken offers from other teams... the clause worked as it was supposed to... the Saints took the risk of another team scooping him up by waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Not really.... the Saints had to pay more for him by waiting because he could have easily taken offers from other teams... the clause worked as it was supposed to... the Saints took the risk of another team scooping him up by waiting... Plus there's a good chance we would have ended up with that 2nd if NO hadn't made that trade for Shockey. That's why they took the chance; otherwise they'd lose a first & a second instead of a 2nd & a 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 It was the top offer we received. No one wanted him all that badly. The deal should have been Vilma resigning, not just extending. Most saw this coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The deal should have been Vilma resigning, not just extending. Most saw this coming. You make it sound like we got absolutely nothing though. Or that there was a line of teams offering just that, and we turned that down in favor of this crappy alternative. Vilma was injured & there were a lot of teams spooked about his knee condition (which he has with or without football). Oh yeah, and he's soft. NO just signed him to an idiotic contract. They're welcome to him. I'll take the 4th last year and the upgrade from the 4th to 3rd this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The deal should have been Vilma resigning, not just extending. Most saw this coming. They would nto have taken that... you dont think he tried? The Saints took a risk by going this route and most likely paid more going this way as well... Try and look at it from both sides and it makes perfect sense.. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Not really.... the Saints had to pay more for him by waiting because he could have easily taken offers from other teams... the clause worked as it was supposed to... the Saints took the risk of another team scooping him up by waiting... but they held all the cards all along. I'm not pissed or anything, just think you won't see these types of conditions on a trade ever again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 but they held all the cards all along. I'm not pissed or anything, just think you won't see these types of conditions on a trade ever again Your not thinking clearly about it... If the JETS could have done better, they would have... so they added in this clause as a long shot that the Saints would not be willing to risk losing Vilma... Your acting as if the JETS were banking on it going to a 2nd rounder when it was the complete opposite.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 but they held all the cards all along. I'm not pissed or anything, just think you won't see these types of conditions on a trade ever again They did & they didn't. 1) Vilma was injured & had question-marks about his ability to fully come back (he had a knee condition even without the injury). 2) The Jets ran a pure 3-4 and Vilma had no place in that defense (unless he was moved to safety). 3) The Jets didn't need him, as he was commonly thought to be the 3rd-best ILB on the team (in their then-current defense). They had to start him or deal him & they didn't want to start him. And everyone knew it. The time to move him was before 2007 when his trade value was much higher. But everyone here, & Mangini as well, felt he could "learn" the 3-4. As though intelligence was Vilma's weakness. He's got plenty going on in the brains department. He was just too damn small & got swatted away out of the play too easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 You make it sound like we got absolutely nothing though. Or that there was a line of teams offering just that, and we turned that down in favor of this crappy alternative. Vilma was injured & there were a lot of teams spooked about his knee condition (which he has with or without football). Oh yeah, and he's soft. NO just signed him to an idiotic contract. They're welcome to him. I'll take the 4th last year and the upgrade from the 4th to 3rd this year. To have a clause in the contract Vilma resigning, not just extending would not of been a deal breaker at that point. And it wouldn't of added any risk for the Saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 To have a clause in the contract Vilma resigning, not just extending would not of been a deal breaker at that point. And it wouldn't of added any risk for the Saints. How do you figure it wouldnt have been a deal breaker? Of course it would have... that would essentially mean they are renting him for the pick OR they can buy him for a 2nd... which the JETs could not get to begin with... why the hell would the saints agree to rent him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 To have a clause in the contract Vilma resigning, not just extending would not of been a deal breaker at that point. And it wouldn't of added any risk for the Saints. That is your guess. That doesn't make it so. There's a reason that NO requested that; it didn't appear in the trade agreement by accident. Their point of view was that if they have to compete with 31 other teams for Vilma, the Jets get less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 They did & they didn't. 1) Vilma was injured & had question-marks about his ability to fully come back (he had a knee condition even without the injury). 2) The Jets ran a pure 3-4 and Vilma had no place in that defense (unless he was moved to safety). 3) The Jets didn't need him, as he was commonly thought to be the 3rd-best ILB on the team (in their then-current defense). They had to start him or deal him & they didn't want to start him. And everyone knew it. The time to move him was before 2007 when his trade value was much higher. But everyone here, & Mangini as well, felt he could "learn" the 3-4. As though intelligence was Vilma's weakness. He's got plenty going on in the brains department. He was just too damn small & got swatted away out of the play too easily. that's all true and I don't dispute any of it but the trigger clause on the conditions was something the saints could control. there was some risk to what they did, but not a lot. I was a head-hunter for a year. I placed a nurse, but the hospital managed to convince her to tell me she turned the job down to save paying my fee. This is an ICU nurse, someone who could work literally anywhere in the world. They talked her into it, and she went with it. This woman could walk into any hospital and get a job. literally any hospital. Yet they managed to convince her to lie to me, I'm sure they told her they could pay her more if they didn't have to pay me that's my point, the clause was easily circumvented with a "wink-wink" deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 that's all true and I don't dispute any of it but the trigger clause on the conditions was something the saints could control. there was some risk to what they did, but not a lot. I was a head-hunter for a year. I placed a nurse, but the hospital managed to convince her to tell me she turned the job down to save paying my fee. This is an ICU nurse, someone who could work literally anywhere in the world. They talked her into it, and she went with it. This woman could walk into any hospital and get a job. literally any hospital. Yet they managed to convince her to lie to me, I'm sure they told her they could pay her more if they didn't have to pay me that's my point, the clause was easily circumvented with a "wink-wink" deal Exactly the reason why they took it... otherwise they would nto have... you act as if the JETs just did not even try to get a better deal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 that's my point, the clause was easily circumvented with a "wink-wink" deal Absolutely. But that is no guarantee that it would have worked for NO. I'm sure they could have had him for less if they tried to extend him at the start or middle of the season. It cost them more, so they pay the Jets less. Frustrating as it is for Jets fans on this one, the reality is that at the time we made the deal, Vilma's trade value just wasn't very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Exactly the reason why they took it... otherwise they would nto have... you act as if the JETs just did not even try to get a better deal... I never said it was a bad trade overall never said I was pissed just said you'll never see this type of clause again because it is ripe for shenanigans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Absolutely. But that is no guarantee that it would have worked for NO. I'm sure they could have had him for less if they tried to extend him at the start or middle of the season. It cost them more, so they pay the Jets less. Frustrating as it is for Jets fans on this one, the reality is that at the time we made the deal, Vilma's trade value just wasn't very high. agreed again teams will always part with $ over picks, they are a more limited, thus more valuble resource. I'd love to see the text tanny sent their GM today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Did no one consider the possibility that it wasn't Tannenbaum backpedaling into this agreement instead of getting it in there? Maybe the Saints' top offer was what we ended up getting and Tannenbaum got it thrown in there that if they extend Vilma before FA starts that it gets upgraded from a 3rd to a 2nd. I'm not saying it went down that way, but it's as likely as the other way around. It is merely a guess & nothing more either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I never said it was a bad trade overall never said I was pissed just said you'll never see this type of clause again because it is ripe for shenanigans Why not? The JETS could not get a 2nd... so they took a shot at it with the clause... the clause did not hurt the JETS... it was simply a way to have a slight chance at an upgrade... That is like saying you will never see performance or playing time clauses because they are usually hit... or missed... because of shenanigans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 That is your guess. That doesn't make it so. There's a reason that NO requested that; it didn't appear in the trade agreement by accident. Their point of view was that if they have to compete with 31 other teams for Vilma, the Jets get less. Did Saints requested that or is that your guess? Or did the FO not think to put it in the contract? I'm guessing the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.