Villain The Foe Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Football is a cold cold business people. Remember this the next time we get pissed at Revis for making "business" decisions. Im actually kinda shocked that this news has been out for over 12 hours yet didnt make the forum. If a mouse would have crawled out of a random mouse hole and said that Revis simply dreamt of a hold out while sleeping there would have been atleast 5 original threads made on it figuring out ways to trade him before the mouse even made it back into the hole with the cheese lol. Best of wishes to you Baker! That was a nasty and quite unnecessary hit he took last night. http://www.nypost.co...F4yE66KQ0OMovbN The Jets have waived/injured tight end Josh Baker after he suffered a season-ending torn right ACL in Sunday’s preseason loss to the Panthers. Baker was among six players the Jets removed from their roster Monday as teams had to cut down to 75 players. The Jets now have 74 on their roster. Baker had an MRI exam this morning where the extent of the injury was discovered. Howard Shatsky, the agent for Baker, sent out this tweet Monday afternoon. “The NY Jets r waiving-injured TE Josh Baker, he'll revert 2 their IR List. Josh would like 2 thank the Jets 4 the opportunity they gave him,” Shatsky wrote. Baker played in 11 games last year, making three catches. He was expected to have an expanded role under new offensive coordinator Tony Sparano this season as a hybrid tight end/fullback. When a player is waived/injured, they receive their pay or a negotiated lump payment. In some cases, the player is then placed on the teams injured reserve list. Shatsky tweeted that is the case here. Besides Baker, the Jets released PK Josh Brown and waived LB Damario Ambrose, WR Stanley Arukwe, WR Wes Kemp and RB Jeremy Stewart. Read more: http://www.nypost.co...N#ixzz24pFkTLia Now for football "the sport", how is this going to effect our offense given that Sparano was looking to utilize alot of double TE packages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Bummer!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtnj18 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 That really does suck. I think Baker had a lot of talent. I'm sure he understands that's a risk to take when in the NFL though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 He'll be back. They will keep him and IR him. They have to waive him so that he doesn't count against the roster. They aren't kicking the kid out into the street. I like Baker a lot for an UDFA, but this might let them pick up some more complimentary pieces instead of sticking with the 3 receiving TEs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravejamriot Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Unless another team claims him on waivers he goes on the Jets IR. What do you want them to do? keep him active every week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Football is a cold cold business people. Remember this the next time we get pissed at Revis for making "business" decisions. Im actually kinda shocked that this news has been out for over 12 hours yet didnt make the forum. If a mouse would have crawled out of a random mouse hole and said that Revis simply dreamt of a hold out while sleeping there would have been atleast 5 original threads made on it figuring out ways to trade him before the mouse even made it back into the hole with the cheese lol. Best of wishes to you Baker! That was a nasty and quite unnecessary hit he took last night. This was actually posted on here yesterday. Baker was already given an injury settlement and once he clears waivers, will be back to the team on their IR, so while the injury certainly sucks, it's hardly like Baker is being treated so awfully. Still have no idea what any of that has to do with it somehow justifying another player refusing to honor their contract and not playing seasons they had already been compensated in advance for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Jets fan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't think he understood how it works when he started this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Unless another team claims him on waivers he goes on the Jets IR. What do you want them to do? keep him active every week? Like Rob Turner and Cumberland last year? I defend Tannenbaum at every turn, but keeping those 2 on roster was one of the stranger things I remember them doing under his tenure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionelRichie Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I liked Baker. I thought he was actually a better fit than Conner for this offense - he gave the Jets versatility to play FB/TE and he could actually catch the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Zomg Tannenbaum isn't even loyal to fallen Jets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointman Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Its professional football. He got a chance to live the dream. Plus, he'll be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 This was actually posted on here yesterday. Baker was already given an injury settlement and once he clears waivers, will be back to the team on their IR, so while the injury certainly sucks, it's hardly like Baker is being treated so awfully. Still have no idea what any of that has to do with it somehow justifying another player refusing to honor their contract and not playing seasons they had already been compensated in advance for. Its no justification, its true. No need to justify what can stand on its own. I've been on the forums long enough to see it come about myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Football is a cold cold business people. Remember this the next time we get pissed at Revis for making "business" decisions. Personally I want DPOY for Revis so he can wipe his ass with his contract and I can continue to complain about Mike T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Its no justification, its true. No need to justify what can stand on its own. I've been on the forums long enough to see it come about myself. Of course that was justification, by it's very definition that's exactly what it was. The question would be whether that justification had any merit or validity, but I'm not sure what point there would be in debating it given Revis isn't even holding out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Of course that was justification, by it's very definition that's exactly what it was. The question would be whether that justification had any merit or validity, but I'm not sure what point there would be in debating it given Revis isn't even holding out. It was a smart financial decision, ESPN would have had no time for him unless they added a 9th channel the offseason belongs to Tebow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 Of course that was justification, by it's very definition that's exactly what it was. The question would be whether that justification had any merit or validity, but I'm not sure what point there would be in debating it given Revis isn't even holding out. Justification: something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary. So even if it was justification, which you stated "by definition it was", then you also see it as quite reasonable or necessary, but more importantly, you identify it as a "fact". So I appreciate your agreement in such justification that I've already said was a fact, but it is the fact that warrants such appreciation given that a fact in of itself is self vindicating. I take no credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Justification: something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary. So even if it was justification, which you stated "by definition it was", then you also see it as quite reasonable or necessary, but more importantly, you identify it as a "fact". So I appreciate your agreement in such justification that I've already said was a fact, but it is the fact that warrants such appreciation given that a fact in of itself is self vindicating. I take no credit Actually, I said you were trying to provide it as justification, not that I believed it actually was justification. So, to be clear, I still don't agree with you. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 Actually, I said you were trying to provide it as justification, not that I believed it actually was justification. So, to be clear, I still don't agree with you. Nice try though. lol You didnt fall for the bait. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.