brian101193 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Sooo Kaepernick wants 17 mill His price is skyrocketing, went up another million in 4 hours http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000330284/article/colin-kaepernick-wants-18mplus-annually-from-49ers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I don't hate Idzik. I am drawing conclusions based on his past behavior. so year 2 is the same plan as year 1 ? c'mon dude he signed waived players to get comp picks and cheap players to get the cap in order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 is there any chance wilk van get more expensive if we dont sign him now? like if he becomes best at his position or makes pro bowl We had a whole thread about this not too long ago. There is pretty much no upside, at least on paper, to extending him today with nearly $30M in guaranteed money. Not unless he takes one hell of a discount in exchange for guaranteed money he wouldn't otherwise fully receive until the middle of 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 We had a whole thread about this not too long ago. There is pretty much no upside, at least on paper, to extending him today with nearly $30M in guaranteed money. Not unless he takes one hell of a discount in exchange for guaranteed money he wouldn't otherwise fully receive until the middle of 2016. but couldnt you say that for every player on an expiring deal? There has to be some reason teams sign their players before the deals up. If he is an all pro this year does his price tag go up then if we signed him today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 but couldnt you say that for every player on an expiring deal? There has to be some reason teams sign their players before the deals up. If he is an all pro this year does his price tag go up then if we signed him today? No. Because every player isn't a total "no freaking way" decision regarding the franchise tag. Kerley is a good example. Say they were in the same boat, contract-wise. Slap a franchise tag on Wilkerson and it's probably in line with what he'd be getting on a long-term deal. Do the same with Kerley and you're paying probably triple his value. Looking at it this way, there is less incentive to lock him up if he's an all-pro type. Plus the team is locked in with this player for the next 3 years minimum even if he gets a horrible injury or isn't worth it anymore for some other reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 No. Because every player isn't a total "no freaking way" decision regarding the franchise tag. Kerley is a good example. Say they were in the same boat, contract-wise. Slap a franchise tag on Wilkerson and it's probably in line with what he'd be getting on a long-term deal. Do the same with Kerley and you're paying probably triple his value. with the way the cap is going up im sure salaries will rise so wouldnt locking him in right now be helpful? also dont the jets have more leverage over him since hes not even a pro bowler yet so you could lock him less then the top guys. (i think he will be the top guy this year so wed pay him like it after the next season or 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 with the way the cap is going up im sure salaries will rise so wouldnt locking him in right now be helpful? also dont the jets have more leverage over him since hes not even a pro bowler yet so you could lock him less then the top guys. (i think he will be the top guy this year so wed pay him like it after the next season or 2) Here: It makes no sense to give Wilkerson a contract now. Zero. If they do it, they're doing it to be nice. Right now we already have him locked up for 5 years $50M at worst. This coming year it's a puny fraction of that. Any extra money this year gets pushed to next year to go towards his future (higher) earnings. So prorating it to this year (roster bonus instead of signing bonus) makes no difference. Whatever space we eat up this year (from roster bonus) doesn't get pushed to next season. It's the same thing. I've made the same logic mistake myself in the past, but you have to get out of the mindset that this year's cap exists in a vacuum with fixed, identical cap limits every season. It doesn't. So pay him $1M this year. The $5M extra he doesn't count (by not re-upping him) gets pushed to '15. In '15 he counts $6M. Subtract the $5M additional cap space (higher ceiling) we've pushed forward and the net is $1M again. Why on earth pay him an average $10M this year and $10M next year (if the extension was only for that much)? Why give up $13M in cap space we can never get back? He's not going to count $4-5M/year more on a contract 2 years from now. Between now and then, if he sustains a major injury we're off the hook. Bad for Wilkerson, good for the Jets (well, bad for the Jets, but not as bad as it would be with no Wilkerson and $10M+ less in cap room, like with Revis '12). On paper it makes no sense to redo his deal for a minimum of 1 season. Probably 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Here: i have read that im not understanding the how we have him locked in for the next 5 years at 50m and did he say he wanted the 10m deal or is that just in line with his production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 Here: OK, it's 5/50 at worst, but we can't throw him 10 or 12 of that 50 now? If the $$$ was the same, I would figure he would be happy to get more of it up front. I'll take your word for it, this stuff is confusing as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 i have read that im not understanding the how we have him locked in for the next 5 years at 50m and did he say he wanted the 10m deal or is that just in line with his production? That was a follow-up to an earlier post I made in the same thread: We have him locked up for 2 years $7M and can then tag him? I'm sympathetic to Wilkerson not being able to cash in on a great (and healthy) '13, but it's a loser move to extend him now, and it's iffy at best to extend him before next year (depends on the season he has in '14, as well as continued good health). Want to lock him up long-term? We have him locked up for 3 years $19.2M (or 4 years $33.6M, or 5 years $50.9M if they franchise tag him 2x or 3x in a row), with no guarantees to Wilkerson; they're year-to-year deals. What kind of long-term deal should the Jets offer Wilkerson if our worst-case scenario is $10M/year over the next 5 years and it's extremely back-loaded and Wilkerson's locked into the Jets but the Jets give Wilkerson no guarantees or further bonus money. From a dollars-and-cents perspective, we already have him locked up for 5 years at workable money and it couldn't be a more team-friendly deal than what's already in place. I think there's a good chance they extend him before next year, but truthfully it is not necessary until these next 2 cheap years are over. Then work something out (they have until July 15 I think) while he's tagged. On paper, that is the smart move (frankly the only move that makes sense). It may or may not be the smart move when personalities and feelings get in the way. But if the Jets extend Wilkerson this season, I have to question Idzik's intelligence (and specifically, his ability to add and multiply). Yes, $10M/year would be in line with his production. It would be in that neighborhood, give or take. That's my guess, anyway. If he's willing to take a 2-3 million per year deduction off that, and get locked up for 5 years and $35-40M, fine. But otherwise it's a loser move for the Jets to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 OK, it's 5/50 at worst, but we can't throw him 10 or 12 of that 50 now? If the $$$ was the same, I would figure he would be happy to get more of it up front. I'll take your word for it, this stuff is confusing as hell. Sure we could. We could do anything we wanted. That doesn't make it smart. He is locked up right now at: 2014: $1M 2015: $6M 2016: franchise tag at $12M? (or whatever it will be) If you want to lock him up this is the worst season of the remainder of his career to do it. Next year is the very, very earliest and even then it doesn't make sense on paper. Not unless he's taking a discount in exchange for greater guarantees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sure we could. We could do anything we wanted. That doesn't make it smart. He is locked up right now at: 2014: $1M 2015: $6M 2016: franchise tag at $12M? (or whatever it will be) If you want to lock him up this is the worst season of the remainder of his career to do it. Next year is the very, very earliest and even then it doesn't make sense on paper. Not unless he's taking a discount in exchange for greater guarantees. so essentially, the jets could have him locked up for 4 years @ about $35m, not 5 years @ 50m. I was wondering where the extra year came from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 so essentially, the jets could have him locked up for 4 years @ about $35m, not 5 years @ 50m. I was wondering where the extra year came from The 5 years came from people wanting to lock him up for longer. My point is still the same: if we do something with his contract this year or next year we're doing it to be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The 5 years came from people wanting to lock him up for longer. My point is still the same: if we do something with his contract this year or next year we're doing it to be nice. it's easy to understand why the Jets haven't extended Mo Wilkerson. It's a little harder to understand why the Austin Howard deal is taking so long. Can't wait for a starting right side of Campbell and Aboushi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The 5 years came from people wanting to lock him up for longer. My point is still the same: if we do something with his contract this year or next year we're doing it to be nice. I could support being nice to him next year, especially if continues to play at the same high level. Sends a good message, and probably wouldn't be bad cap-wise. That would be the time to try and get that hometown discount. This year would be dumb, though. it's easy to understand why the Jets haven't extended Mo Wilkerson. It's a little harder to understand why the Austin Howard deal is taking so long. Can't wait for a starting right side of Campbell and Aboushi. Me neither! That's totally gonna happen, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 it's easy to understand why the Jets haven't extended Mo Wilkerson. It's a little harder to understand why the Austin Howard deal is taking so long. Can't wait for a starting right side of Campbell and Aboushi. Maybe it's because the only report out says he's asking to be the highest-paid right tackle in NFL history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.