Gas2No99 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Does Watt's deal impact Wilkerson? September, 2, 2014 By Lil' Dick Semen-i | ESPNNewYork.com FLORHAM PARK, N.J. -- J.J. Watt's new contract extension with the Houston Texans is good news for Muhammad Wilkerson and other defensive linemen from the first round of the 2011 draft. Watt set the top of the market, agreeing late Monday night to a six-year, $100 million extension that includes a $30.87 million guarantee at signing. By 2016, the guarantee will reach $51.876 million, making him the highest-paid defensive player in history. The Texans locked up their cornerstone player. Now we'll see if the Jets will do the same for Wilkerson, who is under contract through 2015 after having his fifth-year option exercised by the team in May. The two sides have been talking, but saying nothing publicly. When asked last week if he'd like a new deal before the start of the season, Wilkerson replied, "If it happens, it happens" -- which kind of suggests it's within the realm of possibility. The Jets have the leverage because they have Wilkerson for two years at $8.2 million, obviously well below his market value. They also have the franchise tag at their disposal, so they could have him through 2016. The Texans were in the same boat with Watt. He and Wilkerson were part of the first draft under the new collective bargaining agreement, which dramatically lowered rookie salaries. All first-rounders are required to signing four-year contracts, with a fifth-year team option. The Texans opted to be proactive, taking care of the face of their franchise. If Watt is the standard for the defensive-line market, averaging about $16 million per year, Wilkerson should come in somewhere around $13 million or $14 million a year. The Jets are sitting on $21 million in cap space, and it makes sense to utilize it. Wilkerson isn't a flash-in-the-pan kind of player; he's arguably the best player on the team. To paraphrase the old marketing slogan for Fram oil filters, they can pay him now or pay him later. Later probably will cost more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 No.... Different positions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I just realized after I posted, if it was obvious that the deal would impact Wilkerson, the title would have been a statement, not a question. ---> Caught Cimini trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas2No99 Posted September 3, 2014 Author Share Posted September 3, 2014 No.... Different positions 3-4 Defensive Ends are different positions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas2No99 Posted September 3, 2014 Author Share Posted September 3, 2014 I just realized after I posted, if it was obvious that the deal would impact Wilkerson, the title would have been a statement, not a question. ---> Caught Cimini trolling You realize the writer of the ESPN article/blog post is a one-eyed flesh pencil with no journalistic skills, let alone apt & accurate commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard King Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 3-4 Defensive Ends are different positions? We don't play a majority of 3-4 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 The Jets have the leverage because they have Wilkerson for two years at $8.2 million, obviously well below his market value. They also have the franchise tag at their disposal, so they could have him through 2016. [..] Wilkerson should come in somewhere around $13 million or $14 million a year. The Jets are sitting on $21 million in cap space, and it makes sense to utilize it. Lol. The Jets have him locked up for two years at $8.2M total, but it "makes sense" to sign him to a new deal that runs $13M to $14M? I'd love for Wilkerson to get paid, but the Jets have very little incentive to rush to get a deal done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas2No99 Posted September 3, 2014 Author Share Posted September 3, 2014 We don't play a majority of 3-4 though. We play a hybrid. Our true philosophy is a 3-4 Defense, but we have players ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY to a 4-3 Front. Both their bodies of work for both players has been primarily under a 3-4 front. So yes, they are comparable and Watt's WILL impact Mo's agent to push for a congruent salary. So a CB is NOT worth $16M/year. Is a DE worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Lol. The Jets have him locked up for two years at $8.2M total, but it "makes sense" to sign him to a new deal that runs $13M to $14M? I'd love for Wilkerson to get paid, but the Jets have very little incentive to rush to get a deal done. Not to mention redoing his deal when he still has 2 years left should mean a discount over what Wilkerson could get as a UFA. And the reason is just that: he isn't a FA and (effectively) won't be for years. I think they'll redo his deal after this season, but truthfully there's little financial incentive for the team to do it after this season either. Two years from now the franchise tag number will still be in that $14M range (give or take). So the Jets have him at $1M this year, $7M next year, and $14M the year after that ($22M total). Cimini claims it would "make sense" for the Jets to change that to $13-14M each season ($40M total). Worse still - again, this is on paper - the team has 100% injury and skill protection since Wilkerson is now effectively on a series of three 1-year deals; locking him up now means the team is locked into him for 2 more seasons even if his career is suddenly over. In other words, redoing Wilkerson now is all risk no reward. Unless they think Wilkerson's next deal will be in the $17M/year range, and even then it would be an insignificant savings (if any at all). The in-between is to redo his deal next year. But from a cap savings perspective, it would be dumb to freely give up $10M+ in cap savings on Wilkerson's final $1M season. It's all the more absurd with the ability to push all that savings to future caps. So Cimini is either getting a kickback from Wilkerson, directly or indirectly through his agent, or he doesn't understand how the salary cap works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadetree Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 My natural reaction was to say,"hell yes, it'll affect Mos contract!" But spermedwards makes sense...all risk for jets. I guess Mos agent is thinking, "well hold out and force their hand!" ?? I hate the "is he worth it" debate we've lived with as Jets fans. Just lock the beast up...I've been afraid to by a Jets jersey for years cause when I do the player is gone within a year!! What a conundrum!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Mostro Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Not to mention redoing his deal when he still has 2 years left should mean a discount over what Wilkerson could get as a UFA. And the reason is just that: he isn't a FA and (effectively) won't be for years. I think they'll redo his deal after this season, but truthfully there's little financial incentive for the team to do it after this season either. Two years from now the franchise tag number will still be in that $14M range (give or take). So the Jets have him at $1M this year, $7M next year, and $14M the year after that ($22M total). Cimini claims it would "make sense" for the Jets to change that to $13-14M each season ($40M total). Worse still - again, this is on paper - the team has 100% injury and skill protection since Wilkerson is now effectively on a series of three 1-year deals; locking him up now means the team is locked into him for 2 more seasons even if his career is suddenly over. In other words, redoing Wilkerson now is all risk no reward. Unless they think Wilkerson's next deal will be in the $17M/year range, and even then it would be an insignificant savings (if any at all). The in-between is to redo his deal next year. But from a cap savings perspective, it would be dumb to freely give up $10M+ in cap savings on Wilkerson's final $1M season. It's all the more absurd with the ability to push all that savings to future caps. So Cimini is either getting a kickback from Wilkerson, directly or indirectly through his agent, or he doesn't understand how the salary cap works. Saluti. Most comprehensive and coherent post I've seen in these parts in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCJETSFAN Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Just remember the longer you wait the more $ it will cost you . And the player might say ill just go test the market cause I'm so close to seeing how much I'm worth. Always remember it's always about money with these guys it's the bussiness side . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Just remember the longer you wait the more $ it will cost you . And the player might say ill just go test the market cause I'm so close to seeing how much I'm worth. Always remember it's always about money with these guys it's the bussiness side . How much more? He's under contract this year for $1.2M, and next year for $6.9M. If the Jets re-up him this year for Cimini's projected $13-14M/season, do the Jets save any money over the long haul? Like Sperm said, next year is the time to do it. One less year of risk, and a much more reasonable raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 before this deal, the Houston Texans were the only team with less spend and more cap room than the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 before this deal, the Houston Texans were the only team with less spend and more cap room than the Jets. I don't know where you got that figure from, other than making it up. And actually they didn't change that by much, sorry to disappoint you. They didn't tear up his current deal. It's an extension that begins after his rookie deal is over ($2M this year, $7M next year). So as much as it's $16M/year on the extension, over the next 8 years (if he fully plays the deal out) it's $13.6M/year. If the final year of the extension is a balloon amount in the $17M/yr range, then it's effectively 7 years at ~$13M even with a team option for another year at $17M in 2021. If the Jets do something like this with Wilkerson I'm for it. If they tear up his current deal and fully replace it with a new one, it's senseless and I'm against it. But I think this is actually a nice compromise if Wilkerson is agreeable to it. He doesn't get paid any more "base salary" for the next 2 years , but he'll get like $40M guaranteed in case he gets seriously injured and probably a $10M chunk of it will be new signing bonus (adds <$2M/yr to the cap the next 2 seasons). Unfortunately for you, though, since it only adds about $2M/year to their cap over the next 2 years, this will make you a sad panda. So something like a 5 year extension at $13M per (with the final 2020 year in the $15-16M range) $12M up front or something in that ballpark, meaning he pockets $13M this season. The first 2 new years of the extension (approx $25M more) get guaranteed, as do the upcoming 2 seasons ($8M). It's therefore a $65M extension, on top of the $8M he's locked into for these upcoming 2 seasons. This would effectively be a 7 year $73M total deal with $12M up front, and the 4 upcoming seasons are guaranteed ($45M total guaranteed). If his production trails off towards the end of the deal and the team releases him after the 6th season it will have been 6 years $57M. 5 years or 6, maybe a little more or a little less on the SB or the annual extension amount, doesn't matter much. But something framed like this I'd be good with doing now, even with 2 years left on Wilkerson's current deal. If they do his deal a year later it won't cost the team that much more long-term, as Watts will likely still be the bar-setter at his position, and they drop $44M risk as their tradeoff, so I'll certainly understand if they wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Unfortunately for you, though, since it only adds about $2M/year to their cap over the next 2 years, this will make you a sad panda. why does the Jets having 20+ mil cap room make you a happy panda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionelRichie Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 why does the Jets having 20+ mil cap room make you a happy panda? there is a new NFL rule this season. If a team uses 15% less cap space that it has then all tickets, refreshments, and merchandise are discounted 15%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 why does the Jets having 20+ mil cap room make you a happy panda? It neither makes me happy nor sad. More that I understand it, given the situation at the time. There was no known-quantity QB in place. I prefer the team keep this flexibility rather than going all-in on last year's #34 ranked QB. The expectation, for higher-priced players, is that they will be their very best in the immediate couple of seasons (particularly the immediate upcoming season) after signing a big deal. After that they often become dead weight. I would hate it if we were locked into those types of deals just as a QB emerges (which still may or may not be Smith or Vick). Once that is in place? Yeah, absolutely max it out. But I have no desire to repeat what the team did while going nuts building an expensive team around Sanchez that we knew would collapse a few years later. Spending like crazy can happen at any time if you leave yourself the flexibility. If you rob yourself of this flexibility, then you may not be able to when you are a true contender. JMO. I know yours is different, which is to max out the cap spending limit every single season no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I know yours is different, which is to max out the cap spending limit every single season no matter what. my philosophy involves keeping the Hall of Fame players you drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetfuel Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 It is going to be extremely difficult to keep Mo-Snacks-Sheldon together in the years to come ... thanks Houston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 my philosophy involves keeping the Hall of Fame players you drafted. But he's injury prone. Nagging hammy injuries, busted ACL, and who knows what else this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Voice of Reason Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 But he's injury prone. Nagging hammy injuries, busted ACL, and who knows what else this year. Besides, now that he has busted the ACL, he's due for a major shoulder injury. The reverse McDougle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 It is going to be extremely difficult to keep Mo-Snacks-Sheldon together in the years to come ... thanks Houston Perhaps. The cap is going up, of course, but there's something else to keep in mind. Watt is SO unique. He's 6'5", 290, has 20-sack capability, and bats passes down like a motherf*cker. He's really the only one in the league like that. Even if Mo is kind of a Watt-lite (75-Watt vs 100-Watt?) it's a significant difference. One guy is really, really good. The other is a freak who may not be human, having been placed here by space aliens. Mo I think will be in the $11-12M per range of new money, but nowhere near the $16M extension Watt just got. There's an enormous difference money-wise between a DLmen with a career year of 10.5 sacks vs. a career year of 20.5 sacks (or 31 in the past 2 seasons vs 15.5; literally double the number). Mo's long-term on such an extension (including this year) would average out to about $10M. Incidentally, while Watt is getting $16M per on his extension, it's really a total closer to $13M per, since playing out his existing 2 years is a significant part of the deal. But one thing that brings in the big dollars for DLmen is sacks. It's like touchdowns for offensive players. And Watt has 30 over the past 2 years. If he plays another 10 seasons, Harrison probably won't get 30 in his career. Don't figure his number to be any higher than $6M (if even that high). Then there's Richardson. First off, Richardson has 3 years left on his rookie deal (including this season) at $4M total. After that I think there's still a team option for what will still probably be under $10M. So he's already locked up for the upcoming 4 seasons at maybe $14M, and in a worst-case scenario could always be tagged the year after that. So all 3 are going to be here together at least for the 4 upcoming seasons if we still want them, and the annual pricetag for the 3 would be in the $25M range in a single worst season cap-wise (unless Idzik specifically chooses/plans to have them count more in 1 season, like if we needed it to reach the minimum threshold one year). Most of the next 2-3 years the trio won't be within $10M of that combined. We're in great shape on our DL for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Besides, now that he has busted the ACL, he's due for a major shoulder injury. The reverse McDougle. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointman Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 It is going to be extremely difficult to keep Mo-Snacks-Sheldon together in the years to come ... thanks Houston We can stagger when we pay them. Mo isn't due for 2 years, Sheldon is on his rookie deal, and Snacks is the main priority as I believe he is up at the end of the season. Oh, and Watt >>>> Muhammad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCJETSFAN Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 How much more? He's under contract this year for $1.2M, and next year for $6.9M. If the Jets re-up him this year for Cimini's projected $13-14M/season, do the Jets save any money over the long haul? Like Sperm said, next year is the time to do it. One less year of risk, and a much more reasonable raise. I just don't think the jets are intersted I paying him 14 mil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 yes but idzik will cheap out and lose him thanks idzik !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetfuel Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 thanks for making me feel better about the D-Line staying in tact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.bfeccbb418051302514639370fc6b9e3.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.