sourceworx Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I think the plan is to keep him next year. With a fourth round pick, you've added an explosive player at a position of need. Now your first, second, and third round picks can be used to address other areas (unless some freak WR falls in your lap). For all of the criticism thrown Idzik's way (some of it deserved), he's acquired Chris Ivory and Percy Harvin in low-cost trades. I'd say that's pretty damned good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 It's a one year, $6.7 million dollar deal. That year is 9 games. But overpaying! We could have 17 david nelsons for thwt price! #depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Sure, but this is a lost year. I really don't see the logic in this move if you're not planning on keeping him. I do get the bird in a hand position though. They are taking a risk, as all acquisitions are, and this one comes with a relatively painless out. Regardless of what happens it is a "good" risk. It is tough to run a football team without a crystal ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 They are taking a risk, as all acquisitions are, and this one comes with a relatively painless out. Regardless of what happens it is a "good" risk. It is tough to run a football team without a crystal ball. I honestly don't see the risk, I almost look at this as the conservative move with exessive spending. (I've been a big Idzik supporter and like the way he's been handling the team, while I'm happy to have Harvin I just don't get this move) The risky move would have been to hold out for FA and try and get the best WR you could. This move throws away $7mm this year and pays Percy Harvin $10mm next year. Not risky just REALLY expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Sure, but this is a lost year. I really don't see the logic in this move if you're not planning on keeping him. I do get the bird in a hand position though. The year is lost in terms of winning anything, but the mission for the last nine games is establishing that core of players they want to bring into 2015 and beyond. I can see the logic in adding Harvin to that mix, now, while you can still cut him if he does flake out. On the other hand, if he has a come to Jesus moment in NY and likes it, you sign him to a new deal. It's win win, imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I honestly don't see the risk, I almost look at this as the conservative move with exessive spending. (I've been a big Idzik supporter and like the way he's been handling the team, while I'm happy to have Harvin I just don't get this move) The risky move would have been to hold out for FA and try and get the best WR you could. This move throws away $7mm this year and pays Percy Harvin $10mm next year. Not risky just REALLY expensive. Harvin won't see that $10 mil here or anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I honestly don't see the risk, I almost look at this as the conservative move with exessive spending. (I've been a big Idzik supporter and like the way he's been handling the team, while I'm happy to have Harvin I just don't get this move) The risky move would have been to hold out for FA and try and get the best WR you could. This move throws away $7mm this year and pays Percy Harvin $10mm next year. Not risky just REALLY expensive. Not really. Guaranteed money is how you "overpay" when a guy doesnt live up to his contract. If harvin doesnt show anything to justify the 10 next year he is gone. If he does show something, he is restructured probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 The idea is for Harvin to be on the team next season and he probably will make $10 million or close to it. If Harvin goes on having a similar season as he's had and Decker goes on like he has, why would Harvin take less money than Decker makes? I just think Jets fans live in a fantasy land where Harvin plays well and then renegotiates for no guaranteed money and $4 million a year. Yeah ok. The other scenario is the Jets cut him after the season, a season where they could go 6-3 from here on out and finish 7-9. So what was the point in trading for Harvin for 9 games on a losing team? I don't think they'll get him down to $4M, but I don't see him making $10M here -or anywhere else- next season. He's an electrifying player, yes, when he's healthy. But his health is a real issue. The fact that, like Decker, he's not a true #1 WR is another factor. Now you have all these leaks coming out of Seattle about what a problem he was in the locker room as well, and that's a lot of marks against him. DeSean Jackson signed for $8M/year, what is Harvin worth compared to that? Do you think Harvin is going to put up impressive numbers over the next nine weeks in the Jets offense? No, they're going to offer him a flat pay cut, and he'll have to make the determination whether he thinks he can make more somewhere else. There's also of the matter of if he wants to play in NY at all. There will some staring down between the Jets and his agent after the season. In the end, I'd expect him to make Decker money or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Voice of Reason Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I don't understand all this concern over the 6.5 million being spent in additional cap space. After this trade we still have the league's lowest payroll AND that's with 15 million in dead space that's going to go down to like 1.5 million in dead space next year. They're taking a calculated risk with a talented player at wide receiver, a position where the Jets desperately need nfl caliber talent. Where else would you rather spend cap space on this team for future years if not wide receiver or corner? It's not like Tannenbaum where we're backloading a contract to **** over 2015 and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I don't understand all this concern over the 6.5 million being spent in additional cap space. After this trade we still have the league's lowest payroll AND that's with 15 million in dead space that's going to go down to like 1.5 million in dead space next year. They're taking a calculated risk with a talented player at wide receiver, a position where the Jets desperately need nfl caliber talent. Where else would you rather spend cap space on this team for future years if not wide receiver or corner? It's not like Tannenbaum where we're backloading a contract to **** over 2015 and beyond. I would rather see the money carried over and spent on a WR next year when it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Voice of Reason Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I would rather see the money carried over and spent on a WR next year when it matters. You're seriously underestimating just how much room they have next year to make moves. I could be wrong, but they're still about 14 million under the cap this year and have about 14.5 million freeing up just from dead space being cleared up by next year. Not only that, David Harris's deal is up (Has a cap number of 7 million this year), Michael Vick (4 million). Jets can cut Chris Johnson and Calvin Pace to free up more money to get cheaper replacements. If they absolutely needed to, they can cut Folk and Jeff Cumberland to save money with zero dead money. The question is attracting free agents not having a lack of space to make these moves. http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/new-york-jets http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 You're seriously underestimating just how much room they have next year to make moves. I could be wrong, but they're still about 14 million under the cap this year and have about 14.5 million freeing up just from dead space being cleared up by next year. Not only that, David Harris's deal is up (Has a cap number of 7 million this year), Michael Vick (4 million). Jets can cut Chris Johnson and Calvin Pace to free up more money to get cheaper replacements. If they absolutely needed to, they can cut Folk and Jeff Cumberland to save money with zero dead money. The question is attracting free agents not having a lack of space to make these moves. http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/new-york-jets http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/ While I don't disagree and get how much they have....You can always have more and $7mm is a lot of cap space. You attract free agents with money, especially if you have a lot of it. This is essentially a $17mm deal for next year. for $17mm we could get the top WR on the market and likely a top tier guard. Then use the rest of the money corners... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 While I don't disagree and get how much they have....You can always have more and $7mm is a lot of cap space. You attract free agents with money, especially if you have a lot of it. This is essentially a $17mm deal for next year. for $17mm we could get the top WR on the market and likely a top tier guard. Then use the rest of the money corners... don't understand the view that this is $17M for next year. it's a $6.5M look for this year. if they keep him, they will give him a new multi-year deal with some guaranteed money. but his number will be less than $10 per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 they would have cut him if they couldn't trade him, which makes them look better to the fans and players upset about the trade because at least they got something for him after giving up 3 picks Maybe so but who cares? That doesn't mean he would have came to us under better conditions, more likely another team would have fought us for him, and we all know how well Idzik handle those situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Very insightful. I thought it was funny how this morning ESPN made the story about how Harvin was a cancer in Seattle and all the players hated him, all the trouble he caused. Not one specific story to back that up, but he was just a terror. Then it was all about how the Jets desperately threw away a draft pick on this "troubled" player. Not one word about Seattle blowing all those picks to obtain him and then bailing out a year and a half into it. They actually made it seem like they got over on us. What a joke Eff the media and the Seahawks rewrite of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM28 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 I think the point that most people are concerned with isn't overpaying for a good player but paying $7mm for someone this year on a 1-6 team. This team isn't going to the playoffs and I would much rather have the extra $7mm next year. $7mm goes a long way in NFL free agency. Very true. I'm Ok with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyLV Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Two problems with this article: 1. Harvin is best suited as an outside receiver, but has the versatility to play slot, split, and even running back 2. If Harvin is on the roster next year, they will absolutely restructure him and his cap hit next year will be very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.