Jump to content

Let's unload Percy Harvin to the Rams.


Jetsfan80
 Share

Recommended Posts

Trades HAVE happened after the deadline, you know. All it takes is releasing him to waivers, signing him to a more cap friendly deal, then trading him.

If we can pull something like this off, then you absolutely do it.

The trade was inexplicably stupid from the get-go. We're 1-7 and should've been sellers, not buyers. It was a pure panic move from a GM in job preservation mode. The money we're paying Harvin is money we now can't roll over to sign a true #1 like Demaryius or Dez next year.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can pull something like this off, then you absolutely do it.

The trade was inexplicably stupid from the get-go. We're 1-7 and should've been sellers, not buyers. It was a pure panic move from a GM in job preservation mode. The money we're paying Harvin is money we now can't roll over to sign a true #1 like Demaryius or Dez next year.

For once, you nailed it. Idzik is a buffoon as I've been saying all along.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once, you nailed it. Idzik is a buffoon as I've been saying all along.

I never said he wasn't, I just said that the only reason we're stuck with such a poor GM is because no quality candidate would take the job with Rex attached. I'd be thrilled if we cleaned house from top-to-bottom this offseason, Idzik included.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can pull something like this off, then you absolutely do it.

The trade was inexplicably stupid from the get-go. We're 1-7 and should've been sellers, not buyers. It was a pure panic move from a GM in job preservation mode. The money we're paying Harvin is money we now can't roll over to sign a true #1 like Demaryius or Dez next year.

You cant have a sale with empty shelves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can pull something like this off, then you absolutely do it.

The trade was inexplicably stupid from the get-go. We're 1-7 and should've been sellers, not buyers. It was a pure panic move from a GM in job preservation mode. The money we're paying Harvin is money we now can't roll over to sign a true #1 like Demaryius or Dez next year.

 

Well the bolded part isn't really true unless you believe we were going to spend all $50M of cap room we had available to us in 2015. Realistically, there is no player we won't be able to afford (still gobs of cap space even without restructuring anyone else, which is always an option for any team), and odds are slim either of those two reach free agency anyway. If (for example) it's a $15M/year contract for a WR like either of those two, there's almost no chance that the year 1 cap number is $15M. The year 1 cap number is always millions lower. In other words, we don't need $15M of spending ability for the 2015 season to sign someone to a $15M per year contract. No doubt, though, if someone far better is available to us in March and we end up cutting (rather than restructuring) Harvin to make room for that WR, then the acquisition is official as a full-blown facepalm.

 

The only hope (in making this deal a good one in hindsight) is that we weren't going to get anyone better anyway, he restructures, he ends up being worth the amount paid to him (or at least in the ballpark). Not saying I'm betting on that, but it isn't completely unrealistic that he restructures for $6-7M per and is a difference-maker on the field for us that we otherwise sorely lack. He's still only 26 and this is the same player Seattle was patted on the back for acquiring for a #1 and a huge contract with huge guarantees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with a restructure is in the timing.  We're going to want to see who else is available to us in FA before we do anything with Harvin involving guarantees of big money beyond 2014 (or so one would think). But then that negates the ability to roll his current $6M+ for the balance of 2014 into the guaranteed portion. So in that case $15M guaranteed really then becomes just under $9M guaranteed from 2015 onward. It's not going to go down like that. Either we're going to (1) pay the $6M this year and then guarantee another $12-14M guaranteed on top of that later, to keep our WR options open for 2015's FA period, or (2) Restructure him within the next week or so and incorporate the remaining $5M or so of this year's $ as part of the guaranteed amount. 

 

The obvious problem with option 2 is it takes us out of the FA WR market completely for the next 2 seasons, since we'll already have locked up Decker, Harvin, and Kerley and all 3 will be on recently-signed contracts. The only way out of that is to find a trade partner for one of those 3 and Harvin is the least likely to attract interest until he has a good, full season again (in other words, not happening at any time between January-August 2015).

 

The problem with option 1 (again) is Harvin is getting $6M, for half of 2014, that we're not able to roll into the guaranteed portion of a restructured deal. 

There is an option 3, which is to do nothing now and just cut him after the season. Then head into March looking to sign a better name, starting WR if one is available. And if we fail to sign any of the guys we like, we end up with nothing and used up a 6th round pick and $6M literally for watching a dozen end-arounds after we were realistically, and then mathematically, already eliminated. Possibly we re-sign him as a FA if no one else does, but we could have done that without any draft pick compensation or gobbling up cap room that was so carefully protected by for so many months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well the bolded part isn't really true unless you believe we were going to spend all $50M of cap room we had available to us in 2015. Realistically, there is no player we won't be able to afford (still gobs of cap space even without restructuring anyone else, which is always an option for any team), and odds are slim either of those two reach free agency anyway. If (for example) it's a $15M/year contract for a WR like either of those two, there's almost no chance that the year 1 cap number is $15M. The year 1 cap number is always millions lower. In other words, we don't need $15M of spending ability for the 2015 season to sign someone to a $15M per year contract. No doubt, though, if someone far better is available to us in March and we end up cutting (rather than restructuring) Harvin to make room for that WR, then the acquisition is official as a full-blown facepalm.

 

The only hope (in making this deal a good one in hindsight) is that we weren't going to get anyone better anyway, he restructures, he ends up being worth the amount paid to him (or at least in the ballpark). Not saying I'm betting on that, but it isn't completely unrealistic that he restructures for $6-7M per and is a difference-maker on the field for us that we otherwise sorely lack. He's still only 26 and this is the same player Seattle was patted on the back for acquiring for a #1 and a huge contract with huge guarantees.

 

It's not a matter of not being able to afford any one player, but rather not being able to afford every player we may have wished to target, assuming we were planning on really splurging next year to add young pieces to our core who would be here long-term. For instance, let's say of that $50 we wanted to use ~$15mm (or a little less in terms of the cap hit) on a #1 WR like a Dez or Demariyus (assuming we could pry them away, which is why having that extra $ to spend is so crucial, since we'd have to overpay to land either), then another however many million on extending Mo, and so on…that $7mm wasted on Harvin in a lost season could prevent us from getting all of our FA targets next year. And if Harvin's in the long term plans, then in the wake of the Kerley extension, that likely means they plan to use him as a #1, which I don't view him as - more of a gadget player who happens to have game-breaking speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trades HAVE happened after the deadline, you know.  All it takes is releasing him to waivers, signing him to a more cap friendly deal, then trading him.

Your joking, right?

This requires there being a team out there who would rather give the Jets something for him instead of just signing him when he clears waivers, himself. And really, there's no guarantee at all that he'd even clear waivers.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can pull something like this off, then you absolutely do it.

The trade was inexplicably stupid from the get-go. We're 1-7 and should've been sellers, not buyers. It was a pure panic move from a GM in job preservation mode. The money we're paying Harvin is money we now can't roll over to sign a true #1 like Demaryius or Dez next year.

 

 

no way in hell Thomas or Bryant come here anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of not being able to afford any one player, but rather not being able to afford every player we may have wished to target, assuming we were planning on really splurging next year to add young pieces to our core who would be here long-term. For instance, let's say of that $50 we wanted to use ~$15mm (or a little less in terms of the cap hit) on a #1 WR like a Dez or Demariyus (assuming we could pry them away, which is why having that extra $ to spend is so crucial, since we'd have to overpay to land either), then another however many million on extending Mo, and so on…that $7mm wasted on Harvin in a lost season could prevent us from getting all of our FA targets next year. And if Harvin's in the long term plans, then in the wake of the Kerley extension, that likely means they plan to use him as a #1, which I don't view him as - more of a gadget player who happens to have game-breaking speed.

I understand, but my point is a one-time mistake of around $6M gets lost in the shuffle unless we were up against the cap like when Idzik initially took over. And it's not a minor point that a $15M/year player is only going to hit the cap at less than half that amount in year 1. There's bonus money that gets amortized over the length of the contract, plus a lower year-1 base salary.

As a sample: pretend we want someone at $15M/year for 4 years = $60M with $40M guaranteed. $20M signing bonus hits the cap at $5M/year. Then $40M base salaries and roster bonuses later.

  • 2015 base salary $2M = year 1 cap hit is $7M [total paid to date = $22M]
  • 2016 "new money" (base salary and roster bonus) = $11M (all guaranteed) = cap hit $16M [tot paid to date = $33M]
  • 2017 "new money" = $13M (only $7M 3/1/17 roster bonus is guaranteed) = cap hit is $18M [tot paid to date = $46M]
  • 2018 "new money" = $14M = cap hit is $19M [tot paid by end = $60M]

And the reality is it will either continue to be a good deal for the team through the end, or they'll restructure (extend) to lower the number further for years 2 or 3, or he'll be cut or traded before the contract's natural end (like Seattle traded Harvin to us).

But in none of the scenarios is the $6M additional we'd have had for 2015 going to prevent signing even a $15M/year player and several others, because the year 1 cap number is so much lower. By the time those newer contracts get into the really high numbers, we'll have been rid of older albatrosses like we had with Sanchez, Holmes, Harris. Except in 2016 and beyond it'll be the likes of Ferguson that we get rid of (saving $10M+ on him alone) and maybe Mangold (nearly $9M). Of course this magnitude of savings is only realized if we draft some OLmen who are useful starters.

The Jets even did this recently with David Harris on his deal that expires after this season. 4 years $36M (more correctly, 3 years $31M with a 4th year team option at $5M). It was a $9M per year deal on average, but the year 1 cap number was only $4M.

This doesn't even count the ability to restructure guys on larger deals who we "know" we want to keep around longer anyway, and have them restructure their existing deal. Team gets immediate team cap relief and the player typically gets additional guaranteed money for a future year he might have otherwise been a cap casualty and got none of it(see Bart Scott, Antonio Cromartie). Or they just convert millions of base salary into new signing bonus so only a percentage of it hits the current year's cap. 

I don't think the Jets would need to get this fancy shmancy in 2015 no matter what, since they still have SO much space, but it's always an option if there was one more unexpected beast that we just had to have and didn't plan for (or if, in April, we suddenly needed part or all of Harvin's $6M from 2014).

Don't get me wrong: it's still bad allocation of spending limits to pay a player so much when he wasn't needed or so much more than his value to the team (CJ, Vick, and maybe now Harvin) but these are individual ~$5M mistakes not individual $10M mistakes. No one of them is going to really hamper future moves. But the fewer of them the better because they do add up.

 

Sorry about the long reply. It's what I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand, but my point is a one-time mistake of around $6M gets lost in the shuffle unless we were up against the cap like when Idzik initially took over. And it's not a minor point that a $15M/year player is only going to hit the cap at less than half that amount in year 1. There's bonus money that gets amortized over the length of the contract, plus a lower year-1 base salary.

As a sample: pretend we want someone at $15M/year for 4 years = $60M with $40M guaranteed. $20M signing bonus hits the cap at $5M/year. Then $40M base salaries and roster bonuses later.

  • 2015 base salary $2M = year 1 cap hit is $7M [total paid to date = $22M]
  • 2016 "new money" (base salary and roster bonus) = $11M (all guaranteed) = cap hit $16M [tot paid to date = $33M]
  • 2017 "new money" = $13M (only $7M 3/1/17 roster bonus is guaranteed) = cap hit is $18M [tot paid to date = $46M]
  • 2018 "new money" = $14M = cap hit is $19M [tot paid by end = $60M]

And the reality is it will either continue to be a good deal for the team through the end, or they'll restructure (extend) to lower the number further for years 2 or 3, or he'll be cut or traded before the contract's natural end (like Seattle traded Harvin to us).

But in none of the scenarios is the $6M additional we'd have had for 2015 going to prevent signing even a $15M/year player and several others, because the year 1 cap number is so much lower. By the time those newer contracts get into the really high numbers, we'll have been rid of older albatrosses like we had with Sanchez, Holmes, Harris. Except in 2016 and beyond it'll be the likes of Ferguson that we get rid of (saving $10M+ on him alone) and maybe Mangold (nearly $9M). Of course this magnitude of savings is only realized if we draft some OLmen who are useful starters.

The Jets even did this recently with David Harris on his deal that expires after this season. 4 years $36M (more correctly, 3 years $31M with a 4th year team option at $5M). It was a $9M per year deal on average, but the year 1 cap number was only $4M.

This doesn't even count the ability to restructure guys on larger deals who we "know" we want to keep around longer anyway, and have them restructure their existing deal. Team gets immediate team cap relief and the player typically gets additional guaranteed money for a future year he might have otherwise been a cap casualty and got none of it(see Bart Scott, Antonio Cromartie). Or they just convert millions of base salary into new signing bonus so only a percentage of it hits the current year's cap. 

I don't think the Jets would need to get this fancy shmancy in 2015 no matter what, since they still have SO much space, but it's always an option if there was one more unexpected beast that we just had to have and didn't plan for (or if, in April, we suddenly needed part or all of Harvin's $6M from 2014).

Don't get me wrong: it's still bad allocation of spending limits to pay a player so much when he wasn't needed or so much more than his value to the team (CJ, Vick, and maybe now Harvin) but these are individual ~$5M mistakes not individual $10M mistakes. No one of them is going to really hamper future moves. But the fewer of them the better because they do add up.

 

Sorry about the long reply. It's what I do. 

 

cliff's notes:

 

fact is you can afford almost any player if you are willing to mortgage the future. you can restructure the whole team if you want into guaranteed money and keep kicking the can down the road. but eventually chickens come home to roost--this was what tanny did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...