slats Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 34 minutes ago, NYJ37/12 said: not 100% on this but I believe you need to be under the cap when the new year kicks off which was yesterday. After that it does not matter again until the first day of next years first day of the league year. So, you can be over the cap right now, I think. The top 51 player salaries have to be under the cap until the final cutdowns, when all 53 in total have to be under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 26 minutes ago, Joejet said: The Jags were in the running for Vernon so they are interested in DL and have the necessary cap space. There probably aren't many other teams that fit both criteria. At this point I don't think Wilk is going anywhere and hopefully Mac came get him signed to a multi year deal. Once again if Mo was agreeable to a none Watt type of deal it would have been done when we had 50 million to spend.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuler82 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 30 minutes ago, Joejet said: The Jags were in the running for Vernon so they are interested in DL and have the necessary cap space. There probably aren't many other teams that fit both criteria. At this point I don't think Wilk is going anywhere and hopefully Mac came get him signed to a multi year deal. they probably wanted Vernon as OLB. Apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: It occurred to me when I was making this post in the Olivier Vernon thread. The Jets were in the running (top 3) for Vernon. They (allegedly) only got out when the bidding hit $15M/year, which suggests they were still in it when the bidding was north of $10M, and probably when it was north of $12M, when we only have some $6M or so in available cap room at the moment. If they didn't have a trade partner already lined up for Mo, they run the risk of keeping the newly-signed Vernon on at least a $12M/year deal plus Mo at $15M, plus Williams plus Sheldon. Unless Maccagnan is someone who walks into traffic and then looks to see if any cars are coming after, making any offer suggests they could very well have a deal lined up. Frankly it should mean that or what the hell is he doing lol. Great thought, but why even go after another DE to begin with? We already have WIlliams and Richardson. If anything we need to find Snacks replacement, unless they figured that WIlliams was Snacks replacement at DT. I dont understand. Why even be in the running to begin with. Then again I have been out of the loop for the past 2 months so if there's something that I've missed then clue me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EBoozer Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: Yes but I think we have some penalty for tagging a player and then rescinding it. Like not only can't we tag another player but we can't tag someone next year either or something. I forget what the penalty is, but teams can't play that game with the game's best UFAs the way they can with RFAs (like we did with Kellen Clemens on final cut day) or you'd see it happen a lot more often. Mo hasn't signed his tender yet. Can't we pull it if he hasn't signed it? Not that I'd recommend this, but just for discussions sake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYJ37/12 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 18 minutes ago, slats said: The top 51 player salaries have to be under the cap until the final cutdowns, when all 53 in total have to be under. You are correct, just looked it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Integrity28 said: How has nobody given Sperm sh*t for shamelessly starting a new thread, to plug another post he made... by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said: Great thought, but why even go after another DE to begin with? We already have WIlliams and Richardson. If anything we need to find Snacks replacement, unless they figured that WIlliams was Snacks replacement at DT. I dont understand. Why even be in the running to begin with. Then again I have been out of the loop for the past 2 months so if there's something that I've missed then clue me in. I was just looking at it from a money swap standpoint. Nominally a DE or not, Vernon would play OLB for us, relegating Richardson back to the line. When we line up 4 across, though, presumably he'd have his hand in the dirt. As would/should Mo, Sheldon, and Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotcheryifyouCan Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Kaep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joejet Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 28 minutes ago, shuler82 said: they probably wanted Vernon as OLB. Apples and oranges. Aren't the Jags a 4-3 team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 18 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said: Mo hasn't signed his tender yet. Can't we pull it if he hasn't signed it? Not that I'd recommend this, but just for discussions sake We can but I believe there's a penalty in terms of our ability to tag someone else. Don't know if it means we can't tag someone next year or what the penalty is. I just can't remember, and even if I did remember that would have been under the old CBA. 1 hour ago, chirorob said: They put it on him, then pulled it I believe. And why, can't you remember what the Bengals did in the last 10 years. You sir, are a disgrace! Not the franchise tag. It was the transition tag. Huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said: We can but I believe there's a penalty in terms of our ability to tag someone else. Don't know if it means we can't tag someone next year or what the penalty is. I just can't remember, and even if I did remember that would have been under the old CBA. Not the franchise tag. It was the transition tag. Huge difference. Yes, I was unclear, it was the transition. But if Mo has not signed his franchise, it can be pulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, chirorob said: Yes, I was unclear, it was the transition. But if Mo has not signed his franchise, it can be pulled. Just saying it's not the same thing. There are no repercussions to a team pulling back the transition tag. I think there are, though, for rescinding a franchise tag. However, yes it can be pulled back as long as it's unsigned. Once it's signed it's a guaranteed one year contract; you can't just tear it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 27 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said: I was just looking at it from a money swap standpoint. Nominally a DE or not, Vernon would play OLB for us, relegating Richardson back to the line. When we line up 4 across, though, presumably he'd have his hand in the dirt. As would/should Mo, Sheldon, and Williams. Maybe its me, but every time I see teams like the Jets try to take a DE and convert him to an OLB it never seems to work. I know Mauldin was a DE in College but atleast he played OLB his last year in college before being drafted, so he was drafted as a OLB and not a DE with the plans of converting him over. Im scared of paying a guy 15 million then telling him that we want you to play OLB. I would prefer they just sign a OLB or draft one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully28 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It's a nice draw from the rumor, so I'll commend OP for that. But imo the rumor doesn't make sense, If you were going to pay Vernon who is a worse player than Wilk for around 12-14 million a year, why would you get rid of Wilk? I know Wilk may command a couple million more, but I thought the whole idea was, we have Williams and RIchardson, Wilk is expendable and could be used to fill needs on other areas on the team. Trading Wilkerson and then signing Vernon would be a lateral move. It'd be the same situation as we were in before but with an extra player or draft pick from the WIlk trade and being locked in long term to a guy who I think isn't as good and doesn't have the potential to be as good as Williams, Richardson, or Mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Ex-Rex said: The Giants - in a total move of desperation - signed both Snacks and Vernon - making Vernon the highest paid DE in the league. Dumb is as dumb does. G-Men gave Harrison 24 M guaranteed, which is way too much for a two down player. Snacks won't be two down for them they play 4-3. Even in nickel and dime formations snacks would be on the field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Might as well keep Mo now that we lost snacks and probably also Fitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainejet Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I really don't understand the point though? I really thought they would have made a deal to trade Mo already. That way they could have kept Snacks. I guess I understand from the standpoint of getting something in return for him, but still I thought the point would have been to keep Snacks as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raideraholic Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: This is also a distinct possibility, but of all teams how would the Jets' name get in there? We already have a better Vernon we know, tagged for the 2016 season. So I think there's a good chance Mac at least picked up a phone. Now he may have been only 1 of 3 teams to even pick up a phone and get as far as, "How much? $15M??? Bah! [*click*]." lol There are other possibilities. One is they were showing interest in Vernon without any real bidding, and get this leaked in an attempt to put pressure on Mo to sign a deal the Jets want; to show they'll pay but they'll only pay so much on a longer deal, and no one's offering up a pick for him so he might as well take the Jets' offer. Otherwise play under the tag and risk serious injury without one yet again. That idea seems thin in comparison. Plus that could backfire and Mo's (his agent's) stance then turns into "Ah, so you admit without me you're in need of an expensive veteran to get to the passer. Cha-ching!"). I'm sticking with we already had a trade partner lined up from before we tagged him, and that's why we tagged him. Oakland was rumored to be the top party interested in Mo and I don't think they've signed a Mo-comparable player yet. The Raiders aren't trading for Muhammad Wilkerson- they couldn't afford him long term . As they have to have the money they need when Derek Carr , and Khalil Mack rookie year contract are up. ( that's going to be some serious money) The Raiders will draft a defense lineman with their first pick . ( nice cheap contract ) They don't need Muhammad Wilkerson as they have enough pass rushers. ( K Mack, B Irvin , and eventually Aldon Smith( when he gets reinstated) . Jmo if the Jets were serious about potential signing Oliveri Vernon, they were probably going to drop his tag -making him an unrestricted Fa. Muhammad Wilkerson would have had trouble finding anyone to pay his salary.( all the big money has been spent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerfish Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Here is a crazy thought for which I'll get ripped for even thinking about. What would people think about a trade revolving around Jadeveon Clowney for Mo Wilk (with other pieces moving either way)? Clowneys Cap hit is about 6.5 and 7 million over the next two years. Houston seems to be in a win now mode and could use a guy that could legitimately take pressure off of Watt. Houston has enough cap room for Wilk, Mac was part of the front office that draft Clowney. I assume most people would hate it thinking Clowney is an injury bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j4jets Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I don't doubt for a split second Mo wants 20 mil per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointman Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Just now, j4jets said: I don't doubt for a split second Mo wants 20 mil per. So do I. Neither of us are getting it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j4jets Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Just now, pointman said: So do I. Neither of us are getting it though. Vernon got $17mil. Mo can block the potential trade by announcing his desire of a 5 year 100 mil with 60 guaranteed. That may force use to keep him or trade him for peanuts. There aren't ma y teams that can afford 20 mil. Jags? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointman Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, j4jets said: Vernon got $17mil. Mo can block the potential trade by announcing his desire of a 5 year 100 mil with 60 guaranteed. That may force use to keep him or trade him for peanuts. There aren't ma y teams that can afford 20 mil. Jags? I doubt it. He's not getting 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, j4jets said: Vernon got $17mil. Mo can block the potential trade by announcing his desire of a 5 year 100 mil with 60 guaranteed. That may force use to keep him or trade him for peanuts. There aren't ma y teams that can afford 20 mil. Jags? I doubt it. Make it pistachios and I'm in.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcat Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, drdetroit said: Snacks won't be two down for them they play 4-3. Even in nickel and dime formations snacks would be on the field good for us. Helps enhance the comp pick with more playing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: It occurred to me when I was making this post in the Olivier Vernon thread. The Jets were in the running (top 3) for Vernon. They (allegedly) only got out when the bidding hit $15M/year, which suggests they were still in it when the bidding was north of $10M, and probably when it was north of $12M, when we only have some $6M or so in available cap room at the moment. If they didn't have a trade partner already lined up for Mo, they run the risk of keeping the newly-signed Vernon on at least a $12M/year deal plus Mo at $15M, plus Williams plus Sheldon. Unless Maccagnan is someone who walks into traffic and then looks to see if any cars are coming after, making any offer suggests they could very well have a deal lined up. Frankly it should mean that or what the hell is he doing lol. What it means is that this stuff is more complicated than coming up with 53 numbers that add up to the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: It occurred to me when I was making this post in the Olivier Vernon thread. The Jets were in the running (top 3) for Vernon. They (allegedly) only got out when the bidding hit $15M/year, which suggests they were still in it when the bidding was north of $10M, and probably when it was north of $12M, when we only have some $6M or so in available cap room at the moment. If they didn't have a trade partner already lined up for Mo, they run the risk of keeping the newly-signed Vernon on at least a $12M/year deal plus Mo at $15M, plus Williams plus Sheldon. Unless Maccagnan is someone who walks into traffic and then looks to see if any cars are coming after, making any offer suggests they could very well have a deal lined up. Frankly it should mean that or what the hell is he doing lol. brick re done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varjet Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Somebody could pay that money, but likely not this year. Would have to see who had cap room next year. Vernon is also a pass rusher, which is why he got paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Smashmouth said: brick re done From your mouth to as far as humanly possible away from Mac's ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 19 minutes ago, varjet said: Somebody could pay that money, but likely not this year. Would have to see who had cap room next year. Vernon is also a pass rusher, which is why he got paid. vernon had 7.5 sacks last year, mo had 12 I thought maybe vernon was hurt and did that in 9 games so I looked it up and he played 16 games If mo hit the market with von miller on the sidelines he would have gotten $18 million easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said: From your mouth to as far as humanly possible away from Mac's ears. I agree, leave his deal the way it is and make a decision next year. the $13 million in savings could be yuge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Larz said: I agree, leave his deal the way it is and make a decision next year. the $13 million in savings could be yuge Uh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said: Uh... doesn't changing salary into bonus change the cap savings if a player is cut ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, Larz said: doesn't changing salary into bonus change the cap savings if a player is cut ? No. Just moves it around a little. Whatever you pay him must come off the cap. Net savings = 0. Only way to save is to pay him less, which saves a little, or pay him nothing (cut him). We should do the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.