Jump to content

Macc Conf. Call


drsamuel84
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, drsamuel84 said:

 

Mo is insurance for Sheldon. If we trade Mo and Sheldon gets a 4 game ban for the driving incident w/the loaded handgun and child.... we'll be very thin up front.

If SR has a dirty piss again, we're looking at 10 games (IIRC).

Does Mac want to take that chance? IDK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Mo is insurance for Sheldon. If we trade Mo and Sheldon gets a 4 game ban for the driving incident w/the loaded handgun and child.... we'll be very thin up front.

If SR has a dirty piss again, we're looking at 10 games (IIRC).

Does Mac want to take that chance? IDK

Sheldon has been subject to random drug tests a minimum of three times a month since his suspension. He's doing well so far. Guy knows he's worth in the neighborhood of $17M/year (or more) if he can stay clean, and he doesn't seem like an idiot. Put a couple weed-based clauses in hs next contract, and I'd be happy to sign him up. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Mo is insurance for Sheldon. If we trade Mo and Sheldon gets a 4 game ban for the driving incident w/the loaded handgun and child.... we'll be very thin up front.

If SR has a dirty piss again, we're looking at 10 games (IIRC).

Does Mac want to take that chance? IDK

This is one case where the actual finances are really a big factor.  I think he would love to keep wilk and keep him happy but looking at all that dollar commitment and perhaps a decent trade offer he keeps his options open.  On thing I like so far about this front office is that unlike other ones we have had they don;t seem to fall in lover with players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich Cimini ESPN Staff Writer 

cimini_rich_m.jpg

Jets GM Mike Maccagnan said today they still hope to re-sign free-agent QB Ryan Fitzpatrick. He said Fitzpatrick is "a very good fit for us," adding they hope to find "a middle ground" in negotiations. He called RG3's visit last week a "meet and greet." The focus, he said, remains Fitzpatrick. Maccagnan said Geno Smith "could definitely be a possibility" replace Fitzpatrick if he leaves.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, faba said:

Rich Cimini ESPN Staff Writer 

cimini_rich_m.jpg

Jets GM Mike Maccagnan said today they still hope to re-sign free-agent QB Ryan Fitzpatrick. He said Fitzpatrick is "a very good fit for us," adding they hope to find "a middle ground" in negotiations. He called RG3's visit last week a "meet and greet." The focus, he said, remains Fitzpatrick. Maccagnan said Geno Smith "could definitely be a possibility" replace Fitzpatrick if he leaves.

One also has to see that they are not trying to undersell Fitzpatrick.  They know he is valuable to the team.  

The key here IMO is that it doesn't mean that they are driving up Fitz' price by saying or stating the obvious. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

One also has to see that they are not trying to undersell Fitzpatrick.  They know he is valuable to the team.  

The key here IMO is that it doesn't mean that they are driving up Fitz' price by saying or stating the obvious. 

He also has to be careful in that he doesnt want to piss off Fitz and his people in the event they get back together.  Need to have a good relationship...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Thats what people (fans) keep saying but I dont see it.  Hes not going anywhere

Uh, Maccagnan just said it. Whenever a GM says things along the lines of "Right now he's on the roster," or similar, it means they're looking - really looking - for another solution. 

Mac's comments indicate the likely best case scenario for a Ferguson return is, "D'Brickashaw, I have a multi-million dollar pay cut offer in one hand, and I have your walking papers in the other. Pick one." If it even gets as far as that offer, then that makes it 50/50.

Good to see that Maccagnan seems aware Ferguson is not worth $11M this year.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut indicates we won't find a suitable trade partner and adequate value in return for Mo prior to the draft. I agree w/above poster that Mo hedges however long we lose Sheldon for in '16. 

Brick will restructure once we draft his heir apparent in the first 3 rounds and MacCags will get a LongTerm Deal hammered out with Mo by the end of TC.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Uh, Maccagnan just said it. Whenever a GM says things along the lines of "Right now he's on the roster," or similar, it means they're looking - really looking - for another solution. 

Mac's comments indicate the likely best case scenario for a Ferguson return is, "D'Brickashaw, I have a multi-million dollar pay cut offer in one hand, and I have your walking papers in the other. Pick one." If it even gets as far as that offer, then that makes it 50/50.

Good to see that Maccagnan seems aware Ferguson is not worth $11M this year.

if they cut him wouldn't another team pick him up and work out a salary reduction?  or he could take his chances and hope he gets more from another team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Uh, Maccagnan just said it. Whenever a GM says things along the lines of "Right now he's on the roster," or similar, it means they're looking - really looking - for another solution. 

Mac's comments indicate the likely best case scenario for a Ferguson return is, "D'Brickashaw, I have a multi-million dollar pay cut offer in one hand, and I have your walking papers in the other. Pick one." If it even gets as far as that offer, then that makes it 50/50.

Good to see that Maccagnan seems aware Ferguson is not worth $11M this 

 And everyday the FA market for starting LT gets $limmer and le$$ lucrative!

Bricks ropes  are getting tighter and tighter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faba said:

cimini_rich_m.jpg

 Maccagnan said Geno Smith "could definitely be a possibility" replace Fitzpatrick if he leaves.

 

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Mac playing the game well, definitely possibly.

Yes, it is certainly probable.  Definitely a chance. Perhaps it will happen for sure.

Now here is Cookie with weekend weather report:  

take it away Cookie....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Uh, Maccagnan just said it. Whenever a GM says things along the lines of "Right now he's on the roster," or similar, it means they're looking - really looking - for another solution. 

Mac's comments indicate the likely best case scenario for a Ferguson return is, "D'Brickashaw, I have a multi-million dollar pay cut offer in one hand, and I have your walking papers in the other. Pick one." If it even gets as far as that offer, then that makes it 50/50.

Good to see that Maccagnan seems aware Ferguson is not worth $11M this year.

That's a big cap hit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dcat said:

 

Yes, it is certainly probable.  Definitely a chance. Perhaps it will happen for sure.

Now here is Cookie with weekend weather report:  

take it away Cookie....

"IT'S GONNA SNOW AND WE'RE ALL F*CKED"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Uh, Maccagnan just said it. Whenever a GM says things along the lines of "Right now he's on the roster," or similar, it means they're looking - really looking - for another solution. 

Mac's comments indicate the likely best case scenario for a Ferguson return is, "D'Brickashaw, I have a multi-million dollar pay cut offer in one hand, and I have your walking papers in the other. Pick one." If it even gets as far as that offer, then that makes it 50/50.

Good to see that Maccagnan seems aware Ferguson is not worth $11M this year.

I was responding to the fans who think Brick will be cut.  I'd pretty much bet anything at this point that they redo his deal and keep him.  As I said I don't see them cutting him or moving on as the person I was responding to had said.   

For all the dreaming that the Jets will cut him?  They eat 5 mil in dead money and then sign another guy for 7-8 mil, why?  What will they save?  I keep hearing about saving and unless we go with a player already on the roster or who is a scrub we don't save anything significant. 

Hes a jet in 2016. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Matt Forte signing immediately makes our OL much more effective. No more ground and pound threat. Now we have a RB capable of keeping the D off balance.  I believe brick is declining, but, like the rest of the line, he'll have a bounce back year with forte toting the rock. Let's just hope Mac can pull out a pay cut. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

I was responding to the fans who think Brick will be cut.  I'd pretty much bet anything at this point that they redo his deal and keep him.  As I said I don't see them cutting him or moving on as the person I was responding to had said.   

For all the dreaming that the Jets will cut him?  They eat 5 mil in dead money and then sign another guy for 7-8 mil, why?  What will they save?  I keep hearing about saving and unless we go with a player already on the roster or who is a scrub we don't save anything significant. 

Hes a jet in 2016. 

Why do you and others keep repeating the dead cap money as though it is relevant? The only time that matters is when it's because of guaranteed NEW money still owed to a player. The "dead cap" money has to come off for Ferguson whether he's kept or not, so it makes no difference. We don't save anything cap-wise by keeping him and lamenting about dead cap space is an emotional complaint, not a rational one.

The only thing that is relevant is how much new money they would be willing to pay him. I don't think Ferguson is worth the $11M in new money the Jets are due to pay him just for the 2016 season. There isn't a team in the league that would pay him that kind of scratch just for this season. Are the Jets special idiots that should pay him $11M when Russell Okung (not truly elite, but certainly better than Brick) is getting less than half that?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Why do you and others keep repeating the dead cap money as though it is relevant? The only time that matters is when it's because of guaranteed NEW money still owed to a player. The "dead cap" money has to come off for Ferguson whether he's kept or not, so it makes no difference. We don't save anything cap-wise by keeping him and lamenting about dead cap space is an emotional complaint, not a rational one.

The only thing that is relevant is how much new money they would be willing to pay him. I don't think Ferguson is worth the $11M in new money the Jets are due to pay him just for the 2016 season. There isn't a team in the league that would pay him that kind of scratch just for this season. Are the Jets special idiots that should pay him $11M when Russell Okung (not truly elite, but certainly better than Brick) is getting less than half that?

We keep repeating it because if we cut Brick there's 5 mil I'm dead cap money that will count towards the cap this season.  So yes they save the 8 mil out of the 13 mil on his deal.  Then he has to be replaced.   

Add the 5 mil to the cost of the new player and the savings isn't significant.  

As to who makes what, no one is paying Brick the top dollar he gets because he's a 13 or whatever mil a year player, it's because they redid his contract and back loaded it.  Has nothing to do with who makes what.  Anymore than when they redid the deal to save cap room he was worth whatever he was reduced to. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

We keep repeating it because if we cut Brick there's 5 mil I'm dead cap money.  So yes they save the 8 mil out of the 13 mil on his deal.  Then he has to be replaced.  

Add the 5 mil to the cost of the new player and the savings isn't significant.  

As to who makes what, no one is paying Brick the top dollar he gets because he's a 13 or whatever mil a year player, it's because they redid his contract and back loaded it.  Has nothing to do with who makes what.  Anymore than when they redid the deal to save cap room he was worth whatever he was reduced to. 

You're still missing the point. You have to allot that "dead cap" money to Brick as well, if we keep him, not just to a new player. That past bonus money doesn't offset any new salary/bonus we're due to pay Ferguson in 2016 or 2017. It is not "more" to add that money to someone else than to Ferguson's total cap number. It's exactly the same. That money was paid in the past so the 2016+ cap space for it is gone. It cannot be recovered no matter what.

All that matters is how much are we going to pay going forward. Brick has a high cap number because of past bonuses, but he also has a high amount of NEW money scheduled for 2016:

  • $1M roster bonus
  • $650K option bonus
  • $750K workout bonus
  • $8.6M salary

None of that has anything to do with past signing bonus paid to him. That is all NEW MONEY. Paying new money to Ferguson is the same as paying new money to anyone else. Whatever new money we pay him has to come off the cap. If we pay him another $11M this season, then $11M has to come off the cap ON TOP OF the amortized bonus money paid to him in the past.

Lamenting over part of the cap hit from past bonus money is an emotional problem only. It has no bearing on what we should do going forward other than bothering you emotionally to have cap space allotted for a player that isn't on the team anymore. But it doesn't make keeping Ferguson any smarter.

The only reason to keep Ferguson is if the team wants him to be the starting LT at the lowest price he's willing to take. If he refuses a pay cut, that amount is $11M for the 2016 season, and then (since Bowles is unlikely to bench any veteran starter) we'll be in the same position a year from now with no "proven" replacement. Just like from a year ago to today.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You're still missing the point. You have to allot that "dead cap" money to Brick as well, if we keep him, not just to a new player. That past bonus money doesn't offset any new salary/bonus we're due to pay Ferguson in 2016 or 2017. It is not "more" to add that money to someone else than to Ferguson's total cap number. It's exactly the same. That money was paid in the past so the 2016+ cap space for it is gone. It cannot be recovered no matter what.

All that matters is how much are we going to pay going forward. Brick has a high cap number because of past bonuses, but he also has a high amount of NEW money scheduled for 2016:

  • $1M roster bonus
  • $650K option bonus
  • $750K workout bonus
  • $8.6M salary

None of that has anything to do with past signing bonus paid to him. That is all NEW MONEY. Paying new money to Ferguson is the same as paying new money to anyone else. Whatever new money we pay him has to come off the cap. If we pay him another $11M this season, then $11M has to come off the cap ON TOP OF the amortized bonus money paid to him in the past.

Lamenting over part of the cap hit from past bonus money is an emotional problem only. It has no bearing on what we should do going forward other than bothering you emotionally to have cap space allotted for a player that isn't on the team anymore. But it doesn't make keeping Ferguson any smarter.

The only reason to keep Ferguson is if the team wants him to be the starting LT at the lowest price he's willing to take. If he refuses a pay cut, that amount is $11M for the 2016 season, and then (since Bowles is unlikely to bench any veteran starter) we'll be in the same position a year from now with no "proven" replacement. Just like from a year ago to today.

Not that it would make a difference on letting him go or trading him, but I believe the option bonus is guaranteed.

Typically an option is a signing bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hawk said:

Not that it would make a difference on letting him go or trading him, but I believe the option bonus is guaranteed.

Typically an option is a signing bonus.

Well it's prorated as same as a signing bonus, but it's typically an option to pay it (hence the name).

In the end, I agree completely that it's such a small percentage of his compensation it's not going to be the deciding factor that tips the scales one way or the other even if it is guaranteed. It isn't like Ferguson is worth $650K shy of $11M either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You're still missing the point. You have to allot that "dead cap" money to Brick as well, if we keep him, not just to a new player. That past bonus money doesn't offset any new salary/bonus we're due to pay Ferguson in 2016 or 2017. It is not "more" to add that money to someone else than to Ferguson's total cap number. It's exactly the same. That money was paid in the past so the 2016+ cap space for it is gone. It cannot be recovered no matter what.

All that matters is how much are we going to pay going forward. Brick has a high cap number because of past bonuses, but he also has a high amount of NEW money scheduled for 2016:

  • $1M roster bonus
  • $650K option bonus
  • $750K workout bonus
  • $8.6M salary

None of that has anything to do with past signing bonus paid to him. That is all NEW MONEY. Paying new money to Ferguson is the same as paying new money to anyone else. Whatever new money we pay him has to come off the cap. If we pay him another $11M this season, then $11M has to come off the cap ON TOP OF the amortized bonus money paid to him in the past.

Lamenting over part of the cap hit from past bonus money is an emotional problem only. It has no bearing on what we should do going forward other than bothering you emotionally to have cap space allotted for a player that isn't on the team anymore. But it doesn't make keeping Ferguson any smarter.

The only reason to keep Ferguson is if the team wants him to be the starting LT at the lowest price he's willing to take. If he refuses a pay cut, that amount is $11M for the 2016 season, and then (since Bowles is unlikely to bench any veteran starter) we'll be in the same position a year from now with no "proven" replacement. Just like from a year ago to today.

Is dead money not the money left that's owed when you remove the non guaranteed portion of his contract? The 5 mil that the Jets are then hook for regardless of if he plays or not?  The 5 mil that is in the books for 2016? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan Clady - T -  Broncos

ESPN's Rich Cimini does not believe the Jets are interested in trading for Broncos LT Ryan Clady.

Clady is on the block after the Broncos signed Russell Okung in free agency, and the Jets appear willing to move on from longtime LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson. The issue is Clady is only three years younger than Ferguson, is coming off a torn ACL, and is scheduled to make $19.5 million over the next two years. Unless Clady is willing to take a big pay cut, it makes sense for the Jets to stick with Ferguson.
 
Source: ESPN 
Mar 19 - 9:40 AM
 
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...