Setting up for 2017

[whodeawhodat]

41 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

And again, I never said anything about it.  I was pointing out what could happen.  They could also restructure Marshall. 

Whatever the Jets do, there are players that are not going to be on this team in 2017 (Breno, D'Brick), and a lot of the contracts are set up so they can be cut or restructured.  They will have a boat-load of money, and will have (hopefully) two more drafts full of good young (and cheap) talent.

You did say something about it but I get it now.  According to your plan we will have an entirely new roster.  okay.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

I am not considering cutting Marshall everyone!!!  Just pointing out that his contract is completely non-guaranteed and that it is an option.  If he is still performing at a high level, I would prefer they restructure his deal slightly.  I say Mangold because this draft is deep with centers and it COULD be a possibility that they replace Mangold before it gets to the position that we have seen with Ferguson where his play has dropped significantly.  Mangold isn't going to get better as a player.

No, but cutting Mangold still wouldn't happen. They'd trade him before cutting him. If they keep him for another season - when he'll still be an above average center - he also yields a compensatory draft pick. We'd be better off drafting said center, and playing him (or hell, even Mangold) at guard in 2017 when we'll have plenty of space anyway. Then a year later we get a compensatory pick back when someone else signs him (and someone surely will). You drop an older player if you see he's already no good, not while he is still good out of fear he might be something he might not be.

Point being, you outlined who is "technically" cuttable as though anyone wasn't cuttable. The only ones who have no $-only benefit are those who have so much in guaranteed $ on their deals that we're paying their salary even if we cut them, where we'd have to prefer to pay them to play elsewhere than pay them to play here. The team did that with Faneca, for instance. 

It is pointless to say we "can" cut the likes of Brandon Marshall because it would never could never happen unless he went postal again or unless he was severely injured. Barring a draft surprise, he is the best WR we can get our hands on for a non-guaranteed $7.5M and we already have him. The purpose of cutting a player is to clear cap space (or roster space) that will make the team better, not to cut for the sake of cutting during the most team-friendly year of his deal. And that's only half the reason. The other half of the reason would be that cutting him suggests he doesn't even have enough trade value to get back a conditional 7th round pick, which is equally ludicrous since his value is now higher than the day we got him. This is factored in even more so by passing up on the compensatory pick we'd get by letting him play out his deal -- a deal the team wanted and under which he's exceeded the team's expectations. 

That is why "everyone" is jumping on you. Because they realize this, and the only reason to point out "he's cuttable and here is the benefit" (in rational terms) is if you want him cut because you think the team is better off that way for some reason. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to make. 

[Sperm Edwards]

He cannot get cut. You do that with guys who are far too expensive for their production and who also have zero trade value. 

He would also not get restructured (which you're adding in). That is for young players who you know you want to keep, guaranteed, for 3 seasons. Neither of those two are reasonably possible, so it serves no purpose to say it's technically possible. Not unless you also present a plan of what to do with that $ (why on earth you're doing it in the first place), which you didn't do. The only plan you outlined was having more cap room.

Look, I used to - and still do - spend time looking at how we could clear this or that. But there has to be a purpose. Even in the absence of an obvious replacement, there has to be a reason. Like with Ferguson. I want us to cut him because he is a below average LT who robs the team over over $10M of usable space. Marshall is not below average, and won't be next season. Ditto Mangold. And though the cap will rise, and we'll have tons more space as well, they're each still millions less than Ferguson.

[Paradis]

You guys forget to eat your wheaties? Some really Weird/dense responses to a guy simply pointing out the obvious amount turn over coming in the next year.

If it was me I'd be spending on Oline. That's one of the few positions that you can land top grade beef at on the market. Rather than spending a 1st on RT, we can find those guys elsewhere

#lynch #coleman #spence

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bealeb319]

23 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

We will be.  Ferguson and Breno will not be on this team within 1-2 years, and I bet Mangold will be gone in 3 max

It would be a big hit though if we cut them all at once just to give us money to play with in 2017.

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, bealeb319 said:

It would be a big hit though if we cut them all at once just to give us money to play with in 2017.

Mangold is a temporary big hit on the field. The other two not so much (if at all). 

[Mainejet]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 2:27 PM, CanadaSteve said:

We may not like it, but it would seem the Jets are (perhaps) taking a step back this year.  There was not a lot of money, with Mo's franchise tag and D'Brick's price-tag, and no starting QB. 

That said, I wonder if the idea for this season is to evaluate young talent, get more young talent in here through the draft and UDFA, with an eye to 2017.

As of right now, the Jets only have 40 players under contract in 2017, with Bryce Petty being the ONLY QB.  I think it is fair to assume that a high draft pick is going to be spent on a QB, with perhaps Geno getting one last chance if Fitz does not re-up.

Presuming (for ease of numbers) the salary cap was to jump a small amount to $160 million for the season, that would give the Jets roughly $36 million to start.  We can then assume the following will happen:

Cutting D'Brick = $13 million save

Cutting Mangold = $9 million saved

Cutting Folk = $3 million saved

Cutting Harris = $6 million saved

Cutting Breno = $4 million saved

That extra $35 million would give the Jets $71 million for the year.  Add to that, if they REALLY wanted to clean up, they could cut Brandon Marshall, Buster Skrine and Marcus Gilchrist and save another $17.5 million. 

With the talent drafted last year, a bit of the young talent from before, the talent from this draft AND next years draft, and almost $75 million dollars to spend, the Jets could be getting set up for a good streak.  

Personally, the key to all this, I think, falls into three categories:  1) Putting up with this year    2) Spending the money wisely and not throwing it at just big names   3) drafting a QB.

It will all go for naught if this team cannot find themselves a QB that can win.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

The important thing is the last sentence in your post. In a QB driven league, the chances of winning consistently against the top tier teams in the league is a LOT harder.

With that said, I like what Mac's tendencies are. I hear he constantly has his eye on QB's. IMO, that is a great thing. We keep hearing that the Jets are going to take another QB in this draft and I completely agree with the tactic. Franchise QB's do NOT grow on trees, but keeping a constant infusion of young QB's coming in is the next best approach.