Jets Restructure James Carpenter

[CrazyCarl40]

Probably creating room for Jenkins and McClendon. Not much to see here, but this could be the harbinger for more to come.

[whodeawhodat]

noice

[jett]

6 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

Probably creating room for Jenkins and McClendon. Not much to see here, but this could be the harbinger for more to come.

Smart to do with him. He's young and probably was our best lineman last year. Won't mind a bigger cap hit for a player of his caliber. Tanny got in trouble because he restructured older players' contracts all the time and we were left on the hook with diminished talent with bloated contracts. 

[KRL]

6 minutes ago, jett said:

Smart to do with him. He's young and probably was our best lineman last year. Won't mind a bigger cap hit for a player of his caliber. Tanny got in trouble because he restructured older players' contracts all the time and we were left on the hook with diminished talent with bloated contracts. 

Exactly!!!

[Sperm Edwards]

Carpenter was initially signed for 4 years at $4.775M/season.

We already kept his initial, 2015 cap # low at $2.375M

We're now keeping his 2016 cap # even lower at $1.99M

That isn't any net savings long term. The result for the future: 

2017 and 2018 cap numbers rise to almost $7M both years ($6.805M to be exact; $2.105M of which is amortized past-paid bonus money that has to come off each year no matter what else we do with his contract later on). So whatever we "saved" this year and last year to make $2-3M above the mean in extra cap room each time, now adds $2-3M above the mean for the next 2 years.

Maccagnan made an excellent move signing Carpenter to a great, team-friendly contract after losing out on the Mike Iupati sweepstakes. The next 2 years he's going to feel much more top-heavy on the cap. $6.8M is still not an unwieldy amount, like what Ferguson's cap # has ballooned into, but the extra $ for players we fit in 2015-2016 are now the same $ of players we won't be able to fit in 2017-2018 when (in the opinion of many) we're going to be in position to make a more realistic SB run than 2016.

We'll see if this season's final result & record warranted using up future cap room for this year, because we already have nothing to show for doing so in 2015.

**edit** - once I got past my initial reflex/reaction I see now it doesn't add to future caps. It's just a mechanism to buy us another several weeks on the upcoming Mo/Ferguson/Breno decisions. When the dust settles, before September, it won't have saved us space this year and won't cost us anything in the future.

[Fibonacci]

I hate pushing money to future years. hate hate it. 

[Sarge4Tide]

Roll Tide!

[section314]

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Carpenter was initially signed for 4 years at $4.775M/season.

We already kept his initial, 2015 cap # low at $2.375M

We're now keeping his 2016 cap # even lower at $1.99M

That isn't any net savings long term. The result for the future: 

2017 and 2018 cap numbers rise to almost $7M both years ($6.805M to be exact; $2.105M of which is amortized past-paid bonus money that has to come off each year no matter what else we do with his contract later on). So whatever we "saved" this year and last year to make $2-3M above the mean in extra cap room each time, now adds $2-3M above the mean for the next 2 years.

Maccagnan made an excellent move signing Carpenter to a great, team-friendly contract after losing out on the Mike Iupati sweepstakes. The next 2 years he's going to feel much more top-heavy on the cap. $6.8M is still not an unwieldy amount, like what Ferguson's cap # has ballooned into, but the extra $ for players we fit in 2015-2016 are now the same $ of players we won't be able to fit in 2017-2018 when (in the opinion of many) we're going to be in position to make a more realistic SB run than 2016.

We'll see if this season's final result & record warranted using up future cap room for this year, because we already have nothing to show for doing so in 2015.

I think this tells you two things right off the bat.First, the Jets feel Carpenter is a core guy, someone they are going to build around.You wouldn't restructure a young guy if you didn't see him as part of the solution. Second, Breno and D'Brick are goners.

[Jetsfan80]

21 minutes ago, Fibonacci said:

I hate pushing money to future years. hate hate it. 

What options do we have outside of outright cutting players?  Prior to this restructure we were projected to have about $40M in cap space next year, and $120M in 2018.  We'll be OK.

[Bleedin Green]

20 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Carpenter was initially signed for 4 years at $4.775M/season.

We already kept his initial, 2015 cap # low at $2.375M

We're now keeping his 2016 cap # even lower at $1.99M

That isn't any net savings long term. The result for the future: 

2017 and 2018 cap numbers rise to almost $7M both years ($6.805M to be exact; $2.105M of which is amortized past-paid bonus money that has to come off each year no matter what else we do with his contract later on). So whatever we "saved" this year and last year to make $2-3M above the mean in extra cap room each time, now adds $2-3M above the mean for the next 2 years.

Maccagnan made an excellent move signing Carpenter to a great, team-friendly contract after losing out on the Mike Iupati sweepstakes. The next 2 years he's going to feel much more top-heavy on the cap. $6.8M is still not an unwieldy amount, like what Ferguson's cap # has ballooned into, but the extra $ for players we fit in 2015-2016 are now the same $ of players we won't be able to fit in 2017-2018 when (in the opinion of many) we're going to be in position to make a more realistic SB run than 2016.

We'll see if this season's final result & record warranted using up future cap room for this year, because we already have nothing to show for doing so in 2015.

Yeah, I don't really love the idea of money being pushed off into future years, but if they feel it is necessary to make space, I can at least somewhat appreciate the approach they took for this one.  Rather than just picking the guy with the biggest contract in order to clear up as much space as possible, it seems they went the route of going with a player they felt more comfortable with making that gamble on.  Carpenter is young and was, at worst, the Jets second-best OL last year, so I imagine they certainly expect him to be playing out this entire deal.  While it would be best case scenario not to have to do this at all, it's certainly a better alternative than doing this with a guy you know who could easily be cut in the future, doubling up the problems with lots of dead money... like say, if they did this with the guy playing to his left.

[Augustiniak]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

What options do we have outside of outright cutting players?  Prior to this restructure we were projected to have about $40M in cap space next year, and $120M in 2018.  We'll be OK.

you get this much cap space when there is virtually no young talent to pay on offense.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Augustiniak said:

you get this much cap space when there is virtually no young talent to pay on offense.

Obviously but that is the fault of the prior regime.  The nice thing is that despite spending heavily last offseason, any "bad contracts" we have will be gone by the end of the 2017 season.  We can afford to push some cap space on to the next couple years where needed.  At the same time, I doubt Macc is planning to push an unreasonable amount onto the 2017 cap.

[smaxor5]

This will be mitigated when we trade Wilkerson and then rollover some of the cap space we get from it.  Solid gamble on a young core player.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, section314 said:

I think this tells you two things right off the bat.First, the Jets feel Carpenter is a core guy, someone they are going to build around.You wouldn't restructure a young guy if you didn't see him as part of the solution. Second, Breno and D'Brick are goners.

I knew that anyway from his age and his play last season. I didn't need forcing a high cap number later to tell me that. Plus if Breno and Brick are such goners then you clear up cap room by dumping these goners, not by restructuring the likes of Carpenter so we're able to fit the guys who are supposedly goners. JMO.

[Augustiniak]

8 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Obviously but that is the fault of the prior regime.  The nice thing is that despite spending heavily last offseason, any "bad contracts" we have will be gone by the end of the 2017 season.  We can afford to push some cap space on to the next couple years where needed.  At the same time, I doubt Macc is planning to push an unreasonable amount onto the 2017 cap.

true, it is not mccags' fault.  however, when will they have the opportunity to want to pay an offensive player if they keep drafting defense in the first round.  as it is they're trying to trade a former first round defensive pick who is very good.  they don't want to pay the qb who threw 31 td passes last year.  marshall doesn't have many real good years left.  they clearly want rb by committee which i endorse.  they don't want to pay brick.  next season they could have the lowest offensive payroll in the nfl.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

you get this much cap space when there is virtually no young talent to pay on offense.

This is true. $120M in cap room would be a terrible thing. It presumes there's even nearly $120M in worthy cap room to take on in 1 offseason, and use that amount wisely (not spend it because we "have to") in 1 offseason whether or not there are enough new players that are worthy or even good fits for the team.

I'm all for preserving cap space, but the purpose of clearing it now is to (hopefully wisely) use it later on, not to hoard it for the sake of having it.

[section314]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I knew that anyway from his age and his play last season. I didn't need forcing a high cap number later to tell me that. Plus if Breno and Brick are such goners then you clear up cap room by dumping these goners, not by restructuring the likes of Carpenter so we're able to fit the guys who are supposedly goners. JMO.

"The likes of Carpenter?" He was the best lineman we had last year.Perfect guy to restructure. Brick and Breno will be jettisoned when they need the real $ whenever they settle the QB issue or for the draft.  

[Jetsfan80]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is true. $120M in cap room would be a terrible thing. It presumes there's even nearly $120M in worthy cap room to take on in 1 offseason, and use that amount wisely (not spend it because we "have to") in 1 offseason whether or not there are enough new players that are worthy or even good fits for the team.

I'm all for preserving cap space, but the purpose of clearing it now is to (hopefully wisely) use it later on, not to hoard it for the sake of having it.

So now its a bad thing if we have a ton of cap space in 2 years?  A lot will happen between now and then.  Most important thing is for Macc to nail his drafts, as we've known all along.  Then we'll be able to justify spending heavily in the 2017 offseason to help make a run. 

Hopefully we'll have a QB worthy of getting an eventual big payday by then as well.

[Sperm Edwards]

16 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Yeah, I don't really love the idea of money being pushed off into future years, but if they feel it is necessary to make space, I can at least somewhat appreciate the approach they took for this one.  Rather than just picking the guy with the biggest contract in order to clear up as much space as possible, it seems they went the route of going with a player they felt more comfortable with making that gamble on.  Carpenter is young and was, at worst, the Jets second-best OL last year, so I imagine they certainly expect him to be playing out this entire deal.  While it would be best case scenario not to have to do this at all, it's certainly a better alternative than doing this with a guy you know who could easily be cut in the future, doubling up the problems with lots of dead money... like say, if they did this with the guy playing to his left.

Just understand the money "necessary" to make space now will be money we won't have later on.

The most likely reason is that we're looking at so much room available next year (and maybe the year after that). Particularly if we play it wisely and continue getting starters who are playing on rookie contracts. We didn't have such a luxury for a new HC and GM to bet on that in the upcoming 2015 season, so it's a bit more forgivable and it doesn't mean that money will always burn a hole in Maccagnan's pockets.

If we can get starters in 2017 or even into 2018 from draftees still on their lower rookie deals (and/or any lower-priced FAs) like L.Williams (before you know it, $5-6M will seem low-priced for him), Pryor, D.Smith, Amaro, Mauldin, and Petty if he's showing something by then. That's on top of the guys we draft this year and will draft next year, and any good, low-priced FAs and UDFAs we pick up along the way.

Point being it's not just the rise in the salary cap limit that will make his $7M seem easier to deal with, but that another half dozen or more roster spots for starters won't necessitate as many additional $5-7M (or worse, $10-15M) per year deals.

[jett]

50 minutes ago, Fibonacci said:

I hate pushing money to future years. hate hate it. 

I understand the idea, if you do it a lot it can really strap a team. However we did it with a young cheap player, who we will keep until the end of his contract. It's when you do it with guys who you need to cut in later years but can't because now the hit is too high is when you get in trouble. Carp is a stud and we still will be paying him cheap compared to others at his position.  If Mac starts doing this with everyone then I would be concerned. But I doubt that happens. 

[CrazyCarl40]

He just turned 27. They pushed future money into years 28 and 29, when the cap should go up in both years, really negating any kind of impact, especially since he's really good. I would be upset if they did this kind of restructure with Brick, but this is one that actually makes sense, to me anyway.

[Dcat]

Just now, CrazyCarl40 said:

He just turned 27. They pushed future money into years 28 and 29, when the cap should go up in both years, really negating any kind of impact, especially since he's really good. I would be upset if they did this kind of restructure with Brick, but this is one that actually makes sense, to me anyway.

spot on.  Look, nobody likes pushing more cap hits into future years.  It puts those years at some risk despite likely increases to the salary cap each year.  But it's the nature of the NFL and every team finds it has to do this from time to time.  Might as well do it with a young player so it all doesn't accelerate to quickly as when it is done Tanny-style with an older player nearer the end of his career.

[Sperm Edwards]

10 minutes ago, section314 said:

"The likes of Carpenter?" He was the best lineman we had last year.Perfect guy to restructure. Brick and Breno will be jettisoned when they need the real $ whenever they settle the QB issue or for the draft.  

I totally agree with your assessment of his worth, but the reason I said "the likes of Carpenter" is because a perfect guy to restructure is also the perfect guy to leave as is. He doesn't become more valuable, or any better of a player, because we restructure him to increase his cap # later on. He's good/valuable because he's good/valuable.

His value, relative to his compensation, goes down as his cap allotment goes up. A really good player on a lower cap contract is all that much more valuable.

For the sake of example, consider the following extreme analogy: Carpenter locked up and guaranteed for a few more seasons at $2M/season would be insanely valuable. Carpenter locked up and guaranteed for a few more seasons at $14M/year would be a train wreck. The player's performance on the field is the same in either scenario, though. 

[Dcat]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I totally agree with your assessment of his worth, but the reason I said "the likes of Carpenter" is because a perfect guy to restructure is also the perfect guy to leave as is. He doesn't become more valuable, or any better of a player, because we restructure him to increase his cap # later on. He's good/valuable because he's good/valuable.

His value, relative to his compensation, goes down as his cap allotment goes up. A really good player on a lower cap contract is all that much more valuable.

For the sake of example, consider the following extreme analogy: Carpenter locked up and guaranteed for a few more seasons at $2M/season would be insanely valuable. Carpenter locked up and guaranteed for a few more seasons at $14M/year would be a train wreck. The player's performance on the field is the same in either scenario, though. 

Sperm, in theory, what you say is logical.  But it's just not the reality of the economics of the NFL.  Teams often find themselves with cap headaches (like the 2016 Jets) and the restructure option,pushing cap hits into future years, becomes the only viable option short of cutting the player (which sometimes doesn't help the cap situation at all and makes it worse).  Again, if a team feels it must restructure now to open up cap space for current needs, it makes much more sense to do so with a younger player than one nearer the end of his career.  It would be a pipe dream to think that the team will never have to restructure to open up space now at the expense of later.  Just don't do it like Tanny did (far too frequently and with all the wrong players).

[Sperm Edwards]

@section314

My point was I didn't need them increasing Carpenter's cap # later to tell me he is a good player who we want to keep beyond 2016. I could see that with my eyes.

The effect this has is it makes it easier to keep around mega-expensive guys who don't look like they'll be here for long. Specifically, Wilkerson, Ferguson, and Giacomini. This restructuring makes it easier to fit them this year. 

Thinking about this more, the net result of this is zero. By the time September rolls around, this will not have saved us space this season nor will it cost us additional spending ability in the future.

[bitonti]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 We'll see if this season's final result & record warranted using up future cap room for this year, because we already have nothing to show for doing so in 2015.

Using that logic the Jets have nothing to show for the last 3 and a half decades of football 

[Sperm Edwards]

29 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Sperm, in theory, what you say is logical.  But it's just not the reality of the economics of the NFL.  Teams often find themselves with cap headaches (like the 2016 Jets) and the restructure option,pushing cap hits into future years, becomes the only viable option short of cutting the player (which sometimes doesn't help the cap situation at all and makes it worse).  Again, if a team feels it must restructure now to open up cap space for current needs, it makes much more sense to do so with a younger player than one nearer the end of his career.  It would be a pipe dream to think that the team will never have to restructure to open up space now at the expense of later.  Just don't do it like Tanny did (far too frequently and with all the wrong players).

What I was starting to say to @section314 above is the net result of this is zero. When the dust settles, we will not have cleared up space now to hurt future cap spending. It was not an isolated decision: in the long run it doesn't matter. Or if it does, the difference is negligible (not millions). 

If we still end up parting ways with 1, 2, or all 3 of Mo/Brick/Breno, there will be leftover cap space that will go unused in 2016. That - along with the $2.46M just cleared with Carpenter - all pushes forward to 2017. The net result is approximately zero, even though it looks like it makes things worse when isolating his future line-item (and in 2017 and 2018 people will complain about his nearly $7M number by looking only at that negative # independent of us also pushing forward an equal amount of a positive #).

The big picture, though, is a big picture: there is no isolating him as a line item, because this decision was part of other decisions. In the end, unless we spend every dollar we have available this year, the additional cap room we "saved" on him this year will be pushed to 2017-2018. So he'll count $1.23M more each of those 2 years, but our spending limit for 2017 will be $2.46M higher (or $1.23 higher in 2017 and 2018, if we so choose). The net result is zero.

If the net result is zero then why do it? The "big picture" of this decision is to clear temporary cap space so we don't need to pick which to cut today, before we know who's filling their spots later in FA or in the draft. Making room by cutting Ferguson today, for example, means we appear to have a big hole at LT that we'll be pressured to fill immediately in FA (possibly with a LT we'd have been better off not tying ourselves to for the upcoming 2-3 seasons) or by force-feeding an early pick in the draft. So it's a meaningless accounting maneuver to allow us to wait to replace Ferguson/Breno only after the right replacement presents himself. That may be in 2 days or 2 weeks or 2 months.

Actually despite my own initial reflex reaction, it's a really shrewd decision that only hurts us in the future if we keep all 3 of Mo + Ferguson + Breno (and thereby max out every dollar of our 2016 spending), which seems very unlikely. It doesn't eliminate those future decisions; it merely puts it off to a more convenient time this offseason.

[77DRAFT]

1 hour ago, Fibonacci said:

I hate pushing money to future years. hate hate it. 

Agree, sackless mac at it again, should have cut Brick and Breno and signed a stud to replace brick,

even had him in his office.  

[SenorGato]

Didn't even think of Carpenter, but a damn good choice to restructure. 

[bostonmajet]

Much ado about nothing IMO; we are talking about moving 2.49 million into the next two years on a young guy who has played very well for us. Right now we are looking at 30+ million not counting likely cuts plus an increase in the Cap over the 2 years. This isn't like the Sanchez extension which strapped this team.

As far as cutting/signing players for a great impact, we can still do that. And if the 2.49 million is not necessary, much of that can be pushed into next year; so we really haven't lost anything if the CAP relief turns out to be unnecessary.

Remember, we signed a few guys and needed the space.

[Sperm Edwards]

32 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Much ado about nothing IMO; we are talking about moving 2.49 million into the next two years on a young guy who has played very well for us. Right now we are looking at 30+ million not counting likely cuts plus an increase in the Cap over the 2 years. This isn't like the Sanchez extension which strapped this team.

As far as cutting/signing players for a great impact, we can still do that. And if the 2.49 million is not necessary, much of that can be pushed into next year; so we really haven't lost anything if the CAP relief turns out to be unnecessary.

Remember, we signed a few guys and needed the space.

Exactly correct, and it's what I realized after I thought about it for more than those first 2 minutes lol.

We're not maxing out the cap. It just bought us some time so we can do it at the best time not right now today. Like finding the best pick we can for Mo, for example. What if the best pick we could get now is a 3rd rounder, but if we hold out longer we get a better pick? This is exactly what happened with Revis: if we made that deal with Tampa in March or early April, we don't get their #1 pick. So this buys us that time. Once Mo (and/or Ferguson) are moved, there will be so much more space cleared than we presently need - even if we bring back Fitz - that it's virtually a lock that we're pushing millions forward to 2017.

My initial reaction: DAMMIT, this is the result of some bad contracts when we had nothing but space just 1 year ago.

My post-initial reaction: This is nothing. Not kinda nothing; it's exactly nothing.

[hawk]

Why?  $2+ Million is a drop in the bucket, and locks them into him going forward.  Make a real move, like extend Marshall or Mangold.  That will show some real GM prowess, not giving a guy money he was going to get anyway to bury yourself later.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 hour ago, 77DRAFT said:

Agree, sackless mac at it again, should have cut Brick and Breno and signed a stud to replace brick,

even had him in his office.  

Who? The guy who tore his ACL? Would rather draft a tackle

[Sperm Edwards]

50 minutes ago, hawk said:

Why?  $2+ Million is a drop in the bucket, and locks them into him going forward.  Make a real move, like extend Marshall or Mangold.  That will show some real GM prowess, not giving a guy money he was going to get anyway to bury yourself later.

That's not the reason for this move, and it does no such thing (not that we are even thinking about cutting him anyway). Scroll up and read why.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, bitonti said:

Using that logic the Jets have nothing to show for the last 3 and a half decades of football 

Maybe to you.