Things we coulda have done instead of tagging Wilk

[Villain The Foe]

1 minute ago, section314 said:

I think Fitz is history. There is something else in the works here. They got lucky last year with Fitz...there is no way Macc is trying to readjust our salary cap to resign an average, backup QB. 

Im just scared 314. 

 

This f'ing franchise has done stupid stuff equivalent in the past. 

[pointman]

I'm new here. Dr. Detroit is a troll, yes?

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

In the long term, yes. We need to get younger.

In the short term, probably not. But unless there is a better option at the right price out there....

 

And thats all I was saying.  

 

If this seriously about trying to create space for signing Ryan Fitzpatrick we might as well just call it a season now. 

[UnitedWhofans]

2 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Im just scared 314. 

 

This f'ing franchise has done stupid stuff equivalent in the past. 

So judging future decisions by past decisions by people who are either dead or retired....

[section314]

2 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Im just scared 314. 

 

This f'ing franchise has done stupid stuff equivalent in the past. 

Just screwing around here....Does this give us the $, with a better pick than Denver would have been able to give, for us to get Kapp? Just a guess.

[Snell41]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Of course its not all going to Fitzpatrick. But a large chunk of it would have to based on contract negotiations we heard about, along with now having to find a LT. 

 

Brick's retirement free'd 9 million, but the lowest number we heard regarding a new contract for Fitz was 7 million. 

 

Im not sure if you're avoiding what I've been saying...so to just be more direct let me just ask. Do you think that Ryan Fitzpatrick is worth having D'Brick retire and Wilk traded in order to have cash to pay him 7-10 million dollars? 

Wilk being franchised and Brick retiring/taking a paycut had nothing to do with Fitz.  Wilk being traded is happening because the FO thinks it's the right thing to do.  I tend to agree, with Sheldon, Williams, and whoever they plug at Nose we already have a formidable DL.  I don't think tying in a ton of money to the DL position is critical.  That may be wrong down the line, but it is prefaced on what we get for Mo if we do trade him.  Brick being approached for a paycut was happening because his play has dipped pretty severely.  There was even a report that he knew it and acknowledged it and didn't want to go out of the game playing at a much lower level than he was accustomed to.  If the FO was dead set on keeping Mo and Brick I have no doubt they would have done so even if it meant losing Fitz.  They have plenty of options at QB that are relatively reasonable vs Fitz.  And judging by the fact they haven't jumped at all into signing Fitz and allowed him to test the market without any resistance or issue, it seems the FO feels that way as well. 

[Villain The Foe]

1 minute ago, UnitedWhofans said:

So judging future decisions by past decisions by people who are either dead or retired....

No, just not forgetting. 

 

Really?

[UnitedWhofans]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

And thats all I was saying.  

 

If this seriously about trying to create space for signing Ryan Fitzpatrick we might as well just call it a season now. 

You're trying to turn this issue into a "Is Fitzpatrick good or bad" issue. That's not the issue.

The franchise needed cap space whether or not they were using it on Ryan Fitzpatrick.

I am convinced that even if Fitz was signed already, they would have asked for this pay cut.

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, section314 said:

Just screwing around here....Does this give us the $, with a better pick than Denver would have been able to give, for us to get Kapp? Just a guess.

Nope. We need to either pay 11.2 million to Kaep or negotiate a way to pay a good portion of it with Denver paying the rest. Kaep either way is getting 11 million this year. Brick only free'd up 9 million. 

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

Wilk being franchised and Brick retiring/taking a paycut had nothing to do with Fitz.  Wilk being traded is happening because the FO thinks it's the right thing to do.  I tend to agree, with Sheldon, Williams, and whoever they plug at Nose we already have a formidable DL.  I don't think tying in a ton of money to the DL position is critical.  That may be wrong down the line, but it is prefaced on what we get for Mo if we do trade him.  Brick being approached for a paycut was happening because his play has dipped pretty severely.  There was even a report that he knew it and acknowledged it and didn't want to go out of the game playing at a much lower level than he was accustomed to.  If the FO was dead set on keeping Mo and Brick I have no doubt they would have done so even if it meant losing Fitz.  They have plenty of options at QB that are relatively reasonable vs Fitz.  And judging by the fact they haven't jumped at all into signing Fitz and allowed him to test the market without any resistance or issue, it seems the FO feels that way as well. 

I didnt say that WIlk being trade had  to do with Fitz, but we NEED Wilk to be traded away in order to afford him based on the negotiation price. Brick free'd up 7 million. The negotiation price for Fitz was 7-10 million and we still have to sign rookies and maybe a new FA LT. So in order to afford this back up we need Wilk to be traded. 

 

My bad, I thought that was understood. 

[Snell41]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

Nope. We need to either pay 11.2 million to Kaep or negotiate a way to pay a good portion of it with Denver paying the rest. Kaep either way is getting 11 million this year. Brick only free'd up 9 million. 

If we're dealing for Kaep I suspect it will be on draft day, and Mo would likely somehow be part of that deal so freeing up money for him now would be a moot point. 

[UnitedWhofans]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

I didnt say that WIlk being trade had  to do with Fitz, but we NEED Wilk to be traded away in order to afford him based on the negotiation price. Brick free'd up 7 million. The negotiation price for Fitz was 7-10 million and we still have to sign rookies and maybe a new FA LT. So in order to afford this back up we need Wilk to be traded. 

 

My bad, I thought that was understood. 

Right. They could have resigned Fitzpatrick and rookies trading Wilkerson alone. D'Brick is a seperate issue

[Villain The Foe]

6 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

You're trying to turn this issue into a "Is Fitzpatrick good or bad" issue. That's not the issue.

The franchise needed cap space whether or not they were using it on Ryan Fitzpatrick.

I am convinced that even if Fitz was signed already, they would have asked for this pay cut.

Not trying to turn this into anything. 

 

A brother has his own opinion on the subject. 

[section314]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

Nope. We need to either pay 11.2 million to Kaep or negotiate a way to pay a good portion of it with Denver paying the rest. Kaep either way is getting 11 million this year. Brick only free'd up 9 million. 

Agreed. I think they said that Denver didn't have a 3rd. If we gave them our 3rd, maybe they assume some $ to make it work. My bigger thought here is that the Brick thing is part of something bigger, with another team. This Can't be all for Fitz. It just can't be.

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Right. They could have resigned Fitzpatrick and rookies trading Wilkerson alone. D'Brick is a seperate issue

Yet Wilk is still a Jet, Brick is gone and there are still talks about signing Fitz yet there's still not enough cash to do so. 

[Villain The Foe]

12 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

You're trying to turn this issue into a "Is Fitzpatrick good or bad" issue. That's not the issue.

The franchise needed cap space whether or not they were using it on Ryan Fitzpatrick.

I am convinced that even if Fitz was signed already, they would have asked for this pay cut.

Also, Im also convinced that if Fitz was already signed that the Jets would have requested some sort of paycut. You're just not following what I've been saying.

 

Im not talking about the paycut, we all knew this was coming before the season even ended. Im talking about the "amount" that could have been requested...based on trying to sign a guy who is NOT signed already. 

 

Im not trying to convince you...but you could atleast acknowledge what im saying. We both knew the cut was coming, but thats not my point at all. 

[Snell41]

2 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I didnt say that WIlk being trade had  to do with Fitz, but we NEED Wilk to be traded away in order to afford him based on the negotiation price. Brick free'd up 7 million. The negotiation price for Fitz was 7-10 million and we still have to sign rookies and maybe a new FA LT. So in order to afford this back up we need Wilk to be traded. 

 

My bad, I thought that was understood. 

Understood. I'm certain the Mo situation will be resolved on draft day, or shortly after if they don't get compensation relative to what they feel he's worth.  I also think they're willing to risk letting Fitz walk, or have a standing agreement in principle in place with him that can't be signed until they resolve the Wilk situation.  I'm fine with either, if Fitz isn't here this year I am not going to cry about it.  I don't think anyone feels he's going to duplicate the season he had, including the Jets.  I think that's why they let him test the market, and I think that's why they were confident in holding to the number they're comfortable with.  In fact I think Fitz still being available only helps the Jets.  The market has dictated he's not a starter in the league's eyes, so he's not worthy of starter money.  Personally I think the Jets should hold firm at a 2 year deal between 7-9m.  If Fitz doesn't sign for that then let him walk, is Geno at 2 mil really much worse (and I can't stand Geno mind you).  The only choice they had with Wilk was to franchise him or pay him exactly what he's asking for, which by all reports Is a hell of a lot of money, unless you subscribe to the silly notion we should have just let him walk for nothing.  If we pay Mo what he's asking his number against this year's cap will be right near what the franchise tag puts him at anyway unless we backload it and pay later when he's old and less productive, so why do it now? 

[shuler82]

1 minute ago, Villain The Foe said:

Also, Im also convinced that if Fitz was already signed that the Jets would have requested some sort of paycut. You're just not following what I've been saying.

 

Im not talking about the paycut, we all knew this was coming before the season even ended. Im talking about the "amount" that could have been requested...based on trying to sign a guy who is NOT signed already. 

 

Im not trying to convince you...but you could atleast acknowledge what im saying. We both knew the cut was coming, but thats not my point at all. 

 

The Jets didn't frame Brick's proposed pay cut around the money needed to pay Fitz. They framed it on what they thought his market value was relative to his current state of play. Are you suggesting otherwise?

As you said - he was going to be asked to take a pay cut regardless - whether the Jets had $500 or $5M in cap space. He's not worth his 2016 contract. 

 

 

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, shuler82 said:

 

The Jets didn't frame Brick's proposed pay cut around the money needed to pay Fitz. They framed it on what they thought his market value was relative to his current state of play. Are you suggesting otherwise?

As you said - he was going to be asked to take a pay cut regardless - whether the Jets had $500 or $5M in cap space. He's not worth his 2016 contract. 

 

 

Good point. 

[pointman]

1 minute ago, Villain The Foe said:

Good point. 

That everyone knew.

[Snell41]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Also, Im also convinced that if Fitz was already signed that the Jets would have requested some sort of paycut. You're just not following what I've been saying.

 

Im not talking about the paycut, we all knew this was coming before the season even ended. Im talking about the "amount" that could have been requested...based on trying to sign a guy who is NOT signed already. 

 

Im not trying to convince you...but you could atleast acknowledge what im saying. We both knew the cut was coming, but thats not my point at all. 

Brick knew the cut was coming too, he has an agent for a reason.  Again, I don't think the cut amount had anything to do with Fitz.  The cut amount was simply a number based on production depreciating.  I think any number reasonable to his performance and history probably would have had Brick retiring.  He's incredibly smart, he banked 67m over his career.  The difference between 5m or even 10m isn't that significant to a guy like him.  He could simply invest his money and likely make up the difference.  This is a guy with aspirations in politics, he knows what he's doing.  He has counted his blessings he's healthy, and he made the decision to retire.  The Jets probably knew this the entire time, and he probably just asked for the time to decide to let his body heal and see how he felt about it in the spring when his mind and body are fresh, which is pretty common for players mulling retirement.  Again, all in all I think you place a much higher value on Fitz than the Jets do with an assumption that any move they make is with the intention of signing Fitz.  In other words, I don't think the franchise is saying "hey we need to sign Fitz so let's resolve A/B/C to do it".  I think they're saying "we need to resolve A/B/C, and once we do we can then address what we're going to do with Fitz".  Kind of the horse/cart thing.

[Saul Goodman]

Here's something we could have done instead of tagging Wilk:

We could have signed him to a long-term deal two years ago, when his price-tag would surely have been much lower. We dun goofed and now we likely have to let our best player go.

[Il Mostro]

6 minutes ago, Saul Goodman said:

Here's something we could have done instead of tagging Wilk:

We could have signed him to a long-term deal two years ago, when his price-tag would surely have been much lower. We dun goofed and now we likely have to let our best player go.

Wow, what a great idea.  I wonder why nobody else thought of this and tried to negotiate an extension with him?  It's just so simple. 

 

[flgreen]

3 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Its hard to believe that Brick would wait this long to retire. I think that the amount of salary cut they wanted Brick to take in order to resign FItz simply didnt sit well. He may not be trying to "stick it" to the Jets, but if he was really thinking about retiring I think he would have done it much earlier. 

No not really, the OTA's start in a few weeks, He's off a down season.  Got paid the 4th slot BEFORE  the rookie salary cap.  Got another monster contract.

Super rich 32 YO, hearts not in it any more, just didn't want to start the motor for another season.  Probably will work for both sides.

Good for him

[Saul Goodman]

7 minutes ago, Il Mostro said:

Wow, what a great idea.  I wonder why nobody else thought of this and tried to negotiate an extension with him?  It's just so simple. 

 

Teams make mistakes all the time. Idzik (who was proven to be a horrible, awful, terrible trainwreck of a GM) didn't want to give out any big contracts, but Wilkerson would've been worth it.  If he (a young player, oozing talent, no chance of off the field issues, and someone who plays a premium position) isn't worth re-signing before his rookie contract is up, then who is?

[CrazyCarl40]

20 minutes ago, Saul Goodman said:

Here's something we could have done instead of tagging Wilk:

We could have signed him to a long-term deal two years ago, when his price-tag would surely have been much lower. We dun goofed and now we likely have to let our best player go.

They could have signed him last offseason too, when they had gobs of money and gave Cro 8 million, Skrine nearly 8 million, and Harris another 7.5. I just don't think this regime or the last values Wilk as much as some on the board do. There have been a plethora of opportunities to re-sign him. They've balked at every turn.

[Snell41]

1 hour ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

They could have signed him last offseason too, when they had gobs of money and gave Cro 8 million, Skrine nearly 8 million, and Harris another 7.5. I just don't think this regime or the last values Wilk as much as some on the board do. There have been a plethora of opportunities to re-sign him. They've balked at every turn.

This.  He's a very good player.  So was Richard Seymour when NE traded him.  Bu5t the bottom line is 3-4 DE's are not as valuable as 4-3 DE's. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

6 hours ago, drdetroit said:

1. Resign Fitz

&

2. Resign Snacks

&

3. Kept Brick

 

This offseason has become a hot mess.

 

This offseason is trivial. The problem is that last offseason these goofballs took us from having a gutted salary cap to being in a position to have to make these kinds of decisions.

[HighPitch]

the only reason we are arguing this "losing brick because of fitz" thing is because of that stupid, unverified post title saying "jets ask brick for pay cut to help resign fitz"

i doubt anyone in the organization approached him like that. it was either a dumb sports writer story or a poster assuming

[joewilly12]

8 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Its hard to believe that Brick would wait this long to retire. I think that the amount of salary cut they wanted Brick to take in order to resign FItz simply didnt sit well. He may not be trying to "stick it" to the Jets, but if he was really thinking about retiring I think he would have done it much earlier. 

Exactly pretty ironic he retires the day after they asked him to take a pay cut,worse if they sign sh*tzpatrick after this. 

[section314]

16 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Exactly pretty ironic he retires the day after they asked him to take a pay cut,worse if they sign sh*tzpatrick after this. 

This was not done to sign Fitz. There is something bigger happening. You don't screw around with one of the classiest Jets ever to sign a mediocre backup QB.

[Villain The Foe]

5 hours ago, flgreen said:

No not really, the OTA's start in a few weeks, He's off a down season.  Got paid the 4th slot BEFORE  the rookie salary cap.  Got another monster contract.

Super rich 32 YO, hearts not in it any more, just didn't want to start the motor for another season.  Probably will work for both sides.

Good for him

Maybe, or maybe retiring a day or two after the paycut request had something to do with the paycut amount. 

[joewilly12]

1 hour ago, section314 said:

This was not done to sign Fitz. There is something bigger happening. You don't screw around with one of the classiest Jets ever to sign a mediocre backup QB.

I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT AND  I HOPE ITS KAEPERNICK YES IM YELLING!!!!!!!! 

[Sperm Edwards]

12 hours ago, section314 said:

I think Fitz is history. There is something else in the works here. They got lucky last year with Fitz...there is no way Macc is trying to readjust our salary cap to resign an average, backup QB. 

I agree, but that doesn't mean we're not bringing him back. Like others have said, I think it was just a good excuse to not look "mean" in demanding a pay cut. That it was for the betterment of the overall team. But really, he could have waited until after Mo was traded to clear that same space.

I think it may mean any hopes or exploratory calls re trading up for Goff have shown it's not happening, so we're not drafting an instant-starter rookie. Petty isn't ready to start either and they don't want to start Geno (no matter what lip service they've given).

Fitz is then a perfect bridge QB. The rest of the team doesn't feel they're risking injury, and wasting a year of their careers, for a team that isn't making a serious effort. Plus an unready rookie doesn't have to get thrown into the fire too soon. Question is this: how much is the team willing to pay (and guarantee pay) for that bridge?

Oddly enough, looked at that way, I think if we did take a Paxton Lynch in round 1, it makes Fitzpatrick more valuable to the team.

[Embrace the Suck]

On 4/8/2016 at 9:41 AM, drdetroit said:

1. Resign Fitz

&

2. Resign Snacks

&

3. Kept Brick

 

This offseason has become a hot mess.

 

We should have done all that and lost Wilk for nothing...?

1. Fitz will most likely be back anyway. 

2. You don't pay space eaters big money. Those guys are available every draft and look much better than they are when combined with DEs like we have. The giants paid him because they needed a splash signing and immediate results on the dline.

3. Brick retired. His choice, a good one, which probably had little to do with money. If it was an issue of money why retire? 

4. Depending on the Fitz contract it may have prohibited number 2 anyway...