Jump to content

Why are/were the Jets in cap hell this year?


pfilippone
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Jets are not really in cap hell. If they go in and redo a bunch of deals they will be there though. They are trying to prevent that IMO. Sperm is pretty much spot on about why the money is as limited as it is. The Cro and Revis deals I think either came from above or were known to be deals to excite Woody. The Jets fanbase was beaten down by Idzik and Revis/Cro were two of those guys at the front of that. It was basically making things right. Both deals are way over priced. Revis did the free agent walk the year before and found the Pats at $12M. Cro played better in Arizona than NY, but there is no reason to jump from like $3 to $8. Nobody in the NFL would have given him close to that which is why he is unemployed now. 

Anyway Revis is the deal they have to be careful with. They cant be locked in on 2017 at this point. Hes not good enough to justify the full salary. Redoing his deal down will lock that in. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They overpaid for a lot of guys and I'm not as easy on Mac as some but what he inherited was an absolute mess that was going to take some rebuilding - Especially that secondary which was one of the worst you'll ever see. I don't think he's a guy who believes in being bad to become good either. His moves seems to indicate that he wants to field a competitive team always, which I like. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Shockwave said:

The Cap is absolutely not an issue right now at all. Well have a ton of money free next year and literally lead the league in cap room the year after. 

So you're talking about 2 years from now we lead the league in cap room?  (just want to understand since I knew we were in good shape next year but had never heard anything about 2 years from now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, pfilippone said:

Can someone explain how the Jets went from tons of cap-room last year to being in cap hell this year?


- Was the GM's plan last year to win it all in his 1st year with Geno/Fitz and to hell with next year?
- Did league rules require we spend every penny? 


Many of us praise Maccagnan for what he's done so far. But why is the poor cap room situation not on him?
Granted, with Brick retiring, this topic may already be moot. But please humor me.

The league rules did require that he spend a good portion of the cap which we had last season. He did over pay a couple of player in my opinion but he also brought in a few under the radar type players for cheap who ended up being good or at least showing flashes of being above average depth players. Our cap situation was not great this off season and we let a few players walk who we obviously would have liked to stay but we also brought in some decent players for cheap. Next season we should have one of the better cap situations in the NFL and next seasons free agency class should be a pretty good deep one partly because a lot of decent players were put on one year prove it contracts this off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I would say we are in "cap hell."  Ideal cap situation not at all but not cap hell either.  The guys we couldn't re-sign were paid much more than they were worth.  I would have loved to have kept Ivory and Snacks but the pay they got was not even worth it even if we had the cap room.

This team drafted poorly for many years.  Our entire 2012 draft isn't even on the team anymore.  When that happens you overspend at times which we did a bit of last year.  Revis wasn't worth the big contract he got but this team also needed major help in the secondary.  Cromartie had a HUGE contract but nothing was guaranteed. 

There's a saying "you cant shine ----"  Well our GM was given just that and made some moves last year to make it shine.  He needs a couple years to draft well and fill in the missing pieces through free agency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 9, 2016 at 6:42 PM, BurnleyJet said:

The Jets had to spend so much last year because of the CBA rules. We under spent so much previously, we had to throw money about just to fall within the 3 year rule.

Bollocks! Mac is responsible for this cap hell. How come the Faguars, who hadn't spent a dime the previous 15 years, weren't "required" to spend millions on average players? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 9, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Shockwave said:

The Cap is absolutely not an issue right now at all. Well have a ton of money free next year and literally lead the league in cap room the year after. 

This is the worst argument I've ever heard. We are in cap hell today. We can literally over $200mil in cap space in 8 years time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, j4jets said:

Jets had $500k of cap space with no QB and rookies yet to sign. If that's not cap hell, can you define It?

It's when you have those issues and no other way to solve them but by cutting players who still have value to your team . But you probably already knew that .

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2016 at 9:27 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

He spent more than he should have, and no matter how many times people try to claim otherwise we did NOT have to do it. We could have spent the exact same cash last year that would have resulted in far more space this year. 

Long term we'll be fine, but a lot of unnecessary $ was pissed away on too-expensive short term fixes for a team still in need of a QB. I would care less if they were all for young players with a long future here, but a lot was wasted on dead end guys past their primes without a good enough reason. 

Hopefully he learns from it. 

Agree here.  Especially the refutation of those "but we HAD to spend the money!" posts.  If we had to spend it, why not spend it on the young, talented players already on the team.  To listen to some, all the spending was a forgone conclusion and there was no other option.  Mac's a rookie, as is Bowles.  For now I guess we chalk it up to the learning curve and hope to god its not simply incompetence.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 11, 2016 at 10:19 PM, sirlancemehlot said:

Agree here.  Especially the refutation of those "but we HAD to spend the money!" posts.  If we had to spend it, why not spend it on the young, talented players already on the team.  To listen to some, all the spending was a forgone conclusion and there was no other option.  Mac's a rookie, as is Bowles.  For now I guess we chalk it up to the learning curve and hope to god its not simply incompetence.

Like I said to you in the other thread, I don't have a pair of MacBalls in my mouth. He's made some expensive mistakes I didn't like then and like even less now. But I think there is a big difference between picking up Marshall/Clady/Forte type of 30+ expensive veterans, vs. Revis/Cromartie/Harris type expensive veterans (or keeping Brick types around).

Until we get a good young QB in here we can't just spend our way to the SB, so we should be drafting a core team, and any $$$ veterans signed should be for 1 of 2 reasons: (1) it's for a younger veteran player whom we reasonably expect/hope to still be playing at a high level 4+ years from the signing date; or (2) if he's an older shorter term + expensive player, he must be a placeholder that specifically makes a young QB's development easier. 

Even without a good QB in place, Carpenter/Skrine/Gilchrist/Decker types are good to pick up as pricier veterans because they're all young. Clady and Marshall (and arguably Fitzpatrick, depending on how much) are good to pick up because they'd be assets for a rookie/developing QB. We should still look for younger replacements for Clady/Marshall in the draft and FA, but in the meantime you don't have to worry about a young QB developing bad habits or take unnecessary beatings because Brick is letting DEs get to him in 2 seconds flat and/or he's throwing to starters named Stephen Hill and David Nelson. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they might very well trade Mo on draft day for a pick, and that will give the Jets major cap relief, enabling them to sign Fitz.  Mo's cap space is becoming very important to Maccagnan's ability to maneuver the cap and field a competitive team.

Then I also think there is a chance Giacomini gets cut.  Supposedly they are high on Qvale and having an open competition at RT is a possibility.

I also think trading Mo and cutting Giacomini opens the door for a possible Cromartie reunion or another post-June 1 cut victim from another team.

Revis should pull a Tom Brady and voluntarily take a small reduction for the betterment of the team, god knows he already has enough $$ in the bank, but he won't.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, j4jets said:

Bollocks! Mac is responsible for this cap hell. How come the Faguars, who hadn't spent a dime the previous 15 years, weren't "required" to spend millions on average players? 

Sorry 4 years:-

If they don’t meet the 89% floor the owner of each franchise not in compliance will have to write the NFLPA a check for the difference. The NFLPA has latitude to disperse a team's shortfall to players on that team during this period. If the entire league's spending is under 95% over the 4 year period, the NFLPA can disperse that shortfall how it wants. This shortfall is secondary to any shortfall under the 89% requirement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BurnleyJet said:

Sorry 4 years:-

If they don’t meet the 89% floor the owner of each franchise not in compliance will have to write the NFLPA a check for the difference. The NFLPA has latitude to disperse a team's shortfall to players on that team during this period. If the entire league's spending is under 95% over the 4 year period, the NFLPA can disperse that shortfall how it wants. This shortfall is secondary to any shortfall under the 89% requirement.

 

There are so many ways of satisfying that rule without wasting the space it's ridiculous. It's easy to spend cash and bump your year's cap number without bringing in  much of anyone new at all, let alone without the money burning a hole in his pocket in the absence of a reliable starting QB.

Nothing resembling the Jets' 2015 offseason and contract structuring was required, in order to be in compliance with the cap & spending requirements.

This idea that he had to bring in so many expensive FAs is a myth, with its factual basis bordering on internet hoax levels. He could have skipped signing most, and even get rid of some overpaid existing veterans' $ as well, and still be in compliance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And incidentally, the rest of the reason it's 100% bullsh*t that we "had to" spend all that $ on all those players last year is this: we didn't have to reach that average 89% floor until the end of the 2016 season anyway

If we didn't sign the likes of Cromartie and Harris to $22M in guarantees, do you know what penalty would have kicked in last year? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! 

We would have had plenty more to spend this spring, as well as the ability to pay down future 2017+ contracts today, to get over that hump. Spending lots of cash upon demand is no challenge at all in today's NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

And incidentally, the rest of the reason it's 100% bullsh*t that we "had to" spend all that $ on all those players last year is this: we didn't have to reach that average 89% floor until the end of the 2016 season anyway

If we didn't sign the likes of Cromartie and Harris to $22M in guarantees, do you know what penalty would have kicked in last year? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! 

We would have had plenty more to spend this spring, as well as the ability to pay down future 2017+ contracts today, to get over that hump. Spending lots of cash upon demand is no challenge at all in today's NFL.

Of course we had to. Not because of league rules, because this is first and foremost a business, and you have to keep the bread and circuses crowd from rioting. The GM takes his marching orders from the owner and the owner takes his cues from the fans. Things have been so bad for so long that there's a basically unlimited capacity for rationalizing whatever maximizes instant gratification as the right way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Revis should pull a Tom Brady and voluntarily take a small reduction for the betterment of the team, god knows he already has enough $$ in the bank, but he won't.

There is a better chance that Revis would hold out for more money than taking less through a restructure for the betterment of the team.

All he cares about is himself, not the team.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tinstar said:

It's when you have those issues and no other way to solve them but by cutting players who still have value to your team . But you probably already knew that .

I suppose you need to alter the definition then to include "trying your ass off to trade one of your best defender to save some cap space the untouchable GM used up the year before" and "when you have no cap space, no starting QB and no money to pay for your rookies". 

Agreed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, j4jets said:

I suppose you need to alter the definition then to include "trying your ass off to trade one of your best defender to save some cap space the untouchable GM used up the year before" and "when you have no cap space, no starting QB and no money to pay for your rookies". 

Agreed?

no, I don't agree . The Jets have about 3-4 mil worth of cap space with the recent moves if I read this correctly and the team has a few more moves it can make on players who are useless to our team and on others who carry huge cap hits with no dead money currently .  We are far from cap hell, and IMO, everything will work itself out . The Jets had to make some tough decisions this off season, and thus far, I have no complaints .

I will miss Snacks thou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tinstar said:

no, I don't agree . The Jets have about 3-4 mil worth of cap space with the recent moves if I read this correctly and the team has a few more moves it can make on players who are useless to our team and on others who carry huge cap hits with no dead money currently .  We are far from cap hell, and IMO, everything will work itself out . The Jets had to make some tough decisions this off season, and thus far, I have no complaints .

I will miss Snacks thou.

So you're saying we need to make a few more cuts of players that are useless and maneuver the cap figures of some old players. Why didn't we cut those "useless" players on day one of the FA? Why wait till now? Why are we restructuring a few contracts? Why didn't we grab Beechum? Why were we so quiet in the FA the first couple of days? 

And yes, everything will work its way out. There is no other way. the cap restrictions have to be met at any cost so Yeah, of course Mac will get it done. Question is, why was the team in a position to cut several players, restructure a few contracts and not sign any of its own FA? Answer rests somewhere between March 2015 until April 2015. Mac is responsible for this cap trouble (if not cap hell), and not Idzik. Idzik left over $50 mil of cap space and the 6oth overall draft pick for Mac to build his own team. He decided to use every penny of the cap space. He's making amends for his 2015 spending spree that failed to take his team to the playoffs with the weakest schedule in the league. I want to praise Mac n his nuts like every other Jet fan, but I want a reason to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

2 moves will give the Jets 7-8 mil more cap space and have little to no effect on the production of this team next season .  Those moves would be to cut Breno and folk

Smart move. Let's play without a K and an RT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jett said:

Cap hell huh, trade Wilk we have 15 million. Well that was easy wasn't it??. 

If that was as easy as you think it would be,. Muhammad Wilkerson would  have been traded by now.  ( very limited number of teams that can fit his salary , in their salary cap now) .   There is a strong possibility that Wilkerson might have to play under the franchise tag For this year.

  • Thumb Down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, j4jets said:

I suppose you need to alter the definition then to include "trying your ass off to trade one of your best defender to save some cap space the untouchable GM used up the year before" and "when you have no cap space, no starting QB and no money to pay for your rookies". 

Agreed?

Paying 16+ mil per for a 3/4 DE unless he's JJ Watt is silly, even if we didn't already have his replacement on the team. If we thought it was worth it we could easily structure a long term deal that would lower Wilk's cap hit this year. Kat has the potential to become a Watt like position transcending type of force . Wilk while a great player is at his ceiling. 

QBs, and edge rushers make the kind of impact worthy of 16 mil. Shut down corners, and wide receivers come close. interior rushers...not so much. 

There are plenty of other contracts that could be restructured if/when we need the cash. That is not cap hell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

If that was as easy as you think it would be,. Muhammad Wilkerson would  have been traded by now.  ( very limited number of teams that can fit his salary , in their salary cap now) .   There is a strong possibility that Wilkerson might have to play under the franchise tag For this year.

Agreed, however I think if the domino falls, it'll be on Draft day. If not then, then he will play on this team next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raideraholic said:

If that was as easy as you think it would be,. Muhammad Wilkerson would  have been traded by now.  ( very limited number of teams that can fit his salary , in their salary cap now) .   There is a strong possibility that Wilkerson might have to play under the franchise tag For this year.

Actually I think it is easy to trade him. What's not easy is getting the 1st round pick Maccagnan wants in return (one reason, to make sure we get the best value we can, and the other reason, so he won't get destroyed in the press even if nobody else thought he was worth a #1 pick either).

There are a limited # of teams that can fit his salary, I agree. But there are still plenty who can fit him, and who would want him. The hard part, which is what's taking so long, is getting such teams to cough up a 1st round pick. Or being sure that the top offer so far would have still been the top offer if we'd waited a bit longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Paying 16+ mil per for a 3/4 DE unless he's JJ Watt is silly, even if we didn't already have his replacement on the team. If we thought it was worth it we could easily structure a long term deal that would lower Wilk's cap hit this year. Kat has the potential to become a Watt like position transcending type of force . Wilk while a great player is at his ceiling. 

QBs, and edge rushers make the kind of impact worthy of 16 mil. Shut down corners, and wide receivers come close. interior rushers...not so much. 

There are plenty of other contracts that could be restructured if/when we need the cash. That is not cap hell. 

It's funny when how you think we can squeeze a few mils by restructuring a few contracts, letting several starters walk away, no QB to speak of and want one of our best defender to be kicked off the team (trade), yet you claim we're not in cap hell. You just described what a team does when it's in cap hell. Why does a team restructure a deal? Why do teams not sign it's own FAs when they have talent and plenty of value to them? List goes on. We have no cap space to sign a QB and to sign our own draft picks as it stands. Without making a cap relief move, we'd have to trade away our entire draft for next year's picks (which obviously isn't happening). When you are sniffing around for cap relief a year after having $50+ mil in space, you ****ed up somewhere.  That or you need to keep a simple excel sheet to track your future cap. I'm sure Mac did that and plenty more, but he wanted to cement his job by going all in last year. It councided with the weakest SOS in the league and we still failed to reach the playoffs. I'd much rather he didn't **** the team in the ass last year n went 8-8 with $15 mil cap carryover. Any reasonable GM would do that. 

For the record, Giants won 2 SBs with a superior group of DL. They haven't come close since. Jets D was one of the top D last year. We had zombies playing LB and one of the worst #2CB play the league saw. We did happen to have possibly the best DL in the league. I wouldn't pay 16mil to Mo. But that's the market a top DL gets. JJ is not getting less than 20mil if he was to do his deal today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 11, 2016 at 0:21 AM, BurnleyJet said:

Sorry 4 years:-

If they don’t meet the 89% floor the owner of each franchise not in compliance will have to write the NFLPA a check for the difference. The NFLPA has latitude to disperse a team's shortfall to players on that team during this period. If the entire league's spending is under 95% over the 4 year period, the NFLPA can disperse that shortfall how it wants. This shortfall is secondary to any shortfall under the 89% requirement.

 

I know these rules. I'm just saying that excuse doesn't carry weight. When you use up 99% of your allotted cap over a 4 year period, in theory, you've spent 99% of cash. I haven't looked at the actual figures but Jets paid out heavy signing bonuses n guarantees last year. In 2014, we had zero cap left over. Cash spending requirements wasn't even a concern then. And it wasn't in 2015 either. Why? Simple math. 89% of 4 years cap is $461 mil (120+123+133+143 = 519mil x 89% = 461 mil). Teams had a leverage of not needing to spend upto 58mil over that time frame. I haven't tracked our cash spending but I'm 100% sure we could've saved $10-15 mil last year and carried it forward without worrying about cash spending this year either. Over the long run, cash spending equals salary cap usage. 

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...