Casserly Chimes In ...

[Rangers9]

Just now, LIJetsFan said:

I don't think anyone arguing against Fitz would complain about 1yr @ 8m.  So you've come over to our side.  

I think a 1-12 is fairer because it's more in line with market (and I think I said bet.8-12), but the bottom line for him is to play in 2016. If he is backup somewhere he loses his negotiating power for 2017-18. I think salaries are based on averages and standards by position not just the current no. of job openings at that position. But if he gets no better than a 1-8 from Mac he'd probably take it. Who knows? The question is would Mac be willing to compromise on his 3 year offer and cut it to a one year deal. If Fitz then plays well for the Jets then he could re-sign him for more money like a 1-12 for 2017. Or go forward with Hack. But Fitz's career is not to be an insurance policy for the Jets. 

[LIJetsFan]

7 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I think a 1-12 is fairer because it's more in line with market (and I think I said bet.8-12), but the bottom line for him is to play in 2016. If he is backup somewhere he loses his negotiating power for 2017-18. I think salaries are based on averages and standards by position not just the current no. of job openings at that position. But if he gets no better than a 1-8 from Mac he'd probably take it. Who knows? The question is would Mac be willing to compromise on his 3 year offer and cut it to a one year deal. If Fitz then plays well for the Jets then he could re-sign him for more money like a 1-12 for 2017. Or go forward with Hack. But Fitz's career is not to be an insurance policy for the Jets. 

The bold is what I don't understand:  

"A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."

Why doesn't the free market system doesn't apply to Fitz?

[Rangers9]

4 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

The bold is what I don't understand:  

"A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."

Why doesn't the free market system doesn't apply to Fitz?

It's not just supply and demand which is a temporary. It's also based on averages at a specific position. And standards which is more a long term factor. Right now not many job openings but no reason a guy with a resume doesn't expect to get what other people in his category are making. Not just in football  but in many fields. 

[LIJetsFan]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

It's not just supply and demand which is a temporary. It's also based on averages at a specific position. And standards which is more a long term factor. Right now not many job openings but no reason a guy with a resume doesn't expect to get what other people in his category are making. Not just in football  but in many fields. 

Agree to disagree

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, Rangers9 said:

Yeah and what some of these guys are saying is that in a negotiation it's supposed to be combat. And winner take all. They think you're being tough if you have the advantage and you squeeze the other side. Of course this is nonsense and not the way things are done or should be done. Esp if both sides want to work with each other which obviously an org does with it's starting Qb. If the Jets org really cares about winning this year they want the Qb to think positively about his situation. 

In most negotiations where the parties have roughly equal bargaining positions, the parties will most likely reach agreement somewhere in the middle, and with an agreement that is overall pleasing to both sides.  That in fact is why an agreement is reached - both parties see the benefit in it, and while one party or the other might end up realizing more benefit than the other, at the time the contract is formed both parties are of essentially the same view regarding it.

What some here are seeing, or think they are seeing, is that the FO has more leverage than Fitzpatrick.  While even they more or less acknowledge that Fitzpatrick does not literally HAVE TO accept it (he can retire or wait or something along those lines), they do think the Jets can afford to use a "take it or leave it" approach.  This is the same as saying the Jets have the leverage to take that position. 

Needless to say contract negotiations where one party has significantly more leverage than the other can and often do end up leaving the one with less leverage feeling unhappy with the result.  How that ends up playing out over time depends on the situation.  But it can go badly.

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Sure it is. Where did you ever get the idea of the contrary being true? If he plays badly enough to deserve a demotion, why is it unfair to demote his pay to match? If he plays only well enough to be a backup, then it is not unfair to pay him as a backup. If he plays well enough for the team to value him as their starter, they'll pay him what they feel is worthwhile for them.

There were QB openings on 2 playoff teams, plus the 10-win Jets, in addition to the Clowns, the Rams, the Eagles. Nobody offered him more than this "unfair" deal (if anything at all). That doesn't even count teams with space to burn through, who could have offered more than 3/$24 for him to be a very highly-paid backup. The Jets' offer, which dates back months, is more than fair.

What's more, now that all these competing teams have secured their starting QBs for the season, the Jets have been overly kind by not yanking the contract away. More than fair yet again, perhaps even to a fault.

I am not sure where to start.  I said, or thought I said clearly enough, that it is not fair to have a player take a 50% pay cut from his previous year's salary even if he plays well enough to deserve/earn that previous year's salary, and then be under contract in the next year, expecting to play well again, but at a 50% pay cut.  No one here would agree to such a deal, and why should they?

And if the Jets have him under contract, one he agreed to, that will cut his pay 50%, why should Fitzpatrick expect the Jets to end up paying him much more?  You mentioned holding out yesterday.  I don't know why Fitzpatrick should in effect put himself in a position where he plays very well and have that end up putting him in a position where he should hold out and see what happens.

[nyjunc]

53 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

You're wrong. Houston wanted a young Qb and gave the guy a huge contract. O'Brien who Fitz said he learned more from in his one season there wanted a long term franchise Qb and believes in Brock O. Denver offered him a deal but their bottom line is 7 mil for not only Fitz but for Kap. Philly drafted a guy overall 2, re-signed Bradford and also has Daniel (who the new HC worked with in KC). SF is tied into Kap and isn't going to pay a second starting Qb starters money. Nobody is saying you cut a player for Fitz. But the truth is there are no current openings. As for Cleveland I don't know if they were interested in him but they obviously like RG3 who only a few years ago was considered a franchise Qb. The facts are the Mac preferred Fitz over Griffin. Again we're talking 4 or  5 months ago and at that time I don't think (who knows) Fitz was even considering another team seriously. He felt he'd be back with us. 

they could have had Fitz for less, of course they weren't going to pursue him as they had in in 2014 and dumped him after that season but a starting job was open.

Philly didn't have to draft a guy #2 or sign Bradford, they could have had the greatness of Fitz for less.

SF is not tied to kaep, they are looking to dump him.

 

there were plenty of openings as there are every year, NO ONE WANTED HIM to start except the Jets.  the Jets have all the leverage.

[Rangers9]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

they could have had Fitz for less, of course they weren't going to pursue him as they had in in 2014 and dumped him after that season but a starting job was open.

Philly didn't have to draft a guy #2 or sign Bradford, they could have had the greatness of Fitz for less.

SF is not tied to kaep, they are looking to dump him.

 

there were plenty of openings as there are every year, NO ONE WANTED HIM to start except the Jets.  the Jets have all the leverage.

Sf is trying to dump Kap but not pay the difference in salary that Denver demanded they take on. So they're not going to pay Kap and Fitz and they seem to like Gabbert who was a top prospect a few years back. Denver so far not willing to pay over 7 mil for a FA Qb including Fitz and Kap. All other teams no openings. This could change next off season. You don't cut Bridgewater or bench him to sign Fitz. And that goes for every single other team. Baltimore-Flacco, Chicago-Cutler, Giants-Eli, Miami-Tannehill, Atlanta-Ryan, Tenn-Mariota, etc etc etc. In previous years there were openings on teams and this year they are committed to a starter,. 

[ljr]

59 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

I don't think anyone arguing against Fitz would complain about 1yr @ 8m.  So you've come over to our side.  

You haven't been paying very good attention then

[nyjunc]

6 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Sf is trying to dump Kap but not pay the difference in salary that Denver demanded they take on. So they're not going to pay Kap and Fitz and they seem to like Gabbert who was a top prospect a few years back. Denver so far not willing to pay over 7 mil for a FA Qb including Fitz and Kap. All other teams no openings. This could change next off season. You don't cut Bridgewater or bench him to sign Fitz. And that goes for every single other team. Baltimore-Flacco, Chicago-Cutler, Giants-Eli, Miami-Tannehill, Atlanta-Ryan, Tenn-Mariota, etc etc etc. In previous years there were openings on teams and this year they are committed to a starter,. 

if any of these teams wanted him they would have pursued him, the ONLY team to show interest wanted him to compete w/ other QBs and take less money- what does that tell you?

 

I didn't bring up Bal, Chi, NYG, Atl, etc...

[Rangers9]

2 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

if any of these teams wanted him they would have pursued him, the ONLY team to show interest wanted him to compete w/ other QBs and take less money- what does that tell you?

 

I didn't bring up Bal, Chi, NYG, Atl, etc...

i could mention every team that has a vet starter or a good young Qb on a rookie deal. They aren't going to cut a player esp on a contract to sign another Qb. And lose money. If Eli was a FA or Tannehill they would have problems finding a starting job and they're better than Fitz who is a qualified starting NFL Qb.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Maxman said:

Bowles shouldn't have anointed Fitz the starter when he wasn't signed.

Agreed.  Says alot that he did anyway, despite it being obvious he shouldn't have.

Quote

But Mac is creating a culture that says work your ass off all offseason because nothing is promised.

Which is good.

Quote

Sanchez was handed everything and that hurt the team. If they are going with Geno, not handing anything to him is the right thing to do.

Agreed.  Except this off-season, if nothing further is done, Geno will have been handed the job competition-free.

Quote

Plus this will make Fitz the villian, we wanted him back he is just so damn greedy.

No one will care if we're 1-6.  They'll care the 10-6 QB wasn't able to be signed by the new GM despite no actual competition for him.

Quote

So then the defensive players and everyone not named Decker and Marshall can rally around Geno lol.

Takes more than that to rally around a QB.  But you know that.

[nyjunc]

15 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

i could mention every team that has a vet starter or a good young Qb on a rookie deal. They aren't going to cut a player esp on a contract to sign another Qb. And lose money. If Eli was a FA or Tannehill they would have problems finding a starting job and they're better than Fitz who is a qualified starting NFL Qb.

Tannehill sucks but if he was a FA he would have found a job, Eli would have been signed in 2 minutes.

 

there were plenty of spots available, no teams viewed Fitz as a starter.

[Rangers9]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Tannehill sucks but if he was a FA he would have found a job, Eli would have been signed in 2 minutes.

 

there were plenty of spots available, no teams viewed Fitz as a starter.

What team? Would Denver pay him? SF? Not with Kap's contract on the books. Who does Eli replace? Does KC cut Alex Smith to sign him? And maybe give back millions in guaranteed money. If you insist I'll go thru every single team and their starting Qb situation. 

[Charlie Brown]

13 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Tannehill sucks but if he was a FA he would have found a job, Eli would have been signed in 2 minutes.

 

there were plenty of spots available, no teams viewed Fitz as a starter.

Thank you, to say otherwise is actual insanity.  

For example, Eli is a playoff proven QB who is a Super Bowl MVP!!!

To compare Eli to a guy who hasn't even been to the playoffs is utter madness!!!

Some Jet fans!!!

Just wow!!!

[nyjunc]

50 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

What team? Would Denver pay him? SF? Not with Kap's contract on the books. Who does Eli replace? Does KC cut Alex Smith to sign him? And maybe give back millions in guaranteed money. If you insist I'll go thru every single team and their starting Qb situation. 

I gave you numerous teams looking for starting QBs, none thought he was worthy to pursue.  you can deflect by throwing out teams w/ settled QB situations but it doesn't help your weak argument.  the facts are he was a free agent, numerous teams were looking for QBs and only one even looked at him and that was to compete w/ another vet for the job.

[slats]

3 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

Yeah, aside from a disproportionate number of Smith Fans, there are a lot of FO Homers on this site.  In my opinion.

FO homers? Lol! 

I root for the Jets, not the Fitzpatricks. I want the Jets to make the best moves for this year, and for the future. Also, not being seduced by Fitzpatrick last season; recognizing the historically easy schedule, and the fact that his biggest weakness (his weak arm) wasn't weather tested until the last game of the season -where it failed miserably- it's easy for me to not want to overpay for him. And my very strong feeling is that 3 years/$24M is overpaying. No one denies that it's far and away the best offer he's gotten this season, it's just also somehow "unfair," based on this 12/6/6 implied breakdown. That he's taking less money down the road. But what if the deal is structured 6/6/6 with a $6M signing bonus? Is he still taking a pay cut in 2017? What if it's 3/6/6 with a $9M signing bonus? 

In any case, I think $8M/year for a career journeyman approaching the end of his career is extremely generous. Extremely. I'll be disappointed if the Jets budge more than a token amount that allows Fitz to save some face. 

[Rangers9]

22 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I gave you numerous teams looking for starting QBs, none thought he was worthy to pursue.  you can deflect by throwing out teams w/ settled QB situations but it doesn't help your weak argument.  the facts are he was a free agent, numerous teams were looking for QBs and only one even looked at him and that was to compete w/ another vet for the job.

Numerous. Please rename teams who don't have starting Qbs under contract. As for SF they are paying Kap a lot of money and imo while he's on the books don't want to pay another Qb. 

[nyjunc]

11 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Numerous. Please rename teams who don't have starting Qbs under contract. As for SF they are paying Kap a lot of money and imo while he's on the books don't want to pay another Qb. 

it's not about NOW, it's about at start of free agency.  

[cant wait]

2 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

it's not about NOW, it's about at start of free agency.  

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who believes the owners are conspiring together to keep Fitzpatrick from getting paid

[Rangers9]

15 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

it's not about NOW, it's about at start of free agency.  

It would be harder now to get a job than then. People have been practicing for months including Sanchez with Denver. And imo at that time it was Fitz's assumption that he would re-sign here and a deal could be done. If the Kap deal had gone down to Denver it might have opened a job in SF. Back then there was only Cleveland. Not sure they were in contact with Fitz, they might have preferred RG3. But the Jets didn't prefer Griffin they offered Fitz a deal not him. So back then name the job openings. 

[Paradis]

there's a part of this deal/situation I believe is a big part of Mac position -- and that's "The Jets don't want Fitz as a starter in 2017"... and thats where the money hang up starts and the divide begins. 

Fitz played well enough *barely* to warrant a good paycheck and a seat at the table, I'll concede that. But regardless if you think Geno is better or Fitz will regress -- going into 2017/2018 with Fitz as your paid starter screams "stagnant franchise". If I was a GM going into my 3rd year, I'd better have something happening on the field more exciting and promising than a scheme dependent backup overachieving to win games.

You can't pay Fitz like an "answer" beyond 2016. That's just bad business and management. 

[Mike135]

4 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

But the Jets didn't prefer Griffin they offere Fitz a deal not him. 

Perhaps the Jets prefer Geno above anyone else who was available.  Including Fitz.

Comments, tweets and reports may say otherwise... but actions speak louder than words.  

It's July.  Jets basically have negative cap room considering Lee and in-season emergency fund needs.  Geno is a Jet and Fitz is unemployed.

[Mike135]

10 minutes ago, Paradis said:

there's a part of this deal/situation I believe is a big part of Mac position -- and that's "The Jets don't want Fitz as a starter in 2017"... and thats where the money hang up starts and the divide begins. 

Fitz played well enough *barely* to warrant a good paycheck and a seat at the table, I'll concede that. But regardless if you think Geno is better or Fitz will regress -- going into 2017/2018 with Fitz as your paid starter screams "stagnant franchise". If I was a GM going into my 3rd year, I'd better have something happening on the field more exciting and promising than a scheme dependent backup overachieving to win games.

You can't pay Fitz like an "answer" beyond 2016. That's just bad business and management. 

Right.  At the same time, Macc has to make sure there's a quality backup here in 2017.  If he signs Fitz for 2016, Geno is gone at the end of this season.  So he then needs Fitz to stay around beyond 2016 as the vet backup.

If he doesn't sign Fitz this year, there's still the chance Geno plays well enough to be re-signed as the starter or backup moving beyond this season.

Fitz has to realize what he is.  He has the opportunity to start this year (even though I think it's dumb).  Has a very small chance of turning that into a longer-term starting gig.  But most likely is looking at a role as an active veteran backup after 2016.

If he doesn't want that... retire.

[nyjets782]

4 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

It's up to him. He might end up signing Mac's 3 year offer or maybe the Jets can adjust it in a way he feels good about. Without really raising the offer like a one year contract. One thing in Fitz's favor is that he's been with so many teams he knows how to adjust quickly. So if Romo went down in Sept. he might be able to come in and run their offense intelligently. You know so hypothetically say he gets 6 mil for the rest of the season. With incentives like making the playoffs and no. of Ws. So then he loses 6 mil for 2016. But if he plays well he can make that up and more if he is able to get something like a two year 24 deal with another team. But it's not all about money. I don't think it is. He just doesn't like the structure of Mac's offer. And the tone of it which basically locks him to being a backup. 

It's not all about money, we are the only team offering him a starting job as well.  

[Warfish]

15 minutes ago, Paradis said:

there's a part of this deal/situation I believe is a big part of Mac position -- and that's "The Jets don't want Fitz as a starter in 2017"... and thats where the money hang up starts and the divide begins. 

Fitz played well enough *barely* to warrant a good paycheck and a seat at the table, I'll concede that. But regardless if you think Geno is better or Fitz will regress -- going into 2017/2018 with Fitz as your paid starter screams "stagnant franchise". If I was a GM going into my 3rd year, I'd better have something happening on the field more exciting and promising than a scheme dependent backup overachieving to win games.

You can't pay Fitz like an "answer" beyond 2016. That's just bad business and management. 

Interesting.

So what would /should MAcc do that would qualify as NOT being a "stagnant franchise" in 2016 specifically?

[Paradis]

1 minute ago, Mike135 said:

Right.  At the same time, Macc has to make sure there's a quality backup here in 2017.  If he signs Fitz for 2016, Geno is gone at the end of this season.  So he then needs Fitz to stay around beyond 2016 as the vet backup.

If he doesn't sign Fitz this year, there's still the chance Geno plays well enough to be re-signed as the stater or backup moving beyond this season.

Fitz has to realize what he is.  He has the opportunity to start this year (even though I think it's dumb).  Has a very small chance of turning that into a longer-term starting gig.  But most likely is looking at a role as an active veteran backup after 2016.

If he doesn't want that... retire.

I personally would rather just move on with Geno and try to pry McCown from CLE... but I understand the case to bring back Fitz as insurance in the big picture of things... but as you said, the problem is Fitz' own perceived value. As long as he draws the line in the sand for anything beyond 2016, i dont see how a competent manager can invest in that deal. 

[Paradis]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Interesting.

So what would /should MAcc do that would qualify as NOT being a "stagnant franchise" in 2016 specifically?

Honestly, they really gambled the house on Hack because "the drafted QB of 2016" was supposed to provide some kind of glimpse of the future direction.. but they took the biggest question mark in the draft... If a year from now, he's still a huge work in progress than Mac's going to have do what Bill Obrien did with Osweiler, or mortgage the farm to trade up for next year's Goff/Wentz... 

You simply can't ask a franchise and a fanbase to buy into a 3rd year of Fitz being the chosen one. 

(assuming your question was directed beyond 2016... cause we've already made our bed for this year)

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, slats said:

FO homers? Lol! 

I root for the Jets, not the Fitzpatricks. I want the Jets to make the best moves for this year, and for the future. Also, not being seduced by Fitzpatrick last season; recognizing the historically easy schedule, and the fact that his biggest weakness (his weak arm) wasn't weather tested until the last game of the season -where it failed miserably- it's easy for me to not want to overpay for him. And my very strong feeling is that 3 years/$24M is overpaying. No one denies that it's far and away the best offer he's gotten this season, it's just also somehow "unfair," based on this 12/6/6 implied breakdown. That he's taking less money down the road. But what if the deal is structured 6/6/6 with a $6M signing bonus? Is he still taking a pay cut in 2017? What if it's 3/6/6 with a $9M signing bonus? 

In any case, I think $8M/year for a career journeyman approaching the end of his career is extremely generous. Extremely. I'll be disappointed if the Jets budge more than a token amount that allows Fitz to save some face. 

I suppose if $24 mil was guaranteed, you'd have a better case regarding fairness.  But I have heard nothing to suggest it is guaranteed. In any event my concern has been stated above, along with the view that it likely is the 50% cut in salary that is the sticking point.  Since I want Fitzpatrick back WAY MORE than Smith, I would prefer that something other than a 50% cut be included in the FO's offer.

And on that point to me the FO is not the Jets.  Yes, they are part of the Jet organization.  But the people in the FO come and go.  Over the years some have done better than others, others worse.  I obviously "like" the ones I think have done better.  But for the FO as a whole, I don't routinely take their side.  I get the need to stay under the cap and all that.  But I don't get a kick out if it when the FO nickels and dimes a player who they for whatever reason have leverage over.  That's just me I guess.

And when the FO appears to be taking a hardline position with a player at the risk of putting a hole in the roster, for myself I do not like that at all.

[Big Blocker]

45 minutes ago, Paradis said:

there's a part of this deal/situation I believe is a big part of Mac position -- and that's "The Jets don't want Fitz as a starter in 2017"... and thats where the money hang up starts and the divide begins. 

Fitz played well enough *barely* to warrant a good paycheck and a seat at the table, I'll concede that. But regardless if you think Geno is better or Fitz will regress -- going into 2017/2018 with Fitz as your paid starter screams "stagnant franchise". If I was a GM going into my 3rd year, I'd better have something happening on the field more exciting and promising than a scheme dependent backup overachieving to win games.

You can't pay Fitz like an "answer" beyond 2016. That's just bad business and management. 

Well then you are calling the FO bad at business and management, since it's clear the hangup is that the FO wants Fitz under contract for 17 and 18.

There is also no reason to think with the current roster that the Jets have any assurance of having a starting Qb by opening day 17 that they are happy with such prospect.  Sure I'd love it if Hackenburg or Petty was ready by then.  Do I think one or the other definitely will be?

No. Nor should you.

[cant wait]

2 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

Well then you are calling the FO bad at business and management, since it's clear the hangup is that the FO wants Fitz under contract for 17 and 18.

There is also no reason to think with the current roster that the Jets have any assurance of having a starting Qb by opening day 17 that they are happy with such prospect.  Sure I'd love it if Hackenburg or Petty was ready by then.  Do I think one or the other definitely will be?

No. Nor should you.

Under contract? Yes. As a starter? No

[Big Blocker]

1 minute ago, cant wait said:

Under contract? Yes. As a starter? No

The correct answer is as a starter?  Maybe.  Again there is NO REASON to think the Jets will be happy going into 17 with either Petty or Hackenburg as their starter, unless of course one or both show development between now and then that would make either a reasonable prospect to succeed as the starter.

[Paradis]

7 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

Well then you are calling the FO bad at business and management, since it's clear the hangup is that the FO wants Fitz under contract for 17 and 18.

There is also no reason to think with the current roster that the Jets have any assurance of having a starting Qb by opening day 17 that they are happy with such prospect.  Sure I'd love it if Hackenburg or Petty was ready by then.  Do I think one or the other definitely will be?

No. Nor should you.

This kind of just errant rambling. If I was a GM and wanted Fitz back, i would have a friendly deal for 2016, then back up numbers for 17/18... cause that's what he'll be doing and we of course SHOULD have a journeyman backup. Every year... it's exactly what they're doing and why Fitz is still sitting on his ass. Not sure who you're arguing with. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say beyond that. Do we know if Hack will be ready in a year? No... Don't even think Petty will be here next year period. But that's not a reason to lock up Fitz as a starter in 2017.. That's like waiving a flag saying - we have no clue what we're doing at QB

[cant wait]

8 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

The correct answer is as a starter?  Maybe.  Again there is NO REASON to think the Jets will be happy going into 17 with either Petty or Hackenburg as their starter, unless of course one or both show development between now and then that would make either a reasonable prospect to succeed as the starter.

It's already clear that the jets will not be happy going into 2017 with ryan fitzpatrick as their starter, so why would you pay him for that?

[Rangers9]

3 minutes ago, Paradis said:

This kind of just errant rambling. If I was a GM and wanted Fitz back, i would have a friendly deal for 2016, then back up numbers for 17/18... cause that's what he'll be doing and we of course SHOULD have a journeyman backup. Every year... it's exactly what they're doing and why Fitz is still sitting on his ass. Not sure who you're arguing with. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say beyond that. Do we know if Hack will be ready in a year? No... Don't even think Petty will be here next year period. But that's not a reason to lock up Fitz as a starter in 2017.. That's like waiving a flag saying - we have no clue what we're doing at QB

It's just not a deal that is satisfactory to Fitz. He doesn't want to lock himself into a backup deal for 2017-18. If he plays poorly in 2016 then I guess he would sign with somebody cheap. But based on last season he knows how to run this offense well.  If he has a good year then he doesn't expect to be a backup for backup pay, If Hack isn't ready that's not Fitz's problem.