..and there goes Brandon Marshall.

[Bleedin Green]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Manish Mehta and John Healy of the New York Daily News report that it won’t be a surprise if Decker is released upon passing a physical this offseason. Dropping Decker from the roster would save the Jets $5.75 million under the cap.

It would actually likely save them even more than that, given it's extremely unlikely Decker would pass a physical prior to 6/1.  In that case it would save them $7.25M this year, with a $1.5 M hit coming next year (but ultimately saving $7.5M for that year as well).

[LIJetsFan]

So far so good with all the cuts to date.

[joewilly12]

9 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

So far so good with all the cuts to date.

Time will tell. 

[Jetdawgg]

50 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Manish Mehta and John Healy of the New York Daily News report that it won’t be a surprise if Decker is released upon passing a physical this offseason. Dropping Decker from the roster would save the Jets $5.75 million under the cap.

If they do that a fliier after signing one or two day 1 FA's is what I would recommend. 10% or more of dead cap money is too much waste. If you are going to rebuild, get the cap in order too. 

Dead cap should be 2/ to 3% of the cap.

[Doggin94it]

4 hours ago, shawn306 said:

This is looking like the 94 offseason when, Hasty, Brian Washington, Lott, Lageman, Dwayne White, Rob Moore, Criswell, Johnnie Johnson all left.

Decker is next on the chopping block, probably followed by Forte.

Petty and Hackenberg have to be asking themselves " you want me to show you what I got with THIS ?

Yeah right

2017 has 3-13 written all over it

Forte's going nowhere, because cutting him would cost us cap room instead of saving it

[Tinstar]

7 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Forte's going nowhere, because cutting him would cost us cap room instead of saving it

Sadly, I think Pryor falls into that category

[Bleedin Green]

11 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

Sadly, I think Pryor falls into that category

In both cases, the only possible way they go anywhere is via trade.  If they're desperate enough to move either guy, I'm sure they could work out some future-year conditional seventh rounder to make it happen.  Pretty much just a matter of finding another team willing to take over their contract.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours ago, Jetdawgg said:

Releasing Decker would put the Jets $17-18MM in dead money. Dead money is not free. That would be enough to grab some good FA's right there. 

Actually it is free in that it is $0 additional. That money was coming off the cap whether the players were here or not. Labeling it dead money or labeling it amortized bonus money is irrelevant. It's the same amount of money hitting the cap, so don't worry about the label. 

[Jetdawgg]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Actually it is free in that it is $0 additional. That money was coming off the cap whether the players were here or not. Labeling it dead money or labeling it amortized bonus money is irrelevant. It's the same amount of money hitting the cap, so don't worry about the label. 

The freed up money is one part. The dead money is waste. The Jets are paying Revis and Futz money this season. They will not play for the Jets though and that money will count against the cap total

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Jetdawgg said:

The freed up money is one part. The dead money is waste. The Jets are paying Revis and Futz money this season. They will not play for the Jets though and that money will count against the cap total

No, this is also wrong. The Jets are paying only Revis this year, and that's because of Maccagnan & Davidson's idiocy. Leave it to those two fools to guarantee him $6m in salary three years in (structured so even the signing bonus wouldn't have offset that, because these people are just that terrible at this).

All the rest of the "dead money" you're concerning yourself with is money was already spent and paid to these players in the past.

They are paying Fitzpatrick zero this year. Zero. They paid him $12m last year. 

"Dead money" is a waste? It doesn't make it smarter to pay those same players more money in the future just to avoid the "dead" term. That is an even bigger waste.

[thadude]

5 hours ago, Warfish said:

Manish Mehta and John Healy of the New York Daily News report that it won’t be a surprise if Decker is released upon passing a physical this offseason. Dropping Decker from the roster would save the Jets $5.75 million under the cap.

Great.  Now we can sign worse players

[Jetdawgg]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, this is also wrong. The Jets are paying only Revis this year, and that's because of Maccagnan & Davidson's idiocy. Leave it to those two fools to guarantee him $6m in salary three years in (structured so even the signing bonus wouldn't have offset that, because these people are just that terrible at this).

All the rest of the "dead money" you're concerning yourself with is money was already spent and paid to these players in the past.

They are paying Fitzpatrick zero this year. Zero. They paid him $12m last year. 

"Dead money" is a waste? It doesn't make it smarter to pay those same players more money in the future just to avoid the "dead" term. That is an even bigger waste.

Buddy I think you have it wrong. Futz is being paid $5MM USD by the Jets in 2017. The Jets are already $13MM I dead money.

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/new-york-jets/

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Jetdawgg said:

Buddy I think you have it wrong. Futz is being paid $5MM USD by the Jets in 2017. The Jets are already $13MM I dead money.

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/new-york-jets/

No, you are 100% wrong, and your misunderstanding of how to read these numbers explains why you are unnecessarily obsessing over "dead money" that's dead whether the player is kept or cut.

They paid him $12m last year. They are paying him $0 this year.

[Jetdawgg]

4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, you are 100% wrong, and your misunderstanding of how to read these numbers explains why you are unnecessarily obsessing over "dead money" that's dead whether the player is kept or cut.

They paid him $12m last year. They are paying him $0 this year.

Five is counting on this years cap. You are splitting hairs

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, Jetdawgg said:

Five is counting on this years cap. You are splitting hairs

It's not splitting hairs. They are two different things. They are not paying Ryan Fitzpatrick any money this year.  They paid him $12m last year and zero this year.

The concept you're failing to grasp is the concept that all $12 million - not just the $5m "dead money" you're lamenting - is what was robbed from future spending ability when they re-signed Ryan Fitzpatrick. Everything they paid him would have been available to use on others in the future. The false idea of "$7m was last year and $5m this year" is a lazy way of look at it. Had they not signed him in 2016, they would have had $12m more to spend in 2017 because that's how much would have been available for others later (it would have carried over to 2017). It makes no difference if they divided his cap hits up as $7m and $5m, $6m and $6m, or $12m and $0. What you spend (and guarantee) in the past becomes unavailable in the future.

It's the same thing with another dead-end player like Cromartie. People foolishly patted Maccagnan on his head and licked his face over the lack of "dead money" but it made no difference. They overpaid him by some $3-4m (basically ~100%) over his actual value, and the full $7m is the amount they then didn't have to spend on others thereafter. It makes no difference if all $7m hit in 2015, or if $4m of it counted in 2015 and $3m of it was "dead money" in 2016, since the $3m they didn't allocate for him in 2015 would then have carried over to 2016, if our GM had any self control. 

The problem is massive overspending in the ultimate pursuit of nothing. Not just on these individual players, but overspending in aggregate for the benefit of a particular season that had no serious shot at a title. Your obsession over dead money, if this guy or that guy is cut, is a wasted endeavor, as it is ultimately meaningless. They are in the situation they are now, not the situation they were in back in March of 2015 or before that. So if they don't pay Decker $7.25m they get to pay someone else that $7.25m; therefore it saves $7.25m on the cap to cut him.

[NoBowles]

Its really a tragedy that we don't have an extra $5mil in cap space this year. We could have signed that one player we are missing to finally win the SB. Oh well, no SB for us, thanks BiG Mac!!

[Sperm Edwards]

So back to Marshall, Maccagnan's credited with shrewdly cutting this older player as dead weight, and the main reasons it's smart are his decline in play plus some locker room issues and getting paid $7.5m for the upcoming season.

Never mind that neither his play nor the locker room stuff are the reasons he was let go, and that Maccagnan's desire was to keep him for a minimum of one more season by offering him an extension that would have guaranteed him at least that amount, and likely some more than that tacked on.

[Dcat]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So back to Marshall, Maccagnan's credited with shrewdly cutting this older player as dead weight, and the main reasons it's smart are his decline in play plus some locker room issues and getting paid $7.5m for the upcoming season.

Never mind that neither his play nor the locker room stuff are the reasons he was let go, and that Maccagnan's desire was to keep him for a minimum of one more season by offering him an extension that would have guaranteed him at least that amount, and likely some more than that tacked on.

Which, in my view, was a smart thing to do.  $7.5 for him is a bargain and he has a couple years left.  Not having Marshall is not a plus for developing any of the young QBs we will have on the roster. 

[joewilly12]

16 hours ago, thadude said:

Great.  Now we can sign worse players

Who needs Decker and Marshall, we have Smith,J Marshall,Anderson and Peake.............

[Jetdawgg]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's not splitting hairs. They are two different things. They are not paying Ryan Fitzpatrick any money this year.  They paid him $12m last year and zero this year.

The concept you're failing to grasp is the concept that all $12 million - not just the $5m "dead money" you're lamenting - is what was robbed from future spending ability when they re-signed Ryan Fitzpatrick. Everything they paid him would have been available to use on others in the future. The false idea of "$7m was last year and $5m this year" is a lazy way of look at it. Had they not signed him in 2016, they would have had $12m more to spend in 2017 because that's how much would have been available for others later (it would have carried over to 2017). It makes no difference if they divided his cap hits up as $7m and $5m, $6m and $6m, or $12m and $0. What you spend (and guarantee) in the past becomes unavailable in the future.

It's the same thing with another dead-end player like Cromartie. People foolishly patted Maccagnan on his head and licked his face over the lack of "dead money" but it made no difference. They overpaid him by some $3-4m (basically ~100%) over his actual value, and the full $7m is the amount they then didn't have to spend on others thereafter. It makes no difference if all $7m hit in 2015, or if $4m of it counted in 2015 and $3m of it was "dead money" in 2016, since the $3m they didn't allocate for him in 2015 would then have carried over to 2016, if our GM had any self control. 

The problem is massive overspending in the ultimate pursuit of nothing. Not just on these individual players, but overspending in aggregate for the benefit of a particular season that had no serious shot at a title. Your obsession over dead money, if this guy or that guy is cut, is a wasted endeavor, as it is ultimately meaningless. They are in the situation they are now, not the situation they were in back in March of 2015 or before that. So if they don't pay Decker $7.25m they get to pay someone else that $7.25m; therefore it saves $7.25m on the cap to cut him.

It is an accounting trick. Even Jason calls it dead money. Please stop bro

[PCP63]

USA Today reporting that Marshall and Patriots have mutual interest....

[Rangers9]

Well NEP got Randy Moss and he helped them out a lot. So this could be no surprise and give them a big upgrade until Marshall wears out his welcome. It could be a key chip for New England for the 2017 season esp if they are no longer elite at tight end. As for us it could be that Mac is trying to get money to pay for a Qb. I think he got rid of Marshall just because he was a distraction in the locker room. As for his money he was worth that kind of a pay day. And BB would get him on the rebound and cheaper. 

[C Mart]

Brandon Marshall (@BMarshall)

3/4/17, 1:19 PM

Wow what a first class organization @nyjets Just got a call from @woodyjohnson4 #jetup

 

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, C Mart said:

Brandon Marshall (@BMarshall)

3/4/17, 1:19 PM

Wow what a first class organization @nyjets Just got a call from @woodyjohnson4 #jetup

 

Woody blowing more smoke up Jets players asses he's gotten really good at it is my guess. 

[Sperm Edwards]

22 hours ago, Jetdawgg said:

It is an accounting trick. Even Jason calls it dead money. Please stop bro

lol Jason would agree with me 100%. It isn't a "trick" which would imply magic that is somehow difficult to understand. It isn't magic: it is simple, rudimentary math.

If you pay a certain amount to a player this year, you don't have that amount to pay to others.

Whatever you paid to them in the past is already gone, whether it counted on last year's cap or was amortized to spread over 3-5 years. It's all the same thing in the end: you pay someone $12m then that's $12m you no longer have.

[LIJetsFan]

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

lol Jason would agree with me 100%. It isn't a "trick" which would imply magic that is somehow difficult to understand. It isn't magic: it is simple, rudimentary math.

If you pay a certain amount to a player this year, you don't have that amount to pay to others.

Whatever you paid to them in the past is already gone, whether it counted on last year's cap or was amortized to spread over 3-5 years. It's all the same thing in the end: you pay someone $12m then that's $12m you no longer have.

You're really bending yourself like a pretzel trying to make this point.  The fact is that last year Mac spent $5m of this years cap.  Don't overlook the timing aspect; A/K/A/ mortgaging the future.  

[UnitedWhofans]

Sperm's logic is very correct. However, the question then becomes what could he have gotten with that extra space? 

Frankly I think everybody overspends

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

You're really bending yourself like a pretzel trying to make this point.  The fact is that last year Mac spent $5m of this years cap.  Don't overlook the timing aspect; A/K/A/ mortgaging the future.  

It looks that way on the surface, I agree, but I'm just saying he spent more than that. It only appear like $5m because that's how much is on his name's line-item. In reality the full $12m to Fitz had to be cleared by restructuring others' cap hits to make him fit.

Whether it was shoving $6m of Mo's money (Mo' money lol) to the future right before caving or doing the same with Skrine right after, or with Carpenter some months before that, those players' contracts were restructured to make others (like Fitz) fit, not to make themselves fit.

[joewilly12]

The fact that we are still paying in 2017 for the worst QB in the NFL in 2016 Ryan Fitzpatrick speaks volumes about Mike Maccagnan our GM. 

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Sperm's logic is very correct. However, the question then becomes what could he have gotten with that extra space? 

Frankly I think everybody overspends

Don't agree with me. It makes me very uncomfortable . 

[Dcat]

25 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

The fact that we are still paying in 2017 for the worst QB in the NFL in 2016 Ryan Fitzpatrick speaks volumes about Mike Maccagnan our GM. 

Fitz was paid his full $12 million last season.  $5 million of that $12 million hits the 2017 cap, but the Jets are not paying one red cent to him in 2017.  Why can't you ever seem to fathom how the cap works?  We are not "still paying" Ryan Fitzpatrick.  You are confusing the dead money hitting the cap with actual payment, which was 100% of the $12 million last year.   Gezz if you are going to whine 24/7, please at least get your facts straight.  Chronic whiners are bad enough.  But chronic whiners who are wrong factually about the very things they choose to whine about are the worst.

[joewilly12]

5 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Fitz was paid his full $12 million last season.  $5 million of that $12 million hits the 2017 cap, but the Jets are not paying one red cent to him in 2017.  Why can't you ever seem to fathom how the cap works?  We are not "still paying" Ryan Fitzpatrick.  You are confusing the dead money hitting the cap with actual payment, which was 100% of the $12 million last year.   Gezz if you are going to whine 24/7, please at least get your facts straight.  Chronic whiners are bad enough.  But chronic whiners who are wrong factually about the very things they choose to whine about are the worst.

Is Ryan Fitzpatrick costing us $5 million dollars that goes towards the 2017 cap money or not?  I fully understand how it works and factually speaking we are $5 million dollars less cap space in 2017 because of Ryan Fitzpatrick. Not whining stating facts does the truth hurt you or what? 

[Dcat]

3 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Is Ryan Fitzpatrick costing us $5 million dollars that goes towards the 2017 cap money or not?  I fully understand how it works and factually speaking we are $5 million dollars less cap space in 2017 because of Ryan Fitzpatrick. Not whining stating facts does the truth hurt you or what? 

There will be a $5 million dead money hit on the Jets' 2017 cap space.  But we were done paying him last year.  You made it sound like we are still paying him.  Even worse, since you now say that you knew that wasn't true, you were clearly trying to manipulate in your post by claiming otherwise.  Also, JW , cap space this season, where at best we go 5-12 is irrelevant.  What matters is cap space and draft position/# of picks next season when we can again begin to compete. 

[joewilly12]

Just now, Dcat said:

There will be a $5 million dead money hit on the Jets' 2017 cap space.  But we re done painghim last year.  You made it sound like we are still paying him.  Even worse, since you knew that wasn;'t true, you were trying to manipulate in your post by claiming otherwise.  Also, JW , Cap space this season, where at best we go 5-12 is irrelevant.  What matters is cap space and draft position/# of picks next season when we can again begin to compete. 

Whatever dude anyway you decide to twist it or look at it to make yourself look like the man in 2017 we start out with $5 million dollars less because of Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

[Dcat]

5 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Whatever dude anyway you decide to twist it or look at it to make yourself look like the man in 2017 we start out with $5 million dollars less because of Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

Can you ever stop whining?  Christ.  You got your facts wrong.  Period.  The Jets are not "still paying" Fitzpatrick.  Dead money against the cap is what it is.  Nothing they can do about it now.  The time to say no to that was last year as you and I both did over and over.  I even signed the fan petition (on another site) begging them not to re-sign that bum.  The myopic Fitz supporters won that battle and all Jets fans, including the pro-Fitz deluded ones, suffered from it.  Don't make it worse than it already is.  Don't make it sound like we are still paying him when we are not.