SouthernJet Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 People, the Chad situation would have been a restructuring regardless of te regime. Please, do not make this out that Mangini/Tannenbaum have laid teh wood to Chad. This was going to be the circumstance. Let's not start giving credit where credit is not due. of course not,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 People, the Chad situation would have been a restructuring regardless of te regime. Please, do not make this out that Mangini/Tannenbaum have laid teh wood to Chad. This was going to be the circumstance. Let's not start giving credit where credit is not due. They're not asking him to restructure. They're asking him to take a MAJOR pay cut. In a restructure, he's still going to make that money. In a pay cut, he's not getting that money (unless incentives are put in, and he reaches them.) I doubt Herm/Bradway ask Pennington to take such a large cut in pay. Restructure? Obviously, they basically have to restructure. But this is much different from restructuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 They're not asking him to restructure. They're asking him to take a MAJOR pay cut. In a restructure, he's still going to make that money. In a pay cut, he's not getting that money (unless incentives are put in, and he reaches them.) I doubt Herm/Bradway ask Pennington to take such a large cut in pay. Restructure? Obviously, they basically have to restructure. But this is much different from restructuring. incoming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 They're not asking him to restructure. They're asking him to take a MAJOR pay cut. In a restructure, he's still going to make that money. In a pay cut, he's not getting that money (unless incentives are put in, and he reaches them.) I doubt Herm/Bradway ask Pennington to take such a large cut in pay. Restructure? Obviously, they basically have to restructure. But this is much different from restructuring. It ios "restructured" in its terms. It is essentially a play for pay deal. Earn the money. People are making it out like this some kind of earth shattering moment or an ultimatum. It is common sense. Now, what about teh March roster bonus. What of that. That is where we find out about gumption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It ios "restructured" in its terms. It is essentially a play for pay deal. Earn the money. People are making it out like this some kind of earth shattering moment or an ultimatum. It is common sense. Now, what about teh March roster bonus. What of that. That is where we find out about gumption If they restructured him, they would turn it into bonus money. So even though it would help them this year, it would still be money that he will get, and will count the same on the cap, overall. They're asking him to give up money, which means that it will reduce his cap hit this year, AND he won't see it at any time on the contract, nor will it count against the cap. The March bonus will probably be something that is renegotiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 If they restructured him, they would turn it into bonus money. So even though it would help them this year, it would still be money that he will get, and will count the same on the cap, overall. They're asking him to give up money, which means that it will reduce his cap hit this year, AND he won't see it at any time on the contract, nor will it count against the cap. The March bonus will probably be something that is renegotiated. Not necessarily. If Chad agrees to this "restructure" , and the money is turned into play time bonuses, that monty MAY be able to be spread through the liftime of teh deal, since it is bonus money. There are some differentiations between "likely to be achieved" bonusese and regular bonuses, and how they apply, as I understand it. It depends on teh language of teh bonuses and how they are structured, to be detrmined how they will affect the cap. What I find comical here is that we had some people that were in teh camp of "Chad must be cut", and now they are ecstatic over a "restructure". That is Kool-aidish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 If they restructured him, they would turn it into bonus money. So even though it would help them this year, it would still be money that he will get, and will count the same on the cap, overall. They're asking him to give up money, which means that it will reduce his cap hit this year, AND he won't see it at any time on the contract, nor will it count against the cap. The March bonus will probably be something that is renegotiated. The march bonus for Penne , should be towel incented! For every game he actually plays in , give him a top notch beach towel, not the cheap Kmart crap, a real nice one, one that has a picture of BZ's avatar on it, and maybe from a sponsor like Barilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boozer76 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 What I find comical here is that we had some people that were in teh camp of "Chad must be cut", and now they are ecstatic over a "restructure". That is Kool-aidish Speaking for myself on this, I am not ecstatic over the restructure demand in the sense that I think he takes it and stays on with the Jets. I am ecstatic because I know there is no way in hell he will accept it and therefore he will in fact be cut. How's that for Kool Aid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 How was there not a single article today in the NY/NJ newspapers about this? And this never would have happened with Edwards as the HC. He always said he never believed it taking away a players money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 And this never would have happened with Edwards as the HC. He always said he never believed it taking away a players money. Are you trying to say that this is a bad thing? It's not in a NY / NJ newspaper because I guess the Jets havn't brought it public? I don't know how Mort got the information because it seems nobody else has heard this. It's not even up on ESPN.com! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Are you trying to say that this is a bad thing? It's not in a NY / NJ newspaper because I guess the Jets havn't brought it public? I don't know how Mort got the information because it seems nobody else has heard this. It's not even up on ESPN.com! No, I'm not saying its a bad thing. Its a very good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I also have not been able to find this anywhere on the internet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Not necessarily. If Chad agrees to this "restructure" , and the money is turned into play time bonuses, that monty MAY be able to be spread through the liftime of teh deal, since it is bonus money. There are some differentiations between "likely to be achieved" bonusese and regular bonuses, and how they apply, as I understand it. It depends on teh language of teh bonuses and how they are structured, to be detrmined how they will affect the cap. What I find comical here is that we had some people that were in teh camp of "Chad must be cut", and now they are ecstatic over a "restructure". That is Kool-aidish But again, it's not a "restructure". It's a cut in pay. I doubt they would put these incentives in as bonuses, if they can even do that. It would probably be added base salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 But again, it's not a "restructure". It's a cut in pay. I doubt they would put these incentives in as bonuses, if they can even do that. It would probably be added base salary. I warned ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Speaking for myself on this, I am not ecstatic over the restructure demand in the sense that I think he takes it and stays on with the Jets. I am ecstatic because I know there is no way in hell he will accept it and therefore he will in fact be cut. How's that for Kool Aid? Booze-I can appreciate that you are taking a stand. Some seem to feel that a "restructure" means that the cowboys have just ridden into town and are declaring marshall law. If this edict is in fact true, it is nothing more than the course the Chad situation would take to start. Asking him to earn through play-time incentives his non-guaranteed portion of teh contract is not earth shattering by any means. It is a common sense approach given teh history, and teh contract. Again, tell-tale of thsi situation will be what becomes of teh March roster bones (3 mill?). That is where a line will need to be drawn in teh sand. I am interested to see where it is drawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 But again, it's not a "restructure". It's a cut in pay. I doubt they would put these incentives in as bonuses, if they can even do that. It would probably be added base salary. We are dealing with semantics. As the thread initially implied (if I am reading it correctly), is that base salaries would be converted to bonuses based on play-time. There hgvae been othe contracts liek this (for back-ups who felt they were starter material). It's a cut in pay ONLY if he doesn't play-at least to the specifics in the contract language. Who knows right now what that language is and how it is worded. Again, semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It is called renegoiate or get cut and get nada for coin!!!!!! I luv it, these guys have read my plan and are executing!!!!!!! If they're stupid enough to cut him, he still gets whatever signing bonus is still due and it still counts against the cap, right? If anyone in the Jets office is reading anything by Assmop, we're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZep22 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 he's a team player so i think he'll take the contract if he does get cut i want to see him go to the raiders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 We are dealing with semantics. As the thread initially implied (if I am reading it correctly), is that base salaries would be converted to bonuses based on play-time. There hgvae been othe contracts liek this (for back-ups who felt they were starter material). It's a cut in pay ONLY if he doesn't play-at least to the specifics in the contract language. Who knows right now what that language is and how it is worded. Again, semantics. Mortensen said that it is $1M base salary with the POSSIBILITY to recoup SOME of the money he would lose through incentives. Obviously we won't know exactly what the situation is until it is official, but this isn't a simple restructure. They will ask him to drastically cut his salary. With Bradway and Herm, this would have been a simple restructure to help the team in the short term, but we would be in the same position for the next few years. This is a move to improve the cap situation for this year, and the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 With Bradway and Herm, this would have been a simple restructure to help the team in the short term, but we would be in the same position for the next few years. First, This move would only apply to the cap situation THIS year, unless you read something I didn't. Second, the point of what Bradway/etc. would have done is not a fair one. Who can say? AM-What comes of the March bonus?. That is the biggest fish to fry on this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 If they're stupid enough to cut him, he still gets whatever signing bonus is still due and it still counts against the cap, right? If anyone in the Jets office is reading anything by Assmop, we're screwed. assmop is the voice of reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 First, This move would only apply to the cap situation THIS year, unless you read something I didn't. Second, the point of what Bradway/etc. would have done is not a fair one. Who can say? AM-What comes of the March bonus?. That is the biggest fish to fry on this deal. They are cutting his pay, not restructuring his contract. If they were to restructure him, it would effect the cap for future years. If they're cutting his pay, they're not prorating any money, so it wouldn't effect the cap in the future. Bradway has shown in the past an inability to ask players to take pay cuts. Now, this is probably more because of Herm. Someone posted that Herm doesn't believe in cutting the pay of a player, which I wouldn't doubt for a second. What the Jets are asking Pennington to do is take a pay cut, with a CHANCE to get back SOME of the money he would lose. A restructure would actually turn base salary into guaranteed money, so he would be guaranteed the base salary he is losing out in. He'd basically be getting a guarantee on money that originally wasn't guaranteed. Like I said, the March bonus will likely have to be restructured. Why do you think they're coming to him with this now, a few weeks before March 1st? They want to sort all of this out so they know what will happen come 3/1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonysxl1200c Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 As far as the pay cut goes, I heard that Chad will get the chance to make 100% of it back. He is scheduled to get a $3,000,000 Roster Bonus in March, and his Base Salary for 2006 is $6,000,000 which equals $9,000,000. The restructure would have him taking a $1,000,000 Base Salary, and have about $8,000,000 in playing and performance incentives. I don't have a web link unfortunately, just what a few people have emailed me. His $12,000,000 Salary Cap number includes the $6,000,000 Base, the $3,000,000 Roster Bonus, and another $3,000,000 proration of his $18,000,000 original Signing Bonus. I feel it's sort of a gesture on their part to say he can make all the money back if he's able to play. I would love to get a look at the actual incentives!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 As far as the pay cut goes, I heard that Chad will get the chance to make 100% of it back. He is scheduled to get a $3,000,000 Roster Bonus in March, and his Base Salary for 2006 is $6,000,000 which equals $9,000,000. The restructure would have him taking a $1,000,000 Base Salary, and have about $8,000,000 in playing and performance incentives. I don't have a web link unfortunately, just what a few people have emailed me. His $12,000,000 Salary Cap number includes the $6,000,000 Base, the $3,000,000 Roster Bonus, and another $3,000,000 proration of his $18,000,000 original Signing Bonus. I feel it's sort of a gesture on their part to say he can make all the money back if he's able to play. I would love to get a look at the actual incentives!! I'm guessing the incentives are (for him) pretty tough to get. Like playing a full season, or a certain percentage of snaps, etc. I also wouldn't be surprised to see this end up with him not being able to make back all the money, or them setting virtually impossible incentives for him to get, if the PA would allow the team to do that. They can do it with the base salary, but I don't know if they would let them fool around with the bonus money, especially with Brees being a free agent this year and in a somewhat similar situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 AM Jets- Name for me 5 players who have taken a "pay cut" in slary. I can think of 1 off the top of my head-I believe Bettis did this year-and that was special circumstance. You want to call it pay cut-I want to call it restructure. In reality-We don't know what it is, and we are playing a game of semantics until someone sees contract language. If he has the ability to earn it all back-then it is a restructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 incoming I warned ya: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 AM Jets- Name for me 5 players who have taken a "pay cut" in slary. I can think of 1 off the top of my head-I believe Bettis did this year-and that was special circumstance. You want to call it pay cut-I want to call it restructure. In reality-We don't know what it is, and we are playing a game of semantics until someone sees contract language. If he has the ability to earn it all back-then it is a restructure. It's not a restructure if he isn't guaranteed the money that is being moved. If his base salary and roster bonus is reduced by a combined $8M, and there is no guarantee that he can earn it back, it will technically be a pay cut. It's not a game of semantics, because they are two totally different things. A restructure is guarantee money, and prorating it over the length of the contract. A pay cut is when that player does not see that money up front, nor is it guaranteed over the length of the contract. If the $8M is prorated over the length of the contract, then it IS a restructure. But what is being discussed is making it an incentive for him, which doesn't guarantee him any money for 2006. Restructuring the contract guarantees him a little under $2M for 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 whats the over/under on these two? 12 pages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor99 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 whats the over/under on these two? 12 pages? I say they'll start making out after 2 beers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It's not a restructure if he isn't guaranteed the money that is being moved. If his base salary and roster bonus is reduced by a combined $8M, and there is no guarantee that he can earn it back, it will technically be a pay cut. It's not a game of semantics, because they are two totally different things. A restructure is guarantee money, and prorating it over the length of the contract. A pay cut is when that player does not see that money up front, nor is it guaranteed over the length of the contract. If the $8M is prorated over the length of the contract, then it IS a restructure. But what is being discussed is making it an incentive for him, which doesn't guarantee him any money for 2006. Restructuring the contract guarantees him a little under $2M for 2006. AM-Please provide the contract specifics. I have not read them. What are the incentioves and how are they structured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 AM-Please provide the contract specifics. I have not read them. What are the incentioves and how are they structured? No one knows yet. But the fact is that incentives are not guaranteed. If you restructure a contract, you are taking money, and GUARANTEEING it over the length of the contract. If he hits EVERY incentive, and that includes ALL of the money (we have to wait and see if this is the case, but I'm really doubting it at this point,) then it depends on how it is built into the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Has anyone found a link to this article yet? I've been unable to find anything being reported officially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Has anyone found a link to this article yet? I've been unable to find anything being reported officially. It's not official, Chris Mortensen said it on ESPN yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 No one knows yet. But the fact is that incentives are not guaranteed. If you restructure a contract, you are taking money, and GUARANTEEING it over the length of the contract. If he hits EVERY incentive, and that includes ALL of the money (we have to wait and see if this is the case, but I'm really doubting it at this point,) then it depends on how it is built into the contract. UNCLE! You also said that it included the March bonus-Where did you see that? Or, are you just basing this all on assumption? If so, that tells the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJets Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 UNCLE! You also said that it included the March bonus-Where did you see that? Or, are you just basing this all on assumption? If so, that tells the story. I'm getting it from the report. According to the report, the supposed "incentive" was $8M, which is $5M base AND the $3M roster bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.