Jump to content

Fant expressing frustration over contract talks


Rhg1084
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2022 at 3:19 PM, bitonti said:

Leo in 2015 was a mistake we all said this dude sucks and he becomes like a 10 sack a year guy with the Giants 

Yeah, he's not a 10 sack a year guy with the Giants. In 3 years with the Giants he has a total of 18.5 sacks which is a bit short.

image.thumb.png.903d9a1e801466bb86ad133c789081e1.png

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 9:30 AM, Biggs said:

Pretty cheap deal for a starting LT even a non-elite starting LT.  He also got 8.5 guaranteed at signing with a total guarantee of 13.7.  It wasn't really a 30 million dollar deal.  

LOL...really?

If he plays here this year, it really WAS a $30 million dollar deal...ALL paid.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 5:02 PM, Embrace the Suck said:

Yeah, he's not a 10 sack a year guy with the Giants. In 3 years with the Giants he has a total of 18.5 sacks which is a bit short.

image.thumb.png.903d9a1e801466bb86ad133c789081e1.png

He said becomes like, not has been the entire time with NYG. It's like arguing that a picture of someone in their 20s with hair proves they didn't become bald at age 50.

Last two years Leo's averaged 9 sacks. Close enough.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, greenwave81 said:

LOL...really?

If he plays here this year, it really WAS a $30 million dollar deal...ALL paid.

The Jets are under no obligation to Fant.  They own him and if he plays will get the 10 million.  They could cut him which is exactly the plan if Becton was a slam dunk starting LT and they were able to keep Mosses which they tried to do. 

The leverage changed when Becton got hurt and Mosses didn't want to stay here.  Fant wasn't guaranteed a spot on the Jets this year.  He earned his shot and has overproduced his contract.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 12:58 PM, bitonti said:

Fant is roughly a 14-15M type of player based on the comp to Armstead or Wynn. He's a finesse LT who can swing to RT out of position but his natural spot is LT

the thing about this Fant situation is they already screwed it up. The time to extend this player was in March. they take the 10 mil in cash he's due, convert it to bonus, spread it out over a few years, boom they just made 10 million in cap space. That could have been another linebacker or that tough run stuffing DT they needed. Shoot maybe they pay for a kicker who can hit kicks. 

instead they keep everything in cash, pay no one long term and missed the OPPORTUNITY to get better

it almost doesn't matter if they extend him now or not, because there's no one worth paying left on the street 

another amazing point 

as recently as a week ago, Fant was a PFF darling and amazing JD find

everyone loved Fant 

now he wants money? well he's just a swing tackle who needs to prove it again 

this fanbase loves it when Woody turns the screws on a player 

as if that extra money he doesn't spend gets distributed to the season ticket holders

this is classic capital vs labor stuff. to quote Carlin, It's a big club and you ain't in it. 

This isn't accurate.

The Jets could still create an extra $5MM in cap space for this year (and instead push it to eat up future caps instead) rather effortlessly, yet you're suggesting it could only come from moving this one player's money around, and not doing so is a lost opportunity.

In fact, they did a little (and still could do more if so desired). If they'd extended Fant on the eve of FA then it's unlikely Tomlinson's contract would've had the cap hits equally as backloaded. Or perhaps they'd have cut Rankins already, or could have decided to convert JFM's roster bonus into signing bonus. Like with Fant, it's the same $ either way. They have 3 starters whose contracts are guaranteed, with base salaries in excess of $10MM. If their hits were spread to '23-24 instead of Fant's, the difference is only in one's head. In terms of balance sheet, it's the same thing & which players are frontloaded or backloaded is irrelevant. 

In the end Fant will make the same amount (assuming the extension amount is the same whether it was signed in March or September).

The cap isn't a rigid cardboard box that is empty or full or partly full, filled only with that year's moves. You can add more space - or fill it up more - with cap dollars from the prior year's moves & non-moves; likewise the same for next year's. Moving some cap space to the future, to create more space this year, doesn't make it go away like a magician making a bunny disappear into his hat. It creates more room this year at the expense of robbing the team of an equal amount of space thereafter. The total spent in real dollars paid, and the total hitting the cap over time, is the same. 

Moving cap dollars to this year or next year doesn't save Woody money no matter how worked up you get over it. Mathematically the same amount is paid in the end, unless he's selling the team after this season or something. If he pays more cash this year by loading the cap up  with backloaded hits, then he pays less next year when loading it further more won't fit; just like for every team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This isn't accurate.

The Jets could still create an extra $5MM in cap space for this year (and instead push it to eat up future caps instead) rather effortlessly, yet you're suggesting it could only come from moving this one player's money around, and not doing so is a lost opportunity.

In fact, they did a little (and still could do more if so desired). If they'd extended Fant on the eve of FA then it's unlikely Tomlinson's contract would've had the cap hits equally as backloaded. Or perhaps they'd have cut Rankins already, or could have decided to convert JFM's roster bonus into signing bonus. Like with Fant, it's the same $ either way. They have 3 starters whose contracts are guaranteed, with base salaries in excess of $10MM. If their hits were spread to '23-24 instead of Fant's, the difference is only in one's head. In terms of balance sheet, it's the same thing & which players are frontloaded or backloaded is irrelevant. 

In the end Fant will make the same amount (assuming the extension amount is the same whether it was signed in March or September).

The cap isn't a rigid cardboard box that is empty or full or partly full, filled only with that year's moves. You can add more space - or fill it up more - with cap dollars from the prior year's moves & non-moves; likewise the same for next year's. Moving some cap space to the future, to create more space this year, doesn't make it go away like a magician making a bunny disappear into his hat. It creates more room this year at the expense of robbing the team of an equal amount of space thereafter. The total spent in real dollars paid, and the total hitting the cap over time, is the same. 

Moving cap dollars to this year or next year doesn't save Woody money no matter how worked up you get over it. Mathematically the same amount is paid in the end, unless he's selling the team after this season or something. If he pays more cash this year by loading the cap up  with backloaded hits, then he pays less next year when loading it further more won't fit; just like for every team. 

The difference is that the time to free up the 5 million was in March. There's no good free agents left 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bitonti said:

The difference is that the time to free up the 5 million was in March. There's no good free agents left 

The point is they didn’t need another $5MM in March, and if they did - if there was someone they just had to sign but alas they were out of cap room - it was an effortless endeavor to clear it to make anyone fit. There was absolutely no salary cap opportunity-lost by failing to extend Fant earlier. 

FFS they still went hard after Hill and Deebo, knowing full well they’d then require ~$30MM/year contracts. So it’s quite clear Douglas didn’t think there was an available player the team just couldn’t fit under the cap.

This is a ridiculous take. Again.

  • Upvote 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The point is they didn’t need another $5MM in March, and if they did - if there was someone they just had to sign but alas they were out of cap room - it was an effortless endeavor to clear it to make anyone fit. There was absolutely no salary cap opportunity-lost by failing to extend Fant earlier. 

FFS they still went hard after Hill and Deebo, knowing full well they’d then require ~$30MM/year contracts. So it’s quite clear Douglas didn’t think there was an available player the team just couldn’t fit under the cap.

This is a ridiculous take. Again.

Exactly. JD did a good job dumping the dead weight and putting the team’s cap in a comfortable place. He doesn’t currently have any mortgaged contracts on the books, meaning that he has a ton of places to borrow from should he decide to. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The point is they didn’t need another $5MM in March, and if they did - if there was someone they just had to sign but alas they were out of cap room - it was an effortless endeavor to clear it to make anyone fit. There was absolutely no salary cap opportunity-lost by failing to extend Fant earlier. 

FFS they still went hard after Hill and Deebo, knowing full well they’d then require ~$30MM/year contracts. So it’s quite clear Douglas didn’t think there was an available player the team just couldn’t fit under the cap.

This is a ridiculous take. Again.

They could have used the extra money on competent linebackers or a kicker. 

There was a lost opportunity cost and that happens every year 

This is one way Woodrow saves on costs. By not finding the bag for existing players.

Another way is by hiring first time head coaches and first time general managers that learn (and make mistakes) on the job 

Another way is by keeping the worst turf in football 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 9:24 PM, Hal N of Provo said:

If you don’t sign him before the season starts and he plays well, he’s going to wait for free agency, right?  
 

If Fant is plan A they’d resign him already? 

You can franchise him as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hal N of Provo said:

True.  I guess that removes the urgency.  

If he repeats what he did last year, and stays healthy, by all means pay the man.  

If he plays well, but not that well, franchise him.  He'll be 30 when the season starts, so while not young, he should have 3-4 more seasons of high play left in him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is 100% false. 0% of it is true.

They did not have a shortage of money (let alone the laughable idea that they were some $5MM short by not extending Fant earlier). Any player they didn’t sign is because they didn’t want to sign them. Anyone they wanted was easily fit. Anyone. 

A team with any cap concerns about signing a LB or a K doesn’t go chasing after $30MM/year WRs. 

No players arrive in Florham Park for an interview think, “Man, this owner is a cheapskate who won’t spend a dollar he doesn’t have to spend, like some parody of the Moneyball Oakland A’s. They don’t sign here because of other reasons, I’m certain, from tax considerations to weather to just where they’d rather live & not live.

An extra $5MM of cap room in 2022 (which in turn removes the same $5MM from ‘23, ‘24, etc.) is less than meaningless in terms of signing anyone more this offseason. It’s only meaningful if there weren’t multiple other ways of clearing that and plenty more. 

Anyone they wanted to sign they could’ve converted salary to SB for Mosley alone. You don’t save cash by moving the hit to any later season(s); all you do is push the hit to next year to lower future effective ceilings.

You still don’t understand this after all these years. I find that amazing. 

The 30 million wr would have been offset by the loss of the extra first Rd pick and maybe the extra second Rd pick. Paying 3 first rders is how the Jets used that cash 

It's not proven that they signed everyone they wanted. They low balled everyone but laken and some guys accepted and others did not 

Yes They could have extended mosely except that he sucks and is an atrocity in the 4-3

To put this into real terms the Jets are like a home owner that pays cash for the new roof when they could have gotten a line of credit and used the cash for something else. That's opportunity cost. By not having any players under long term money (none) they opt out of the credit game. But other rosters have a higher functional spend because they move signing bonuses around etc 

It's OK. They are not really trying to win. Woody just wants to keep the lights on and cash those TV checks 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bitonti said:

The 30 million wr would have been offset by the loss of the extra first Rd pick and maybe the extra second Rd pick. Paying 3 first rders is how the Jets used that cash 

It's not proven that they signed everyone they wanted. They low balled everyone but laken and some guys accepted and others did not 

Yes They could have extended mosely except that he sucks and is an atrocity in the 4-3

To put this into real terms the Jets are like a home owner that pays cash for the new roof when they could have gotten a line of credit and used the cash for something else. That's opportunity cost. By not having any players under long term money (none) they opt out of the credit game. But other rosters have a higher functional spend because they move signing bonuses around etc 

It's OK. They are not really trying to win. Woody just wants to keep the lights on and cash those TV checks 

 

What are you even talking about? What 3 first rounders were the Jets ever supposedly trading away?

  • Garrett Wilson's cap number is just under $4MM in 2022, with a $5MM/year average over his 4 years; not $30MM/year.
  • Ahmad Gardner - whose pick was never in play anyhow - only has a $6MM cap hit this year.
  • Further, the first offer - for Hill - did not involve a 1st round pick in the first place, so they'd have "saved" less by only moving a couple of day 2 picks instead of a high 1st rounder.

They could have redone Mosley without extending him. You really don't know how this works. All that would do is push a bulk of his cap hit from this year to the future. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if it's Mosley's cap dollars that get pushed to '23+ or if it's Fant's. It doesn't make someone uncuttable just because you moved their cap hit to another year. It's just hitting next year instead of this year. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 11:38 PM, jgb said:

He said becomes like, not has been the entire time with NYG. It's like arguing that a picture of someone in their 20s with hair proves they didn't become bald at age 50.

Last two years Leo's averaged 9 sacks. Close enough.

No, not really. Either way, I clarified that he is in fact not a 10 sack a year guy; all semantics (like) aside. He's been there three years not two, and we'll see if his 11.5 sack year was an outlier, or not. Otherwise, he's averaging just under 6.2 sacks per year with the Giants.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Embrace the Suck said:

No, not really. Either way, I clarified that he is in fact not a 10 sack a year guy; all semantics (like) aside. He's been there three years not two, and we'll see if his 11.5 sack year was an outlier, or not. Otherwise, he's averaging just under 6.2 sacks per year with the Giants.    

K. Don't care to parse this really boring semantic debate here. Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bitonti said:

The 30 million wr would have been offset by the loss of the extra first Rd pick and maybe the extra second Rd pick. Paying 3 first rders is how the Jets used that cash 

It's not proven that they signed everyone they wanted. They low balled everyone but laken and some guys accepted and others did not 

Yes They could have extended mosely except that he sucks and is an atrocity in the 4-3

To put this into real terms the Jets are like a home owner that pays cash for the new roof when they could have gotten a line of credit and used the cash for something else. That's opportunity cost. By not having any players under long term money (none) they opt out of the credit game. But other rosters have a higher functional spend because they move signing bonuses around etc 

It's OK. They are not really trying to win. Woody just wants to keep the lights on and cash those TV checks 

 

Who did the Jets lowball that walked away?

And every FA a Jets GM doesn’t doesn’t like enough to overpay then becomes a low offer? To save cap space we don’t need to save?   Woody is fine with paying out for Revis, Trumain, Bell, CJ Lawson etc but when a GM won’t give someone an inflated contract it’s Woody?  Nonsense 
When we signed Fant he was overpaid.  Think about what that does to your argument.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general matter (and I think JD/Woody/Jets want to be the exception, like the Ravens) it is tough to be very good in the NFL without "overpaying" players you need to be successful.  One could argue that Fant is that player.  

This team needs three Tackles for 2022 and 2023.  I would extend Fant and and find another swing T for this year, unless we think that Edoga/McDermott/Mitchell can basically fill that role.  I think JD may think that and try and save the Moses money.  That could backfire.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
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.   Restore formatting

  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...