Jump to content

$12.7M Decision


Should we keep or cut Tomlinson?   

115 members have voted

  1. 1. If you were the GM, would you keep or cut Tomlinson?

  2. 2. Will Douglas Cut or Keep Tomlinson?

  3. 3. What you would do and what you predict Douglas to do similar or different?



Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LAD_Brooklyn said:

Laken Tomlinson's $12.7 million base salary in 2023, is only guaranteed for injury and becomes fully guaranteed on the fifth day of 2023 league year. Do the Jets cut ties and just take the cap penalty or do they ride this out to not create another hole?

I’d keep him, for the reason you stated.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We looked into it a bit ago. It's unclear if it's guaranteed just for injury, or if $10MM of it is fully guaranteed already. At one time I remember it clearly looking like it was only an injury guarantee, but now it seems changed on the two main cap sites. It gives the appearance - or anyway it's subject to interpretation - that the part that guarantees on the 5th day is the remaining $2.7MM, with the first $10MM already chiseled into stone.

I'd be very happy to move on after his 1st season here, but as the only under-contract OLman who didn't go on IR last year - plus further admission of error from the GM - I think he's sticking.

Cross your fingers and hope this year is better. If it isn't I can't see him getting that 3rd season. What'd help is if they drafted more OL without the need for those rookies to start as rookies (like they did at tackle with Mitchell, but in April they didn't figure they'd already be down 2 starting tackles, with a 3rd one clearly not 100%, by week 1).

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We looked into it a bit ago. It's unclear if it's guaranteed just for injury, or if $10MM of it is fully guaranteed already. At one time I remember it clearly looking like it was only an injury guarantee, but now it seems changed on the two main cap sites. It gives the appearance - or anyway it's subject to interpretation - that the part that guarantees on the 5th day is the remaining $2.7MM, with the first $10MM already chiseled into stone.

I'd be very happy to move on after his 1st season here, but as the only under-contract OLman who didn't go on IR last year - plus further admission of error from the GM - I think he's sticking.

Cross your fingers and hope this year is better. If it isn't I can't see him getting that 3rd season. What'd help is if they drafted more OL without the need for those rookies to start as rookies (like they did at tackle with Mitchell, but in April they didn't figure they'd already be down 2 starting tackles, with a 3rd one clearly not 100%, by week 1).

I tho he sucked as 49er too - watched a couple replay of games when he was with them and saw more than a few times where he was directly responsible for Jimmy G getting walloped ...I know he was in a PB but I just dont see it....he sucks - but agree he aint going anywhere.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In truth, he's worth nowhere near that much, but as others have pointed out, he more than likely sticks simply out of necessity.  The motivation to keep him has little to do with him, but because of the mess surrounding him, which is hardly inspiring.  Given that, the ideal answer would probably be to get him to renegotiate his deal.  If the OL wasn't so bad already, he'd very deservedly be cut.  Of course, if it turns out this year is already guaranteed for him, then there's no reason to even think about it, as it was just a bad deal from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice isn’t just cut or keep. At his current contract he’s expensive for the way he’s played. He might be more viable at a lower contract so restructure might be an option. He’s a big body and mostly played the whole season so that’s a plus.  I would also consider the fact that he played on a reVolving door of players so his performance is related to the players next to him. And then there is the milfy issue. I suspect milfy rubbed some players the wrong way. It just hasn’t been reported beyond Mims, Moore and Wilson.  The oline is going to have many new players this season so one more won’t make much difference.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We looked into it a bit ago. It's unclear if it's guaranteed just for injury, or if $10MM of it is fully guaranteed already. At one time I remember it clearly looking like it was only an injury guarantee, but now it seems changed on the two main cap sites. It gives the appearance - or anyway it's subject to interpretation - that the part that guarantees on the 5th day is the remaining $2.7MM, with the first $10MM already chiseled into stone.

I'd be very happy to move on after his 1st season here, but as the only under-contract OLman who didn't go on IR last year - plus further admission of error from the GM - I think he's sticking.

Cross your fingers and hope this year is better. If it isn't I can't see him getting that 3rd season. What'd help is if they drafted more OL without the need for those rookies to start as rookies (like they did at tackle with Mitchell, but in April they didn't figure they'd already be down 2 starting tackles, with a 3rd one clearly not 100%, by week 1).

I unfortunately agree with the conclusion he’s probably sticking, agree this is probably his last year, and wholeheartedly agree that they need to build more young depth on the line via the draft.

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

Over the cap shows his contract including $23.9M fully guaranteed:

  • $12,780,000 signing bonus
  • $1,120,000 2022 base
  • $10,000,000 2023 base.

Assuming OTC is correct, it is a $2.7M question.  And the savings would be in future years because of the acceleration of his bonus if he is cut.  He is going to be around for one more season, we just have to hope he bounces back in 23.

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

2 minutes ago, Lith said:

Over the cap shows his contract including $23.9M fully guaranteed:

  • $12,780,000 signing bonus
  • $1,120,000 2022 base
  • $10,000,000 2023 base.

Assuming OTC is correct, it is a $2.7M question.  And the savings would be in future years because of the acceleration of his bonus if he is cut.  He is going to be around for one more season, we just have to hope he bounces back in 23.

it appears he is going nowhere based on that contract, OTC indicates his pre-June cut is an 18M cap hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Who are your starting O-Tackles?

On paper they have 3 dedicated tackles under contract, with a 4th who slips in at no notice, all of whom capable of performing at an adequate or better level (when they're on the field, lol):

Snickering or eye-rolling aside:

  1. Brown LT
  2. Becton RT or LT
  3. Mitchell RT
  4. and as needed AVT LT or RT.

That isn't including anyone else they add in FA at any position along the line (e.g. a G to file in for AVT should they need him at tackle again).

That doesn't mean they shouldn't draft a tackle - they absolutely should - but they do not have an immediate hole at tackle (let alone two). They further have the option of swapping Brown's $9MM salary to a different veteran next month.

Next year is when they only have 1 dedicated tackle (Mitchell) under contract (technically two, if they feel comfortable heading into the season with AVT+Mitchell as starters). Therefore drafting another developmental tackle this year would be prudent, so they aren't forcing their own hand in next year's draft (or FA before that), but it isn't an outright emergency.

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

3 hours ago, Lith said:

Over the cap shows his contract including $23.9M fully guaranteed:

  • $12,780,000 signing bonus
  • $1,120,000 2022 base
  • $10,000,000 2023 base.

Assuming OTC is correct, it is a $2.7M question.  And the savings would be in future years because of the acceleration of his bonus if he is cut.  He is going to be around for one more season, we just have to hope he bounces back in 23.

Hopefully he was playing through an injury or something last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

On paper they have 3 dedicated tackles under contract, with a 4th who slips in at no notice, all of whom capable of performing at an adequate or better level (when they're on the field, lol):

Snickering or eye-rolling aside:

  1. Brown LT
  2. Becton RT or LT
  3. Mitchell RT
  4. and as needed AVT LT or RT.

That isn't including anyone else they add in FA at any position along the line (e.g. a G to file in for AVT should they need him at tackle again).

That doesn't mean they shouldn't draft a tackle - they absolutely should - but they do not have an immediate hole at tackle (let alone two). They further have the option of swapping Brown's $9MM salary to a different veteran next month.

Next year is when they only have 1 dedicated tackle (Mitchell) under contract (technically two, if they feel comfortable heading into the season with AVT+Mitchell as starters). Therefore drafting another developmental tackle this year would be prudent, so they aren't forcing their own hand in next year's draft (or FA before that), but it isn't an outright emergency.

With Phineas (Feeney) and Ferb (Herbig) at Guard we're set. :)

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

The decision to cut him wouldn't have to be made til day 5 of the official FA period. Therefore it gives the Jets time to monkey branch and solidify a veteran replacement before cutting him. So instead of paying Tomlinson $13.1M in cash this season. Jets can save by paying Nate Herbig $3M while being able to allocate that $10 extra million elsewhere (perhaps QB). 

Of course we'll have to live with the cap hit situation which would roll into a year in which we'll have plenty space. 

To counter that, there is a such thing as a down season. Going from Trent Williams to Brown and a banged up Fant is definitely a transition. His ability to be available is a huge plus as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LAD_Brooklyn said:

The decision to cut him wouldn't have to be made til day 5 of the official FA period. Therefore it gives the Jets time to monkey branch and solidify a veteran replacement before cutting him. So instead of paying Tomlinson $13.1M in cash this season. Jets can save by paying Nate Herbig $3M while being able to allocate that $10 extra million elsewhere (perhaps QB). 

Of course we'll have to live with the cap hit situation which would roll into a year in which we'll have plenty space. 

To counter that, there is a such thing as a down season. Going from Trent Williams to Brown and a banged up Fant is definitely a transition. His ability to be available is a huge plus as well. 

Tomlinson isn’t good and we can save $12 million in cap room to use for Rodgers or Carr and/or sign an upgrade.  It’s a no brainer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Snickering or eye-rolling aside:

Sorta says it all that you have to caveat the list this way.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That doesn't mean they shouldn't draft a tackle - they absolutely should - but they do not have an immediate hole at tackle (let alone two).

Our O-line, today, remains one of the weakest links on O, and one of the weakest units in the NFL.

We have an immediate O-line improvement need.  A serious immediate need.  A top need.

If you don't think so, agree to disagree.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Sympathy 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Sorta says it all that you have to caveat the list this way.

Our O-line, today, remains one of the weakest links on O, and one of the weakest units in the NFL.

We have an immediate O-line improvement need.  A serious immediate need.  A top need.

If you don't think so, agree to disagree.  

Well I caveated it that way because the mere mention of Becton's name triggers many. Hey, people are right to be less than optimistic, but his presence isn't an absence. 

Agreements to disagree aside, the fact is they do not have a hole at tackle, even if you don't care for the names. Their worst-case scenario, in terms of the best starters at tackle, is what, AVT + the best of the other 3 heading into March? That's 2 starters + 2 more depth. 

Could the personnel be better? Well yeah, duh of course. But that doesn't make the position a hole.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well I caveated it that way because the mere mention of Becton's name triggers many. Hey, people are right to be less than optimistic, but his presence isn't an absence. 

Agreements to disagree aside, the fact is they do not have a hole at tackle, even if you don't care for the names. Their worst-case scenario, in terms of the best starters at tackle, is what, AVT + the best of the other 3 heading into March? That's 2 starters + 2 more depth. 

Could the personnel be better? Well yeah, duh of course. But that doesn't make the position a hole.

I think when you suffer back to back season ending injuries in September/August, I think you should be considered a hole on the roster. You are unreliable and the objective should be to replace you. And that’s not even getting into the weight/work ethic concerns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slimjasi said:

I think when you suffer back to back season ending injuries in September/August, I think you should be considered a hole on the roster. You are unreliable and the objective should be to replace you. And that’s not even getting into the weight/work ethic concerns. 

First that's opinion not fact, until he actually gets injured (again) and/or until they cut or trade him he's on the roster and is probably penciled in as an opening day starter at that.

Second, even if he missed the season again they still have 2-3 tackle starters.

Desiring an upgrade or additional depth - however justified - isn't equivalent to having an outright hole at the position.

In contrast, they have a hole at center because they do not have a starting center on the roster under contract for 2023.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

First that's opinion not fact, until he actually gets injured (again) and/or until they cut or trade him he's on the roster and is probably penciled in as an opening day starter at that.

Second, even if he missed the season again they still have 2-3 tackle starters.

Desiring an upgrade or additional depth - however justified - isn't equivalent to having an outright hole at the position.

In contrast, they have a hole at center because they do not have a starting center on the roster under contract for 2023.

It’s semantics - I think they need a new left tackle, regardless of how you want to label the current tackles on the roster. 

  • Upvote 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.   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.

×
×
  • Create New...