Larz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Why not? The JETS could not get a 2nd... so they took a shot at it with the clause... the clause did not hurt the JETS... it was simply a way to have a slight chance at an upgrade... That is like saying you will never see performance or playing time clauses because they are usually hit... or missed... because of shenanigans... on the field is 100% different than off the field clauses we can go on and on lets just say if you see it again, a conditional draft pick with a trigger of a team extending thier own guy before FA you are right and I am wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Did Saints requested that or is that your guess? Or did the FO not think to put it in the contract? I'm guessing the latter. My point is that it's a guess. Your take on it is an even bigger guess ("Oh, they would have done the deal anyway without the extra condition in there."). Not-great MLB'ers with serious health issues as to long-term viability just don't garner non-conditional 2nd-round compensation. This was apparently the best deal around (from all teams) for Jonathan Vilma in early 2008. I wish it was more. It wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 on the field is 100% different than off the field clauses we can go on and on lets just say if you see it again, a conditional draft pick with a trigger of a team extending thier own guy before FA you are right and I am wrong Wait till we find out the Jets did this with Philly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 To have a clause in the contract Vilma resigning, not just extending (for the higher draft pick with the Saints) Mike T was asked this question today on WFAN. He did not say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdropOFvenom Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Tannenbaum was hardly schooled. All the 2nd round clause was just insurance on the Jets part that if Jonathan Vilma was so good that the Saints couldn't risk him hitting the open market, that we'd be well compensated for it. I don't think for a minute that the Jets ever counted on receiving that draft pick. I will say though, giving 17 million guaranteed to someone with a known knee condition seems like a bad deal from the Saints end. He's one bad tackle away from never being the same again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJ Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Or was Mike T just schooled? Are you serious? He got us a 3rd round draft choice (with an outside shot of a 2nd) for an undersized LB who was coming off of season-ending knee surgery for a chronic knee problem he had dating back to his college days, who only had one good season to date, who the entire league knew was worthless to us now that we played a 3-4, who only had one year left on his contract, and who wasn't even running yet as of the trade (he wasn't cleared to run until July). After reading all that, and after considering we only traded a 3rd and a 5th for a healthy, 350+ pound, multiple time pro bowler and all-pro in Kris Jenkins, you're going to say Mike T got schooled getting a 3rd for Vilma? Riiiight... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) Wait till we find out the Jets did this with Philly. figures it happens 3 days later, right ? I think the lito deal having an on the field clause attached to the extension clause pretty much proves what I was trying to say. let me clarify for you and ecurb let me first say we are discussing 2 contracts, probably 60 pages long each, none of us has even read, so this is kinda folly in the first place, but here I go anyway my point was that GM's around the NFL saw what happened, saw that the clause as it was written could be easily circumvented and wouldn't do that again. what happened was an evolution, not an extinction I was wrong in predicting an extintion, but I was right in predicting you won't see a conditional based only on an extension clause (so far anyway, give it a week) the clause is basically a way to say, "if he plays well for you, we get more for him" the devil is in the details, of course in how do you define "plays well" ? well enough for you to extend him well enough to play in 85% of the games well enough to make the pro-bowl well enough to start well enough to be top 10 in some stat what we saw in the eagles deal is the eagles wanting a measure of protection against tanny playing footsy with the rules, and tanny wanting protection against lito getting hurt the lito deal makes a lot more sense than the vilma deal if there is a trade with a conditional pick based ONLY on a player getting extended before the FA period begins, I'll eat my crow with a fork Edited March 2, 2009 by Larz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) figures it happens 3 days later, right ? I think the lito deal having an on the field clause attached to the extension clause pretty much proves what I was trying to say. let me clarify for you and ecurb let me first say we are discussing 2 contracts, probably 60 pages long each, none of us has even read, so this is kinda folly in the first place, but here I go anyway my point was that GM's around the NFL saw what happened, saw that the clause as it was written could be easily circumvented and wouldn't do that again. what happened was an evolution, not an extinction I was wrong in predicting an extintion, but I was right in predicting you won't see a conditional based only on an extension clause (so far anyway, give it a week) the clause is basically a way to say, "if he plays well for you, we get more for him" the devil is in the details, of course in how do you define "plays well" ? well enough for you to extend him well enough to play in 85% of the games well enough to make the pro-bowl well enough to start well enough to be top 10 in some stat what we saw in the eagles deal is the eagles wanting a measure of protection against tanny playing footsy with the rules, and tanny wanting protection against lito getting hurt the lito deal makes a lot more sense than the vilma deal if there is a trade with a conditional pick based ONLY on a player getting extended before the FA period begins, I'll eat my crow with a fork Then you're not familiar with the in's & out's of the Vilma trade. Vilma had the same thing in his trade agreement. It was not only based on the extension, but Vilma's playing time as well. That's the reason we got upgraded from our 4th to their 3rd this year: based on his playing time. Otherwise, I think we would have ended up with their 4th rounder last year & nothing this year. I'm going to guess that if we extend Sheppard and he plays under 85% of the snaps that they get more than if we don't extend him. Actually, this seems like the exact same type of trade arrangement. Exactly. Edited March 2, 2009 by Sperm Edwards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Then you're not familiar with the in's & out's of the Vilma trade. Vilma had the same thing in his trade agreement. It was not only based on the extension, but Vilma's playing time as well. That's the reason we got upgraded from our 4th to their 3rd this year: based on his playing time. Otherwise, I think we would have ended up with their 4th rounder last year & nothing this year. I'm going to guess that if we extend Sheppard and he plays under 85% of the snaps that they get more than if we don't extend him. Actually, this seems like the exact same type of trade arrangement. Exactly. I has no idea there were playing time considerations lol, I'll take it medium rare with a side of steak fries and a heineken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I has no idea there were playing time considerations lol, I'll take it medium rare with a side of steak fries and a heineken lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I has no idea there were playing time considerations lol, I'll take it medium rare with a side of steak fries and a heineken ya know your whole speil was soooooo convincing as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 ya know your whole speil was soooooo convincing as well you should hear me when I have the facts right ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 you should hear me when I have the facts right ! that cracked me up larz. have a great night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How do you figure it wouldnt have been a deal breaker? Of course it would have... that would essentially mean they are renting him for the pick OR they can buy him for a 2nd... which the JETs could not get to begin with... why the hell would the saints agree to rent him? We did with Favre didn't we ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.