JMJ Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Great deal for the Jets at first glance. What says some of you? (especially Sperm and Jason423?) Per the NY Daily News Jets Blog: - Technically, there's no guaranteed money in the contract. Sheppard will make $3 million this season, the same he would've made with the Eagles. - In March, 2010, there's a $10 million option bonus. If the Jets decide to pay it, a new four-year, $27.2 million kicks in. - If Sheppard is injured and misses considerable time, the Jets can get out of the deal after one year and they wouldn't owe the Eagles a draft pick in 2010. If that's the case, all it would've cost them is a fifth-round pick in the '09 draft. One person familiar with the deal said it could amount to a "one-year test drive" for the Jets. - The conditional pick in '10 can rise to a second-rounder, but only if he hits an 85% playing-time plateau AND receives the four-year extension. And if that does happen, the Jets would get a fifth-rounder back from the Eagles. - If Sheppard makes 85%, but doesn't receive the extension, the Jets would owe a third-rounder to the Eagles and would recoup a fifth rounder. - Obviously, there are a number of different scenarios, and I won't bore you with them, but this is the essence of the trade. Bottom line: If Sheppard stinks, it'll be a one-year deal for $3 million and would cost them a fifth-round pick. If he becomes a full-time starter, the Jets probably will have to give up a second- or third-rounder in addition to this year's fifth and they'll have to pay him roughly what this year's top cornerback free agents (the Colts' Kelvin Hayden and the Ravens' Domonique Foxworth) received on their just-signed deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy IRisH Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Sounds good to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 EDIT: wrong guy! Where is ***?.... I meant Larz A deal based on a player getting extended... I thought NEVER would that happen in the NFL again... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 oh tanny, you are shrewd, the jets get a 5th rounder back, if they sign him longer. very creative deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Hopefully, with Lowery and other CB depth, they keep him at under 85%, much like the Broncos did with Robertson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Hopefully, with Lowery and other CB depth, they keep him at under 85%, much like the Broncos did with Robertson. I would not mind sitting him out for 2 or 3 games to make sure of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I would not mind sitting him out for 2 or 3 games to make sure of it. If he's playing well, games themselves are too important. But, it's easy to keep a guy under 85% of the snaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 If he's playing well, games themselves are too important. But, it's easy to keep a guy under 85% of the snaps. True but if he winds up just being a nickle back... sit him for a couple games and dont worry about the PT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Where is JiF? A deal based on a player getting extended... I thought NEVER would that happen in the NFL again... lol Did I say that couldnt happen? You might have me confused with someone else. I dont think I have ever argued either way. Or that discussion has escaped my memory. What was the setting, who was the player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Did I say that couldnt happen? You might have me confused with someone else. I dont think I have ever argued either way. Or that discussion has escaped my memory. What was the setting, who was the player? Crap! Larz where are you! Not JiF... Larz... I know such close names! but they held all the cards all along. I'm not pissed or anything, just think you won't see these types of conditions on a trade ever again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 EDIT: wrong guy! Where is ***?.... I meant Larz A deal based on a player getting extended... I thought NEVER would that happen in the NFL again... lol close...but no cigar if it was a straight up extension clause, I would concede the point "The conditional pick in '10 can rise to a second-rounder, but only if he hits an 85% playing-time plateau AND receives the four-year extension. And if that does happen, the Jets would get a fifth-rounder back from the Eagles." the vilma straight extension clause obviously evolved into a combo deal with on and off field conditions due to the vilma deal, and was clearly influenced by the vilma deal so my original point still stands, the vilma clause was essentially worthless because the saints had the power to control the outcome with a "wink-wink" off the table deal with vilma ONLY the jets would have to also bench a healthy player in this case, and every player who has playing time incentives also has an agent with the NFLPA on speed dial the first time his guy is a healthy scratch, a greivance is filed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 close...but no cigar if it was a straight up extension clause, I would concede the point "The conditional pick in '10 can rise to a second-rounder, but only if he hits an 85% playing-time plateau AND receives the four-year extension. And if that does happen, the Jets would get a fifth-rounder back from the Eagles." the vilma straight extension clause obviously evolved into a combo deal with on and off field conditions due to the vilma deal, and was clearly influenced by the vilma deal so my original point still stands, the vilma clause was essentially worthless because the saints had the power to control the outcome with a "wink-wink" off the table deal with vilma ONLY the jets would have to also bench a healthy player in this case, and every player who has playing time incentives also has an agent with the NFLPA on speed dial the first time his guy is a healthy scratch, a greivance is filed Oh stop it... its the same damn thing... if he hits 85% then the JETS are in the same position the saints just were with Vilma... and I am sure Vilma had some PT marks in his deal too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Oh stop it... its the same damn thing... if he hits 85% then the JETS are in the same position the saints just were with Vilma... and I am sure Vilma had some PT marks in his deal too... dude I really couldn't care less, and don't want to get into a pissing match it's not the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 True but if he winds up just being a nickle back... sit him for a couple games and dont worry about the PT... If he's just a nickel back, he won't reach 85% anyway - nor will the Jets be looking to pick up the four year $27M extension. So nothing to worry about compensation-wise, there. I guess they can do something similar to what the Saints did to us if they want.... he reaches 85%, and the Jets want him back, but... they scrap the deal as written, and put something else together. Let him hit free agency for ten minutes or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 What does it say if he gets the 4 year extension but doesn't play in 85% of the snaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 What does it say if he gets the 4 year extension but doesn't play in 85% of the snaps? That's what I wondered, and sort of the premise behind the 'make sure he plays 84% of the snaps' theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Well I think that is the 2nd most likely scenario. The most likely is we won't offer him the extension & we basically traded a 5th round pick to get Lito Sheppard for 1 season at $3M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 If true, then this is an awesome deal for the Jets. All hail Tanny!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 sweet deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggin94it Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 close...but no cigar if it was a straight up extension clause, I would concede the point "The conditional pick in '10 can rise to a second-rounder, but only if he hits an 85% playing-time plateau AND receives the four-year extension. And if that does happen, the Jets would get a fifth-rounder back from the Eagles." the vilma straight extension clause obviously evolved into a combo deal with on and off field conditions due to the vilma deal, and was clearly influenced by the vilma deal so my original point still stands, the vilma clause was essentially worthless because the saints had the power to control the outcome with a "wink-wink" off the table deal with vilma ONLY the jets would have to also bench a healthy player in this case, and every player who has playing time incentives also has an agent with the NFLPA on speed dial the first time his guy is a healthy scratch, a greivance is filed That's ridiculous. The only difference between this and Vilma is that this deal also has the DRob condition in it. The Jets don't just have the Vilma out (6 minutes of FA) they also have the DRob out (sit him for 2 plays in 10 to "get Lowery some snaps") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 That's ridiculous. The only difference between this and Vilma is that this deal also has the DRob condition in it. The Jets don't just have the Vilma out (6 minutes of FA) they also have the DRob out (sit him for 2 plays in 10 to "get Lowery some snaps") Realistically its going to be very hard for Sheppard to reach an 85% incentive. He has never once started in 16 games. He has only suited up for 16 games twice in his career- his second year in the NFL, where he only started 9 games, and last season where he only started 3 times. My guess is last season he played less than 39% of the snaps for his team. So the odds are as stacked against Lito reaching 85% as they were D-Rob reaching whatever just because of his track record when it comes to health. JMO, but my guess is the Jets and Sheppard know he is never seeing both those incentive escalators and that option bonus. I would think the Jets figure(assuming he plays ok) they can get him on a new deal after the season with a bonus either equal to the escaltor of 6.2 million or the 10 million option bonus figure, but with an extra year thrown on the end of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bachelors3 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Do what the Saints did to us with Vilma! Let Lito be a free agent with a wink and a handshake and then re-sign him with a new contract that is cap friendlier. No draft picks change hands except for the 5th this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.