Jets - Mangold agree to contract

[serphnx]

Sucked. We should have drafted Leinart.

I remember wanting Cutler, DeAngelo or McNeill that year, but being really happy with the Mangold pick. My only thinking was that at #4 we could have had Cutler, then Mangold at 31 or whatever it was, and then McNeil in the 2nd round and we'd have been better off.

I have no issues with the Brick pick either, it worked out great for us. Cutler is an INT machine now, and if Sanchez can become a decent QB everything worked out well in the end.

I never wanted Leinart. McNeill is holding out now I think so who knows about that. Plus we managed to get rid of Mangini too. It was a great draft no matter how you look at it. Also now we have Shonne Greene so the RB thing with DeAngelo isn't that big of a deal (although DWill and Cutler's talent are some of the best in the league at their positions).

[serphnx]

Great news for the best center in the game. The Jets have locked up their Oline for years to come by redoing Moore a year ago and signing Brick and Mangold to long term deals. They aint stupid. Protect your franchise. And we all know, games are won and lost at the LOS.

Tanny has shown he rewards the good soldiers and pisses on the malcontents. If Mevi$ was in camp, who knows, maybe the Jets would have been more flexible with their negotiations.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the likes of Edwards, Holmes, Cro and Harris. Logic would think if Mevi$ doesnt cripple them, they could sign at least 2 of those 4 very important pieces.

We'll see, it's possible to get all 4. Revis is still under contract for 3 more years, so if he wants to sit around at home he can do that. Revis is an absolute non-priority right now. Get the rest of these guys taken care of and if Revis does not want to collect the $20M he has due to him the last 2 years, that's his call. The Jets can just draft some more corners.

[slats]

No. That is untrue.

Bloated salary: can't because of uncapped season rules

Roster bonus: counts exactly the same as salary

Signing bonus: gets amortized, so if it was a 6yr deal, for example, 5/6 comes off future caps.

They can't hide it. That was the design of an uncapped year.

I'm not going to argue this point right now except to say that I don't think that's been determined yet. I believe that'll wait for when the next CBA is signed.

When I have more time, I'll do some research.

[Bleedin Green]

I'm not going to argue this point right now except to say that I don't think that's been determined yet. I believe that'll wait for when the next CBA is signed.

When I have more time, I'll do some research.

Not even trying to be argumentative here, but I still don't understand this stance. The only real option available to give a lot of money is the signing bonus, do you really expect that they're going to change the rules so none of that money given out that year will just ever count against the cap? Considering the amount has always been spread across the deal, and I'm sure it will be again under the new CBA, why would that be the case? If anything, I think the only real question is whether or not the team will get a pass on the portion that would normally have fallen under this year of the contract or if the entirety of the bonus will be spread on the remaining years starting next year. It's entirely possible I'm missing something here, I just don't get where this "hiding money" premise comes from.

[jgb]

the reason everyone has been saying teams should do signing bonuses this year is because that's the only way to guarantee salary for skill AND injury (unless the last contract had both, i think) - NOT because it's a way to defeat future salary cap.

[slats]

I think the only real question is whether or not the team will get a pass on the portion that would normally have fallen under this year of the contract or if the entirety of the bonus will be spread on the remaining years starting next year.

Is that in question?

I'm asking, I don't know.

[Sperm Edwards]

Is that in question?

I'm asking, I don't know.

Technically, it's all yet to be determined. But it wasn't a point of contention, so the most likely thing to happen in that instance is to continue the way it's been. The most likely way a signing bonus today would be handled, in the future, is that a 1-year amortized amount still counts this year (even though there's no cap this year) and the balance amortized over the balance of the contract length, up to the maximum allowed amortization years.

The only way for a team to have a get-out-of-jail-free card is if they were so far under the cap in the past, and if it didn't violate any 30% rules.

[Larz]

Bonus money = only real guaranteed money

I've said that from the onset, it's not a fall back position.

no, you've said the jets are unwilling to guarantee any money, and they are low ballers

it's funny, over his career tanny has proven he can reach an agreement with dozens and dozens of draft picks, dozens and dozens of free agents and other GM's via trades. He may be the most prolific deal maker in the NFL today

but there is one party he can't reach an agreement with

for the second time in three years !

it must be because he is refusing to offer any guaranteed money, because he doesn't do that

wait, what ?

[slats]

Technically, it's all yet to be determined. But it wasn't a point of contention, so the most likely thing to happen in that instance is to continue the way it's been. The most likely way a signing bonus today would be handled, in the future, is that a 1-year amortized amount still counts this year (even though there's no cap this year) and the balance amortized over the balance of the contract length, up to the maximum allowed amortization years.

The only way for a team to have a get-out-of-jail-free card is if they were so far under the cap in the past, and if it didn't violate any 30% rules.

That makes sense.

Even if there are no get out of jail free cards it still makes sense from a future cap standpoint to maximize the salary in the uncapped year of the deal, and use a signing bonus on top of it (in general, forget that Revis is holding out again next year). If Mangold got a $21M signing bonus, that would be $3M "hidden" in the uncapped year, as opposed to giving him guarantees where that $3M would be spread out over the life of the deal.

It's not a windfall, but you do D'Brick, Mangold, and maybe redo a couple other guys the same way, and you generate some cap savings going forward. If no other bonuses can be applied due to the 30% rule, the signing bonus still allows you to hide a couple bucks. Why not use it on guys like Mangold and Brick?

[Sperm Edwards]

That makes sense.

Even if there are no get out of jail free cards it still makes sense from a future cap standpoint to maximize the salary in the uncapped year of the deal, and use a signing bonus on top of it (in general, forget that Revis is holding out again next year). If Mangold got a $21M signing bonus, that would be $3M "hidden" in the uncapped year, as opposed to giving him guarantees where that $3M would be spread out over the life of the deal.

It's not a windfall, but you do D'Brick, Mangold, and maybe redo a couple other guys the same way, and you generate some cap savings going forward. If no other bonuses can be applied due to the 30% rule, the signing bonus still allows you to hide a couple bucks. Why not use it on guys like Mangold and Brick?

That saves only on gross totals, not annual totals. There is no gross total salary cap; there is only an annual salary cap that a team must keep under. So it doesn't help (until 7 years from now, I suppose).

[slats]

That saves only on gross totals, not annual totals. There is no gross total salary cap; there is only an annual salary cap that a team must keep under. So it doesn't help (until 7 years from now, I suppose).

Sure it saves on annual totals.

Simple math: five years, $30M. Could break that out to $6M/year against the cap without any bonus. Make it a $20M bonus with $6M the first year, and $1M a year the next four. Each of those subsequent four years would count as $5M/per, or a savings per year of $1M.

[Sperm Edwards]

Sure it saves on annual totals.

Simple math: five years, $30M. Could break that out to $6M/year against the cap without any bonus. Make it a $20M bonus with $6M the first year, and $1M a year the next four. Each of those subsequent four years would count as $5M/per, or a savings per year of $1M.

1) You don't save annually on the bonus amortization by giving a bonus this year.

2) A 5-year deal with $26M of it paid in year 1? You must be high. That player is definitely holding out way before the contract is up and the net will be a far bigger cost to the team.

3) That player will suck horribly before the ink has even dried.

You'll end up with the same thing Revis did a year or two into it: "I'm only making $1M per year. Why would I risk my long-term financial potential and health for only $1M? I want a new contract now with more guaranteed money." Google this: the definition of insanity.

Plus the issue isn't a $30M contract. The issue is a $150M contract, 5x the amount in your example. So what are you advocating? $150M over 10 years with a $100M signing bonus? lol. Revis would have to have the IQ of a potato chip to not try his hardest to get cut. "Oooooh - my hammy! My hammy!"

Your example is so unrealistic I should have just left it alone. But I am incapable of doing that so I made my silly comments as usual.

[slats]

1) You don't save annually on the bonus amortization by giving a bonus this year.

2) A 5-year deal with $26M of it paid in year 1? You must be high. That player is definitely holding out way before the contract is up and the net will be a far bigger cost to the team.

3) That player will suck horribly before the ink has even dried.

You'll end up with the same thing Revis did a year or two into it: "I'm only making $1M per year. Why would I risk my long-term financial potential and health for only $1M? I want a new contract now with more guaranteed money." Google this: the definition of insanity.

Plus the issue isn't a $30M contract. The issue is a $150M contract, 5x the amount in your example. So what are you advocating? $150M over 10 years with a $100M signing bonus? lol. Revis would have to have the IQ of a potato chip to not try his hardest to get cut. "Oooooh - my hammy! My hammy!"

Your example is so unrealistic I should have just left it alone. But I am incapable of doing that so I made my silly comments as usual.

So make the example 5 years $60M, or 5/$100M, with the same bonus. Same $1M/year savings.

Just pointing out that it does work out as an annual savings. That's all, Dude. You said it didn't, I'm showing you it does. I made the example extra simple on purpose.

And I specifically said why not with Mangold or Ferguson, not Revis. We all know Revis is holding out again the day after he signs his next contract.

[Sperm Edwards]

So make the example 5 years $60M, or 5/$100M, with the same bonus. Same $1M/year savings.

Just pointing out that it does work out as an annual savings. That's all, Dude. You said it didn't, I'm showing you it does. I made the example extra simple on purpose.

And I specifically said why not with Mangold or Ferguson, not Revis. We all know Revis is holding out again the day after he signs his next contract.

OK I didn't think I needed to add in that it doesn't work out to any annual savings IF you sign someone to a contract that is anywhere near possible.

Also they got Mangold and Ferguson signed without doing that, so it seems silly to do so. Further, from an owner's standpoint, if there is a lockout then you're effectively paying your (sample) player $4M to sit at home totally healthy.

So it would not work for any contract that approaches the realm of reality. No one is giving out a 5 year contract with about 90% of that contract paid out in year 1. And here's the kicker - the team can't even cut the player even if he gets a career-ending injury (or quits or is so horrible and causes such team disharmony that he needs to be cut) prior to year 2, because the accelerated cap hit would be the amortized portion of the signing bonus ($16M).

Also it doesn't work to do your example with the same $20M signing bonus for higher-paid players because you would violate the rule saying they couldn't get more than a 30% raise in (non-signing bonus) pay.

[slats]

Also they got Mangold and Ferguson signed without doing that, so it seems silly to do so. Further, from an owner's standpoint, if there is a lockout then you're effectively paying your (sample) player $4M to sit at home totally healthy.

So it would not work for any contract that approaches the realm of reality. No one is giving out a 5 year contract with about 90% of that contract paid out in year 1. And here's the kicker - the team can't even cut the player even if he gets a career-ending injury (or quits or is so horrible and causes such team disharmony that he needs to be cut) prior to year 2, because the accelerated cap hit would be the amortized portion of the signing bonus ($16M).

Also it doesn't work to do your example with the same $20M signing bonus for higher-paid players because you would violate the rule saying they couldn't get more than a 30% raise in (non-signing bonus) pay.

Do you really think there will be no football in 2011? You think the owners think that?

Forget that example.

Any singing bonus is going to "hide" the prorated portion in the uncapped year. So a $21M signing bonus (less than his reported guarantees) on Nick Mangold's 7 year/$55M contract would put $3M in the first year that wouldn't count in subsequent years - or about $500K savings per year. Do Brick and a few more deals in the same fashion, and you have some tangible cap savings over the next few years.

[Larz]

wait, I thought the jets didn't do guaranteed money or bonuses and low balled everyone

now I'm really confused

[THE ILK]

wait, I thought the jets didn't do guaranteed money or bonuses and low balled everyone

now I'm really confused

It's a scam, you see if Mangold gets hurt the Jets won't cut him for injury, they will cut him for skill and give him nothing.

[Sperm Edwards]

Do you really think there will be no football in 2011? You think the owners think that?

Forget that example.

Any singing bonus is going to "hide" the prorated portion in the uncapped year. So a $21M signing bonus (less than his reported guarantees) on Nick Mangold's 7 year/$55M contract would put $3M in the first year that wouldn't count in subsequent years - or about $500K savings per year. Do Brick and a few more deals in the same fashion, and you have some tangible cap savings over the next few years.

That's my point. This isn't a long-term family budget; it's an annual salary cap. It's not $500K savings per year because $500K per year doesn't come off the cap. It's a one-time $3M savings 6 years from now. But even that savings occurs only if the team was going to offer that amount as bonus money in the first place, which it appears is unlikely given the deals being done now.

And while I definitely agree that there will be football next year, every high-priced contract signed now, that gives tons of signing bonus money up front, lessens the position of the owners. Since they're the ones writing the checks, it needs to be considered more than any one individual getting his big payday. The more people signed, and given a lifetime of security up-front, the less likely the NFLPA is going to be to compromise since their union members have already been paid. So however likely or unlikely a lockout is, the expiring CBA is very much a factor.

[slats]

That's my point. This isn't a long-term family budget; it's an annual salary cap. It's not $500K savings per year because $500K per year doesn't come off the cap. It's a one-time $3M savings 6 years from now. But even that savings occurs only if the team was going to offer that amount as bonus money in the first place, which it appears is unlikely given the deals being done now.

Explain to me how essentially converting $3M in salary into bonus money that evaporates in the uncapped year doesn't translate into an annual savings. I'm not getting you there at all.

And while I definitely agree that there will be football next year, every high-priced contract signed now, that gives tons of signing bonus money up front, lessens the position of the owners. Since they're the ones writing the checks, it needs to be considered more than any one individual getting his big payday. The more people signed, and given a lifetime of security up-front, the less likely the NFLPA is going to be to compromise since their union members have already been paid. So however likely or unlikely a lockout is, the expiring CBA is very much a factor.

So you support the Jets in helping to have a successful NFL lockout, even if it hurts the team's salary cap situation once the cap returns. Got it.

[Sperm Edwards]

Explain to me how essentially converting $3M in salary into bonus money that evaporates in the uncapped year doesn't translate into an annual savings. I'm not getting you there at all.

Maybe I read it wrong, but it seemed you said $3M of bonus money in an uncapped year, as opposed to $3M of bonus money in a capped year, equates to $500K per season on a 6-year contract. It does not.

The only way it equates to $500K per season is if the team was going to offer an additional $3M in salary over 5 years anyway AND if the player was going to play out his contract without holding out or demanding a renegotiation before it ended.

So you support the Jets in helping to have a successful NFL lockout, even if it hurts the team's salary cap situation once the cap returns. Got it.

lol right that's exactly what I said.

I'll be honest, I'm going to miss this if/when Revis is signed.