Because Sanchez's cap number is huge, and it's much higher this year than it was the last two years or will be the next two years. This is largely because he deferrred a lot of salary until 2011 (presumably to help out the Jets with the cap in 2009 and 2010). I assume he does something like convert 6 million in 2011 salary to a signing bonus so the hit can be spread out over 2012 and 2013. Of course, we have no idea whether his agents would advise him to accept that deal (they might not; they might say "Sanchez is worth every penny he's being paid this year and we're not renegotiating shit unless you put in real, new money") or whether he would even listen to his agents if Rex told him that Sancez really, really needed to help the team out just this once and could he just do the deal even if his agents thought it was a bad idea?
The idea that the cap will go down is silly IMO. That part of the disagreement with the CBA stems with the owners not being happy with the rate at which the cap is growing in terms of revenue. It almost certainly won't increase at the rate it has been, but to think the players are going to agree to less money is silly. Your point about the players getting more TV money comes from where? How does that even make sense? Sanchez can restructure with an extension in a way that pockets him more money right now which is all that really matters with the contracts anyway, while being more cap friendly in 2011.
That's what I mean, because of his play he earned those larger increases. His salary for 2011 is about double of this past years and 8 times his rookie year. I just don't see why a player who has done everything right, (I'm not saying perfect play), and has earned those incentives which was put into his contract for a reason. Obviously it'd be great, but I have a tough time even picturing the Jets approaching him about this.
Oh I meant heading into FA without re-signing anybody. My bad for confusion. Well the thing is how much is Cromartie worth? IMO, he's not worth more than 5-6 million per. Problem is the market is so inflated for CBs that he'll get more than that. The FO thought highly enough of Wilson to take him with their first round pick. He got jerked around a lot this year, I think in a more defined role with an improved pass rush he'll be adequate. Look at the Steelers defense, the other CBs outside of Ike Taylor are awful but their pass rush is so good their inadequacies are masked.
If you re-sign Holmes, Braylon and Harris you're going to have trouble signing anyone else. That's the point.
The assumption is that Sanchez will be the starting QB of the Jets for several years. If he continues to get better, which I think is fair to assume at this point, he will make close to $200 million from his contracts over the life of his career...plenty more through endorsements. And re-structuring doesn't mean losing the money, it just gets moved around.
Well when you sign a new contract, if it averages 8 million a year does it necessarily mean it'll be a 8 million dollar cap for 2011? Does nyjetscap.com archive payrolls from previous years?
I was just posting what I read, I highly doubt the cap is decreased mainly because of the money making machine it is. Right now the pot for the players is at 58% I believe. That was recently adjusted because the players had a larger share, something like 65% but it was only for ticket sales, National TV deal, and merch. When they agreed to a smaller percentage of a larger pot, which added naming rights, local advertising, local TV deals. That happened for the 06 season, since that time the NFL has just been making more and more money. At the same time some teams have struggled just to keep people in the seats. Players are now speaking out about how that deal should be looked at, that's the formula for the salary cap. NFL projected revenue x CBA % = Players Share of Total Revenue, than you have to minus the benefits and some other shit but that's the basics. Within that total percentage are percentages of each, and the National TV deals are just crazy right now. Just for Monday Night Football alone the League gets $1.1 billion. The players want a larger percentage of that action, either in the cap or in terms of a bonus.
It doesn't have to be. The Calvin Pace deal is a 6 year/42 million deal but he cap hit was only 2.8 million in the first year. Of course that just pushes the problem down the road. So yes, you could resign Edwards, Holmes, Cromartie and Harris for 3-4 million a year this year and bigger numbers in the future.
Okay Junc, Such a long time ago.... Here is one about a grievance with how the TV deal was done. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5268239 The lawsuit complaining about TV deal done. http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/01/02/tuesday-looms-as-key-date-in-nfl-labor-talks/ These are what it stems from, the Pres just walked in I'll keep searching later. It was just on NFL radio earlier today too.
Sorry this is so long. I really might be in the minority in this, but I really, really, really think both receivers should stick around. I know and fully grasp that defense is incredibly important, but I don't think you take a quarterback that high up, pay him that much money, and not give him two receivers of this caliber, who are frankly steals if they can be locked down for the numbers being speculated... That's a steal, especially when both receivers have chemistry with the qb, come up clutch, can react to and make up plays on the fly with the qb, etc. No guarantee anybody who comes in will have that. Santonio gets slack about his drops and botched plays this year, but Braylon wasn't perfect his first year with Mark, either. Santonio performed insanely for the lack in time he had with Mark. Imagine a year two to get on the same page? Santonio combined with Braylon wouldn't just be weapons, they'd be... Maybe get Santonio to take his low (7M) and give Braylon his high (6M) and expend $13M total for two top caliber receivers. Larry Fitzgerald makes that much on his own almost. Not quite, but, you get the point... Two almost for the price of one? At their level of talent? Load both of their contracts with drug/conduct/behavior penalties and also bonuses/incentives tied to drug/conduct/behavior, and lock them down. Santonio is a strike away from badness in terms of discipline. And if Braylon pleads "no contest" or gets a conviction in his DWI case, league sources have already signaled they're likely to count it at his second violation of the personal conduct policy. And a league source indicated if it's his second violation of the personal conduct policy, while only violating the substance policy once wouldn't get him suspended, two strikes in regards to personal conduct might. That doesn't even factor in what the judge in Cleveland might say about his probation violation in Cleveland, right? ESPN New York So, that's why I say while I want to keep them both, give them contracts that tie their money to their behavior and performance both, at least to some extent. In regards to the salary cap: Someone correct me if I'm really off base here. Sorry if so. I know it's speculation, but I've read quite a few articles that seem to be hinting or speculating about what a likely salary cap might be. I'm not sure if this still holds, or if it's merely nonsense, but most articles I've read about the cap returning, and a likely amount, they place the cap somewhere between 130, on the low side (because some speculate that had this year been capped, the number would have been close to 140) and 150ish on the high side, people who have tried to properly extrapolate it using various factors, have speculated that the cap is more accurately likely going to be around 142/143 million. Between 140-150 are the most recent numbers that seem to be being tossed around, at least that I've seen. Looking at history, the people who analyze have said that the cap increased about $7 million two years in a row, and then jumped $12M the year after that, so even going from the most recent capped year and extrapolating to next season... It seems they're able to find a range of some sort. A couple of sources: Jan 17th/Bleacher Report Jan 13th/ESPN If there had been a cap this year: ^Likely 2010 cap number, had it existed. So the speculation... 140-150M. Who knows if any of that is more than just randomness, but it makes sense. If that's the cap, or near the cap, I think Tanny has to find a way to get both of them back.
No, it doesn't mean 8 million per year. Pretty much every time, the total amount of the contract is a bogus number with lots of fluff and impossible to attain incentives at the back end of the contract. I've seen things where like a guy like Vince Wilfork has to return 10 kickoffs to trigger a 10 million dollar bonus that is part of the contract (theoretical example) Or you can see a guy like Haynesworth sign a monster deal for 100 million dollars, but there's no way he can ever get that. I don't have the exact details of the contract, but I've read about insane provisions and clauses in contracts before. For example, they could have things like a 2 year 35 million dollar contract structured like: Year 1- 5 million Year 2- 5 million base salary, 25 million dollar bonus due, so the team can technically cut him and it was really a 1 year 5 million dollar contract. Or a guy can sign a 5 year 50 million dollar deal and it's structured like: Year 1- 5 million Year 2- 6 million Year 3- 8 million Year 4- 17 million Year 5- 14 million So that they can cut him before the numbers really pick up, and they paid him less than the 10 million "average" the first 3 years.
What if we signed Lance Moore, resigned Braylon and let Holmes walk? Moore Is essentially a cheaper Holmes, a quick guy that can burn a db and has great hands. He's not as good, but he's been the 3/4 WR in NO so who knows?
I agree. Braylon, Cotchery and Keller should be able to pick up Holmes' receptions or if the Jets want someone speedy to stretch the field, they could sign Steve Breaston from the Cards. He'd undoubtedly come cheaper than Holmes and is about as fast, although perhaps not as athletically gifted. I'd rather keep Brad Smith, although he isn't the WR Holmes is, but he contributes in many other ways. Smith has been underutilized. He should be throwing more out of the Wildcat. I think he could be a terror on WR screens too.
http://www.nflplayers.com/articles/cba-news/nflpa-files-complaint-over-leagues-guaranteed-tv-deals/ This is as close as I can find. Even this article from June 2010 was written much later than when I heard about players wanting a bigger cut. In 08 the owners made some shady deals and players were not seeing the money in 09 and 2010 because most of the money was to be paid this year. Here is one that kind of touches on it. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/spor.../with-each-passing-day-nfl-lockout-looms.html Talks about how the owners want to cut the salary pool by 18% because of various reasons. This is why the players brought up the TV money. ESPN was paying $1.1 billion a year now they are close to signing a deal that would have ESPN pay $2 billion a year for a decade.
You're confusing two issues. One of the arguments between the players and owners in the CBA negotiations is that the owners want to give the players less of a percentage of the profits. This is partially because that percentage increased at a rate too high for the owners likings. The TV money issue is the players pissed that the owners are getting paid in the event of a lockout where they aren't getting paid. It has nothing to do with what is being negotiated.
I know about the deal in 2011 that has the players pissed. I swear I heard it on the radio that players want a larger percentage of the TV revenue to be put into the pot. In the first article posted in my last post it almost touched on that. Owners want to decrease the pot because of other expenses, such as new stadiums, new technology for fans. In response to this the NFLPA and players were talking about taking that lost money from the lucrative TV deals. It's a bitch searching right now because with this new 2011 issue, that keeps popping up. This problem began in 08, and the first I heard of the players talking about TV revenue was in 09.
sigh Dude, can you agree that one of the main arguments in the cba negotiations between owners/players is the percentage of the profits? If you do agree to that, think about what you're saying. The TV contracts are a piece of the profit ledger. How the total profit is compiled is irrelevant to the discussion. The percentage of that total profit that the players get is the issue. The only reason the TV contracts are being talked about is that the players are pissed off the league was smart enough to make sure they still got paid in the event of a lockout.
