OT: Jets Cap Nightmare in 2013

[Deus Irae]

Right, because I'm sure Manning didn't check the salary caps and potential competitiveness of potential suitors. Are you nuts? Rex Ryan is the most aggressive, star-hungry coach in the league. The Jets have brought in Brett Favre, Ladanian Tomlinson, and numerous other "big names" to sell tickets and, presumably, win games. Every sign of logic suggests the Jets would have pursued Manning if they had a realistic shot. Tell me how they could have swallowed a $20M cap hit this year when all they could afford were leftover free agents. If they could have simply "restructured" as you suggest, then where are the impact players this offseason and why didn't they free up more money? There were plenty of star players. Why not Mario Williams? He costs less than Manning and they need a pass rusher. You must be crazy to think the Jets just didn't want to make a splash this offseason. Crazy.

Look at what you posted. Then think, long and hard, about what you'd said earlier.

that was probably because they couldn't afford him, or Manning would simply realize that they would have no money anywhere else and probably wasn't thrilled ending his career with Santonio Holmes as his only WR.

You point out all the big names they'd been able to bring in in the past, yet you still argue that this one wouldn't have been possible because of the cap. You're arguing against yourself and calling me crazy.

The difference is the Colts were smart in giving their "big money" to Manning, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Clark, etc. When you have your core players living up to their big contracts, you can still be competitive and even elite. The Colts were full of holes as well, but those deficiencies could be overcome with superstars playing like superstars. The Jets, on the other hand, do not have a good enough core to stay competitive. They've paid Cromartie, Harris, and Sanchez a boatload of money. This isn't Manning, Wayne, and Harrison here. These guys don't win games for you, they are merely experienced players who at times show flashes of stardom.

There is no difference. Claims were made, disaster didn't strike.

Again, the comparison between the Jets and other teams (the Pats in your other example) are not exactly apples to apples comparisons. The Pats signed some role players for under $10M per year to add to a team that was already 27-5 over the last two seasons and are well-stocked all around. The Pats are adding complementary pieces to the puzzle- the Jets will literally need to replace 10 starters on a team that wasn't even that good as it was.

Lloyd is not a role player, just to point to one signing. Second, while I enjoy watching other people playing junior GM, your notion that they'll need to replace 10 starters is premature, at best.

There's not a lot of sense arguing anymore. If you really think the Jets are not in salary cap trouble, and this offseason isn't already glaring evidence of that fact, you will obviously never accept it. The most aggressive, risk-taking management in the NFL had a very disappointing season, believes in the "win now" philosophy, and got Laron Landry, Yeremiah Bell, and Tim Tebow as their answer. Explain that.

Of course, you're again arguing against yourself here, given that the Patriots supposedly signed only "role players".....

Sometimes the answers are obvious. The cap is not a rock hard ceiling. It's an accounting figure that gets danced around with accounting maneuvers. This is obvious because we see it happen year after year after year.

Will the Jets have issues? Maybe. Are they in the sort of cap hell you're describing? Not likely, since most of the issues are of the type that work themselves out fairly easily.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Look at what you posted. Then think, long and hard, about what you'd said earlier. You point out all the big names they'd been able to bring in in the past, yet you still argue that this one wouldn't have been possible because of the cap. You're arguing against yourself and calling me crazy.



There is no difference. Claims were made, disaster didn't strike.



Lloyd is not a role player, just to point to one signing. Second, while I enjoy watching other people playing junior GM, your notion that they'll need to replace 10 starters is premature, at best.



Of course, you're again arguing against yourself here, given that the Patriots supposedly signed only "role players".....

Sometimes the answers are obvious. The cap is not a rock hard ceiling. It's an accounting figure that gets danced around with accounting maneuvers. This is obvious because we see it happen year after year after year.

Will the Jets have issues? Maybe. Are they in the sort of cap hell you're describing? Not likely, since most of the issues are of the type that work themselves out fairly easily.

The cap is not a rock hard ceiling. It's an accounting figure that gets danced around with accounting maneuvers. This is obvious because we see it happen year after year after year.

Just because teams are able to work around a cap and "make it work" simply means that the team was able to get a number below the cap. It does not mean that the team was able to improve their football team or sign talent necessary to compete at a high level. When we say the Jets are in for cap problems, it does not mean the Jets are going to tear down their offices and forfeit the season. It means that the Jets, in obvious need in financial resources due to the level of talent they currently have, do not have those financial resources and will not be able to get what's needed.

Why do you think the Minnesota Vikings were nearly in the Super Bowl a few years ago, but went 3-13 last year? They also went all-in with an irresponsible win-now philosophy that crippled their cap in the future. Is this not a prime example of what happens to teams when they keep pushing the number back far enough until it breaks? It happens all around the league, but you just don't realize it, because you are giving a silly argument that simply because a team gets within the cap, they've been successful.

Take a team like the Steelers. They were in cap trouble, but they also have lots of talent and are a perennial contender. Being at the cap (with little money for free agents) to them is okay because they are simply looking to maintain their roster, not improve upon it. I guess you think the Jets are well-stocked, and just "beating the cap" is the end goal here. Evidence points to the contrary, lots of departing free agents after this year, lots of money tied up in not so good players, and a team that is maybe average talent-wise.

 

[patchick]

The difference is the Colts were smart in giving their "big money" to Manning, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Clark, etc. When you have your core players living up to their big contracts, you can still be competitive and even elite. The Colts were full of holes as well, but those deficiencies could be overcome with superstars playing like superstars. The Jets, on the other hand, do not have a good enough core to stay competitive. They've paid Cromartie, Harris, and Sanchez a boatload of money. This isn't Manning, Wayne, and Harrison here. These guys don't win games for you, they are merely experienced players who at times show flashes of stardom.

I think this is spot on, but it also shows that the Jets' fundamental problem isn't so much the cap as talent evaluation -- not how many dollars they're paying, but to whom. $8 million/year to Antonio Cromartie. $8 million/year to Antonio Cromartie.

 

[Joker]

they do that for the kids, Patchick!!..the kids...everyone knows how altruistic the Rats are...

 

[Deus Irae]

Just because teams are able to work around a cap and "make it work" simply means that the team was able to get a number below the cap. It does not mean that the team was able to improve their football team or sign talent necessary to compete at a high level. When we say the Jets are in for cap problems, it does not mean the Jets are going to tear down their offices and forfeit the season.

Obviously

It means that the Jets, in obvious need in financial resources due to the level of talent they currently have, do not have those financial resources and will not be able to get what's needed.

But that's not what it means.

Why do you think the Minnesota Vikings were nearly in the Super Bowl a few years ago, but went 3-13 last year?

Because the QB they had got old, the coach they had was a joke and got exposed and removed, and the team went into a rebuilding mode.

They also went all-in with an irresponsible win-now philosophy that crippled their cap in the future. Is this not a prime example of what happens to teams when they keep pushing the number back far enough until it breaks? It happens all around the league, but you just don't realize it, because you are giving a silly argument that simply because a team gets within the cap, they've been successful.

Your opinion is noted. It's silly, given that the Vikings got within a few yards of the Super Bowl, but it's noted.

Take a team like the Steelers. They were in cap trouble, but they also have lots of talent and are a perennial contender. Being at the cap (with little money for free agents) to them is okay because they are simply looking to maintain their roster, not improve upon it. I guess you think the Jets are well-stocked, and just "beating the cap" is the end goal here. Evidence points to the contrary, lots of departing free agents after this year, lots of money tied up in not so good players, and a team that is maybe average talent-wise.

Overwhelmingly, teams win because they have QBs that can win. The Jets future success depends upon Mark Sanchez, not upon whether or not Bart Scott is cut.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I think this is spot on, but it also shows that the Jets' fundamental problem isn't so much the cap as talent evaluation -- not how many dollars they're paying, but to whom. $8 million/year to Antonio Cromartie. $8 million/year to Antonio Cromartie.

But he had that one great season where refs inexplicably let him tackle receivers anytime anywhere!

 

[Rob0729]

The Jets were trying to get into the Peyton Manning Sweepstakes. That should tell us all we need to know about just how "bad" their cap situation was, and it tells us that it wasn't a problem.

It does tell us anything other than the Jets were willing to throw Sanchez to the curb if they got a better QB. I am guessing the Jets expected Manning's cap hit would be about the same as the cap hit they saved by cutting or trading Sanchez.

If Jason is lurking he can speak better to this, but prior to his renegotiation for PR of the Jets losing out on Peyton Manning Sanchez had something like a $8-10 million base salary this year. It is reported that the Broncos cap hit for Manning is about $13 million. We don't know how much the Jets were willing to pay Manning, but there is a good chance that the money saved by cutting or trading Sanchez vs. the cap would cover most or all Manning's cap hit (at least what they were expected to pay for him) at least this year if the Jets signed him.

Now if the Jets were to sign Manning and keep Sanchez, you might have a point. But there is no way they would pay a back up what they were planning to pay Sanchez and it is doubtful Sanchez would be willing to take a pay cut to back QB money. So trading Sanchez's cap space for Manning's cap space doesn't indicate they weren't restricted with the cap.

 

[Deus Irae]

It does tell us anything other than the Jets were willing to throw Sanchez to the curb if they got a better QB. I am guessing the Jets expected Manning's cap hit would be about the same as the cap hit they saved by cutting or trading Sanchez.

If Jason is lurking he can speak better to this, but prior to his renegotiation for PR of the Jets losing out on Peyton Manning Sanchez had something like a $8-10 million base salary this year. It is reported that the Broncos cap hit for Manning is about $13 million. We don't know how much the Jets were willing to pay Manning, but there is a good chance that the money saved by cutting or trading Sanchez vs. the cap would cover most or all Manning's cap hit (at least what they were expected to pay for him) at least this year if the Jets signed him.

Now if the Jets were to sign Manning and keep Sanchez, you might have a point. But there is no way they would pay a back up what they were planning to pay Sanchez and it is doubtful Sanchez would be willing to take a pay cut to back QB money. So trading Sanchez's cap space for Manning's cap space doesn't indicate they weren't restricted with the cap.

You realize that the context of the discussion was that... Nevermind, let me find the quote:

It means that the Jets, in obvious need in financial resources due to the level of talent they currently have, do not have those financial resources and will not be able to get what's needed.

If they could have gotten Manning, which you are conceding that the could have, or at least thought they could have, than the above is simply not correct. Just looking at what you said (and assuming both that you're correct and that Peyton is something approximating Peyton), the Jets could have upgraded from Sanchez to Manning without any devastating hit.

This is the mistake that people make about the cap (I used to make it too). The cap is soft enough that it's easy to get around it year after year after year, as long as increases to the cap will take place sometime during the duration of the bigger contracts. This isn't like the first years of the cap, where teams hadn't figured out all the nuances, and good players were being cut loose all over the place.

 

[Rob0729]

You realize that the context of the discussion was that... Nevermind, let me find the quote:



If they could have gotten Manning, which you are conceding that the could have, or at least thought they could have, than the above is simply not correct. Just looking at what you said (and assuming both that you're correct and that Peyton is something approximating Peyton), the Jets could have upgraded from Sanchez to Manning without any devastating hit.

This is the mistake that people make about the cap (I used to make it too). The cap is soft enough that it's easy to get around it year after year after year, as long as increases to the cap will take place sometime during the duration of the bigger contracts. This isn't like the first years of the cap, where teams hadn't figured out all the nuances, and good players were being cut loose all over the place.

Yes, they could have gotten Manning if they cut one of the three highest paid players on the roster in terms of cap hit. That is different than them having cap flexibility. If the Pats rescindid their offer to Welker, they could have signed Manning and all the moves they made too.

There are only a few scenarios where you can cut your starting QB who has the highest cap hit on the team. One is that you can sign a better player or the back up QB is better or about the same.

The only way the Jets could have gone after a Manning was to cut ties with Sanchez. It isn't like they could have gone after Mario Williams and cut Sanchez to get the cap room. It was an unique situation where you could cut your highly paid "franchise" QB for a better highly paid franchise QB. It doesn't speak to their cap flexibility.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, they could have gotten Manning if they cut one of the three highest paid players on the roster in terms of cap hit. That is different than them having cap flexibility. If the Pats rescindid their offer to Welker, they could have signed Manning and all the moves they made too.

There are only a few scenarios where you can cut your starting QB who has the highest cap hit on the team. One is that you can sign a better player or the back up QB is better or about the same.

The only way the Jets could have gone after a Manning was to cut ties with Sanchez. It isn't like they could have gone after Mario Williams and cut Sanchez to get the cap room. It was an unique situation where you could cut your highly paid "franchise" QB for a better highly paid franchise QB. It doesn't speak to their cap flexibility.

Sure it does, Rob. If you have the ability to cut your biggest ticket loose without devastating your cap, that gives you flexibility.

 

[Rob0729]

Sure it does, Rob. If you have the ability to cut your biggest ticket loose without devastating your cap, that gives you flexibility.

Not really because you are talking an unique once in a lifetime situation. Rarely is there a QB the caliber of Manning on the market where you would be willing to cut your franchise QB for. But if you like, yes teams have cap flexibility every 20 years or so when a situation like Peyton Manning happen on the market. Any other year, they have no flexibility.

Seriously, how often is there a HOF caliber QB available in free agency that a team would cut their high priced QB to make room for him. The last time was 2006 with Drew Brees (who wasn't even close to HOF caliber at the time). And I doubt back then many teams would have cut their QB if he was in the top 15 and a former first round pick three years out to get Brees when he was coming off of injury and only had one or two good years in San Diego.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not really because you are talking an unique once in a lifetime situation. Rarely is there a QB the caliber of Manning on the market where you would be willing to cut your franchise QB for. But if you like, yes teams have cap flexibility every 20 years or so when a situation like Peyton Manning happen on the market. Any other year, they have no flexibility.

Seriously, how often is there a HOF caliber QB available in free agency that a team would cut their high priced QB to make room for him. The last time was 2006 with Drew Brees (who wasn't even close to HOF caliber at the time). And I doubt back then many teams would have cut their QB if he was in the top 15 and a former first round pick three years out to get Brees when he was coming off of injury and only had one or two good years in San Diego.

You're getting into the specifics of Peyton Manning, while I'm just pointing out that, despite the claims of cap jail, the Jets could have gotten the deal done. The reality is that cap jail doesn't exist when the cap's rising. The reason this year was tight for a couple of teams was that the cap didn't go up as much as some thought. Next year will be similar but, in the case of the Jets, they'll have the chance to cut a lot of dead weight.

 

[Rob0729]

You're getting into the specifics of Peyton Manning, while I'm just pointing out that, despite the claims of cap jail, the Jets could have gotten the deal done. The reality is that cap jail doesn't exist when the cap's rising. The reason this year was tight for a couple of teams was that the cap didn't go up as much as some thought. Next year will be similar but, in the case of the Jets, they'll have the chance to cut a lot of dead weight.

A deal could be done if they cut their starting QB. It is a situation that almost never happens. Again, it isn't like they could have done this with any other free agent. It could only be done with Peyton Manning and in a QB driven league there is never a QB of Manning's caliber on the open market like this.

To say this proves they had plenty of cap flexibility is facetious. They had cap flexibility in an once in a lifetime unique situation. It's not like after Manning signed with the Broncos they could cut Sanchez and use that money on anyone else. The only way it worked is if they acquired Manning. So it was totally inflexible cap flexibility.

Besides this a classic definition of cap heck anyway. The only way the Jets could acquire a significant free agent was to cut a high priced, significant player on their roster. That isn't cap flexibility. That is just that in the once in the lifetime chance to get Peyton Manning, it makes any other QB not named Brady, Brees, Rodgers, or a handful of others expendable.

think Sanchez is mediocre, but he isn't dead weight yet. He only becomes dead weight if the Jets can get Manning or he doesn't progress this year under a new system that is supposed to highlight his strengths.

 

[Deus Irae]

A deal could be done if they cut their starting QB. It is a situation that almost never happens. Again, it isn't like they could have done this with any other free agent. It could only be done with Peyton Manning and in a QB driven league there is never a QB of Manning's caliber on the open market like this.

To say this proves they had plenty of cap flexibility is facetious. They had cap flexibility in an once in a lifetime unique situation. It's not like after Manning signed with the Broncos they could cut Sanchez and use that money on anyone else. The only way it worked is if they acquired Manning. So it was totally inflexible cap flexibility.

Rob, the point is that they aren't so bound by their QB's deal that they couldn't have made the deal. You're arguing a different point, it seems. Unique opportunity or not, the Jets were in a position to do it.

Besides this a classic definition of cap heck anyway. The only way the Jets could acquire a significant free agent was to cut a high priced, significant player on their roster.

No it's not. If the Patriots can't fit Julius Peppers under the cap without making a cut elsewhere, it doesn't mean that they were in cap jail. It means that he's a high end player who's contract is difficult to swallow.

That isn't cap flexibility. That is just that in the once in the lifetime chance to get Peyton Manning, it makes any other QB not named Brady, Brees, Rodgers, or a handful of others expendable.

think Sanchez is mediocre, but he isn't dead weight yet. He only becomes dead weight if the Jets can get Manning or he doesn't progress this year under a new system that is supposed to highlight his strengths.

Again, your dwelling in the specifics, which were never the issue. The fact is that, according to you, the Jets could have found a way to get Peyton Manning under their cap without taking a huge hit.

The Jets will be cutting loose a lot of older players and young stiffs. They'll likely be fine in that sense. Their problem is personnel evaluation much more than cap management.

 

[patman52]

Right now the best estimates have them 16 mill over the cap. A lot of their fans believe that Pace, Scott, Eric Smith and Wayne Hunter will be cut as they represent 23 mill in cap savings. This leaves them with enough money to sign
all their draft picks and about 3 mill left over, at this time they have almost 6 mill in unused cap space that they can forward over from this year. So now they have about 9 mill to play with.

Cro and Mangold have roster bonus that can be converted to SB for another 4 mill, now they have 13 mill to play with. Harris has a 10 mill salary that they can convert to a SB so there is another 7 mill for a total of 20 mill of cap space to sign FA.

They have to replace both starting guards and the RT.
4 of the 5 safeties on the roster.
3 of the 4 starting LBs and one of their reserves, If Demario Davis works out, that is one less player that is required.
Shon Greene who is the only RB on the roster with any proven ability.
Dustin Keller, same as above only a TE.
DE Devito who is a solid rotational player
AAron Maybin, their reclamation product who got 6 sacks as a part time reserve last year.

If we assume that 4 players that they draft next year will become starters they need to sign 6 starting players as FA with 20 mill of cap room and the same number of backups.

The sword hanging over their heads is that Revis will be in his last year next year with only a 4 mill salary. Given his demands to be the highest paid defensive player that number will increase most likely.

Not the best situation to be in for a team with playoff aspirations but not that dire.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, the point is that they aren't so bound by their QB's deal that they couldn't have made the deal. You're arguing a different point, it seems. Unique opportunity or not, the Jets were in a position to do it.



No it's not. If the Patriots can't fit Julius Peppers under the cap without making a cut elsewhere, it doesn't mean that they were in cap jail. It means that he's a high end player who's contract is difficult to swallow.



Again, your dwelling in the specifics, which were never the issue. The fact is that, according to you, the Jets could have found a way to get Peyton Manning under their cap without taking a huge hit.

The Jets will be cutting loose a lot of older players and young stiffs. They'll likely be fine in that sense. Their problem is personnel evaluation much more than cap management.

I will say one more thing and I am done.

If the Pats had to cut Logan Mankins or Vince Wilfork to sign Julius Peppers, then it isn't cap flexibility. That is comprehible to cutting Sanchez to sign another player. Sanchez isn't as good of a player as either Mankins or Wilfork but had a similar cap hit and plays the most important position. The only reason it was viable to cut Sanchez is because you replaced him with Manning. Cutting Sanchez to sign any other free agent would be the classic definition of cap hell.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The Jets will be cutting loose a lot of older players and young stiffs. They'll likely be fine in that sense. Their problem is personnel evaluation much more than cap management.

Bracing myself, I'll jump back into the fray here.

Deus, you cannot separate personnel evaluation from salary cap management. Theoretically, no team would ever have a cap problem; they could just cut all 53 players and sign an entire team of veteran minimum guys. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that when people are talking about cap problems, it is always tied to the level of talent a team is fielding and what types of players are tying up their money. Yet, you continue to argue as if these are two entirely different things, which is a matter of semantics. As you've repeatedly brought up, the cap is not real, blah blah blah, and you've "proven" that the Jets have never had issues with the cap, not this year, not last year, etc. etc. You strike me as someone too stubborn to argue with, as I see you hijack 90% of threads on this site and get into petty, ridiculous nitpicking and childish arguments.

For those of us who are not going to nitpick over semantics, a salary cap "hell," "heck," or "nightmare" is directly related to the strength of the team and the flexibility of that team, which are two variables. Again, these directly relate to each other.

A 3-13 with $80M in cap space would not really be said to have cap problems, and their problems are fixable with some savvy free agent shopping.

A 13-3 team that retained its roster but is at or just above the salary cap would not be considered to have cap problems, (Steelers or Colts pre-last year, for example.)

An 8-8 team that many think will finish 6-10 this season, who are $17M over the cap and have many, many holes all throughout their roster, with more to come next year, would be considered to have cap problems.

Incredibly, you are too obtuse to realize the Jets have already gone from 11-5 to 8-8 due to having limited resources last offseason and unable to replace talent, the exact situation you're saying does not and will not happen, as you think the cap is a theoretical number that means nothing.

I'm sure you will analyze the crap out of this rather than trying to understand where most people are coming from, and what they mean when trying to talk about this issue, because you are way too smart to try and relate to anyone else and would rather just argue for eternity with little clever ways to point out that everyone is stupid except for you.

 

[moosekill]

Deus knows this, he is just being difficult, while arguing semantics.

Plus are you really sure that Manning is going to be that once in a lifetime quarterback this year, after coming off surgery, missing an entire year, losing all his binkies, and lets face it, definitely being on the down side of his career.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Correction, the Jets will figure out a way to minimize the damage of their cap restraints. They were limited this season in what they did. They were in desperate need of a #2 WR in a free agency that was deeper at WR in probably a decade and signed Chaz Schillen as their lone free agent signing at that position. They are now forced to start a rookie WR who comes from a triple option offense in college (may help when Tebow is on the field, but not when Sanchez is) who had 49 catches for his entire college career. I don't think highly of Hill, but even if he turns into a stud he will likely struggle this year.

If they had the cap room, they might have been able to make a run at a Reggie Wayne or another older, but effective WR for a short term solution while they developed a receiver they got in the draft if it was Hill or someone else,.

One man's "way around" is another man's "minimize the damage." But, however we cut it, they're in this mess because they built teams to win in 2010 or 2011 but Sanchez didn't get the memo.

 

[IllegalContact]

haven't the jets been in cap hell for 12 years now? I've heard this before