Spikes cannot play 1000 snaps.. he's extremely limited. He literally had no FA market, just recently getting picked up by NE for depth at a minimum salary. He's not even a lock to make NE's roster. cannot compare Spikes to Harris.. we can still get a deal done with Mo, regardless of the other signings we have made. comes down to the dollar amount he's looking for.
Exactly. And, maybe you bump his option year a bit, so 5 years, $63, $35. Make him feel good. But, I wouldn't make that offer now. Let him play out the season...a lot of things can happen. He could get hurt and never play again. He could suck. He could be good, he could be great, he could be all-world. Let him play this season - let him, Richardson, Williams and the whole line play together this season. THEN make decisions about who you want to pay and how much you want to pay them. If Mo is all-world this season and demands JJ Watt money after this season, then franchise him for a year. He's not a person, he's an asset. Every year he plays for you, every down he plays for you, he depreciates a bit. To pay him big money now would be incredibly foolish when you can control the same asset for two years at a maximum of $17 million for the two years combined. That's how you run a business. But, please, carry on with your ridiculous "I love Mo, pay him now!" lunacy. (That's not directed at you, Lenny. It's for the ignoramuses who want to throw money at Mo today.)
You're the only ignoramus de-humanizing players and calling them assets and not wanting to reward players that have played very well for you. I thank God you're not in charge of the Jets or I'd have to be looking for a new team. Within a year or two, you'd have the whole team in revolt and no FAs wanting to play for the Jets. You're a clueless twit.
Every single player in the NFL is nothing more than an asset, some more valuable than others. Teams that pay players based on past performance, appreciation and reward are always sitting at home come January. The only reason you allocate money to build a roster is based on what can the players do for you moving forward, not what they did in the past.
You are ridiculously naïve if you think that teams look at players as anything other than assets. Of course they are people, but in the eyes of the team they are assets, nothing else. If someone plays well for you while on a low-cost rookie contract, that is called a valuable asset. If they play exactly the same way under a new, higher-priced contract, that is called a less valuable asset. If you overpay them, they are a liability - no longer an asset. When you have a low-priced, high-return asset, you don't just arbitrarily increase the cost of that asset just to make him or fans happy. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Welcome to the world of professional sports.
Uh, you always retain your elite home-grown talent period. If he's asking for too much you have to look to entertain a trade. Mo plays an integral role on this defense, Mo is versatile, and is one of the best defensive lineman in the league. I guess it depends on what $$$ you would consider him to be a "liability"
Exactly. If you look at the financial statements of any NFL team, they actually list the monetary value of the players as an asset on their balance sheet and amortize them over the course of their contract. The same way they'd depreciate a building, or a car, or a desk, or a computer. No other business does that occur other than professional sports. All other companies expense their workers salaries. In professional sports, players are assets. That's how the teams view them, and that's how we should think of them.
I totally disagree. The only players who truly get paid for what they might do in the future are rookies coming out of college. With every veteran in the NFL, it's a combination of what he's done in the past with what the team expects or at least hopes him to do in the future. If there is no past performance, chances are there's no future contract. You reward very good/great players who have been great citizens, who are excellent examples and leaders for other players. The players expect that and watch how teams treat/pay players. Teams that treat the players like assets, get no loyalty and unless they are perennial SB contenders, have to pay a premium to FAs. What goes around comes around. You know nothing about harmony and good will on a team.
let's calm down here and stop making mo like some poverty stricken victim of the system. The man is doing just fine in life. And yes, obv he's a person...But in the context of the NY Jets he is an asset. The OP wasn't off base in general.
Wow. You are so naïve. God bless you. In a way, I wish I knew as little as you do about professional sports. It would probably enhance my enjoyment of the game.
Not paying Wilkerson for the coming year under a new contract, waiting until next year to deal with his situation, comes at a cost. The Jets would lose the leverage they have in the current contract. it is a bargaining chip. It is why he can't tell himself he is in a position equivalent to that of an FA.
Holy pie-in-the-sky batman. Ask Vince Wilfork what it's like to get paid for "what he's done in the past." That why New England is successful. Players are commodities. OP is right on the money. Wilkerson is getting 8 million dollars this year. He is under contract. Let him play under the contract he signed.
Agreed. As a member of the Jets he is an asset. Just like the other 52 players. Some assets are more valuable than others. They will weigh out what he is worth and act accordingly. In life? Obviously he's a person and way more than an asset. But players in professional sports are assets.
Would anyone be on board with trading Wilkerson for Justin Houston? Similar age and contract situation. Houston has had double digit sack totals last 3 years including 22 last season.
You HAVE to think of players as assets if you are in the Front Office. From that spot, if you start thinking of them as individuals or workers then you put yourself in a dangerous position. ....You might draft a Mark Sanchez because he is a good prospect but he's also clean cut and articulate and would serve as a great "face of the franchise" ....You might take a chance on a Tim Tebow in the 1st round even though he has no business being there but you like him and really admire his intangibles.. ....You might draft/sign injury prone players because although the results show that they can't stay on the field, you can't help but feel bad for the guy or convince yourself that they will stay healthy this year because they are working hard ....You might be less likely to pull the trigger on a trade that could really help your organization or let a guy walk because they made a name for themselves and went to work at the same office as you everyday.. That's one thing analytics & the money ball approach teaches you. don't look at the guy, look at the "asset" and production. When the A's lost Jason Giambi the questions weren't "how do we replace Giambi?" the questions were "how do we replace X home runs, X RBIs, X batting average, etc" The question with Wilkerson shouldn't be (at least among F office, not fans) "should we trade Muhammad Wilkerson?" it should be "if we trade a guy that gives us around 40 tackles and 7-10 sacks a year on the DL @ $X a year, for an asset elsewhere on the field.. does that asset or combination of assets elsewhere exceed what that guy brought vs. what we will have here? if so.. lets do it."
I would take revis over timmons/willis in a heartbeat. CB is certainly more important then ILB. other then safety ILB is the least important position on defense. corner next to pass rusher/DE is the most important. the salaries of the respective positions dictate this as well. ESPECIALLY today in passing league, you need guys who can cover and cover without getting flagged. half that list is guys that played like 30+ years ago. in a league that wasnt geared towards passing and where stopping the run was much more crucial. Junior seau was at the end of his career when with the patriots. i can name just as many teams with nothing at ILB that have been on superbowl winners. What exactly did the pats win the past decade before getting revis onboard? not to mention their title run took a nosedive once talib got hurt when he was their prior to revis.
Justin Houston is a freaking beast, I would easily take him. You have to account for offensives that double team Muhammad Wilkerson constantly, and allows others to make plays on the field. Can the Jets replicate that type of productivity on the d-line, what will happen if Sheldon commands more double teams - will he get better or worse? Will Leonard Williams be able to fill the void of Wilkerson? What kind of compensation do you get? A lot of questions. Moneyball is great, but this isn't baseball - you have to evaluate Mo's impact on the field and sometimes it doesn't show up on the stat sheet. You have the Rams, who have put a lot of resources on that defensive line.
I'm sure the FO people can answer every one of your questions and that may be whe he is still unsigned.
its a rough situation, one regime promising you a contract then a new one coming in not feeling they need to honor that
