32 is not that old. He will get interest. If i was cleveland i would make a push for him to be the bridge to whoever they take at 2. He is going to get paid where he slots,he just won't get the years based on his age. I would bet he gets 4/44 with 22 guaranteed.
no way Ivory gets 8 million!!!! and Forte is a better player. I'll bet Forte gets more money but if he doesn't its because he's old. nobody is giving Ivory 8 million. 8 million per year would make him like the 2nd highest paid RB in the nfl, and people are already regretting paying that kind of money to other RBs. LeSean McCoy, much better RB than Ivory got 8 million per year and the rest of the league laughed at Buffalo
You're right that Ivory probably isn't coming back, but I will say that I'd rather go into the draft open to selecting a RB if he's the BPA rather than feeling forced to take a RB to save the season. If Ivory's on the team, I might want to take a RB, but I don't feel like I need someone ready to be a lead back from Day 1. But yeah, if Ivory can get more than a few million, he's gone. I didn't misread the OTC article. We have to spend $4.8 million on our rookies. But in general, the only contracts that count toward the cap are the top 51 contracts on the team. I assumed all the rookie contracts that we pick up will count toward the cap. This means that the six cheapest players currently counting against the cap will no longer count. They are Brent Qvale, Deon Simon, Craig Watts, Dominique Williams, Lawrence Okoye, and Sean Hickey. They each make $450,000, which is the league minimum (actually Qvale and Simon make $525,000). So we add 4.8 million to the payroll but subtract the salaries of those six players. This gives us about 2.1 million of cap space that we need to sign the rookies. (When we actually do the roster, Qvale and Simon will probably be on it, and maybe Chandler Worthy and Brandon Bostick, for example, will not count instead.) And of course, these numbers are approximations. I thought that was clear from the beginning, but I guess it wasn't.
As far as I know, no one with the Jets has said a word about possibly cutting Ferguson or threatening him. They said they "might" ask him to take a pay cut later. That's it. He can refuse, but hopefully he wants to go out on a winning team. He knows his play has slipped badly. If he refuses to take a cut, then the Jets will have only two choices, cut him or pay him. I think they have no choice but to pay him.
While your last couple of sentences are true, arm strength is crucial for a QB in the Northeast in November and December. He really limits our offense and opposing teams know it. If there is another mild winter, he probably can do as well if he doesn't get injured. If not, I don't think he will. For me, it's not just a matter of the 2016 season. I'd rather they be able to make some upgrades to the team that will help them in future seasons as well. That's why I'm willing to part with Mo, Ivory, Snacks, or Fitz if need be. I want to see them address holes at ILB, TE, RT, RG, and PR.
Without RF this team takes a major step back both on the field and in the locker room. Unless you're telling me we are signing a better starting QB then this is one of if not the most important signing of our offseason in regards to continuity and morale. Obviously he's not the future but he's the immediate future and that's of major importance.
the draft is for the future. f.a. is for now. i'm not about letting go a homegrown talent that became elite and the best qb we have had since october 2008 just to sign a few extra mid level guys that might upgrade other positions. not when we are a play off contender right now
Yes of course, but it guarantees more of the money further into the deal, correct? That raises the question of if we want to just cut ties with him all together. It creates a wide gap, but restructuring his contract into signing bonus guarantees him on the roster for two years right?
We could restructure him in which case we save 4 million this year then next year he counts at 18 but we could cut him and save 13 mil
Not necessarily. If we could sign Danny Trevathan, he wouldn't be for just 2016. The same thing goes fors some of the FA TEs and OL. I understand not wanting to let go of homegrown talent, but imo Mo isn't "elite" yet, and I think he has a case of the Revis disease. In general, I'm not interested in overpaying anyone, especially when we're not true contenders yet. If we had a real shot at getting to and winning the SB that would be one thing. While we're in a rebuilding mode, no.
Kicking money into the future for an older player whose play is in decline is not the smart way to handle the cap. IMO that would be the worst thing Mac could do.
We have 2 options cut him this year for a dead cap of 5 million when the cap is tight and very crucial, add to that no decent replacement ... as opposed to next off season when it would basically count the same in dead money ...
I tend to agree with your view that a restructure into an aging vet is counter productive but in this case I see it as a decent option
Not true at all. We can ask him to take a salary cut. He can refuse or accept. If he accepts, awesome! If he refuses, then we either pay him or cut him. He doesn't deserve any more money and the last thing we need is more dead money on the cap as we're finally starting to become ready to become serious challengers for the SB. I'd rather cut him and get raped by the Browns or a team we try to trade up with than put dead money for him on the cap next year.
Again, you don't focus on the dead money hit, you focus on the cap savings. He's already due to be paid $14,107,000. If they cut him, they're saving $9,093,000 which would give us that much more to spend in FA. That's what's important, not the $5 million dead money.
Not accurate. If we cut Brick after this season, we would save $13,025,000 on the cap and would incur only $1,282,00 in dead money charges. Push that $5 million into next year, and we only save $8 million on the cap instead of $13 million.