Something No One Has Thought About Involving the #5 Overall Pick

Discussion in 'New York Jets' started by The Dark Knight, Apr 26, 2009.

  1. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    27,177
    Likes Received:
    14,477
    I bet it was probably cheaper to trade up to #5 than it was to trade to #8 with Jacksonville and that is why the Jets pulled the trigger.

    Cheaper as in draft pick/player compensation. Think about it, The Bengals and Raiders were not taking Sanchez, the only logical thought is the Jaguars wanted too much to trade up.

    Thoughts?
     
    #1 The Dark Knight, Apr 26, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2009
  2. JCotchrocket

    JCotchrocket Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    0
    You hit it right on the head.

    We were holding Mangina players for ransom. Cleveland telegraphed their desire to pick up Elam early in free agency; we held onto him and got something for him.

    Trading with Jacksonville would've cost us big time. Serviceable as they may be, no team in the league would've been satisfied with three role players and two picks for a top ten pick.

    The only, ONLY way this trade could've gotten better IMO, is if Mangini took Bryan Thomas instead of Coleman or Elam.

    Bryan Thomas is 0-infinity in bringing happiness to JCotchrocket.
     
  3. ouchy

    ouchy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,402
    Likes Received:
    6,502
    It could have gotten better if we didn't give up a 2nd rounder.
     
  4. Royal Tee

    Royal Tee Girls juss wanna have fun
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,809
    Likes Received:
    4,336
    I did think that way but in the direction of, it was cheaper to give up players more than picks.
    So, I think you can say both versions of cheaper.

    Can someone post how much salary we dumped that way we can compare it to Sanchez's salary when it comes about.
     
  5. stinkyB

    stinkyB 2009 Best Avatar Award Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    14,248
    Likes Received:
    12,932
    maybe it was because the Skins had a deal worked out with JAGS (or someone before 8)
     
  6. NDmick

    NDmick Revis Christ

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    22,432
    Likes Received:
    3
    that would be called collusion, and thats frowned upon... the trade needs to be even in sort of way.
     
  7. plasticsloth

    plasticsloth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    126
    well supposedly the Jets had a deal worked out with the Jags for the 8th pick if Sanchez were there. I think it was "cheaper" to trade with the Browns because of the players the Jets had to send. Plus, i think it was safer to deal for th 5th pick then the 8th pick mainly because the Redskins and other teams were pretty much only working deals for the 8th pick. In a way, it was a blindside for the rest of the teams.
     
  8. KY_Jetsfan

    KY_Jetsfan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact that we held on to all of your 2010 draft picks was unbelievable IMO.
     
  9. penny10jet

    penny10jet New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    0
    The way I hear it is that the Browns were receiving offers from both the Jets and the Redskins, and the Browns took the best offer. But the Redskins definitely would have gotten Sanchez at 5 if we didnt.
     
  10. NDmick

    NDmick Revis Christ

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    22,432
    Likes Received:
    3
    i hope in some way we can gain more. that draft is stacked with talent.
     
  11. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    27,177
    Likes Received:
    14,477
    I did not know that. Interesting. Still, I doubt Jacksonville would have taken less than what we gave up. We also would have had to hold onto Ratliff, Coleman, Elam and involved more draft picks.
     
  12. NYJalltheway

    NYJalltheway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    12,439
    Likes Received:
    2,525
    I know we're now at 12 million, saving for sure 4 million with Coleman. We'll probably pay San and Greene a combined 10-13 per year, so we should be right on the head as far as cap.
     
  13. BamaZeus

    BamaZeus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    9
    The best part to me is that Washington is still stuck with Jason Campbell
     
  14. brothermoose

    brothermoose Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    35
    Kenyon Coleman - net savings = 8.5 million over 3 years; with a 3 mil base salary for 2009, plus 1/5 of his prorated bonus monies ($900,000) means we broke even for this season 3.9 million ~ the 4 million of dead bonus money we're saddled with.

    Abram Elam - $1.5 million/1 year contract - dead money = 300,000; Net savings = 1.2 million

    Brett Ratliff - net savings = $25 and a stick of wrigley's spearmint

    ...but seriously, it's negligible, we saved a couple hundred thousand from his salary as his accelerated cap hit is like 3 Gs.

    http://www.nyjetscap.com/salary.html

    www.rotoworld.com

    We had better info yesterday, but jetscap is just too damn quick with the updates:shit:
     
  15. Hobbes3259

    Hobbes3259 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,454
    Likes Received:
    393
    Yes. we had a deal with Eric. Then floated the Jags balloon. Little Danny was trying to get to 6, or 7, then we went to 5.
     

Share This Page