Is it really fair to restructure or cut Ferguson, at this point? Part of the reason his cap hit is so high this year is because he's already restructured twice. In 2012, The Jets took $9m of his $10m base salary and spread it out into a signing bonus over the remaining years of his contract. In 2013, he did it again converting almost $7m of 8m base salary into another signing bonus over the remaining 5 years. Is it really fair to make him restructure now that he's finally getting paid? It's far too simple to just look at it by how much he's making this year. If you look at his current contract, he's only made 8.3m per year to date when he originally signed the extension at 10m per year, and this is a 3x pro bowler who hasn't missed a single game since being drafted. The way I see it Brick has no reason to take a paycut.
I'm sure that's the stance his agent is taking. But I really don't think anyone feels sorry for him and his $60 million contract, including our front office. If he was still playing at a pro bowl level this wouldn't even be a question. He's still a decent player but nowhere near worth what his contract is. Such as life in the NFL, my friend.
A restructure is not the same thing as a pay cut. The player does not choose to be restructured and loses nothing from it. He gets his money upfront, only the cap hit is deferred.
That would be so fd up it it worked how you thought it did. Hey Suh, remember that $25 m signing bonus that we offered you which was spread over the first 5 yrs of your contract? Well we're cutting you after the first year so sorry about that but hey $5m is almost as nice as $25m... And you did get that 900k salary for the year so we're good right?
Yeah I know it's not the same as a paycut, but maybe I misunderstood how the signing bonus works. So basically, even though they pushed the cap hits of signing bonuses over the remaining years on the deal, he already got that money up front? So if they cut him now, he would still have already collected the bonuses from this year and next year and they would be part of the dead money? Am I getting this right? If so, it's def fair to Ferguson and I mixed it up.
The player doesn't get a raise or an incentive for agreeing. Part of his base salary for the upcoming season is converted to a signing bonus, and he collects that money before the season starts. The cap hit for that money is spread out evenly over the remaining lifetime of the contract.
Restructure shouldnt be an option. It is my understanding that we would just be pushing that money back and giving him an additional year. That works with young players (like Carpenter), not with a declining older player. Jets either ask him to take a paycut. And if he doesnt accept a substantial paycut, he gets released.
Gotcha. So in order to restructure him this year, they would have to pay him and push the cap hit to next year. The only problem I see with that is that, is that it will cause a lot of dead money next year and be virtually impossible to cut while he's on the decline. I guess pay cut is the only real option here.
Yes, restructuring Brick would be a bad idea and for that matter, so would Revis. Carpenter was a more palatable restructure. Other possibilities depending on how much cap space we need are Skrine, Mangold, Marshall, and Decker. Skrine is a younger player, so doing him would be like doing Carpenter. Mangold and Marshall are under contract through 2017, so restrucutring them would eat into 2017 cap space only. We have a lot of space then, so as long as we don't plan on cutting them before 2017, we could do them. Decker is under contract through 2018, but we probably won't cut him before 2018, so we could do him as well.
Yeah... You only restructure players that you have long term plans for. Part of the reason we were in cap hell for the first half of the 2000s. Curtis Martin was in the twilight of his career and the Jets kept pushing his guaranteed number down the road. The other part was the ridiculous backloaded contract the Tuna gave Vinny.
1) the only salary players should count on, is gauranteed salary. and he will get all his gauranteed salary 2) with how he played last year, and with how much he makes, he should be happy he hasnt been cut yet
Although I like everyone else here has seen Ferguson's play deteriorate the last couple of years, I count myself as a big fan of his for the most part. Solid citizen, has held down one of the three or so most important positions on the team. He's had to put up with a lot of disruption at LG, too, like when they let Faneca go probably a year too early, and the Pete Kendall fiasco before that. But... I am not sure this fairness argument makes any sense. Ferguson has restructured to be sure, but I have to assume he did so because the terms were acceptable to him. He did not do it out of some charitable inclination. Concerns about him now and the size of his salary would not exist if he was even still playing at Mangold's level. But he's not. That is the reality.
