As we embark on the rebuild, I see two ways in which to do so and will explain them a bit. Both involve doing what has been done with possible exception of Mangold who I will get to after the poll. I apologize for the length and multiple parts but I think rebuilding without a clear plan is foolish and sets up for disaster. I see two predominate ways to rebuild when you don't already have the most important piece, the franchise QB. In both cases you still keep looking for that elusive QB. A) trying to compete B) Heavy/ near total draft emphasis. A) In a competitive rebuild, you use every resource available to rebuild your team while also trying to compete. As veterans are cut and cap space created, you try to make prudent choices on free agents and spend your cap money. You may leave some cap space but you wheel and deal pretty much like normal. This may keep fans happier as you may be competitive and could catch lightning in a bottle like a veteran QB having a career year and get you in or close to the playoffs. If you are pretty good this also may be safer for coaching staffs and management being around for more seasons. This may hurt your draft status and thus that avenue for a franchise QB. B) A draft heavy or nearly totally draft emphasized process. Draft picks are gold and you attempt to maximize the number and position of them. This has to be clearly understood by ownership as you will be nearly guaranteed to suffer some really bad seasons as you would not sign higher dollar free agents who would keep you from getting compensatory draft picks. These FAs also may help your win total which would hurt the draft picks you would earn. i.e. a 3-13 team picks before a 7-9 team. The downside is no guaranty of this rebuild working, unhappy fans/sales, and an owner who could buckle and fire all coaches and management. This appears to be what Cleveland is doing with the latest coaching/management group. Last year they had 14 draft picks and all made the team. It was very ugly this year but by not signing FA last year they were awarded 4 compensation picks (3,4,4,5) some which were already traded leaving them with a net of eleven picks and 5 of the first 65 picks. They still have a ton of cap space which could eventually be used to keep your good young players and get a couple vets to get you over the top. As free agency approaches what signings we do or don't make may give an indication of our teams choice. What approach would you take? This removes the I would draft a hall of famer at each pick and McC screwed up because his picks weren't that good hindsight that we all can have. (I would have taken Brady with our sixth rounder btw)
Okay, I mentioned Mangold above and here is what I would have done a bit differently. I would have met with him and his reps to see if he wanted to continue playing and for how long. I would explain we are going to have a nasty rebuild. I would allow them to seek a deal as well as shop him myself. I would explain when he is done playing he is going into the ring of honor and would like to have him around the team as either an ambassador or some type role (Joe Willieish). Now no team is going to offer much for him but you could enhance the return by restructuring his contract where you absorb a signing bonus and the acquiring team only pays salary. I would do the same with Harris. Marshall and Richardson also without the post career things. Here are two examples Marshall is due 7.5 million. No one is going to give you much/anything for that. But what if he cost the acquiring team 1 million? (Give 6 in bonus 1 in salary by new team) This even helps Sheldon who Dallas wanted but is up against the cap. What if he only cost them 1 or 2 million ? I think you get a better pick return easily this way and it is done with the intent of shortening the length of time we suck. It is a creative way of using the cap space I cleared as doable with Jason at overthecap.com
Good write up! Only one team wins the Lombardi, but the other 31 teams have to keep fans in the seats wearing expensive jerseys drinking $10 cups of beer. Therefore your first plan, plan A), that keeps a team somewhat competitive while still getting a bit better every year is usually the way teams go. Look at how much love we had around here in 2015 getting 10 wins, even though it ended in a house fire. In the NFL, SB rings don't fill stadiums, 'hope' does.
In essence yes. By giving them the signing bonus that would stay with us when they are traded. The acquiring team would only be responsible for the salary portion of the contract on their cap. It is a way to try and get a better draft pick. Example was Dallas who is very tight on the cap. Sheldon is due about 8.5 million so they would have to cut players or restructure deals to fit his contract. If we signed him to a new one year contract with 7.5 in signing bonus and 1 million in salary, Dallas would only have a 1 million cap charge. It would be much better for their cap so in theory you should be able to get better draft pick or picks from them. More or better picks hopefully gets you out of the abyss faster.
Your post prompted a question for me: It's been mentioned that the Jets should try to trade Richardson and Marshall, but the feeling is that we won't won't get the value we want. I still think that RIchardson would be desirable to somebody and hope that we can get something worthwhile for him. But Marshall, maybe not. In either case, if we just cut them because of their negative impact on the team attitude, wouldn't we get Comp picks, and if so, wouldn't that be better than carrying them and allowing them to be cancers? My answer to that would be yes. As to your original question - I voted for total rebuild using the draft, and some FA signings, but only if they're young and can grow with the new guys I draft.
if i understand what you are proposing correctly, you are negating part of the value of a draft pick by attaching extra cap cost to the means of acquiring the pick. so we acquire a 2nd from the cowboys for sheldon that pick now cost us 7.5 plus the new payers contract against the cap? better off taking what you can get and ridding yourself of all cap ramifications then this formula
No you are hoping to get a better or more draft picks by eating some of his cost. If they will give you a 3 for him, by picking up some of the cost you get a 2, or you get the 3 and a 4. If its a player like Marshall instead of a 6 or 7 you might get a 5 or a 5 and a 6. If you are doing the draft pick rebuild, you aren't signing free agents now with the cap relief you gain. You are instead using that cap space to acquire better and more draft picks. It is outside the box thinking because it hasn't been done much in the NFL but is done in other sports. In a trade you could also take back a player with a "bad" contract where you get better or more picks for taking the bad contract.
but you are still attaching that dollar amount to what is supposed to be a cap friendly draft pick contract. i don't think it will work in a hard cap structure. particularly one where you are allowed to rollover unused cap space.
If you just cut them you don't get any Comp picks. If you don't exercise an option and they become a free agent(Clady), they could be eligible. It is confusing at times. The cutting and getting nothing is what led me to think of this option. Another team may not trade for your player at his current cost thinking you will cut him. But if by making his salary cost smaller for an acquiring team maybe someone is interested or even better more than one team interested so you could improve the return.
You are right in that it does lessen the cap impact you gain by getting rid of the player and of course you would have to look at it to serif it is the best use of your dollars. Remember and I will use Marshall again. If you assume no one wants him so if you cut him you get no trade picks and he won't get you a comp pick since he was cut. You would save 7.5 on the cap but you aren't signing FA in the draft emphasis rebuild so that money is not super useful (into Woody's pocket). Now say by paying 5 or 6 of his salary in bonus you can trade him for a 5. You save 2-1 million in this case and our #5 pick (Shell) gets less than 600k per year. You save less, but weren't going to spend it, but have a player.
The draft is just a big Lottery when you think about it...doesn't matter if its round 1 or 6 imo...you can get boom or bust at any point So I am all in favor of having as many lottery tix as possible I am also done with expensive free agents and so called BPAs ...you need to do your own research and come to your own conclusions what s best for your team not just grab a defensive lineman if he is BPA when you are already set in that department
So far everyone has voted to do the draft emphasis rebuild. And yes, the draft can be like a lottery although earlier picks have a better chance of winning. In the 2016 and 2017 drafts, Cleveland has Jamie Collins and 25 of those lottery tickets many of which are high picks! We have 14. Cleveland is also 100 million under the cap, so part of my proposal is to take some of that money we would accrue as we go thru the rebuild and spend it to get better and more picks to hopefully shorten the process.
Ok. Got it....so it would be like trading Richardson and $7.5M of cap space for a 1st or 2nd round pic (from Dallas)? May be worth it!
cap room is always useful ad does not go away, it can be rolled over. i like the creative thinking but this just simply isn't a good way of using assets, which cap space is. sacrificing cap space to acquire youth will cost you when all that youth comes up for new deals at the same time. it has to be a blend of both good drafting and smart use of cap space. don't shop on the first few days of free agency, pick through the cut player bins first to fill holes and keep comp picks in play, add guys that got buried on depth charts willing to work on short term incentive laden deals hoping to cash in if they could just get some p.t. take bpa early in the draft, take chances on guys who fell due to injury/character issues late in the draft and don't clog the roster with old guys hanging on for one last paycheck. thats how you cycle in to a playoff window.
The Jets have been trying the competitive rebuild for years, and it has been a miserable failure. IMO almost a complete rebuild focusing primarily on youth and the draft, and only signing younger, second-tier FAs is the only way to go. We don't know that Mac didn't talk to Mangold and/or his agent about the very thing you mentioned. I would do the same thing with Harris, but not Marshall and definitely not Richardson, and I certainly wouldn't pay part of his salary to play for another team. A contender may give something for Marshall. If not, he can be cut and the Jets save $7.5 million in cap space with no dead money hit. I believe the Jets could hold onto him as late as the day before the first game of the season, then cut him and owe him nothing. If they find no immediate takers, they could wait and see if any WRs get injured or rookie WRs aren't developing/panning out, and they might find a taker late. Richardson should be traded for whatever we can get. He's another screw up waiting to happen, we can't afford to pay him what he wants nor should we even if we could.
Who says you wouldn't be signing FAs in the draft emphasis rebuild? Just because you don't sign older, more expensive FAs, doesn't mean you can't sign any at all. You can sign younger, cheaper FAs for competition and depth, and you might even get a couple of young players who are young starters.
The first scenario, the competitive rebuild, just doesn't work in the NFL these days. Championships are not won by teams usually having middling seasons and then vaulting to the top for a year. They're won by the teams that have a very high standard of play season after season and then have a peak season or just get lucky, turning the usual 9-12 wins into a championship season. The question is how do those teams get to the point of being consistently good? I'm going to posit that there are about 4 teams that are in the consistently competitive category at this point. These are the teams that no 21 year old fan would identify as anything but a good franchise likely to be in Super Bowl contention year in and year out. The top 4 organizations in the NFL are: New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks. These are the organizations that you can pencil in for 9+ wins almost every year and that will only rarely fall below 6 wins even in a bad season. They tend to win 11 or 12 games in their good years and they are in the Super Bowl conversation every year - no matter what other teams in their division look like at the moment. The Steelers and Packers are generational successes and the Patriots and Seahawks have joined them in the last couple of decades, peaking over the last five. The question is how did these teams get to the top of the NFL pecking order and how do they maintain their position year after year, with occasional down periods between finding the QB's when the last QB ages out? The answer basically is that all 4 teams draft a lot of players and they do this year in and year out. There are years, the Steelers drafted only 5 players in 2003 for example, where they don't draft heavily but on average they pull more players out of the draft than the other organizations and this has kept them on top for a long time. Since 1993 (salary cap era begins + NFL draft goes to 7 rounds): Patriots - 220 draft picks = 9.56 draft picks a year. Packers - 214 draft picks = 9.3 draft picks a year. Steelers - 205 draft picks = 8.91 draft picks a year. Seahawks - 196 draft picks = 8.52 draft picks a year. However you have to separate the Seahawks a bit to make things really come into focus. Seahawks 1993-1998 - 39 picks = 6.5 picks a year. Seahawks 1999-2016 - 157 picks = 9.23 picks a year. What happened in 1999? Mike Holmgren a coach out of the Green Bay Packers system took over the GM/HC duties for the Seahawks and dramatically increased the way the Seahawks treated draft picks and veteran free agents. He valued the picks more and he was happy to let a vet go in order to get comp picks. He was happy not to sign vet free agents, who might otherwise interfere with comp picks over time. How do the Jets look since 1993? 178 picks = 7.74 picks a year. The Jets are in a playoff drought at the moment that has stretched to 6 years now. Figuring that it takes a few years for a draft to bake in and fully produce for you, how do their numbers look since 2007 (3 years before the playoff drought began)? 63 picks = 6.3 picks a year. The answer as to why the Jets cannot compete with the Patriots, Packers, Steelers and Seahawks is pretty simple: those teams spend a lot more picks in the draft than the Jets do and over time that adds up, even though the Jets pick from higher positions in the draft.
