This line of thinking doesn’t make sense to me. If you have a franchise cornerstone you’re going to have to pay them. That’s just how it works. Metcalf is without question a franchise cornerstone which is why Seattle is most likely going to keep him and build around him. Either way, “he only helps Zach this year” is just a bizarre opinion. Does he get worse after you extend him? Do you completely lose the ability to sign any free agents? Do we lose any picks next year? Do we still not have the 4th, plus two 2’s and a high third this year? I don’t get the all or nothing mindset here. It’s just not based in reality.
Not sure how else I can explain it to be honest. I think I've been pretty clear that this isn't about Metcalf's talent vs. the talent of a WR drafted this year. It's about what does more for your team - Metcalf alone or WR drafted at 10 this year+$15 million of extra cap space? That extra cap space buys you a tier 1 safety, RT, TE or edge rusher. No, Metcalf doesn't get worse after you extend him, but his production per dollar paid takes a gigantic hit because he will literally get 4X more expensive than he is now. Roster moves don't happen in a vacuum, there is a salary cap. You can't just judge a guy on pure talent. What matters is how much he produces per dollar paid to him. You're basically just arguing that a Ferrari is better than a Mercedes over and over. I get that. But would you rather have a Mercedes for $75k or a Ferrari for $300k?
You don’t win with a bunch of Mercedes. The good news is you can have some Ferrari’s and still afford a Mercedes’. My problem is I don’t understand why you think we can’t. We very much can.
Ferraris break down and need more maintenance than Mercedes as a rule. And to continue the analogy, would you rather be driving a Mercedes 4WD SUV in the snow or a Ferrari - given the wintry conditions that occur in the NY metro area? I'd love to add Metcalf but not for the cost it will likely require both initially and long term.
If you're serious about racing, that $75,000 Mercedes isn't going to beat many people. You need the Ferrari for that.
Thanks for clarifying. IMO you should say this season, not next year. Next year indicates 2023, not the upcoming season. This is the key year for determining Zach's future, not next year, so it's important to give Zach the best chance to succeed THIS year, not next. As I stated earlier, we won't have that many players to pay big contracts to next season and the cap will be increasing. Also, if JD has another excellent draft, which I expect him to, the need for bringing in outside FAs will be lesser. We may not need to sign any big ticket FAs next season. We may have stars among the players that JD has drafted and signed in FA already. I'm not worried about Zach not developing, and having a killer offense is more important than having additional cap space to bring in extra FAs that we might not even need. Cap space and value have to be considered, but the most important thing is the play on the field. The team that wins the most or wins at the most critical times is the team that gets to and wins the SB, NOT the team who has the most cap space or who got the most value for their players. IMO you focus entirely too much on value and cap space and not on the quality of the play on the field. Also, as I stated earlier, I'm certain that JD would give the Jets an out after a year or two in Metcalf's contract, so if things did start getting tight capwise or if Metcalf's play started declining, the Jets could move on without taking a big dead money hit.
Again, you're focusing on the wrong things entirely. Your focus is on financials not on the play on the field. If I'm in a race, I absolutely want the Ferrari and not the Mercedes. Cost doesn't mean a damn when you're in the race, it's the speed and quality of the engine and the driver. In football, it's the talent on the field and how they produce, not how much you're paying them on a production per dollar basis. Sorry, but that's just screwy thinking.
The financials are inherently intertwined with the performance on the field. That will always be true in any sport with a salary cap. Every dollar spent on one player is a dollar that can't be spent on another player. My focus is on both financials and play on the field. The people taking the opposite side are only focusing on play. Which perspective makes more sense? Cost doesn't mean a thing? Are you kidding? Why don't we just go offer everyone in FA $30 million per year then? And you say me factoring in price of players is screwy thinking? This is such a stupid discussion lol. I don't understand how anyone can think the value of a player is unrelated to their cost. It clearly is. If you're paying player A $20 million per year and player B at the same position $5 million per year then who do you expect to play better? If player B has 50% of the production player A does then player B is a better value. He's not a better player of course, but he's a better value to the team because he produces more per dollar than player A by a lot - and the dollars he saves you can be used to improve other positions. No team has infinite money. Every team has the same amount they can spend per year. To act like that's not an important factor when acquiring players is absurd. You guys are acting like there's no salary cap in football. It makes zero sense. Look up opportunity cost and what it means.
We're not acting like there's no salary cap. You're overreacting to the salary cap and value. A player that only has 50% of the production of another player, can be the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs, between getting to a SB, and/or to winning that SB. Give me the player with the top production every single freaking time. Screw the damn numbers. Teams find ways to deal with the salary cap.
I can’t figure out if this is severe overthinking or not thinking enough. So by your logic, you should never sign a player to a big deal no matter what
I'm not overreacting at all, I'm simply factoring cost in and you're not factoring it in at all. Your last post literally said cost doesn't mean a thing, that's a completely ridiculous perspective in any sport with a salary cap. I'm sorry but think about what you're saying, it's patently absurd. What you continue to ignore is that the savings of having player B instead of player A can be used to improve the team elsewhere. The goal is to have the best team overall, not some elite players and some awful ones. When we buy anything in life we consider how much it costs and how much benefit it will give us, because we don't have infinite money. Paying players is no different given that teams don't have infinite money either. You simply cannot say cost doesn't mean anything when money is a finite resource.
What are you talking about? This conversation is only about the hypothetical of trading #10 for DK Metcalf and what that would mean for our specific team at this point in time. I've already said several times that for other teams it makes sense to pay elite talent - namely teams that are close to competing for Super Bowls and need those elite guys to potentially put them over the top. You're the guy agreeing with NC that cost of players means "nothing" in a salary cap league. But yeah, I'm the one not thinking enough.
You’re gonna have to show me where I said that. I made my point pretty clear and it wasn’t that cost means nothing. It’s not even close to what I said.
You didn't like this post? Jets fans have to be the only fanbase in sports that say you're overthinking things if you consider the cost of a player relevant to their value in a salary cap league.
Again, you're doing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than just considering. You're obsessing to the detriment of the talent on the field.
People in this thread don't understand the power of Merc. Just an FYI Mercedes have won 8 F1 construction championships in a row and Ferrari are not what they used to be. In a race that is. P.s no to giving up 10 for DK, man's a beast but a better fit for Gases offense not the one we currently run. Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk
