Exactly. All know for sure is that the Jets think Cro is valuable enough that they're willing to have some lawyer do like three hours of work for the paperwork so they have a 1% chance of having him as a $3 millionish RFA next year (and whether they'd even keep him or they'd trade him, we don't know). It's not like the fact they tendered Clemens means they really, really want him back also.
I was actually referring to the general sentiment that it was unrealistic for the Jets to bring back a roster full of top tier players on 1 year deals. If you would take Cro's giant horse cock out of your esophagus for a couple of seconds to understand what I was talking about, maybe you'd get that. By the way, I didn't see you or anyone (outside of 17a, who is generally clueless about football matters) suggesting that the Jets would be using RFA tenders on anyone this offseason. I also don't see anyone, outside of possible current CBA extensions, suggesting that these RFA tags mean diddly squat besides giving teams player rights leading up to the CBA deadline, which may or may not stick. Count me as someone that may not be surprised, but is certainly disappointed that we may have to watch another season of Cromartie getting owned at the LOS and working twice as hard as he needs to to recover. Cromartie is certainly a paper tiger.
good idea by the jets, completely pointless and these guys agents will sure use it in negotiations though.
You're a jackass. Who died and designated you the all-knowledgeable football God. Get over yourself, jerk. It isn't a plan or even an expectation, just said it would be great if it did because it would enable the Jets to have more picks in this defense rich draft. I'm well aware that your points #1 and #2 make it highly unlikely that it would ever happen. With regard to point #3, I disagree. I could easily see the Rams going after Holmes for the long haul, not a one year rental, if they could get past his off the field issues. Bradford needs receivers. There are probably other teams that would be willing to work out a deal with Holmes as well as long as they could put some kind of protection in the contract for themselves in case Holmes gets suspended again. It would probably be tied to incentives and staying out of trouble. But I guess I shouldn't get upset at your response. Anyone that picks a name like "ManlyGenius" obviously has some major insecurity issues and a small dick and is trying to compensate with some moniker designed to make people think he's tough and smart. Totally lame and pathetic. Do yourself and don't even bother reading or responding to any more of my posts, because as far as I'm concerned, you don't even exist.
Being tendered is not something an agent can use as a negotiating ploy when the tender isn't going to matter with the new CBA.
It has some value-it established a floor (about 1 year 3.5 million guaranteed) because the Jets were willing to pay that much. This is also why they gave other players much lower tenders-they don't want Coleman to say "you gave me as second round tender so I KNOW you value me at at least 1.3 million a year" or whatever. However since Holmes and Cro are both going to make so much more than 1/3.5 it probably won't matter at all for their negotiations.
question- when we tender a player, does that impact what we have to pay that player if he stays? if not, then why not tender holmes with 5 1st rounders? talk about a poison pill! just askin.......
It doesn't work that way-you only have four tender options (a first and a third, a first, a second, or for players not drafted in rounds one and two a "round they were drafted in" tender) and each has a set price if the player stays. The Jets gave Cro and Holmes the highest levels of enders they could.
A team would have to be insane to give up a first and a third for Holmes given his status with the league drug policy.
Nice personal attack on the football boards. Touchy touchy. The point is simple - if the Jets were going to get rid of Cromartie, they could have released him already. Whatever they think the utility is of tenders, if they were planning on getting rid of Cro, why did they tender him? The fact is there is no reason to conclude your negative opinion of Cro is shared by the Jet organization. Nice backpedal in your last para, btw. Yeah, get ready to be disappointed. Heh. Ftr I am again not saying it is a sure thing Cro will be back. I just don't see what the team is and is not doing as being consonant with a plan to get rid of him.
The bolded part is true of anyone. Too expensive as determined by the market is too expensive for any player.
The bolded part is not "true of anyone" or the Jets would have cut Sanchez, Revis, Mangold, D'Brick, Scott, Cotchery, and Pace too.
Yes they're not planning to get rid of him but that doesn't mean they're planning to do a lot to keep him. We just don't know where is on their priorities yet.
You're really confusing me now. Your original argument was that the Jets were showing they wanted to keep Cro because they tagged him rather than cut him when they cut the handful of guys under contract. Then you said the Jets wouldn't want to keep anyone unless they were cheap. Now you're saying ... what exactly?
There's a lot of time left in the off season, and as for all FA's who might or might not come back, it is obvious that if a player is available who the team thinks will be a better fit, they will bring that player in instead if they can get him. Again, that is true of any player in an FA situation. So there's alot of developments that still are to occur that will affect what happens, with Cro and the others. What I do think we can gather, though, is that the actions, and lack of other actions, by the Jet organization regarding Cro that we have seen to date are not consonant with the view of Cro's haters here.
You're not following it. They tagged him for 1 year/3.5 million with a tag that 99.9% sure isn't going to work. Therefore they definitely want to keep him at any price. Try to keep up.
