Wow, after reading this it looks like we are a bit screwed. If, like me you have found this all a bit confusing, this useful article will explain . Jets face severe restrictions ? By Rich Cimini In recent years under GM Mike Tannenbaum, the Jets have been aggressive spenders in free agency, signing big-money players such as Alan Faneca, Calvin Pace and Bart Scott. Well, those days appear over. It's not getting much pub right now, what with all the talk about Mark Sanchez's knees, but the new free-agency rules will have a dramatic impact on the Jets. By reaching the divisional round, and then the championship game, they will fall under the "Final Eight Rule." Welcome to the world of labor unrest. Under the current CBA, which means an uncapped year in 2010, the Jets will go into the offseason with one hand tied behind their back. Here's an explanation of the restrictions, straight from the NFL: "During the Final League Year, the eight clubs that make the Divisional Playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign unrestricted free agents from other clubs. In general, the four clubs participating in the championship games are limited in the number of free agents that they may sign; the limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. They cannot sign any UFAs unless one of theirs is signed by another team. "For the four clubs that lost in the Divisional Playoffs, in addition to having the ability to sign free agents based on the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs, they may also sign players based on specific financial parameters. Those four only will be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $5.5 million (estimated) or more in year one of the contract, plus the number of their UFAs who sign with another team. They also can sign any unrestricted free agents for less than $3.7 (estimated) million in year one of the contract with limitations on the per year increases. "In the case of all final eight teams, the first year salary of UFAs they sign to replace those lost cannot exceed the first year salary of the player lost with limitations on the per year increases." Translation: The Jets can't sign a UFA like Julius Peppers. They don't have any UFAs that will draw big money on the open market, meaning they can't spend big money. The Jets' most prominent UFAs are FB Tony Richardson, TE Ben Hartsock, DE Marques Douglas and PK Jay Feely. For example: If Feely signs a one-year deal with the Giants for $2 million, the Jets can go out and get a UFA for no more than $2 million in the first year. The "Final Eight Rule" doesn't apply to players that get cut. For example: If the Patriots cut LB Adalius Thomas, the Jets can sign him for as much as they want. I have a feeling the pool of released players will have more intriguing names than usual. With no salary cap, teams can dump big-money players without having to worry about cap ramifications. * * * Here's a quick analysis of Tannenbaum's state-of-the-union address yesterday, breaking it down by individual player: * Thomas Jones: The two sides are in different ballparks. You have to figure that Jones wants a contract extension, coming off a career year. But it sounds like the Jets don't want to dole out that $3 million signing bonus. I'd say it's 50-50 that Jones returns. * Vernon Gholston: Tannenbaum says they've decided to keep him. I almost fell out of my chair when he said there's no objective data that suggests Gholston isn't passionate about football. Throw out the data, Mike, just trust your eyes and ears. * Kerry Rhodes: Bizarre situation. The Jets now say they want him back, and they say there are no contractual issues (i.e. a proposed pay cut) in the way. So why does Rhodes need to have another sitdown with Rex Ryan? I think the Jets have presented a set of ground rules to Rhodes, demanding total commitment, and they're waiting on his response. It still wouldn't shock me if they trade him. * Braylon Edwards: He'll get the first- and third-round tender. Sounds like they really want him back. We'll take them at their word. * Kellen Clemens: He'll get a second-round tender (his draft round), but that doesn't mean he's back. Got the impression that Tannenbaum wants to add a backup with more experience. * Leon Washington: He'll get a tender, probably a second- or first-round tender. It sounds like he's ahead in his rehab schedule, but it might be a reach to say he's going to be 100% by next season. * Alan Faneca: The Jets want to keep the OL together, but they may try to come after some of Faneca's $7.5 million in salary. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/jets/2010/01/jets-face-severe-restrictions.html#ixzz0e1aJdcRJ
Wow, potentially only a 2nd round tender for Leon. Kinda hate to see some team sign away Leon, who goes on to star for them and us get just a 2nd in return. I mean they're offering Clemens a 2nd round tender for Revis' sake.
Like i said in a previous post, i'd like to see us become more of a team like the Pats have been. A team that gets FA's that are high motor productive guys and have our coaching staff get the best out of em.
This doesn't concern me that much. We don't have many gaping holes, other than a need for a serious passrusher and #2 CB. We can focus on the draft this year... depth along the OL and DL should be priority #1. We have a young football team for the most part.
totally different tenders. The lowest possible tender to an RFA would mean that any team who attempts to sign them away would need to give up a draft pick equal to the round the player was drafted in. Clemens was drafted in the second round while Leon was drafted in the 4th. So clemens sees the lowest tender, and a cheap-ish contract about 2 million (higher because he is a qb) Leon receives a medium-high tender which requires at least that compensation and my guess would be he gets just a touch over 2.5 million for it.
If anyone wants the full text of our FA limitations, we've been discussing the Final Eight Plan here: http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=53978
We don't have to immediately sign Clemens to a contract if he accepts the tender. In all likelihood, if no one else offers him a contract, he'll only be here for a one year deal. Using the excuse that he's somehow aiding Sanchez's development, I don't see them keeping him as a backup for more than a single season. At about $900k - $1 mil (will likely escalate a bit this season), that's a cheap deal to keep him here for one more season.
If a player is a RFA and does not get tendered, do the Jets have rights to sign them without losing anyone?
Nope. If a player from another team does not get tendered, that player immediately becomes a UFA. The only way we get to sign someone without losing a player of our own is if that player is waived OR if that player was on our team before reaching UFA status. We don't really have any lucrative UFAs though.
Not unless they lose an RFA first. Then, there is still compensation as I understand it. Basically, we will only be able to sign unrestricted FA's, and that pool of players is slim pickins, or a player who gets cut due to his salary, which could be a lucrative market, as teams can cut expensive players without regard to any kind of cap hit. T Jones could fall into this category. The Jets don't want to pay him 4 to 5 mil this year (the 6 mil figure you see being tossed around is obsolete, it's a cap number) so Jones could get cut. Tomlinson, MaGahee, and a couple of other RB's are likey to get cut. Those guys could be signed, but would likely cost as much, or more than just keeping Jones.
No, RFAs are completely open. We can sign as many RFAs as we like if we're willing to give the compensation due (in other words, we could sign one or two RFAs. It's unlikely, though). What he's talking about is if a guy is due to become an RFA and then doesn't get tendered by his team. At that point, that player becomes a UFA. We DO have restrictions on UFAs, and can only sign one when we lose one. The only free and open UFAs to us are those who were cut by their team, not guys who were due to hit free agency this season.
What has to be taken into analysis is that with transition tags + franchis tags + 6 years ona team to be defined a UFA = a lot less UFAs than you think. I'm cool with woking out guys cut by other teams (like we do every year) and focusing on acquiring more picks in the draft. With a CBA and a cap we still wouldn't have been able to sign another big name player...
Yep. The salary restriction is definitely the more interesting part as far as I'm concerned. All of this is more in response to the people who want one of the big name UFAs who IS available. I prefer the focus on guys who are likely cuts, as we don't face any sort of salary restriction. People need to forget about guys like Julius Peppers and focus on the solid players who clearly aren't going to see the end of their contracts this season.
