ESPN Sources: Jones to become free agent
Johnny Morongo
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
Updated: February 27, 2010, 9:40 PM ET
By Adam Schefter
ESPN.com
New York Jets running back Thomas Jones will not restructure his
contract and will be released this week, sources told ESPN on Saturday.
Jones, who will become a free agent on March 5, was slated to receive a
$3 million roster bonus March 9 and a $2.8 million base salary in 2010.
Jones, who has played the last three seasons for the Jets, rushed for
1,402 yards and 14 touchdowns on 331 carries last season. The Jets
reached the AFC Championship game.
Jones has 9,217 career rushing yards in 10 seasons with the Jets,
Arizona Cardinals, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Chicago Bears.
Ray O'Hara
"Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
news:v5adnV6XE_G...@giganews.com...
it males you wonder why players bother with more than 1 year cotrascts, the
teams never honor them.
1400 yards is a good year by any standard yet the team came looking for
money back from him.
and it's not just the J.E.S.T every team does it.
the coming CBA fight will be nasty.
Demetrios
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> Did anyone NOT see this coming?
>
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>
Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace him,
or are we only able to replace players who are signed away from us as
UFAs, instead of being cut?
These new nutcrunchers are very confusing.
If it counts for these purposes, then this may be a move to allow us
an opportunity to sign someone else, or get the space out to be able
to be in the market for a decent UFA. This would allow us to sign
someone for a bit over $6 mil for the first year, which may be enough
to get whoever the Jets are targetting (although someone like Adalius
Thomas, if that's the case, would I believe be freely available if he
were cut).
It figures this stupid dumb rule that they impose would screw the Jets
as soon as it was out of the gate...
D.
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1a0lo59lkcnqineof...@4ax.com...
>
> In 3 years with the Jets TJ has averaged 310 carries per year and 4.1
> yards per carry while starting all 16 games each year. He has fumbled 2
> times each year and lost only 1 fumble in all 3 years combined. (By way
> of comparison, this year alone Shonn Greene lost 3 fumbles, and Maroney
> lost 4). Jones is coming off his best year as a pro and is in great
> physical condition. Nope, can't find room for a guy like that on your
> roster. Think Belichick might be interested?
>
> I blame things like this on the players' union's refusal for years to
> allow a rookie pay scale. You can't re-sign a productive veteran at a
> reasonable pay increase when you have to allow for the tens of millions
> of guaranteed dollars wasted on a flop like Gholston. I don't know why
> the veterans can't understand this.
> --
> graybeard
I'd take him here in N.E.
Ray O'Hara
"graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:16:20 -0500 "Ray O'Hara"
> running back left on their roster.
> --
> graybeard
LT was done. and the Chargette fans think Sproles might be re-signed.
but they do need fresh blood.
I still never understood SD firing Schotty Sr. just to hire his clone in
Norv.
Michael
uncapped year my ass...
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a21e3b6f-570c-4cd4...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
uncapped year my ass...
What this really indicates is the Jets will re-enter mediocrity, just when
they were on the edge of breaking out of it. You simply can not let someone
who had that level of production slide by. Now, I KNOW I'll get flamed by a
lot of economists who do all the number things, and that's fine, they can
watch the team lose some more and feel good about it because they have great
cap numbers, didn't overpay anybody, made sound business deals or whatever.
If you want to win...you find a way to keep the good players who make it
possible for you to win. I have serious doubts that Greene will have the
durability that TJ does. And...if you remember I have been a critic of TJ.
I believed he was played too much at time when Washington should have been
on the field. But when they went to a solid run offense, he did the job,
when they got blocking straightened out he did the job...and he is tough, he
doesn't break. I really think it is a mistake to not try somehow to keep
him.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
i agree... they should have found a way to keep him. who know's what
leon will be like and who knows if green can stand the pounding like
jones can
Remy McSwain
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmct5a$7g9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in
> message news:v5adnV6XE_G...@giganews.com...
>> Did anyone NOT see this coming?
>>
>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>>
>> Updated: February 27, 2010, 9:40 PM ET
>> By Adam Schefter
>> ESPN.com
>>
>> New York Jets running back Thomas Jones will not restructure his
>> contract and will be released this week, sources told ESPN on
>> Saturday.
>>
>> Jones, who will become a free agent on March 5, was slated to
>> receive a $3 million roster bonus March 9 and a $2.8 million base
>> salary in 2010.
>>
>> Jones, who has played the last three seasons for the Jets, rushed
>> for 1,402 yards and 14 touchdowns on 331 carries last season. The
>> Jets reached the AFC Championship game.
>>
>> Jones has 9,217 career rushing yards in 10 seasons with the Jets,
>> Arizona Cardinals, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Chicago Bears.
>
>
> it males you wonder why players bother with more than 1 year
> cotrascts, the teams never honor them.
That's a common perception, but it's wrong. In exchange for a
signing bonus, the player agreed to a contract which allows the team
to cut the player in accordance with the terms of that contract.
The player, and his agent, both knew that the team could cut him
before this season given the very high salary and roster bonuses
that they negotiated into the contract. This way, he gets to keep
all of the bonus, but is also a free agent. What really good player
doesn't want free agency?
Any player can get a guaranteed contract if he wants one, but why
would he want to wait to get paid the guaranteed money when he can
have it up front in a signing bonus?
> 1400 yards is a good year by any standard yet the team came
> looking for money back from him.
> and it's not just the J.E.S.T every team does it.
>
> the coming CBA fight will be nasty.
Yes, it will, but not because of how contracts are structured.
It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are making
money hand over fist, and not giving the players their fair share of
it.
Johnctx
Do agents get paid on the total contract or just what is paid?
Johnctx
NO NO NO, please don't do this. Woody you cheap bastard.
Johnctx
Good question, but my guess is no. We turned him into an UFA. We can
sign guys like this all day so logic tells me that he would not allow us
to sign an UFA because of Jones.
Anyone?
Johnctx
> It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are making
> money hand over fist, and not giving the players their fair share of
> it.
They are making money had over fist.
The TV money pays the operations of the club everything. Then take 10
games x 73,000 x $75.00 = $54.75 MM. Then add in suites, local
sponsorship, parking concessions. Add onto that the fact pro sports &
Hollywood have the greatest tax write offs (along with silicon valley) &
you have a great return.
Remy McSwain
"Demetrios" <hesti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71ce1348-e260-4e61...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 10:29 pm, Johnny Morongo
> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>> Did anyone NOT see this coming?
>>
>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>>
>
> Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace
> him, or are we only able to replace players who are signed away
> from us as UFAs, instead of being cut?
> Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace
> him, or are we only able to replace players who are signed away
> from us as UFAs, instead of being cut?
Any team can sign any free agent they wish as long as the total
allowable number of players on the roster, or the salary cap, are
not exceeded.
> These new nutcrunchers are very confusing.
>
> If it counts for these purposes, then this may be a move to
> allow us an opportunity to sign someone else, or get the space
> out to be able to be in the market for a decent UFA. This would
> allow us to sign someone for a bit over $6 mil for the first
> year, which may be enough to get whoever the Jets are targetting
> (although someone like Adalius Thomas, if that's the case, would
> I believe be freely available if he were cut).
>
> It figures this stupid dumb rule that they impose would screw
> the Jets as soon as it was out of the gate...
I don't know what that means.
Remy McSwain
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:3e2dnexIgIrhQRbW...@giganews.com...
Theoretically, there's no cap, but the reality is that most teams
are operating under the assumption that there will be a cap, and so
they don't want to put themselves in a position to be strangled by
what they do right now.
Remy McSwain
IIRC, the players get at least 60% of the total, pre-tax, gross
revenues. As to the "write-offs" to which you refer, what are
those, and how do they differ from any other business?
The real issue comes down to what should be included in gross
revenue. Should appreciation of the value of NFL franchises be
included? Should appreciation of facilities? Clearly, the owners
are making money. Clearly, it takes profits to entice that kind of
risk capital investment so that everyone can benefit. So how much
is too much for the owners, and how much is too much for then
players?
It makes for an interesting debate.
Johnctx
That makes some sense but we have very few $ allocated toward RB as Leon
is cheap as is Greene.
Johnctx
> "Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
> news:CeadnfsPqfbTQxbW...@giganews.com...
>>> Yes, it will, but not because of how contracts are structured.
>>> It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are
>>> making money hand over fist, and not giving the players their
>>> fair share of it.
>>
>> They are making money had over fist.
>>
>>
>> The TV money pays the operations of the club everything. Then
>> take 10 games x 73,000 x $75.00 = $54.75 MM. Then add in suites,
>> local sponsorship, parking concessions. Add onto that the fact
>> pro sports & Hollywood have the greatest tax write offs (along
>> with silicon valley) & you have a great return.
>
> IIRC, the players get at least 60% of the total, pre-tax, gross
> revenues. As to the "write-offs" to which you refer, what are
> those, and how do they differ from any other business?
They can expense & then depreciate player's salaries. They also have
preferential treatment on depreciation on the purchase of the team.
Here is an older article but it gives you a sense of some of teh BS:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002911235_ownertaxes05m.html
>
> The real issue comes down to what should be included in gross
> revenue. Should appreciation of the value of NFL franchises be
> included? Should appreciation of facilities? Clearly, the owners
> are making money. Clearly, it takes profits to entice that kind of
> risk capital investment so that everyone can benefit. So how much
> is too much for the owners, and how much is too much for then
> players?
>
> It makes for an interesting debate.
>
>
I am not saying the owner's don't deserve t make a profit. I am just
saying they are.
Johnctx
> "Demetrios" <hesti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:71ce1348-e260-4e61...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 27, 10:29 pm, Johnny Morongo
>> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>>> Did anyone NOT see this coming?
>>>
>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>>>
>> Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace
>> him, or are we only able to replace players who are signed away
>> from us as UFAs, instead of being cut?
>> Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace
>> him, or are we only able to replace players who are signed away
>> from us as UFAs, instead of being cut?
>
> Any team can sign any free agent they wish as long as the total
> allowable number of players on the roster, or the salary cap, are
> not exceeded.
The top 4 teams can only replace UFA so the Jets, Saints, Vikings &
Colts can't sign one until they lose one & only for the amount the
previous player signed for & not more. Cutting a player doesn't help --
I think. The top 8 or 5-8 are restricted as well.
>
>> These new nutcrunchers are very confusing.
>>
>> If it counts for these purposes, then this may be a move to
>> allow us an opportunity to sign someone else, or get the space
>> out to be able to be in the market for a decent UFA. This would
>> allow us to sign someone for a bit over $6 mil for the first
>> year, which may be enough to get whoever the Jets are targetting
>> (although someone like Adalius Thomas, if that's the case, would
>> I believe be freely available if he were cut).
>>
>> It figures this stupid dumb rule that they impose would screw
>> the Jets as soon as it was out of the gate...
>
> I don't know what that means.
see above
>
>
Remy McSwain
Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> mused:
Whether the Jets are spending enough on RB isn't any indication of
whether or not they are being cheap. To come to that conclusion,
you'd have to look at total spending.
Remy McSwain
> Remy McSwain wrote:
>> "Demetrios" <hesti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:71ce1348-e260-4e61...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 27, 10:29 pm, Johnny Morongo
>>> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>>>> Did anyone NOT see this coming?
>>>>
>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>>>>
>>> Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace
>>> him, or are we only able to replace players who are signed away
>>> from us as UFAs, instead of being cut?
>>> Here's my question: does this allow us to sign a UFA to replace
>>> him, or are we only able to replace players who are signed away
>>> from us as UFAs, instead of being cut?
>>
>> Any team can sign any free agent they wish as long as the total
>> allowable number of players on the roster, or the salary cap, are
>> not exceeded.
>
> The top 4 teams can only replace UFA so the Jets, Saints, Vikings
> & Colts can't sign one until they lose one & only for the amount
> the previous player signed for & not more. Cutting a player
> doesn't help --
> I think. The top 8 or 5-8 are restricted as well.
I stand corrected. Forgot about the new uncapped season rules.
Remy McSwain
> Remy McSwain wrote:
>> "Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
>> news:CeadnfsPqfbTQxbW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Yes, it will, but not because of how contracts are structured.
>>>> It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are
>>>> making money hand over fist, and not giving the players their
>>>> fair share of it.
>>>
>>> They are making money had over fist.
>>>
>>>
>>> The TV money pays the operations of the club everything. Then
>>> take 10 games x 73,000 x $75.00 = $54.75 MM. Then add in
>>> suites, local sponsorship, parking concessions. Add onto that
>>> the fact pro sports & Hollywood have the greatest tax write offs
>>> (along with silicon valley) & you have a great return.
>>
>> IIRC, the players get at least 60% of the total, pre-tax, gross
>> revenues. As to the "write-offs" to which you refer, what are
>> those, and how do they differ from any other business?
>
> They can expense & then depreciate player's salaries.
All businesses expense salaries.
> They also have preferential treatment on depreciation on the
> purchase of the team.
>
> Here is an older article but it gives you a sense of some of teh
> BS:
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002911235_ownertaxes05m.html
I agree that there's BS there, but the way that the author keeps
bouncing back and forth among the various issues he raises, I just
wonder how much of it he's got right. Hell, most sports reporters
who follow the NFL have no idea that as long as a team is spending
consistently up to the cap, they can't possibly be accused of being
cheap..
But players take full advantage of whatever tax rules they can as
well.
>>
>> The real issue comes down to what should be included in gross
>> revenue. Should appreciation of the value of NFL franchises be
>> included? Should appreciation of facilities? Clearly, the
>> owners are making money. Clearly, it takes profits to entice
>> that kind of risk capital investment so that everyone can
>> benefit. So how much is too much for the owners, and how much is
>> too much for then players?
>>
>> It makes for an interesting debate.
>
> I am not saying the owner's don't deserve t make a profit. I am
> just saying they are.
I'm not sure that anyone has argued that they do not.
Johnctx
You are the only one anticipating a capped year. When in the history of
union negotiations have things ever gotten done early?
OK, how about this I think the $3MM is a smart insurance policy. Jones
showed little slowdown this year. If, like happened to us in Mangini's
first year when we traded for Barlow & someone desperately needs a RB,
we can always trade him. If not it is no too much to spend to have
three good RB's. Jones has proven himself to be on of our only RB's
--haven't noticed Greeene's ability-- to pick up the blitz.
If they release him I am screaming cheap.
Johnctx
> "Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
> news:WdGdnQhtjMFibhbW...@giganews.com...
>> Remy McSwain wrote:
>>> "Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:CeadnfsPqfbTQxbW...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Yes, it will, but not because of how contracts are structured.
>>>>> It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are
>>>>> making money hand over fist, and not giving the players their
>>>>> fair share of it.
>>>> They are making money had over fist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The TV money pays the operations of the club everything. Then
>>>> take 10 games x 73,000 x $75.00 = $54.75 MM. Then add in
>>>> suites, local sponsorship, parking concessions. Add onto that
>>>> the fact pro sports & Hollywood have the greatest tax write offs
>>>> (along with silicon valley) & you have a great return.
>>> IIRC, the players get at least 60% of the total, pre-tax, gross
>>> revenues. As to the "write-offs" to which you refer, what are
>>> those, and how do they differ from any other business?
>> They can expense & then depreciate player's salaries.
>
> All businesses expense salaries.
I can't do both and that was the point.
>
>> They also have preferential treatment on depreciation on the
>> purchase of the team.
>>
>> Here is an older article but it gives you a sense of some of teh
>> BS:
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002911235_ownertaxes05m.html
>
> I agree that there's BS there, but the way that the author keeps
> bouncing back and forth among the various issues he raises, I just
> wonder how much of it he's got right. Hell, most sports reporters
> who follow the NFL have no idea that as long as a team is spending
> consistently up to the cap, they can't possibly be accused of being
> cheap..
The cap is not equal to cash.
Cheap is only when you cut players that would marginally decrease your
profitability and that player could have helped you. If we had crystall
balls we would own teams.
>
> But players take full advantage of whatever tax rules they can as
> well.
>
>>> The real issue comes down to what should be included in gross
>>> revenue. Should appreciation of the value of NFL franchises be
>>> included? Should appreciation of facilities? Clearly, the
>>> owners are making money. Clearly, it takes profits to entice
>>> that kind of risk capital investment so that everyone can
>>> benefit. So how much is too much for the owners, and how much is
>>> too much for then players?
>>>
>>> It makes for an interesting debate.
>> I am not saying the owner's don't deserve t make a profit. I am
>> just saying they are.
>
> I'm not sure that anyone has argued that they do not.
>
I think you started out by saying :
<<Yes, it will, but not because of how contracts are structured.
It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are making
money hand over fist, and not giving the players their fair share of
it. >>
The owner's are making money hand over fist. The owner's like
overpaying some rookies because it is cheaper than paying proven
veterans. Fans don't like to lose their stars so losing a Leon
Washington to FA is tougher than overpaying Gholston.
Remy McSwain
I've given no predictions about whether or not next year will be
capped. I said that I think most teams are thinking that way.
> OK, how about this I think the $3MM is a smart insurance policy.
> Jones showed little slowdown this year. If, like happened to us
> in Mangini's first year when we traded for Barlow & someone
> desperately needs a RB, we can always trade him. If not it is no
> too much to spend to have three good RB's. Jones has proven
> himself to be on of our only RB's --haven't noticed Greeene's
> ability-- to pick up the blitz.
>
> If they release him I am screaming cheap.
IIRC, the $3MM is only the roster bonus. They'd also have to pay
his $2.8MM salary. If the Jets then pocket that money, no matter
what, then I'd agree, but I think it's more likely they think that
$5.8MM would be better spent elsewhere. Maybe they're right, and
maybe not, but that's different than being cheap. Let's wait and
see how much they spend compared to other teams before we go there.
Remy McSwain
Ultimately, it is. All money counted against the cap by any given
team in any given year is actually spent, and goes in the player's
pockets. It is true that some money counted against the cap in one
year was actually spent in a previous year, and that some money
spent in a year won't count against the cap until some future year,
but all of that money was, indeed, spent.
> Cheap is only when you cut players that would marginally decrease
> your profitability and that player could have helped you. If we
> had crystall balls we would own teams.
Cheap is when a team doesn't consistently spend up to the cap. When
they do consistently spend up to the cap, then they've spent as much
as they can, and any money saved by cutting one player goes into
another player's pocket.
>> But players take full advantage of whatever tax rules they can as
>> well.
>>
>>>> The real issue comes down to what should be included in gross
>>>> revenue. Should appreciation of the value of NFL franchises be
>>>> included? Should appreciation of facilities? Clearly, the
>>>> owners are making money. Clearly, it takes profits to entice
>>>> that kind of risk capital investment so that everyone can
>>>> benefit. So how much is too much for the owners, and how much
>>>> is too much for then players?
>>>>
>>>> It makes for an interesting debate.
>>> I am not saying the owner's don't deserve t make a profit. I
>>> am just saying they are.
>>
>> I'm not sure that anyone has argued that they do not.
>
> I think you started out by saying :
>
> <<Yes, it will, but not because of how contracts are structured.
> It'll be nasty because of the perception that the owners are
> making
> money hand over fist, and not giving the players their fair share
> of
> it. >>
Yes, that's right. I didn't mean to imply that their perception is
wrong. It might be right, and it might be wrong.
> The owner's are making money hand over fist. The owner's like
> overpaying some rookies because it is cheaper than paying proven
> veterans. Fans don't like to lose their stars so losing a Leon
> Washington to FA is tougher than overpaying Gholston.
Again, as long as the teams are spending virtually all of the cap
money, then how that breaks down between vets and rookies is
irrelevant. Of much more relevance is how much of the total gross
is being paid to the players.
Johnctx
I am saying they are not. Maybe they are taking advantage of the fact
there is no floor either. I don't think they are throwing caution to
the wind & betting the bank there is no cap. I think they are working
under the assumption there will be one again.
Jones doesn't affect the future.
>
>> OK, how about this I think the $3MM is a smart insurance policy.
>> Jones showed little slowdown this year. If, like happened to us
>> in Mangini's first year when we traded for Barlow & someone
>> desperately needs a RB, we can always trade him. If not it is no
>> too much to spend to have three good RB's. Jones has proven
>> himself to be on of our only RB's --haven't noticed Greeene's
>> ability-- to pick up the blitz.
>>
>> If they release him I am screaming cheap.
>
> IIRC, the $3MM is only the roster bonus. They'd also have to pay
> his $2.8MM salary. If the Jets then pocket that money, no matter
> what, then I'd agree, but I think it's more likely they think that
> $5.8MM would be better spent elsewhere. Maybe they're right, and
> maybe not, but that's different than being cheap. Let's wait and
> see how much they spend compared to other teams before we go there.
>
>
When the league commissioner verbalizes that in all likelihood there
will be an uncapped season then I think the hope of a settlemeni is
non-existent. The owners like the current agreement, i.e.no cap. How
many RFA will be affected by this? If it extends to next year twice as
many as most. So the most expensive FA's, those that are 25-27 years
old, & never got a big pay day, are kept way below market.
papa.carl44
And I'm behind you screaming cheap AND STUPID...he picks up the blitz, he
doesn't break after more than a dozen carries and he is consistent. They
have no idea how Washington will be, and Greene did not prove he won't be
one of those guys that spends half a season sidelined. The running game got
them where they went this season, they need to respect that.
Ray O'Hara
knowing agents they probably get paid on the total and up front.
Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> > Remy McSwain wrote:
> >> Innews:k-udnX1nC6nDchbW...@giganews.com,
>
> - Show quoted text -
given what jones has done for the team, it is so stupid and
disrespectful to let him walk, i almost hope they wind up paying for
it. 6 mil for one of the most productive and durable backs in the
league is not too high of a price. give faneca 32 million but run off
jones for 6 million ??? a lot of time times i just dont get where they
are coming from. guess that is why i am not an nfl gm
papa.carl44
I think the real story is that is why they never get it done....they can't
take the team development to the next level. They always lose key players.
How many times have you watched some team and notice all the ex-Jets playing
like all-pros...and often who did become all-pros? It is way more than it
should be
Johnny Morongo
31 teams just breathed a sigh of relief. There is a spot open in
Oakland though.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
oakland is beyond help until the crypt keeper steps down. not even a
serious piece of football man power such as mysel could offset that
obsticle. if you went over there you could compete with al for the
most interesting body odor. just bathe baby...
Johnny Morongo
Be very careful what you say to me, Michael. I'll sic BuRf on you.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
he smells worse than you do ?
Remy McSwain
You also said that I was the only one anticipating a capped year, and I'm
only saying that I'm not doing that at all, and that I nver said anything of
the kind.
> Maybe they are taking advantage of the fact there is no floor either. I
> don't think they are throwing caution to the wind & betting the bank there
> is no cap. I think they are working under the assumption there will be one
> again.
I agree.
> Jones doesn't affect the future.
But he will cost $5.8MM.
>>> OK, how about this I think the $3MM is a smart insurance policy. Jones
>>> showed little slowdown this year. If, like happened to us in Mangini's
>>> first year when we traded for Barlow & someone desperately needs a RB,
>>> we can always trade him. If not it is no too much to spend to have
>>> three good RB's. Jones has proven himself to be on of our only
>>> RB's --haven't noticed Greeene's ability-- to pick up the blitz.
>>>
>>> If they release him I am screaming cheap.
>>
>> IIRC, the $3MM is only the roster bonus. They'd also have to pay his
>> $2.8MM salary. If the Jets then pocket that money, no matter what, then
>> I'd agree, but I think it's more likely they think that $5.8MM would be
>> better spent elsewhere. Maybe they're right, and maybe not, but that's
>> different than being cheap. Let's wait and see how much they spend
>> compared to other teams before we go there.
>
> When the league commissioner verbalizes that in all likelihood there will
> be an uncapped season then I think the hope of a settlemeni is
> non-existent. The owners like the current agreement, i.e.no cap. How
> many RFA will be affected by this? If it extends to next year twice as
> many as most. So the most expensive FA's, those that are 25-27 years old,
> & never got a big pay day, are kept way below market.
I'm not sure that the owners want the end of the cap. It's been the owners
who have been fighting for it all along. I don't know of one players union
that ever fought for a cap.
Johnctx
You said they are planning as if there will be a cap. I don't think they
are thinking about cap until next year & the year after.
>
>
>> Maybe they are taking advantage of the fact there is no floor either. I
>> don't think they are throwing caution to the wind & betting the bank there
>> is no cap. I think they are working under the assumption there will be one
>> again.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Jones doesn't affect the future.
>
> But he will cost $5.8MM.
No, he would have cost $3MM more if we didn't cut him. It is cheap
insurance.
>
>
>>>> OK, how about this I think the $3MM is a smart insurance policy. Jones
>>>> showed little slowdown this year. If, like happened to us in Mangini's
>>>> first year when we traded for Barlow & someone desperately needs a RB,
>>>> we can always trade him. If not it is no too much to spend to have
>>>> three good RB's. Jones has proven himself to be on of our only
>>>> RB's --haven't noticed Greeene's ability-- to pick up the blitz.
>>>>
>>>> If they release him I am screaming cheap.
>>> IIRC, the $3MM is only the roster bonus. They'd also have to pay his
>>> $2.8MM salary. If the Jets then pocket that money, no matter what, then
>>> I'd agree, but I think it's more likely they think that $5.8MM would be
>>> better spent elsewhere. Maybe they're right, and maybe not, but that's
>>> different than being cheap. Let's wait and see how much they spend
>>> compared to other teams before we go there.
>> When the league commissioner verbalizes that in all likelihood there will
>> be an uncapped season then I think the hope of a settlemeni is
>> non-existent. The owners like the current agreement, i.e.no cap. How
>> many RFA will be affected by this? If it extends to next year twice as
>> many as most. So the most expensive FA's, those that are 25-27 years old,
>> & never got a big pay day, are kept way below market.
>
> I'm not sure that the owners want the end of the cap. It's been the owners
> who have been fighting for it all along. I don't know of one players union
> that ever fought for a cap.
I never wrote the owners want to dump the cap completely I wrote they
like the current agreement. RFA's are cheaper than UFA. They are going
to double the number of them this year because Washington & Edward's
class get dumped in as UFA. Assuming #'s are equal, effectively UFA
will have tripled in numbers if no contract is obtained for season 2011.
Johnctx
LOL
Remy McSwain
Yes, "they", not me.
>>> Maybe they are taking advantage of the fact there is no floor either. I
>>> don't think they are throwing caution to the wind & betting the bank
>>> there is no cap. I think they are working under the assumption there
>>> will be one again.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> Jones doesn't affect the future.
>>
>> But he will cost $5.8MM.
>
> No, he would have cost $3MM more if we didn't cut him. It is cheap
> insurance.
If they do not cut him, they have to pay him a $3MM roster bonus, and a
$2.8MM base salary. If they cut him, they save that money.
They do not want the current agreement. It's their position that they can't
afford the current agreement. The NFLPA has said that they'd sign an
extension of the current agreement today.
> RFA's are cheaper than UFA. They are going to double the number of them
> this year because Washington & Edward's class get dumped in as UFA.
> Assuming #'s are equal, effectively UFA will have tripled in numbers if no
> contract is obtained for season 2011.
Yes, the owners would prefer a cap, but just not one that's this high.
However, they's prefer no cap to one which is as high as this one.
Johnctx
Remy I was referring to the interim agreement where in 2010 they will
have three draft classes tied up as RFA. How the owner's spend money
will tell you how much the like the system for 2010 & 2011.
I saw that about the union.
>
>> RFA's are cheaper than UFA. They are going to double the number of them
>> this year because Washington & Edward's class get dumped in as UFA.
>> Assuming #'s are equal, effectively UFA will have tripled in numbers if no
>> contract is obtained for season 2011.
>
> Yes, the owners would prefer a cap, but just not one that's this high.
> However, they's prefer no cap to one which is as high as this one.
>
>
They would prefer that everyone make 100K each. It is a negotiation &
they have the advantage what would you expect them to say?
Harlan Lachman
Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
As posted in another thread, I love this move.
harlan
Remy McSwain
> Remy McSwain wrote:
>>> I never wrote the owners want to dump the cap completely I wrote they
>>> like the current agreement.
>>
>> They do not want the current agreement. It's their position that they
>> can't afford the current agreement. The NFLPA has said that they'd sign
>> an extension of the current agreement today.
>
> Remy I was referring to the interim agreement where in 2010 they will have
> three draft classes tied up as RFA. How the owner's spend money will tell
> you how much the like the system for 2010 & 2011.
>
> I saw that about the union.
The owners want a salary cap, but a lower one. They do not want anything
else.
>>
>>> RFA's are cheaper than UFA. They are going to double the number of them
>>> this year because Washington & Edward's class get dumped in as UFA.
>>> Assuming #'s are equal, effectively UFA will have tripled in numbers if
>>> no contract is obtained for season 2011.
>>
>> Yes, the owners would prefer a cap, but just not one that's this high.
>> However, they's prefer no cap to one which is as high as this one.
>
> They would prefer that everyone make 100K each. It is a negotiation &
> they have the advantage what would you expect them to say?
I don't know where you've going with this anymore. It almost seems that
you're posting responses for the sake of it. My point was simply that a
team can only validly be judged as cheap after the dust settles, and we see
what they spend relative to other teams. IMO, they can't be judged as being
cheap on the basis of a one year, $5.8MM expense.
MZ
> "graybeard" <gray...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1a0lo59lkcnqineof...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:58:15 -0500 "Ray O'Hara"
>> <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
>>> news:v5adnV6XE_G...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>>>>
>>>> Updated: February 27, 2010, 9:40 PM ET
>>>> By Adam Schefter
>>>> ESPN.com
>>>>
>>>> New York Jets running back Thomas Jones will not restructure his
>>>> contract
>>>> and will be released this week, sources told ESPN on Saturday.
>>>>
>>>> Jones, who will become a free agent on March 5, was slated to receive a
>>>> $3
>>>> million roster bonus March 9 and a $2.8 million base salary in 2010.
>>>>
>>>> Jones, who has played the last three seasons for the Jets, rushed for
>>>> 1,402 yards and 14 touchdowns on 331 carries last season. The Jets
>>>> reached
>>>> the AFC Championship game.
>>>>
>>>> Jones has 9,217 career rushing yards in 10 seasons with the Jets,
>>>> Arizona
>>>> Cardinals, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Chicago Bears.
>>>
>>> the
>>> teams never honor them.
>>> 1400 yards is a good year by any standard yet the team came looking for
>>> money back from him.
>>> and it's not just the J.E.S.T every team does it.
>>>
>>> the coming CBA fight will be nasty.
>>
>> In 3 years with the Jets TJ has averaged 310 carries per year and 4.1
>> yards per carry while starting all 16 games each year. He has fumbled 2
>> times each year and lost only 1 fumble in all 3 years combined. (By way
>> of comparison, this year alone Shonn Greene lost 3 fumbles, and Maroney
>> lost 4). Jones is coming off his best year as a pro and is in great
>> physical condition. Nope, can't find room for a guy like that on your
>> roster. Think Belichick might be interested?
>>
>> I blame things like this on the players' union's refusal for years to
>> allow a rookie pay scale. You can't re-sign a productive veteran at a
>> reasonable pay increase when you have to allow for the tens of millions
>> of guaranteed dollars wasted on a flop like Gholston. I don't know why
>> the veterans can't understand this.
>> --
>> graybeard
>
> I'd take him here in N.E.
I wouldn't. NE already has power backs. I'd sooner they go after Leon.
MZ
> On Feb 27, 10:29 pm, Johnny Morongo
> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>> Did anyone NOT see this coming?
>>
>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4952941
>>
>> Updated: February 27, 2010, 9:40 PM ET
>> By Adam Schefter
>> ESPN.com
>>
>> New York Jets running back Thomas Jones will not restructure his
>> contract and will be released this week, sources told ESPN on Saturday.
>>
>> Jones, who will become a free agent on March 5, was slated to receive a
>> $3 million roster bonus March 9 and a $2.8 million base salary in 2010.
>>
>> Jones, who has played the last three seasons for the Jets, rushed for
>> 1,402 yards and 14 touchdowns on 331 carries last season. The Jets
>> reached the AFC Championship game.
>>
>> Jones has 9,217 career rushing yards in 10 seasons with the Jets,
>> Arizona Cardinals, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Chicago Bears.
>
>
> What this really indicates is the Jets will re-enter mediocrity, just when
> they were on the edge of breaking out of it. You simply can not let someone
> who had that level of production slide by. Now, I KNOW I'll get flamed by a
> lot of economists who do all the number things, and that's fine, they can
> watch the team lose some more and feel good about it because they have great
> cap numbers, didn't overpay anybody, made sound business deals or whatever.
> If you want to win...you find a way to keep the good players who make it
> possible for you to win. I have serious doubts that Greene will have the
> durability that TJ does. And...if you remember I have been a critic of TJ.
> I believed he was played too much at time when Washington should have been
> on the field. But when they went to a solid run offense, he did the job,
> when they got blocking straightened out he did the job...and he is tough, he
> doesn't break. I really think it is a mistake to not try somehow to keep
> him.
I agree with you. This move does not help them. TJ is still a very
productive player.
CaptMyng
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:11:02 -0500 MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> >Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> >> I'd take him here in N.E.
>
> >I wouldn't. NE already has power backs. I'd sooner they go after Leon.
>
> round picks. I'm surprised they haven't been mentioned as a suitor for
> Leon, but maybe the injury is scaring them off, or maybe BB just hates
> the idea of giving up draft picks to the Jets while simultaneously
> giving them the opening to sign another UFA.
> --
> graybeard
Or he's underwelmed with Leon's pass blocking skills :)
Harlan Lachman
<f6c95ff0-a6d5-4142...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
CaptMyng <dfu...@gmail.com> wrote:
And the Pats just resigned Kevin Faulk. (Instead?)
h
MZ
Yep. They really don't have any room on the roster for more running
backs this year. Next year is where they'll have to make a move. Three
guys over 30 (Faulk, Taylor, Morris), and Maroney will be a UFA I think
in '11.