Re: Faneca: never asked by Jets to take paycut...
Tutor
> According to Leberfeld...
>
> Alan Faneca on his salary perhaps being a factor in his release - "There was no asking for
> a pay-cut, but I was surprised, I was surprised. I heard the rumor a day or two before
> hand, and then it went down."
>
> *********
>
> When I first read this, kinda pissed me off a bit. Why not even try, especially since
> you're paying him anyway?
> But, after a minute... it actually reflects a realistic mindset by management, to me.
> Despite the whole media spin, and Rex's *we're going for a Super Bowl this year"
> proclamations (not that he wouldn't like it), the Faneca move shows me they weren't taken
> in, at all, by the *we were a game away from the Supe* mentality. Moreso, they're very
> cognizant of how far we DO have to go, to the next level.
> To compete longterm we have to get younger, and the uncapped year most likely provided an
> easier out capwise, if a new cap is implemented in the future.
> So, I no longer think it was about saving $2+ million, but about *youthifying* &
> strategizing possible future cap issues, especially with all the new contracts that are on
> the near horizon.
>
> As an aside, been reading a lot about UFA Donavan Warren. Sounds like a player... has a
> great attitude, and a huge chip on his shoulder to prove himself NFL caliber.
> We may have found a solid safety... or maybe not ;)
Sorry, but Alan Faneca is full of shit. He was telling people well
before "a day or two before it went down" that there was a good chance
he was going to get moved or cut after the draft. And this is a FACT.
Demetrios
> When I first read this, kinda pissed me off a bit. Why not even try, especially since
> you're paying him anyway?
> But, after a minute... it actually reflects a realistic mindset by management, to me.
> Despite the whole media spin, and Rex's *we're going for a Super Bowl this year"
> proclamations (not that he wouldn't like it), the Faneca move shows me they weren't taken
> in, at all, by the *we were a game away from the Supe* mentality. Moreso, they're very
> cognizant of how far we DO have to go, to the next level.
> To compete longterm we have to get younger, and the uncapped year most likely provided an
> easier out capwise, if a new cap is implemented in the future.
> So, I no longer think it was about saving $2+ million, but about *youthifying* &
> strategizing possible future cap issues, especially with all the new contracts that are on
> the near horizon.
>
I actually think it had nothing to do with money, and everything to do
with the fact that Faneca gave up more sacks than any other offensive
lineman in the NFL last season. If Faneca stays, it is tough to
replace a Pro Bowl (voted) player with a rookie or a second year 6th
round pick. Even though either of those two guys would probably be
better at protecting the Sanchise.
I mean, if one could easily get him into a backup role, he'd be good
insurance, sure. But I think it helps matters and rebuilds the
chemistry of the line to make a clean break, and not have him there in
the rear view mirror of whoever gets the job.
D.
Glenn Greenstein
I really dont agree with the last paragraph, there is nothing wrong
with creating competition.
Harlan Lachman
<29cf820e-d323-44a9...@24g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Demetrios <hesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
What he said.
h
Johnctx
> According to Leberfeld...
>
> Alan Faneca on his salary perhaps being a factor in his release - "There was no asking for
> a pay-cut, but I was surprised, I was surprised. I heard the rumor a day or two before
> hand, and then it went down."
>
> *********
>
> you're paying him anyway?
> But, after a minute... it actually reflects a realistic mindset by management, to me.
> Despite the whole media spin, and Rex's *we're going for a Super Bowl this year"
> proclamations (not that he wouldn't like it), the Faneca move shows me they weren't taken
> in, at all, by the *we were a game away from the Supe* mentality. Moreso, they're very
> cognizant of how far we DO have to go, to the next level.
> To compete longterm we have to get younger, and the uncapped year most likely provided an
> easier out capwise, if a new cap is implemented in the future.
> So, I no longer think it was about saving $2+ million, but about *youthifying* &
> strategizing possible future cap issues, especially with all the new contracts that are on
> the near horizon.
>
> great attitude, and a huge chip on his shoulder to prove himself NFL caliber.
> We may have found a solid safety... or maybe not ;)
buRf, of course they didn't ask him to take a pay cut because they knew
the answer.
The $5MM+ he was guaranteed was a moot point as restructuring doesn't
help in a non-cap season so that leaves $2.25 MM to discuss. His
replacement if a rookie was going to cost the NYJ $500K if a vet $1MM so
we are now down to $1.25 -1.75MM that they could negotiate and still
have savings. The Jets obviously knew what he would be worth on the
market as did he and his agent.
As for the clean break theory. Sorry that is just stupid this is not a
f###ing softball team. It is a team that is 40 years removed from a
Super Bowl. If you bring him to camp & he loses you either cut him or
you have a Pro Bowl guard on the bench. If he wins he is a better player.
I realize that someone felt Faneca's skill set limited what they could
do, especially in short yardage situations, but he could have been cheap
insurance.