E-Boland & Gang Green

"I was going to put up another beach picture (see yesterday's apparently quite popular post) but I don't want to be accused of pandering. "

You obviously don't sell newspapers for a living.

Pandering is fine..if it means we can see more of those pictures. Excellent choice!

How about you try pandering to the woman who read this blog...or maybe you've chased them away? Give me equal beefcake time or just stick to football!

Deb you get enough football players to look at please allow Erik to indulge us once in a while.

Erik I read you thought D'Brick looked "light on his feet", does that equate to still not having put on weight? One knock on him has been that he is a bad run blocker due to strength/size; I was hoping he could at least put on some weight after a couple of years and not be a liability in the ground game. His pass blocking is more important but he's been manhandled by some DEs. It's not too much to expect from the 4th overall that he be good in at least one facet?

Deb, what do you say we vote on it?

Erik, your blogging is great, and even better is the fact that you answer questions. Don't ever stop doing that, it puts you above the rest.

I'd like to bring up a point that sheets brought up last week that you responded to, but address more to it regarding Revis' contract.

You said that essentially that his contract is a 4 year 16 million deal. This is a complete disaster, as the guy picked 10th, Okoye got a 6 year 15.4 million dollar contract. So essentially the Jets held out for 6 years in order to pay Revis more for 4 years than they should have over a 6 year span? And on top of that, they can keep him for 6 by paying him an exorbitant amount? Carriker picked 1 spot ahead of Revis is being paid 3 million less for 1 more year of play (5 years, 12.8 million).

I don't for the life of me understand this, and have to keep assuming there must be something about this contract we don't know that benefits the Jets. Because the way it sounds, we basically played hardball in order to give him a worse deal than he would have gotten had we just gave him the normal contract at that spot. In other words, we held out to get killed in every aspect of this deal.

Please if you have more info on this deal you can tell us let us know. Its mind boggling.

dmb88886, I won't go through all the particulars of the contract again as you saw my previous answer regarding it but think of it like this: yes, the first four years of the contract are, without question, a lot of money. But if Revis develops into the shut-down corner he showed signs of being last season, the Jets will exercise their buyback for the last two years of the deal for about $6-8 million a season. Projecting ahead in regard to the market four years from now, those dollars will be considered a relative bargain for a premiere cornerback. So while the Jets are clearly overpaying now, toward the end of the contract they might be underpaying to a degree. There's obviously risk involved before they get to that point. And all that said, the construct of the deal is one that league-wide raised a lot of eyebrows. It will be interesting what kind of deal gets done with Gholston.

JETVET, Ferguson told me in April at an NFL event that he added some muscle to his upper body, so it looks like he added weight in the "right way." I might be overly optimistic about it but I really think he's going to benefit from being able to work with Faneca and, most important, Bill Callahan.

Deb, I appreciate you reading the blog and writing in. Trust me.
And I can tell you I won't sacrifice football news in order to post frivolous things but my attitude we can have both here. Have to have fun in this life. And based on your "beefcake time" comment, I'm guessing you agree.

And rj, I guess I set myself up for that one.

Hey Erik, not sure your logic about the Revis contract, but let me break it down even further. The pick before Revis (Carriker) received a 12.8 million, 5 year contract. The pick after Revis (Timmons) received a 12 million, 5 year contract. So for all intents and purposes, Revis had we not held out would have received a 12.4 million, 5 year contract. Now, he's being paid 16 million over the first 4 years. Let's say we exercise the option in the 5th year to compare to the other 5 year contracts. We're then paying him 22 million over 5 years. Basically, we're paying an extra 8.6 million for him in the first 5 years. Now, you're saying its to save money if he becomes an elite CB in free agency. Well since the 6th year buyback is 9 million, and we already paid an extra 8.6 million the first 5 years, that means we'd the market value average annual salary for elite CB's would need to be 17.6 million JUST to break even. And really that's not even cosidering the time value of money.

This is why there MUST be some facts we're missing, otherwise this has to be one of the worst contracts in the history of sports.

erik, your putting me to sleep. ps i get $

Mike, that's what I'm here for. For you especially.

dmb88886, I wasn't contending your point that the Jets overpaid on the Revis deal and this is the bottom line: they had to overpay in order to get the six-year contract Tannenbaum was fixated on getting. The deal, a 47-page contract, at the time it was signed was described as extremely "complicated," by both sides. I mention that because these contracts aren't made public - sources will disclose certain parts of them, but few people saw all 47 pages, for example, of that deal. So I'm sure there's some things in there that we don't know. Your overall point about overpaying I'm not debating, but I'll tell you you've made me curious enought to try and get some more info on it.

You people are giving me a headache.

Bottom line: If Revis turns into the real deal - and he seems to be just that - the Jets will have a guy under contract for longer than they would have at an affordable price in terms of future dollars. Boland is right about that.

Now, can we move on to some more salacious pictures, please?

LeCharles Bentley became available today from the Cleveland Browns.

If there was EVER somebody the NYJs should take a hard look at, it should be a guy that Crennel tried to RUN OFF and couldn't. The guy passed all their tests, recognized they were committed to somebody else at C, and asked to be released. They respected the guy enough to do what he asked.

Let's TAKE A LOOK IN PERSON, at the very least.

Mr. Boland, make that inquiry!

KeepChad&Kellen, do you want to replace Mangold with a guy who hasn't played in two years, or are you just thinking about increasing depth at that position or guard, where Bentley has played at a high level in the league as well? But he would probably command a price the Jets weren't interested in paying. Another interesting part about Bentley: He has the same agent as Chris Baker -- Jonathan Feinsod.

"Bottom line: If Revis turns into the real deal - and he seems to be just that - the Jets will have a guy under contract for longer than they would have at an affordable price in terms of future dollars. Boland is right about that."

Gridderbob, you're completely wrong. That's simply not true.

Listen, here is the deal. Here are the 2 differences. Plan A is what the Jets could have done:

Plan A: Sign him to a normal 5 year contract for 12.4 million. Then in year 6 they use this thing called the franchise tag on him.

Plan B: Jets sign him to a 6 year deal, if they exercise their options it will basically cost them an extra 17.6 million than it would have to sign him to a 5 year deal.

So the franchise tag for a CB would need to be 17.6 million in his 6th year JUST for the Jets to break even on this deal. There is no possible way this benefits the Jets at all. None. They have a 6th year with the franchise tag. So you're completely wrong about having him at an "affordable" price. There is no possible way in which the Jets benefit, and this might be the worst move i've ever seen a GM make in football. Again, there must be something we don't know about this deal.

Dear Erik,

I think that Bentley is a top notch OL. He can play either Center or Guard. He passed all Crennel's fitness tests with flying colors and was accepted back on the Browns before he asked for his release.

Bentley is just the high-quality OL we need. He should compete with everybody else on that line for a position, and may the best man win.

I don't believe Bentley would beat out Mangold, but I do think that the starting RG position is within his reach.

Dear Erik,

As far as Jonathan Feinsod, we're already stuck with him -- after all, apart from CB he is also Revis' agent as well.

Thanks Eric. I'm just suggesting some balance without losing the fun...one in a while (maybe not every day, that's what the Post is for!)

Jetvet, The football players pictured are not scantily clad...that's all I'M asking for...equal time. If I have to look at the scantily clad babes in order to get my Jets fix, then I want equal time! ;-)

Eric,
You're doing a MUCH better job than the previous bloggers. It's tough being a Jets fan up here in New England...really tough! How tough you ask? Try being the only Jets fan in a ski bar in Maine in Dec watching the Pats-Jets game. I actually had people coming up to me offering condolences. Didn't matter, I won my bet: I said the Jets would lose by 10 points or less! (I'm not stupid enough to bet that they would win!) I've taken an iceball to the back of my neck at Gillette (Foamy stadium) in Dec because I was rooting for Ben Graham's punts (the only thing TO root for in that game) (yes, the Pats fans actually threw an ice ball at a GIRL! Oh, and security thought it was funny...)

I love my Jets...so any news is welcome.

Now here's a question...what do you think about the NY teams swapping disgruntled tight ends? Shocky for Baker. Discuss.

KeepChad&Kellen, I know (and don't leave out Feinsod's partner, Neil Schwartz) but overall these guys represent so many different guys (they also represent OL Robert Turner on the Jets) one situation usually does not - though not always - spill over to another client's negotiations. I was just mentioning the coincidence is all.

Deb, haha. The rookie picture on the HOF post I made doesn't count for you? Different concept, I suppose. Anyway, tough job you have in NE it sounds like. Well, at least you'll always have spygate, though that probably has limits too. As for Shockey for Baker, there isn't much to discuss. There is NO chance, none, zero, zilch, of that happening. These two teams try at all costs to avoid doing deals with each other and that's on the small things, let alone the kind of blockbuster you're proposing. Deals as in trades and such, not stadiums, obviously.

Erik, why are you bothering arguing with a guy who wants to "keep Chad AND Kellen"? I had to post on this because there's too much fixation on the contracts of players who perform. We didn't have a good CB and there weren't any in free agency that we had a shot at getting last year. So what'd we do? We drafted one that we saw could turn into the shutdown corner that he is becoming (keep in mind, as a rookie he looked good enough to have made the probowl). Another thing to notice, this is going to be a crude and broad generalization but in the world it seems that there are essentially 4 types of people; people who perform to their best potential no matter what they get paid, people who perform solely at the potential level that is associated with the pay they receive, there's people who won't perform until they get paid a lot of money and then there's people who, as soon as you give them a ton of money, stop performing all together. An example of the latter who be D-Rob...the guy just stopped trying and working since he already got his pay day. Kerry Rhodes is an example of the 1st option which is exactly why the Jets gave him the huge pay day this offseason; the guy works for it. Finally, in terms of Revis, Rhodes, Revis, Coleman and Harris seemed to be the ONLY bright spots on our defense last year. Revis, a rookie, played out of his mind in comparison to other rookies and not only that the kid was making a huge pay day. What does that tell you? He's not going to sit around and get checks sent to him like D-Rob (and arguably Bryan Thomas last year)...the kid's going to work because he WANTS to perform at the level that he's getting paid to perform at. He is intrinsically motivated to do so and I'd assume the Jets saw this and realized they needed a long-term contract to keep him happy.

Cliff, like others, you're just not understanding the situation. Maybe i'm explaining it badly.

Let me try and simplify. No matter what the Jets did, (5 or 6 year contract), they still have Revis for 6 years. One part of it is a 5 year contract and then tagging the 6th year. The other is a 4 year contract and exercising options in years 5 and 6. Assuming they exercise those options, the tagged value for a franchise CB in year 6 would need to equal 17.6 million (an insane number highly unlikely) JUST for the jets to financially have broke even (not including the time value of money) by demanding this 6 year deal. Basically, the Jets are betting 2 things. 1) That Revis will be dominant enough to deserve the franchise tag, and that 2) That either the franchise cost for a CB or the annual market value for a CB in his 6th season will be more than 17.6 million. The 2nd part is so insanely unlikely. Again, from what the public knows of this contract, there's not a single part of it in any way you look at it that makes sense for the Jets, not even close.

But here's what you're not getting...you piss of a top CB who played incredibly on a defense that was so crappy last year by tagging him as a franchise player after, theoretically, 5 years of him playing well for us and you're bound to have a problem with his performance. You're not understanding where the rest of us are coming from; we understand they broke the bank for him, but I'd rather have him for 6 years and then tag him the 7th than have him for 4-5 and only tag him on the 6th. My personal feeling is that, given our HORRENDOUS CB group, paying as much as we are for Revis is well worth it. We wouldn't have gotten Pacman, we wouldn't have gotten Samuels, we wont be getting Lito either. Fact of the matter is, signing Revis and paying him the way we are was and is the best and only move we could've made. I support and understand that it is a ton of money, but you're also saying that Revis isn't worth it. From my personal position, having watched him last year, QBs thought twice before they threw to the guy Revis was on...I'm sure the Jets FO would make the same contract again in a heartbeat give then quality of CB that were available in FA last year and this year and the fact that Revis performed incredibly well with a crappy DL and being a rookie.

Cliff, again I have to say you're not quite understanding. You're acting like it was the contract we gave Revis or no CB at all. Which isn't the case. In fact, not sure why you're mentioning how good Revis is when it has NOTHING to do with the conversation. We could have had Revis for 5 years 12.4 million. It was a choice by the FO to hold out for a sixth year on the contract. The FO basically said "we'd rather pay an extra 8.6 million in the first 5 years than we have to, JUST so that we can pay you 9 million in year 6".

Also saying "I'd rather a 6 year contract and tag him in year 7" make no sense. Because we could have done the 5 year contract and tag him in years 6 and 7. There's no limit.

You can love Revis and realize this is one of the worst contracts ever. But don't misconstrue the facts there. Unless we're missing something, this is one of the most mind boggling contracts in sports. We basically chose to lose money for no reason, no net gain.

What's with all the arguing? It's like hanging out at Cimini's blog all over again...

I was under the impression that a player can only be tagged one year...which I believe is the correct version. It is for that reason that I said I understood why the FO did what they did so that we could lock a CB down for, with the Tag, 7 years....I don't see how paying him extra money to stay longer was any different from paying Samuels or Pacman HUGE money to come here...they made a preemptive strike and only time will tell if it was the right move. In case you guys haven't noticed, the CB FA market has never been a very deep one and its usually a battle that the Jets lose. Paying a player who you see to be a premier CB (time will tell if its true) so that you can keep them under contract for 6 years and tag them for the 7th is a great move as long as the player will perform at the required level. Franchise tags can only be applied for one year and sometimes the player if very disgruntled by the tag...if we pay the guy well through 6 years and in year 7 tag him, he'll be less likely to be pissed off about getting tagged and paid a LOT less than what he's worth.

You guys seem to be forgetting that, no matter what you may think about the "money value" of the contract, performance must be added into the equation. The contract would be mind-boggling if this guy was underperforming and we can't truly tell if he is or isn't right now, so having this discussion now is somewhat ludicrous.

short entry with a loooooooong jacket...discussion....

not worth arguing over guys, i must be wrong and you can disregard that last part...

this is one of the lessons i've learned in my relationship...just roll over and play dead. you know you may be right, but you're better off just agreeing...just we gotta realize that we've got the option of having Revis for 7 years instead of only 6 and if it cost an extra 17 mill it must've been an offer that the FO really wanted.

Cliff, one more post from you, and still you're just not getting it. The fact that you mention Samuel and Pacman just shows you don't get it because they have NOTHING to do with this conversation, besides that they play the same position as Revis. What in the world are you talking about? There's only 2 options here, and BOTH include having Revis, and BOTH are the same time. For some strange reason you're telling me its better to have paid an extra 5-10 million of wasted money to Revis for no reason. There's NOTHING else that will/would change about the situation.

And by the way, you're 100% wrong about the franchise tag. You can be tagged up to 3 years in a row as Walter Jones was, a record 3 times. If you don't believe me, wikipedia him.

Besides that, it also doesn't matter. We'd only use the franchise tag IF we couldn't sign him to a long term contract then, its a conservative worse case scenario for arguments sake. If we sign him to a long term deal, then we're even more screwed than I've already mentioned.

Not sure why this isn't getting through your skull, but we'd have Revis for the same amount of time no matter what, we're just betting that the franchise tag OR avg annual salary for a CB will be more than 17.6 million. Because if its only 17.6 million, we break even. And in case you didn't know, there's no chance the tag is 17.6 million by then. Its a complete debacle. I'm a big Tanny fan, so not sure why you're being so defensive for no reason.

Just want to offer a shoutout to "dmb88886" and "Cliff" for their long and winding arguments here. I've been having a touch of insomnia these days, and this stuff is far better than Ambien.

Cheers.

Well there you go, that was the whole reason I was making my argument for the FO...I was under the impression that the Franchise Tag was limited to one year per player in which case paying the extra money to guarantee an extra year would've made sense. Since I was wrong about that, I see the point that you both were bringing up.

On a side note, screw off Gridderbob, no need to read it if you don't want to.

Heathcliff:

And a Happy Father's Day to you, my friend!!

That's tomorrow, chief, but thanks.