Mark80 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) It says s trade costs them $13.9mm not the $17.5 In your op. Also I've made clear that under my scenario Sanchez agrees to a cut of some kind tomake the ttrade happen which lowers the hit further. And it says the June 1 cut option lowers it further to $12.5mm. So if they can work out a deal to get it inside the $12.5mm option with hawks that could work. Both jets and Sanchez may view it as better than him farting around on the bench or inactive list while riding out the guarantee where the Jets are stuck paying him $8.25MM anyway It says AT LEAST $13.9 M. And even that number seems to be completely arbitrary on the authors part assuming a trading partner would take on $5M of the salary. If you read the entire article, you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't understand why you must be so stubborn on this. Also, it is against salary cap rules to agree to any cut on GAURANTEED money. That's why it's called GAURANTEED money, because it's GAURANTEED. Edited December 20, 2012 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 It says AT LEAST $13.9 M. And even that number seems to be completely arbitrary on the authors part assuming a trading partner would take on $5M of the salary. If you read the entire article, you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't understand why you must be so stubborn on this. Also, it is against salary cap rules to agree to any cut on GAURANTEED money. That's why it's called GAURANTEED money, because it's GAURANTEED. yeah dodo I get that. never said it wasn't, but that there are ways to restructure it amongst willing parties. Funny how your panties are all in a bunch at me, while being completely silent on the $17.5MM hard trade number tossed out that was completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) You're the man. I'm done bantering with you. You're not worth my time. You're cleary a far superior intellect and my efforts are futile. Congratulations. I'll remember that next time you post another ridiculous idea that makes no sense considering the reality of a situation and take the time to try and explain why in a courteous, constructive manner. Guess you missed the post of mine you quoted hours ago when I clearly stated that I was slightly mistaken in that the team that he was traded to would have to pay at least the league minimum salary and it would come out of the Jets money, but I guess it's easy to have selective reading when you're concentrating so hard on being a D.B.. Peace. Edited December 20, 2012 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Players agree to contract mods quite often when traded. Reuniting with coach carroll would be a strong incentive for him to make some concessions. he will have to do something cuz there aint no way Sakchez stays in NY at that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 NY daily news is reporting jets plan on trying to trade Sanchez in the off season. Seriously where us he going to go? Only coach and situation I see making sense us Carroll and Seattle. They're set on Wilson and could use an experienced backup. Carroll coached Sanchez at USC andwas openly critical of the silly tebow red zone substitution situation jets put him in this year. Going to Seattle gets him as far away from the hostile NY market as well. Sanchez to Seattle puts Flynn back on the market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The seahawks will trade Flynn either way. They're a cusp team that has a running qb, and we all know how long running qb's last in the NFL. They need to gamble on making a run next year, and teams will trade talent for Flynn's potential. I know what you're saying here - I always had thought that running QBs would never have successful careers in the NFL (barring a few exceptions - Steve Young comes to mind), but I'm backing off that thought for now. With the recent success of guys like Cam Newton, RG III, and Russell Wilson, we may be seeing a different trend. Now, I know those three haven't been in the NFL very long at all (two of them are rookies) and Newton has had a sub-par 2nd year, but I'm still going to wait and see how those three do over the next 2-3 years. I think the key is for them to become better pocket passers (a la Peyton Manning), which allows them to use their running ability. Michael Vick did this to an extent and has been pretty successful in his return - this injury-riddled, lack of a productive offensive line season aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny33 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I know what you're saying here - I always had thought that running QBs would never have successful careers in the NFL (barring a few exceptions - Steve Young comes to mind), but I'm backing off that thought for now. With the recent success of guys like Cam Newton, RG III, and Russell Wilson, we may be seeing a different trend. Now, I know those three haven't been in the NFL very long at all (two of them are rookies) and Newton has had a sub-par 2nd year, but I'm still going to wait and see how those three do over the next 2-3 years. I think the key is for them to become better pocket passers (a la Peyton Manning), which allows them to use their running ability. Michael Vick did this to an extent and has been pretty successful in his return - this injury-riddled, lack of a productive offensive line season aside. I'm curious as to why you didn't include Luck in the "running QB" category? He's probably more athletic than Wilson, and has five rushing TDs this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 arizona has been known to take on crazy contracts, jax, and kc are the teams needing a qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I know what you're saying here - I always had thought that running QBs would never have successful careers in the NFL (barring a few exceptions - Steve Young comes to mind), but I'm backing off that thought for now. With the recent success of guys like Cam Newton, RG III, and Russell Wilson, we may be seeing a different trend. Now, I know those three haven't been in the NFL very long at all (two of them are rookies) and Newton has had a sub-par 2nd year, but I'm still going to wait and see how those three do over the next 2-3 years. I think the key is for them to become better pocket passers (a la Peyton Manning), which allows them to use their running ability. Michael Vick did this to an extent and has been pretty successful in his return - this injury-riddled, lack of a productive offensive line season aside. Vick was successful for half a season in 2010. Has he really looked good after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Wasn't Carrol extremely critical of Sancheze when he left USC for the NFL? I rememeber him saying Mark wasn't ready and eneded more work. It seems he was right. I dont think Carroll wants anything to do with Sancheese - because he knew he sucked long before anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 This thread rules. Mark80 dropped some knowledge and the six pack got stubborn and decided to believe his own fantasy where cap hits are not necessarily real and Matt Flynn is supposed to scare opponents. Pretty much like every other ridiculous thread he starts. Yeah, Pete Carroll must be dying to get Mark Sanchez to sit on his bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Only way the Seahawks take Sanchez off the Jets hands in a trade is if Flynn has shown he is completly incapable of playing football in the NFL, or Rex and the jets have photos of Caroll shower at Penn State with Sandusky. Caroll may have coached Mark in College, but the guy isn't running a charity to help out his former players. If Flynn is as good as everyone thinks, why would he move him out so he can try and fix Sanchez and have to give up something to get him? Only Scenerio I see where Seattle picks up sanchez is if at the end of the season, Flynn demands a trade to be a starter, and teh jets release Sanchez making him a free agent able to sign anywhere he wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I don't really get the logic in this thread. It seems everyone agrees Flynn has more upside than Sanchez, yet you all seem to think Seattle would be willing to trade for him and let Flynn go and pay Sanchez more money than Flynn on top of that? How does that make any sense for Seattle? They already have Flynn at a reasonable deal, there is no reason to go get Sanchez and pay him more money than Flynn. None of what is being proposed in this thread will happen in terms of trading for Sanchez by Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) If they cut him it's $17 mil, if they trade him it's $8 mil, plus the rumors are that the Jet's would pay for part of next years salary so maybe the $8 mil jumps up to around $10 mil. I really don't see Seattle as even if the Jet's were to pay for $2 or even $3 mil of his salary, he'd still get another five or six mil which no team would pay that much for a backup. dude... Jets take a $17.5M cap hit if they do that. Aint gonna happen. Edited December 20, 2012 by Ed_Roch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 flynn's just as crappy as fitz IMO. no thanks. I don't see why Sanchez would want to go sit behind the phenom known as Russell Wilson. Everything I have heard states Sanchez will definetly be back with Jets as the $$$ behind the scenes makes it almost impossible to deal or cut him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I'm curious as to why you didn't include Luck in the "running QB" category? He's probably more athletic than Wilson, and has five rushing TDs this year. Not saying that Luck isn't athletic, but I think a lot of his rushing TDs are from within the 5 yard line - things like bootlegs or his scrambles when the protection breaks down. For the most part, I've seen called rushing plays for Newton, Griffin, and Wilson, but not nearly as many for Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 On Sanchez: "His football IQ is ... well ... not very good." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny33 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Seattle would have zero interest in Sanchez in a backup QB, even at 1/4 his current cap cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanCity Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Hello all. I live in the PNW and follow Seattle pretty closely. Trading Flynn for Sanchez is a ridiculous idea. They still like Flynn, it's just that Russell is a major revelation. Although Sanchez and Pete have history, Flynn comes at a far lower cost and has taken a lot less hits. He is a far more reliable back-up at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I don't really get the logic in this thread. It seems everyone agrees Flynn has more upside than Sanchez, yet you all seem to think Seattle would be willing to trade for him and let Flynn go and pay Sanchez more money than Flynn on top of that? How does that make any sense for Seattle? They already have Flynn at a reasonable deal, there is no reason to go get Sanchez and pay him more money than Flynn. None of what is being proposed in this thread will happen in terms of trading for Sanchez by Seattle. Hello all. I live in the PNW and follow Seattle pretty closely. Trading Flynn for Sanchez is a ridiculous idea. They still like Flynn, it's just that Russell is a major revelation. Although Sanchez and Pete have history, Flynn comes at a far lower cost and has taken a lot less hits. He is a far more reliable back-up at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts