Author Topic: Wilk Watch  (Read 21497 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Heismanberg

  • Global Moderator
  • Curtis Martin
  • *****
  • Posts: 48977
  • SAUCE
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2015, 12:05:03 PM »
Interesting article on Mo here, and spoiler: it isn't especially encouraging news for you if you invested in a #96 jersey.

http://overthecap.com/examining-muhammad-wilkersons-contract-situation-with-the-jets/

I think we're keeping him.  There are four or five contracts on the books next year that can be easily cut or restructured.

Cromartie, Marshall, Coples, and Gilchrist are all on non-guaranteed deals in 2016 that total about $28M.  Cro and Marsall will probably be restructured.  The other two will probably be gone.

Then there's Ferguson's deal that is worth $14M, but we can cut him and save $10M. 
He shook my hand breed tub and walked away

Johnny English

  • Administrator
  • Don Maynard
  • *****
  • Posts: 35868
  • Effort. Technique. Violence.
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2015, 12:08:37 PM »
It's not just about whether we can fit him into the cap though, it's about whether the front office can do a deal with him that matches their valuation of his importance to us as a player. I think the argument that he can earn more with someone else because their need for his skills is potentially greater than ours, assuming Williams turns out to be the player he's expected to be, is legitimate.

It may be that in a year's time under the new regime it looks and feels like we might be going places and Mo wants to be part of it, in which case he might well be prepared to take a team friendly deal. I wouldn't bank on it though.
A cross-dressing limey poofter

Badger

  • Global Moderator
  • Joe Namath
  • *****
  • Posts: 51871
  • The only one who's not a piece of excrement
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2015, 12:11:41 PM »
It's not just about whether we can fit him into the cap though, it's about whether the front office can do a deal with him that matches their valuation of his importance to us as a player.

Did you see what they paid David Harris?

Heismanberg

  • Global Moderator
  • Curtis Martin
  • *****
  • Posts: 48977
  • SAUCE
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2015, 12:12:37 PM »
It may be that in a year's time under the new regime it looks and feels like we might be going places and Mo wants to be part of it, in which case he might well be prepared to take a team friendly deal. I wouldn't bank on it though.

If he wants to go chase money, that's fine.  Leonard Williams will take his spot and we can just re-sign Snacks Harrison.

Then we can spend that money on OL and LB. 

He shook my hand breed tub and walked away

Johnny English

  • Administrator
  • Don Maynard
  • *****
  • Posts: 35868
  • Effort. Technique. Violence.
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2015, 12:15:02 PM »
Did you see what they paid David Harris?

I did, I'm presuming that it was at least in part due to the lack of alternatives available to us at the position, which isn't the situation with Wilk.
A cross-dressing limey poofter

Johnny English

  • Administrator
  • Don Maynard
  • *****
  • Posts: 35868
  • Effort. Technique. Violence.
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2015, 12:16:36 PM »
If he wants to go chase money, that's fine.  Leonard Williams will take his spot and we can just re-sign Snacks Harrison.

Then we can spend that money on OL and LB. 



Agreed. I like Wilk obviously and would love him to stay, but this is a business and if drafting Williams means that we'll be able to focus money next year on filling holes elsewhere in the team then it makes sense.

It's like the Green Bay model, I guess.
A cross-dressing limey poofter

bojanglesman

  • Don Maynard
  • *************
  • Posts: 38893
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2015, 01:11:59 PM »
Well, either he or Snacks won't be here next year.  I agree with JE.  I don't think we'll keep Wilkerson for 2016.  He may play this year out on the 5th year option, then get franchised for trading purposes.  It would give us the option to either move up for a Qb or load up on talent elsewhere. 

Honestly I'm fine with it.  I don't want to see Wilkerson go, but we can't invest shitloads of cash in one spot for many years.  Sheldon is the keeper.

I do hope they keep Mo this year though to see what we have in Leonard Williams and give him a year to learn the ropes.

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19538
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2015, 01:42:00 PM »
If we keep Harris and get rid of Wilkerson I won't be happy.

Of course I'd we trade Wilkerson for a bounty I won't be so upset, especially if it turns into our next QB

bojanglesman

  • Don Maynard
  • *************
  • Posts: 38893
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2015, 01:47:55 PM »
If we keep Harris and get rid of Wilkerson I won't be happy.

Why?

Harris had the good fortune of coming due for a contract at a time when the ILB market sucked taint.  Dude has a horseshoe up his derriere when it comes to contracts.  They most certainly overpaid him but he's the devil we know.   

Wilkerson ultimately may be a victim of the rookie salary cap.  Yes, he's a better talent than Harris, but we have no need at the position and Leonard Williams will be making pennies in comparison for 4 years.

It's just business, not personal.   

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19538
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2015, 01:51:31 PM »
Why?

Harris had the good fortune of coming due for a contract at a time when the ILB market sucked taint.  Dude has a horseshoe up his derriere when it comes to contracts.  They most certainly overpaid him but he's the devil we know.   

Wilkerson ultimately may be a victim of the rookie salary cap.  Yes, he's a better talent than Harris, but we have no need at the position and Leonard Williams will be making pennies in comparison for 4 years.

It's just business, not personal.   
Drafting an MLB is easy to address.

I think we'd be better off with a 2nd or 3rd round MLB and Wilkerson than Harris.

But it's a good point. If Williams plays at a high level I imagine tag and trade Wilkerson is inevitable

ukilledkenny

  • Chad Pennington
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2015, 01:55:10 PM »
Drafting an MLB is easy to address.

I think we'd be better off with a 2nd or 3rd round MLB and Wilkerson than Harris.

But it's a good point. If Williams plays at a high level I imagine tag and trade Wilkerson is inevitable

I think you are highly underestimating how valuable Harris is getting the defense called and lined up every play. Talent wise you could probably get away with a mid rounder to replace him but you can't just write off experience and leadership.

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19538
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2015, 02:13:38 PM »
I think you are highly underestimating how valuable Harris is getting the defense called and lined up every play. Talent wise you could probably get away with a mid rounder to replace him but you can't just write off experience and leadership.
If only we had a young talented inside linebacker known for his leadership abilities who could step in and fill that role in a year.

Hopefully we can trade Harris derriere to Rex or Pettine for a 7th rounder and some cap relief
« Last Edit: May 22, 2015, 02:15:12 PM by dcm1602 »

Laxin

  • Chad Pennington
  • ******
  • Posts: 4348
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2015, 02:43:16 PM »
I dont think anything we could get back for Mo will ever equate in terms of value.

My line of thinking is- you do whatever it takes to retain your own talent. Its worked for GB for the last 2 decades. I also just don't see Wilkerson as the extremely greedy type, like a Revis, but who knows. Id like to think a reasonable deals for both sides can be met.

dcm1602

  • SUH DUDE
  • Blubbering Pussy
  • Mark Gastineau
  • *
  • Posts: 19538
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2015, 02:53:20 PM »
I dont think anything we could get back for Mo will ever equate in terms of value.

My line of thinking is- you do whatever it takes to retain your own talent. Its worked for GB for the last 2 decades. I also just don't see Wilkerson as the extremely greedy type, like a Revis, but who knows. Id like to think a reasonable deals for both sides can be met.
If Wilkerson trade gets us a franchise QB (or the picks to get one)  I'd say it does

And if we trade him, I imagine it does

Johnny English

  • Administrator
  • Don Maynard
  • *****
  • Posts: 35868
  • Effort. Technique. Violence.
Re: Wilk Watch
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2015, 02:54:50 PM »
If Wilkerson trade gets us a franchise QB (or the picks to get one)  I'd say it does

And if we trade him, I imagine it does

No-one is going to trade a "franchise QB". They aren't a thing of which there are spares.
A cross-dressing limey poofter

Tags: