Hawkspur":1vah0c9y said:As much as I'd love Revis on the Hawks...if we're investing stackloads of cash and high draft picks into someone elses player could we please hassle Detroit into giving us Ndamukong Suh?
He's not available.
Hawkspur":1vah0c9y said:As much as I'd love Revis on the Hawks...if we're investing stackloads of cash and high draft picks into someone elses player could we please hassle Detroit into giving us Ndamukong Suh?
joeshaney":3q1s8gmm said:Hasselbeck":3q1s8gmm said:SuperHawks":3q1s8gmm said:Unless the Jets are willing to swap him for Flynn and a mid rounder I don't see it. We've got our own players who are gonna get paid soon enough so why bother giving up anything significant for a one year rental.
:lol:
The Jets are trying to clear cap room, not add a big contract for a big contract.
If this happens we're giving up picks.. maybe Lane since he's cheap
You are correct, however, if they bring in Matt Flynn's 5.25 million dollar cap hit they would also be deducting Revis's $6, Sanchez's $14, and Tebow's $6 million.
That's a net decrease of almost $21 milliIon. I understand this number may be subject to cap penalty, but only if they don't find a trade partner for Tebow as I believe Sanchez can be cut at any time without penalty after he restructured last year (might be wrong on this).
We are sharing a brain today. This is never going to happen.RolandDeschain":ampr6c25 said:We need an elite corner less than any other team in the league. This isn't happening, people; get real.
Hasselbeck":1netxsse said:Idzik is going to want to build the Jets up similar to how PC/JS have built this team up - via the draft. They will want picks for Revis if he's moved.. guaranteed.
joeshaney":3banj881 said:You are correct, however, if they bring in Matt Flynn's 5.25 million dollar cap hit they would also be deducting Revis's $6, Sanchez's $14, and Tebow's $6 million.
That's a net decrease of almost $21 milliIon. I understand this number may be subject to cap penalty, but only if they don't find a trade partner for Tebow as I believe Sanchez can be cut at any time without penalty after he restructured last year (might be wrong on this).
joeshaney":3ehxj2g0 said:Hawkspur":3ehxj2g0 said:As much as I'd love Revis on the Hawks...if we're investing stackloads of cash and high draft picks into someone elses player could we please hassle Detroit into giving us Ndamukong Suh?
He's not available.
Yeah, and after all, Revis to the 9rs, Rams, or Cards would kinda help even the playing field in the NFC WEST.RolandDeschain":j5ti2q1d said:We need an elite corner less than any other team in the league. This isn't happening, people; get real.
Now, the Seahawks getting involved to drive the price up for our rivals, that I can see.scutterhawk":b7t0c7mm said:Yeah, and after all, Revis to the 9rs, Rams, or Cards would kinda help even the playing field in the NFC WEST.RolandDeschain":b7t0c7mm said:We need an elite corner less than any other team in the league. This isn't happening, people; get real.
mikeak":1lf3lpyx said:joeshaney":1lf3lpyx said:Hawkspur":1lf3lpyx said:As much as I'd love Revis on the Hawks...if we're investing stackloads of cash and high draft picks into someone elses player could we please hassle Detroit into giving us Ndamukong Suh?
He's not available.
Of course Detroit that has cap issue wouldn't want to move a person underperforming his contract who is stuck in controversy every week........ :sarcasm_off:
Mtjhoyas":usfe20de said:2 part post here:
1) I am not going to say this is impossible, but it is very, very unrealistic. Salary and compensation (ie the 2 greatest factors) do not play in our favor. Yes, we have nice cap room, but we are also looking at some huge deals in the near future for our young corps (ET, RW, Sherm, etc). Likewise, you know that one (1) team will offer up something ridiculous, and that team most definitely will not be the Seahawks (see: history of PC/JS). We value our picks and losing a bunch of them is not the MO of this staff, and certainly not for a position of strength on this team (whether that is sheer talent or scheme manipulation).
2) Even if Revis is a luxury (to an extent) you never, ever turn your back on making your team better. Think of it this way...would you trade James Carpenter (and I really like Carpenter) for Darrelle Revis right now? The resounding answer should be "well no sh!t Sherlock." In essence (granted hindsight), this is a possible scenario trading Revis for a 1st rounder. Now, you could obviously "miss" the chance of drafting a great player, at the same time. The point is, you know what you are getting with Revis, even if he is coming off of an injury. ACL, like Tommy John (which I've had) is so advanced nowadays, that it takes an (anti) miracle to not come back from it. Is it a luxury? Sure it is. But, you are also talking about a player who drastically changes what you can do on defense.
All I am trying to illustrate, is that even though this is a highly improbable scenario, it does in fact make sense from a strictly "make your team better" point of view. I think Browner is a terrific CB, but he's not Revis. And like I said, further enhancing a strength, is never a bad thing, as long as it doesn't completely jeopardize and weaken a weakness.
joeshaney":2ddr9tho said:Hasselbeck":2ddr9tho said:SuperHawks":2ddr9tho said:Unless the Jets are willing to swap him for Flynn and a mid rounder I don't see it. We've got our own players who are gonna get paid soon enough so why bother giving up anything significant for a one year rental.
:lol:
The Jets are trying to clear cap room, not add a big contract for a big contract.
If this happens we're giving up picks.. maybe Lane since he's cheap
You are correct, however, if they bring in Matt Flynn's 5.25 million dollar cap hit they would also be deducting Revis's $6, Sanchez's $14, and Tebow's $6 million.
That's a net decrease of almost $21 milliIon. I understand this number may be subject to cap penalty, but only if they don't find a trade partner for Tebow as I believe Sanchez can be cut at any time without penalty after he restructured last year (might be wrong on this).