Jets may keep Sanchez for competition

The Jets may try to keep Mark Sanchez on the team – at a reduced rate – to provide some competiton to Geno Smith.

From Kristian Dyer of Metro:

The Jets and representatives for Sanchez met this past weekend in Indianapolis at the NFL Combine to discuss the quarterback’s future in green and white. Sanchez, who missed all of last season due to a shoulder injury suffered in preseason, is progressing well with his rehab and should be ready for offseason workouts and minicamp.

Sanchez is due to make $13.1 million, but would clear $8.3 million in cap space if he is cut.

Brian Bassett, TheJetsBlog.com

Two thoughts occur to me, other than the obvious NOOOOOooooooooooooooooo!!

First, this seems like the same posturing the Jets did with Darrelle Revis last year when they were prepared to trade him away, then prepared to keep him blah-blah-blah.  Is this a play to flush out any potential suitors that might want to add him to their roster in an attempt to get them to trade for Sanchez?

Second, even if the Jets were to keep Sanchez at a reduced rate will he be able to provide the needed competition or the requisite play should the need arise?  To be fair, Sanchez’s completion percentage was better in last year’s preseason but does this coaching staff have any faith in his ability to actually improve?




82 comments

Geno just had one of the worse seasons any Jet quarterback ever had. Most quarterbacks, even first year rookies don't have an excuse for playing as bad as he did. People forget in the last few games several balls were dropped by the opposing defenses, including one that turned into a Jet touchdown. So those games could have been a lot worse. He is not the man. Sanchez isn't great, but he is better than Geno. Sanchez was good enough to take the Jets to two AFC championship games. What other Jet QB has done that. They stripped the team of the better receivers, changed 60 % of his front line, and the running game went south. And let's not forget who his coordinators were. And lastly look how many of Sanchez's balls were intercepted. Many times, it wasn't the guy guarding the receiver he was throwing to. It was the guy guarding another receiver who was not where he should have been. (Many times Stephen Hill) At worse he should be given the chance to once again beat Geno out for the job.

Eric Maldonado
Eric Maldonado

Geno has all the tools but his senior year he pooped the bed when he had two horrendous games in a row wv got blown out by Kansas state and Texas tech. He had 2 pro caliber wr to throw to as well in Austin and Steadman so I am not sold on geno yet 

Eric Maldonado
Eric Maldonado

Sanchez didn't cause the circus atmosphere that was the prior regime, why not keep him at a reduced rate, he had clearly beaten out geno last year and would have started. Like to see what Sanchez can do with better weapons at his disposal and he provides competition for geno

Lloyd Jay Reife
Lloyd Jay Reife

As long as Sanchez is a Jet, the word "Circus" will be their watermark.   You could turn the team around with 52 other players, an entirely new coaching staff, and they can play at Citifield, "circus" will stick.

Paul Newbold
Paul Newbold

If Sanchez re does his contract and is willing to accept back up type pay, the Jets could do a lot worse. I'm no Sanchez fan, but he would make an adequate back up if healthy. The FA that they have been linked to don't impress me at all. Vick is an over the hill, injury riddled, turnover machine and I hope the Jets stay far away from him. Josh McGown is 35 yrs old, and his career has been nothing but disappointing, he did have a fairly good season filling in for Chicago last year, but what does he really bring to the table to help Geno develop? I really think Sanchez will have to settle for back up type pay wherever he lands. He's expressed his desire to stay in NY, if he willing to take that kind of money, then the Jets need to at least consider it. He brings a knowledge of Mornhering's system and familiarity of the Jet personnel.

pisano
pisano

They just need to cut ties with Sanchez and move on.

JCuratola3
JCuratola3

All im saying 17 TDs in sophomore year .. 26 in junior year and that was up there with the leagues best. 

jvsvn
jvsvn

It's one thing for Sanchez to compete in training camp and win the job (if only by a hair) when Geno was a rookie with no experience behind center. If Sanchez were to provide competition at this point (meaning he actually has the potential to win the job) then everyone would consider Geno a bust. It would cause havoc within the organization and among the fan base. Geno might well turn out to be a bust (I'm not saying he is) but if he's replaced temporarily by a vet other than Sanchez, the fans would be disappointed but they won't be going crazy. Sanchez isn't Idzik's baggage, I find it hard to believe he'd want to deal with the implications of having Sanchez on the team. I think Basset has it right. This is a posturing maneuver by the FO.

dabronx
dabronx

If this is true it won't be with his existing contract. However, I doubt Sanchez is not cut. Maybe Izdick is looking to bring his salary down to make him more appealing in a trade. 

marcus81
marcus81

Sanchez will throw an INT on the first drive and never stop turning the ball over, let's just accept the facts move on

bob
bob

Could say that the 1st 2 years when Sanchez was raw he had Santonio Holmes Braylon Edwards Jerricho Cotchery and Dustin Keller to throw to and he couldn't get it done. and these guy where in there prime,


However 2 down years where rough however they pretty much depleted the offense ..


Can the switch go on in Sanchez head yet ..3 different offensive coaches hadn't help his case..

A reduced pay as a back up Would be a fait deal by Sanchez to the Jets.  I feel it would be a good deal for the Jets keeping the door open a little.

kniff
kniff

Cut Sanchez in March, and get McCown in here!! 

If things don't work out we can hire him back at a reduced rate.... it's just business and it sends the right message.

Hey, we hired Garrard back and somehow the world kept turning!!

hazard2012
hazard2012

Lots of smoke and mirrors here, but cutting/restructuring Sanchez to be Geno's backup is not out of question.  Think most long-suffering Jet fans would prefer a clean break, but let's face it...barring some bolt from the blue Geno is the starter moving forward but needs a 'veteran' , not rookie, backup in case he falters or goes down.   


Given the lack of viable options at the backup vet QB position, Sanchez may be a more affordable insurance policy than McCown, and probably as good as just about anyone else available.   Rex likes the guy, he knows the team and the offense, so it's not as crazy as it first sounds.     


Jets are NOT getting Manziel, Bortles or Bridgewater, so the idea of providing competition for Geno is somewhat misleading.   They may decide to draft a Mettenberger, Garapollo or Thomas, but they're more competition for Simms than the starting position.       

Raul Ravelo
Raul Ravelo

Who else in FA has da playoff cred ?

Raymond Frey
Raymond Frey

Brian, would the Jets be able to renegotiate with Sanchez for a team friendly deal...then trade him? Is there some moratorium? Or could it be handled similar to a sign and trade scenario? I'd rather get a dozen orange cones for him than nothing!

SackDance99
SackDance99

Sanchez isn't legitimate competition.  He's still learning MM's system, Geno has a year head start on him and he's still overcoming his injury.  A vet who can run the WCO is legitimate competition because competence at the QB position is what the Jets need.  When I think of a word to associate with Sanchez, "competence" isn't one of them.

Brendan
Brendan

This is most likely a "let's leak this and see how the fans react" thing. I doubt the team is seriously considering retaining him. 

arc34
arc34

@Hanknaples  Hank....you are correct, it was "Cap Hell"; as stated by many NFL experts.  They got out of this fix by reworking every veteran deal they had (usually resulting in more guaranteed money in later years....the heck with those cap years I guess) and trading Revis.....so you are correct.

SackDance99
SackDance99

@hazard2012 Sanchez does not really "know" the offense.  He was learning it in camp and in the pre-season games. IMO, Simms is already a better insurance policy, and that's not saying much.

Bent
Bent moderator

@Raymond Frey  Not Brian, but there is no need for the Jets to restructure his deal.  They could trade him with his current deal and because none of the remaining salary is guaranteed, the acquiring team could then negotiate down.  They'd obviously agree to those terms with Sanchez privately before agreeing to sign off on the trade.  However, there may not be enough interest in him that teams wouldn't just rather wait until he's released and then get him for nothing with a clean slate.


The cap situation is the same for the Jets whether they cut or trade him as long as it's before his roster bonus is due.

levi
levi

@Brendan  why would they want the fans to riot? 

Bent
Bent moderator

@arc34 @Hanknaples  


"They got out of this fix by reworking every veteran deal they had (usually resulting in more guaranteed money in later years"


That's categorically false.  None of the restructures led to additional guarantees in future years and the only one that pushed any cap hits past 2014 was the Brick restructure, which only moves approximately $3-4m beyond that year and was built into his rolling guarantees contract so had been scheduled to happen since he first signed his extension.  They didn't rework Mangold's deal, or Harris' deal or Sanchez's deal to create cap room (and easily could have)...that's three of their top five cap hits.


If "guaranteeing money in later years" was so damaging to their ongoing cap situation then why do they project to be $40-50m UNDER the cap this year?  (JUST LIKE I SAID THEY'D BE, while everyone claiming they were in cap hell was disputing that saying "no, this is going to cause cap issues in the future" or "they're robbing Peter to pay Paul).


Clearly they had plenty of scope to move money into future years and remain well below the cap so they had the flexibility I'd identified all along.  Now, compare that with teams that actually DID move significant money to later years and are STILL tight against the cap.  That's actual cap hell.


Also name me one NFL "expert" who understands the cap better than Jason.  You can't, because there isn't one.


Cap hell means you have no flexibility.  The Jets had a bunch.


Are they in cap hell now?  Are they?  No?  Then they weren't 12 months ago, because you don't get out of cap hell that easy.

Vinnie Pedi
Vinnie Pedi

I guess whats left to see is if there are 3-4 teams convinced he would be a viable first year starter and wouldnt stand for the idea of losing him to free agency, only that would merit a trade imho.

And let us pray for a conditional 4th rounder for next years draft.

Brendan
Brendan

@levi It's not the first time someone would have done that. 

Bent
Bent moderator

@arc34  Nothing was deleted.  Why don't you check MY facts? They're in each of the comments I've posted here.

Bent
Bent moderator

@arc34 @Bent  I know the facts.  Here they are:


You said they had to restructure every veteran deal when all they did was convert a bonus in Cromartie's deal (to defer a cap hit by one year), convert a bonus in Ferguson's deal (to spread $7m over the next four years and Holmes took a pay cut.  That's it.


Trading Revis cost them money in the short term and used up cap room so they wouldn't have been able to do that if money had been tight.


You summed it up when you said "to heck with those cap years I guess" in reference to the money that was guaranteed in future years.  That proves you don't understand what the Jets did here because:


1. They only moved about $4m beyond 2014

2. They are projected $40-50m under the 2014 cap so if they did move money into that year, it hasn't hurt them.  In fact it's good planning and you could arguably say perhaps they should have moved more into 2014 and spent more last year because they certainly had the flexibility to do so.


Some guy insisted last year that they were in cap hell because they would have to restructure every deal and would still have cap problems in 2014.  I said they wouldn't need to restructure every deal, would be way under the cap in 2014 no matter what and would still have the flexibility to spend if they chose to.


That makes me 100% right.


Never mind what you read, you're talking to someone who actually follows this stuff in detail and knows what they're talking about.


I apologize for coming across as aggressive but it's aggravating to have someone ignore or not be able to comprehend the facts I've laid out so they just respond with "check the facts".  I have accounted for every dollar and have been dead on with this stuff for the last five years as a result.

arc34
arc34

@Bent  Completely disagree with you...check your facts. My last reply was deleted.....oh well.

arc34
arc34

@Bent  Unfortunately with this new system I never know when someone replies to my postings.  I am surprised by your aggressiveness and CAP words in your reply...I see you are part of the KWC (Keyboard Warriors Club).....well, you are completely wrong in your stated opinion....try checking facts.  Contracts were reworked with money applied in future years; I read this in many different places on the internet, newspaper and heard on radio.  They were in "Cap Hell" and got out of it quickly by trading Revis and restructuring deals....Unfortunately it is impossible to have a civil conversation with you.....so I will respectfully disagree with you and take the high road. 

arc34
arc34

@Hanknaples  Right on and well established by many experts if anyone cares to research it.

Bent
Bent moderator

@Hanknaples  


No, under my definition, the Jets were nowhere near as bad as some teams that could legitimately be described as being in TRUE cap hell, including - for example - the 2005 Jets.


This is like you describing me as being seriously injured after a slightly bruised knee and when I responded that this was not a serious injury, then cited several examples of other people with severed limbs, internal bleeding and other, actual serious injuries you would take that to mean there's no such thing as a serious injury.


As for the google searches you may have made, they're all just making the same mistake you are, because you've read stuff where the ill-informed media has said they're in cap hell because they don't know what they're talking about.  Luckily you have me and Jason that do know what we're talking about.  And what does Jason say in that very link you provided above?


"The Jets have enough flexibility in their contract structure to go out and grab a few free agents that would help improve the team in the short term. "


Oh, so pretty much exactly what I have been saying all along.


Did you read about the Cowboys?  THAT IS CAP HELL.  Now compare it to the Jets situation.  NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD.  NOT CAP HELL!

Bent
Bent moderator

@Hanknaples  


They weren't even remotely close to the situation which teams like the Cowboys and Saints are currently in.


They traded Revis, a move which cost them $12m in dead money.  Had they been in cap hell, they wouldn't have been able to afford to do that.


They chose not to restructure many deals last year because they didn't want to guarantee any extra money beyond 2013 but they EASILY could have done that (essentially borrowing from the $40-50m cap room they currently have).  They opted to take a more prudent approach (which I don't have a problem with) but they had PLENTY of flexibility to spend money and make moves if they chose to.


Cap hell would mean you have no flexibility whatsoever, HAVE TO release KEY players with NO means of replacing them and are forced to move cap charges into future years so that you end up back in the same situation, if not worse, down the line.


This is what real cap hell looks like:


http://overthecap.com/looking-dallas-cowboys-alarming-cap-mess/


The Jets were nowhere near that because within a year they have one of the best cap situations in the entire league despite remaining competitive and having a developing, young roster.


Like I told you over and over again the Jets retained plenty of cap flexibility throughout the Tannenbaum era (after he inherited a situation where the Jets were in LEGITIMATE cap hell) and then when that has been proven to be the case at every turn, you resort to "well cap numbers don't mean anything because they can be fudged".


No.  I accounted for every single dollar.  On this you were simply wrong.  Sorry.

Brendan
Brendan

@Hanknaples  


Okay, but accelerating/delaying money isn't "fudging numbers." The team eventually has to deal with that, like they did last year with all of Tanny's bonus-restructuring resulting in a year of BIG cap numbers for a select few, including Mark Fart. 


As for your question, there's a difference between "cap hell," which does exist in the NFL, and a "tight cap," which is what the Jets had last year. A tight cap means you're hampered financially and can't do many moves. You're not screwed, but you're limited in what you can do to help the roster. "Cap hell" is when you're stuck cutting useful players, starting-caliber players, just to get to a position where you can sign your draft picks and have some emergency spending cash. The Saints started this offseason in cap hell, they were like $25 million over the cap before the offseason even started. The Jets were never over the cap last year, but they were tight to it. Big, big difference. 



Brendan
Brendan

@Hanknaples  


No, they really don't. 


Teams do not control the numbers, that's why every single contract, no matter how minuscule, has to be approved by the league office. 

Brendan
Brendan

@Hanknaples That is correct, Hanker. I believe that it is impossible for an NFL team to fake their salary cap numbers. The main reason I believe this is because the ledgers for each team are kept by the league office, not the teams themselves. 

Brendan
Brendan

@Hanknaples  No, the cap is very real. Your understanding of it is an illusion, though. 

levi
levi

@Brendan More than likely its a weak attempt to make teams think they still value him in an attempt to get something in return for him instead of just cutting him loose.