I don't know for they can retire his number considering he is still going to be on the books for 2007. I would assume that the Jets would have to wait until he officially calls it quits - which will mean after the 2007 season.
If he's still active, the # is still his.. no need to retire it. However, there are no rules to retiring #s.. Retire what you want. In my view, it should be once you enter the HOF...
Belichick and Pioli do the heartless, unsentimental strategic gruntwork it takes to run an NFL team like a military unit. I remember back in the day when we were contemplating the enormous cap hit facing the team when they finally bit the bullet on Vinny's backloaded contract, after multiple restructures added to the signing bonus cap hit that would hit the team once they terminated his contract, Green Guy suggested a scenario where the team traded Curtis (pre-extension) to take his salary off the books and absorb Vinny's cap hit to move the team forward. They never did any of it and prolonged the agony rather than rebuild, but that scenario, in hindsight, seems like something Belichick would have done early on to plan for the future. Sentimentality hinders the development of a young team, we watched that happen for 5 years with Herm.
A trade of Curtis would NOT have taken him off the books. That was the problem. HIS CONTRACT PRE 2002 was the problem. The only chance to help the team and keep it competitive was to restructure it then. The team wasn't ready for a Ravens/Titans like purge... I can only imagine how this place would be. However, equating this Curtis move to back in 2002 is a huge mistake. This is a win-win. You throw Curtis a bone.... but you get 3 bones back in return! You get big cap savings now. You're saying.. why do you want it, the FA market is dry? EXTEND YOUR CURRENT GUYS AND SAVE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS!
No wonder you call yourself "Jets in 2004." Your thinking is about 3 years removed from reality. Giving 3 guys pushing 30 megacontracts does not give you salary cap relief--it makes salary cap problems. Marvin Jones was a free agent. How did Boobway's decision to ink greybeard Marvin to a 5 year deal provide "short term relief?" Chrebet had a year left on his contract at a low salary. How does giving him a 7 year deal at age 30 create relief? Martin was given a $50M new deal at age 30--most GM's with a brain would have inked him to a much lower salary for a shorter term. Pennington $64M made a lot of sense too--That's real salary cap relief!
I can agree with extending guys like Cotch and Rhodes, we have to lock them up early, but I don't like pushing cap hits back like that to do it. What was our cap space before the Curtis restructure?
could someone pls explain me, where the difference is between him retireing and him restructuring before retireing? does this affect the cap? where?s the difference for him? what would he get if he retires with or without restructing? does he get anything? does restructing mean anything if he retires?
Pennington's deal had nothing to do with cap relief. Noone said it did. It wasn't done in 2002. Now onto Martin. Martin, if he was cut, would have had a 10M payment (only paid if he was released) sent his way, all counting on the cap in 1 year. Yes, giving him a nice contract was a way to lower that 10M hit dramatically. So yes, even at 50M, that deal gave the Jets a big time cap savings back then. Martin, knowing he was getting 10M if cut, had leverage.. why would he have taken a short term deal at a much lower salary especially still being in his prime? You just aren't showing an understanding of how the cap works if all you are focused on is the published salary numbers. Most times, they are meaningless. Focus on the signing bonus, and the first 3 yrs. There is a lot more to this stuff than just the stuff Cimini or the other writers flash in the paper when they sign a deal. I'll agree with you, the Pennington deal did not appear to be a good one. No question. It didn't save anything, and noone said it did. However, if we did not extend Chrebet and Martin, it would have killed our cap back then... YES, signing them reduced cap hits in 2002 and 2003. Now in 2007, it may not be helping as much, I can't question that, but the future was mortgaged a little bit. Remember, in 2002, this team just came off a playoff run and people though we'd go further. I'm not saying they did the right thing, but you have to take EVERYTHING into account, and you're not.
I don't see a huge difference in him retiring. There shouldn't be based on the CBA. HOWEVER, if the minimum salary keeps him on IR this year, without retiring, the Jets get cap relief this year, and 1 more year off the pro-rated bonus hit. NOW, if he wins his insurance claim, the NYJ are the benefitiary of the claim up to the pro-rated bonus left.. meaning no cap hit.
I'm not saying that. I am not defending the Pennington move. I removing the Pennington move from this debate, because we're talking about Martin here. Now, back to Martin. It's very hard to criticize a move 5 yrs later that we approved of 5 years ago. Hinesight is 20/20, and we forget, Martin won a rushing title under that deal.
Cimini confirmed what I said in the beginning of this thread. Jets want Curtis off the books in 2007 and they have tons of cap room. Curtis being kind enough to reduce his salary means the Jets can take all 3.8M of Curtis' pro-rated bonus this year when he retires so they do not have to spread it over 2 years. They have tons of cap room and not tons of players to sign, so in 2008 they'll have 1.9M more room than they would have. Even in 2007, Curtis went from 5.2M to 4.6M (and it goes to 3.8M when he retires), so they save room this year too!
