Jets decide not to pick up Jones roster bonus

Yeah, but he earned it. He totally signed that contract. With a pen, even.

 

Okay, even if his contract was front-loaded, it's not like the guy didn't perform. He still had a 1000+ yd season with a shitty OL in '07. '08 he ran for 1300+yds, 13TD's. '09 1400+yds, 14TD's. It's not like he under-performed. If he had the first 2 years, I would agree. But he's busted his ass from the moment he arrived. That's the way I look at it.

 

Yes, and he got paid quite well for it.

 

But they're upset because he's a "leader". Except this so-called "leader" is more interested in the money in his own pocket than in "leading" anyone.

I'm not saying he should have felt obliged to sign up, I just think it's hypocritical to praise his selfless leadership when he's behaving in a manner inconsistent with that analysis.

 

This is a completely sensible move on the part of the Jets, not repeating the mistakes of the San Diego Chargers and other teams who give reward contracts to over the hill players despite how beloved they are. They offered to restructure and were denied.

Thomas Jones had a great year, but he's also 32 years old and coming off a career high in carries, and he looked like it in the playoffs. We've heard that song before.

The opportunity cost of paying Jones is probably greater than that of keeping him. The Jets will address the position at a lower cost and set themselves up with a more long-term solution at the position. They can use the money they would have used on Jones to address other roster deficiencies.

Kudos to Tannenbaum for making the tough, albeit necessary move.

-X-

 

This is where u and I differ I suppose. I think he's been one of the few Jets players that have actually performed well enough for the FO to consider honoring his contract to the fullest. This would've been a great opportunity for them to do the right thing (even if they hate dishing out monies) under the cloak of an un-capped year.

I wonder if they still would've cut him had he made the Pro-Bowl.

 

Did you miss the part of the article where he was said to be distressed by his demotion to backup? You think that wouldn't have caused problems? Taking a paycut would have been Jones showing that he acknowledged his position on the team. Paying him the full whack would have created difficulties down the line.

 

Well exactly. It is the old cart before the horse argument I guess. You could look at it both ways and be right. I appreciate what Jones did, but understand the business end of it.

 

They're mostly upset because they know when their time comes, they aren't getting paid that last check from the NYJ's either. I'd bet money that's what the real issue is. Was TJ a leader? By all reports he sure was. Is that why players are speaking out now? Probably not, but it gives them a good front.

 

In a normal year I agree but w/ the uncapped year and w/ the final 8 limitations it's going to be very difficult to re-tool.

 

That's probably the closest thing to the middle of the target on this one. With the NFL Labor issues coming to a head in the uncapped year, with the current structure under the one that they opted out of not favoring the longevity and tail end of a player contract, and with ownership trying to get even more of the bottom line money away from the players, I think they are speaking out of frustration, and I don't think that will be the end of it.

The TJ situation, on the business side, gives them something tangible to lash out against.

 

Cap or no cap, there's no way to justify paying a guy that much to be your third running back, when all prior experience and his playoff performance suggests he's going to fall off dramatically. And giving out reward contracts sets a bad precedent, cap or no cap. You don't think Joe Player who is an integral part of the team is going to come say "you took care of TJ last year, take care of me." The lack of a cap has no bearing on player's demands, aside from making them more unreasonable, so it behooves the Jets to pursue this as if there were a cap.

And if there were a cap, you'd be paying so much for a declining player who you'd be compelled to give carries to based only on his salary, and you'd then be taking away from a younger more effective back in Greene and, if he's healthy, Leon Washington.

-X-