Mr. T's approach was a fool's approach. He had no business ever being a GM. He was a cap guy. He knew nothing about talent evaluation, scouting or how to build a football team. To make matters worse, he's a narcissist who constantly needed to be in the spotlight, which greatly affected his approach to FA and the draft. He was a freaking disaster for this team.
You obviously just don't understand that value dictates who you want to have on your team or not long term. If a player's contribution is worth as much or more than their contract is for then there is no reason you don't want them on your team. Especially when that player is at a position of major need. Especially squared when you can afford it besides. You don't pass up value now and for future years because you 'might get more value from some unknown player later on.' That's completely idiotic. If someone better comes along later you get rid of dead weight to add them or if you can't make that work then you still got extra value for the year/s this hypothetical player that comes along later wasn't around. Not even one iota of a factor. So that leaves your point of whether Asamoah+Ward+4-5M WR would be affordable 2-3 years down the road. The answer is that of course they would be. There aren't a ton of big long term commitments on the team already, a lot of draft picks will be added this year which yield cheap players during that period, and some aging vets will start to come off the books besides. Plus the overall cost wouldn't have even been that much higher than what Idzik is going to wind up spending anyway so it's just pure nonsense. If Idzik were in this thread and felt free to speak his mind he'd probably say something along the lines that a long term WR was the biggest glaring need and he filled it, which is of course nothing like what you and others are arguing here. But still I'd say that was a mistake because Decker isn't that much better than cheaper options who in turn cost a lot less because they didn't have Peyton Manning throwing them the ball last year. I think there was more value to be had filling two other needs more than adequately, adding a stopgap WR which Decker isn't a whole lot better than anyway and spending 1st and 2nd picks on WR/TE since it's a deep class for those positions anyway. That's a much better team to my mind for similar money as opposed to what was actually done.
you are still confusing the point, it has nothing to do with valuable in isolation, it has to do with whether the team finds them valuable. You aren't the GM so you don't get to determine his view of their value and then judge him based on whether you value a player. the only thing you can criticize is whether the strategy is sound. you are criticizing the strategy, but by your argument above that you can't pass on value today based on possible future needs would require you to take the position that if the Jets only had $5 million in cap space that they should have spent it all on Asamoah, regardless of their many other needs, because he is valuable at that amount and, I quote you, "You don't pass up value now...because you 'might get more value from some unknown player later on." that is a position that dismisses all other factors, and your argument above is that you have to dismiss those other factors if you can obtain the immediate value. that's a horrible strategy, but it is the strategy inherent in your argument.
Idzik seems to be reacting to free agency in a calculated manner. New ot and wr and for About what revis would have cost. New England was smart as well because unlike the jets they are contenders with a closing window. The jets lack talent at olb, cb, s, te, wr, ol depth and last but not least have a question mark at qb. We need to build through the draft and use the cash on our own players like mo with front loaded deals so that when we are more competitive we will have cap space.
Here you are back to your $5.5M bullshit. The only thing I'm struggling with is deciding how many different categories of fallacies this falls under that you're babbling about. Strawman, incosistent comparison, tu quoque, false analogy, it just doesn't stop the amount of ways that you're talking out of your ass. Your whole point hinges on what you can afford in future years, and you somehow think that being extended to the limit today is identical to being extended nowhere near the limit. If you only had $5.5M in cap this year how do you think it would look next year when contracts escalate? Hilarious.
no, that isn't what my position is at all. my position is whether you want to have them on the books in future years, regardless of whether you can afford them, because having them on the books will influence whether you can afford a different player at that time. you sign a player based on not only having him today but having him for the length of the contract. there is no strawman or any other logical fallacy in my argument. you made a specific argument and I applied that logically and consistently to another hypothetical situation that utilized your position that you sign a player based on his value regardless of any other possibility. that was your argument and I quoted you directly. you can't wiggle out of it.
That position, which has absolutely nothing to do with your absurd 5.5M cap hypothetical, is almost equally ridiculous in itself. I don't need to wiggle out of anything and I'm not trying to though it seems the same can't be said for you. Why would a logical GM not want to add two reasonably priced above average starters in their primes at positions of great need with no comparable alternatives in sight at those positions? It's comical. A winning team always needs several of those types of players on the roster in addition to 1-4 superstars and intelligently drafted young players on the cheap. There is absolutely no reason not to want them if you can afford it. If somebody better comes along at a different position later you trim fat elsewhere or make a trade or any of a million adjustments to make it work. It's all cost/benefit stuff and the cap and structure of the league are designed to let an effective manager mitigate future costs often enough to maximize immediate and foreseeable benefits when they come along. There is an argument that Decker was the way to go, I just don't happen to think it's a particularly strong one, and it certainly is light years away from whatever the fuck it is that you think you're talking about.
who said Idzik didn't want them? the issue is whether the total contract is valuable, not whether they can be afforded. all players can be afforded, it simply comes at the expense of others. my example isn't absurd, it is a hypothetical that challenges the logic of your position that you obtain talent when you can afford it without consideration of any future possibilities. to be logically consistent, which is a concern of yours, you would have to regard a players talent and value the same regardless of the future cap space as long as you could afford that player in the available cap space you do have. to say you would judge their value and talent differently based on how much cap is available is not applying your position logically consistent. that would be doing what I said you do -- consider other factors. You have disputed that position. that's the value of hypotheticals -- to challenge the structures and claims of arguments. sure, no team with multiple needs would spend all their cap space on one player, but that is of little concern in testing the validity of your argument, which requires you to do so. that's a flaw in your argument, not the hypothetical that discredits your argument.
I know this how??? Because Woody Johnson "The Owner" said it in the locker room at the end of the last game of the season & ALL the Jet players went nuts over hearing the news, in addition, it was showed on ALL the local sport channels numerous times... Were you living under a rock?
So they weren't valuable enough to sign but Idzik wanted them anyway? Guess Idzik seems extremely stupid and inconsistent in your mind. Strawman for the 11th time. Growing bored of you not understanding rudimentary economics/value concepts and believing that the forest is a really bad place to go looking for trees because, 'like, what if there are other trees too someday? I'll be taking my submarine to go exploring for trees thank you very much, you'll see.' It's been marginally amusing, good day.
no it was peculated in the news by those equally hysteric as you. and Johnson said no such thing that he made the decision alone, and it was agreed with by Idzik. what Johnson said was that he decided to keep him. that could mean, simply, that he had the final call. that doesn't mean Idzik did not want Rex and advised Johnson as such, and Johnson kept him because Idzik wanted him. you have to be a hysteric to interpret it as meaning that no other person could have participated in the discussion just because Woody makes the final call.
no, that is not what I said. so, you have previously committed the logical inconsistency you accused me of, and now the Strawman you accused me of. you don't even grasp what you are doing. you can want something and not find it valuable enough to spend your resources on. I want a Mercedes, but I don't find it valuable enough to spend my resources on, so I don't have one. Instead I own two homes. you see, I want the Mercedes but don't value it when my limited resources are considered. I'd rather spend those resources on appreciating property. a GM could want a player, and not not believe his cost is valuable enough to spend his limited resources on, and would prefer to allot those resources to other players. how absolutely asinine for you to even attempt to claim that you can't want something but not find it valuable enough to actually spend your resources on. of course you can. value has nothing to do with want. you need to avoid snide comments if you are so f'ing stupid that you think you can't want something if you don't think it isn't valuable enough t spend your resources on. dear God, man, how can you even make such an embarrassing claim. I can't wait for you to attempt to claim that saying "So they weren't valuable enough to sign but Idzik wanted them anyway?" means something othe rthan you can't want something that you don't find not valuable enough to spend your resources on. please, go ahead, try.
It's clear this regime has played it conservatively, completely opposite from Tanny's regime. We all know how Tanny's regime ended, close, but no cigar. This is a work in progress and, if done correctly, it will pay off dividends for years. Let's enjoy the rise and revolution. I anticipate this team peaks right when Brady retires and we take the AFC East for years and send the bandwagon Patriots fans back to their hole.
"I totally want to fuck Scarlett Johansson. I could too. Just, I don't want to commit the resources to convince her to get in the sack with me." Hm. Maybe you're just arguing about irrelevancies and you're full of shit then?
74Mangolds position seems completely "in the now" don't worry about how much it cost in one or two years if you have the money now. After all, its a need, just give a talented guy more than what others will and sort things out later. Signing for need in such a desperate manner pretty much means asking a players agent what others are giving him and promising to top it with a substantial increase from whatever was previously set, meaning we'd be doing NOTHING but overpaying for every single player we did this for, showing no sign of restraint or negotiating prowess. So sure we get our man, he might do well or not but we have to run those risks now because we're especially invested due to paying more than was necessary. Not to mention in addition to increasing the chances of being in cap hell should they fail (or even if they're actually good) and potentially hurting the ability to sign/retain talent later, it sets a horrible precedent for future negotiations all around, you'll look like a doormat to agents the league over- never a good thing. A GM has to hold firm and strike a careful balance between compromise and drawing lines in the sand to be respected and get an approtiate amount of value from any given player in free agency. The power to spend is nothing without the power to refrain from doing so at any given time, no matter how much one has. A high salary cap means freedom, but freedom means being more responsible with possibilities, not to do what one can because its possible. Hell, Howard not getting what he wanted from NY and Decker getting a solid deal that doesn't break the bank sets a fantastic precedent for future free agents. this is a bit different when it comes to locking players up who are already on roster, theres loyalties and being a known quantity in house to deal with, but thats a different discussion. Right now, Idzik is earning his stripes, desperation is an awful look for a GM and he's not given an air of that yet.
no amount of hostile deflection can cover up the fact that every argument you have tried to make has been proven to be false, that you have committed the logical falacies you have accused me of, were given a basic economic example that disputed your bullshit claim that didn't represent economics at all, and you don't have the capability to formulate a reasonable argument. hard to claim that future impact of a contract is "irrelevancies."
Spouting off about how Idzik might have wanted them but not enough to actually get them is the irrelavancy, nice reading comprehension. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.
74Mangold - I just read through this mess of the thread. If you have any dignity left, back out slowly and try and pretend the thread never happened. You're embarrassing yourself; repeatedly and unabashedly.
