Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 82

Thread: Faneca Apologists ...

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764550]So they "cut costs" by paying Faneca $5 million to walk out the door? And the $2 million they saved will be enough to fund those other contracts? If you just look at it logically, it makes no sense. I just wish Tanny would have come out and given the real reason Faneca is no longer on the team. I could have accepted that. But don't give me the "we're saving money" b.s. when we clearly threw away $5 million.[/QUOTE]

    what doesn't make sense??

    the Jets were supposed to pay Faneca $8 million, his play wasn't worth near that much.

    they offered to keep him around for less money, he declined. time to move on.


    and yes, the $2-3 million "saved" by cutting Faneca counts when you're dealing out tons of money in new deals to other players. and so does the fact that we won't be penalized against the cap next year, as we would if we had kept Faneca around for 2010 and cut him next spring.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Beerfish;3764560]Or you mean Ducasse, because as we know it was a two person race between those two. I think at no time did the Jets automatically think. Slauson is so dang good we can dump Faneca.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, I should have also added Vlad...My bad

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,606
    So now the argument has changed from:

    - We shouldn't have cut Faneca because our O-line will be worse

    To now that Slauson has shown marked improvement:

    - We should have kept Faneca for depth

    You can't have it both ways

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=Dirtstar;3764563][B]what doesn't make sense??
    [/B]
    the Jets were supposed to pay Faneca $8 million, his play wasn't worth near that much.

    they offered to keep him around for less money, he declined. time to move on.


    and yes, the $2-3 million "saved" by cutting Faneca counts when you're dealing out tons of money in new deals to other players. and so does the fact that we won't be penalized against the cap next year, as we would if we had kept Faneca around for 2010 and cut him next spring.[/QUOTE]

    Paying him $5 million to walk away and getting no value in return. Did we try to trade the guy? Did Tanny ask him to renegotiate his contract in order to remain with us? If one of our O linemen go down to a season ending injury, that $2 million insurance policy would be viewed as cost effective. You know that.

    This is one of those issues where opinions will not be changes in either direction. I respect the feelings expressed by you and others. I guess we'll agree to disagree rather than taking up more time/space in this circular argument.

  5. #25
    I think the dumping of Faneca was due to a number of factors. Clearly the Jets did not think he was worth 7.5 million and they are certainly right about that. That said the Jets were prepared to bite the bullet on him until the draft. The Jets did not release Faneca because they didnt feel he should be forced to compete with Slauson. That was never a debate. They released him because they thought they found a young 2nd rounder that could do just as well and they wanted to save a few million dollars. If the Jets thought Slauson was as good as Faneca back in February they would have released him and not let him take part in the offseason workouts and collect more money from the team in workout payments. Had the Jets not drafted Ducasse and instead drafted some random defensive lineman Faneca would still be here. If he played like Slauson did the first three weeks there would probably be some whispers saying "maybe we should see what the kid on the bench can do for us".

  6. #26
    Guys you can't bring in an old school vet like Faneca and bench him in favor of Slausson. Faneca would have been a clubhouse disruption which is the last thing you need.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=revischrist;3764588]Guys you can't bring in an old school vet like Faneca and bench him in favor of Slausson. Faneca would have been a clubhouse disruption which is the last thing you need.[/QUOTE]

    You're not bringing him in. He was the starter. Also, you're assuming Slausen gets beat out. Make it a condition to Faneca's signing that there will be an open competition in training camp. If he does not agree, then I would have had no problem with the release.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764581]Paying him $5 million to walk away and getting no value in return. Did we try to trade the guy? Did Tanny ask him to renegotiate his contract in order to remain with us? If one of our O linemen go down to a season ending injury, that $2 million insurance policy would be viewed as cost effective. You know that.

    This is one of those issues where opinions will not be changes in either direction. I respect the feelings expressed by you and others. I guess we'll agree to disagree rather than taking up more time/space in this circular argument.[/QUOTE]

    yes, we tried to trade the guy. nobody would take him at his current contract.

    and yes, we tried to renegotiate so he would stick around for a smaller deal. Faneca declined.

    you know very well that high-profile vets don't do demotions very well, they often don't stick around with their former team if it means going to the bench. they always want to get that shot at starting -- that's why Faneca became a NY Jet in the first place.

    and you also know very well that you don't pay a back-up OL $8 million.

  9. #29
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,859
    What the hell is this all about?

    We're coming off our third big win in a row, Sanchez is looking like a legit franchise QB, LT looks rejuvenated, our defense is still awesome....yet I see threads about Alan Faneca and Kerry Rhodes?

    F*ck both those guys. Their not on the team anymore, so who cares?

    We still have one of the best OL's in the league without Faneca.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=Dirtstar;3764594]yes, we tried to trade the guy. nobody would take him at his current contract.

    and yes, we tried to renegotiate so he would stick around for a smaller deal. Faneca declined.

    you know very well that high-profile vets don't do demotions very well, they often don't stick around with their former team if it means going to the bench. they always want to get that shot at starting -- that's why Faneca became a NY Jet in the first place.

    [B]and you also know very well that you don't pay a back-up OL $8 million.[/B][/QUOTE]

    But you pay them $5.25 million to walk away. And again, I don't think Slausen beats him out in an open competition.

    I've said my piece. I'll stop.

  11. #31
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,823
    The other thing worth mentioning is that Faneca had played the same position for 11 years, so it's doubtful he could just swing out to play another position in case of an injury, in contrast with Turner who can play all 3 interior line spots, and Ducasse who can play guard and tackle.

    Faneca wouldn't have been a backup OL as much as a backup Left Guard, which would lower his value even more.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    16,870
    [QUOTE=Untouchable;3764602]What the hell is this all about?

    We're coming off our third big win in a row, Sanchez is looking like a legit franchise QB, LT looks rejuvenated, our defense is still awesome....yet I see threads about Alan Faneca and Kerry Rhodes?

    F*ck both those guys. Their not on the team anymore, so who cares?

    We still have one of the best OL's in the league without Faneca.[/QUOTE]

    Aside from the F*ck both you guys, thanks for that.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764605]But you pay them $5.25 million to walk away.[/QUOTE]

    Borgo....All due respect just let it go....This was discussed 5 months ago when he was cut....It was reported by Lomabardi before the draft that Faneca, Ellis and BThomas were all shopped and could be released. It's irrelevant at this point. [B]The Jets OL play hasn't suffered[/B].

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764550]So they "cut costs" by paying Faneca $5 million to walk out the door? And the $2 million they saved will be enough to fund those other contracts? If you just look at it logically, it makes no sense. I just wish Tanny would have come out and given the real reason Faneca is no longer on the team. I could have accepted that. But don't give me the "we're saving money" b.s. when we clearly threw away $5 million.[/QUOTE]

    Have you ever heard of "sunk costs"[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs[/URL]?

    $7M vs. $5M saves $2M - that's just math.

    Plus it's better to go with an asset that's appreciating, rather than one that's depreciating.

    And there's no way Faneca would be happy sitting on the bench. And you don't want your veteran leaders to feel insulted...

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=C Mart;3764612]Borgo....All due respect just let it go....This was discussed 5 months ago when he was cut....It was reported by Lomabardi before the draft that Faneca, Ellis and BThomas were all shopped and could be released. It's irrelevant at this point. [B]The Jets OL play hasn't suffered[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Hey, I didn't start the thread. Like you, just expressing an opinion.

  16. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764581]Paying him $5 million to walk away and getting no value in return. Did we try to trade the guy? Did Tanny ask him to renegotiate his contract in order to remain with us? If one of our O linemen go down to a season ending injury, that $2 million insurance policy would be viewed as cost effective. You know that.

    This is one of those issues where opinions will not be changes in either direction. I respect the feelings expressed by you and others. I guess we'll agree to disagree rather than taking up more time/space in this circular argument.[/QUOTE]

    There's no way Faneca would sit on the bench without making a stink. He declined faster than they probably thought when they signed him, so they had the following options:

    1. Continue to start him, hampering his successor's development and endangering our QB's health.

    2. Make him compete with Slauson. There's no way this would have happened. The media would have had a field day with this one. Making a perennial pro bowler have to suffer the indignity of having to fight for his job against a 5th round nobody. Faneca would have been quoted daily in the papers, bashing Rex, Tanny and everyone else in the organization. They would have looked worse than when they made Pete Kendall stay with the rookies during the '07 camp. Not to mention the potential problems in the locker room this would have created.

    3. Trade him. He's an aging vet with skills that are rapidly diminishing. At the salary he was getting here, nobody was trading anything for him.

    4. Cut him and play the young guys. A move that pays the most dividends in the long run if Slauson continues to improve.

    The move they made was the best of the four.
    Last edited by Sourceworx; 10-04-2010 at 10:50 AM.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=thshadow;3764616]Have you ever heard of "sunk costs"[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs[/URL]?

    $7M vs. $5M saves $2M - that's just math.

    Plus it's better to go with an asset that's appreciating, rather than one that's depreciating.

    And there's no way Faneca would be happy sitting on the bench. And you don't want your veteran leaders to feel insulted...[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=sourceworx;3764620]There's no way Faneca would sit on the bench without making a stink. He declined faster than they probably originally thought when they signed him, so they had the following options:

    1. Continue to start him, hampering his successor's development and endangering our QB's health.

    2. Make him compete with Slauson. There's no way this would have happened. The media would have had a field day with this one. Making a perennial pro bowler have to suffer the indignity of having to fight for his job against a 5th round nobody. Faneca would have been quoted daily in the papers, bashing Rex, Tanny and everyone else in the organization. They would have looked worse than when they made Pete Kendall stay with the rookies during the '07 camp.

    3. Trade him. He's an aging vet with skills that are rapidly diminishing. At the salary he was getting here, nobody was trading anything for him.

    4. Cut him and play the young guys. A move that pays the most dividends in the long run if Slauson continues to improve.

    The move they made was the best of the four.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the responses. I hear what you all are saying.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    16,870
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764625]Thanks for the responses. I hear what you all are saying.[/QUOTE]

    I hear what you are saying too. I think they made the right decision, hey I lost a cool neighbor,lol.

  19. #39
    I could be mistaken, but I believe this was done now to save cap room next year. (When a cap is expected.)

  20. #40
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,375
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;3764545]How do you save $2 million by paying him $5 million and then releasing him? In my book, that's a $5 million dollar loss. Plus, you get no value from the player. No one will convince me that having Faneca on the team--even just as an insurance policy--was not worth an additional $2 million.[/QUOTE]

    ok.

    But we're 3-1, 3-0 in our division. :)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us