Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Is this a sollution to the Sanchez cap problem?

  1. #1
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Is this a sollution to the Sanchez cap problem?

    Whoever is running the show here can say something like this: "You have a guaranteed contract but we arent going to play you. Not only that, we are not going to dress you for single game. You can certainly do that, but if you would like to be released then you will have to renegotiate your contract."

    If Sanchez is under the belief that he has no future in the NFL then OK, there is nothing we can do. But assuming he believes that he does have a future, he would likely give up the guaranteed money to for his freedom. He wouldnt lose a year and would be able to select the location that he thinks would best jump start his career. Seems like a win/win.

    Edit: it doesnt even have to be an all or nothing proposition. A negotiation may lead to his giving up part of the money.

    Is this plausible?
    Last edited by MrJames; 12-24-2012 at 11:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MrJames View Post
    Whoever is running the show here can say something like this: "You have a guaranteed contract but we arent going to play you. Not only that, we are not going to dress you for single game. You can certainly do that, but if you would like to be released then you will have to renegotiate your contract."

    If Sanchez is under the belief that he has no future in the NFL then OK, there is nothing we can do. But assuming he believes that he does have a future, he would likely give up the guaranteed money to for his freedom. He wouldnt lose a year and would be able to select the location that he thinks would best jump start his career. Seems like a win/win.

    Is this plausible?
    Nope

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,458
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure if it is feasible but I agree that if Sanchez is on the team next year that he should be inactive every game so long as we have 2 healthy QBs in front of him.

  4. #4
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GreeneWarMachine View Post
    Nope
    Because?

  5. #5
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MrJames View Post
    Because?
    Sanchez may not be any good but he's not an idiot. Why would he give up money if he's not even sure he'll be played or picked up by another team? When has a player ever done that? Not suiting him up isn't any sort of leverage. Dude's not gonna renogotiate.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MrJames View Post
    Because?
    because Sanchez isn't a moron?

  7. #7
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    830
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is Tony Soprano our GM? That's how we get our QB to renegotiate... extortion.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    42,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MrJames View Post
    Because?
    The CBA you can't change guaranteed money just the way it is paid such as a bonus etc..

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's be real..

    If he stays he is going to be on the roster..

    There is no way he is going to sit home collecting that contract..

    He will get a shot at training camp with whoever is brought it...

    Unless he is cut or traded he will be on the Jets roster opening day next season!!

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,076
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    because Sanchez isn't a moron?
    Debateable

  11. #11
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam, NL
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ever heard of the NFLPA? Get your lawyers ready to defend a lawsuit.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Big Apple, USA
    Posts
    22,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    I somehow think selling someone freedom for cash might have duress issues as far as being an enforceable contract as well as violating a number of amendments to the US Constitution

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

  13. #13
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    148
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love these joke threads.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,076
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sg3 View Post
    I somehow think selling someone freedom for cash might have duress issues as far as being an enforceable contract as well as violating a number of amendments to the US Constitution

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    Disagree ... You would simply be giving him a choice ... making it clear he would never play another down as a starting QB for the jets ... Or walking away to find employment elsewhere. Why would the jets feel the need to pay him if he opts to leave? .. The choice is his.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sg3 View Post
    I somehow think selling someone freedom for cash might have duress issues as far as being an enforceable contract as well as violating a number of amendments to the US Constitution

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    it would be completely enforceable and doesn't violate a single amendment or any other part of the Constitution.

    OP, not sure about the aspects of the new CBA that some are referencing. Is it "plausible" ? Possibly. Would it actually work ? Highly doubtful.

    Carson Palmer sat out most of a season, refusing to play for the Bengals, and he was eventually traded away for a king's ransom. Granted, it was to the Raiders and he hadn't been benched for sucking badly leading up to his hiatus, but still, the precedent exists.

    That said, Sanchez could actually benefit from not playing for a year. It ould give him time to refocus/recharge and to perhaps work with a real QB coach on his fundamentals. All the while, he would be collecting a nice fat check from the Jets.

    So no, I don't see him renegotiating even if he could.

  16. #16
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am not sure why you all think it is so funny that Sanchez would renegotiate to get out of here. It would cost him money, sure, but it would give him an opportunity to resurrect his career.

  17. #17
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanchez 3:16 View Post
    Is Tony Soprano our GM? That's how we get our QB to renegotiate... extortion.
    Veteran players renegotiate all the time when they are told either renegotiate or we will cut you.

  18. #18
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage69 View Post
    The CBA you can't change guaranteed money just the way it is paid such as a bonus etc..
    Well no, thats a signing bonus. The guaranteed money we are talking about is not the prorated signing bonus.

  19. #19
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tai-Mai-Shu View Post
    Ever heard of the NFLPA? Get your lawyers ready to defend a lawsuit.
    A lawsuit for what? Telling him he wont be active next season? Not sure what the problem is.

  20. #20
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sg3 View Post
    I somehow think selling someone freedom for cash might have duress issues as far as being an enforceable contract as well as violating a number of amendments to the US Constitution

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

    Wow is that wrong. What grade did you get in contracts and Constitutional law and from which school?

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