JJ takes paycut

[Boltergeist]

You can call him J, or can call him JJ, but you doesn't gots to call him Johnson.


Perhaps the most senseless comedy routine ever.

[Boltergeist]

In the likely case that most of you are too young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc

[thelightningwill]

In the likely case that most of you are too young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc

Natty Light

[Beerman]

In the likely case that most of you are too young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoYsfbq3vMc

LOL definitely too young. Who is that (besides the obvious)?

[6025]

Can we call Freeney "Walt Freeney"?

[thelightningwill]

Can we call Freeney "Walt Freeney"?

Dwight Sweeney is older than 30 so I think it's okay.

[Panama]

That was 30 years ago. I think it's ok if we call someone else JJ.

I think we should trade him to GB.

[Bordious]

I like this. It shows the vet players are buying into the system. When that happens, it is a full trickle down effect. Success usually follows.

[MakoShark]

Thank you Mr Johnson!

[Steve]

I like the fact that we are keeping a productive player who is still useful, rather then piss the money away on some high priced guy who will probably be a flop as a FA. So many guys come in and do nothing. Some of it is the teams faults, for overpaying for older guys past their primes, or plugging guys into the wrong schemes. Some of it is the players feeling like they made it. But when we find a guy who was productive in his role, we need to let the younger guys know that we reward the guys who do it right.

Plus, the his contract will work itself out soon anyway. If we had cut him now, signed a FA, we would be hurting ourselves long term. As his contract is winding down, there are a lot of younger players who are coming up on the end of their rookie deals. It would be nice to have some free space in the next couple of years so that if we want to just extend some of them, that we can make that happen. But going out and filling that slot now limits what we can do in the future. Right now, I don't see any need in extending most of them, they need to prove themselves further.

Taking a modest pay cut tells everyone that they are in it together. Had the team forced him to take a massive paycut, it's like they are forcing him out, and sending the message that he is not valuable.

[QSmokey]

It seems to me that Clary and Freeney (perhaps Rivers and Weddle...but doubtful) are the only two question marks as far as restructuring? Would be sweet if all four did some sort of salary-relief adjustment to help the team out.

[Panama]

It seems to me that Clary and Freeney (perhaps Rivers and Weddle...but doubtful) are the only two question marks as far as restructuring? Would be sweet if all four did some sort of salary-relief adjustment to help the team out.

I don't know why you should expect any movement with Freeney or Weddle, other than their contract numbers. I would be surprised if either gets restructured. There is no incentive (and not much available savings) in restructuring Freeney. Either we keep him or we cut him, and I think the smart move is to keep him. And Weddle isn't close enough to the end of his contract to begin thinking of an extension. So, don't hold your breath on these two.

With Clary and Rivers I would expect an extension that lowers their current cap number in addition to adding extra years, not just a restructure. But I don't get the sense that the team considers either a priority. This discussion seems to be fueled mostly by speculation on this board, not any actual information forthcoming from the team.