POSTED 5:32 p.m. EST; UPDATED 6:30 p.m. EST, February 17, 2006

 

IDZIK TURNED DOWN JETS

 

We're told that Cardinals exec John Idzik recently turned down an opportunity to join the New York Jets.

 

Idzik is a contracts guy in Arizona, and he presumably would have filled the same role in New York, despite the fact that contracts is the specialty of G.M. Mike Tannenbaum.

 

We'd previously reported that the Jets also wanted to hire Ravens pro personnel director George Kokinis, but that the Ravens would not let Kokinis make a lateral move.

 

PENNINGTON WON'T BUDGE

 

Jets quarterback Chad Pennington reportedly has declined a request to reduce his 2006 compensation from $9 million to $1 million.  Apparently, there's been no counter from Pennington's camp.  This means that either the Jets will keep Pennington and pay him $3 million on March 3, or they'll cut him and take a gross cap charge of $12 million -- and a net cap hit of zero.

 

Look for the Jets to cut the cord.  Michael Smith of ESPN kinda-sorta reported during Friday's Around the Horn that the Jets will take Vanderbilt quarterback Jay Cutler with the No. 4 pick in the draft "and start over" at the position.

 

For Pennington, the question becomes whether anyone else will sign him and, if so, whether they'd pay him more than what he could have gotten from the Jets.  At a minimum, he's leaving a $1 million on the table.  And our guess is that the Jets would have sweetened the pot, if Pennington and agent Tom Condon had shown any inclination to bargain.

 

Elsewhere on the team that is projected to be $26 million over the cap, it's a foregone conclusion that the Jets will release cornerback Ty Law.  This will create at least $14 million in 2006 cap space, since Law is scheduled to receive $11 million on March 3 and a $3 million salary.  (The move should surprise no one; the primary purpose of the contract he signed with the Jets late in the 2006 offseason was to create the impression that it was a long-term, big-money package, even though it was obvious to the trained eye that it's only a one-year deal.)

 

Likewise, center Kevin Maware is in line to be released, since he "apparently" will refuse to take a pay cut.

 

Other Jets being asked to reduce their contracts for 2006 are running back Curtis Martin, guard Pete Kendal, tackle Jason Fabini, and receiver Laveranues Coles.

 

PALMER RETURNING TO NINERS

 

A league source tells us that quarterback Jesse Palmer has re-signed with the San Francisco 49ers.

 

Palmer joined the Niners during the 2005 season, but released him in November 25.  Palmer joins a roster that includes Alex Smith, Ken Dorsey, and Cody Pickett.

 

Palmer spent four seasons with the Giants.  He was cut by New York prior to the 2005 season after signing a one-year deal.

 

FRIDAY ONE-LINERS

 

Broncos DE Marco Coleman has retired.

 

The Broncos are working on new deals with OT Matt Lepsis, DT Gerard Warren, RB Ron Dayne, and LS Mike Leach.

 

The Titans and DE Kyle Vanden Bosch officially have agreed to a four-year, $22 million contract; his $14.5 million in guaranteed money includes fully guaranteed base salaries for the first three years of the deal.

 

New Lions coach Rod Marinelli says that Joey Harrington will be one of the team's quarterbacks this season; "I think he's a great young talent," Marinelli said.  (Maybe Marinelli was talking about Joey's piano skills.)

 

Ernie Stautner, the only Steelers player to have his jersey retired, has died at the age of 80.

 

The wife of Damion McIntosh doesn't plan to press charges against him for pushing her to the floor.  (Hey, papa can't pay the bills if he's playing for the Mean Machine.)

 

Malcom has polished off his staff (we figured he would have gotten through that phase by now).

 

The Bengals are bringing back all of their assistant coaches in 2006.  (But can any of them play quarterback?)

 

Leave it to a guy named "Bulger" to make a Wizard of Oz reference.

 

The Bears reportedly have $17 million to spend in the 2006 offseason.

 

The Bucs are raising ticket prices for the fourth straight season (and just imagine where the prices would go if they ever win another playoff game).

 

Vikings personnel guru Fran Foley says that the so-called "Triangle of Authority" doesn't put him and coach Brad Childress and V.P. Rob Brzezinski on equal footing:  "It's a little trickier than that. I will offer you this: I'm responsible for all of the players that are good, and Brad and Rob can take all the players that aren't."

 

Vikings RB Mewelde Moore had surgery on his right wrist during Super Bowl week.

 

Former Rams defensive coordinator Larry Marmie likely will be joining the Big Show's staff.

 

POSTED 8:51 a.m. EST; UPDATED 9:19 a.m. EST, February 17, 2006

 

JETS NET CAP HIT FOR CUTTING CHAD?  ZERO

 

As the New York Jets try to finagle a reduction in quarterback Chad Pennington's 2006 wages, some NFL observers are explaining that the Jets have no real leverage because cutting Pennington would give rise to a $12 million cap hit.

 

We've confirmed that, indeed, dumping Pennington will result in a $12 million cap charge due to the $22 million he already has received under a contract signed in 2004.  But cutting Pennington also will result in a savings of $9 million owed to Pennington in 2006.

 

Coupled with the $3 million signing bonus proration, the net cap hit technically would be zero.

 

Actually, cutting him would result in $3 million in cap savings, since there's a $3 million LTBE incentive in Pennington's deal based on him participating in a percentage of the team's special teams snaps in 2006.  Though such devices are used to increase the basis for the 30 percent rule, it wasn't necessary in Pennington's contract, since his 2007 salary is only $4 million, far less than his $9 million pay in 2006.

 

Regardless, this incentive means that there's currently $15 million tied up under Pennington's name.  Since the $3 million eventually will go away when it becomes impossible for him to participate in 05 percent of the special teams snaps, cutting him would be a wash.

 

There's another minor twist.  The Jets have the right to guarantee his 2006 base salary of $6 million.  So if they keep Chad at his current wages in 2006 and guarantee the base (and if we ignore the $3 million incentive payment), his cap number would be $7.5 million.  Since cutting him would cost $12 million against the cap, the net cap hit as a practical matter would be $4.5 million. 

 

But given that the CBA extension likely will get done, cutting Chad now gets him off the books, with no cap charges in future years.  And because no one expects the Jets to do much on the field in 2006, it might be wise for the Two Utes who are running the show to bite the bullet now.

 

The bottom line here is that if Pennington refuses to take a significant pay reduction, the fact that cutting him creates a $12 million cap charge should not be an impediment to getting rid of him -- especially since keeping him at a $7.5 million cap number will require paying him $9 million in 2006, but taking a $12 million cap hit by releasing him requires the placement of no further cash into his already unjustifiably deep pockets.

 

SOME JETS WANT TO JETTISON CHAD

 

If the Two Utes in New York ultimately choose to dump Chad Pennington, they'll apparently have some support in the locker room.  Per Mark Cannizaro of The New York Post, two members of the team's offense believe that the team shot chop Chad from the roster.

 

"I think we should release him; he's too injury-prone," one player said.

 

"He's like an egg back there," said another player.  "I mean, look at the ways he's gotten hurt.  He hasn't even been hit that hard.  The injuries have come from awkward hits and falls.  I think we should just cut him."

 

Ouch.  The fact that two members of the offense would speak out on an off-the-record basis (those cowards!) tells us even more about Pennington the leader than it does about Pennington the egg-shaped man who constantly falls from his seat on top of a wall.  If there was genuine love for Chad in the locker room, these two guys would be supporting their quarterback.  At a minimum, they'd be keeping their mouths shut.

 

The fact that they're talking makes us wonder about the atmosphere that arose within the organization after Pennington went down (again) last year.  Maybe coach Herm Edwards subtly put out attitude and/or vibrations that Chad is too injury prone, in order to deflect criticism for the coach's failure to shut Pennington down (as he should have) when it was known to the team in 2004 that he had a torn rotator cuff.

 

Regardless, the fact that two members of the offense have detached emotionally from their supposed field general tells us all we need to know. 

 

It truly is time for Pennington to go.

 

REVENUE SHARING STILL A BIG ISSUE

 

Although we're hearing that progress is continuing toward a new CBA without regard to the fact that the owners have not agreed on a plan to expand revenue sharing, it appears based on information we've gathered that the issue remains a major point of contention among the 32 members of the Billionaire Boys Club.

 

As we understand it, seven teams are adamantly opposed to the notion of sharing revenue beyond the revenue that already is shared:  the Eagles, the Patriots, the Jets, the Giants, the Redskins, the Cowboys, and the Texans. 

 

Several franchises are pushing hard for it, with the Jaguars, the Steelers, the Packers, the Cardinals, and the Bengals believed to be among that group.

 

Though the rest are mainly up in the air on this one, the simple fact is that the seven who want no expansion of revenue sharing need only to recruit two more franchises to block any votes on changing the system, since 24 "ayes" are necessary.

 

For the "haves," who are realizing local unshared revenues grossly disproportionate to the unshared money earned by the "have-nots," the notion of coughing up the fruits of their labor, creativity, and/or business savvy is highly objectionable.  Over the past year, we've heard (and read in published reports) a variety of arguments.  For example, the Bengals should sell the naming rights to their stadium in order to generate more income. 

 

More recently, we've heard rumblings along the lines that a popular team like the Steelers should simply raise prices across the board.

 

So that's the root of the problem.  The teams who are making the most money believe that other teams can do the same, if they choose to try.  Sharing all revenue can remove the incentive for teams like the Bengals and Cardinals and Jaguars to improve their financial position, since they'd know they'll be subsidized to a certain extent by high-earning teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, and Texans.

 

The other side of the coin, however, is that as teams like the Redskins continue to reel in huge revenues that aren't shared on a year-in, year-out basis, the competitive balance eventually will be affected, despite the fact that there is a hard salary cap in place. 

 

Even now, the 'Skins are dumping millions into the coaching staff.  Over time, the differences will also become increasingly obvious in other expenditures not regulated by a spending limit.

 

Frankly, we're not sure where we come down on this one.  On one hand, businesses shouldn't be penalized for fairly and legitimately enjoying success.  On the other hand, the "business" here is much broader than any one team, and a disruption of the competitive balance eventually would hurt everyone financially.

 

Our guess is that, in the end, nothing will be done until there is solid evidence that the earning disparity is affecting the on-field product.  After all, the millions that Bob McNair has earned isn't translating into many Texan wins, and the relatively lack of local cash flow in Pittsburgh hasn't held back the Steelers.