Jets Won't Trade Garrett Wilson Before Deadline: 'No Way'
New York has no interest in moving its star receiver, who signed a $130 million extension 15 months ago, despite interest from other teams
Whatever interest teams have in Garrett Wilson, the Jets aren't listening. A well-placed source told ESPN's Adam Schefter there is "no way" New York trades its star receiver before the Nov. 10 deadline.
One well-placed source told ESPN this weekend that there is "no way" the Jets will trade Garrett Wilson by the NFL's Nov. 10 trade deadline, despite any interest from other teams.View on X →
Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter): One well-placed source told ESPN this weekend that there is "no way" the Jets will trade Garrett Wilson by the NFL's Nov. 10 trade deadline, despite any interest from other teams.
The obvious pushback is last year, when the Jets said similar things about Sauce Gardner and Quinnen Williams and then traded both on deadline day. And Tennessee insisted Jeffery Simmons wasn't available right up until it sent him to Chicago for two first-round picks on Thursday.
Wilson, 26, signed a four-year, $130 million extension that runs through 2030 just 15 months ago, and Jets ownership is said to love him and want no part of moving him. New York also already holds extra 2027 first-round picks from the Gardner and Williams trades, from the Colts and from either Dallas or Green Bay. The plan now is to use those picks to build around Wilson, not to stockpile more.
Wilson has said the same thing himself. He told reporters Wednesday he hasn't asked for a trade, though he admitted the losing is wearing on him.
"I want to be here, man," he said. "I want to win games, and that's the one thing we've been missing on here. I love it here. Do I love it more than I love winning? Nah, to be completely honest, but I'm hopeful."
He has 37 catches for 444 yards and three touchdowns for the 2-5 Jets, who host the Raiders on Sunday. Teams shopping for a receiver will have to look at names like Brian Thomas Jr., Josh Downs and Jauan Jennings instead.