Jump to content

DeVito Restructures Deal


Ryno the Jet

Recommended Posts

I'm a fan of the NFL, a league of players who often finish up their lives crippled, or just finish themselves off. It's a brutal sport, and the only major sport that doesn't have guaranteed contracts. So yeah, I certainly side with any player who has enough leverage to stick it to the man when they can. For every one of those, there's a thousand guys who signed contracts with NFL teams only to find themselves forced to take a paycut or out of a job completely.

If you support the action of the franchises, that's fine, but please don't try to use phrases like, "he should honor his contract," when doing so. The NFL doesn't deserve that honor when they don't act honorably themselves.

My issue is you really do go out of your way to completely ignore the concept that it is the team, not the players, who are paying the player in advance a portion of the money for their contracted years of service. If a player is cut at any time, barring a contract that had absolutely no bonus money, they will be keeping compensation that they never earned. That is the entire concept that makes the NFL contract structure work, and why the teams have the right to terminate a contract. When that happens, a player not only gets to keep unearned money, he gets to negotiate a new contract with a new team to earn more money. When a player refuses to honor his contract, he is keeping money he never earned, refusing to earn it, and then demanding he get paid additional money for the future years he's already been paid for and refuses to honor. It's this difference which is the exact reason I have absolutely no issue with players holding out when receiving any sort of franchise or RFA tags, as those are not deals they negotiated or agreed to, but beyond that I see little out there to really support it. Even a player in the last year of his deal I can somewhat understand, but to support someone who refuses to honor more than half of a contract is just nuts.

If you really wanted things to be fair, you should support the CBA having a clause that the moment a player holds out he has to repay all unearned money in his contract to the team. I know you wouldn't support that though, because it's not about what's fair, it's about always rooting for the "little" guy, even when the little guy isn't so little, but rather is filthy rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Also, I'm not waving the pom-poms for Revis if he holds out. He'll essentially ruin my team by doing so. As Jason has detailed, the Jets would likely let him rot this time around and we won't see him until Week 10 when we're 3-5 and dealing with Jon Gruden rumors. But, it falls on Tannenbaum's plate for structuring the deal like he did, essentially guaranteeing a moment of crisis like the one we may end up with here. Dude outsmarts himself yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mangold doesn't play a position where a torn MCL would effectively end his career as an elite player. Go ask Terrell Thomas of the Giants how awesome it is to be an up and coming corner and have your knee blow out on you in a preseason game right before you were able to cash in. Dude was essentially forced to sign a 4 year deal that's pretty much all incentive-based and which makes him eminently cuttable in 2013. While, yes, that's just sh*tty luck, it highlights why a player like Revis needs to get every penny up front. If Revis breaks his ankle in the first game, he's spending the next two years of his life trying in vain to not get his contract ripped up in front of his face by Tannenbaum.

Revis has already gotten more than his fair share of his money up front, and if the reports are true of an upcoming holdout, he plans to refuse to actually earn that money. Talk about an awful comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm not waving the pom-poms for Revis if he holds out. He'll essentially ruin my team by doing so. As Jason has detailed, the Jets would likely let him rot this time around and we won't see him until Week 10 when we're 3-5 and dealing with Jon Gruden rumors. But, it falls on Tannenbaum's plate for structuring the deal like he did, essentially guaranteeing a moment of crisis like the one we may end up with here. Dude outsmarts himself yet again.

Now it's Tanny's fault that Revis feels the need to hold out every other year? Hey, I have no problem with you not liking the guy, as there's plenty of legit reasons out there, but you really have gotten so sad and desperate with this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revis has already gotten more than his fair share of his money up front, and if the reports are true of an upcoming holdout, he plans to refuse to actually earn that money. Talk about an awful comparison.

Where we differ is "fair share," I think. Especially considering the very same GM who is paying him $8 mil this year spent two weeks last year trying to give Nnamdi $13 mil, it's really tough to say that Revis is getting his fair share in 2012 and 2013. At the end of the day, it's all Al Davis' fault, but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mangold doesn't play a position where a torn MCL would effectively end his career as an elite player. Go ask Terrell Thomas of the Giants how awesome it is to be an up and coming corner and have your knee blow out on you in a preseason game right before you were able to cash in. Dude was essentially forced to sign a 4 year deal that's pretty much all incentive-based and which makes him eminently cuttable in 2013. While, yes, that's just sh*tty luck, it highlights why a player like Revis needs to get every penny up front. If Revis breaks his ankle in the first game, he's spending the next two years of his life trying in vain to not get his contract ripped up in front of his face by Tannenbaum.

if you are going to make the injury argument, shouldn't sanchez hold out ?

revis got his money upfront in both deals. he has his injury insurance already invested in metlife stock I'm sure ;-)

again, I only care because of the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really wanted things to be fair, you should support the CBA having a clause that the moment a player holds out he has to repay all unearned money in his contract to the team. I know you wouldn't support that though, because it's not about what's fair, it's about always rooting for the "little" guy, even when the little guy isn't so little, but rather is filthy rich.

You don't know me.

I would support that IF in exchange for giving that money back, the team relinquishes any rights to the player and he becomes a free agent. Teams have the right to terminate any contract because they give out bonuses? Fine. Then players should have the right to terminate any contract simply by giving that pro-rated portion of the signing bonus back and saying good-bye.

That would actually be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm not waving the pom-poms for Revis if he holds out. He'll essentially ruin my team by doing so. As Jason has detailed, the Jets would likely let him rot this time around and we won't see him until Week 10 when we're 3-5 and dealing with Jon Gruden rumors. But, it falls on Tannenbaum's plate for structuring the deal like he did, essentially guaranteeing a moment of crisis like the one we may end up with here. Dude outsmarts himself yet again.

It remains to be seen who gets out smarted. As pointed out I think the Jets will let him rot this time. They just don't have the money.

Is he going to pass up about $9,000,000 in the prime of his career? Come back in week 10, not in football shape, and risk injury that will devalue him? Doesn't seem to smart to me

Stay tuned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now it's Tanny's fault that Revis feels the need to hold out every other year? Hey, I have no problem with you not liking the guy, as there's plenty of legit reasons out there, but you really have gotten so sad and desperate with this stuff.

Tannenbaum himself called the current contract "intermediate," meaning it was done with the intent of getting Revis into camp with the understanding that it would have to be re-done in the future. What will be "sad and desperate" is if (when?) Tannenbaum acts shocked and bereaved by Revis not wanting to take the field for $7 mil under a contract that he all but admitted was written in pencil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains to be seen who gets out smarted. As pointed out I think the Jets will let him rot this time. They just don't have the money.

Is he going to pass up about $9,000,000 in the prime of his career? Come back in week 10, not in football shape, and risk injury that will devalue him? Doesn't seem to smart to me

Stay tuned

Worked out awesome for Vincent Jackson. If Revis shoots his way out of town, there will be 31 teams lining up with offer sheets, each of whom would be hailed as preseason geniuses for picking him up.

But, let's see if he holds out first. God I hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you are going to make the injury argument, shouldn't sanchez hold out ?

revis got his money upfront in both deals. he has his injury insurance already invested in metlife stock I'm sure ;-)

again, I only care because of the cap.

Ha! Sanchez has less than zero leverage. As far as the cap, I agree with you. I personally think the smart thing to do would be to tear up Revis' deal and give him a three year, $36 mil deal with the third year being a team option. If he wants to be a mercenary, treat him like a mercenary with short term deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He played in 12 games last season with 11 starts, missing four games with two separate knee injuries. The Jets announced in January that DeVito had offseason shoulder surgery.

this is the part of the article that is most relevant to me. Devito WAS a great player. Injuries can break a man down. He's probably better off in a sub role. and the Jets were smart to address the DE situation before it got dire. the idea of Mike Devito is probably way different than the 2012 reality of what he can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm not waving the pom-poms for Revis if he holds out. He'll essentially ruin my team by doing so. As Jason has detailed, the Jets would likely let him rot this time around and we won't see him until Week 10 when we're 3-5 and dealing with Jon Gruden rumors. But, it falls on Tannenbaum's plate for structuring the deal like he did, essentially guaranteeing a moment of crisis like the one we may end up with here. Dude outsmarts himself yet again.

I guess I'm not understanding why anyone thinks they should be taking sides. The Jets didn't hold the guy hostage. DeVito was well within his rights to say no and test the FA waters elsewhere and he didn't. Period. Contract requirements are the way they are because the union he belongs to says it's OK. The players don't demand change on that tip, yet the public gets outraged when this happens. The only people who bitch about loyalty are fans. Players and owners seem to the only ones who understand that it's a ******* business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm not understanding why anyone thinks they should be taking sides. The Jets didn't hold the guy hostage. DeVito was well within his rights to say no and test the FA waters elsewhere and he didn't. Period. Contract requirements are the way they are because the union he belongs to says it's OK. The players don't demand change on that tip, yet the public gets outraged when this happens. The only people who bitch about loyalty are fans. Players and owners seem to the only ones who understand that it's a ******* business.

Revis Anxiety Syndrome, methinks. We're all gearing up for our eventual screaming matches where we debate fiscal conservancy v. liberalism under the guise of talking about a football player's contract demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revis Anxiety Syndrome, methinks. We're all gearing up for our eventual screaming matches where we debate fiscal conservancy v. liberalism under the guise of talking about a football player's contract demands.

It's bizarre. End of the day every guy in the locker room looks at this first and foremost as their job. Ditto for the front office. But yeah, let's argue that either side should make bad business decisions under the guise of kindness towards fellow man. Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's bizarre. End of the day every guy in the locker room looks at this first and foremost as their job. Ditto for the front office. But yeah, let's argue that either side should make bad business decisions under the guise of kindness towards fellow man. Give me a break.

I agree, I think. Ultimately, it's always the guy who takes less money and/or plays through an injury for the good of the team that gets the shaft. It's smart for the team to take back money from DeVito if he's not gonna start in the same way it's smart for Revis to hold a gun to Tannenbaum's head every minute he's the best corner in the game. Business is business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know me.

I would support that IF in exchange for giving that money back, the team relinquishes any rights to the player and he becomes a free agent. Teams have the right to terminate any contract because they give out bonuses? Fine. Then players should have the right to terminate any contract simply by giving that pro-rated portion of the signing bonus back and saying good-bye.

That would actually be fair.

Depending on the language of the contract

The big difference between the team, and the players is that after the guaranteed money has been paid the team has fulfilled their obligation to the contract. If it's a 5 year contract that becomes cap friendly after 3 years, it's really a 3 year contract with the option to continue for two years if the player is still productive. If he isn't he becomes a totally FA to sell his skills to the highest bidder.

The player hasn't fulfilled his obligation. He has agreed to play 5 years for X amount of dollars per year. Usually millions guaranteed.

It's as fair as can be. The amount of money he gets the last 2 years depends on how productive he was the prior 3. It's clear in the wording of the contract. This isn't 1950 where the players had no idea what they were signing. They hire very well compensated lawyers, whose cut depends on how much money the player gets to represents them. These guys aren't dopes.

It's a fair system. Everyone knows what's going to happen from the very beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about all the FA agent money being essentially dried up at this point. The amount he could've made on the open market in the beginning of March was significantly more than he could hope to make today.

Same way Jets fans are hoping they can pick up an inexpensive cast-off to fill an OL void, DeVito would be that DL cast-off now if the Jets let him go.

Wrong

Big money frees up after they actually hit the practice field... Right now teams don't know what they have they only know what the player was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on the language of the contract

The big difference between the team, and the players is that after the guaranteed money has been paid the team has fulfilled their obligation to the contract. If it's a 5 year contract that becomes cap friendly after 3 years, it's really a 3 year contract with the option to continue for two years if the player is still productive. If he isn't he becomes a totally FA to sell his skills to the highest bidder.

The player hasn't fulfilled his obligation. He has agreed to play 5 years for X amount of dollars per year. Usually millions guaranteed.

It's as fair as can be. The amount of money he gets the last 2 years depends on how productive he was the prior 3. It's clear in the wording of the contract. This isn't 1950 where the players had no idea what they were signing. They hire very well compensated lawyers, whose cut depends on how much money the player gets to represents them. These guys aren't dopes.

It's a fair system. Everyone knows what's going to happen from the very beginning.

It's not a fair system. It's better than it once was, but it's still heavily weighted in the owners favor.

The teams can terminate a contract at any time, players are obligated to serve at the owners whim. If you feel that the bonus money paid gives the teams that right, why wouldn't you be on board with the payers having that same right simply by giving the pro-rated portion of that bonus money back?

The owners want -and have- the right to control a players rights when they significantly outperform their contracts, and the right to terminate them when they're not performing up to the level of their compensation.

I certainly agree that guaranteed contracts would have much less money on the back end, and would probably wind up simply being shorter overall. That in turn would lead to fairer deals on both sides when both sides are obligated to adhere to the entire length of the contract instead of just the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong

Big money frees up after they actually hit the practice field... Right now teams don't know what they have they only know what the player was.

So you're saying the biggest deals in free agency occur between now and when the season starts? Really? You have any evidence of that, or would you like to admit that you, in fact, are the one who is in the wrong right now?

Because, all the big money gets spent in the earliest part of free agency. If you're not aware of that, it's kinda silly for you even to interject yourself into the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a fair system. It's better than it once was, but it's still heavily weighted in the owners favor.

The teams can terminate a contract at any time, players are obligated to serve at the owners whim. If you feel that the bonus money paid gives the teams that right, why wouldn't you be on board with the payers having that same right simply by giving the pro-rated portion of that bonus money back?

The owners want -and have- the right to control a players rights when they significantly outperform their contracts, and the right to terminate them when they're not performing up to the level of their compensation.

I certainly agree that guaranteed contracts would have much less money on the back end, and would probably wind up simply being shorter overall. That in turn would lead to fairer deals on both sides when both sides are obligated to adhere to the entire length of the contract instead of just the players.

Because they have signed a contract they haven't fulfilled. They had the best legal advise on the subject in the world when they did it.

Usually when they are released they don't have to return any of the bonus money. They are free to sell their trade to any one. I don't think you should be upset with the teams. Be angry with their millionaire agents for being so stupid, and getting ripped off by the teams.

Be angry at the other players for wanting their share of the cap money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they have signed a contract they haven't fulfilled. They had the best legal advise on the subject in the world when they did it.

Usually when they are released they don't have to return any of the bonus money. They are free to sell their trade to any one. I don't think you should be upset with the teams. Be angry with their millionaire agents for being so stupid, and getting ripped off by the teams.

Be angry at the other players for wanting their share of the cap money.

Ahhh, a lucid take on this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they have signed a contract they haven't fulfilled.

The players and owners come into an agreement for a set number of years at a set number of dollars. The owners have the right to end that agreement at any time -in other words, not fulfill the contract- the players don't have that right.

Bonus money is a big deal to player who got a big deal. Not so much to a guy outperforming a lower level rookie deal.

It's not a fair system.

Baseball, basketball, even hockey, give their players guaranteed contracts. The NFL way is BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Tom, what are your heros, the Gnats going to do with Osi and Victor Cruz? I mean, Reese is a genius, right?

That's a good question, Jon. What do you think Tannenbaum would do if he ever had to sign a pass rusher or a wide receiver that he drafted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question, Jon. What do you think Tannenbaum would do if he ever had to sign a pass rusher or a wide receiver that he drafted?

I'll let you know in 5 years

Nice job deflecting the question nonetheless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The players and owners come into an agreement for a set number of years at a set number of dollars. The owners have the right to end that agreement at any time -in other words, not fulfill the contract- the players don't have that right.

Bonus money is a big deal to player who got a big deal. Not so much to a guy outperforming a lower level rookie deal.

It's not a fair system.

Baseball, basketball, even hockey, give their players guaranteed contracts. The NFL way is BS.

No. That's not how the contracts read.

A player has every right to demand full guarantee of a contract. In which case the bottom line of the contract would be 60% or more less.

It's what the market demands. Football isn't base ball. They only play 16 games. They have a hard salary cap, which has been very successful in keeping the game competitive and profitable for every one involved.

The teams have fulfilled their obligation to the contract. They aren't exercising their option. The player gets to keep the whole bonus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really wanted things to be fair, you should support the CBA having a clause that the moment a player holds out he has to repay all unearned money in his contract to the team. I know you wouldn't support that though, because it's not about what's fair, it's about always rooting for the "little" guy, even when the little guy isn't so little, but rather is filthy rich.

There is actually ways for team to begin to take back that unearned bonus money if they holdout. Not all but some. It was another big concession by the union, who just looks like they had no idea what they were bargaining for. I think the only thing they gained was lighter practices and less workout time, which actually costs the players some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$700K is no small paycut.

Jets used their leverage, you say? NFL teams use their leverage in this way with players all the time, and Tannenbaum is one of the worst offenders. Yet, when a player decides to use his leverage against the team, he gets criticized for not honoring his contract. To me, it's total BS by virtue of the fact that the teams don't feel compelled to honor contracts, and they rarely get criticized by the fans for their lack of honor.

When all NFL contracts are guaranteed, I'll probably have a different stand on holdouts. In the meantime, I'll support any player who uses his leverage to get more from an NFL club.

This is what happens when you GM doesn't get depth in the draft, focing your franchise to ovrpay for FA talent to fill those gap.sKyle Wilson .Vernon Golston and Vlad Ducasse are part of why Devito is taking a cut.Also, the brilliance of extending Mark Sanchez. And Joey Clinkscales did a great job on the draft. Sure., Right. You bet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is the part of the article that is most relevant to me. Devito WAS a great player. Injuries can break a man down. He's probably better off in a sub role. and the Jets were smart to address the DE situation before it got dire. the idea of Mike Devito is probably way different than the 2012 reality of what he can do.

Funny how when it comes to Rex's defense they make sure to get a guy before the guy in front of him can't play. Yet on offense they will roll the dice with a right tackle and hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a fair system. It's better than it once was, but it's still heavily weighted in the owners favor.

The teams can terminate a contract at any time, players are obligated to serve at the owners whim. If you feel that the bonus money paid gives the teams that right, why wouldn't you be on board with the payers having that same right simply by giving the pro-rated portion of that bonus money back?

The owners want -and have- the right to control a players rights when they significantly outperform their contracts, and the right to terminate them when they're not performing up to the level of their compensation.

I certainly agree that guaranteed contracts would have much less money on the back end, and would probably wind up simply being shorter overall. That in turn would lead to fairer deals on both sides when both sides are obligated to adhere to the entire length of the contract instead of just the players.

In what other business does the employer not make the rules and the employees follow them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how when it comes to Rex's defense they make sure to get a guy before the guy in front of him can't play. Yet on offense they will roll the dice with a right tackle and hope for the best.

the case can be made that 5-tech pass rusher is a more important role than RT. if Coples can help the Jets defense get pressure without blitzing, thats huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...