Revis trade, one year later: Winners, losers

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Jets win because Richardson is five years younger than Revis while the Patriots still have Brady and we still don't have a quarterback. Revis wins because he got 28M in two years and free agency again. Tampa loses because obviously. This thread is way too long.

[SenorGato]

 I'd really love to hear the case that drafting Darrelle Revis hurt the NY Jets. 

 

Next gen boys might be even more uppity? NFL already ready for that with the new penalties for holding out.

 

In English?

 

All "I don't root for the name on the back of the uniform" nonsense is just more of #proleshatingproles. At best it's meatheadedness...Paid armies couldn't be more loyal.

On the other hand, I have really enjoyed the versatility of your username.

 

I've come to find Revis as a self serving douche, but I can't fault him for beating the system either. But then again- he's also built differently...granted I'm not paid to play football, but I can't imagine finding ways to beat the system is as  enjoyable as it is just being one of the guys(which he'll never be).

 

I bet Revis has friends. Just being one of the guys will find it's way to #proleshateproles.

[Matt39]

Next gen boys might be even more uppity? NFL already ready for that with the new penalties for holding out.

 

 

All "I don't root for the name of the back of the uniform" nonsense is just more of #proleshatingproles. At best it's meatheadedness...Paid armies couldn't be more loyal.

On the other hand, I have really enjoyed the versatility of your username.

 

 

I bet Revis has friends. Just being one of the guys will find it's way to #proleshateproles.

 

Isnt he dating his manager

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

#proleshateproles.

Stop. It isn't going to happen.

[SenorGato]

Stop. It isn't going to happen.

 

Mostly because #proleshateproles

[RutgersJetFan]

Stop. It isn't going to happen.

 

Mostly because #proleshateproles

 

[slats]

 I'd really love to hear the case that drafting Darrelle Revis hurt the NY Jets. 

The closest I've seen to that here is you claiming it was a bad pick because the Jets aren't still paying him.

[bitonti]

As usual from you, not even remotely close to the argument I made.

 

 

"all the bad he did" 

 

what was that exactly? 

[ZachEY]

"all the bad he did" 

 

what was that exactly? 

 

um, 2 hold outs... threatening a third... showing up out of shape... etc.

[dbatesman]

The closest I've seen to that here is you claiming it was a bad pick because the Jets aren't still paying him.

[RutgersJetFan]

The closest I've seen to that here is you claiming it was a bad pick because the Jets aren't still paying him.

 

[Matt39]

The closest I've seen to that here is you claiming it was a bad pick because the Jets aren't still paying him.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

Revis was going to opt out of his contract with the Jets after the 2013 season, despite having 3 years remaining on a deal he signed.  It was a 7-year deal that the Jets would have honored if Revis didn't back out of it.  He is therefore no better than any NFL owner from any moral compass.  He was going to honor his contract when it suited him and opt out when it suited him.  No reason to think he is operating on a higher moral plane than anyone else.  He isn't, wasn't, and wouldn't be if we picked him up again.

 

 

Know what is curious to me, is the 2nd year of his deal with New England.  I didn't really give it much thought, other than the somewhat-interesting silliness of the amount.  But what purpose does it serve? Obviously New England isn't going to pay him $25M (or whatever it is) for the 2015 season. So if a newer deal can't be reached, New England is going to cut him and someone else will sign him for big bucks.  Had they just done a true 1-year deal (which is really what it is anyway), then by failing to re-sign him for 2015, wouldn't they have gained a 3rd round comp pick in 2016 when someone else gave him a huge payday in March of 2015? If that's the case, then NE just threw a 3rd round pick in the garbage for absolutely nothing.

 

The only reason I could think of is that 2nd year prevents NE from slapping a franchise tag on him at $14.4M.  But if that's all it was to avoid, then NE could have just put "we can't tag you in 2015" language in there instead.

 

Anyone?

[Bleedin Green]

Revis was going to opt out of his contract with the Jets after the 2013 season, despite having 3 years remaining on a deal he signed.  It was a 7-year deal that the Jets would have honored if Revis didn't back out of it.  He is therefore no better than any NFL owner from any moral compass.  He was going to honor his contract when it suited him and opt out when it suited him.  No reason to think he is operating on a higher moral plane than anyone else.  He isn't, wasn't, and wouldn't be if we picked him up again.

 

 

Know what is curious to me, is the 2nd year of his deal with New England.  I didn't really give it much thought, other than the somewhat-interesting silliness of the amount.  But what purpose does it serve? Obviously New England isn't going to pay him $25M (or whatever it is) for the 2015 season. So if a newer deal can't be reached, New England is going to cut him and someone else will sign him for big bucks.  Had they just done a true 1-year deal (which is really what it is anyway), then by failing to re-sign him for 2015, wouldn't they have gained a 3rd round comp pick in 2016 when someone else gave him a huge payday in March of 2015? If that's the case, then NE just threw a 3rd round pick in the garbage for absolutely nothing.

 

The only reason I could think of is that 2nd year prevents NE from slapping a franchise tag on him at $14.4M.  But if that's all it was to avoid, then NE could have just put "we can't tag you in 2015" language in there instead.

 

Anyone?

 

I believe there were two parts to it, the first being the franchise tag prevention that you mentioned.  The other part was that the Pats couldn't actually afford to pay Revis to his demands this year with their cap situation, and therefore needed to have a second year on the deal in order to be able to spread out the hit for the portion of the contract that was the signing bonus.

 

Also, from the Pats perspective, even if they have absolutely no intention of paying him that much next year, they might see it as a possibility to hold onto him a little longer while they negotiate a new deal, assuming they wouldn't need to get rid of him by the start of the league year in order to get under the cap.

[slats]

I believe there were two parts to it, the first being the franchise tag prevention that you mentioned.  The other part was that the Pats couldn't actually afford to pay Revis to his demands this year with their cap situation, and therefore needed to have a second year on the deal in order to be able to spread out the hit for the portion of the contract that was the signing bonus.

 

Also, from the Pats perspective, even if they have absolutely no intention of paying him that much next year, they might see it as a possibility to hold onto him a little longer while they negotiate a new deal, assuming they wouldn't need to get rid of him by the start of the league year in order to get under the cap.

They might also like the idea of holding onto his rights, and negotiating a trade that nets significantly more than a third round comp pick in 2015 with a team that's able to come to terms with Revis on yet another payday.

[Bleedin Green]

They might also like the idea of holding onto his rights, and negotiating a trade that nets significantly more than a third round comp pick in 2015 with a team that's able to come to terms with Revis on yet another payday.

 

I thought of that possibility as well, but I'm not sure that will happen given that it would require Revis to be willing to negotiate a new deal with the team he was being traded to.  Consider that, for the Jets, that was not so difficult to make happen, because Revis knew he was absolutely not going to be cut last year, and so negotiating the deal with Tampa got him significant more money for last season.  Next year, Revis could easily refuse to negotiate with a new team if he didn't like the team and/or felt he could get more on the open market, knowing he was likely going to eventually be cut or end up getting paid $20M from the Pats.  And no team would possibly agree to trade for Revis next year under his current deal.

[#27TheDominator]

Seems unlikely that anybody is going to trade for him.  If they wanted him they could have just signed him this year.  He was on the street.  The stories I read were that it was to keep him from being franchised and to insure that the Pats negotiated a long term deal.  I think they wanted to lock him up and promised to talk about an extension at some particular point.  

[KINGDIRK]

Revis was going to opt out of his contract with the Jets after the 2013 season, despite having 3 years remaining on a deal he signed.  It was a 7-year deal that the Jets would have honored if Revis didn't back out of it.  He is therefore no better than any NFL owner from any moral compass.  He was going to honor his contract when it suited him and opt out when it suited him.  No reason to think he is operating on a higher moral plane than anyone else.  He isn't, wasn't, and wouldn't be if we picked him up again.

 

 

Know what is curious to me, is the 2nd year of his deal with New England.  I didn't really give it much thought, other than the somewhat-interesting silliness of the amount.  But what purpose does it serve? Obviously New England isn't going to pay him $25M (or whatever it is) for the 2015 season. So if a newer deal can't be reached, New England is going to cut him and someone else will sign him for big bucks.  Had they just done a true 1-year deal (which is really what it is anyway), then by failing to re-sign him for 2015, wouldn't they have gained a 3rd round comp pick in 2016 when someone else gave him a huge payday in March of 2015? If that's the case, then NE just threw a 3rd round pick in the garbage for absolutely nothing.

 

The only reason I could think of is that 2nd year prevents NE from slapping a franchise tag on him at $14.4M.  But if that's all it was to avoid, then NE could have just put "we can't tag you in 2015" language in there instead.

 

Anyone?

 

Sperm, it was all about the franchise tag. Plain and simple. Revis hits unrestricted FA after this season.

[Sperm Edwards]

I believe there were two parts to it, the first being the franchise tag prevention that you mentioned.  The other part was that the Pats couldn't actually afford to pay Revis to his demands this year with their cap situation, and therefore needed to have a second year on the deal in order to be able to spread out the hit for the portion of the contract that was the signing bonus.

 

Also, from the Pats perspective, even if they have absolutely no intention of paying him that much next year, they might see it as a possibility to hold onto him a little longer while they negotiate a new deal, assuming they wouldn't need to get rid of him by the start of the league year in order to get under the cap.

 

Ah, I wasn't considering that part of the $12M was signing bonus spread over 2 years.  OK, that's a legit reason.  It made no sense to me otherwise.  He's due a big roster bonus - I forget, but it was something like $8M or $10M - in early March, though I can't recall if it's day 1 or day 10 of the 2015 season, and the difference isn't at all insignificant.  If it's on or around day 1, NE can't then just drag it out while they first see who else they could get their hands on.  If later, they can attempt to lower his demands by removing potential options for Revis as other CBs get signed in the initial few days of FA.

[SenorGato]

 It was a 7-year deal that the Jets would have honored if Revis didn't back out of it.  He is therefore no better than any NFL owner from any moral compass

 

 

Ignoring that this is probably bullsh*t - they'd cut him at their convenience and the only reason he had a shot to see all 7 is that he signed the deal so young while being just that god damned good - it is a *good* thing that a player is acting the way he acts. There should be more, and there undoubtedly will be once someone figures out this holdout fee bullsh*t. The new rules on holdouts are one of the many, many reasons it is hard for anyone to fall to the owners' level of piece of sh*t scumbaggedness. Revis doesn't come particularly close, but I understand that a brainwashed soldier in the Owners' ProlevProle Army has "their own" thoughts on the matter. You have been remarkably well conditioned, good boy.

[Sperm Edwards]

Sperm, it was all about the franchise tag. Plain and simple. Revis hits unrestricted FA after this season.

 

If it was all about the franchise tag then why not just put "we won't tag you" language in there? He's not going to be a "true" UFA after this season because his contract was up; he'll be a FA because he was cut.  But because he was cut by NE, the team won't be compensated for their loss (no compensatory draft pick).

 

I suppose it's possible that the Revis camp wanted this instead of no-tagging language.  In theory it provides an incentive to NE to work out something beyond 2014 because otherwise they get nothing.  On a pure 1-year deal, NE gains a 3rd round pick the following year by not re-signing him.  That's a little far-fetched, though, for a contract negotiation that lasted like a day or less.

[Sperm Edwards]

Ignoring that this is probably bullsh*t - they'd cut him at their convenience and the only reason he had a shot to see all 7 is that he signed the deal so young while being just that god damned good - it is a *good* thing that a player is acting the way he acts. There should be more, and there undoubtedly will be once someone figures out this holdout fee bullsh*t. The new rules on holdouts are one of the many, many reasons it is hard for anyone to fall to the owners' level of piece of sh*t scumbaggedness. Revis doesn't come particularly close, but I understand that a brainwashed soldier in the Owners' ProlevProle Army has "their own" thoughts on the matter. You have been remarkably well conditioned, good boy.

 

He signed a 7-year deal and was going to opt out of it when it suited him.  Same as a team who opts out of a player contact by cutting him (though the player doesn't have to return the amortized portion of any bonus payment made in advance, nor would Revis have had to if he opted out or held out).  Same thing.  Your anger is boring and means nothing to anyone.  Besides, everyone knows you've lost the argument when you start flinging insults and inventing conspiracy theories (though this is nothing new for you).  You're angry because some people have more than you.  We get it.

[Villain The Foe]

Winners: Jets

[SenorGato]

He signed a 7-year deal and was going to opt out of it when it suited him.  Same as a team who opts out of a player contact by cutting him (though the player doesn't have to return the amortized portion of any bonus payment made in advance, nor would Revis have had to if he opted out or held out).  Same thing.  Your anger is boring and means nothing to anyone.  Besides, everyone knows you've lost the argument when you start flinging insults and inventing conspiracy theories (though this is nothing new for you).  You're angry because some people have more than you.  We get it.

 

Yes, and note how there's one Revis vs the many hundreds of times this has been done to players. Or that, once again since this really doesn't seem to get through to you, the team would do it to him sooner or later during that 7 year deal. I have no idea why you would throw in anything about returning money (you always go to this as if it makes sense), they never see the full announced contract in the first place, there is no reason that should be an expectation. It doesn't make any sense.

 

This boredom of yours, which is feigned here and probably just seemed cool to write, is more a sign of the stupidity and placidity rampant within the world's proles. To try to whittle down what I'm saying to anger over people having more than me, no clue how how that doesn't apply to your stance on Revis or any other player seeking to max control of his money, is just another clumsy deflection on your part. Then there's the sudden sanctimony over what you call insults - building your bestest friends, the owners, a protective moat with those tears? Seriously - inventing conspiracy theories? That far gone? It's an invented conspiracy theory that Revis did exactly to teams what teams do to players multiple times every year? **** man, you really are well conditioned. I'm sure such loyalty to the owners gets tons of notice and care.

[Gastineau Lives]

Yes, and note how there's one Revis vs the many hundreds of times this has been done to players. Or that, once again since this really doesn't seem to get through to you, the team would do it to him sooner or later during that 7 year deal. I have no idea why you would throw in anything about returning money (you always go to this as if it makes sense), they never see the full announced contract in the first place, there is no reason that should be an expectation. It doesn't make any sense.

 

This boredom of yours, which is feigned here and probably just seemed cool to write, is more a sign of the stupidity and placidity rampant within the world's proles. To try to whittle down what I'm saying to anger over people having more than me, no clue how how that doesn't apply to your stance on Revis or any other player seeking to max control of his money, is just another clumsy deflection on your part. Then there's the sudden sanctimony over what you call insults - building your bestest friends, the owners, a protective moat with those tears? Seriously - inventing conspiracy theories? That far gone? It's an invented conspiracy theory that Revis did exactly to teams what teams do to players multiple times every year? **** man, you really are well conditioned. I'm sure such loyalty to the owners gets tons of notice and care.

 

Are you suggesting that the players and owners should be equal partners?

 

Is Revis going to market, work out television contracts, schedule the games, etc.? Did Revis help build the NFL brand creating all the history that has allowed him to collect his huge paychecks in the first place? Did Darrelle Revis invest 635 million dollars of his own money purchasing a team? How many stadiums has Darrelle Revis helped build? Or has he played football and been coddled and given a free ride through college and now in the pros to just show up and play football?

 

He's more than welcome to peddle his man coverage skills on the open job market. I doubt anyone will pay him to do it, not even as a busker in the subway. He needs the NFL. The NFL needs him less. That's the arrangement and why they have every right to break the contract by cutting him. It should be weighted in their favor.

 

I have alot of respect for your opinions in general and your sentiment on this subject, but I have to disagree with you.

[Bleedin Green]

So how much longer before we have a responsibility to contact Revis' agent to let him know that a restraining order should probably be gotten by his client on our little buddy Gato here?

 

It was one thing when these posts were simply filled with factual inaccuracies, but we passed that point and moved on to psychologically disturbing a while ago now.

[SenorGato]

50/50 would be great, and there's plenty of room between that and where are the players are now. 

 

 How many stadiums has Darrelle Revis helped build?

 

 

 

Widespread Practice

Including the Cowboys’ Jones, there are 21 NFL owners whose teams play in stadiums built or renovated in the past quarter- century using tax-free public borrowing. Such municipal debt helped build structures used by 64 major-league teams, including baseball, hockey and basketball. The new generation of publicly owned stadiums was designed to increase revenue from high-priced seating as well as concessions and retailing. The venues have helped double the value of sports franchises since 2000, according to W.R. Hambrecht & Co., a financial services firm.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building-spree-u-s-taxpayers-lose-4-billion.html

 

 

 It should be weighted in their favor.

 

 

Eh, not this much. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Yes, and note how there's one Revis vs the many hundreds of times this has been done to players. Or that, once again since this really doesn't seem to get through to you, the team would do it to him sooner or later during that 7 year deal. I have no idea why you would throw in anything about returning money (you always go to this as if it makes sense), they never see the full announced contract in the first place, there is no reason that should be an expectation. It doesn't make any sense.

 

This boredom of yours, which is feigned here and probably just seemed cool to write, is more a sign of the stupidity and placidity rampant within the world's proles. To try to whittle down what I'm saying to anger over people having more than me, no clue how how that doesn't apply to your stance on Revis or any other player seeking to max control of his money, is just another clumsy deflection on your part. Then there's the sudden sanctimony over what you call insults - building your bestest friends, the owners, a protective moat with those tears? Seriously - inventing conspiracy theories? That far gone? It's an invented conspiracy theory that Revis did exactly to teams what teams do to players multiple times every year? **** man, you really are well conditioned. I'm sure such loyalty to the owners gets tons of notice and care.

 

Yawn.  The conspiracy theories are about your foil-hat-wearing notions that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be getting paid off by someone.  Like I've ever even been in the same room as someone with 1/10th of what Woody Johnson has.  Or care.  He has thousands of times more than I do.  Whoopdie-do.  I'm thousands of times a better parent.

 

The absurd level of your anger is wasted energy.  People aren't all born with the same advantages in life.  Some are born with more than others in one area or another.  Richer/poorer, taller/shorter, faster/slower, smarter/dumber, beautiful/ugly, healthier/sicker, talented/untalented, Jet-fan-household/any-other-fan-household.  This has always been, and will always be, until the horrible future time when everyone's DNA is altered or engineered in utero to make sure everyone is born exactly the same, and where parents are forbidden from leaving their possessions to their children.  You're going to ruin your life by living it as an angry person whose blood pressure percolates over things you cannot and never will be able to control.  It is ultimately as senseless of a waste of time as being furious at the shape of a cloud formation.  If this stuff enrages you this much, and in reading some of these posts of yours, people can practically hear you screaming or see you shaking your fists at the sky, I question why you even watch football.  Do something that makes you happy, and enjoy your youth, health, and your full faculties while you've still got them.  Friendly advice.

 

As far as this thread topic...Revis - or any player - is going to get paid by the team for as long as they are useful to the team.  When they're no longer worth that, they will cease to get paid further, but get to keep what they've pocketed so far.  Nothing wrong with that, and there's no reason players should get paid for a job that their team no longer considers to be good value under the salary cap.  When a player signs a long-term deal, he takes less in exchange for security.  A player on a short-term deal (or one-year deal) can maximize his earning potential if he's willing to take that risk.  Why Revis is so unpopular is that in the past he seemed to feel he should get the security of a long-term deal with the same money as someone who reaches free agency every season.  One of the 2 parties has to take a risk.  Revis doesn't - or didn't - believe this applied to him.  He wanted current UFA money every year (or every other year), but also wanted the team to have him locked in at a good amount of that just in case he got injured or suddenly sucked.

 

And if a team is willing to give it to him, then he's right.  So far, he has been wrong.  No one is going to give him a fully-guaranteed contract, where he gets the greater of (a) his contract amount or ( 20-30% above the next-highest-paid CB, and every year this amount is adjusted to make sure he's getting #1 UFA money.  That's ridiculous.  And what's more, last year you seemed to be advocating for just that.

 

What he's doing now I have total respect for.  It doesn't thrill me as a Jets fan, as he's probably the best player we've ever had and it would be great if he was still here, but I respect that he wants what he wants and is willing to take risks himself to get what he wants.  I also respect that the team doesn't think he's worth the money to this team.

[slats]

Are you suggesting that the players and owners should be equal partners?

 

Is Revis going to market, work out television contracts, schedule the games, etc.? Did Revis help build the NFL brand creating all the history that has allowed him to collect his huge paychecks in the first place? Did Darrelle Revis invest 635 million dollars of his own money purchasing a team? How many stadiums has Darrelle Revis helped build? Or has he played football and been coddled and given a free ride through college and now in the pros to just show up and play football?

 

He's more than welcome to peddle his man coverage skills on the open job market. I doubt anyone will pay him to do it, not even as a busker in the subway. He needs the NFL. The NFL needs him less. That's the arrangement and why they have every right to break the contract by cutting him. It should be weighted in their favor.

 

I have alot of respect for your opinions in general and your sentiment on this subject, but I have to disagree with you.

Without the players, all that $635M would've bought was a logo and a lease at an empty stadium. The league doesn't exist without players - or more specifically, elite players. The new CBA locks players up for years on the (relative) cheap, more years than the average length of a player's career. They inserted stiff fines that make it too expensive for a player to hold out, which was realliy the only recourse the players had when significantly outperforming their contracts. It's weighted in their favor because money writes the rules, and the owners hold the money, but it's not necessarily the way it should be. I don't know what the player's union got in return for those fines, but I hope it was something of significance. The rookie wage scale and the inability of players to hold out and maximize their value at the time when their value is highest suppresses all of their incomes.

[Gastineau Lives]

Without the players, all that $635M would've bought was a logo and a lease at an empty stadium. The league doesn't exist without players - or more specifically, elite players. The new CBA locks players up for years on the (relative) cheap, more years than the average length of a player's career. They inserted stiff fines that make it too expensive for a player to hold out, which was realliy the only recourse the players had when significantly outperforming their contracts. It's weighted in their favor because money writes the rules, and the owners hold the money, but it's not necessarily the way it should be. I don't know what the player's union got in return for those fines, but I hope it was something of significance. The rookie wage scale and the inability of players to hold out and maximize their value at the time when their value is highest suppresses all of their incomes.

 

Well, yeah, it's a symbiotic relationship but in a country where the average top-tier CEO makes 475 dollars to every one dollar earned by the average employee at the same company, I find it hard to sympathize with the plight of a guy that plays football for a living, acquires fame, beautiful women (Vince Wilfork and Michael Sam notwithstanding) and is compensated in amounts and ratios the average person can only dream of.

 

I also think you underestimate the worth of a logo and a stadium. Human beings will bet on cockroach races under the right circumstances. The league will survive without "elite" players because elite is only relative to the accepted and understood talent level. The league as it now stands was not built and did not thrive because the players got more elite.

 

Now even you will agree that the way rookies were being paid without having ever played a down of football in the NFL was out of whack, no? Jamarcus Russell was signed to a 61 million dollar contract with 32 million guaranteed. Now you can just say well, Raiders, but there were tons of contracts like this being tossed around. Vernon Gholston got 21 million guaranteed, Vince Young 25 mil etc. Contracts like this could hamstring a franchise for years, beyond the effect of wasting a first round pick on a non-talent.

 

I'm not smart enough to know the magic number that will provide absolute fairness and balance, but I look at baseball, where the contracts are guaranteed and there is no salary cap and money REALLY talks and I see a league that has a handful of teams that can expect to be perennial contenders and a much bigger percentage of teams who's fans go into each and every season with absolutely no hope of winning a world series unless by some miracle of fortune.

 

I think Darrelle Revis was both a poor poster boy for the holdout cause and a perfect one for the same reason: He abused it. He expected both security AND

the ability to renegotiate whenever he saw fit. He did no one any favors, least of all his fellow players, which is why I think going all Tom Joad in defense of #24 is kind of absurd.

 

Now when it comes to rookies, the only issue I have with the current deal is the length of the contracts. I do think that the contracts are too long. Four years with a team option for a fifth is too long, especially for some positions, running backs, I think are the worst off under the present deal, but I think they will be no matter what, given the devaluation of the position these days.

 

My question is if the increase in salary cap and the new rules regarding the cash floor were concessions given to the players in the recent agreement since this would lead to an increase in salary, no? We haven't seen it this year but by year three and four of this cash period, we should see some contracts that would seem out of whack, I think.

[slats]

Now when it comes to rookies, the only issue I have with the current deal is the length of the contracts. I do think that the contracts are too long. Four years with a team option for a fifth is too long, especially for some positions, running backs, I think are the worst off under the present deal, but I think they will be no matter what, given the devaluation of the position these days.

I agree. I thought the contracts should be three years. I get that rookie deals were getting crazy, but the players should have a chance to cash in if they prove to be elite. Like you say, the RB position inparticular is screwed. Chris Johnson was very smart to stage his holdout (or threatened holdout - I forget) that got him paid after his ck2k year. And I never had any problem with any of Revis' antics, and still don't. I don't begrudge any player getting absolutely everything they can.

I think the veterans were hoping that the rookie wage scale would result in more money coming to them, but I don't see that happening. I think it's suppressed everyone's pay. When JaMarcus signed that monster deal, that served as a basis for a veteran QB to cash in even more. Maybe that artificially inflated the market, but it seems to me like it's deflated now. Free agency doesn't seem to be what it once was for the players.

And I don't think the league survives without it's stars. I remember tuning into replacement games just to see how bad it was. That gets old fast. The XFL didn't exactly take off. It's true that the players have nowhere else to turn to make the kind of money they're making, but the owners don't make the kind of money they're making without them. That's why they need the best CBA they can get.

[Gastineau Lives]

And I don't think the league survives without it's stars. I remember tuning into replacement games just to see how bad it was. That gets old fast. The XFL didn't exactly take off. It's true that the players have nowhere else to turn to make the kind of money they're making, but the owners don't make the kind of money they're making without them. That's why they need the best CBA they can get.

 

Well, the replacement players were in an impossible position in terms of entertainment value they were expected to provide. They were being immediately compared to the regular NFL players at the same time being thrown together on fairly short notice in a sport where teamwork and continuity are paramount.

 

The XFL was superfluous to the NFL which had already established fan bases, which is why they failed.

 

Sure, I don't think you can trot out WNBA levels of talent and expect to remain popular but I don't think that is what really drives the sport. I don't watch the Jets to see (I was going to come up with a specific player, but can't think of anyone at the moment) make a beautiful catch or (same problem, hang in with me here) make a great throw. I watch to see the guys in my uniforms finish with more points than the guys in Patriot uniforms.

 

If skill level was the main issue, then it would follow that college football would be less popular than the NFL, which is not the case.

 

Of course the other dirty little (not so) secret is that the NFL derives great revenue from gambling and now, fantasy football, which is gambling lite. Neither of these revenue bases could care less about player skill.

[Larz]

this has nothing to do with stars, owners, leverage or rights

 

its how you handle your business

 

mangold got paid, wasn't a dick about it

 

FU mevis

 

the real losers are jets fans of course, because we don't have revis at 12mm, and the past* do

 

I said it with the first hold out, you had to treat him like a child.  let him sit out for as long as he could take it, and ram the fines up his ass until he comes in.  now he is  a spoiled brat

[Arsis]

but make no mistake... the Jets let a generational player get away and now he's on the Pats. This is not a good

it's notable that the Revis signing happened basically the same time as the Decker signing. In other words the Jets didn't get any better against the Pats. THey signed a guy for 7 mil dollars a year to get blanketed. Against other (bad) teams this is a good signing. Against the Pats it's like why bother even signing this player? he's not going to be able to escape Revis island.

This is the absolute stupiest thing I have ever read in my life. On top of it being a moronic point. It's not even true from a football strategy standpoint. If we can take thier best player with a 12m cap hit out of the game with a 7m investment then we're golden. Going by your logic? Why should the pats sign revis to such a larhe cap hit when he's only going to cover decker? This is the rich cimini bullsh*t sensational nonsense approach to football. Everything happens in a vacuum and only if it makes good headlines and wwe style story lines. Decker helping all year is negated by the pats signing with the pats. Okay, buddy whatever you say. Decker/Richardson/4th pick > revis and they cost less.

[Larz]

just checking.  does anybody here still believe the myth that revis gave his agents a list, and the jets were the #1 team on the list, they called idzik, but he wouldn't talk to them ?