Revis trade, one year later: Winners, losers

[dbatesman]

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 ?

Did anybody ever believe that?

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

Did anybody ever believe that?

 

[Larz]

Did anybody ever believe that?

 

it got buried in all the hysteria of that day.  I posted about cimini disputing mehta's report, but it got one reply so I was hoping there was some awareness that revis was trolling idzik

[dbatesman]

You think the moon landing was staged.

[SenorGato]

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.

 

 

Holy **** balls on the bold, and holy **** balls on the rest of this post (especially those first two paragraphs). Get to keep what they've pocketed? What'd they do - steal the money? Then you talk about some unwritten agreement where players take more years and less money for more security? What security? Did you even read the first sentence in that paragraph?

 

Anyway, we're clearly on two different planets with this and I have no urge to speak with you further on it. Your beliefs and words on the issue strike me as savage. I understand the practicality of that mindset - no sh*t people are born with advantages and disadvantages - but this is not that. One thing you did manage to nail is that Revis is probably the best player the Jets have ever had and it would be great if he was still here. For that to happen the Jets would have to act way too far outside the interests of the league. He'd surely have ended up with something less team friendly than Tampa did, and that would have even more potential to get these boys more uppity.

[SenorGato]

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'm a little depressed that both veterans AND their reps thought that way. It's incredibly stupid of them to not have seen this coming. To salt the wound, most of their fellow proles are happy for it.

 

Humans really are just an Earth cancer, aren't they?

[slats]

Holy **** balls on the bold, and holy **** balls on the rest of this post (especially those first two paragraphs). Get to keep what they've pocketed? What'd they do - steal the money? Then you talk about some unwritten agreement where players take more years and less money for more security? What security? Did you even read the first sentence in that paragraph?

 

Anyway, we're clearly on two different planets with this and I have no urge to speak with you further on it. Your beliefs and words on the issue strike me as savage. I understand the practicality of that mindset - no sh*t people are born with advantages and disadvantages - but this is not that. One thing you did manage to nail is that Revis is probably the best player the Jets have ever had and it would be great if he was still here. For that to happen the Jets would have to act way too far outside the interests of the league. He'd surely have ended up with something less team friendly than Tampa did, and that would have even more potential to get these boys more uppity.

Just... Thank you. Lol.

[Thor99]

Just... Thank you. Lol.

Mod fight!!!!!

[RutgersJetFan]

You think the moon landing was staged.

 

Cincinnati lost to us on purpose so they could face us the next week in the playoffs AND THAT IS THE GOD DAMN TRUTH.

[slats]

Mod fight!!!!!

I'm so excited for the next response!

[Sperm Edwards]

Holy **** balls on the bold, and holy **** balls on the rest of this post (especially those first two paragraphs). Get to keep what they've pocketed? What'd they do - steal the money? Then you talk about some unwritten agreement where players take more years and less money for more security? What security? Did you even read the first sentence in that paragraph?

 

Anyway, we're clearly on two different planets with this and I have no urge to speak with you further on it. Your beliefs and words on the issue strike me as savage. I understand the practicality of that mindset - no sh*t people are born with advantages and disadvantages - but this is not that. One thing you did manage to nail is that Revis is probably the best player the Jets have ever had and it would be great if he was still here. For that to happen the Jets would have to act way too far outside the interests of the league. He'd surely have ended up with something less team friendly than Tampa did, and that would have even more potential to get these boys more uppity.

 

Who suggested anyone stole anything other than you? Whatever; I am unsurprised.  I'm sure you think any opinion different from yours is savage, and that you find it incomprehensible that anyone could see things differently without being paid off (which you have suggested, among your other silly claims).

 

For the Jets to still have Revis here would be outside the interests of the team (as the team sees it); not outside interests of the league.  What would it have proven to the league, had they had the "balls" to give Revis a $16M/year long-term contract, and guarantee all of it, as you surely think should have happened? The Jets would be teaching the league a lesson? lol.  31 teams would be laughing, not feeling sad about being schooled by the Jets.

 

When a player takes a deal with more years, they get more security because they will get more guaranteed money on such a deal.  On a shorter deal they will get less, unless they know 100% for certain they will maintain their good health and level of play beyond the upcoming season.  I'm confused at how this confuses you, since every NFL player craves a long-term deal and it's common to hold out the summer (by not signing the franchise offer yet) when they're merely franchise-tagged.  On a 1-year deal a player will get less guaranteed money than on a 5-year deal.  If he gets hurt 2 games into year 1, he could easily end up with less total money over the life of his playing career.  The team bets more money on him that that won't happen. If it does happen, particularly if it happens early, then the team loses on the deal.  They can't say they don't want to pay him starting in year 2, now that he's injured, because the money is guaranteed.  

 

Revis's last deal with the Jets came with about $30M in guaranteed money.  The give-and-get is that in exchange for that high guarantee was to be locked into a contract that averaged lower ($11.5M over 4 years) plus a penalty, of sorts, for holding out. If he'd signed a 1-year deal he would not have gotten as much guaranteed.  More guaranteed = more security.  Therefore players take more years for more security.  That's what they get. What they give is the opportunity to earn the absolute maximum possible.

 

On a 1-year deal the player assumes a lot of risk; he could get a career-ending injury during the season and never make another dime.  On a long-term deal the team assumes this injury risk by betting that he won't get injured.  Had they only agreed on a 1-year deal in August 2010 then Revis would have gotten far less guaranteed money than he got on a 4-year deal.  

 

Do you now understand, or are you still going to pretend not to?

[SenorGato]

No seriously, not doing it. We don't agree.

[Sperm Edwards]

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.

 

Yeah, it's hard to come up with one general, sweeping set of rules for every player when some positions have lifespans (at high performance levels) that are 3x longer.  Draft a guard in round 1 and if he's great then he'll get his sooner or later.  A RB, though? How often are they great for more than a handful of years at the most? And they're most likely to have those great years while they're youngest.  

 

In a weird way, the best thing that can happen to a great RB is to not get drafted in round 1.  Also they have to grow up really fast and have to realize it's in their interest to reach NFL eligibility at the youngest age possible.  A RB who plays through his senior season and comes into the league at age 23 or later is going to have problems maxing out, especially if he's drafted towards the bottom of round 1.  After his 4+1 he'll enter season 6 when he turns 29 at some point.  Who's going to offer him some gargantuan deal then? Probably no one.  Frankly they're best-off getting cut fairly early by the team that drafted them and then sign a 1-year show-me deal with someone else, after which they're full UFAs at a younger age.

 

If they made an exception for RBs, where a team can only lock them up as rookies for 2 years (or up to 3 years with a +1 like 1st rounders get now), they will get drafted even lower, though they'd still be better off in the long run if they can stay healthy. But then what if a player's position (or how he plays it) changes? A heavy-carries RB is different than a 3rd-down back or change-of-pace back or even someone who becomes more of a blocking FB from a ball-carrier.  The reality is that some players' careers are going to be shorter than others based on what they're asked to do.

 

I did think it was stupid to pay the top picks so much before their first NFL practice, and so many ended up being busts like those you mentioned. That $ could have/would have gone to others who'd earned a second or third NFL contract. With the rookie salaries slotted now, the initial risk to the teams - particularly for those very high picks - is mostly gone, from a money standpoint.  On the flip-side, lots of positions take a few years to really get the hang of things and those players' values are hard to assess before they've done it on the field.  A team can make the investment into a player (drafting, teaching, training) and then the light doesn't go on - whether due to experience or to maturity - until after he's gone.  I still think that would be ok on balance; teams will just end up drafting fewer projects since the reward may happen for some other team.  5 years out of college is a long time for a sport that typically has such a short lifespan.  

 

The franchise tag is also not punitive enough for the teams for certain positions.  Take a TE like Graham.  His value is more of that of a WR than a TE.  But on paper he is a TE, and he only gets the average of the top 5 at a position that typically pays true starters far less than he'd get.  If they do keep the tag at all, at a minimum the team shouldn't be entitled to two first rounders since it really eliminates almost all competing bids for the player.  One 1st rounder is plenty.  Or use a draft chart point system that says it has to be at least a mid-first round pick, since the #10 pick is not nearly the same compensation as the #30 pick.  Though that still penalizes the worst teams somewhat (with their higher 1st round picks), it doesn't penalize them nearly as much as the current rule that treats all 1st round picks as though they had the same value.  

 

The exclusive-rights franchise tag is absurd as it exists. If you're not going to allow anyone else to bid on the player no matter what, then he should get at least some fixed amount or percentage more than the #1-paid player, not merely the average of the top 5.  You want to exclusive-tag Drew Brees? It's 10% (or 20% or whatever) more than the current highest-paid QB.  Just for those who think every opinion I have is in lockstep with team owners for whatever imaginary reason that can be conjured up. I still think fully guaranteed contracts are too difficult for the NFL, though, and none of my reasons why have to do with protecting owners' wallets (as though any of us really give a crap about helping Woody Johnson make more; I think he's pretty much set).  

[Sperm Edwards]

For fully guaranteeing contracts: 

 

If there was a way to carve out exceptions to the cap then I think that help.  But that's wayyy easier said than done, and it would defeat the very premise, which is that no team is permitted to spend more than another.  Exemptions remove that premise, as it would necessarily allow some teams to pay more to its players than other teams.  

 

The benefit of the current system, for the fans, is that even in the face of some majorly bad moves and management by a horrible GM, he can get fired and their team can come back and be a contender after a retooling year or two.  You can cut the guys who aren't pulling their weight anymore, deal with your accelerated cap hit over a year or two, and you can again be ready to compete with the best of them (so long as you can get your hands on a decent QB).  But if your GM gives out multiple fully-guaranteed, long-term contracts to Sanchez, Holmes, Scott, Cromartie, Pouha, and a couple of offensive linemen in Brick & Mangold that no longer perform at the level that got them these deals, then in 2013 you'd know the team has no realistic hope (beyond stupid luck, hitting big on virtually every draft pick) until 2016 or 2017.  Then at that point they can then first afford to bring in serious veteran talent to start retooling and retaining talent (and even that presumes the new, incoming veteran talent type/position/level you need is even available in that offseason).  Also that's if you don't miss on any veteran contracts in the meantime. 

 

As far as exemptions, career-ending injuries is easy to solve by coming up with a percentage of the deal the team gets credit for on future payments to the player. But what if a player gets injured, and while he can still play he's not half the beast he was when his cap-busting deal was signed? 

Or what about someone who didn't get hurt but just sucks now (or didn't become the player they'd hoped)?

What of ones who cannot and will not be coached now that they have fully guaranteed contracts?

What of team cancers who you need to just get off the team?

What about a player that puts on crazy weight and becomes a big fatso blob because he knows he's uncuttable?  

How about a receiver who won't run out his routes when he knows the play isn't to him?  

Or a player who dogs it because now he doesn't want to risk getting hurt?  

 

Guys get cut for these reasons now without their contracts being guaranteed.  People who love everything out of the mouth of Bill Parcells should remember that after 20 years of coaching, and all the prestige he'd earned, in the end he still said there were only 2 things that motivate players: money and job.  Though there will always be many good players who will give 100% without the threat of job/money loss, removing the ability to cut a player, and you'll remove a coach's authority for a huge portion of the team.  Even abolishing the salary cap altogether doesn't solve that problem, in addition to creating new ones.  

 

And anyway, if a player sucks now, I don't see why the team should be locked into that player for years.  It's providing a big permission slip that says "You no longer need to try or really do much of anything, other than physically be present, and you'll get paid virtually the same." It's bad for team morale. A player could basically tell a coach to go f*ck himself right to his face, or any number of things, and other than maybe a little fine, his pay would still be guaranteed for years.  It has nothing to do with how right/wrong that is, or wasting the money of someone who basically has infinity dollars, since infinity minus $20M is still infinity.  It's that it's bad for the team, and it's naive to believe that NFL teams need no discipline.  Fully guarantee every contract, and that disciplining ability is severely impaired, if not gone altogether. At least under the current system a player be a disaster on and/or off the field for more than a year or two in most worst-case scenarios, after which they can be dumped. Imagine it's March of 2012 and the team was locked into Santonio Holmes until the 2016 season began, instead of "only" through the 2013 season.  Or if we were now locked into Sanchez for 3 more years at $14M per.  You think Idzik's frugal now? Imagine if Sanchez & Holmes were eating up $23M/year guaranteed and the team couldn't move on from both of them until 2016 and Sanchez until 2017. Yikes.

[slats]

And anyway, if a player sucks now, I don't see why the team should be locked into that player for years.  It's providing a big permission slip that says "You no longer need to try or really do much of anything, other than physically be present, and you'll get paid virtually the same." It's bad for team morale. A player could basically tell a coach to go f*ck himself right to his face, or any number of things, and other than maybe a little fine, his pay would still be guaranteed for years.  It has nothing to do with how right/wrong that is, or wasting the money of someone who basically has infinity dollars, since infinity minus $20M is still infinity.  It's that it's bad for the team, and it's naive to believe that NFL teams need no discipline.  Fully guarantee every contract, and that disciplining ability is severely impaired, if not gone altogether.

Conversely, though, if a player is awesome, he's locked into a contract that pays him less than his value with no recourse under the current CBA. Rookie contracts can't be renegotiated until after a certain number of years, and if a player attempts to hold out, they'll be fined to the gills. That's what I don't like about the system, it's one-way. All the safeguards are in favor of the owners. They can cut any player who under-performs, and they get to lock in over-achievers under market value. This is why I never begrudged Revis or CJ2K (or anyone else) getting their money when they could.

I don't think there should be any fines attached to holdouts. A player holds out, he doesn't get paid. That's a disincentive, enough. And that player better be pretty sure of his value, because a team could always say, well, we're not negotiating with you. Stay home, don't get paid, and we'll see you next year when you're still under contract.

There should be a system in place for the players so that Russell Wilson doesn't have to show up the year after winning the Super Bowl earning less than Terrell Pryor. You can say that QBs should have a long career and that he'll eventually get his, but that's no guarantee, either. Look at RGIII, guy looked like a superstar, then gets his knee wrecked, and now he doesn't really look like a superstar anymore. Maybe he'll find his form again, but maybe he won't. Every player drafted into the league is a wrecked knee away from never seeing that payday. And RBs, obviously, are in a position where they'll never see that big payday, regardless. But we see that every year, a guy gets a serious injury in his contract year, and the first talk about his situation is how much less money he's going to make now. If a guy demonstrates that he's legit two years into his deal, he should be able to renegotiate that deal, and not have to wait another three years of putting his career on the line every week.

Protect the owners from bad contracts. Fine. But give the players the same protection. Or at least some level of protection.

[Sperm Edwards]

Conversely, though, if a player is awesome, he's locked into a contract that pays him less than his value with no recourse under the current CBA. Rookie contracts can't be renegotiated until after a certain number of years, and if a player attempts to hold out, they'll be fined to the gills. That's what I don't like about the system, it's one-way. All the safeguards are in favor of the owners. They can cut any player who under-performs, and they get to lock in over-achievers under market value. This is why I never begrudged Revis or CJ2K (or anyone else) getting their money when they could.

I don't think there should be any fines attached to holdouts. A player holds out, he doesn't get paid. That's a disincentive, enough. And that player better be pretty sure of his value, because a team could always say, well, we're not negotiating with you. Stay home, don't get paid, and we'll see you next year when you're still under contract.

There should be a system in place for the players so that Russell Wilson doesn't have to show up the year after winning the Super Bowl earning less than Terrell Pryor. You can say that QBs should have a long career and that he'll eventually get his, but that's no guarantee, either. Look at RGIII, guy looked like a superstar, then gets his knee wrecked, and now he doesn't really look like a superstar anymore. Maybe he'll find his form again, but maybe he won't. Every player drafted into the league is a wrecked knee away from never seeing that payday. And RBs, obviously, are in a position where they'll never see that big payday, regardless. But we see that every year, a guy gets a serious injury in his contract year, and the first talk about his situation is how much less money he's going to make now. If a guy demonstrates that he's legit two years into his deal, he should be able to renegotiate that deal, and not have to wait another three years of putting his career on the line every week.

Protect the owners from bad contracts. Fine. But give the players the same protection. Or at least some level of protection.

 

I don't totally disagree, but most of how I agree is for players that had no real choice in the matter (like Russell Wilson, who you mentioned).  Wilson didn't hold out for this contract.  It's the only one he could have possibly gotten if he wanted to play in the NFL, and the truth is that a lot of the reason it was that low had less to do with his play in college and more to do with how tall he is.  He got a very low contract that never paid him and that has no reward in it next year.  His only reward can come from waiting it out.  Same thing with Chris Johnson.  

 

I know you don't agree, but I don't see his situation as the same as Revis holding out twice (and intimating he might do it a 3rd time, which he'd have done if his agent & any lawyers didn't convince him that there is no way out of Tannenbaum's poison pill to lock him in for 3 more years).  His rookie contract, while not remotely all on him, was still a contract he held out to get.  As the #14 pick in the draft, and without the team tagging him, he was going to get $20M over the final 2 years and had already been paid more over the first 3 than players drafted ahead of him (and the team couldn't franchise tag him after that either).

 

He held out to get this contract, and after holding out he agreed to it by signing.  No other #14 pick I'm aware of got a $36M contract (if he was good enough, which he clearly was).  

 

Then after 3 seasons he holds out yet again.  This time the Jets agree to pay him $16M over the first 2 years, in exchange for less than that over the following 2 years.  On paper it is a 7-year contract that Revis can opt-out of after 4.  In practice it was a 4-year contract that turns into a 7-year deal if he holds out a 3rd time.  After the first 2 seasons are in the bank, he again intimates that he may hold out, claiming Tannenbaum promised him he'd rip up the contract again after only 2 years; if that was the intention then it would have been a 2-year deal with nothing more.  He didn't, but I don't think anyone seriously believes he wouldn't have if it would have negated his ability to opt-out after 2013.  And in no way was this a "bad" contract that Revis wanted out of.  He wants the front-end terms of a long deal, but wants them on a short deal (or one he can opt-out of after only a year or two).  That's great if he can get it, but no one's offering him that contract now and no one offered it then.

 

I see Revis's last Jets contract as a give and take.  Revis got what he wanted:  a pay raise that made him the highest-paid CB) as well as long-term security.  He no longer had to concern himself with busting his ACL prior to his then-current contract reaching its natural end. He also got a major pay raise from the deal the team agreed to tear up. But IMO Revis wants no part of give and take on the contract terms; he wants it to be give and give from the team.  He wants all that security in advance AND wants to take back from the team what it got for its investment: namely, the presence of years in his contract that aren't at the highest dollar level, nor are those years guaranteed on paper (though in practice the only way they'd absorb that accelerated hit was if they got something back in trade, which they did last year). 

 

Basically I understand why he did it, and he definitely got rewarded for it, but as a fan of the team I don't have to like it.  He held out for a deal and got it.  If he sucked after that rookie holdout, as many prospects do, I don't see him joining a conga line of busts forming to give teams back guaranteed money for contracts they didn't live up to.  The team is expected to absorb their gambling losses on those players, and Revis would have them absorb their gambling wins as well.

 

Again, Wilson and CJ2K I see as totally different (Wilson in particular).  For starters, the team isn't "gambling" nearly as much (neither received a rookie contract that would have paid $36M over 6 plus no franchise tagging).  I think fines for very low-earning players holding out is ridiculous, since they didn't yet make enough to absorb the fines and everyone knows it.  They also hadn't earned enough to just walk away from the game for good to avoid the fines.  Revis had been paid wayyy more so while he outplayed his rookie contract it wasn't in the same stratosphere as the discrepancy for someone like Wilson.  Hell, Revis's rookie signing bonus alone was more than the full contract for both Wilson.  Johnson was paid much more than Wilson, but it's not a small point that as a RB Johnson has the right to expect a shorter career - particularly at an elite level - than either Revis or Wilson, by many, many years.  

 

What Revis is doing now, I totally respect.  He's betting on himself with what everyone knows is really a 1-year deal.  If he gets a career-ending injury he gets that and nothing more.  On a longer deal, he surely could have gotten more guaranteed money than the $12M he's going to make this year.  He is gambling on his own health and performance, and if he wins this gamble, he can and will make more than if he'd signed a long-term deal upon his release from Tampa.

 

And even though the owners are paying the bill, my beef was never on behalf of the owners.  Though in practice they are, I don't see them (in this regard) as synonymous with the team.  We're all NY Jets fans.  I don't know any present Jets fans who would be fans of the NY Woody Johnsons where the fans root for his financial benefit rather than for a superbowl victory.

[Gastineau Lives]

I don't totally disagree, but most of how I agree is for players that had no real choice in the matter (like Russell Wilson, who you mentioned).  Wilson didn't hold out for this contract.  It's the only one he could have possibly gotten if he wanted to play in the NFL, and the truth is that a lot of the reason it was that low had less to do with his play in college and more to do with how tall he is.  He got a very low contract that never paid him and that has no reward in it next year.  His only reward can come from waiting it out.  Same thing with Chris Johnson.  

 

I know you don't agree, but I don't see his situation as the same as Revis holding out twice (and intimating he might do it a 3rd time, which he'd have done if his agent & any lawyers didn't convince him that there is no way out of Tannenbaum's poison pill to lock him in for 3 more years).  His rookie contract, while not remotely all on him, was still a contract he held out to get.  As the #14 pick in the draft, and without the team tagging him, he was going to get $20M over the final 2 years and had already been paid more over the first 3 than players drafted ahead of him (and the team couldn't franchise tag him after that either).

 

He held out to get this contract, and after holding out he agreed to it by signing.  No other #14 pick I'm aware of got a $36M contract (if he was good enough, which he clearly was).  

 

Then after 3 seasons he holds out yet again.  This time the Jets agree to pay him $16M over the first 2 years, in exchange for less than that over the following 2 years.  On paper it is a 7-year contract that Revis can opt-out of after 4.  In practice it was a 4-year contract that turns into a 7-year deal if he holds out a 3rd time.  After the first 2 seasons are in the bank, he again intimates that he may hold out, claiming Tannenbaum promised him he'd rip up the contract again after only 2 years; if that was the intention then it would have been a 2-year deal with nothing more.  He didn't, but I don't think anyone seriously believes he wouldn't have if it would have negated his ability to opt-out after 2013.  And in no way was this a "bad" contract that Revis wanted out of.  He wants the front-end terms of a long deal, but wants them on a short deal (or one he can opt-out of after only a year or two).  That's great if he can get it, but no one's offering him that contract now and no one offered it then.

 

I see Revis's last Jets contract as a give and take.  Revis got what he wanted:  a pay raise that made him the highest-paid CB) as well as long-term security.  He no longer had to concern himself with busting his ACL prior to his then-current contract reaching its natural end. He also got a major pay raise from the deal the team agreed to tear up. But IMO Revis wants no part of give and take on the contract terms; he wants it to be give and give from the team.  He wants all that security in advance AND wants to take back from the team what it got for its investment: namely, the presence of years in his contract that aren't at the highest dollar level, nor are those years guaranteed on paper (though in practice the only way they'd absorb that accelerated hit was if they got something back in trade, which they did last year). 

 

Basically I understand why he did it, and he definitely got rewarded for it, but as a fan of the team I don't have to like it.  He held out for a deal and got it.  If he sucked after that rookie holdout, as many prospects do, I don't see him joining a conga line of busts forming to give teams back guaranteed money for contracts they didn't live up to.  The team is expected to absorb their gambling losses on those players, and Revis would have them absorb their gambling wins as well.

 

Again, Wilson and CJ2K I see as totally different (Wilson in particular).  For starters, the team isn't "gambling" nearly as much (neither received a rookie contract that would have paid $36M over 6 plus no franchise tagging).  I think fines for very low-earning players holding out is ridiculous, since they didn't yet make enough to absorb the fines and everyone knows it.  They also hadn't earned enough to just walk away from the game for good to avoid the fines.  Revis had been paid wayyy more so while he outplayed his rookie contract it wasn't in the same stratosphere as the discrepancy for someone like Wilson.  Hell, Revis's rookie signing bonus alone was more than the full contract for both Wilson.  Johnson was paid much more than Wilson, but it's not a small point that as a RB Johnson has the right to expect a shorter career - particularly at an elite level - than either Revis or Wilson, by many, many years.  

 

What Revis is doing now, I totally respect.  He's betting on himself with what everyone knows is really a 1-year deal.  If he gets a career-ending injury he gets that and nothing more.  On a longer deal, he surely could have gotten more guaranteed money than the $12M he's going to make this year.  He is gambling on his own health and performance, and if he wins this gamble, he can and will make more than if he'd signed a long-term deal upon his release from Tampa.

 

And even though the owners are paying the bill, my beef was never on behalf of the owners.  Though in practice they are, I don't see them (in this regard) as synonymous with the team.  We're all NY Jets fans.  I don't know any present Jets fans who would be fans of the NY Woody Johnsons where the fans root for his financial benefit rather than for a superbowl victory.

 

This whole post gave me a woody johnson.

[slats]

But IMO Revis wants no part of give and take on the contract terms; he wants it to be give and give from the team.

Why shouldn't he? Wouldn't you? People enter into negotiations to get what they want. If Revis has enough talent to get that, why shouldn't he?

Sure, as a fan of the team, I would've preferred he be a selfless guy who wanted to sign a team friendly deal in an effort to help the Jets win. That would've been great. But I absolutely cannot fault the guy for looking to maximize his income while his value is at it's highest.

Also, tl;dr.

[Thor99]

Why shouldn't he? Wouldn't you? People enter into negotiations to get what they want. If Revis has enough talent to get that, why shouldn't he?

Sure, as a fan of the team, I would've preferred he be a selfless guy who wanted to sign a team friendly deal in an effort to help the Jets win. That would've been great. But I absolutely cannot fault the guy for looking to maximize his income while his value is at it's highest.

Also, tl;dr.

tl;fu

[Bleedin Green]

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.

 

You do realize it's literally impossible for veterans to not be getting paid more now than they were when rookies were getting those insane contracts, unless every single team in the league is keeping themselves under the salary cap by the difference in those rookie contracts (not to mention the cap increases since then).  Now granted FA might not have been what it once was these past couple of years, but that can also be attributed to the reality that the FA pool has been a lot less impressive as well, as most teams have clearly prioritized retaining their own FAs.  More often than not, it seems any time there is any legitimately elite-level talent hitting FA these days, the player usually comes with some serious red flags as well (yet it still didn't keep guys like Jackson and Revis from getting paid quite well).

 

With that said, I can understand having some issues with the rookie salary structure, but there is absolutely no connection there whatsoever to Revis and his situation, considering he had already held out twice and threatened a third long before that setup even came into existence.

 

The bottom line is that, as Sperm had pointed out, Revis is looking for absolutely all of the reward (whether earned or simply imagined that he earned) with no risk whatsoever.  That is not how the world works, and it says something about a person when they think it should just for them.  Until the players agree to another new CBA which eliminates signing bonuses and any other advanced guarantees, and being unpaid for games which they are unable to participate (except for perhaps being allowed a pre-set number of "sick games" per year), they will never be given the ability to opt out of their contracts.  Whether or not you think that's fair is an entirely different story, but it's still not going to change.

[Sperm Edwards]

Why shouldn't he? Wouldn't you? People enter into negotiations to get what they want. If Revis has enough talent to get that, why shouldn't he?

Sure, as a fan of the team, I would've preferred he be a selfless guy who wanted to sign a team friendly deal in an effort to help the Jets win. That would've been great. But I absolutely cannot fault the guy for looking to maximize his income while his value is at it's highest.

Also, tl;dr.

 

I guess I don't see agreeing to a give-and-take symbiosis as being synonymous with being selfless.