Kentucky Jet Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 REAL REVIS DEAL IS LOW ON FLUFF Though it's been reported as a six-year, $36 million package, the contract negotiated by cornerback Darrelle Revis has a base value of six years and $32 million. And, as we understand it, that number reflects real money, with little or no fluff. The six-year deal, which the Jets wanted to do, easily voids to a four-year deal, which the Jets previously didn't want to do. The deal automatically reduces to four years if in any of the first four seasons Revis participates in at least 35 percent of the defensive snaps. The four-year value is $16 million, with $11 million in guaranteed money (which includes the 2007 base salary, which technically isn't guaranteed but as a practical matter is always paid). But the Jets can buy back the fifth and sixth years. For $5 million guaranteed in year five and $11 million guaranteed in year six the Jets can get back the final two seasons. If the Jets choose not to buy back years five and six, Revis hits the open market and the Jets will not apply the franchise tag or the transition tag. The year six number can reduce to $9 million and can increase to $15 million, as the result of a point system based primarily on playing time. Interestingly, interceptions are not a factor as to any aspect of the deal. As we see it, it's a win-win. But we can't help but wonder whether the deal couldn't have gotten done before the start of camp. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I don't mind the deal, I'm glad we got this guy and hopefully he's ready to get into camp and work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 He's also going to be a shut down corner years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theinlawjosie Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I wish I could make his salary for five or six months, I'd be set for a long time. I do like the deal though, it honestly does seem to be win-win and we really needed an extra body for the secondary. I hope he goes off and earns every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I wish I could make his salary for five or six months, I'd be set for a long time. I do like the deal though, it honestly does seem to be win-win and we really needed an extra body for the secondary. I hope he goes off and earns every penny. DROY next year, just watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BwanaZulia Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 In a few weeks nobody will remember the why and how of any of this and we will just be playing football. BZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Botton line : REVIS IS IN CAMP !! and everybody is happy, FO, Revis, his agent and the fans!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 We guaranteed never to franchise him before he steps onto the field? I'm glad he's finally here but we would have been better off just signing him to a regular 5-year/$15M with $9M guaranteed. Plus he would have been in camp on time. This whole exercise was a waste. Let's say the holdout stunted his progress to the point where he won't be that useful this year. So he is useful starting in 2008. He starts that season from beginning to end & can now year 5 costs us $5M instead of $1.5M. We just gave top-5 money to the #14 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cant Hackett Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 We guaranteed never to franchise him before he steps onto the field? I'm glad he's finally here but we would have been better off just signing him to a regular 5-year/$15M with $9M guaranteed. Plus he would have been in camp on time. This whole exercise was a waste. Let's say the holdout stunted his progress to the point where he won't be that useful this year. So he is useful starting in 2008. He starts that season from beginning to end & can now year 5 costs us $5M instead of $1.5M. We just gave top-5 money to the #14 pick. Sperm, I agree. Mike T overpaid big time. Should of done a 5 year deal for 15/16M. Huge price to pay just for him to say he got Revis to sign a 6 year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kentucky Jet Posted August 17, 2007 Author Share Posted August 17, 2007 I wish I could make his salary for five or six months, I'd be set for a long time. I do like the deal though, it honestly does seem to be win-win and we really needed an extra body for the secondary. I hope he goes off and earns every penny. I agree with you. That salary , for 6 months in our pockets, would be great! lol I also agree that I hope he earns every penny he is to receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 We guaranteed never to franchise him before he steps onto the field? I'm glad he's finally here but we would have been better off just signing him to a regular 5-year/$15M with $9M guaranteed. Plus he would have been in camp on time. This whole exercise was a waste. Let's say the holdout stunted his progress to the point where he won't be that useful this year. So he is useful starting in 2008. He starts that season from beginning to end & can now year 5 costs us $5M instead of $1.5M. We just gave top-5 money to the #14 pick. Since you can franchise a guy continually (in perpetuity) didn't we actually just give him a shorter deal? I guess it means we can (over)pay him for a sixth year and franchise somebody else, but in year 7 he is gone. Can't do what we did to JAbe to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 sounds like we agreed not to apply franchise tags in year 5/6; and why would we? it would be cheaper to buy the options for those years. in year 7, based on this article, we are free to franchise him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 sounds like we agreed not to apply franchise tags in year 5/6; and why would we? it would be cheaper to buy the options for those years. in year 7, based on this article, we are free to franchise him. Then it makes sense. For the Jets. I guess Schwartz just got the "no franchise" language in there in case the market for corners goes in the dumper. $11M is a pretty big chunk of change, but you have to figure the number will be at least that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kentucky Jet Posted August 17, 2007 Author Share Posted August 17, 2007 sounds like we agreed not to apply franchise tags in year 5/6; and why would we? it would be cheaper to buy the options for those years. in year 7, based on this article, we are free to franchise him. Excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Since you can franchise a guy continually (in perpetuity) didn't we actually just give him a shorter deal? I guess it means we can (over)pay him for a sixth year and franchise somebody else, but in year 7 he is gone. Can't do what we did to JAbe to him. Yeah, it is a little different in that regard. Don't know if the $ for the 6th season is all salary or if it includes a hefty roster bonus. The difference is that latter makes him untradable b/c of the immediate cap hit once we pay the roster bonus. We were able to trade Abe b/c he wasn't due a dime until the first game I think. Overall I still think it was dumb. Missed the first 3 weeks of tc, paying him more over the first 4 years, and puts off locking him up for 1 extra year. That may prove to be wise & it may not. Who is to say what the difference in the franchise-CB market will be from his 5th year to his 6th year in FA? If it's a big difference (like there was this past year) then we just screwed ourselves in that regard as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Yeah, it is a little different in that regard. Don't know if the $ for the 6th season is all salary or if it includes a hefty roster bonus. The difference is that latter makes him untradable b/c of the immediate cap hit once we pay the roster bonus. We were able to trade Abe b/c he wasn't due a dime until the first game I think. Overall I still think it was dumb. Missed the first 3 weeks of tc, paying him more over the first 4 years, and puts off locking him up for 1 extra year. That may prove to be wise & it may not. Who is to say what the difference in the franchise-CB market will be from his 5th year to his 6th year in FA? If it's a big difference (like there was this past year) then we just screwed ourselves in that regard as well. I don't understand what happens that after 4 years he can void the rest of the deal. It says we can buy back the remaining two years. But is he a free agent after those 4 years and can he go to another team if he wants to?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Yeah, it is a little different in that regard. Don't know if the $ for the 6th season is all salary or if it includes a hefty roster bonus. The difference is that latter makes him untradable b/c of the immediate cap hit once we pay the roster bonus. We were able to trade Abe b/c he wasn't due a dime until the first game I think. Overall I still think it was dumb. Missed the first 3 weeks of tc, paying him more over the first 4 years, and puts off locking him up for 1 extra year. That may prove to be wise & it may not. Who is to say what the difference in the franchise-CB market will be from his 5th year to his 6th year in FA? If it's a big difference (like there was this past year) then we just screwed ourselves in that regard as well. The only way it makes sense is if they are really worried about a lot of core contracts coming up at once and wanting to stagger the dates. It does seem like a fairly simple solution to wait this long - more years = more money per year. Shouldn't have meant a hold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I don't understand what happens that after 4 years he can void the rest of the deal. It says we can buy back the remaining two years. But is he a free agent after those 4 years and can he go to another team if he wants to?? No. It must mean that if he doesn't reach those incentives that his 5th/6th year must be dirt-cheap in comparison. If he chooses to void it after 4 years, that means the low-paying original salaries are no more & he is either an unrestricted free agent OR the Jets can sign him for the amount outlined above. If the Jets elect to sign him, it is not subject to a league-wide bidding war for Revis' services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM31 Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I haven't followed all of the threads on all of the boards so if this has been discussed specifially then I appologise. My concern is what happens if his grade is "incomplete" after four or five years or if he is a solid starter but, at that point anyway, NOT the second coming of a Deion Sanders cover guy but with a tackling mean streak? Having paid a premium signing bonus in order to secure these exotic contract options, as well as the right to use the franchise tag elsewhere, we are protected I suppose if he sucks or if he is "all-galaxy". But most players are not that. I am not sure we have ever had that as a Jets fans. Maybe Aaron Glenn. Most first rounders are not that. Abe (injury), Ellis (took a while to bloom), BT (See "Ellis" in spades), Kyle Brady.... the list goes on. All of these players were solid pro's after 4-5 years but none of them were the cream of the league. In each of these cases it would have been a very difficult choice between letting them go without compensation or paying them a balloon payment in their sixth year. It just seems like we have voluntarily disarmed by giving up a number of the normal negotiating options that we would have in our arsenal with these types of players. And that we have paid extra for the the rights to disarm!! Hanging a year-six sword of Damocles over our heads like this.... I guess we have to hope that he is either a bust or a stud or if not, then we need to hope that he feels a special warmth towards the Jets and this particular front office because many other teams might be bidding for his services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damaged89 Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I haven't followed all of the threads on all of the boards so if this has been discussed specifially then I appologise. My concern is what happens if his grade is "incomplete" after four or five years or if he is a solid starter but, at that point anyway, NOT the second coming of a Deion Sanders cover guy but with a tackling mean streak? Having paid a premium signing bonus in order to secure these exotic contract options, as well as the right to use the franchise tag elsewhere, we are protected I suppose if he sucks or if he is "all-galaxy". But most players are not that. I am not sure we have ever had that as a Jets fans. Maybe Aaron Glenn. Most first rounders are not that. Abe (injury), Ellis (took a while to bloom), BT (See "Ellis" in spades), Kyle Brady.... the list goes on. All of these players were solid pro's after 4-5 years but none of them were the cream of the league. In each of these cases it would have been a very difficult choice between letting them go without compensation or paying them a balloon payment in their sixth year. It just seems like we have voluntarily disarmed by giving up a number of the normal negotiating options that we would have in our arsenal with these types of players. And that we have paid extra for the the rights to disarm!! Hanging a year-six sword of Damocles over our heads like this.... I guess we have to hope that he is either a bust or a stud or if not, then we need to hope that he feels a special warmth towards the Jets and this particular front office because many other teams might be bidding for his services. you raise a good point. I really hope that this episode has taught the FO not to be so damned arrogant and inflexible to the point where they have stunted Revis's development and most likely wasted a good deal of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addage Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Mr. T has forgotten more about contracts than any of us will ever know. Just a quick refresh on the salaries FA guards got this year explains why the Jets were happy to lay out some pretty lavish pay for years 5 and 6. It is a very reasonable bet that the salary cap will move up significantly. What looks expensive today will not be four years out. Revis is being paid at somewhat higher during years 1-4 as compensation for surrendering control of year 6. While that's a risk for the Jets, it's not an unreasonable one. In the meantime, we have three years to look at Revis. If he is an average pro--ala Robertson, for example--you walk on years 5 and 6. If he is the player we all hope he is, the likelihood is controlling the cost of year 6 was very smart. It also gives both sides some leverage to renegotiate a market deal at the end of year 4 if the pay is disproportionately high or low based on market conditions. When a couple of All-Pro members of the class of 07 sign blockbuster contracts (especially for another team) entering their sixth years, their fans might be wondering why their FO's didn't control that sixth year. Time will tell, but this could easily be a visionary contract that others will emulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.