Breaking: Revis sitting out OTA's because of contract

[SouthernJet]

Are you kidding?

He had a year left at over $5M, and the Jets cut him so as not to pay it. They didn't honor that contract at all.

I get that contracts are structured that way on purpose, for exactly that reason, but no one should sweat when the very few players who have some leverage opt to use it. Revis' prime earning years will be over inside of 10 years. He'd be a fool to not seek every penny he could.

in the NFL, the contracts are voidable,,players/agents know this, that why they get upfront cash.

players also know if they are playing great they will hold out..so no mean things going on here,,its the game both sides play,,woners can be mad when a player holds out or a player who gets big bonus then sucks, and players can be mad when the owners decide that they dont need them anymore and hope u banked that signing bonus..

in MLB of NBA you have to honor contracts, NFL different..so what is surprise?

[flgreen]

Are you kidding?

He had a year left at over $5M, and the Jets cut him so as not to pay it. They didn't honor that contract at all.

I get that contracts are structured that way on purpose, for exactly that reason, but no one should sweat when the very few players who have some leverage opt to use it. Revis' prime earning years will be over inside of 10 years. He'd be a fool to not seek every penny he could.

Oh course they honored it. In reality it was a 2 year contract. Both sides knew that going in. He Was paid his guaranteed money with an extra million thrown in for kicks.

　

　

How about players that sign big contracts with a lot of guaranteed money up front, then have a bad year, well, because the money was guaranteed. Nothing to play hard for. Or get in top shape for.

　

Happens all the time. B. Thomas even admitted it. The team has no option with a player like that.

　

All a contract is really for is the amount of money that is guaranteed. Period.

[SouthernJet]

Honor the contract that they themselves signed?

Exhibit A: Thomas Jones

Exhibit B: Alan Faneca

Exhibit C: Brandon Moore (the Jets obviously wanted him back, yet cut him failing to honor his contract and then signed him back prior to the 2009 season)

The Jets honored what contract? From reality: The Jets cut Thomas Jones with approximately $6m of that $20M still due and owing. The Jets didn't honor ****.

Also, where the **** did you get that 75-90% of the contract is signing bonus statistic?

what dont u get? this isnt NBA or MLB.

The Union contract players signed and agreed to says that NFL contracts are voidable on a yearly basis. So what did Jets break? The Union agreed to this clasue so the ycould get the upfront guaranteed cash to be much higher.

I dont know what league has it right, but this is a agreed to voidable clause by UNion members, so Jets broke nothing.

[JETS11269]

Everyone needs to lay off of Revis. Try being one of the most elite defensive players in the whole league, and getting paid like you're still a rookie. I don't want controversy with this team any more than the next guy, but you guys sound like you would even turn on Superman if all he did was ask for a bigger contract.

[SouthernJet]

Everyone needs to lay off of Revis. Try being one of the most elite defensive players in the whole league, and getting paid like you're still a rookie. I don't want controversy with this team any more than the next guy, but you guys sound like you would even turn on Superman if all he did was ask for a bigger contract.

I think people get upset if they think these players will actually sit out a year.

[Matt39]

Revis has reached Lawrence Taylor status in my eyes(on the field, obvi).

Revis is by far the best player this franchise has had in ions. If he wants to sit out, let him. Dont bad mouth him...get a deal done and move forward.

Its amazing how fans can turn on a guy who's a bonafide superstar and had an all time great season last year over a contract where he's obviously underpaid.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Matt39

[#27TheDominator]

what dont u get? this isnt NBA or MLB.

The Union contract players signed and agreed to says that NFL contracts are voidable on a yearly basis. So what did Jets break? The Union agreed to this clasue so the ycould get the upfront guaranteed cash to be much higher.

I dont know what league has it right, but this is a agreed to voidable clause by UNion members, so Jets broke nothing.

They didn't break any rules, but they ****ed the guy over. Why shouldn't they **** the Jets when the get the chance? This is the time. Revis is on a low yearly salary. Jones was on a low year in 2009. I keep hearing people say Jones was really a 2 year deal, well they got him to play at pro bowl level for the 3rd year and hardly paid him.

The union "agreed" to this because the owners hold the hammer. Players have something like an average of 3 year career. It is very difficult for the players to overcome the generations of voidable contracts out there. It's not like the union thought "Wow! Let's get a bonus and let them cut us at any time! Great idea!"

[jgb]

This is strictly a football player discussion for me.

Owners agree to contracts with players then cut them. Or they force them to take paycuts down the road. Where's the honoring of contracts there? And that happens all the time. For every guy at the level of a Revis, there are 50 guys who'll get cut or have their pay cut this year.

When teams force players to take a paycut, that player has the option to say no thanks and take a look at the market. If there is no market, he comes crawling back. If a player is significantly over-performing his contract, he has the right to hold out for more. If the team doesn't think he's worth it, or wants to toe a hard line, they can refuse to renegotiate.

FWIW, I'm very much in favor of a rookie salary cap. I'd tie it in with shorter, guaranteed contracts. Give them all the opportunity to to make real money after three years when they've proven themselves at the NFL level.

well at least we can agree on the rookie salary cap. burning big bucks on busts hurts competition in the league. as does not being able to jettison underperforming players before their contract is up.

Are you kidding?

He had a year left at over $5M, and the Jets cut him so as not to pay it. They didn't honor that contract at all.

I get that contracts are structured that way on purpose, for exactly that reason, but no one should sweat when the very few players who have some leverage opt to use it. Revis' prime earning years will be over inside of 10 years. He'd be a fool to not seek every penny he could.

and you'd be a fool to not walk away with $10,000 you find on the street without turning it in but that doesn't make it right.

[Jbro22]

He'll play this year and be gone.

Wilson was the writing on the wall.

[DLJ]

He'll play this year and be gone.

Wilson was the writing on the wall.

[Matt39]

He'll play this year and be gone.

Wilson was the writing on the wall.

Yes, the 29th pick in the draft was the writing on the wall the Jets will get rid of the best player on the team and one of the best in franchise history.

[ECURB]

He'll play this year and be gone.

Wilson was the writing on the wall.

For Cro yes...

[jgb]

He'll play this year and be gone.

Wilson was the writing on the wall.

Could be. Trading a guy like that in his prime you can get an awful lot in return. $20 mill a year (or even 16MM) is like 15% of the 2009 salary cap. no CB is worth that in my opinion.

[slats]

in the NFL, the contracts are voidable,,players/agents know this, that why they get upfront cash.

players also know if they are playing great they will hold out..so no mean things going on here,,its the game both sides play,,woners can be mad when a player holds out or a player who gets big bonus then sucks, and players can be mad when the owners decide that they dont need them anymore and hope u banked that signing bonus..

Hate to tell you this, but we've just come to a complete agreement on the issue.

This is the system. The owners have it much better, but every once in a while a guy like Revis comes along who actually has some power.

I supported Thomas Jones' right to look for more money two years ago, too, but I also thought the Jets were right to not pay him. Both sides have every right to try to do what's best for themselves. I don't get why the owners get off in the public view as "just doing business," while the players get dubbed, "greedy scumbags." Seems unfair to me. They're both greedy scumbags.

[jgb]

Hate to tell you this, but we've just come to a complete agreement on the issue.

This is the system. The owners have it much better, but every once in a while a guy like Revis comes along who actually has some power.

I supported Thomas Jones' right to look for more money two years ago, too, but I also thought the Jets were right to not pay him. Both sides have every right to try to do what's best for themselves. I don't get why the owners get off in the public view as "just doing business," while the players get dubbed, "greedy scumbags." Seems unfair to me. They're both greedy scumbags.

not sure "greedy scumbag" is the right word. my point is this: i don't fault anyone for making as much money as they can. i live by that creedo everyday (within the law and my ethical responsibilities, of course). my problem is guys sign a contract that doesn't appropriately manage their risk and get paid for it. for example, if you push hard for a bunch of incentives, you're going to have to give up some salary or signing bonus. but guys don't usually want to do this (it's usually the team that wants this) - they want their money now. but then, when they outperform, they want to get the incentives anyway by holding out and demanding a new contract.

i will agree that a rook cap will solve a lot and free up $$ for proven players who deserve it more. but the fact is that players usually try to get the contract that guarantees them the most money up front for security (which is rational) but then when they outperform, they want the same benefits of the guy who put his money where his mouth was and signed the incentive-laden deal despite the fact that they "sold" the right to an incentive payday by taking the "money now" approach.

Edited June 3, 2010 by jgb

[flgreen]

Revis has reached Lawrence Taylor status in my eyes(on the field, obvi).

Revis is by far the best player this franchise has had in ions. If he wants to sit out, let him. Dont bad mouth him...get a deal done and move forward.

Its amazing how fans can turn on a guy who's a bonafide superstar and had an all time great season last year over a contract where he's obviously underpaid.

But the guy hasn

[#27TheDominator]

Rookie cap is a nice slogan, but would that really be fair? Teams are forcing these guys to play for their team when they often don't belong there and would be more valuable elsewhere.

Cases in point: Gholston comes to a 3-4 team behind Pace and Thomas. Gholston may just be a stiff, but I don't think anybody doubts he'd have been better off going to a 4-3 team. Wilson comes to the Jets behind Revis and Cromartie. By the time their rookie deals are up most guys careers are over. It's not going to be fair to stick them either. Guys are already often better off being UDFA than late picks. Slot them in too low and it'll only be worse.

[BUM-KNEE]

But the guy hasn

[slats]

What if he had sucked like Gholston? How much of his guaranteed money would he have given back? How much of Gholston

[SoFlaJets]

There is zero chance that Revis won't be there for TC...the Jets can not afford to let their best player in a generation not be on their biggest stage since the SB in 1969

[Bleedin Green]

not sure "greedy scumbag" is the right word. my point is this: i don't fault anyone for making as much money as they can. i live by that creedo everyday (within the law and my ethical responsibilities, of course). my problem is guys sign a contract that doesn't appropriately manage their risk and get paid for it. for example, if you push hard for a bunch of incentives, you're going to have to give up some salary or signing bonus. but guys don't usually want to do this (it's usually the team that wants this) - they want their money now. but then, when they outperform, they want to get the incentives anyway by holding out and demanding a new contract.

i will agree that a rook cap will solve a lot and free up $$ for proven players who deserve it more. but the fact is that players usually try to get the contract that guarantees them the most money up front for security (which is rational) but then when they outperform, they want the same benefits of the guy who put his money where his mouth was and signed the incentive-laden deal despite the fact that they "sold" the right to an incentive payday by taking the "money now" approach.

Very well said. Revis got a boatload of front-loaded money in his deal, and he got it because of the 6-year deal that he signed. He was more then happy to collect that money, but has no interest in actually living up to the agreement he made which is the whole reason why he received as much up front as he did. Is he a scumbag? No. Is he greedy? You bet your ass he is.

The difference between the owner's cutting a guy and player holding out is simple in my mind, it's all about that guaranteed money. The owner has to pay a large chunk of change, up front, that is a large portion of the money they are spending for that player's services for the entirety of his contract. They then pay additional money, on a yearly basis, for the years they actually play for that team. So when an owner cuts a player, they've already paid that player all of the money they owed him for the time he has actually played for them PLUS the portion of the guaranteed money that was associated with the remaining contract years, which that player still gets to keep. The player is not getting robbed of a cent here, and has the opportunity to go and get money from someone else (including a whole new set of guarantees).

When a player holds out, they have already collected all of the money for the years they have played PLUS a portion of money for the years they have agreed to in a contract, but not yet played. This money has NOT yet been earned by the player, but yet they not only see no need to actually earn that money, but seem to think they should get paid even more on top of what they already agreed to. It all comes to money paid for services rendered, and it's only the owner's who ever get screwed on that deal.

[Biggs]

Hate to tell you this, but we've just come to a complete agreement on the issue.

This is the system. The owners have it much better, but every once in a while a guy like Revis comes along who actually has some power.

I supported Thomas Jones' right to look for more money two years ago, too, but I also thought the Jets were right to not pay him. Both sides have every right to try to do what's best for themselves. I don't get why the owners get off in the public view as "just doing business," while the players get dubbed, "greedy scumbags." Seems unfair to me. They're both greedy scumbags.

The only greedy thing that happened in the Jones deal was him threatening to hold out last year after taking the upfront money.

Thomas Jones took a ton of upfront cash and knew exactly what he's pay would be last year he signed the deal. He also knew by taking the upfront money he protected himself if he got hurt and if the Jets cut him at any time and he was healthy he could negotiate his true market value as an FA.

Up front money protects the players. Getting cut protects the players because they are free to make a deal with any team for their true value.

Revis can play this any way he wants to. The truth is he will make a huge amount of money and a million or 5 one way or another vs. he's reputation of living up to his deal may cost him more? Teams don't like to deal with hard asses who's word is no good. Companies who want ex athlete’s to represent them also want character guys. Holding out on a deal in place that was negotiated in good faith shows a lack of personal character.

As a fan I really don't care if the guys on the team are low life's or not. On the other hand if an employee, a vendor or a customer tried to shake me down with a deal in place I wouldn't want to work with them again.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Biggs

[Iceman88]

Some of you people are absolutely ****ing ridiculous. This is a growing problem with our front office and it's not just Revis. Players continually keep saying they are being promised things would get worked out or that the team would take care of them and then the team hasn't done ****. We used to brush it aside because it was happening to washed up or less vital players but this is becoming a serious issue. The front office needs to stop making trades or FA signings and needs to lock up our home grown talent and keep them happy. Tanny has been getting way too much praise lately without getting any results and if he *****s up the situations with Mangold, Harris, Revis and D'Brick he will have screwed the Jets for a long time.

[#27TheDominator]

The only greedy thing that happened in the Jones deal was him threatening to hold out last year after taking the upfront money.

Thomas Jones took a ton of upfront cash and knew exactly what he's pay would be last year he signed the deal. He also knew by taking the upfront money he protected himself if he got hurt and if the Jets cut him at any time and he was healthy he could negotiate his true market value as an FA.

Up front money protects the players. Getting cut protects the players because they are free to make a deal with any team for their true value.

Revis can play this any way he wants to. The truth is he will make a huge amount of money and a million or 5 one way or another vs. he's reputation of living up to his deal may cost him more? Teams don't like to deal with hard asses who's word is no good. Companies who want ex athlete

[slats]

When a player holds out, they have already collected all of the money for the years they have played PLUS a portion of money for the years they have agreed to in a contract, but not yet played. This money has NOT yet been earned by the player, but yet they not only see no need to actually earn that money, but seem to think they should get paid even more on top of what they already agreed to. It all comes to money paid for services rendered, and it's only the owner's who ever get screwed on that deal.

And that's the system. The owners don't go into these contracts with blinders on, either. They know that if a player feels he's over-performed his deal that he could very well attempt to sit out and make more.

If the team pays the player, then the player not only deserved it, but he was obviously right to sit out in the first place.

If the team refuses to budge, and the players sits, loses money, gets fined, and never gets the kind of contract that he was holding out for - then he screwed up.

But that's how it works.

[Falcon63]

They don't get suspened but they do get fined for missing camp. Pretty signficantly too.

Significantly to me and you is like a day's salary to them......anyone who thinks being paid $1M is underpaid is a selfish a** b****.

[jgb]

And that's the system. The owners don't go into these contracts with blinders on, either. They know that if a player feels he's over-performed his deal that he could very well attempt to sit out and make more.

If the team pays the player, then the player not only deserved it, but he was obviously right to sit out in the first place.

If the team refuses to budge, and the players sits, loses money, gets fined, and never gets the kind of contract that he was holding out for - then he screwed up.

But that's how it works.

would you be for a system that if a guy sits out he has to pay back the pro-rata portion of the signing bonus he already put in his bank account that is attributed to the future years of his contract?

[jgb]

Significantly to me and you is like a day's salary to them......anyone who thinks being paid $1M is underpaid is a selfish a** b****.

the problem is too many people judge being underpaid by what the other guy is getting. "yeah revis is a millionaire but woody is a billionaire!!!! no fair!!!!"

some people are obsessed with "fairness" without realizing that the inherent unfairness of life is what causes people to work their tails off to achieve.

Edited June 3, 2010 by jgb

[#27TheDominator]

Significantly to me and you is like a day's salary to them......anyone who thinks being paid $1M is underpaid is a selfish a** b****.

You have 3 years to earn a lifetime of salary. You have probably worked for at least 15 years straight, abusing your body, tearing it up and doing irreparable damage to it. $1M doesn't seem like that much to me. Besides, it's not like these guys get to choose who they play for. I'll bet that Revis was a Steelers fan growing up. Why is he supposed to have this all encompassing desire to win a super bowl for the Jets? Oh and the owners make millions on the backs of the players, but I guess they are just doing it for the good of the fans.

Half this board idolizes Bill Parcells and that fat piece of **** breaks contracts left and right, but Revis is a bad guy?

[jgb]

You have 3 years to earn a lifetime of salary.

what? i know a lot of scary dudes who would be none to pleased with your insinuation that football players are little more than brainless gladiators who have no skills or abilities to find gainful employment after their playing careers are done.

wayne chrebet works for an investment bank, you know.

[flgreen]

The fact that Gholston sucks has no bearing on the fact that Revis is arguably the best defensive player in the NFL, and has every right to expect to be paid accordingly.

That's the point. He Was.

For some reason this year was left very low in the rookie contract. Probably some bearing on the CBA Lock out ect.

Even with this year only being $1,000,000, he still will make $21,000,000 over the next three. Ya got to feel sorry for the guy.

The Jets are still willing to give him a new deal.

With Tannenbaum's history, if Revis starts to make a lot of trouble, Tannembaum is very likely to move on to Mangold, Brick, Harris, Cromartie, Edwards, holmes ect. and let Revis play the next three years of his contract out.

[slats]

would you be for a system that if a guy sits out he has to pay back the pro-rata portion of the signing bonus he already put in his bank account that is attributed to the future years of his contract?

Nope.

Any money that the player already put in the bank is going to be part of the discussion for any new deal. There's no reason for him to give anything back. And even if he did, then he'd just be looking for that much more in his new deal, anyway. It's pointless.

[jgb]

Nope.

Any money that the player already put in the bank is going to be part of the discussion for any new deal. There's no reason for him to give anything back. And even if he did, then he'd just be looking for that much more in his new deal, anyway. It's pointless.

it's not pointless. writing a check for $15 mill back to your employer might make you stop and think about things for a minute. anyone can sit out. would take someone with a legit beef to cut the check which would sit in escrow until you either return to perform under the contract or a new deal is made.

[slats]

what? i know a lot of scary dudes who would be none to pleased with your insinuation that football players are little more than brainless gladiators who have no skills or abilities to find gainful employment after their playing careers are done.

wayne chrebet works for an investment bank, you know.

And a lot of NFL players die broke.

The man's expected to make somewhere in the range of $15M a year as an NFL CB. It'll take him ten years to make the same amount of money after football if he's extremely good at his next career.

This is his livelihood. These are his prime earning years. He should be doing everything he possibly can to maximize them.

[slats]

it's not pointless. writing a check for $15 mill back to your employer might make you stop and think about things for a minute. anyone can sit out. would take someone with a legit beef to cut the check which would sit in escrow until you either return to perform under the contract or a new deal is made.

Why should the player have to pay to weaken his position in negotiations?

How about a system where a player is free to pay back that same pro-rata portion of his signing bonus to become a free agent? The team previously holding his rights would then have the right to match any deal he could get on the market. Sound good?