Application of "reallocation rule" to Revis is another Jets red herring

[NIGHT STALKER]

From our buddy Mike Florio...

Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2010 10:05 AM ET

The New York Jets lately have been feeding to the media plenty of esoteric arguments and angles explaining their failure to extend the contract of cornerback Darrelle Revis -- or their fleecing of left tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson and/or his agent.

As to the latter, the Jets initially put out the word that they didn't guarantee the Ferguson contract for skill and injury because to do so would have required immediate funding of the full amount of the guarantee, a notion which ignores the fact that the funding obligation is triggered only when the money is guaranteed for both skill and injury upon signing. Ferguson's money is guaranteed for neither upon signing. It could have been guaranteed for injury out of the gates, with a skill guarantee attaching (as it currently does) for each season in which Ferguson is on the roster at the start of the league year.

Now, the Jets have fed to Rich Cimini of ESPNNewYork.com the notion that the "reallocation rule" prevents the team from guaranteeing amounts for skill and injury, due to a CBA quirk that supposedly requires future guarantees against skill and injury to fit under the 2009 salary cap. Since, per Cimini, the Jets had only $300,000 in leftover cap space in 2009, they were forced to guarantee Ferguson's future money for skill or injury, but not both.

Cimini believes that the same impediment likely will "sabotage" any efforts to extend Revis' contract.

So why then did the Jets come to Revis earlier in the offseason and express a desire to rip up his current contract? Revis has publicly said that the possibility of a new deal arose only after the Jets expressed a desire to replace the final three years of his current contract, pursuant to which he's due to receive $21 million. If the reallocation rule prevents the Jets from doing the kind of deal that Revis would want, they never should have broached the subject with him in the first place.

We've got other takes in response to this report. And we need to number them in order to keep them straight. Since many of you don't care much about these details, we'll put them after the jump.

1. The Jets mishandled the P.R. on the Ferguson deal.

Regardless of what is and isn't true about the dynamics of the Ferguson contract, the Jets should have gotten the truth out right away. Instead, the agent leaked to ESPN's Adam Schefter a false (or at least grossly incomplete) account that the deal carries guaranteed money in the amount of $34.8 million, setting the stage for Internet hacks like me to suspect that someone was full of something other than chocolate, and to commence a quest for the truth.

If the Jets had merely divulged the details before the agent tried to enhance his future client base by leaking big numbers that simply aren't true, the sense that someone has been hoodwinked wouldn't have emerged once the real facts came out.

2. Ferguson's purchase of insurance is irrelevant.

Cimini explains that, as a practical matter, Ferguson's future money will be guaranteed against injury once he steps onto the practice field for training camp because he'll have an insurance policy in place.

Whoop-de-freaking-do.

Since Cimini's article is silent as to whether the team or the player has paid for the insurance, we're going to assume that the player is footing the bill. And it's not a small bill to foot. Disability insurance for football players entails an enormous expense.

Then there's the generally accepted reality that insurance companies are often very cooperative when taking money in, and not quite as charitable when it's time to, you know, pay it out. (In this regard, Ferguson would be wise to speak with inaugural Ring of Honor inductee Curtis Martin, who was forced to file a lawsuit in 2007 after allegedly getting the Full Monty from Lloyd's of London.)

Regardless, if insurance was such an easy and desirable answer, no player or agent would seek contractual guarantees for injury. And that's the bottom line here. The Ferguson contract was sold as having $34.8 million guaranteed. As Cimini's report confirms, it simply doesn't.

3. Signing bonuses fall beyond the reallocation rule.

Buried in Cimini's story is the most important point, as it relates to Revis. Signing bonuses fall beyond the reallocation rule.

As a result, the Jets could commit to giving Revis a huge chunk of money now, which is the ultimate injury and skill guarantee.

And to the extent that the Jets don't currently have the money on hand to pay Revis a $30 million signing bonus, the money can be deferred, paid out over five years or longer. As long as it's earned upon signing, the team and the player can agree to a schedule of payments that gives the franchise some short-term relief.

4. The Jets have a clear credibility problem in the locker room.

Apart from the specific reasons why the Jets supposedly can't do a contract extension for Revis, the fact that it apparently won't happen serves only to highlight the deeper problem to which Revis and others have alluded. The team has led several players to believe that they'll be getting new contracts. Now, the team is offering up excuses regarding why it can't happen.

Despite efforts by folks in the media to paint a picture that explains from a technical standpoint the challenges that the Jets face when trying to negotiate the deals, all they had to do was keep their mouths shut about the possibility of negotiating new contracts.

Cimini concedes that G.M. Mike Tannenbaum "probably shouldn't have told Revis after the season that they wanted to re-do his contract." To that we say, "Ya think?"

If players don't trust the team, that's a problem. And while the players in New York love coach Rex Ryan, these detailed explanations about why promises can't be kept sound a lot like the stuff Ferguson will hear from his insurance company if/when he ever is forced to make a claim for payment.