Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

Darrelle Revis Holdout: MERGED

JonEJet

By JonEJet
in NY Jets Forum

Recommended Posts

NJ

NJ

Posted
Posted

SI_PeterKing I am told nothing is happening with Revis. Could be Tim has it from horse's mouth. But I def don't discount it because Tim's good.

13 minutes ago

Good Peter - because you're not.

Hotdamn hooray! I know it's not done yet, but after watching Brian Schottenheimer's band of miracle makers for 2 pre-season games, The defense can't get 85 Bears-ish quick enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
SoFlaJets

SoFlaJets

Posted
Posted

here is Florio trying desperately to stay relevant

Mangold, not Revis, is the Jet who's close to getting a new deal

Posted by Mike Florio on August 22, 2010 6:34 PM ET

With Tim Cowlishaw continuing to insist that the Jets could be getting a deal done with cornerback Darrelle Revis, we can now say with a very high if not absolute degree of certainty that Cowlishaw is in the right church, but that he's perched in the wrong pew.

No progress has been made between the Jets and Revis. Andrea Kremer of NBC reports from the pre-game sidelines in San Francisco that, indeed, there is no truth to the Internet chatter of Revis getting a new deal this week. (We've separately confirmed that nothing is going on right now between the Jets and Revis, not that Andrea's report needed confirmation.)

The progress is being made, we're told by multiple sources, between the Jets and center Nick Mangold.

Mangold is one of the so-called "Core Four" players who, according to Revis, believe they were promised new deals. So far, only left tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson has gotten one. (The other is linebacker David Harris, who has to be feeling a little like Shemp Howard right now.)

Revis held out, and Mangold opted not to do so. He said earlier this month that he's "not happy about" his situation, but that he decided to play out the final year of his rookie contract, at a base salary $3.3 million.

It doesn't mean a new deal will be done this week, or for that matter this year. But progress is being made between the Jets and Mangold, and the Jets apparently are motivated to make something happen before the next episode of Hard Knocks.

To find out whether it all happens, stay tuned. To PFT. Or NBC. Or HBO. Or all three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vudu

Vudu

Posted
Posted

Is it possible that Cowlishaw mistook the Mangold deal getting done for the Revis deal?? Doubtful, but with all the "radio-silence," I guess anything is possible. That or this is already an excuse he may use.

Cowlishaw isnt the only one that reported it though. We'll see

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeMarketChampion

FreeMarketChampion

Posted
Posted

I have been telling many other non sophisticated Jets fans that negotiation is a PROCESS. And it once again holds true. As a highly successful business executive, I have learned through the experience of many high-profile and complex negotiations. These things take time. The chicken littles who said the sky is falling are once again proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slats

slats

Posted
Posted

Anti-player? C'mon, man. Brick is worth millions as a good left tackle. He is not worth millions as a guy who used to be a good left tackle before he got hurt. Why should anyone pay for future services not rendered? That should be paid for by an insurance policy. Once you're no longer performing, you should no longer get compensated as though you are. Guaranteed contracts are a free pass for players to never lift a finger ever again. They can't be fired (cut) in the sense that everyone else can; if someone with a guaranteed contract is fired, they get paid the same as if they weren't (in addition, they get paid the same without the added inconvenience of actually having to work ever again).

I don't believe for a minute that would be the norm. I think most of these guys would still play their hardest. But the number who wouldn't isn't at all insignificant.

Every other major sports league has guaranteed contracts except for the NFL, despite the fact that the NFL is making more money than any of those other sports leagues. Six of the top ten most valuable sports franchises in the world are NFL franchises (including the Jets), yet they treat their players the worst. These are world class athletes who have the shortest careers in sports, and subject themselves to far more potential injuries. These are the guys who should be getting the guarantees.

Why should the other remaining players under contract, as well as a team's entire fan base, suffer because one top-paid player not only got hurt badly (removing his excellent play from the team) but also the inability of the team to sign any type of meaningful replacement due to salary cap constraints. Even if an expensive replacement is signed, that money still has to come out of another position. In short, the team loses TWICE for the same injury.

Guarantees against play are garbage. If you're not playing well anymore, you don't deserve to get paid. You should get fired just like anyone else.

Guarantees against injuries should be paid by insurance companies, not teams with a cap on the amount they are allowed to spend.

Sorry, but I don't buy the salary cap argument at all.

The salary cap isn't the law, it's just the latest attempt by the owners to limit what they pay their players. It's better than Plan B free agency, and better than the total lack of free agency before that, but it's still way behind the other sports leagues. The league can change the rules of the salary cap with a swipe of their pen. Simply make a new rule that says players cut or placed on injured reserve don't count against it. It's that easy. I can promise you that the players won't object. :lol:

Now if that were to go thru, you'd no longer have the bloated back end deals, and contracts would probably often be shorter. Huge total values would go down. Teams probably wouldn't want to risk 10 year deals (with good reason), but they'd have to weigh that against losing players to free agency. That would result in an adjustment period, but it's entirely doable.

The players already have a raw deal and the owners are out to make it worse. D'Brick's deal sucks. If that's the direction owners are going in they shouldn't have to bother locking the players out, the players should strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vudu

Vudu

Posted
Posted

Really. Then please point out one statement in my post that is incorrect.

You can't do it because it is all 100% VERIFIABLE FACT!

{*memo sent!*]

Im talking about the crap you keep spewing about your so success, while crapping on the so called "blue collar trash" and "hard hat" types. Who gives a rat's a$$? You insert that in every post, it's old and tired. This is a football forum not the Wall Street Journal comment section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

Posted
Posted

Slats, the salary cap is the only thing that keeps this from a league full of have-teams and have-not-teams. It's not just a limit to how much a team can spend, it also comes with a minimum that a team MUST spend.

The high injury rate is the reason, particularly with a salary cap, that a team can't guarantee a full contract.

I have no issue with a player getting some type of injury guarantee, but that should come from an insurance policy, not from a team's payroll, if he can't play anymore. What in the world does that serve the league, to have dozens of megadeals paid to players who are physically unable to do what they used to be able to? What that would do is rob from the players who can currently perform.

Whether there is a salary cap or not, whether there are injury exceptions allowed or not, there is a certain amount of money to pay players. It doesn't come from the Infinity Well. Paying guaranteed contracts to injured players, years after their injury, is bad for the sport. It's bad for the teams. It's bad for the other guys in the league. And it's bad to the fans, except those who are happier for a player's cash-in deal than a team's collective success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slats

slats

Posted
Posted

if this is true, it will be interesting to see how they all spin it and save face

I would guess revis comes off his 16 mill stance, but gets huge bonuses and guarantees

what will be really interesting is if the jets try to add a holdout clause or some sort of trigger that would make a hold out insane

but I suspect cowlishaw has been duped or is just guessing this news because of the fact if a deal could be made, both sides would want revis in camp this week

I would guess the exact opposite. I don't expect the bonus money to be more than $15M, but I could see the Jets adding incentive clauses tied to personal and team goals (DPOY, Super Bowls, etc.) that could bring the averages up over the $16M/year mark - even if it's unlikely.

The Jets should structure it in a way that pays the money out in the form of bonuses for OTA's and training camp so that he can't sit those out without losing serious coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sperm Edwards

Sperm Edwards

Posted
Posted

I would guess the exact opposite. I don't expect the bonus money to be more than $15M, but I could see the Jets adding incentive clauses tied to personal and team goals (DPOY, Super Bowls, etc.) that could bring the averages up over the $16M/year mark - even if it's unlikely.

The Jets should structure it in a way that pays the money out in the form of bonuses for OTA's and training camp so that he can't sit those out without losing serious coin.

This is terrible news. I won't have anything to talk to you about anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larz

Larz

Posted
Posted

I would guess the exact opposite. I don't expect the bonus money to be more than $15M, but I could see the Jets adding incentive clauses tied to personal and team goals (DPOY, Super Bowls, etc.) that could bring the averages up over the $16M/year mark - even if it's unlikely.

The Jets should structure it in a way that pays the money out in the form of bonuses for OTA's and training camp so that he can't sit those out without losing serious coin.

holy sh*t dude

incentive clauses ARE worthless, why would a player agree to that instead of "real" money ?

lol

team goals ? what gives you the impression he is interested in team goals ?

tanny signed 4 first round picks with the strategy of in return for a lower cap number, the player gets more in bonuses and guanrantees, and this situation seems to fit that as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE ILK

THE ILK

Posted
Posted

I can't wait to see Brooklyn Jet on a game broadcast, both fingers pointing at his 24 jersey, screaming "Revis, baby! Jets Numbah One! What's up!? Revis Island, baby!" That alone would be worth the holdout.

Anthing to make it worth it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

Cowlishaw isnt the only one that reported it though. We'll see

I know, which is making it hard to not raise my tempered level of excitement. I do not like getting let down...which is a real bitch, considering I chose the Jets and Knicks as my two favorite teams.

Really. Then please point out one statement in my post that is incorrect.

You can't do it because it is all 100% VERIFIABLE FACT!

{*memo sent!*]

I am not a douchebag.

See, right there. A blatant fallacy. A 100% untruth. And to think I thought I'd have to look far....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

This is terrible news. I won't have anything to talk to you about anymore.

Haha well played.

The thing that is really vexing, is how can all these sources be verifying that the reports are false, when both camps aren't reporting anything? Is this some sort of circular logic game that is meant to keep the media and fans occupied till they get it done?? It's like the NFL media's version of writing looking right, and look left on a school's library desk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slats

slats

Posted
Posted

Slats, the salary cap is the only thing that keeps this from a league full of have-teams and have-not-teams. It's not just a limit to how much a team can spend, it also comes with a minimum that a team MUST spend.

The high injury rate is the reason, particularly with a salary cap, that a team can't guarantee a full contract.

I have no issue with a player getting some type of injury guarantee, but that should come from an insurance policy, not from a team's payroll, if he can't play anymore. What in the world does that serve the league, to have dozens of megadeals paid to players who are physically unable to do what they used to be able to? What that would do is rob from the players who can currently perform.

Whether there is a salary cap or not, whether there are injury exceptions allowed or not, there is a certain amount of money to pay players. It doesn't come from the Infinity Well. Paying guaranteed contracts to injured players, years after their injury, is bad for the sport. It's bad for the teams. It's bad for the other guys in the league. And it's bad to the fans, except those who are happier for a player's cash-in deal than a team's collective success.

The salary cap can be altered in ways that make guaranteed contracts possible. It's a far from perfect system, and players are asked to take the brunt of it. If the Bills can't afford to compete in Buffalo, then they should move rather than ask for handouts from the other owners. If the other owners think it's so important to have a team in Buffalo, then they should create a larger pool of shared money to help keep them afloat. The salary cap is a system designed to limit players salaries in the way that impacts the owners the least.

I get what you're saying with injury guarantees. I think the onus should be on the team to insure those deals. Those insurance costs could be part of the total compensation package.

But teams should definitely be on the hook for skill guarantees. Players are asked to play for extremely undervalued deals (see: Revis, Darrelle) simply because they signed their name to a contract that proved to be a poor deal for them - but owners are supposed to be free to cut anyone they chose to sign to a contract that turned out to be more than the player's worth? It's not a fair system. Both sides should be required to honor agreements. The result should be shorter, fairer deals for both sides - not the one way contracts you see now for everyone but the highest draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...