Mr.T's hands tied re: signing Revis?- PFT

[Dude Love]

Right here: http://www.jetnation.com/forums/index.php?/topic/90557-mrts-hands-tied-re-signing-revis-pft/page__view__findpost__p__1631801

Idiot.

You're good at quoting other people, but bring absolutely nothing to the table at all outside of snide remarks. I have no problem discussing the matter with anyone capable of discussion, but this is my last post in response to you. Go **** yourself. Thanks.

[SMC]

Those multiple reports are also all speculation. I've also read that Revis is open to deals worth less than Aso's per year, and that the Jets haven't offered a signing bonus of any kind yet.

You're mischaracterizing that, Slats.

Revis is open to taking "less than Aso" but still getting that for the FULL LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. Aso got 3 years $45 million, $15 million average. Revis wants SIX YEARS at close to that average per.

Thus, it's still double what Aso got.

[slats]

You're mischaracterizing that, Slats.

Revis is open to taking "less than Aso" but still getting that for the FULL LIFE OF THE CONTRACT. Aso got 3 years $45 million, $15 million average. Revis wants SIX YEARS at close to that average per.

Thus, it's still double what Aso got.

Even if that is the case -which is debatable- six years down the road that contract will probably not be nearly as rich a deal for an elite CB.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

Here is the difference between management and player commitment.....

1. Signing bonuses/guaranteed money. A player gets X millions of dollars for doing nothing more than signing his name and committing to play out the length of the contract. The team pays that X million dollars of a signing bonus for the commitment and the right to walk away from the deal. Gholston got money to sign his name; Revis got money to sign his name. Teams contribution was the signing bonus -- players contribution was committing to play out the contract.

2. The CBA. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will be cut as the normal course of business. That is why there are rules regarding the waiver wire, FA for cut players, and certain vets getting 100% of his salary if cut mid-season. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will NOT hold out as the normal course of business, that is why there is fines and rules that doing so will cost a player a year towards FA and even forfeitures regarding bonuses and guaranteed money.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Even if that is the case -which is debatable- six years down the road that contract will probably not be nearly as rich a deal for an elite CB.

I wonder if our big mouthed HC would had said that Mangold is the best center in the league he would be pulling a MEvis? We'd be calling him MEgold perhaps.

I love Rex, but sometimes you just have to keep your gums tucked in your mouth.

[slats]

The CBA is written with the expectation that players will NOT hold out as the normal course of business, that is why there is fines and rules that doing so will cost a player a year towards FA and even forfeitures regarding bonuses and guaranteed money.

The CBA is written in a way to discourage players from holding out as best as it possibly can, the expectations are only assumed because of how difficult they try to make it.

[Bleedin Green]

Here is the difference between management and player commitment.....

1. Signing bonuses/guaranteed money. A player gets X millions of dollars for doing nothing more than signing his name and committing to play out the length of the contract. The team pays that X million dollars of a signing bonus for the commitment and the right to walk away from the deal. Gholston got money to sign his name; Revis got money to sign his name. Teams contribution was the signing bonus -- players contribution was committing to play out the contract.

2. The CBA. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will be cut as the normal course of business. That is why there are rules regarding the waiver wire, FA for cut players, and certain vets getting 100% of his salary if cut mid-season. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will NOT hold out as the normal course of business, that is why there is fines and rules that doing so will cost a player a year towards FA and even forfeitures regarding bonuses and guaranteed money.

God I hate agreeing with a chowd, but this is spot on.

[JoeWillie]

Here is the difference between management and player commitment.....

1. Signing bonuses/guaranteed money. A player gets X millions of dollars for doing nothing more than signing his name and committing to play out the length of the contract. The team pays that X million dollars of a signing bonus for the commitment and the right to walk away from the deal. Gholston got money to sign his name; Revis got money to sign his name. Teams contribution was the signing bonus -- players contribution was committing to play out the contract.

2. The CBA. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will be cut as the normal course of business. That is why there are rules regarding the waiver wire, FA for cut players, and certain vets getting 100% of his salary if cut mid-season. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will NOT hold out as the normal course of business, that is why there is fines and rules that doing so will cost a player a year towards FA and even forfeitures regarding bonuses and guaranteed money.

Totally agree.

[ylekram]

Even if that is the case -which is debatable- six years down the road that contract will probably not be nearly as rich a deal for an elite CB.

that is what tanny is trying to prevent.ok.crazt al gave aso an insane contract.if tanny does the same for revis,then every tom,dick,and harry will expect the same.which is way too much for the cb position.virtually exploding the cb market.thus tanny staying pat at his 12m per will not have that affect.besides,when aso's contract is over,the rediculous demands are over

[SMC]

Here is the difference between management and player commitment.....

1. Signing bonuses/guaranteed money. A player gets X millions of dollars for doing nothing more than signing his name and committing to play out the length of the contract. The team pays that X million dollars of a signing bonus for the commitment and the right to walk away from the deal. Gholston got money to sign his name; Revis got money to sign his name. Teams contribution was the signing bonus -- players contribution was committing to play out the contract.

2. The CBA. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will be cut as the normal course of business. That is why there are rules regarding the waiver wire, FA for cut players, and certain vets getting 100% of his salary if cut mid-season. The CBA is written with the expectation that players will NOT hold out as the normal course of business, that is why there is fines and rules that doing so will cost a player a year towards FA and even forfeitures regarding bonuses and guaranteed money.

Excellent point.

[Larz]

Tanny's a bright guy. This is an uncapped year. He could find a way to maximize every sort of bonus he could pay to Revis this year in a way that won't effect the cap in future years. It's really not an either/or proposition.

hard cap

try again

[Larz]

Harris IMO.

yeah, I'd have to agree

sux tho

[serphnx]

Even if that is the case -which is debatable- six years down the road that contract will probably not be nearly as rich a deal for an elite CB.

That was the logic for paying Revis so much relative to his draft position 2 years ago, and as you can see, he is already unhappy.

What makes you think he'd sit tight for 6 years? The only way he would be happy with it is if it indeed was NOT a bargain, and he was being overpaid considerably. You can bet that if in 3 years someone signs a bigger contract, you'll hear the same complaints as now.

[bitonti]

The man is good.

He shuts down the other team #1 every single game. is it too much to ask pay him what he's worth?

if we wanted a mediocre 8-8 team full of high character fellas who play their contracts out to the letter could have stayed with Mangini.

[JohnnyHector]

The man is good.

He shuts down the other team #1 every single game. is it too much to ask pay him what he's worth?

if we wanted a mediocre 8-8 team full of high character fellas who play their contracts out to the letter could have stayed with Mangini.

I know you're not as much of a simpleton as you let on with posts like this... or at least I hope not.

If this was MLB, with no salary cap and the sticking point was Woody not wanting to pony up the luxury tax, then your point would be valid. However, since the NFL has a hard cap, within which teams must sign a team of 53 players, you cannot simply "pay him what he's worth", when the measuring stick of his worth is an aberration.

[RutgersJetFan]

And the Jets aren't fronting him a big signing bonus and then have him holdout in 2 years when his salary falls below the arbitrary "Revis don't like" level.

Just a thought, as my knowledge on contract law is limited, but can't they insert a poison pill to prevent this from happening?

[Dude Love]

Simple solution---

No more multi-year contracts. Sign for one year. And every year you don't have to worry about holding out, because you already know you are going to negotiate a brand new contract.

Awesome, right?

That way guys like Gholston will always get what they deserve, and guys like Revis will get what they deserve.

[JohnnyHector]

Just a thought, as my knowledge on contract law is limited, but can't they insert a poison pill to prevent this from happening?

You mean like changing the salaries in the last 2 years of his deal from guaranteed to non-guaranteed?

[bitonti]

However, since the NFL has a hard cap,

not this year. In another year yes there would be an excuse. This year there's no excuse. We don't know if the cap will come back. We don't really even know if there's football in 2011. The reason why the Jets want him to sign a Brick deal is cause they don't have to pay rolling guarantees when there's no football. If revis gets a chunk now up front that's his money.

[RutgersJetFan]

You mean like changing the salaries in the last 2 years of his deal from guaranteed to non-guaranteed?

Ha, touche. I was thinking something more along the lines of forfeiting moneys paid in the event of another holdout before the deal's end. Or something like that.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Just a thought, as my knowledge on contract law is limited, but can't they insert a poison pill to prevent this from happening?

I was under the impression those "poison pill" type contracts were no longer an option since the Curtis Martin deal we had with the Pats years back.

I could be wrong.

[JohnnyHector]

not this year. In another year yes there would be an excuse. This year there's no excuse. We don't know if the cap will come back. We don't really even know if there's football in 2011. The reason why the Jets want him to sign a Brick deal is cause they don't have to pay rolling guarantees when there's no football. If revis gets a chunk now up front that's his money.

Oh, my bad... I didn't realize that the Jets could simply hand him a pile of cash that had no future cap implications, that there were no rules governing the percentage of that increase, and that it wouldn't affect his current 2011 cap number, which would have no effect on the Jets' ability to re-sign their impending UFA's.

[RutgersJetFan]

I was under the impression those "poison pill" type contracts were no longer an option since the Curtis Martin deal we had with the Pats years back.

I could be wrong.

I don't think so. The Burleson and Hutchinson deals had them.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

Simple solution---

No more multi-year contracts. Sign for one year. And every year you don't have to worry about holding out, because you already know you are going to negotiate a brand new contract.

Awesome, right?

That way guys like Gholston will always get what they deserve, and guys like Revis will get what they deserve.

So every off season, every player is a FA. Teams have the player consistancy of redraft FFLs with only 1-3 players from last year's squad being on this years squad of 53.

[bitonti]

Oh, my bad... I didn't realize that the Jets could simply hand him a pile of cash that had no future cap implications, that there were no rules governing the percentage of that increase, and that it wouldn't affect his current 2011 cap number, which would have no effect on the Jets' ability to re-sign their impending UFA's.

being sarcastic but in fact there's no cap implication to giving him a big bonus in 2010. There's no cap in 2010. that's the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus.

[jgb]

I completely understand the distaste, I really do. But Revis' first holdout still did not get him what he's worth. And to risk his livelihood -which even the Jets are rumored to have placed a $100M value on- for just $550K would be extremely foolish on his part.

yes, you are right. folly to not expect more than his $550k or whatever. that being said, all reports are that he wants unreasonable $$$. unreasonable $$$ is, well, unreasonable. trade him in a herschel walker type deal and move on if he demands 16 mill/yr.

[jgb]

being sarcastic but in fact there's no cap implication to giving him a big bonus in 2010. There's no cap in 2010. that's the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus.

he'll hold out again in a couple years when his salary is "below market" - proof: his camp keeps saying "he's only being paid $1 mill this year!" you have to amoratize his comp over the life of his contract to get the fair number.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

being sarcastic but in fact there's no cap implication to giving him a big bonus in 2010. There's no cap in 2010. that's the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus.

So you give him a $60 million roster bonus for 2010 and $2 million in salary on a 6 year deal......what's the odds he show up to camp in 2011?

With this guys history you can't give him much of a signing bonus...you have to back end the contract or he is gonna demand a new deal 2 years in.

[Bruce Banner]

Who makes the rules?

Oh, the owners make the rules. That's right.

There's a little give and take with the players' union, but it's mostly for show. The owners hold virtually all the cards. I'm sure they miss the days when they drafted a player and held his rights forever, paying him whatever they felt like paying him, but the rules today really don't hamper them all that much. They designed them that way.

Holding out is a player's only option. It's also a part of the system that owners are fully aware of. Not many players have the leverage to do it. This year, Revis does.

The players get over 50% of the revenue and share none of the money they make from endorsements. Almost every penny the NFL makes has to shared with the players but the owners never see a penny of Peyton Manning's commercial money even though no one would know Peyton was alive without the NFL. Same thing in all sports. Michael Jordan made more money from endorsements than from his salary and shared none of that endorsement money with the league which made him famous.

And the NFL has to pay all expenses out of its minority share of revenue. And the owners have to make a massive initial investment to get into the game. Woody Johnson had to pay over $600M to buy the team which prolly makes him around $30M a year.

If the owners made all the rules they would not be making a minority of the money involved. If the owners made all the rules there would be testing for Harrison Growth Hormone. The players are doing well by themselves and there is no need to shed your tears for them.

[Dude Love]

I completely understand the distaste, I really do. But Revis' first holdout still did not get him what he's worth. And to risk his livelihood -which even the Jets are rumored to have placed a $100M value on- for just $550K would be extremely foolish on his part.

I know you're not talking to me LOL this is for everyone else---

have you ever heard of catastrophic injury insurance?

"Oh, I might get hurt, I need to renogiate my contract"

Bullsh*t. No you don't.

[villain_the_foe]

I think the rules are skewed sharply against the players in all negotiations. I think the owners get richer off of talented athletes who shorten their lives to play a game. They become crippled, or their brains don't work the way their supposed to. The next round of CBA talks will be a complete joke, with the owners getting 95% of what they want. Any time a player has enough juice on his own to fight that system, I applaud him.

And with so many fans applying one set of morality rules to the owner, and another set to the player, I find myself digging in more. It really boggles my mind that it's absolutely perfectly fine with everyone that the Jets break contracts with Thomas Jones or Alan Faneca, but if Darrelle Revis wants to break his deal he's some kind of greedy bitch diva.

Im sig'ing this

I think I mentioned this before but I'll say it again.

Slats is such the visionary!

[rillo]

Jets try to paint Revis as greedy

We recently suggested that, when it comes to working out a new deal for cornerback Darrelle Revis, G.M. Mike Tannenbaum's hands are tied by the reluctance of owner Woody Johnson to authorize the funds necessary to get the deal done.

On Monday, Johnson denied that the impasse has arisen from a lack of money.

"The main issue with the New York Jets is total compensation," Johnson said Monday, per Manish Mehta of the New York Daily News. "When you get to some of the details like the guaranteed money or the length of the contract -- all of those things that are a part of the contract -- but to get to the point where we haven't even negotiated that because we're so far apart on the other ones. I'd love to sit down and negotiate. We can be flexible."

Johnson reiterated that the team has offered both a long-term deal and a short-term "Band-Aid" solution. Rich Cimini of ESPNNewYork.com reports that the long-term deal included total compensation in excess of $100 million. The "Band-Aid" would have paid Revis more than his current $1 million salary in 2010, but less than the $5.3 million they'll pay left tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson this year.

"This is my eleventh year," Johnson said. "We've never had an inability [with] lack of resources to sign whoever we wanted. We can go down the list. You want to talk about Brett Favre or even Mark Sanchez in terms of signing the players we want. We can do it. But we have to do it in the context of what's best for the organization."

That's fine, but is it "best for the organization" to approach Revis' agents only two days after the Jets were knocked out of the playoffs and suggest ripping up the last three years of his rookie deal, which he held out to get in the first place, without saying that: (1) the Nnamdi Asomugha contract, with an average value of $15.1 million is an aberration, not a benchmark; and (2) the 30-percent rule and the reallocation rule will affect the total dollars and the guaranteed money?

Even though the Jets are now crouching behind the gap in total dollars as the primary impediment to working out a deal, the amount of truly guaranteed money is a huge part of the picture. They can offer him a deal worth $500 million, but all that really matters is the amount that's truly guaranteed once he signs his first name and last name to the bottom of the contract.

Ferguson signed because, for reasons neither known nor apparent, he wasn't troubled by the complete lack of an injury guarantee or the application of a year-by-year skill guarantee. Revis wants $15.1 million per year -- and he wants the appropriate amount of guaranteed money to be guaranteed upon signing, not after he gets through 2010 and then 2011 and then 2012 and then 2013 without suffering a serious injury or without suddenly losing the stuff that makes him, as coach Rex Ryan says, the best defensive player in the game.

So, basically, the Jets' new approach is to paint Revis as greedy. Put simply, they're saying he wants more money than the Jets think he's worth, and they think he's worth a lot.

This new approach might win them some points in a P.R. battle they had previously bungled, but it won't get Revis into camp in the foreseeable future. Or thereafter.

link

[slats]

Oh, my bad... I didn't realize that the Jets could simply hand him a pile of cash that had no future cap implications, that there were no rules governing the percentage of that increase, and that it wouldn't affect his current 2011 cap number, which would have no effect on the Jets' ability to re-sign their impending UFA's.

This is an uncapped year. There are bonuses like the roster bonus, a workout bonus, etc., that don't get pro-rated over the term of a contract under normal rules of the CBA. Not sure what's available like that this year, but Tannenbaum's a bright guy who gets paid to solve problems, he should be able to figure out what kind of up front money he can give Revis without hurting himself cap-wise down the road.

Obviously, Revis is a risk to hold out again in the future, so I would never suggest a $50M bonus - or some such crap. But something in the $10-15M range on top of his current $1M salary this year should really be doable.

[slats]

That was the logic for paying Revis so much relative to his draft position 2 years ago, and as you can see, he is already unhappy.

What makes you think he'd sit tight for 6 years? The only way he would be happy with it is if it indeed was NOT a bargain, and he was being overpaid considerably. You can bet that if in 3 years someone signs a bigger contract, you'll hear the same complaints as now.

I get this concern, too, that Revis is likely to hold out again. You know what? He is likely to hold out again. The guy brings a lot to the table on gameday, though, and the franchise has to decide how much contract/holdout crap is worth it to them. For a 25 year old lockdown, shutdown CB who's talent appears to be on the rise? I think you have to suck it up as a team at this point. If he slips at all as he's approaching 30, maybe you decide to do things differently. But right now, poised for a Super Bowl run, you take the plunge.

Giving Revis a deal that averages $15M over six years will probably be something of a bargain down the road. He was never supposed to see the $15M he's slated to get in three years, either, but right now now that's looking like a deal. The Jets like to put those salary dips into contracts (Thomas Jones had it last year, Revis this year), and they probably need to avoid them with Revis. Make large chunks of his money in the form of bonuses to show up at OTA's and training camp, and put the money on a steady incline over the life of the deal. It's not foolproof, but you can certainly set up a contract that he'd be less likely to hold out on. If he was getting $10M this year instead of $550K, he'd be in camp right now.

[JohnnyHector]

being sarcastic but in fact there's no cap implication to giving him a big bonus in 2010. There's no cap in 2010. that's the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus.

This is an uncapped year. There are bonuses like the roster bonus, a workout bonus, etc., that don't get pro-rated over the term of a contract under normal rules of the CBA. Not sure what's available like that this year, but Tannenbaum's a bright guy who gets paid to solve problems, he should be able to figure out what kind of up front money he can give Revis without hurting himself cap-wise down the road.

Obviously, Revis is a risk to hold out again in the future, so I would never suggest a $50M bonus - or some such crap. But something in the $10-15M range on top of his current $1M salary this year should really be doable.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to compensate Revis substantially (and satisfactorily) without either giving him an insane (>$30m) signing bonus as part of an extension (not going to happen) or by ripping up his existing deal... the latter results in his cap number for next year will end up (at least) doubling, meaning that if Revis gets his way, you can say goodbye to either Harris or Mangold, or both.

I just can't see how it would have made any sense for Tanny to approach Revis about ripping up the last 3 years of his deal, as is claimed, without a cap-friendly solution already worked out.