So a good read from Cimini of all people about how ridiculous it would have been to keep Revis. Maybe this will bring an end to this idiotic discussion once and for all (although I know better). "We interrupt your draft-day anticipation to bring you this random thought: If the Jets had acquiesced to Darrelle Revis and signed him to the same contract he received from the Bucs (six years, $96 million) -- he said he would've accepted the same deal -- they would've used almost all of their remaining salary-cap room. Right now, the Jets have $7.25 million in cap room, according to the NFLPA figures. Revis is counting $13 million. If they had given him a $10 million raise in 2013 compensation, which is what the Bucs did, his cap number would've ballooned to $19 million. In that case, they'd have approximately $1.25 million in cap space, meaning they'd have to cut players and/or restructure contracts to sign their draft picks. The Jets' rookie pool, based on their current eight picks, will be approximately $7.3 million. That's based on last year's slotting, so you have to figure there will be an ever-so-slight bump. If you're wondering why Revis still counts $13 million on the cap, here you go: In 2011, he received an $18 million option bonus, which got pro-rated over the remaining six years of the contract. (The last three years were bogus years, tied to a voidable that would've triggered if he didn't stage a holdout.) So the Jets get hit with this year's pro-rated amount ($3 million), plus an acceleration of the remaining pro-rated years ($9 million). The Jets also get a $1 million charge for the roster bonus that was triggered last month. He's off their cap in 2014." http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/je...cap?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
As much as it pains me to see him go, this is exactly why he couldn't (and shouldn't) have stayed. He was hindering our ability to fill out other spots of our roster. Depth clearly became a major issue with this team last year. Hopefully through tonight's draft, and smart acquisitions with the freed up cap space next year, we can quickly become a contender again in 1-2 years. Fully agree with Idzik's move.
Based on the new rules bad drafts are way less risky than they had been previously. Now does that reduced risk mean you can have multiple bad drafts and still fix your squad? That's an interesting question. Probably not but drafting a bust like Gholston would have been much easier to overcome if we could have replaced him with a FA and cut him with little loss of cap space, something the new rookie rules effectively does. As far as a bird in the hand I absolutely agree and if we had Revis under contract and he wasn't coming off major knee surgery we would agree we had a bird in the hand. Of course that bird in the hand would also have much more real trade value. Where you and I part is Revis unsigned and coming off injury is the bird in the hand part. I view him as an asset that may go up or down in value that a bet had to be made on. Hardly the bird in the hand but very possibly better than we will get in value back? To Be Determined.
First you said you conceded that Raider team was an exception, then you said you conceded nothing. Look, if you think you have proven anything, you are simply wrong, and i am done arguing with you on THAT part of it. You can't just say "history has shown" anything other than that the teams that have won it have done so. There's nothing about that history that PROVES that you can't win an SB with a top shelf CB on the squad. The assertion in itself is ludicrous, so the burden is on you to prove it, and you have not. If you just repeat yourself I will not respond.
I agree that we don't konw what will happen with Revis going forward. But he has been checked out, at this point by doctors from two teams, and nothing has surfaced suggesting he is a significant risk of not returning to form. My main beef is I think the Jets should have tried to negotiate an extension with him, and it was Woody's call they did not. What happens in the future, no one knows at this point.
no, I said I conceded for the sake of argument. that isn't saying I conceded nothing, it is saying that even if I give you the Raiders, the Raiders do not dispute the actual argument, because at best they are simply an exception. that is false. if there are common denominators to those historical events, you can draw a conclusion, which even if just anecdotal is still stronger than an argument that has no historical precedence to support it. that is a ludicrous assertion and one that has never been made.
Thank you Don for this write up. Revis and Tanny got us in the cap hell we were in. I'm glad its over, and hope we never get in a situation were one player can literally hold the team hostage. Simply not worth it. Good luck with that TB. How long will it be in 2014 before Revis wants his contract guaranteed?
