"Unethical and despicable." Gimme a break. Tell that shit to the tourists. NFL teams ROUTINELY do not honor players' contracts, and now you want to narrow-mindedly apply ethics without looking at the other side of the coin. If Revis (or any other player) gets hurt or does not perform, teams routinely do not honor their contracts and drop them like a hot potato AS MUCH AS THEY CAN...and, like you say, hang them out to dry. The nature of this buisness is not the same as others. Is how NFL routinely treat players unethical too? The answer is yeah, of course. And that's exactly why players have to protect themselves against the NFL beast as much as they can. Also, tell me when Revis did not deliver.
You can't always look at it like that. They had a decent offense last year. It's not Revis' fault they fell apart. He's improved his side of the ball substantially, despite the implosion on offense. Had the offense retained the same ability and talent as last year, they'd be a contender. Their defense is looking pretty good. You can't net your team lots of wins when you trade your QB and switch to a rookie and your star RB gets hurt. You need an offense in place first, before that elite CB will put a team over the edge. They believed they were doing this with Revis, but unfortunately their offense vanished. There aren't many defenses in the history of football that could overcome that.
Please give me one example of a team not honoring a player signed contract. The statement above is an opinion that isn't based on anything close to the truth. Teams cutting players is not a violation of their contracts. Players holding out while under contract and accepting bonus money up front is a contract violation. Those are both parts of the contract. You are wrong. Teams and players don't have no cut contracts. Players get up front bonus money as a trade off for the teams to have the right to cut players. Revis held out after taking up front bonus money for his services. If the Jets cut him he would get to keep that bonus money that is the Jets right under contract. What Revis did was unethical and despicable. The fact that it worked makes it much more likely that others will follow his lead. Revis did hold out of training camp in 2010.
Calvin Pace was cut last year and resigned for dirt cheap. I'd say that counts as not honoring the contract. You might not think it does, because the team is allowed to cut him but technically the player is allowed to hold out and sign a new contract. Otherwise players would be taken to court for that. Sounds like a double standard to me. So you're saying that cutting and re-signing is HONORING THEIR CURRENT CONTRACT? When a player holds out they are looking for a new contract, when a team cuts you they are looking for a new contract. It's the same. You can say he doesn't honor it, but it's not unethical. It's business.
OK, perhaps I misspoke. It's all about the guaranteed money. The rest of the contract generally doesn't mean jack-squat. Guaranteed money, which is explains Sanchez's presence on the roster. Revis signed a six-year contract as a rookie, and he ended up being the best corner in the league. He'd be paid $5 million-a-year for his entire 6-year span with the Jets. Fair? OR DOES FAIRNESS NOT HAVE A PLACE IN ETHICS? The guy was NEVER paid what he was worth by the Jets, relatively speaking IMO. He was never OVERPAID by the Jets, that's for sure, and yet you still want to cry into your sleeve like a baby. Ripping the guy off forever would be more ethical just because he signed a rookie contract, I suppose.
This. Not sure why folks don't understand this or choose to ignore it because they think it's not "fair" or "ethical" that players are permitted under their contract and the CBA to be cut. Thomas Jones was the worst offender- he took massive up front money then complained he was "only" making $900k his last year. Yeah, because he took his money from his last year UP FRONT 3 years earlier. Think of it as signing a 2 year $10MM contract, taking $9.5MM of it up front and complaining in year 2 that you are "only" making $500K. It's disingenuous. _
If the Jets did anything wrong and didn't "honor his contract" he would have had a massive claim against the team. Yet not only did he NOT make a claim against the team, he resigned for LESS money. What does that tell you? _
What's that have to do with the obvious fact that Revis was being grossly underpaid and would have continued to be grossly underpaid for the next THREE years? We aren't talking about upfront money here, but fair compensation, taking everything into account. Do you think that the Jets ever overpaid Revis? That's the question.
The question becomes what the value of a rookie contract is. Do the Jets have the right to hold onto that value or offer it up in a managed renegotiation that is not all in the player's favor? Or does the player have the right to not honor his contract until he gets renegotiation that is very favorable to him and unfavorable for the team? My view on it is that Revis had played 3 years for the Jets and had 3 years left to play on his rookie contract, the 5th year of which would be at a very high salary while the 4th year was at a very low salary. If Revis wanted to approach the Jets about increasing his compensation dramatically over the short term in return for giving them something of value in the renegotiation I'd have had no problem with that. Want to rip up the last 3 years of your deal that will average $7M a year and instead sign a 3 year extension that brings the last 6 years of the contract out at $10M a year while giving you another $20M up front? No problem. But when you want to rip up the deal, which is somewhat favorable for the Jets, and replace it with a deal that is very favorable just for you? Fuhgeddabout it. That was the Jets mistake. They caved to Revis when they could have just let him sit for a bit and realize that not only were the Jets losing his services for a year but he also was losing a year out of his prime - at a $10M premium essentially.
My comment had less to do with Revis and everything to do with the thought that cutting a player in the middle of a contract is not "not honoring a contract" but in fact perfectly acceptable in the context of professional football. But I don't agree with your characterization that Revis was "underpaid" and certainly not "grossly underpaid" and I laugh when folks talk about what is "fair compensation". I don't care if he's the greatest football player in the history of the league, if he is under a contract that he freely signed and took a nickel of up front or guaranteed money you can NOT compare him to what any other player is commanding on the open market. What you get paid has nothing to do with fictional "worth", it's about what you can command. An URFA can command anything he wants- the market determines his "worth". A player under contract has a predetermined "worth" and has nothing to do with how good he is compared to other players- it is determined by the contract he signed. Unless HE violates his contract and holds out. _
One of these days an owner or a GM is going to show some balls and tell a player under contract to go F himself and you either play out your contract or rot away in your apartment until your contract runs out. Then makes a claim against said player for the return of any upfront $ already paid. _
Well, that's obviously just your opinion. But it's not in line with reality because a player CAN hold out and force a renegotition. That's why they do it...because they can, and it's in their own best interests to do so. If you want to talk about what's perfectly acceptable in professional football, holding out for what you are worth is not excluded. And you have people hear crying about ethics without applying the concept of fairness, which is ridiculous. You want to grab a player by the balls by virtue of an outdated contract which is now unfair. Fine. Revis didn't want to go along, and he didn't have to. I'm sure you'd feel a lot different if it were YOU being the absoulte best at what you do, yet see a lot of other people being paid WAY more...you'd just sit back there and take it for years, huh? Even though you could do something about it...
Of course its just my opinion, you sound like the Dude from The Big Lebowski. Lol What makes a contract outdated? A contract has a stated term. You outplay your contract you made a bad deal when you signed it- tough titties. So if a player has guaranteed money or years and sucks or is injured are they giving money back? Two sides of the same coin. Cutting a player is totally permissible. Holding out is a VIOLATION of the contract. Just because players do it doesn't mean it is right. It is certainly a breach of the deal they voluntarily signed up to. _
People can do all kinds of things that are in their own self interest. That has little to do with a contract that's willingly made between two parties and one of the parties decides after the fact, after taking the money, that their own self interest trumps their word and personal integrity. There are ways to re-negotiate that are in the best interest of both parties. The Jets obviously had an interest in retaining Revis's services for a longer period of time. Revis wasn't willing to have anything to do with a happy medium that took into consideration the other party to the contract he signed. Nobody is suggesting Revis sit back and take anything. That is far different then holding out after taking someone's money for service. Some might consider that theft.
Fans As fans we really have no stake in this money stuff unless we are paying for tickets. But please note the next time you advocate paying big dollars for anyone but a QB and a big receiver think again. The Jets are fine without Revis and Tampa is 0 and 8.
And big receivers don't win anything either, which is why CB's aren't tier 1 players. The NFL doesn't get either point despite the absolute best CB's and WR's playing for also-rans every year.
My thoughts exactly. Dude is saving face. The initial tweet was tantamount to 'how you like me now, Revis'. Darrell took the bait and got all puffy in the chest. What he should have done like a few posters remarked was to say absolutely nothing. But, his pride wouldn't allow him to do that. Meh
Holding out is only a violation if they have a no holdout clause. I'm pretty sure Revis had it in his 2010 contract. I see no reason why a team can cut a player for under performing and sign for half the price while a player can't fight for a new contract when he over performs. It's a double standard that would give the team GMs all the power. Just because teams can cut players doesn't mean it's right. You have to look at it from both sides of the coin.
It's not a double standard at all. There is nothing wrong with renegotiating a contract by either party. None of that changes the terms of the contract both parties are under. Holding out is very much about withholding ones services under contract. In most cases player who either threaten or actually hold out have taken up front money that's pro-rated over the entire contract. Effectively if a player is cut under contract that have already been paid a portion of the contract they are no longer obligated to fulfill. They also are free agents and can negotiate freely with anyone.
I disagree with your belief that teams cut high-cost players to "prevent overspending". Since there is a salary cap, overspending isn't really an issue- your total cash outlay is going to be about the same over the long haul whether you spend a ton of money on a few super expensive players, or whether you have more guys that are each getting lower amounts. Whatever money is saved by getting rid of Revis is ultimately used to sign other players. There is a salary floor in place, starting next year. (Under the first 2 years of the CBA, the salary minimum was that the 32 teams must spend at least $3.8 billion per year on player salaries, but individual teams could go below their 1/32 share.) Next year, each team will be required to spend at least 89% of the salary cap. That's about $109.5m per team, as opposed to the cap, which is about $123m per team. Based on that, the "rational" thing to do (according to finance folks) would be to work with the salary floor and only spend that amount. That's not what NFL owners do- almost every team spends about what the cap is, although it gets a bit messy because of things like dead money and signing bonuses, and the actual cash outlay per year can be pretty different from the salary cap amount. But over the long term, it tends to balance out, and on say, a decade basis, your cash outlay should be about 10 times the average annual salary cap for that 10 year period. Secondly, I strongly disagree with your statement that there is no financial incentive for the owners to win. My counter-argument assumes that Forbes.com's team valuations and revenues are roughly accurate. The Dallas Cowboys are worth $2.3 billion, have $539m in revenue, and $250.7 in operating income. The Oakland Raiders are worth $825m, have $229m in revenue, and $19.1m in operating income. That is a huge difference- the Cowboys are worth almost 3 times as much as the Raiders and bring in about 12 times as much income. Owning an NFL team, I agree, is sort of a money factory- even if you are horribly incompetent you will net literally tens of millions of dollars a year. But the difference between incompetence and competence is over a hundred million dollars a year in income, which is still a big deal. If you're a billionaire, and your goal in life is to make as much money as you can, then owning an NFL team is not a great investment. You're not going to lose money consistently, but you're also never going to make nearly as much money as you could if you made good investments in "the real world". You might disagree with me, but in my opinion the more "go-getter" billionaires do not primarily focus their efforts on a sports team they own. George Steinbrenner initially said, after purchasing the Yankees, that he was not going to let it get in the way of his shipping business (ha ha) but he fell in love with owning the Yankees and lived a happy life focusing on that, even though if he'd focused on shipping maybe he would have passed away with another zero in his net worth. There is a thing called marginal utility- and after a certain level of wealth, additional money doesn't really make a huge impact on happiness unless you sort of view it as "life points" and find it to be fun to get as many as you can. Some billionaires would rather get to be in the newspaper, hobnob with elite athletes, get talked about on ESPN, etc. Most of them genuinely care about their teams' long-term success and do want to win titles. Jerry Jones certainly cares a whole lot about winning a Super Bowl (although he's a horrible GM). I've never said that Revis didn't have a right to seek as much money as he thinks he can get (although I have criticized him for short-sightedly taking unguaranteed money rather than a smaller guaranteed amount from the Jets) and clearly he is a hard worker, and a truly great player. But in the real world, you don't get to threaten to not to do the job you contractually agreed to do, unless you are paid more money. In my world, that's unethical. You sign a deal to do a job for a certain amount, and you do it, period. You don't stop part way through and demand money above and beyond what was already agreed to- that is greed. The real reasons that Revis was traded were: 1) the fact that he kept holding out / threatening to hold out, 2) the fact that he had a severe knee injury, 3) the fact that he would leave the team unless he was extended under a contract that would pay him about a 60% premium over the second-best player at his position, and 4) the fact that the Buccaneers were willing to trade two important draft picks for him. Every team has to work within the same salary cap- yet some teams are consistently good while others consistently struggle. The way to be successful (which is correlated to higher income for the owner, although other factors such as host city population are also critical factors (i.e. the Jets are the #6 most valuable NFL team despite not having won a Super Bowl in 2 generations)), is to spend your salary cap efficiently. Since a QB has enormous influence over the success of a team, it makes sense that that one player can get about 20% of the team's salary cap. But money spent in one place means less money to spend on other positions, and with inevitable injuries, depth is also important. Aside from QBs, it is a highly questionable strategy to dedicate huge chunks of your salary cap to a few stars. Doing that means that you're going to have major vulnerabilities in other areas, which can more than make up for having those 2 - 3 elite non-QB players. It is, in my opinion, poor strategy to pay a non-QB the kind of money that Revis is getting from the Bucs. You are better off paying three great players rather than one elite player. Others do believe in the "superstar" theory (have a few mega-stars, and the rest of your team can be scrubs) but unless the superstar is a QB, in my opinion that strategy does not really work in the NFL. The smart teams would rather trade or cut a player than pay him more than he contributes to the team.
