The Jets are getting crapped all over because the trade is being viewed through a vacuum. The facts that they are spotlighting is that Revis is a future hall of famer and the Jets failed to lock him up. The facts that are getting ignored are what the Jets do with the picks that they got from the Tampa and the cap space they cleared by no longer having Revis on the roster... that is the story as far as the Jets are concerned and won't be fully written for a long time.
he had a signing bonus, the point of which is to give money up front rather than spread it out over the length of the contract. Revis could have chosen to forego the signing bonus and have some of that money held over to that contract year so it wasn't just $1 million, but chose not to. the Jets and Revis agreed to what the total compensation for the contract should be, and then agreed how that total compensation should be paid out. so Revis agreed that he would play that season for $1 million and get the rest of the salary prior to that. there is no principle to then claiming, after you have collected all the money up front, that you then want more because the repercussion of collecting more up front is having less at the back end. now, obviously it was to the Jets benefit to rework the deal considering his play and age, but that isn't the same as saying Revis was justified by principle.
from everything I have read and listened to in the national media, they think this was a good deal for the Jets. it is the fans who feel they had to "win" the trade, not simply make a good trade that got something valuable in return for a player they would lose anyways, that are criticizing it.
First of all i hardly ingored the up front money as I had referrred to it. I interpret the contract and its inclusion of the performance targets making it a four year deal as evidencing an intent by both parties to redo the deal if he panned out (hitting the targets). It clearly was no longer a six year deal by the end of 2009. The guaranteed money paid up front was spread over the three to four years. Obviously it is your position that the guaranteed money applied to 2010 as well as the prior three years. But in hindsight, and clearly so, that left the Jets with little leverage, since all Revis was scheduled to make in 2010 was $1million. The problem was as much with the structure of the deal as anything. I think it not unreasonable to look at the structure and the incentives and the conversion to a four year deal as saying it was the intent of both parties to redo the deal if Revis panned out, as he did. That being the overall context, I don't think it was unreasonable of Revis to complain that he should not have had to play 2010 for $1million. Irrespective of the guarantees in the rookie contract. And as I mentioned earlier it was not even the Jets' position that he should.
I can assure you that in real life, I very much try to be a principled person. But in a business context like the Revis situation with the Jets in 2010, I do not think that business morality required Revis to accept that he was scheduled to make only $1million that coming season.
It is my turn to say nonsense. The only media comments I see approving the trade from the Jets' perspective are that Idzy did not do a bad job playing the cards he was given, and that the Jets are a rebuilding team that wasn't going to win the SB this year, anyway. As far as why the Jets were in teh situation they were in, and whether a first this year and perhaps a third next was adequate compensation, I do not see any consensus that the Jets got fair value.
The Jets are getting crapped all over because the trade is being viewed through a vacuum. The facts that they are spotlighting is that Revis is a future hall of famer and the Jets failed to lock him up. The facts that are getting ignored are what the Jets do with the picks that they got from the Tampa and the cap space they cleared by no longer having Revis on the roster... that is the story as far as the Jets are concerned and won't be fully written for a long time. I agree with this whole-heartedly. Without putting the trade in cintext...and seeing how what the picks develope into, it's really tough to say anything negative. It's not Idzik's fault that he was dealt a crappy hand. He truly did make chicken salad out of chicken shit. From MY persepctive, we HAD to have Revis. I (and other fans I've spoken with) would've been ok dealing a 1st, 3rd and 5th for him. In fact, that's what I was expecting the trade to be. The money...we're good with because we had it to spend...and our GM (Dominik) has been pretty good at cap management for us so there's no reason for us to think he screwed our future by doing this deal. And I wouldn't be surprised to see this deal re-worked in a couple of years...paying Revis a signing bonus and making the deal more cap-friendly. We're looking at this as a 1/2 year deal; paying Revis what he wants and doing something else when/if he proves to be the "same Old Revis" after the surgery. IF he isn't, we can let him go (hey...we TRIED...) and not get put in cap-hell.
that was Revis' choice to structure his contract to only make $1 million that season. he could have structured it differently so that he made more than $1 million, but that would have meant taking less up front. the reality is he was being paid more than $1 million because you also have to apply whatever portion of his signing bonus that would have applied to that year had he been cut to what his actual compensation for that year is, because that is what the signing bonus is aimed at being -- up front payment for contract years in the future.
Of course it was a 4 year deal. Revis held out in training camp before year 4. That is highly unethical and a breach of contract. Where you have gone off the reservation is calling that a reasonable negotiating tactic. He was paid for 4 years before he held out. The 1 million dollar salary you refer to was for showing up not for playing. The leverage went right back to Revis at the end of his 4 year contract. He decided to breach to force the issue a year earlier.
Contracts are never purely the reflection of one party's desires over the other's. Even adhesion contracts are never completely one sided. While Revis agreed to a contract including that provision, that hardly means that particular term was his choice. Another factor not mentioned so far was that since the contract had converted to a four year deal, the final year, 2010, was his contract year. Were the Jets really going to let him play out the year and perhaps go FA? Of course not. The Jets knew they had to redo his contract, and wanted to themselves. Tanny offered him three separate offers before camp. It is standard business that the final year of a contract for a very good player that the team wants to hold onto and not risk going FA will be replaced by a new contract. Revis said Tanny had promised him a new contract. Tanny did offer new deals. No party was intent on relying on Revis performing the last year at $1million a year. As far as the up front payment was concerned, perhaps that was the part of the contract that was what the Jets wanted. Heh. But seriously, the Jets agreed to that and also what portion was guaranteed. The Jets left themselves exposed to a hold out because of the $1million number not being sufficient leverage. But that didn't matter at the time, because they knew if Revis had met his performance targets, converting the deal into a four year contract, that 2010 would be the contract year, so it was highly likely the deal would be replaced with a new one. As it was. No, nothing controversial here.
Revis was never going to play for $1 million and I doubt the Jets were expecting him to. It was in the Jets best interest to never allow him to hit free agency, so I don't think the $1 million salary is really an issue.
Again, his fourth year was his contract year. Neither party was intent on having the fourth year performed as it was, since that would mean Revis would end that year out of contract. Which the Jets did not want, either. I also dispute the notion that breaches of contracts are morally reprehensible. Contract law may have elements of morality, but more accurately the measure of damages for breaches of contract reflect basic business principles rather than morals in a non-business context. People and companies breach contracts all the time, and as long as they pay the damages due the non-breaching party, that is the end of it. I think it is naive to think that a breach of a contract in the situation that involved Revis and the Jets involved moral turpitude, as you suggest.
We are in agreement there. I take issue with the notion that his final year was intended by either party to be a real agreement in the sense that neither party expected the fourth year would be performed as it was.
Lets be clear I'm not "suggesting" it it was moral turpitude for breaching the contract. It was moral turpitude for taking money to play up front and holding out. As you pointed out: The Jets left themselves exposed is an interesting way to put it. They had a full pre-season and season to renegotiate the out years. The Jets like every NFL team have a cap and salaries are structured to allow teams to fit multiple players into that structure. What you call leaving themselves exposed may well have been a necessary aspect of managing a team under a salary cap with 50 plus players. Now while we both agree that it was in the Jets best interest and Revis best interest to negotiate a new deal before the end of the 2010 season. What really went on here is Revis decided to move up his leverage date from after the season to before the season because he already got paid to play for the season as you pointed out and why risk injury for another million bucks which was chump change to him. Joe Flacco says high.
the Jets forcing him to play out that $1 million season and become a free agent, or franchise him, rather than locking him up long term, would have been more egregious than Revis holding out in that position, which would not have been about the $1 million as much as it him wanting a new long term deal. he could have been making $5 million that year and still have held out. but, in the end, the history of holding out soured Woody, even if it was justified the second time, in addition to his salary expectations. Revis is steadfast in his belief of what he is worth. I agree with the sentiment that the CB position isn't worth that much, so while I am disappointed that we lost the best player in his position in the league, I am hoping we can add players for that cost that can make up for his absence at other positions.
Hi back to Joe. Always liked him. Knew he would succeed. Anyway, I don't see the point in getting all bent out of shape by what Revis did in 2010. You made your arguments, I made mine. Not much more to say about it. Other than that what happened in 2010 imo should not have prevented the Jets from attempting to do a new deal with Revis. It sure seems like Woody felt that it did, as far as how he saw it, though. He should have been less emotional about it.
Assuming Revis is healthy when he comes back, he is arguably the best defender in the league right now. And given the Jets' recent history with draft choices, it is no sure thing that the players that will be added with make up for his absence. I frankly doubt they will. And as should be clear I disagree with those who denigrate the relative value of cornerbacks.
let's see if Revis can actually hold the title of best corner in the league next season. Richard Sherman can ball.
Love Revis but you are dead on LTJF. Dead on. Is Revis kidding me? Are those that listened to Revis cry about the Jets not being upfront kidding me? Revis and upfront is oil and vinegar. Revis should be fined just for using the the word upfront. The money isnt even guaranteed. They should have given him 10 million each of the first two years and 50 million a year the next 4 years. That really would have turned him on. And then you will have those that say NFL players should get everything they can because their careers could end tomorrow. Yeah...hopefully he is able to pay his bills with the amount of money he made by the Jets screwing him during his time here. He did very VERY well. Bottom line is if the Jets were honest with him and said he was a goner...he would have been tweetcrying within hours. I really wish him the best of luck and Im sure because of his reputation of treating a contract like toilet paper he will be well behaved for a couple years but that contract will eventually come back to haunt him....and the Bucs.
