Players who breach their contracts by holding out should face substantial penalties not merely 16K a day, but they should have to repay a percentage of bonus money and the daily fines should be a percentage of their base compensation as opposed to a flat fee. These changes would prevent players from holding out. Cutting a player and terminating their contract pursuant to the termination provisions is far different from a player under contract who just opts to hold out and breach his contract as a bad faith negotiation tactic. Players should be punished for holding out and should be disincentized from breaching their contracts. Cutting players is part of football from HS to the pros. Not everybody can make the team and so you have to be able to cut players. There is no reason to prevent teams from being able to cut players.
technically, but the Jets never intended to have him playing for just $1 million this year, and probably aren't dumb enough to not know $21 million for three years is a steal for Revis as well and would take it if they could, and likely offered to guarantee it, so I think it is obvious Revis' demands are simply higher than $7 million a year and thus the guarantee isn't a solution to this impasse.
There is no way Wilson plays this year, whether on opening day, mid season, the playoffs if the Jets make it, as well as Revis almost certainly would play coming back after last year. Plus it's not merely Wilson. It screws up the whole rotation and, unless the Jets get someone else in there, means we will see more of Coleman and the like out on the field. But the main point is quite simple, and I don't know why we keep seeing the kind of analysis you present here, which imo is flawed: However else the D would perform in his absence, whether great, good or putrid, it would be better with him in there. Since we can't say this D is the best in the league without him, or equally good as if he were on the field, or anything of the sort, we must instead acknowledge the D will be better if he's out there. I think that is without question the case. It is and should be beyond debate. And it is merely wishful thinking to think Wilson this year is going to be able to play well enough to make us forget Revis. That is so unlikely it is not worth talking about.
I like how Rex threw in a comment in his presser about how he's seen some players hold out for a whole season and miss a chance at a Super Bowl, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Wilson will be facing Edwards, Holmes, Cotchery, Coles, and Keller in practice every day. By opening day he will be ready for a heavy dose of playing time.
I'm not sure what you are getting at that Revis would play coming back form last year. if he was with the team, of course. who has said otherwise? and do you honestly think Wilson is not playing this year? that's what you said. you think we drafted him in the first round to ride the bench and never see the field? he's a CB, not a QB. they don't get years on the bench to learn the position. I'm not saying the D is better off without Revis or that Wilson will be anywhere near as good as Revis, and I'm not sure how you could even misunderstand my position as such. even if the D is as good this year as a whole without him as it was last year with him, clearly it would be even better with him. but a D just as good last year as a whole could be good enough to win, so the desperation to get Revis back is lessened, and thus his leverage, than if the D doesn't play as well as last year. you really needed that explained to you. that isn't a flawed argument at all.
Yeah, I referenced it the other day http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=1767906&postcount=4
Some of the reports say that the 20 million doesn't become guaranteed until the end of 2010. Who knows if the JEts would have been willing to guarantee that money if asked (I don't know but I agree, I'd assume they would have been smart enough to do so).
I actually think some contracts allow you to do this. The Redskins were going to make Haynesworth pay back bonus money if he didn't report; not sure what the differences are between the contracts that would allow the Redskins to do that with Haynesworth but are keeping the Jets from doing that with DR.
Let's just say I clarified the meaning of what you were saying. It's all well and good to talk about Wilson, and of course if Revis for whatever reason does not play for the Jets this year, they will play who they've got. I just want to make clear that hoping Wilson can fill in for him at Revis's level of play is unrealistic. If you agree there's no way the D is as good without Revis as with him, then we agree on the major point. Some here have suggested it's all the same whether he is in there or not. It isn't.
I'm saying that it is possible, with the new additions and another year under their belt, as a whole could be just as good as last year, even with Wilson filling in. the flipside to that is if that is the case, there is no doubt that they would be even better with Revis in there instead. but the team as a whole can be better this season if the offense improves even if the D takes a little drop, so we don't know yet how much of an effect Revis' absence will have on the team, or whether the team's success will be primarily determined by having a dominant defense. thus, we must wait for the season to truly know.
spoken like a true canadian. What is it with you people with honesty & ethics? This is America, when you have a contract and you don't like it, you throw a hissy fit!!
The NFL could easily stop these things, all they need is a rule that says if you hold out for more than 72 hours, you're automatically suspended for the rest of the season without pay by the league, and the team can't use you at all even if you agree on a contract. See how many players hold out then
If only things were so simple. The reason players aren't heavily fined or face any such punishment is because of the CBA. NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed like in other sports. teams have all sorts of ways out of contracts if they do not like a players performance. Having players hold out for new deals is something the owners are willing to be lenient on because in the end they still have the players by the balls.
Exactly. Great example of why the NFL needs to ban holdouts. His uncle did it, so why shouldn't he? If I am the Jets I'd tell him directly that he will not be traded. And I would never trade him. Relle is basically running an extortion strategy: Pay the ransom or I will never play for you again. I don't think the Jets should capitulate to extortion. If they roll over for Revis and 15M, they will damage the team financially and it will encourage 2-3 guys to hold out next year.
I agree. I mean if it comes down to it where their is no way anything is getting done, just lay it out there. Revis, we're not trading you. Either play out your current deal that we're buying the last 2 years of, sign this generous offer that pays you more than any CB not named Aso, or retire. Your choice.
The Darrelle Revis Holdout Thread It would top Aso's deal, but in total compensation not yearly. Andre Johnson just signed for 7 years for 70 million with only 13 guaranteed. Now he's the highest paid receiver at "only" 10 per year. Revis has been offered 100+ million but still turned it down. It sounds like he wants the whole freaking think guaranteed.
If they ban holdouts, teams will have to honor contracts on their end. And they don't want to do that. The owners made their own bed in this situation.
