Revisiting the Jets decision in 2007 (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

So many of you may remember that this isn't the first contractual impasses between Darrelle Revis and the Jets. Taken 14th overall, he ended up being the last rookie 1st rounder in 2007 to sign a contract. The reason for the difficulty related to Mike Tananbaum insisting Revis agree to a 6-year contract, whereas most rookies sign 5-year deals. Ultimately, Revis' camp acquiesced.

http://www.nysun.com/sports/jets-have-big-...contract/59785/

This got me thinking about how ineffectual getting hung up on those kinds of terms is for both sides. The Jets played hard ball and, theoretically, "got their way." Yet what did it get them? Revis was as good as they could've hoped for, and now stands ready to hold out in need of a new contract that both sides agree he deserves.

I know it will never happen because the parties are too close to the situation to realize things for what they are, but I wish we could start talking about contracts for what they are, and not the total headline value or total years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Disagree here, GB. A five year deal means Revis holds out now with 2 years left on his contract, giving him (in theory) quite a bit more leverage.

 

[Reaper]

There's no such thing as a 5.5-year contract in the NFL, so there's not much middle ground. And one complicating factor is that Schwartz represents guard Pete Kendall, who is also in a contract dispute with the Jets. No compromise seems imminent.

The Pete Kendal thing was a ton of BS as well, Kendall signed a brand new deal - he and his agent saw the market for Guards skyrocket and then they came out in the media and said they signed a new deal but, the Jets promised to rip it up and redo it right away after just a few months.. What team or GM would possibly do a 4 year deal and promise to do it over months later???It never made sense and I've hated this agent ever since - And the way they play the media, people still think the Jets were at fault with Kendall....Now add Gilbert into the mess and #*&!$#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The Jets loved Revis in that draft but, I'd serious consider avoiding certain agents.

 

[Jason Wood]

Disagree here, GB. A five year deal means Revis holds out now with 2 years left on his contract, giving him (in theory) quite a bit more leverage.

Not at all. How would having 2 years left give him more leverage? No one in their right minds still thinks he would sit out two seasons, much less one. This notion that players have leverage when they're under contract for more than a season is completely baseless IMHO. If it were true, where are the cases in evidence of that assertion?Not to mention, both sides agree his rookie deal is no longer viable. So again, what was the point of asserting the sixth year? Under what scenario would Revis have been held to his full 6 years, at the stated contract value, without any talk redoing it and/or having him hold out? If he sucked they wouldn't have kept him around. If he's great (aka, now), they need to tear it up and start over. And if he were mediocre, MAYBE they let him play this out but just as likely they look to get him to redo the later years downward.

 

[Steed]

Is he really crazy enough to not report after August 10 and set his free agency back a year? I know his uncle did it, but it just doesn't make sense when he'll have to just repeat this dance next year. I think this is much ado about nothing. Let's just give it a week.

 

[Sweet Love]

I know it will never happen because the parties are too close to the situation to realize things for what they are, but I wish we could start talking about contracts for what they are, and not the total headline value or total years.

This is something I have always wondered about. I am doing most of this off memory, so forgive me if the numbers are a bit off, but take the Haynesworth contract for example. Regadless of the crap going on right now, he was guaranteed roughly $40 million on an $80 or so million contract. REGARDLESS if he had 10 sacks/year for the life of the contract, there is no way it would remain in tact as is...so I ask, why bother? On the flipside, when Curtis Martin signed his final contract, I believe it was roughly 6 years, $36 million (I can't remember the guarantees) and while many thought it would be ripped up too, he ended up aging well towards the end of it and saw the whole thing. Whether by design or dumb luck, he and his agent found the "magic number" of what he could actually attain for the life of the contract. What this bought Martin was an extra couple years of fair pay. Now, there are teams that would renegoitate to even better a deal if the player outplays said contract (although very few teams will), but the reality is the contract, no matter how unrealistic becomes a jumping point for renegotiations and usually ends in a player feeling he should get his $8 million, being worth $4 million and the team going even lower than that. The chasm is just too great for all the personalities involved and the player often is cut only to take an equal or lesser contract somewhere else.Many agents are smart people, so it stuns me that they force these $15 guaranteed (which is usually correct, for example) $50 million contracts. I understand the agents want to brag "I got player X $50 million", but instead of bragging about the total dollars (which everyone including the casual fan, know the player will never see), why don't they spin it and say " I got Player X his $15 million on a $25 million contract, and he saw ALL of that money". Basically, until they embrace the idea of total contracts completed versus total (imaginary) dollars, the system is going to be broken.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Disagree here, GB. A five year deal means Revis holds out now with 2 years left on his contract, giving him (in theory) quite a bit more leverage.

Not at all. How would having 2 years left give him more leverage? No one in their right minds still thinks he would sit out two seasons, much less one. This notion that players have leverage when they're under contract for more than a season is completely baseless IMHO. If it were true, where are the cases in evidence of that assertion?Not to mention, both sides agree his rookie deal is no longer viable. So again, what was the point of asserting the sixth year? Under what scenario would Revis have been held to his full 6 years, at the stated contract value, without any talk redoing it and/or having him hold out? If he sucked they wouldn't have kept him around. If he's great (aka, now), they need to tear it up and start over. And if he were mediocre, MAYBE they let him play this out but just as likely they look to get him to redo the later years downward.

The only way a 6 year deal backfires on a team is when the player becomes great in the first half of the deal. If the player is mediocre or sucks, the team can just get rid of him at no cost.If the player is good, not great, then the team has a player on a nice deal for long term.If the player is good, and shows flashes of greatness then the team can either keep the player on a nice deal with the promise of ripping up the deal if the player continues to develope, or just rip up the contract and get the player to sign another long term deal at a reduced salary and the player will jump at it because of the signing bonus. (I keep thinking Reggie Brown).Really, only when the player plays great in the first couple of years do you run into a situation where things get complicated.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Is he really crazy enough to not report after August 10 and set his free agency back a year? I know his uncle did it, but it just doesn't make sense when he'll have to just repeat this dance next year. I think this is much ado about nothing. Let's just give it a week.

Actually, if he holds out past the deadline, in a weird sort of way this may give Revis more leverage. If this season isn't going to count towards his FA, then he has even less reason to report until he gets a new deal.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Disagree here, GB. A five year deal means Revis holds out now with 2 years left on his contract, giving him (in theory) quite a bit more leverage.

Not at all. How would having 2 years left give him more leverage? No one in their right minds still thinks he would sit out two seasons, much less one. This notion that players have leverage when they're under contract for more than a season is completely baseless IMHO. If it were true, where are the cases in evidence of that assertion?Not to mention, both sides agree his rookie deal is no longer viable. So again, what was the point of asserting the sixth year? Under what scenario would Revis have been held to his full 6 years, at the stated contract value, without any talk redoing it and/or having him hold out? If he sucked they wouldn't have kept him around. If he's great (aka, now), they need to tear it up and start over. And if he were mediocre, MAYBE they let him play this out but just as likely they look to get him to redo the later years downward.

The only way a 6 year deal backfires on a team is when the player becomes great in the first half of the deal. If the player is mediocre or sucks, the team can just get rid of him at no cost.

If the player is good, not great, then the team has a player on a nice deal for long term.

If the player is good, and shows flashes of greatness then the team can either keep the player on a nice deal with the promise of ripping up the deal if the player continues to develope, or just rip up the contract and get the player to sign another long term deal at a reduced salary and the player will jump at it because of the signing bonus. (I keep thinking Reggie Brown).

Really, only when the player plays great in the first couple of years do you run into a situation where things get complicated.

Realistically though, how big of a negative is this? Let's say Revis won the original battle and signed a 5 year deal. IMO, he would still be holding out if that scenario had played out instead.

 

[KCC]

This situation has everything to do with the way Revis has played, and nothing to do with the length of the contract he originally signed. Anytime the entire league recognizes that a player is the very best at his position, that player will want to be paid accordingly, regardless of how much time is left on his rookie contract.

 

[moleculo]

my understanding is that signing bonuses can be spread over the length of the contract for salary cap purposes. If you sign someone to a 6 year deal, all you are really doing is minimizing the cap hit. I'd bet that very few 4+ year deals are seen all the way to the end - the player is either cut or re-negotiated.