What incentive did the Jets have in approaching Revis with the plan to rip up his contract and work on an extension when he had 3 years left? I just don't get it.
You may choose to not view a person refusing to do what they committed to do as not being a question of personal morality or ethics. I disagree. Its unethical and immoral to commit to do something and then refuse to do it unless you get paid more than you are in fact owed. Its called welching on a deal or breaching a contract. You can rationalize it all day long. The bottom line is that Revis promised to play for a certain amount of money and now he wants to reneg on his promise. To me thats unethical. I certainly understand thats how some people choose to behave and that its a business decision to try and get more money - but that doesn't mean its moral or ethical.
Tannenbaum recognized that Revis outplayed his contract.....Tanny approached Revis on his own accord.
That, and I also think that Tannenbaum was trying to lock Revis up long term as well. And to take care of the people they drafted, instead of trading or bringing in FA's. The way that I view this is that Tannenbaum was being a stand up guy and wanting to rework Revis's contract. Something fair to him and to the team. Revis, on the other hand, is saying give me everything I ask or I'm not playing. He won't even meet with them.
I'm sure Tanny approached him saying that he has outplayed his contract and that the team would take care of him. However, I've never seen any report of the Jets saying that they would make Revis the highest paid CB in the league, as Aso's deal is clearly an anomaly. Revis probably interpreted this gesture as meaning that he would become the highest paid CB, so now he's demanding a ridiculous number.
I suspect Tanny knew the inevitable was coming, and thought it'd be best to make nice early. Regardless of whether or not Tanny approached Revis after Indy, Revis had no intentions of playing 2010 for $1m. Anyone who believes that is out of touch with reality. All this talk of "it was Tanny's fault to approach Revis after Indy" is just ridiculous. He was trying to set the right tone for the future negotiations. IMO, it was a rare instance where his genius backfired.
Please answer this question. Is every NFL team that cuts a player before contract is up a "welching on a deal" (btw, that's an ethnic slur) and acting unethically? The Jets promised Fanecca and Moore and a million other players that they'd pay them to play long term but then cut them long before the contracts were up. Also, if you don't think people break and renegotiate contracts every single day, you're nuts.
That being said, why the hell did they wait so long to do this? Tanny knew about a new deal, and so did Revis? Why did they wait until the start of TC to really start negotiating. That is the only part I take issue with. Even Revis should've said something prior.
That wouldn't be breaking a contract. They legally used the terms of the contract to do what they want. Its part of the contract. If they contractually owed someone money and didn't pay, THAT'S breaking a contract. Faneca would have contacted lawyers if they broke his contract.
they didn't promise them millions of dollars, they agreed to terms that they would pay them that money in the case that the Jets chose to keep them, of which those players agreed that the Jets had the option not to and thus not have to pay the money. you would know this if you approached the subject of NFL contracts logically not emotionally. The Jets merely adhere to the rules of contracts as the league and players have agreed to. to attempt to claim otherwise is dishonest.
Sorry that makes no sense. If the principle is a player MUST play for the original amount of his contract until the contract expire because that's the deal, then why does the team not have to honor the original contract through expiration?
He doesn't have to. He's free to quit playing at any time, he just can't leave to go play for another team. Essentially, he's required to fulfill his contract for that amount of time should he remain in the NFL. That's why I have a problem with the argument that Revis is somehow acting out of line. He has the same right to end his relationship with the game unless provided with what he feels is a fair salary number. There's no difference between him holding out and the team cutting him except that the question of demand is switched. In one situation, the player wishes to continue playing, in the other the team wishes the player to continue playing.
if something that simple doesn't make sense, you really should take Genius out of your name, unless you are using it sarcastically.
1.) Don't call me dishonest. 2.) Where was I illogical or emotional? 3.) As I understand it, the contract says something like if Revis plays football he has to do so for the Jets and he gets paid X dollars. Revis doesn't have to play football but if he does he has to do so for the Jets. Just like the team has the option to cut a player (and pay certain costs) Revis has the options not to come to work. I don't see how Revis opting not to play unless he gets a new deal is any different from the team opting not to retain a player. EDIT: Basically, I agree with Ignatius. I don't see how either party is welching on a deal or acting unethically-the Jets can cut players, players can opt not to play--but if you do think Revis is "welching" by not playing this year on some my word is my bond, a deal is a deal, nobody can renegotiate a contract because you've already given your word theory (and there's nothing wrong with that, lots of people live their lives that way, it's just not a view the american legal system supports), then teams "welch" in the exact same way every time they cut a player before the end of a contract. Moore is the perfect example; he had a contract for x dollars for y years, they cut him, resigned him, and paid him less money. And the user name is not sarcastic; it's a play on Mangini's nickname. Sadly I took the name before he proved to SUCK.
One thing is for certain, it's a terrible system. These 5/6 year contracts for rookies are absurd. That's more than half the shelf life for several positions in the NFL, thereby ensuring that players who outplay their draft position will either have to hold out or jeopardize the chance to earn a contract commensurate with their ability. The NFL needs to go to a 2/3 year max on rookie contracts with exclusive negotiating rights for a 2-3 year window thereafter to protect both sides from this situation. I can't really fault either side here for the basics of the situation, although I certainly side with the team as far as the reported numbers have been concerned.
A) No. B) Nobody needs your politically correct bullshit. C) the NFL contracts all have termination provisions that provide for various scenarios such as cutting a player or a player being PUPed. So No - being cut b/c you suck or get hurt is not a breach of contract. I am very well aware of what people do everyday. People do lots of things. That fact that people do things like break promises doesn't mean its right, moral or ethical to do so. It may be smart to try to get away with breaking a contract, but its not necessarily ethical to do so.
exactly. though the only thing is he isn't retiring, which is his contractual right, he is holding out, which isn't, and thus being penalized for it with fines. the fact that there is a penalty reveals he is in breach of his contract and is penalized as the contract sets forth for such violations. had he simply retired out of opposition he would not be being penalized, so it is only within his rights as a free human being to breach his contract and face the penalties of doing such, but it isn't within his contractual rights to do so which is inherently a violation of his contract.
What a load of bullshyt. Revis isn't retiring. Revis isn't "ending his relationship with the game" LOL. Revis is refusing to perform because he doesn't like his contract which he happily signed and under which he has been paid millions of dollars which he was very happy to deposit into his bank account. He didn't have a problem with it then. He wasn't returning the paychecks was he???? There is a HUGE difference between him refusing to play as he promised to and the team terminating his contract b/c he is not able to make the team or something. One is a breach of the contract. The other is a termination of the contract. Learn the difference.
I'm not sure how you don't see the difference, it couldn't be simpler. a team cutting a player is a provision allowed by the contract, so it doesn't violate the contract to do so. a player holding out is not contractually allowed, hence why penalties are assessed by the terms of the contract between the NFL and the NFLPA, even if as a free human being he has the ability to do so, and thus it is a violation of the contract to do so.
