Surely you understood what I did there. I do not have any ill will towards you. I was pointing out that it is funny you spelled the name incorrectly. I doubt you did it on purpose.
The Darrelle Revis Holdout Thread This didn't answer the question you quoted. If we're deciding that Revis loses the void by losing a season, why only use one half of the CBA rule and not the other? According to the CBA, as I recall, the 30 day rule has just now cost him an accrued season. I haven't seen another definition for a year of service other than accrual.
That's...not at all an accurate statement. The Skins had to choose to use the tag in order to get anything for him. The Jets could probably use the tag to trade him, but then they're not going to be able to use it on Mangold, Harris, Edwards, Cromartie or Holmes and one of them could walk. Or everyone's contract could be frozen when the Owners and the NFLPA fail to agree on a new CBA, the league goes into a lockout, and no one can trade or sign players since they have no rules governing how they can do it.
that is either the dumbest post you've made yet or you are deliberately choosing to be a blockhead. Just to refresh your woefully inadequate recollection as to the context of this and explain how idiotic your comment is, I was responding to your ill advised statement that Revis is the only future HOFer on the team that wasn't brought in as a FA. I wrote "Fail. Signed, D. Brick, Sanchez, Mangold" As none of them were brought in as FAs and all three have a legit shot at HOF just like Revis. Nobody stated that Mangold signed a contract as you just falsely had claimed. Get it???? Once again you are wrong and have been caught trying to misrepresent something. Instead of wasting your time misrepresenting what people say, try instead to focus on getting your facts straight. Baby steps.
Totally did it on purpose. FYI - The name Abdul Salam (with two As) is a common spelling. Further "AbdulSalaam" was already taken as a username, so I went w/the alternative spelling. No ill will from me either Cakes. But yes it was done on very much on purpose.
That was a few years before the salary cap, so it is not easy to compare it to the Revis situation. I don't remember the specific dispute between Jim Finks and Hebert. All I knew was that Finks could not make Hebert happy and the Saints lost their starting quarterback for the season. As a Saints fan (my NFC team) and an Hebert fan (I became a fan of him when he was with the Oakland Invaders), I was not pleased. Finks traded for Steve Walsh early in the 1990 season. It was around Week 2 or 3 if I recall correctly. Walsh and John Fourcade were the two guys who started games at QB for the Saints in '90. Neither played well, but the team was still good enough to qualify for the playoffs, albeit as a .500 squad. The next year, with Hebert back in action, the Saints won their first ever division title.
Okay, that's cool. You know what I would have done? If I saw that "AbdulSalaam" was taken and I didn't want to go with "Abdul_Salaam", I'd have gone with LarryFaulk. :up:
The only thing piss poor cato is your inability to read and your bizarre insistence on pretending to interpret a clear statement in the most convoluted way possible. So just to review as to your recent false statements: You claimed that Revis was the only non FA that was a future HOF - FAIL You claimed that I stated we signed Mangold - FAIL. You claimed that Revis has already earned the right to void his contract - FAIL
Ok, let me take my best stab at this and see where we get, because it is a confusing issue but I believe my interpretation is correct. The NFL CBA holds that for a player in 2010 to accrue a year's service towards free agency he must be in camp 30 days before the start of the regular season or by August 10th. So in order for Darrelle Revis to get credit towards his 4th year of service for free agency he needs to be in camp by, well, yesterday. However you do not need 4 years of service to be a restricted free agent. You only need 3 years of service to be a restricted free agent under the current CBA. Darrelle has already accrued three years of service in the NFL at this point so he qualifies for restricted free agency next season if his contract expires after this season. So what Darrelle Revis needs to do to qualify for restricted free agent status is to satisfactorily complete his obligations to the Jets under his existing contract. The primary obligation among those is that he needs to complete the 4th year of his contract so that he can opt out of it, forcing the Jets to either buy back the last two years or let him go as a restricted free agent. Now here's where it gets a little bit complicated. There is no separate standard for what constitutes a completed year of a contract. The general rule for when a player has completed his obligations is that he made a good faith effort to fulfill the contract, and players who were active/inactive/PUP/reserve-injured for at least 6 weeks of the season were universally considered to have fulfilled the year on the contract, even if they held out until week 11 to report to get their year of accrued service. So if Revis holds out until week 11 he'll be able to point at several previous hold outs who were considered to have fulfilled their year's obligation under the contract by coming in at that point. He'll say that those 6 weeks allow him to fulfill the obligation to the Jets (not an accrued year of service in the NFL, but a contractual year of service to the Jets) and that if the Jets choose not to exercise the buyback that his 3 years of accrued service entitle him to restricted free agent status. The burden will be on the Jets at that point to prove that he did not fulfill his obligation to them based on the facts at hand, with a historical record that suggests that 6 games is the standard for fulfilling that year's contractual obligation.
actually there's an article on nyjetscap that points out that since he buys back his contract this season and in an uncapped year its 6 years until unrestricted free agency so he would still be restricted
Clearly that's true. Revis has no path to unrestricted free agency at the end of this season no matter what happens at this point. He has a path to restricted free agency if his contract expires, which it only can if he fulfills the 4th season, thereby earning him the right to opt out and if the Jets choose not to buy back the years he opted out of.
I would do terrible things to get my hands on a Tannenbaum "tell all" book that I hope he writes when hes done GMing
The Darrelle Revis Holdout Thread The response I heard to that was Revis did not care about that, he truly wants to be a Jet for life. Funny way of showing it if you ask me.
So Br4dw4y5ux, you think that all Revis has to do in order to satisfy the 4th yr is show up at the Jets facility before the 11th game and get them to suddenly let him participate w/the team after insisting on holding out for the previous 3 mos? I mean what if the Jets just say....hmmm, thats a really interesting idea Darelle, we are kind of busy now trying to win a SB, we'll get back to you in a few weeks.
Yeah, I don't believe anything coming out of his camp at this point. It's all posturing. But if he really wants to be a Jet for life with the contract that he's holding out for then I really don't want him on the team. Nothing could be worse for the Jets than being capstrung over the years because they're paying a cornerback like a quarterback. If that's what he wants the Jets should just punt ASAP and find a way to trade him for value.
I believe that if the Jets locked him out, effectively speaking, that he could argue in front of the NLRB that they had prevented him from fulfilling his contract and that that contract should be voided as a result. The NFL and the Jets do not want a Curt Flood moment in the middle of all the labor unrest that will be roiling next off-season. There's zero chance that they don't take him back if he shows up week 11. He might not get much playing time in that scenario depending on how Cro and Wilson were doing but the Jets would definitely put him on the roster. It would solidify their ability to buy back the years and trade him in the offseason, instead of worrying about where an arbitrator might go with this.
