I find this entire thread very interesting. The NFL is a monopoly set up where there is zero incentive for the owners to win. If you win you get a lower draft pick. If you win or lose you share the exact same amount of revenue. In the world I live in income is tied to performance. The better your performance the more money you make. The NFL has a set up where owners have an incentive to cut high performing players and replace them with low scale paid rookies or veterans who are on there last legs. That's why we traded Revis. We didn't trade him because he wasn't a great player or wasn't going to help us win. We traded him because the team owner, part of the league is protecting themselves from overspending. They have created a monopoly with price fixing. No NFL player knows if the team he's on is going to be gutted in any season. No NFL player knows when or how he's career is going to end. All any NFL player can do is prepare themselves physically and mentally to be as good as they possibly can. By doing this they expect to be paid a market price. By maximizing their value through their play they are also maximizing the ability of their team to win. The "Greedy" players aren't the problem. It's the players who are happy pocketing their first few million who don't put in the work to maximize their value once they have a contract. Revis has always played for his next contract. That's a winner. The loser is the guys who aren't playing for their next contract. Whatever Revis's motivation which seems to be a problem for some on this board it's pretty clear that whatever his motivation is, it's made him the single best player at his position in the entire league. I can't see why that's a bad thing. If everyone found their motivation for maximizing their own excellence in whatever they did this would be a much better place. What people are actually pissed about with Revis is we get that the league has a salary cap and we need our best players to hang around at below their value to actually win a SB. We whine that he isn't a winner that he's only in it for the money because it impacts us, the fans who don't have to suit up on Sunday. The NFL counts on the fans seeing the players as the issue and rooting for the laundry. It makes it much easier to bring in a low pay scale rookie and replace the high paid vet who wore out his body for the laundry. Revis tore an ACL playing for the NY Jets not Tamp Bay. The NY Jets were more then happy to move on and anyone who doesn't think that injury played into our lack of negotiations is BS themselves. I have no problem with the business decision to dump Revis. I respect him as maybe the best player who ever played for our franchise. I don't see wanting to be paid for performance, a very American tradition as a negative idea.
Which was it? Did they trade him because he was insulted or because he had an ACL and they weren't sure how well he could play and wanted to maximize he's value to the NY JETS rather then take a chance on his recovery and have to renegotiate with him later? I highly doubt the NY Jets organization gave a shit about Revis's insulting salary. This was a pure business play by the organization just like it was for Revis. Why are you acting like a bitch for the NY Jets with this PR nonsense. You really believe the Jets are emotionally invested in these decisions? This is a professional football team with a value well in excess of a Billion dollars. They traded him for max value when they thought he would never be the same again, a pure business decision. The Jets made it to the AFC finals in 2010 largely because of the play of Revis. The guy played out of his mind in 2010. He had one of the greatest position performances in NFL history in 2010. He provided leadership, he worked his ass off and performed. He set an example for the entire team. Revis didn't make the offseason decisions between 2010 and 2011 that decimated the team. Revis didn't sign Mark Sanchez and Holmes to stupid deals. Revis didn't appoint Holmes as a team captain. No offense but I think you're attack on Revis's actions in 2010 and 2011 sounds like it's coming from a PR shill for the NY Jets. 2010 was one of the best years in this franchises history and Revis was not just a key guy he was the Key guy. Revis was one of the few guys who played up to his contract in 2011. The guy tore his ACL in 2012 playing for the NY Jets not the Bucs. Is it a surprise the team traded him after that tear? You think maybe that had something to do with the fact that we didn't negotiate with him? I get it Revis doesn't wear a NY Jets jersey. He was part of 2 of the best Jets team that ever played and he was the single best player on both of those teams. Again I have no issue unloading him, he's paid more then the NY Jets can afford and still put a quality team on the field. None of that is a knock on Revis. The real shame is the league has protected it's owners from allowing great players to stay on teams that have developed a group of talented players. That's about the NFL not Revis.
this is a wonderful post biggs. its nice to see someone who understands what is happening and why and doesnt just look at things for what kind of heartbreak it causes them. fans frustrate me to death sometimes with their quickness to criticize and selfishness. the guy did what he could to get as much money as he can. id love to see how these complainers would like to live in a world where they werent allowed to do that.
That was an interesting read. Let's explore part of it a bit. Suppose you were all of a sudden given the powers of Goodell and told that you could implement your view, quoted above. What does that look like? Wouldn't it require some nasty alterations to free agency? All the things you're talking about may be side effects of "parity", which is supposedly a good thing. Otherwise, Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones might continuously meet in the Super Bowl, with occasional appearances from Dan Snyder. That might be amusing, but it wouldn't mean much for Jets fans.
i have no doubt that woody johnson would spend to win. no doubt whatsoever. parity is the worst thing that has happened to football. it makes for mediocre football. i find the league much less interesting now than it used to be. but then again the typical fan these days doesnt care about the actual game, they care about how this or that guy did and their fantasy team and the party they were at watching the games. they have very little if any understanding of the actual game.
The Jets 1 SB victory came when there was real competition for players. There should be less teams and more competition among teams. If we had less teams we would have a better product. We have more teams out of greed. We have a watered down product because of greed. The NFL isn't really 32 separate businesses it's one business set up to look like 32 separate businesses in competition. When a player moves from one team to another he still works for the same ownership the NFL where revenue is shared. The revenue is just being moved around a little differently. Charlie Filnley had it right when he proposed 1 year contracts for all players. All FA all the time. Players and owners balls shrunk up at the idea. Do you really think the product and the competition would be worse if half the clubs went away? Do you really think having 4 teams in a division is maximizing competition? It's about profit not competition.
As a Jets fan I wanted to trade Revis when he held out last contract. Based on the way the salary cap is structured I thought he cost to much based on the position and the cap. That said I have no problem with Revis maximizing his value and playing professional football for money.
This is the best page in this thread, with very good points made. In regards to the above, in the name of "parity" and competition if I had a say, I would allow teams to truly have 2 "franchise" players (one on each side of the ball). These players would be excluded from the salary cap. Of course they would have to be some sort of stipulation such as being drafted by said team, or x years of service for said team to be allowed franchise designation. I think this would be good on several levels. Allowing teams to retain "star" players, and allowing teams (and fan connection) to maintain an identity. but of course then they'll spend more $$, and that may cut into their 9 billion dollar profit. on that note...... dinner's almost done and there's some good college games coming on and a cold Two Hearted Ale in the fridge......
All I have to say is that we look like fucking geniuses (knocks on wood) right now for getting rid of this guy.
I agree that Revis shouldn't have said anything and he is getting what he deserves down in Tampa. But I won't lie that I'm hoping the Bucs do release him and he does return to the Jets and makes this defense a real SB contending defense.
Oh, but he IS being paid market value by definition, and that's the highest price a buyer will pay for a commodity on the open and competitive market. It's just a figure that someone is willing to pay. What do you think a large part of free agency is basically all about? Look, I can see if people think that Revis is overpaid. I would actually agree with that, but that's a different story. The value of CBs is not the issue here, either. To me, the ridiculous part is that butt-hurt fans take it so personally and would actually judge him to have some kind of character flaw because the guy is getting $16-million-per year, as though he should turn that down or something. That's ridiculous. If you get a job offer that doubles your salary, you don't turn that down, either. All Revis was was the best player on the Jets team, bar-none. The best way to lead is by example, IMO, and Revis established an impeccable example on the field, which is where it counts and where you earn your money. He probably talked about what they ASKED him to talk about. And the Jets really didn't have to go too far to find distractions in recent times, no? Again, when you are the undisputed BEST player at your position, YOU are the one setting the market, which may make contract negotiations more difficult. Revis NEVER would have been such a great cornerback if all he cared about was money. If you want to negatively judge a guy for maximizing his earning potential while he can, you aren't really living in the real world. He was always operating from a position of strength (more than most) because he just that good. Anyone in the NFL is one play away from a career-ending injury...or least there is that ever-present danger looming. Talk about loyalty...a team will drop a player in a hot New York minute if he gets hurt. And Revis DID get hurt. Then the Jets want to low-ball him after he gets hurt playing for THEM. I don't think he's really back from that injury. How can you say he's not about winning when all he does is go out there in the pursuit of excellence on the field? Makes no sense. Revis Island. Shut-down corner. There was never even a discussion about who the best Cornerback in the league was. If that's true, then who the hell CARES what his motivation is? And it's not like people are not complex and are motivated by many things. How much time and effort do you think Revis had to put in to be that good?
Revis does have a big character flaw but it's not wanting to be paid rather then win. He's big character flaw was not living up to his contract and holding out after taking the up front bonus money. The Jets enabled him by renegotiating with him when he used this tactic. Another good reason that Tannenbaum was rightly fired. Jet fans didn't so much care about that because Revis stayed and most fans were all for keeping him.
This is not entirely true. In game attendance and with it blackout rules are affected by winning. Teams with long standing traditions of losing have attendance problems. This cost that team (and any visiting team) revenue each home game. The problem with Revis is the issue of image. Fans want a hero who plays to win, not one who plays to earn. Sure the two go hand in hand, but in a world were image is everything he would have been better of to say nothing to that fan. People who fund endorsement deals do not give the money to the villains. Good guys make the big bucks in the world. That is why athletes like Tiger and Majic Johnson cultivated the all American good boy image while banning every slut from coast to coast. Revis is a great corner and a decent guy. Responding at all in this situation was stupid. This is also why he is a poor leader. Guys don't want to hear the ra-ra speech from the same guy making an issue out of money at every interview.
Revis may be a c-hair smarter than we've given him credit for. The Revis-Rex reunion may happen sooner than any of us imagined, and not in the way we imagined.
The bold might be true, but not for the NFL. This is perfect for them, they get to cycle new playoff teams each and every year, and it's set up an idea that any team can turn it around in one year (1-15 Dolphins to winning the Afc East for example). I think many fans have an understanding of the game but the resources for understanding the game more are all online these days. You rarely get that insightful information from watching a game because well first they need to squeeze in all the commercials and second they are trying to incorporate new fans and explaining in depth what happened isn't how to entice them. There's also the idea that being really bad can be good for the team. So fans are willing to sit through a 2-14 or 3-13 season trying to land a big time player. They don't get upset, they embrace it the first time it happens. That's what the NFL wants though. Interestingly enough, the parity idea of the NFL is there, kind of, but not how many AFC teams want it. 12 out of the last 13 SB representatives from the AFC belong to the Patriots (5), Ravens (2), Steelers (3), and Colts (2). If you slide over to the NFC, in that timespan you have Bucs, Giants, Saints, Cardinals, Seahawks, 49ers, Eagles, Packers, Bears, and Panthers, 10 teams in the last 13.
This is his JOB. OCCUPATION. Winning is nice, but what makes you think Revis does not want to do that? There is nothing to base that on whatsoever. He couldn't try harder to win any more than he does. No player does ANYTHING unless he is first under contract. Every one of them negotiates, only some have more leverage than others. So what if he held out? How is being the best CB in the NFL not "living up to his contract," much less a "character flaw," which is an absolutely ridiculous notion. Being the best corner in the league is what they were paying him to be, and that's what he was while with the Jets. Holding out never hurt his play or his contribution to the team. Tannenbaum's getting fired had absolutely nothing to do with his handling of Revis. Let's not be stupid. The Jets didn't "enable" him EVER. Do you realize that he could have gotten more money elsewhere before this year if it came to that? Did you ever consider THAT? It's true. The major reason why some Jets fans care NOW is because he is no longer on the team. Butt-hurt. Revis put it all out there on the field and owes you nothing, especially when you are so willing to turn on him on a dime.
Jet fans loved Revis when he resigned with the Jets even after he took money from the Jets and held out. His actions while under contract was despicable and unethical. Not a problem for the fans. The fans are loving that Revis left and the Jets are winning while he's on a loser. The had no issue with his unethical behavior as long as he wore the Jets laundry. The reality of the NFL is the King Kong Jets might well end up being Zippy the Chimp and the Zippy the Chimp Tampa Bay Bucs may well end up being King Kong in a matter of one or two seasons. As to the attendance issues. I don't think it's a coincidence that the NFL's effort to keep interest in small market teams through the use of parity is quickly becoming a parody as the working class sees their income, relative to inflation fall behind while the investor class in the major markets continue to have money to burn.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by Revis' despicable and unethical behavior. Please explain.
Revis held out on the Jets when he not only signed a contract but got a substantial bonus up front. Effectively he took money and signed a contract for services and didn't deliver. Totally unethical. I would have let him hang out to dry.
