Revis gets $16 million annually in highly unusual extension

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
  • Per rotoworld, here's how Revis' 6/96 contract breaks down:

    2013: $13 million base + $1.5 million roster bonus + $1.5 million offseason workout bonus
    2014: $13 million base + $1.5 million roster bonus + $1.5 million offseason workout bonus
    2015: $13 million base + $1.5 million roster bonus + $1.5 million offseason workout bonus
    2016: $13 million base + $1.5 million roster bonus + $1.5 million offseason workout bonus
    2017: $13 million base + $1.5 million roster bonus + $1.5 million offseason workout bonus
    2018: $13 million base + $1.5 million roster bonus + $1.5 million offseason workout bonus

    Zero guaranteed money.

    Basically, it's the most straightforward and honest contract in modern NFL history. It's a series of team options. Revis will make his $16 million a year until the Bucs feel he isn't worth it anymore.

    The people who are bashing Revis for this contract because it lacks guaranteed money are stupid. They are forgetting that the Bucs gave up a #13 overall pick plus a 3rd/4th in 2014 for Revis. What, are they just going to cut him right now? Of course not. At a minimum, this contract is essentially worth at least $16 million guaranteed (assuming Revis does the workout programs) because they obviously wouldn't cut him this year barring some incredible unforseen event. Would the Bucs cut Revis after just one year after that kind of draft pick investment? Probably not, if they keep him for two years, it's up to $32 million. Keep him for 3 years? $48 million.

    At some point, the Bucs could approach about a restructure, but what if Revis says no? Do you cut him and lose that investment? That draft pick expenditure is the ace in the hole for Revis.

    Revis' money is not only extremely high, but it avoids the backloaded games that obfuscate most NFL contracts actual worth. Compare this contract to Percy Harvin, who got $25.5 million guaranteed money. Let's say for the sake of argument that Seattle and the Bucs void their respective contracts after year 3. Obviously, I'm not saying this would happen for Harvin, I'm just showing how they'd come out money wise:

    (I'm using Harvin because his contract is very close to what the league's top CBs were earning prior to today's Revis extension).

    If voided after 3 years, how much money would these players walk away with?

    Harvin: $36 million total dollars earned.
    Revis: $48 million.

    Two years?

    Harvin: $25.5 million.
    Revis: $32 million.

    One year?

    Harvin: $25.5 million.
    Revis: $16 million.

    It's near absurd to suggest that the Bucs would release or risk release by approaching Revis for restructure after just one season. And after 2 seasons, Revis' take home pay easily beats Harvin. By year 3, it blows Harvin out of the water. Sure, Revis probably won't see every dime of that $96 million. But he'll see a lot more money than he would on a the kind of high guaranteed money deal that pundits would have applauded. Great move by Revis, and terrible negotiating by Mark Dominik. This contract was more than an ego-stroke. It's a smart deal for Revis given the leverage he has with sunk cost in draft collateral.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10909
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Damn, and I thought Harvin's deal was fairly "even over time". If you want a comparison against a "bad for the team's cap" player contract, look at Megatron's. Detroit is going to be broke for paying other players in 2015/2016.

    This is interesting, though. You think we'll see more of this, Kearly, or is it an anomaly?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 25339
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • I don't buy that the Bucs wouldn't cut him after 1 year if it wasn't working out.

    If Revis isn't playing up to his contract and TB wants to cut its losses, they'll do it, investment cost or not. The NFL is unlike any other league in this way. If it's really that bad they'll cut their losses at save themselves $16M.

    They could give him the benefit of the doubt for next season because he's coming off injury. If he doesn't produce in 2014? Bye.

    Only way I see this going more than 2 years is if he's still at the same Derrell Revis level. The Bucs won't continue to sink money into an investment that they can easily rid themselves of at no extra cost.
    cesame
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1620
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm


  • cesame wrote:I don't buy that the Bucs wouldn't cut him after 1 year if it wasn't working out.


    If you pay a 1st + 3rd/4th for Revis and you get one year of his services (at $16 million) before cutting bait, that's a fiasco trade. I have a hard time seeing most GMs surviving that unless their team is doing amazing.

    RolandDeschain wrote:Damn, and I thought Harvin's deal was fairly "even over time". If you want a comparison against a "bad for the team's cap" player contract, look at Megatron's. Detroit is going to be broke for paying other players in 2015/2016.

    This is interesting, though. You think we'll see more of this, Kearly, or is it an anomaly?


    I think it was an anomaly. The draft-picks given up makes a non-guaranteed contract a totally different beast.

    Harvin's deal actually is decently even. His base salary in 2013 is very low but that's because he got a $12 million signing bonus this year. After this year his average cap hit ranges from $11 to $13 million.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10909
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • It's an unusual contract, without a doubt. But, under the new CBA, the market's been acting very unusual.

    Giving up picks or not, the trend seems to be teams having more power in negotiations (outside QB's). I think contracts and the trends have to head this direction. As I said in the other thread, the NFLPA got took at the negotiating table, again, so until its renegotiated there will be ALOT of head-scratcher deals like this.

    I'm not saying anyone could've predicted a contract as odd as Revis's deal. But, the market's heading into a direction unseen in NFL FA history. It bodes VERY well for teams which set-up player friendly atmospheres. Like, Seattle.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:It's an unusual contract, without a doubt. But, under the new CBA, the market's been acting very unusual.

    Giving up picks or not, the trend seems to be teams having more power in negotiations (outside QB's). I think contracts and the trends have to head this direction. As I said in the other thread, the NFLPA got took at the negotiating table, again, so until its renegotiated there will be ALOT of head-scratcher deals like this.

    I'm not saying anyone could've predicted a contract as odd as Revis's deal. But, the market's heading into a direction unseen in NFL FA history. It bodes VERY well for teams which set-up player friendly atmospheres. Like, Seattle.


    IMO, this deal happened for a few reasons and won't likely be repeated often.

    #1: One of the main purposes of guaranteed money is to act as a disincentive factor which adds to job security. For example, Red Bryant was terrible last season, and he has an injury that is likely to be a recurring problem. However, if Seattle released him it would actually cost them money in the short term. His 2013 cap hit would actually go up by $4 million if they released him today. That's a lot of incentive to just hold on to Bryant an extra year and see how he does. That cap hit consequence is because of the guaranteed money.

    Revis may not have guaranteed money to scare away thoughts of a restructure, but if/when the Bucs decide he's not worth the money anymore, they aren't getting that 1st + 3rd pick back. How long do they need to keep Revis for that trade to not look terrible? I'd say at least 3 years.

    #2: Revis has an ego. This was pretty clear by his childish and (IMO) unprovoked reaction to Richard Sherman getting the spotlight. Revis wanted $16 million a year, and he got it. It's a symbolic thing for him. And normally, it would be a pretty dumb contract. But in this case, I think it's actually a genius contract for Revis because the Bucs are very unlikely to touch that contract for years.

    #3: Most players won't sign contracts that practically beg to be restructured. I think a lot of players worry about getting injured and losing millions of dollars, too. In the case of Revis, he probably feels safe because the draft pick investment serves as his disincentive factor.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10909
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Kearly, I think the contract works fairly for TB as well. Revis gets a big wage each year that he is "still Revis" - the guy is betting on his own ability, and you have to respect him for that.

    From TB's point of view you getva year to year rental, and because there is no signing bonus there is no possibility of dead money. The draft picks are irrelevant from that point of view if you do wish to cut him - they are just the cost of doing business.
    Machine-wrapped, with butter?

    Yes, machine-wrapped, WITH BUTTER
    User avatar
    cdallan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 796
    Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:08 am
    Location: Scotland


  • Agreed that this type of contract, specifically, will never be repeated...maybe ever. But, there's no doubt in my mind the FA landscape changed with this new CBA. Players are already muttering "buyers remorse" on the new CBA deal. Revis's side cleverly leveraged a divorce by the Bucs costly, but the point is they still have an out.

    It's just a brave new world for the NFLPA.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • Changes to free agency were guaranteed to happen once the top pick stopped making $15m/year before playing an NFL down.

    That was seriously the best change I can recall to the NFL in my entire lifetime. There may be one that was better, but I can't think of one. Rookie deals were out of freakin' control.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 25339
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Changes to free agency were guaranteed to happen once the top pick stopped making $15m/year before playing an NFL down.

    That was seriously the best change I can recall to the NFL in my entire lifetime. There may be one that was better, but I can't think of one. Rookie deals were out of freakin' control.


    The NFLPA assumed that would mean more money to veterans. But, at least so far, thats not the case.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • pehawk wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:Changes to free agency were guaranteed to happen once the top pick stopped making $15m/year before playing an NFL down.

    That was seriously the best change I can recall to the NFL in my entire lifetime. There may be one that was better, but I can't think of one. Rookie deals were out of freakin' control.


    The NFLPA assumed that would mean more money to veterans. But, at least so far, thats not the case.


    The problem was that they agreed a revenue share model that brought the salary cap down. ..
    Machine-wrapped, with butter?

    Yes, machine-wrapped, WITH BUTTER
    User avatar
    cdallan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 796
    Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:08 am
    Location: Scotland


  • One of many problems. The NFLPA has historically been a joke and drag upon other PA's in pro-sports.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • I wonder which side first broached the idea of no guaranteed money? If the Bucs wanted Revis as badly as they claim it makes you wonder if they would risk tainting the water by first floating the idea. Maybe they wanted to offer guaranteed money but at a lower base? Interesting to know how they got to the bottom line structure and what the trade-offs were?
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9207
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • pehawk wrote:One of many problems. The NFLPA has historically been a joke and drag upon other PA's in pro-sports.


    As a fan, I much prefer the way contracts work now, so thank god the NFLPA "lost" then.
    formido
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 477
    Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:41 pm
    Location: Ventura, CA


  • formido wrote:
    pehawk wrote:One of many problems. The NFLPA has historically been a joke and drag upon other PA's in pro-sports.


    As a fan, I much prefer the way contracts work now, so thank god the NFLPA "lost" then.


    Of course.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • I'm with Kip on this one. Fantastic deal for Revis, as long as he's able to put out at a high level. And although it's high cost, it's not a total fiasco for the team unless Revis craps the bed the first or second year.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18599
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • I am extremely surprised that there is not a $20 million or so guaranteed in the case of injury specificially not related to his surgery next year.

    One big hit in the head / mess up his other leg etc etc. I just don't know how you play this game and accept a deal without something guaranteed for injury.

    Tom Brady that took a reduced deal has a huge amount tied to injury guarantee

    I love the part about nothing guaranteed besides that. If he doesn't perform cut him - if he performs keep paying him huge amounts of money. No cap implications when you cut etc - great
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3319
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:I am extremely surprised that there is not a $20 million or so guaranteed in the case of injury specificially not related to his surgery next year.

    One big hit in the head / mess up his other leg etc etc. I just don't know how you play this game and accept a deal without something guaranteed for injury.

    Tom Brady that took a reduced deal has a huge amount tied to injury guarantee

    I love the part about nothing guaranteed besides that. If he doesn't perform cut him - if he performs keep paying him huge amounts of money. No cap implications when you cut etc - great


    I'm sure he took out an insurance policy to cover the first year or so. My understanding is that a lot of college players who stay their senior year do so
    Machine-wrapped, with butter?

    Yes, machine-wrapped, WITH BUTTER
    User avatar
    cdallan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 796
    Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:08 am
    Location: Scotland


  • he is gonna get paid for at least 2 seasons even if he doesn't pan out the way they hope.


    honestly i think he will go back to his old form and the bucs get a steal as far as drafts picks
    User avatar
    Forty9ers
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 41
    Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:13 am


  • I highly doubt that he is the player that he was athletically. He never had elite speed, his whole game was predicated on out smarting the other guy/team, which I think he will still be able to do. What I'd be worried about would be his jumping, agility and durability. He will probably play like 33yr old vet than a player who is 27 which is not a complete bust situation, but he is way, WAY overpaid. I just would be horrified if he was a $16 million a year guy on our team, good luck to the Bucs.
    User avatar
    McG
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 843
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:30 am
    Location: Van Buren, AR from Kent-Covington, WA


  • I hope Russ throws 3 TDs right at him when he comes to town. Imagine Sherman's reaction.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 25339
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:I hope Russ throws 3 TDs right at him when he comes to town. Imagine Sherman's reaction.


    Ya know, that sounds like something Russ and Pete could do, purposefully. That sounds odd, but the Seahawks do things differently.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • It could make for a pretty powerful statement.

    We're scared of no one. Bring it on.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 25339
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA





It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:38 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information