Update: Jets release Jeremy Kerley, signs with Detroit
- Thread starter gmf1369
- Start date
Will Revis, Marshall, and Mangold restructure? I dunno. I fully support cutting Kerley and Cumberland, and getting Brick to take paycut, though. And it shouldn't be hard replacing Breno. He's overpaid. We need the cap space.
Kerley was a decent slot receiver. But I won't miss the fair catches. We need a HUGE upgrade at PR.
Restructure doesn't mean pay cut always.. Means extending the contract and changing money to guaranteed as well. I think Revis does that... and I think Mangold, Marshall and Brick will all restructure if asked.
We can't extend Revis s contract, he's declining and makes too much. We need him for 2 more years then he's gone or takes a drastic cut in pay. We need to get out of his contract not extend it.
Mangold will take a deferred payment if asked, breno stays, brick has to take a7 mil cut.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Revis will never take a pay cut. He cares about money first and winning second and the team third.
Can you honestly blame him though?
Not many players are ever gifted the leverage MEvis has had, so HYATT™ says good for him.
The fat-cat owners don't shiv-2-gits about players, so they (players) HAVE to take advantage whenever they can.
The old days of "loyalty" are history - the Owners saw to that.
It is ONLY a business these days - in spite of how the fans feel about it.
Maybe so, but after watching all the money these players are getting in free agency, in some cases just ridiculous amounts of money, I don't want to hear another player whine about how the owners are greedy SOB's. Some of these deals are laughable.
Just keep in mind - nobody is paying $300 a game to see the Owners, nobody is buying Woody bobblehead dolls, and nobody is paying $5M for 30 second ad spots because Bobby Kraft owns the Cheatriots.
Without the MEvises on the field, hot dogs would still be $1.25.
HYATT™;74175 said:
Yeah, hopefully teams like Washington, Seattle, and Philadelphia sold plenty of bobbleheads to pay for the guaranteed money that Albert Haynesworth (41 million), Percy Harvin and Nnamdi Asomugha (25 million each) stole from their owners.
HYATT™;74175 said:
Sorry, but this logic will NEVER hold water.
NFL owners are NFL owners because they're ALREADY RICH. Take the NFL away and they'll find some other hobby to flippantly spend their money on.
But where would the sports stars be? Coaching at the local high school? Bagging groceries?
I don't begrudge these players trying to milk every cent they can out of their careers, but the idea that the owners "owe" them big bucks is laughable . . .
U
ucrenegade
Guest
good he sucks
To me the thing to keep in mind is that while I don't begrudge the players trying to get all they can for their families, there is only so much money to go around (based on the CBA the players agreed to). So when Revis or Mo hold out for a few extra million (will their families live differently if they only make $90mm over the course of their careers rather than $100mm?) surely they realize that diminishes their teams chances to put together a super bowl contending team.
Funnily enough it seems Revis actually made the sacrifice of making only $12mm for the chance to win a super bowl when he signed with the Pats. But when it came to signing with the Jets I guess he felt his family couldn't survive on less than $19-20mm per year.
Last edited:
I think that's kind of my point. But his contract isn't guaranteed beyond that year, sooo, he takes a pay cut or is gone. It's clear that he will not justify his salary that year. He really doesn't justify it now.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
U
ucrenegade
Guest
nope they don't care most anyway as the bible states they will be lovers of money and themselves.
I'd say that's a completely different argument -- some players make decisions that put the team first, others put self first. I won't even say one is right and the other is wrong (though as a fan I obviously side with the first group!).
But this idea that the owners "owe" their players for all the revenue they bring in has idealistic merit, but is realistically ignorant (not saying you believe that, just getting back to my original point). Players need the NFL WAY more than the owners need it. I know that doesn't sit well with today's entitlement society, but that doesn't make it any less true . . .