Look of course it turned out bad. No one is disputing that. And I never liked the $16 million but it was part of the deal to get him to accept no guaranteed money. And believe me that was a crucial selling point. Without a new deal that Revis would accept, there would have been no trade at all. Was the Nicks signing a bad deal? If he never plays again I'm sure some will say yes, but a bad toe and MRSA isn't anything that Dominik could have seen coming. Same thing with Revis. He didn't sign the guy with the intention of getting fired after the season. I have no horse in the race with Dominik. He and I had no personal relationship, other than GM and reporter. Heck I can't even get him to text me back lately. I am not defending him or the trade I am just saying there were plenty of factors besides the obvious. I mean if Revis leads the NFL in INTs next year, is Defensive Player of the Year and wins a Super Bowl, will it not be a mistake to have released him?To me a terrible trade would have been $30 million guaranteed spread over five years and he never becomes a quality starter again and then gets released with millions of dead money.Of course hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure my wife wishes had a crystal ball before she married me.
1) Lots of deals now in the NFL involve "guaranteed" money that only kicks in when the player is on the roster.2) Given that Revis had very little to no leverage, if he wouldn't take a lesser deal the trade never should have happened. You can argue "hindsight", but all hindisght is revealing is that this was a terrible deal. It was a terrible deal because the contract was so exhorbitant that 0 teams would trade for the best corner in football. Look at it this way - if Revis was worth a 1 and a 3 & $16 mill unguaranteed/yr coming off an ACL tear, how much more is he worth healthy? Zero because of the contract. That proves how badly Dominik got hoodwinked. The fact that there were no provisions that Dominik negotiated for a trade or re-couping of draft picks highlights his incompetence. You can't call it anything else (and I wouldn't have called Dominik incompetent before this). 'Would $30 million guaranteed over 5 years been terrible? Yes. But you're negotiating with a team that doesn't have the cap space to re-sign him, he's in the last year of his deal, and he's coming off an ACL tear and it's too early to determine precisely how healthy he'll be. If you can't get favorable terms because they're stubborn then don't make the deal. And I'll ask again, what would have happened next year if the Bucs kept Revis? 3) What happened with Nicks is apples and oranges. Similar to if Revis re-injured his knee. The issue is that Revis was 100% healthy... and had to be released.
Had to be released??? Really? Not true. The new regime chose to release him. Was he worth $12 million? So, Tampa Bay was paying him $16 million, but they could have still made a number of moves to keep him. And you are also saying all of the free agents signed with the Revis money are all going to work out, right? There is zero guarantee any of the Revis money was well spent yet. Hopefully it was, especially if Revis becomes the dominant player he once was.And to say Dominik should have a trade friendly contract in the deal doesn't make a lot of sense. Was he supposed to know he was getting fired? Because if he hadn't, Revis would still be here right? I don't think you are seeing it from Dom's perspective clearly. What GM sets up deal worrying about his replacement's ability to trade the player. Personally the selection of Freeman to me is a lot more damning of his tenure than Revis. I am not outside protesting the firing of Dominik by any stretch. As Lovie says, we are a 4-12 football team.
PewterReport.com prides itself on being the most complete, comprehensive news source covering the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and delivering inside scoop on the team found nowhere else.