Post count: 9891

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, 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?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.

MC -- first off, you are a good man Charlie Brown - for discussing this issue at such length.  Second, I don't think Dom had to set up the Revis deal to account for his replacement. However, a trade was one scenario that had to be considered when the contract was formed. In fact, a trade was the only scenario where the Bucs could recover any value for the picks if things did not work out and there were scenarios where Dom would still be here but that things would not work out well with Revis. For example, Revis could've clashed with the coach(es), been a troublemaker, cap issues (they could rework the deal, but that really hurt the next year, right?), been a low effort guy (he basically quit in out last game, right?), unmotivated because he cashed it in, or just something as simple as he just was no longer as good as before the injury (i.e., he was not worth the $$). Those are all scenarios where the team might have wanted to trade him and that is not even accounting for the tenuous tenure of Schiano, another coach arriving was a real possibility when this deal was done and a new coach may not feel the same way about Revis (just like Lovie). As I appreciate the way the deal was structured, it only accounted for: (1) Revis playing well and (2) us continuing to pay him over market (maybe the thought was the market would catch up?) or (3) us cutting him.  Dom probably thought cutting him was unlikely, particularly this year, which would lessen the blow on the picks, I get that part,but that does not mean that the trade scenario did not exist.  I am fine with saying that Dom completely discounted the trade scenario as "very unlikely," but that is why he should get the blame, right? His discounting was ill-advised. All that said though, its hard to argue, as SR did (right?), that it was a good deal, essentially, messed up by others (Lovie/Licht).  A contract cant really be a "good" contract if no one else in the league will accept it, can it? Dom entered into a unique deal, obviously overpaying a guy and not allowing for any way to get out of the deal without cutting the guy -- where premium picks were involved. Name the player the Bucs should trade a 1st and a 4th for right now knowing they only get that player for a single year and have to pay him over market?Good stuff as always though MC, thanks for talking it over. 

Please wait…