Anonymous

Inactive
Post count: 690

Vin – You mention this “renting” a Revis thing repeatedly. RENTED, RENTED, RENTED in all CAPS like you NEED to make your point clear.  You know what renting vs. buying is right? .  When you rent a property, you pay the money, pay the monthly/yearly rent and when you are done, you turn the keys back in.  You have nothing to show for it beyond maybe a slightly improved credit report and the hole in your bank account from the years.  When you buy, you get something back for your investment when you are ready to upgrade or move away.  You spent the compensation for it, yet you get at least something in return because you owned it.  Now when it comes to Darrell, which one do you think sounds closer to what we did?  Isn’t that the gist of the conversation right now?  You’re arguing it was okay that we let Revis go for nothing, even though we made a huge investment to get him.  I’m arguing that we didn’t have a need to rush that decision and could’ve held out longer to get some type of return on our investment?  And it seems you are such a cap guru, and know full well that the $16 million was not sustainable.  Is that right though?  Are you sure about that?  Are you accounting for the $10 million increase in the cap this year, and the even bigger increases coming in 2015 and beyond given the new TV deal?  I know Dom had enough of a plan to send those picks in the first place, and it was not for a one year rental.  Maybe he doesn't fit Lovie's plans, but that's not on Dom.  I'm a high finance guy, and the way Dom managed the cap afforded this team the ability to have a player like Revis making $16mln/yr.  But Lovie didn't need and didn't want it.  As I've said I'm perfectly on board with that.  For the final time though, and I'll say it slowly, I - AM - AGAINST - GIVING - HIM - AWAY - FOR - NOTHING.  Especially when we didn't HAVE to.Zothhh0 - you make a good point, but, if that's the case, then how did the leak that the release was coming get out in the first place?  I would hope it was not the Bucs, because if so, that is moronic.  And the only other place it comes from is Revis' camp, and if so, then they undercut the deal by doing that right?Plus - and im not positive Revis contract is this way - but in some cases the agent only gets the cut for the contract signed in the first place.  And they don't keep getting an annual percentage.  It varies by contract, player and agent agreement, and like I said who knows with this, but maybe Revis agent got a larger cut for a new contract as opposed to another year on the current one.  Really couldn't tell you.

Please wait…