Viewing 102 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • tog

      Participant
      Post count: 3533

      I’d love to see some insight from PR into how messed up the Revis trade was. What was going on behind the scenes? Did Revis refuse to play for a team? How come we couldn’t even get a late rounder from teams like the Raiders and Browns? How terrible was the contract Dominik signed with Revis? PRs overall been very favorabled to Dominik (which makes sense when he's been a great source) but I think the Revis relesae made blatantly obvious to every single person how idiotic that contract was from every angle. I'd really like to see some insight from PR into all of this and I think lots of others would to.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      If we’re going to do that we might as well cover it in an article about how awful Mark was as negotiator overall.  The irony of him going on the radio bragging about how the way he structured that contract made it more tradeable is just sad.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1540

      Tog, check out SR’s Fab from today. It addresses it. not sure you will agree with it though!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      LOLThat was just sad.  I'm just gonna write it off as Scott doing damage control.  I think he knows nobody could take that seriously.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      LOLThat was just sad.  I'm just gonna write it off as Scott doing damage control.  I think he knows nobody could take that seriously.

      +1. Posted a rebuttal in the post w/the article. I think PR does a great job of reporting, head and shoulders above anyone else that writes on the Bucs, but they (SR) have let personal relationships with Dominik cloud their judgment. Don't say that off-handedly.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 549

      You have to consolidate the trade and contract together and judge it that way… not a fan of saying the trade was fine but the contract was not… all part of the same process.  the 16 mil contract made it a bad deal from the beginning.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 396

      The 16mm a year deal was the ridiculous part of the trade… especially when Revis was coming off a significant injury … and especially because Dom didn’t address the DE position and pass rush last year. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 15

      I think the whole thing went wrong because the coach was in over his head and the season was a disaster. Let’s just speculate if the Bucs would’ve hired Marty; does anyone believe Freeman would’ve deteriorated like he did? Would Bennett had been allowed to walk? And finally would the Bucs had been 4-12? I say no, it would’ve been a whole lot different. This regime wouldn’t be here and Revis would still be here. And none of us would even be talking about his contract since the Bucs didn’t have cap problems to begin with. Yeah it was a premium price but Dom didn’t think he would be going anywhere soon; even still, he constructed the contract in a way that it protected the Bucs. And it did; when this regime decided that they had to blow this roster up and fill more holes then originally thought, Revis’ contract gave them that extra room needed to do so. Normally, they would’ve been stuck but because Dom did the contract like he did it was the perfect scenario but look around at how the top corners are creeping up closer to that 16 mil number. How much do you think Sherman is going to get? I think it was a risk well taken; the Bucs just had the wrong coach in place.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 173

      I think the whole thing went wrong because the coach was in over his head and the season was a disaster. Let's just speculate if the Bucs would've hired Marty; does anyone believe Freeman would've deteriorated like he did? Would Bennett had been allowed to walk? And finally would the Bucs had been 4-12? I say no, it would've been a whole lot different. This regime wouldn't be here and Revis would still be here. And none of us would even be talking about his contract since the Bucs didn't have cap problems to begin with. Yeah it was a premium price but Dom didn't think he would be going anywhere soon; even still, he constructed the contract in a way that it protected the Bucs. And it did; when this regime decided that they had to blow this roster up and fill more holes then originally thought, Revis' contract gave them that extra room needed to do so. Normally, they would've been stuck but because Dom did the contract like he did it was the perfect scenario but look around at how the top corners are creeping up closer to that 16 mil number. How much do you think Sherman is going to get? I think it was a risk well taken; the Bucs just had the wrong coach in place.

      To answer your questions in order...Probably so.Probably not.And who the &!@$ cares? The issue that you seem to be overlooking in your rambling about how things would be if they weren't they way that they are, is that the Bucs came out of this having reaped nowhere near the level of return they obviously sought from their investment- that is the essence of a bad deal. Sure, the contract made it easy cap-wise to wash our hands, but that same deal also made him un-tradeable in the event we needed to quickly offload that contract  for extra cash and assets (picks or players). Now not only did we miss out on both of the prospects we COULD have had via the compensation we sent to the Jets (I'm starting to sound like you here), we also wasted the opportunity for whatever prospects we could have added via trade or draft compensation THIS year. I have to say I agree with others here that I'm a little disappointed that SR continues to carry water for Dom. I've got nothing against the man and he certainly gave the Bucs more that a few good years, but he was a failure as a GM.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      I think the whole thing went wrong because the coach was in over his head and the season was a disaster. Let's just speculate if the Bucs would've hired Marty; does anyone believe Freeman would've deteriorated like he did? Would Bennett had been allowed to walk? And finally would the Bucs had been 4-12? I say no, it would've been a whole lot different. This regime wouldn't be here and Revis would still be here. And none of us would even be talking about his contract since the Bucs didn't have cap problems to begin with. Yeah it was a premium price but Dom didn't think he would be going anywhere soon; even still, he constructed the contract in a way that it protected the Bucs. And it did; when this regime decided that they had to blow this roster up and fill more holes then originally thought, Revis' contract gave them that extra room needed to do so. Normally, they would've been stuck but because Dom did the contract like he did it was the perfect scenario but look around at how the top corners are creeping up closer to that 16 mil number. How much do you think Sherman is going to get? I think it was a risk well taken; the Bucs just had the wrong coach in place.

      To answer your questions in order...Probably so.Probably not.And who the &!@$ cares? The issue that you seem to be overlooking in your rambling about how things would be if they weren't they way that they are, is that the Bucs came out of this having reaped nowhere near the level of return they obviously sought from their investment- that is the essence of a bad deal. Sure, the contract made it easy cap-wise to wash our hands, but that same deal also made him un-tradeable in the event we needed to quickly offload that contract  for extra cash and assets (picks or players). Now not only did we miss out on both of the prospects we COULD have had via the compensation we sent to the Jets (I'm starting to sound like you here), we also wasted the opportunity for whatever prospects we could have added via trade or draft compensation THIS year. I have to say I agree with others here that I'm a little disappointed that SR continues to carry water for Dom. I've got nothing against the man and he certainly gave the Bucs more that a few good years, but he was a failure as a GM.

      The thing is, reasonable minds can disagree about whether Revis is worth $16 Million a year, but I don't see how anybody can argue that it was worth a first and a fourth simply to get him a year early!  We could have waited a year and given the Jets zero compensation.  We were bidding against ourselves which is nearly always the recipe for a bad trade.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 15

      I think the whole thing went wrong because the coach was in over his head and the season was a disaster. Let's just speculate if the Bucs would've hired Marty; does anyone believe Freeman would've deteriorated like he did? Would Bennett had been allowed to walk? And finally would the Bucs had been 4-12? I say no, it would've been a whole lot different. This regime wouldn't be here and Revis would still be here. And none of us would even be talking about his contract since the Bucs didn't have cap problems to begin with. Yeah it was a premium price but Dom didn't think he would be going anywhere soon; even still, he constructed the contract in a way that it protected the Bucs. And it did; when this regime decided that they had to blow this roster up and fill more holes then originally thought, Revis' contract gave them that extra room needed to do so. Normally, they would've been stuck but because Dom did the contract like he did it was the perfect scenario but look around at how the top corners are creeping up closer to that 16 mil number. How much do you think Sherman is going to get? I think it was a risk well taken; the Bucs just had the wrong coach in place.

      To answer your questions in order...Probably so.Probably not.And who the &!@$ cares? The issue that you seem to be overlooking in your rambling about how things would be if they weren't they way that they are, is that the Bucs came out of this having reaped nowhere near the level of return they obviously sought from their investment- that is the essence of a bad deal. Sure, the contract made it easy cap-wise to wash our hands, but that same deal also made him un-tradeable in the event we needed to quickly offload that contract  for extra cash and assets (picks or players). Now not only did we miss out on both of the prospects we COULD have had via the compensation we sent to the Jets (I'm starting to sound like you here), we also wasted the opportunity for whatever prospects we could have added via trade or draft compensation THIS year. I have to say I agree with others here that I'm a little disappointed that SR continues to carry water for Dom. I've got nothing against the man and he certainly gave the Bucs more that a few good years, but he was a failure as a GM.

      Duh, that's a no brainer everyone knows that the compensation didn't add up; but that is only due to the regime change. You know and everybody here arguing about PRs integrity knows that if this regime had decided to keep Revis he would've definitely out weighed what the Bucs had to give up. That isn't even worth arguing about. I am simply stating that there is no bad guy here. For obvious reasons the trade didn't work out. If the Bucs didn't have the Freeman situation and the Bucs would've won the 3 games out of the first 4 that they should've won; the season would've went a whole lot different and then Revis would still be here and those draft picks and the 16 mil would be an afterthought. There is a risk with every trade; just like there is a risk with every draft pick. Personally, I would rather take the risk on Revis. I still think at the time it was worth the risk; hindsight is 20/20 but just believe that this regime is taking a big risk letting Revis go. Let Verner and most of these other signings not work out. See what the narrative would be then. Just because PR and others can see why Dom made the trade and signing; isn't a reason to attack someone's integrity!!!!!!!!!!!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 15

      I think the whole thing went wrong because the coach was in over his head and the season was a disaster. Let's just speculate if the Bucs would've hired Marty; does anyone believe Freeman would've deteriorated like he did? Would Bennett had been allowed to walk? And finally would the Bucs had been 4-12? I say no, it would've been a whole lot different. This regime wouldn't be here and Revis would still be here. And none of us would even be talking about his contract since the Bucs didn't have cap problems to begin with. Yeah it was a premium price but Dom didn't think he would be going anywhere soon; even still, he constructed the contract in a way that it protected the Bucs. And it did; when this regime decided that they had to blow this roster up and fill more holes then originally thought, Revis' contract gave them that extra room needed to do so. Normally, they would've been stuck but because Dom did the contract like he did it was the perfect scenario but look around at how the top corners are creeping up closer to that 16 mil number. How much do you think Sherman is going to get? I think it was a risk well taken; the Bucs just had the wrong coach in place.

      To answer your questions in order...Probably so.Probably not.And who the &!@$ cares? The issue that you seem to be overlooking in your rambling about how things would be if they weren't they way that they are, is that the Bucs came out of this having reaped nowhere near the level of return they obviously sought from their investment- that is the essence of a bad deal. Sure, the contract made it easy cap-wise to wash our hands, but that same deal also made him un-tradeable in the event we needed to quickly offload that contract  for extra cash and assets (picks or players). Now not only did we miss out on both of the prospects we COULD have had via the compensation we sent to the Jets (I'm starting to sound like you here), we also wasted the opportunity for whatever prospects we could have added via trade or draft compensation THIS year. I have to say I agree with others here that I'm a little disappointed that SR continues to carry water for Dom. I've got nothing against the man and he certainly gave the Bucs more that a few good years, but he was a failure as a GM.

      The thing is, reasonable minds can disagree about whether Revis is worth $16 Million a year, but I don't see how anybody can argue that it was worth a first and a fourth simply to get him a year early!  We could have waited a year and given the Jets zero compensation.  We were bidding against ourselves which is nearly always the recipe for a bad trade.

      How can you say that? Waiting would've made it a crap shoot with many other teams involved; teams with a better chance at a championship. Would the Bucs have had the cap room? No, If they didn't make the trade then they would've definitely signed the free agent CBs available that year and missed out on their opportunity to get the best CB.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1324

      I don’t care. It’s irrelevant. He’s gone, the guys who brought him here are gone, he’s been replaced, the guys who brought him here have been replaced. His salary has been spent on other players.It's over and it just doesn't matter anymore.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      I think the whole thing went wrong because the coach was in over his head and the season was a disaster. Let's just speculate if the Bucs would've hired Marty; does anyone believe Freeman would've deteriorated like he did? Would Bennett had been allowed to walk? And finally would the Bucs had been 4-12? I say no, it would've been a whole lot different. This regime wouldn't be here and Revis would still be here. And none of us would even be talking about his contract since the Bucs didn't have cap problems to begin with. Yeah it was a premium price but Dom didn't think he would be going anywhere soon; even still, he constructed the contract in a way that it protected the Bucs. And it did; when this regime decided that they had to blow this roster up and fill more holes then originally thought, Revis' contract gave them that extra room needed to do so. Normally, they would've been stuck but because Dom did the contract like he did it was the perfect scenario but look around at how the top corners are creeping up closer to that 16 mil number. How much do you think Sherman is going to get? I think it was a risk well taken; the Bucs just had the wrong coach in place.

      To answer your questions in order...Probably so.Probably not.And who the &!@$ cares? The issue that you seem to be overlooking in your rambling about how things would be if they weren't they way that they are, is that the Bucs came out of this having reaped nowhere near the level of return they obviously sought from their investment- that is the essence of a bad deal. Sure, the contract made it easy cap-wise to wash our hands, but that same deal also made him un-tradeable in the event we needed to quickly offload that contract  for extra cash and assets (picks or players). Now not only did we miss out on both of the prospects we COULD have had via the compensation we sent to the Jets (I'm starting to sound like you here), we also wasted the opportunity for whatever prospects we could have added via trade or draft compensation THIS year. I have to say I agree with others here that I'm a little disappointed that SR continues to carry water for Dom. I've got nothing against the man and he certainly gave the Bucs more that a few good years, but he was a failure as a GM.

      The thing is, reasonable minds can disagree about whether Revis is worth $16 Million a year, but I don't see how anybody can argue that it was worth a first and a fourth simply to get him a year early!  We could have waited a year and given the Jets zero compensation.  We were bidding against ourselves which is nearly always the recipe for a bad trade.

      How can you say that? Waiting would've made it a crap shoot with many other teams involved; teams with a better chance at a championship. Would the Bucs have had the cap room? No, If they didn't make the trade then they would've definitely signed the free agent CBs available that year and missed out on their opportunity to get the best CB.

      Nonsense.  The Bucs were willing to spend $4 million more than anybody else.  You think it's "a crapshoot" that he would have signed?  More like a slam dunk.  If the Bucs wanted to preserve cap space for Revis OF COURSE they could have preserved it.  They're a professional sports team, not little kids spending their birthday money.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      I don't care. It's irrelevant. He's gone, the guys who brought him here are gone, he's been replaced, the guys who brought him here have been replaced. His salary has been spent on other players.It's over and it just doesn't matter anymore.

      By that argument we shouldn't talk about anything that happened last year. No mention of Schiano, Dominik, going 4-12... after all it's done right? New team?  Perhaps we also shouldn't talk about drafting Bo Jackson or winning the 2002 Super Bowl? The Revis trade & release was, is and will be a big deal for this franchise. It will be talked about for a long time as it should.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 15

      I don't care. It's irrelevant. He's gone, the guys who brought him here are gone, he's been replaced, the guys who brought him here have been replaced. His salary has been spent on other players.It's over and it just doesn't matter anymore.

      True! This is the point I was eventually going to get to. There is no bad guy it worked out in the end.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      I don't care. It's irrelevant. He's gone, the guys who brought him here are gone, he's been replaced, the guys who brought him here have been replaced. His salary has been spent on other players.It's over and it just doesn't matter anymore.

      True! This is the point I was eventually going to get to. There is no bad guy it worked out in the end.

      No, it didn't.We're still missing two picks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      I don't care. It's irrelevant. He's gone, the guys who brought him here are gone, he's been replaced, the guys who brought him here have been replaced. His salary has been spent on other players.It's over and it just doesn't matter anymore.

      By that argument we shouldn't talk about anything that happened last year. No mention of Schiano, Dominik, going 4-12... after all it's done right? New team?  Perhaps we also shouldn't talk about drafting Bo Jackson or winning the 2002 Super Bowl? The Revis trade & release was, is and will be a big deal for this franchise. It will be talked about for a long time as it should.

      Jeez, no kidding.  I'm all for the turn-the-page mentality, but it's been less than a week since he's been released and it's in the Fab Five.  So probably a little early for the scolding.Plus the Revis experiment is going to be on every list of worst-trades-ever* for the foreseeable future, so I guess the advice would be to not click in a thread and certainly don't post in it if you don't want to discuss it.* well, except for the Fab Five, evidently. Sheesh, SR, did you really write this?Let’s see, the Bucs gave up a mid-first-round pick and a fourth-round pick for a player regarded as the best cover cornerback in the game of football and all he did was successfully rehab his knee, start 16 games for Tampa Bay, force two fumbles, pick off two passes, record a sack, recover a fumble, earn a spot in the Pro Bowl … and somehow that’s a bad trade?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      Let’s see, the Bucs gave up a mid-first-round pick and a fourth-round pick for a player regarded as the best cover cornerback in the game of football and all he did was successfully rehab his knee, start 16 games for Tampa Bay, force two fumbles, pick off two passes, record a sack, recover a fumble, earn a spot in the Pro Bowl … and somehow that’s a bad trade?Seriously, I just read that again when I cut and pasted it.  "Somehow that's a bad trade?"  Yeah, I think on any planet giving up #13 overall (and a 4th) for a one year rental at $16 million, which had the great bottom-line result of 4-12 for the team, is a "bad trade." 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      I don't care. It's irrelevant. He's gone, the guys who brought him here are gone, he's been replaced, the guys who brought him here have been replaced. His salary has been spent on other players.It's over and it just doesn't matter anymore.

      True! This is the point I was eventually going to get to. There is no bad guy it worked out in the end.

      No, it didn't.We're still missing two picks.

      That might be more meaningful if the bucs had a better history with picks.  Especially first round picks.  :'(

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      Dom gave us an untradeable contract and then went on the radio and bragged about how great a job he did structuring it so it was tradeable.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      It really was bizarro world hearing over and over about the “unilateral” ability of the Bucs to convert the first year base into a bonus to add to the remaining years of the contract. Those remaining years that already were at 16 mill. Which was already 4 mill more than he ended up getting on the open market.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Dom gave us an untradeable contract and then went on the radio and bragged about how great a job he did structuring it so it was tradeable.

      I suspect there were ways to trade the contract – just not in the time frames the bucs opted to operate within – for instance waiting out the Patriots…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1324

      Look, it WAS a terrible deal for the Buccaneers. We all know that. We lost two draft picks including a one but ALL of the people involved are released or fired and replaced. What more can be written about it? What can be done about it? Do we REALLY need more articles written on the past when the future is now? I want to read and be informed about the guys we’ve recently signed, progress of injured guys we’re keeping and the draft. That’s all i’m typing. No offense to anyone offended by my way of looking at today’s reality………..for me.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      Look, it WAS a terrible deal for the Buccaneers. We all know that. We lost two draft picks including a one but ALL of the people involved are released or fired and replaced. What more can be written about it? What can be done about it? Do we REALLY need more articles written on the past when the future is now? I want to read and be informed about the guys we've recently signed, progress of injured guys we're keeping and the draft. That's all i'm typing. No offense to anyone offended by my way of looking at today's reality...........for me.

      I'll get there eventually, but as a lifelong Bucs fan this is the time of year I traditionally chew my cud over lost opportunities and fantasize about trading down and getting a boatload of extra picks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      Look, it WAS a terrible deal for the Buccaneers. We all know that.

      SR doesn't agree. Did you read the article? That's the whole point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1540

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis’ $16 million work out. If they don’t pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      You are conflating getting Revis with getting Revis at the price we paid.Even a Lombardi doesn't make that deal any less of a rape of Dom by the Jets and Revis both.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1455

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      Sorry but that really isn't true.There are a number of us that said the trade was bad the moment the details came out, the fact that it turned into a 1 year rental that didn't help the Bucs much in any way (oh no, we would have gone 3-13 without him) just makes it that much worse.Hell there were people saying before the trade that if we gave up anything near to what we ended up giving away it would be an awful trade.There is no good side to this trade.It's not an incomplete trade, we don't need to see what his replacements do because they have nothing to do with the trade, if we hadn't traded for Revis that money would be getting used in some way and would likely have gone to better use last year.What if Dom had actually been smart and done what many were begging for him to do with the Revis money? We'd have had 2 corners, Michael Bennett already locked up, whoever we took in that 1st round and wouldn't have needed to go looking for Verner & Johnson this year.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1540

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      Sorry but that really isn't true.There are a number of us that said the trade was bad the moment the details came out, the fact that it turned into a 1 year rental that didn't help the Bucs much in any way (oh no, we would have gone 3-13 without him) just makes it that much worse.Hell there were people saying before the trade that if we gave up anything near to what we ended up giving away it would be an awful trade.There is no good side to this trade.It's not an incomplete trade, we don't need to see what his replacements do because they have nothing to do with the trade, if we hadn't traded for Revis that money would be getting used in some way and would likely have gone to better use last year.What if Dom had actually been smart and done what many were begging for him to do with the Revis money? We'd have had 2 corners, Michael Bennett already locked up, whoever we took in that 1st round and wouldn't have needed to go looking for Verner & Johnson this year.

      Better use last year? There was plenty of money left after signing Revis and it wasn't spent. Tampa Bay was not going to sign Grimes (who was also coming off an injury) and was not going to pay Smith $8 million a year. And you are assuming Dominik was the reason Bennett wasn't re-signed last year. And yes there were some saying it was a bad trade before it happened, but the majority of Bucs fans and media (locally and nationally) who applauded the trade at the time. 2013 was overall the worst draft class in at least 10 years according to every pundit, scout and front office. Ultimately part of the reason Dominik isn't here anymore was because the team failed to improve, and actually regressed record wise. His gamble that Revis would be a difference maker from 7-9 to 10-6 didn't pan out and not seeing the Freeman meltdown coming. but I respect your opinion, even if we don't agree on everything.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8044

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      im not sure why you guys are protecting this stance.  we do know how it turned out.  it was an awful trade.  it was a one year rental that resulted in 4 wins.  the trade is complete.  all this other stuff is spin, and not even great spin to me.  we will never be able to compare revis vs the 16mil 2014.  also, a career from a a 2013 draft pick is much better than a 4 win season from revis.i guess we could argue that the alvin harper signing was incomplete?  but just as revis, we all know how that turned out as well.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him. 

      See, the problem is that you're propping up the trade by creating an alternate, fantasy scenario that justifies Dom's decision.  That's fine to do at the start of the 2013 season when people were whining about the trade - you can say, "but hey if they win a superbowl it becomes a good one."  That's an okay defense.  Unfortunately we know that this didn't happen, as the Bucs just barely missed the playoffs by like 7 games. So there's really no defense for the trade because it had zero payoff.  Year one of the trade: total failure.I'm more sympathetic to the argument that by the new regime cutting the experiment loose, we never know whether years two through six would have been better.  I still disagree with it, but you're at least back in the "if we get a good result this year then it is a good trade."  But what you guys are doing is defending year one of the trade, which is insane.  And the new regime took a look at year one and decided that Revis didn't bring enough to the table to offset (1) what they could get with his money and (2) the fact that he's getting paid way over market value and (3) would undoubtedly hold out and pull his Mevis act just as soon as the market caught up in future years.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him. 

      See, the problem is that you're propping up the trade by creating an alternate, fantasy scenario that justifies Dom's decision.  That's fine to do at the start of the 2013 season when people were whining about the trade - you can say, "but hey if they win a superbowl it becomes a good one."  That's an okay defense.  Unfortunately we know that this didn't happen, as the Bucs just barely missed the playoffs by like 7 games.

      ^^^This is the issue that few seem to focus on. The Revis contract may make sense in the context of pushing the Bucs over the edge to a SB, but think about that for a minute. .  that means that Dom thought before last season that the Bucs were truly on the brink? Really? The same Dom who did not give Freeman a long-term deal? The same Dom who watched the Bucs struggle down the stretch the year before? First, if Dom truly thought the Bucs were on the brink and that is why the deal made sense then that alone is a reason to say it was a bad deal. Second, if you accept that Dom could not have possibly thought this team was truly on the brink (and with Freeman, how could he?) and yet he still did this deal then the deal comes off like: a) a desperate Dom trying to save his job with a big splash move or b) a desperate Dom getting caught with all his eggs in one basket as other options disappeared. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      Look at what the Patriots have done – they have Revis on a two year contract that will undoubtedly be a one-year $12 million shot at a title.  Brady’s window is closing, they are close, and they need to beat Peyton.  It’s still an insane amount of money for a corner, but they think he’s the missing piece for a great team.The differences, of course, are that (1) they didn't give up any picks for this one year rental and (2) they don't have a long-term plan with Revis - there is zero chance that he gets paid $20 million in year two of the contract, because that would be crazy town.  I still wouldn't pay $12 million to a corner, but at least there's some logic in thinking that Revis will be enough to get them over the top.Again, Patriots and Bucs are in two completely different scenarios.  And, tellingly, even the Patriots refused to take over Revis' Bucs contract for a 7th round 2018 pick or whatever the Bucs were seeking before cutting him.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1324

      Look, it WAS a terrible deal for the Buccaneers. We all know that.

      SR doesn't agree. Did you read the article? That's the whole point.

      I did. Maybe I should type it ended up a terrible deal? Losing those draft picks sucks but at the time a one for Revis seemed fair. The contract, at the time, seemed good as long term CAP health was taken into consideration. There is nothing worse than "dead" CAP money IMO.Still think it doesn't matter anymore. Seriously, as a fan, what matters more? A bad trade last year or the turnover of players, coaches, the HC and GM for the new look (literally) Buccaneers? Heck, cutting Revis even provided a lot of CAP money to make some of those deals.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      Better use last year? There was plenty of money left after signing Revis and it wasn't spent. Tampa Bay was not going to sign Grimes (who was also coming off an injury) and was not going to pay Smith $8 million a year. And you are assuming Dominik was the reason Bennett wasn't re-signed last year. And yes there were some saying it was a bad trade before it happened, but the majority of Bucs fans and media (locally and nationally) who applauded the trade at the time. 2013 was overall the worst draft class in at least 10 years according to every pundit, scout and front office. Ultimately part of the reason Dominik isn't here anymore was because the team failed to improve, and actually regressed record wise. His gamble that Revis would be a difference maker from 7-9 to 10-6 didn't pan out and not seeing the Freeman meltdown coming. but I respect your opinion, even if we don't agree on everything.

      I think there are two viewpoints in which we have to look at it. One is a fan's point of view which is some level of "I want the best players on my team". That viewpoint is satisfied by the deal and results in the meltdown's seen from some posters on, I think almost exclusively, the Red Board. The other viewpoint is from the organization standpoint. Each player has a value and I think Dominik completely mismarked Revis as a player that he was willing to pay at least $6mil over market at the time and trade away two picks to do so. The fact that he could get out of it carried some weight but the overall value of a CB, in my view, was overstated considering the rest of the Bucs roster and I really didn't understand the level of picks given up considering there was always the possibility that he gets hurt again....the purpose of what was essentially a team option for 2014 at an overinflated rate even in a different market. It never made any sense to me. There is a point in which you walk away from the table and I think it should have been reached rather easily.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      Look, it WAS a terrible deal for the Buccaneers. We all know that.

      SR doesn't agree. Did you read the article? That's the whole point.

      Still think it doesn't matter anymore. Seriously, as a fan, what matters more? A bad trade last year or the turnover of players, coaches, the HC and GM for the new look (literally) Buccaneers? Heck, cutting Revis even provided a lot of CAP money to make some of those deals.

      You're conflating the issue of whether the Revis fiasco matters more or less than other issues, such as roster turnover, new coaches, etc. ("as a fan, what matters more?") with whether the issue is even worth discussing in the first place ("it doesn't matter anymore.").  I might agree with you on the first, but definitely disagree with you on the second.But the solution is super easy, in either event - if you don't want to debate the relative merits of the Revis trade and its impact on the Bucs in 2013, 2014, and thereafter, there are all sorts of threads that aren't titled "Will we see an article on how bad the Revis trade/contract was?" that may be more to your liking.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      Sorry but that really isn't true.There are a number of us that said the trade was bad the moment the details came out, the fact that it turned into a 1 year rental that didn't help the Bucs much in any way (oh no, we would have gone 3-13 without him) just makes it that much worse.Hell there were people saying before the trade that if we gave up anything near to what we ended up giving away it would be an awful trade.There is no good side to this trade.It's not an incomplete trade, we don't need to see what his replacements do because they have nothing to do with the trade, if we hadn't traded for Revis that money would be getting used in some way and would likely have gone to better use last year.What if Dom had actually been smart and done what many were begging for him to do with the Revis money? We'd have had 2 corners, Michael Bennett already locked up, whoever we took in that 1st round and wouldn't have needed to go looking for Verner & Johnson this year.

      Better use last year? There was plenty of money left after signing Revis and it wasn't spent. Tampa Bay was not going to sign Grimes (who was also coming off an injury) and was not going to pay Smith $8 million a year. And you are assuming Dominik was the reason Bennett wasn't re-signed last year. And yes there were some saying it was a bad trade before it happened, but the majority of Bucs fans and media (locally and nationally) who applauded the trade at the time. 2013 was overall the worst draft class in at least 10 years according to every pundit, scout and front office. Ultimately part of the reason Dominik isn't here anymore was because the team failed to improve, and actually regressed record wise. His gamble that Revis would be a difference maker from 7-9 to 10-6 didn't pan out and not seeing the Freeman meltdown coming. but I respect your opinion, even if we don't agree on everything.

      The problem Mark is the contract. While we had, and currently have, the cap space $16 million was, is, and will be unsustainable. If you look through the contracts for every other position in the NFl you don't anywhere close to the disparity between the top player(s) and the rest. Every single other position has a few elite players clustered at the top pay bracket - not one player  making 63% more than the next highest player. And coming off an ACL injury!?!?!?!?THAT is insane - and a lot of people on this board who were in favor of the Revis trade balked at that contract. And as I've said before - that cap space rapidly dwindles when you have to start re-signing players. Even if the Bucs kept Revis on the roster this year, next year they would have had to release/restructure the deal. I think that's a major reason why Revis was released now - one way or the other he wouldn't be on the team next year.And the most damning part Mark is that no team would take the contract. If Revis is as good as you suggest (he is) the fact that the Bucs couldn't even get a late-round pick for him is INSANE!  In summation:1) Why pay a player coming off ACL injury 12% of your cap and 63% more than the next highest paid CB?2) If they kept Revis, what would the Bucs do next year with McCoy, David, Barron, Martin (among others such as Clayborn, Bowers) all being FAs or in the last year of their deals?3) If the contract wasn't THAT bad, why wasn't it tradeable?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      3) If the contract wasn't THAT bad, why wasn't it tradeable?

      I agree with Tog's entire comment, but highlighted just this one sentence because it sums everything up.  We are talking about a HOF shut down corner now presumably healthy . .certainly more healthy than when we traded for him . . . what team would NOT want the guy?  And yet we could not trade him? It wasn't the players ability, it couldn't be the asking price because it was fire sale at the end and no one would take him . . .not even Cleveland or Oakland.Dom's job was, at least in part, to to think about the impact player moves could have on his team down the road.  Dom was generally thought to be pretty good at this and some of his cap-friendly work you even see in the Revis contract (i.e., no dead money etc.). However, given that we could not trade a HOF shutdown corner, it should be clear that Dom either didn't consider the trade scenario or accepted the risk . . ether one, he bears the blame. I am not even sure how that is controversial, frankly.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      Sorry but that really isn't true.There are a number of us that said the trade was bad the moment the details came out, the fact that it turned into a 1 year rental that didn't help the Bucs much in any way (oh no, we would have gone 3-13 without him) just makes it that much worse.Hell there were people saying before the trade that if we gave up anything near to what we ended up giving away it would be an awful trade.There is no good side to this trade.It's not an incomplete trade, we don't need to see what his replacements do because they have nothing to do with the trade, if we hadn't traded for Revis that money would be getting used in some way and would likely have gone to better use last year.What if Dom had actually been smart and done what many were begging for him to do with the Revis money? We'd have had 2 corners, Michael Bennett already locked up, whoever we took in that 1st round and wouldn't have needed to go looking for Verner & Johnson this year.

      Better use last year? There was plenty of money left after signing Revis and it wasn't spent. Tampa Bay was not going to sign Grimes (who was also coming off an injury) and was not going to pay Smith $8 million a year. And you are assuming Dominik was the reason Bennett wasn't re-signed last year. And yes there were some saying it was a bad trade before it happened, but the majority of Bucs fans and media (locally and nationally) who applauded the trade at the time. 2013 was overall the worst draft class in at least 10 years according to every pundit, scout and front office. Ultimately part of the reason Dominik isn't here anymore was because the team failed to improve, and actually regressed record wise. His gamble that Revis would be a difference maker from 7-9 to 10-6 didn't pan out and not seeing the Freeman meltdown coming. but I respect your opinion, even if we don't agree on everything.

      The problem Mark is the contract. While we had, and currently have, the cap space $16 million was, is, and will be unsustainable. If you look through the contracts for every other position in the NFl you don't anywhere close to the disparity between the top player(s) and the rest. Every single other position has a few elite players clustered at the top pay bracket - not one player  making 63% more than the next highest player. And coming off an ACL injury!?!?!?!?THAT is insane - and a lot of people on this board who were in favor of the Revis trade balked at that contract. And as I've said before - that cap space rapidly dwindles when you have to start re-signing players. Even if the Bucs kept Revis on the roster this year, next year they would have had to release/restructure the deal. I think that's a major reason why Revis was released now - one way or the other he wouldn't be on the team next year.And the most damning part Mark is that no team would take the contract. If Revis is as good as you suggest (he is) the fact that the Bucs couldn't even get a late-round pick for him is INSANE!  In summation:1) Why pay a player coming off ACL injury 12% of your cap and 63% more than the next highest paid CB?2) If they kept Revis, what would the Bucs do next year with McCoy, David, Barron, Martin (among others such as Clayborn, Bowers) all being FAs or in the last year of their deals?3) If the contract wasn't THAT bad, why wasn't it tradeable?

      4) Even if you thought the contract was fantastic, why not wait a year and sign him as a free agent?  Why throw away the picks?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And you are assuming Dominik was the reason Bennett wasn't re-signed last year.

      Hmmm . .  care to expand MC?  :)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      4) Even if you thought the contract was fantastic, why not wait a year and sign him as a free agent?  Why throw away the picks?

      While a legitimate question, I think that's separate from the issue currently being raised.  I would say though that (a) there's no guarantee he hits the free market (b) he may not sign with your team if he does (c) you currently have leverage you won't have during FA (which Dominik didn't use). I think that's a logical argument because I don't believe Revis would have hit the free market, but even if he did it would be highly unlikely to sign with the Buccaneers.You might quite reasonably disagree of course, but that's the argument.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1540

      My opinion is it was an incomplete trade. Obviously not getting anything in return makes it bad for Tampa Bay now that it is over. But if they guy has stayed and the Bucs win a Super bowl then it becomes a good trade. The real deal will be how the players obtained with Revis' $16 million work out. If they don't pan out then it becomes a bad decision to release him.  I can't say there is anyone with the talent of Revis that the Bucs could have drafted last year. CERTAINLY not a CB (Milliner, Rhodes, Banks, Trufant). I can't say for sure, but is anyone from the 2013 draft class going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer like Revis will?The bad part to me was the fact he essentially was a one-year rental player that the Buccaneers spent 100's of hours rehabbing and protecting in the media (zone coverage questions daily). But if the Bucs went 8-8 last year and Dominik and Schiano were retained then no one would be saying it was a bad trade. To me how it turned out in the end was the bad part, but again I still say it wasn't good or bad, but incomplete because you never know how it may have turned out. It is almost like blaming Dominik or any GM for a first-round draft pick that blows a knee in camp. Is that a bad draft pick?Ultimately for the sake of the franchise it turned out to be a bad decision, but hard to say it was a bad trade.

      Sorry but that really isn't true.There are a number of us that said the trade was bad the moment the details came out, the fact that it turned into a 1 year rental that didn't help the Bucs much in any way (oh no, we would have gone 3-13 without him) just makes it that much worse.Hell there were people saying before the trade that if we gave up anything near to what we ended up giving away it would be an awful trade.There is no good side to this trade.It's not an incomplete trade, we don't need to see what his replacements do because they have nothing to do with the trade, if we hadn't traded for Revis that money would be getting used in some way and would likely have gone to better use last year.What if Dom had actually been smart and done what many were begging for him to do with the Revis money? We'd have had 2 corners, Michael Bennett already locked up, whoever we took in that 1st round and wouldn't have needed to go looking for Verner & Johnson this year.

      Better use last year? There was plenty of money left after signing Revis and it wasn't spent. Tampa Bay was not going to sign Grimes (who was also coming off an injury) and was not going to pay Smith $8 million a year. And you are assuming Dominik was the reason Bennett wasn't re-signed last year. And yes there were some saying it was a bad trade before it happened, but the majority of Bucs fans and media (locally and nationally) who applauded the trade at the time. 2013 was overall the worst draft class in at least 10 years according to every pundit, scout and front office. Ultimately part of the reason Dominik isn't here anymore was because the team failed to improve, and actually regressed record wise. His gamble that Revis would be a difference maker from 7-9 to 10-6 didn't pan out and not seeing the Freeman meltdown coming. but I respect your opinion, even if we don't agree on everything.

      The problem Mark is the contract. While we had, and currently have, the cap space $16 million was, is, and will be unsustainable. If you look through the contracts for every other position in the NFl you don't anywhere close to the disparity between the top player(s) and the rest. Every single other position has a few elite players clustered at the top pay bracket - not one player  making 63% more than the next highest player. And coming off an ACL injury!?!?!?!?THAT is insane - and a lot of people on this board who were in favor of the Revis trade balked at that contract. And as I've said before - that cap space rapidly dwindles when you have to start re-signing players. Even if the Bucs kept Revis on the roster this year, next year they would have had to release/restructure the deal. I think that's a major reason why Revis was released now - one way or the other he wouldn't be on the team next year.And the most damning part Mark is that no team would take the contract. If Revis is as good as you suggest (he is) the fact that the Bucs couldn't even get a late-round pick for him is INSANE!  In summation:1) Why pay a player coming off ACL injury 12% of your cap and 63% more than the next highest paid CB?2) If they kept Revis, what would the Bucs do next year with McCoy, David, Barron, Martin (among others such as Clayborn, Bowers) all being FAs or in the last year of their deals?3) If the contract wasn't THAT bad, why wasn't it tradeable?

      4) Even if you thought the contract was fantastic, why not wait a year and sign him as a free agent?  Why throw away the picks?

      That is the worst argument. And the answer is easy. You would have to bid against 31 teams. Absolutely no guarantee that he would have signed here. And the fact the secondary was the worst in the history of the franchise and second worst in the history of the NFL.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9276

      Giving up a 1 & a 4 for the guy, paying him $16 mil, going 4-12, then giving him away for nothing is a bad deal…..and no amount of perfume will mask that stench.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      we went all in even though the team was very iffy on our starting QB.  stupid move.  I said the trade would only be worth it if 3 things happened.  1.  Revis played like the best CB in the game.  2.  we got at least 4 years out of him.  3.  we contended for a championship during that time.  2 out of those 3 things didn’t happen.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1540

      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.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      It is time for folks who took a position on the Revis deal last year to step forward and get their credit.  I would offer the bucs were not good last year for a variety of reasons.  Not too many of them had to do with the Revis deal.  With the change of front office and coaching groups they wanted to make the change to build a team they were comfortable with and confident in.  So they chose to money previously allocated for other purpose.  If that money had been spread out to 3 to 5 players the rebuild would have been a lot more difficult to make the number of changes in a variety of areas of the team. So it turned out last year's group couldn't get it done and the course has changed - just as if a high draft pick had failed... and perhaps a 4th rounder... or more.  Game/seasons turn on stuff like that.  Hell, we all know this - we are buccaneer fans... The outcome could have been worse.  I like having Lovie and Licht in the FO and coaching - and I like the moves they were able to make largely because of the Revis deal... And there is still more cleaning up coming - this year and next.  Just hoping L&L can keep it on track - and get their qb in place.  Just my .02

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      There are things outside a GM's control, like MRSA and toe injuries and getting fired. But if Dominik had traded two picks and paid Nicks $6 million more than the next highest paid guard for one year, then yes, he should be criticized for that deal too.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1455

      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.

      Actually it was a bad deal and not for the reasons mentioned, it was yet again because Dom liked to collect "names" and couldn't work out a decent value if his job depended on it.You simply don't invest the type of money we did in 2 guards when the position really isn't high on the list of importance, that is what got Dom fired, over paying virtually everybody he handed a contract too and collecting names rather than building a real team.The fact that Nicks hasn't played much for the reasons you mentioned only makes it so much worse.If Dom had bothered to invest some draft picks in the oline the need for a guy like Nicks likely wouldn't have been there, instead of doing that he went for the high risk, no return guys like Price, Bowers, Benn with premium picks.There is no defending it, maybe if 1 or 2 deals Dom made were bad you could maybe make a case it was just a mistake, but the Revis deal was bad, the Wright signing was bad, the Nicks signing was bad, ignoring the oline in favor of busts who had massive red flags was bad. The Nicks deal wasn't simply an error in hindsight, it was part of a larger pattern of mistakes that could be seen before they even happened which resulted in guys getting fired and us having to go on a massive rebuilding mission this off season.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      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.

      Actually it was a bad deal and not for the reasons mentioned, it was yet again because Dom liked to collect "names"

      Dom did seem to approach FA as if it was best to take the biggest name, perhaps because its easier to defend? Not sure, but it was almost as if Dom said "we need "x", who is considered to be the best "x."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      4) Even if you thought the contract was fantastic, why not wait a year and sign him as a free agent?  Why throw away the picks?"That is the worst argument. And the answer is easy. You would have to bid against 31 teams. Absolutely no guarantee that he would have signed here. And the fact the secondary was the worst in the history of the franchise and second worst in the history of the NFL."Instead of bidding against ourselves?  We paid a player coming off injury $4 million more than anybody else was willing to give him when healthy! 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      4) Even if you thought the contract was fantastic, why not wait a year and sign him as a free agent?  Why throw away the picks?"That is the worst argument. And the answer is easy. You would have to bid against 31 teams. Absolutely no guarantee that he would have signed here. And the fact the secondary was the worst in the history of the franchise and second worst in the history of the NFL."Instead of bidding against ourselves?  We paid a player coming off injury $4 million more than anybody else was willing to give him when healthy!

      At least the Bucs gave up two draft picks for the right to do so...also something no other team was reported to be interested in doing.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      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.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1540

      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.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      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…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Giving up a 1 & a 4 for the guy, paying him $16 mil, going 4-12, then giving him away for nothing is a bad deal .....and no amount of perfume will mask that stench.

      I think the bold is the point both MC and SR are trying to make (rightly or wrongly).  It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing.  it was the new regime.  That is ultimately the worst part of the "deal" is that he was given away for nothing in a year.  That wasn't Dom's decision.Not to defend Dom or anyone else, as the $16 million/yr was a HUGE salary (although with Glennon showing promise it may have been cancelled out with the starting QB being MUCH below market).  But the worst part of the deal, the releasing of Revis for nothing, was not Dom's decision.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      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.

      He had to be released because his cap number was unsustainable. I am basing this on: spotrac's 2015 cap numbers and the fact that his contract was untradable. Both suggest to me that no team could afford to keep that cap number for more than a year - including the Bucs.  Could the Bucs have kept him this year? Yes. But what about next year or the year after? Very unlikely - especially given how poor the team has drafted (ie. how many holes have to be plugged outside of the draft). I don't think most of the free agents will work out - history clearly demonstrates that's very unlikely.  We may very well look back on it and decide keeping Revis would have been better than having Johnson and Verner.But that's part of the problem. Do you give out contracts assuming you'll draft poorly or get fired? Of course not. But you do need to give yourself flexibility, if a signing was a mistake or you need cap space to fill other holes. That is, it's not about a contract being "trade-friendly" but giving the team as many options as possible. Dominik structured the contract in such a way that, if the team needed flexibility, there were only one of two options: keep Revis at his current price or release him. That's it.  The Bucs didn't have even have any leverage to encourage a restructure (Dominik's comment about a unilateral restructure were a joke). What if Revis partially recovered but wasn't the same player? You're again in that same position: keep at current contract or release. Sure, Revis would be here for another year if Dominik were here. I see things from his perspective quite well. I understand he's in win-now mode, he's assuming Revis will be here for a number of years, and that draft picks in the 1st round have ~30% hite rate (and take time to develop). But the team is still severely constrained. Let me put it this way - how often are large contracts renegotiated? Especially post-rookie contracts to free agents? I'd guess the number pretty closely approaches 100%. As has been said ad nauseum during this free agent period - these aren't 5 or 6 year deals, they're 2 year deals with team options for the rest. Dominik's supposed strength in negotiating contracts in such a way as to give a team flexibility was abused by Revis' agent to Revis' great benefit. Sure, the team wasn't on the hook for guaranteed money, but... well you know. And the worst part is that at no point was it clear that Revis would be the same guy. So you got proverbially bent-over-a-barrel for an injury risk who wasn't even a free agent. Dominik bid against himself, just like he did with Michael Clayton and Quincy Black.There were a number of options to make it more palatable: (a) keep 2013 1st rounder, make 2014 1st rounder conditional on him being on the team, (b) put in guaranteed money, but make it guaranteed when he's on the roster, (c) front load guarantee HEAVILY into 1st year. Those are just 3 non-creative options. Options B & C would obviously involve a much lower cap hit. And obviously Revis and/or the Jets would have likely not agreed to some of these provisions. If not - don't trade! If you don't make the trade to patch up that terrible secondary (btw the stat about it being one of the worst secondaries in the NFL is way overblown because (a) it only calculates passing yards and (b) ignores that 3 of the 4 worst passing defences happened in the last 2 years)?  Sign DRC/Sean Smith/Keenan Lewis/Munnerlyn/etc. all for deals that were $5.5 mill/year or LESS. Last year's free agent period saw shockingly low contracts for lots of players in large part because of the flat cap.Anyways, if Dominik were here he would be confronting the same situation Lovie & Licht were. Anemic pass rush, vastly overpaid offensive line, uncertainty at QB, etc (ie. a 4-12 team). He would have $16 less million to do it but the best corner in the game. So even if Dominik were here he would have (based on Bucs cap numbers as of Mar. 10) ~$19 million to play with.  Thus he'd be confronting the same decision L&L did - and he would have the same options: do nothing or release.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Giving up a 1 & a 4 for the guy, paying him $16 mil, going 4-12, then giving him away for nothing is a bad deal .....and no amount of perfume will mask that stench.

      I think the bold is the point both MC and SR are trying to make (rightly or wrongly).  It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing. .

      Jay your sentence is right in part, but wrong in part, like this "It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing"  The Red is Licht and Lovie, the Blue is 100% Dom . . . and that is the flaw in the contract. There was no way to get rid of Revis EXCEPT "for nothing."  It most certainly was Dom's decision that if the Bucs were going to "give Revis away" it would be "for nothing."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Giving up a 1 & a 4 for the guy, paying him $16 mil, going 4-12, then giving him away for nothing is a bad deal .....and no amount of perfume will mask that stench.

      I think the bold is the point both MC and SR are trying to make (rightly or wrongly).  It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing. .

      Jay your sentence is right in part, but wrong in part, like this "It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing"  The Red is Licht and Lovie, the Blue is 100% Dom . . . and that is the flaw in the contract. There was no way to get rid of Revis EXCEPT "for nothing."  It most certainly was Dom's decision that if the Bucs were going to "give Revis away" it would be "for nothing."

      Revis was signed to a $12 mln contract within 3 hours of his release and supposedly had another 25 teams interested in him.  You claim the contract is untradeable, but in reality, letting it known that we would release Revis by a certain date if not traded was what made him untradeable.  it had nothing to do with the contract at that point - why trade ANYTHING for a player you know is about to hit the open market?We got Revis, in part, because his former GM was willing to eat bonus money ($3 million worth) and play his hand, keep leverage so that we DID trade for him.  Had they made it known he was definitely going to be released, maybe Dom still trades for him, but I doubt it's for the compensation we gave.I'm just saying, the releasing Revis in the fashion they did, with absolutely no return, was not something that was Dom's doing.  The contract?  Fine.  Even the draft picks, also fine.  But in actuality there was absolutely no reason to release Revis when they did, and given the demand, I would've love to have seen what bidding war would be going on right now as FA dried up and teams got desperate. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1858

      Revis was signed to a $12 mln contract within 3 hours of his release and supposedly had another 25 teams interested in him.  You claim the contract is untradeable, but in reality, letting it known that we would release Revis by a certain date if not traded was what made him untradeable.  it had nothing to do with the contract at that point - why trade ANYTHING for a player you know is about to hit the open market?We got Revis, in part, because his former GM was willing to eat bonus money ($3 million worth) and play his hand, keep leverage so that we DID trade for him.  Had they made it known he was definitely going to be released, maybe Dom still trades for him, but I doubt it's for the compensation we gave.I'm just saying, the releasing Revis in the fashion they did, with absolutely no return, was not something that was Dom's doing.  The contract?  Fine.  Even the draft picks, also fine.  But in actuality there was absolutely no reason to release Revis when they did, and given the demand, I would've love to have seen what bidding war would be going on right now as FA dried up and teams got desperate.

      Everything I've read, which can always turn out to be wrong , is that they've been trying to trade Revis for a couple months. So the decision to release him actually was the culmination of repeated attempts at trade/renegotiation going back to before the combine. So the news that he was going to be released if he wasn't traded was likely leaked by Revis' agent when Light approached him and said "Renoegotiate or we release" - which happened on the eve of free agency.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      If you can't get favorable terms because they're stubborn then don't make the deal. 

      Which is what Dominik should have done and the other teams did to the Bucs a week ago.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1110

      Anyone can look back at my posts a year ago.  I was one of the very few, and I mean very few who were against spending a first round pick and big$ for and injured Revis.  I would have much rather gone the route of using the pick and the money to do basically what Lovie is doing now.  I hardly heard a peep back then from anyone against getting Revis,  including the local media.  Local media pressure was adamant about getting Revis.  Here are excerpts from Martin Fennelly’s column on the subject with the heading, “Buccaneers need to be bold and go get Revis”  http://tbo.com/sports/bucs/bucs-need-to-be-bold-and-pursue-revis-b82476709z1"Go get him... Go get Darrelle Revis.....  $15 million per season is not out of the Bucs' realm of thinking......The man is a game-changer....The Bucs need to get Revis.....And the Bucs need to go get him.....It's time to go get Darrelle Revis."Unfortunately, I believe the Glazers succumb to media pressure more than even I thought was possible, especially from the locals.  I wouldn't be surprised if they read Fennelly's column, called up Mark D. and said , " Go get him".Regardless of the why we  wanted to "go get him",  an injured Revis had to be without guarantees.  It had to be a first round pick.  Mark D. got a standing ovation for the deal a year ago.  If Coach Schiano and Mark D. were retained,  Revis would not have been released.  They would not have been able to have the kind of free agent spending spree that Lovie has had, but they would have decided to keep Revis and Mark D. would be currently blamed for nothing.  This was Lovie's choice since January on how to spend the money.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Giving up a 1 & a 4 for the guy, paying him $16 mil, going 4-12, then giving him away for nothing is a bad deal .....and no amount of perfume will mask that stench.

      I think the bold is the point both MC and SR are trying to make (rightly or wrongly).  It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing. .

      Jay your sentence is right in part, but wrong in part, like this "It was not Dom who decided to give Revis away for nothing"  The Red is Licht and Lovie, the Blue is 100% Dom . . . and that is the flaw in the contract. There was no way to get rid of Revis EXCEPT "for nothing."  It most certainly was Dom's decision that if the Bucs were going to "give Revis away" it would be "for nothing."

      Revis was signed to a $12 mln contract within 3 hours of his release and supposedly had another 25 teams interested in him.  You claim the contract is untradeable, but in reality, letting it known that we would release Revis by a certain date if not traded was what made him untradeable.  it had nothing to do with the contract at that point - why trade ANYTHING for a player you know is about to hit the open market?We got Revis, in part, because his former GM was willing to eat bonus money ($3 million worth) and play his hand, keep leverage so that we DID trade for him.  Had they made it known he was definitely going to be released, maybe Dom still trades for him, but I doubt it's for the compensation we gave.I'm just saying, the releasing Revis in the fashion they did, with absolutely no return, was not something that was Dom's doing.  The contract?  Fine.  Even the draft picks, also fine.  But in actuality there was absolutely no reason to release Revis when they did, and given the demand, I would've love to have seen what bidding war would be going on right now as FA dried up and teams got desperate.

      Jay, I think you are seeing the end of the process and thinking it was the beginning.  By the time the  release was discussed (likely a leak from the Revis camp) thh Bucs had probably been trying to trade and/or renegotiate for weeks, if not months

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      Anyone can look back at my posts a year ago.  I was one of the very few, and I mean very few who were against spending a first round pick and big$ for and injured Revis.  I would have much rather gone the route of using the pick and the money to do basically what Lovie is doing now.  I hardly heard a peep back then from anyone against getting Revis,  including the local media.  Local media pressure was adamant about getting Revis.  Here are excerpts from Martin Fennelly's column on the subject with the heading, "Buccaneers need to be bold and go get Revis"  http://tbo.com/sports/bucs/bucs-need-to-be-bold-and-pursue-revis-b82476709z1"Go get him... Go get Darrelle Revis.....  $15 million per season is not out of the Bucs' realm of thinking......The man is a game-changer....The Bucs need to get Revis.....And the Bucs need to go get him.....It's time to go get Darrelle Revis."Unfortunately, I believe the Glazers succumb to media pressure more than even I thought was possible, especially from the locals.  I wouldn't be surprised if they read Fennelly's column, called up Mark D. and said , " Go get him".Regardless of the why we  wanted to "go get him",  an injured Revis had to be without guarantees.  It had to be a first round pick.  Mark D. got a standing ovation for the deal a year ago.  If Coach Schiano and Mark D. were retained,  Revis would not have been released.  They would not have been able to have the kind of free agent spending spree that Lovie has had, but they would have decided to keep Revis and Mark D. would be currently blamed for nothing.  This was Lovie's choice since January on how to spend the money.

      I was right there with you.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 169

      amazed that PR continues to defend this trade with such vigor, and combined with SR’s ‘god squad’ piece have me questioning the credibility of this site

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Mark D. got a standing ovation for the deal a year ago. 

      that is true but: a) a lot of people felt the team was on the brink, one would expect the Gm knew better, particularly given the Freeman issuesb) I don't think anyone understood the true ramifications of the contract.That said, I do recall that you were adamantly against it, so kudos to you

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      Anyone can look back at my posts a year ago.  I was one of the very few, and I mean very few who were against spending a first round pick and big$ for and injured Revis.  I would have much rather gone the route of using the pick and the money to do basically what Lovie is doing now.  I hardly heard a peep back then from anyone against getting Revis,  including the local media.  Local media pressure was adamant about getting Revis.  Here are excerpts from Martin Fennelly's column on the subject with the heading, "Buccaneers need to be bold and go get Revis"  http://tbo.com/sports/bucs/bucs-need-to-be-bold-and-pursue-revis-b82476709z1"Go get him... Go get Darrelle Revis.....  $15 million per season is not out of the Bucs' realm of thinking......The man is a game-changer....The Bucs need to get Revis.....And the Bucs need to go get him.....It's time to go get Darrelle Revis."Unfortunately, I believe the Glazers succumb to media pressure more than even I thought was possible, especially from the locals.  I wouldn't be surprised if they read Fennelly's column, called up Mark D. and said , " Go get him".Regardless of the why we  wanted to "go get him",  an injured Revis had to be without guarantees.  It had to be a first round pick.  Mark D. got a standing ovation for the deal a year ago.  If Coach Schiano and Mark D. were retained,  Revis would not have been released.  They would not have been able to have the kind of free agent spending spree that Lovie has had, but they would have decided to keep Revis and Mark D. would be currently blamed for nothing.  This was Lovie's choice since January on how to spend the money.

      That's a key part of why the trade was so bad.  Why I argued against it back when we made it.  We have multiple holes to fill.  We lost out on two draft picks as it is, and if we had retained him we wouldn't have been able to use FA to fix this mess.  If Dom was still here he would be expose as having a too-shallow WR corps, crappy overpaid OL, no DE's, still needing another corner, etc...We would, in basically almost any realistic scenario, be much better off not having made that trade.  The ONLY scenario where it is a good trade is that the team goes to the SB and Revis is a huge part of why that happens.  Unfortunately that was never a realistic scenario.Dom's utter inability to negotiate was probably his greatest flaw, and got exposed in the greatest way recently.  Even as we were watching people laugh at that untradeable contract he was on the radio bragging, bragging about how his ingenious structure made it easy to trade.  If that doesn't show how completely oblivious he was to what he had done, nothing does.  I repeatedly talked about this when we were looking at the the trade, that the new cap rules change the value of trades.  in the old day trading a first and paying huge dollars was not a big deal, because firsts got that anyway.  but now we missed out on a top prospect at dirt cheap price, and put ourselves at a crippling disadvantage in FA with that massive contract.It wasn't really a "choice" that Lovie made to ditch him.  It was a mature and correct business decision.  You simply can't tie up that much money in a single player, especially at that position, unless you are stocked and cap balanced everywhere else, which we patently were not even at the time of the trade.  Were Dom here still, he would have been hoisted by his own petard.  Screwed into a corner by his own mistakes.  In a way he's lucky to be gone and not have to clean up his own mess, and he can count on his good buddy Scott to cover for him say "it was only bad because LOVIE cut him".  Like the trade was great until the new regime came in and screwed it up.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8044

      Revis was signed to a $12 mln contract within 3 hours of his release and supposedly had another 25 teams interested in him.  You claim the contract is untradeable, but in reality, letting it known that we would release Revis by a certain date if not traded was what made him untradeable.  it had nothing to do with the contract at that point - why trade ANYTHING for a player you know is about to hit the open market?

      for the same reason we had to trade for him, 20 of those 26 teams had no realistic chance of signing him on the free market.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Here’s the thing though – we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Here's the thing though - we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      That is a fair point BUT there really was "deadline" and we really had to because: a) these guys couldn't build the team the way they wanted without the space and, importantly, the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.  For example, it has been mentioned that the Bucs could have unilaterally altered this year's sum to make it more cap-friendly. That is true, but think about what happens next year if that was done.  Also, say they do not take the approach they did this year and keep Revis on at $16 million this year; well, next year the EXACT same situation occurs again. If the Bucs don't win it all this year (2014) they are in the same position all over again, cutting Revis with one more year of rental. So really, what's the value that justifies giving up the picks and the extra money? One year of a fully healthy Revis? That might make sense where the team is on the brink, but Dom could NOT have reasonably thought that to be the case when the deal was done and Dom could not have reasonably thought Revis would voluntarily renegotiate, so cutting him had to be part of the plan if things did not go well.Unless I misunderstand something about the contract, the part in bold is the issue (the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.).  As I appreciate the contract, it was ALWAYS a rental, just a series of one year rentals. There was a way to make the contract more cap friendly BUT only with the understanding that you would be taking a HUGE cap hit the very next year (these were essentially one year deals, not a 5 year contract, right?).  So, the point is cutting Revis at some point (because he was not going to renegotiate) had to always be in the cards.  As someone said above, knowing what we know now, Dom should've walked away. More and more, the Revis deal is looking like a Dom Hail Mary play, either to save his job or because he seemed to think that "big names" were the key.(btw, there was an impact on our salary cap - we gained $16 million by cutting him, right?)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Here's the thing though - we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      That is a fair point BUT there really was "deadline" and we really had to because: a) these guys couldn't build the team the way they wanted without the space and, importantly, the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.  For example, it has been mentioned that the Bucs could have unilaterally altered this year's sum to make it more cap-friendly. That is true, but think about what happens next year if that was done.  Also, say they do not take the approach they did this year and keep Revis on at $16 million this year; well, next year the EXACT same situation occurs again. If the Bucs don't win it all this year (2014) they are in the same position all over again, cutting Revis with one more year of rental. So really, what's the value that justifies giving up the picks and the extra money? One year of a fully healthy Revis? That might make sense where the team is on the brink, but Dom could NOT have reasonably thought that to be the case when the deal was done and Dom could not have reasonably thought Revis would voluntarily renegotiate, so cutting him had to be part of the plan if things did not go well.Unless I misunderstand something about the contract, the part in bold is the issue (the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.).  As I appreciate the contract, it was ALWAYS a rental, just a series of one year rentals. There was a way to make the contract more cap friendly BUT only with the understanding that you would be taking a HUGE cap hit the very next year (these were essentially one year deals, not a 5 year contract, right?).  So, the point is cutting Revis at some point (because he was not going to renegotiate) had to always be in the cards.  As someone said above, knowing what we know now, Dom should've walked away. More and more, the Revis deal is looking like a Dom Hail Mary play, either to save his job or because he seemed to think that "big names" were the key.(btw, there was an impact on our salary cap - we gained $16 million by cutting him, right?)

      I'm not saying I actually wanted to keep him another year either.  But the option should've been held on the table simply to give us a bit more leverage in trying to trade the guy.  I have no doubt they tried to trade him for a while.  But if you're a decent GM on another team, you see this deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment, and if you want Revis, the smart money is to wait it out.  Call our bluff to see if we'll release him - and allow you to go after him for nothing - or if he stays on the roster.  While I agree, one more year renting Darrell Revis makes no sense for this team, if you're New England and you just lost Talib, how long do you want to wait for us to decide we've finally had enough?  Are you willing to wait until the Draft?  Until Training Camp?  Until the trade deadline in the fall?  If you're Cleveland and you've let the idea of pairing him with Joe Haden marinate a bit more, and maybe the QB you wanted in the draft fell to you and suddenly you think your team can make a run, is he suddenly worth it for that shot?  At some point you'll say, fine, its worth it to us for AT LEAST a 5th round conditional pick or SOMETHING.  But you aren't going to get to that point until you first call the Bucs bluff.  The problem is we didn't even try to bluff.  We took our best asset and just let it go for nothing at the first opportunity.  That, to me at least, wasn't a Dominik mistake.  It was Licht mistake.  (Although I will say that signing Verner for as cheaply as they did almost cancels Licht's mistake out).

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Here's the thing though - we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      That is a fair point BUT there really was "deadline" and we really had to because: a) these guys couldn't build the team the way they wanted without the space and, importantly, the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.  For example, it has been mentioned that the Bucs could have unilaterally altered this year's sum to make it more cap-friendly. That is true, but think about what happens next year if that was done.  Also, say they do not take the approach they did this year and keep Revis on at $16 million this year; well, next year the EXACT same situation occurs again. If the Bucs don't win it all this year (2014) they are in the same position all over again, cutting Revis with one more year of rental. So really, what's the value that justifies giving up the picks and the extra money? One year of a fully healthy Revis? That might make sense where the team is on the brink, but Dom could NOT have reasonably thought that to be the case when the deal was done and Dom could not have reasonably thought Revis would voluntarily renegotiate, so cutting him had to be part of the plan if things did not go well.Unless I misunderstand something about the contract, the part in bold is the issue (the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.).  As I appreciate the contract, it was ALWAYS a rental, just a series of one year rentals. There was a way to make the contract more cap friendly BUT only with the understanding that you would be taking a HUGE cap hit the very next year (these were essentially one year deals, not a 5 year contract, right?).  So, the point is cutting Revis at some point (because he was not going to renegotiate) had to always be in the cards.  As someone said above, knowing what we know now, Dom should've walked away. More and more, the Revis deal is looking like a Dom Hail Mary play, either to save his job or because he seemed to think that "big names" were the key.(btw, there was an impact on our salary cap - we gained $16 million by cutting him, right?)

      I'm not saying I actually wanted to keep him another year either.  But the option should've been held on the table simply to give us a bit more leverage in trying to trade the guy.  I have no doubt they tried to trade him for a while.  But if you're a decent GM on another team, you see this deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment, and if you want Revis, the smart money is to wait it out.  . .  . . ..  We took our best asset and just let it go for nothing at the first opportunity.  That, to me at least, wasn't a Dominik mistake.  It was Licht mistake. 

      aren't those two comments (in bold) inconsistent with each other? on the one hand, the well known structure of the contract ("deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment") is the reason any "decent GM"  would NOT trade for Revis . . . but ,on the other hand, letting Revis go "for nothing" is NOT Dom's mistake?  Here, this might help . . .  describe the scenario where Licht ever gets anything for Revis? I guess one scenario would be that the market catches up to Revis' salary, but other than that how was Licht ever really going to get anything for Revis? I can answer that one -There was no way Licht was ever going to get anything for Revis (let alone recoup the 1st and 4th) and that was because Revis was OVERPAID and WOULD NEVER RENEGOTIATE and was ON A SERIES OF ONE YEAR DEALS . . . .right? Those circumstances are not on Licht, they are on Dom, right?  LIcht just did what Dom would've had to do eventually too, just sooner.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Here's the thing though - we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      That is a fair point BUT there really was "deadline" and we really had to because: a) these guys couldn't build the team the way they wanted without the space and, importantly, the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.  For example, it has been mentioned that the Bucs could have unilaterally altered this year's sum to make it more cap-friendly. That is true, but think about what happens next year if that was done.  Also, say they do not take the approach they did this year and keep Revis on at $16 million this year; well, next year the EXACT same situation occurs again. If the Bucs don't win it all this year (2014) they are in the same position all over again, cutting Revis with one more year of rental. So really, what's the value that justifies giving up the picks and the extra money? One year of a fully healthy Revis? That might make sense where the team is on the brink, but Dom could NOT have reasonably thought that to be the case when the deal was done and Dom could not have reasonably thought Revis would voluntarily renegotiate, so cutting him had to be part of the plan if things did not go well.Unless I misunderstand something about the contract, the part in bold is the issue (the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.).  As I appreciate the contract, it was ALWAYS a rental, just a series of one year rentals. There was a way to make the contract more cap friendly BUT only with the understanding that you would be taking a HUGE cap hit the very next year (these were essentially one year deals, not a 5 year contract, right?).  So, the point is cutting Revis at some point (because he was not going to renegotiate) had to always be in the cards.  As someone said above, knowing what we know now, Dom should've walked away. More and more, the Revis deal is looking like a Dom Hail Mary play, either to save his job or because he seemed to think that "big names" were the key.(btw, there was an impact on our salary cap - we gained $16 million by cutting him, right?)

      I'm not saying I actually wanted to keep him another year either.  But the option should've been held on the table simply to give us a bit more leverage in trying to trade the guy.  I have no doubt they tried to trade him for a while.  But if you're a decent GM on another team, you see this deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment, and if you want Revis, the smart money is to wait it out.  . .  . . ..  We took our best asset and just let it go for nothing at the first opportunity.  That, to me at least, wasn't a Dominik mistake.  It was Licht mistake. 

      aren't those two comments (in bold) inconsistent with each other? on the one hand, the well known structure of the contract ("deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment") is the reason any "decent GM"  would NOT trade for Revis . . . but ,on the other hand, letting Revis go "for nothing" is NOT Dom's mistake?  Here, this might help . . .  describe the scenario where Licht ever gets anything for Revis? I guess one scenario would be that the market catches up to Revis' salary, but other than that how was Licht ever really going to get anything for Revis? I can answer that one -There was no way Licht was ever going to get anything for Revis (let alone recoup the 1st and 4th) and that was because Revis was OVERPAID and WOULD NEVER RENEGOTIATE and was ON A SERIES OF ONE YEAR DEALS . . . .right? Those circumstances are not on Licht, they are on Dom, right?  LIcht just did what Dom would've had to do eventually too, just sooner.

      The difference is in what you think the reason we couldn't/didn't/wouldn't trade Revis is.  You are assuming the salary was the main sticking point.  That with a lower salary, we would've gotten rid of Revis no problem.  That is probably true.  But it also holds aside the fact that anyone and their Mom could see we had a $1.5 million bonus payment and the difference between a 3rd and 4th rounder on the 3rd day of the league year.  Even if you are comfortable with the $16 mln/yr salary, why would you go in on anything at this point if you think the Bucs are going to release Revis for nothing?  At a certain point its not as much about the salary as it is about the additional compensation you have to give up.This isn't a perfect analogy, but If I'm selling an old vintage car to you.  Its a car you love.  And you know I'm doing it because I need money.  Say my kids college tuition is due on April 1st and you know this.  You're impression is that you are going to get that car cheaper from me before April 1st because, in your mind I NEED to get rid of it.  Especially if I've said so approaching that date.  While you might be willing to spend $100k on the car, if you know you can get it for 50k because I have to fire sale it, then you aren't going to say you'll give 100k.  But if suddenly April 1st passes, and I still have that car and found a way to pay that tuition using other means, knowing it wasn't worth it to just give the car away, and maybe I can get more from you if I hold on to it, suddenly I have leverage back.  I might still sell you the car, but you now don't know when.  You might now be willing to cough up more, closer to your 100k budget, just to make sure you get the car, because, look, the longer you don't have it and I do, the chances of you one day getting it drop.The Pats and every other team knew that Revis' value was at its cheapest prior to March 12th.  Why trade a pick and deal with that $16 million salary when you have an inkling you might be able to sign him for $12 million without giving up a pick?  If March 12th suddenly passes however, the price has gone up.  That reasoning is now gone, and maybe you have to think more seriously about getting what you want at a higher price.  You thought you could do it for no picks and $12 million, but the Bucs called your bluff, and now suddenly you are faced with the uncertainty of not getting your man.  So you decide, you know what, an extra $4 million over what we were going to pay and a conditional pick is worth it to me. Its honestly negotiating 101 - the longer the uncertainty about you getting the product you want is there the more you are willing to pay to get it.  Of course $16 million is untradeable before March 12th, because everyone expects that the player is getting released anyways (probably even before the media caught wind).  But I argue $16 million would've been very tradeable had that date passed and suddenly teams who wanted Revis enough to sign him within 3 hours of his release would at least SERIOUSLY contemplate eating that $16 million and sending a pick our way.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Here's the thing though - we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      That is a fair point BUT there really was "deadline" and we really had to because: a) these guys couldn't build the team the way they wanted without the space and, importantly, the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.  For example, it has been mentioned that the Bucs could have unilaterally altered this year's sum to make it more cap-friendly. That is true, but think about what happens next year if that was done.  Also, say they do not take the approach they did this year and keep Revis on at $16 million this year; well, next year the EXACT same situation occurs again. If the Bucs don't win it all this year (2014) they are in the same position all over again, cutting Revis with one more year of rental. So really, what's the value that justifies giving up the picks and the extra money? One year of a fully healthy Revis? That might make sense where the team is on the brink, but Dom could NOT have reasonably thought that to be the case when the deal was done and Dom could not have reasonably thought Revis would voluntarily renegotiate, so cutting him had to be part of the plan if things did not go well.Unless I misunderstand something about the contract, the part in bold is the issue (the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.).  As I appreciate the contract, it was ALWAYS a rental, just a series of one year rentals. There was a way to make the contract more cap friendly BUT only with the understanding that you would be taking a HUGE cap hit the very next year (these were essentially one year deals, not a 5 year contract, right?).  So, the point is cutting Revis at some point (because he was not going to renegotiate) had to always be in the cards.  As someone said above, knowing what we know now, Dom should've walked away. More and more, the Revis deal is looking like a Dom Hail Mary play, either to save his job or because he seemed to think that "big names" were the key.(btw, there was an impact on our salary cap - we gained $16 million by cutting him, right?)

      I'm not saying I actually wanted to keep him another year either.  But the option should've been held on the table simply to give us a bit more leverage in trying to trade the guy.  I have no doubt they tried to trade him for a while.  But if you're a decent GM on another team, you see this deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment, and if you want Revis, the smart money is to wait it out.  . .  . . ..  We took our best asset and just let it go for nothing at the first opportunity.  That, to me at least, wasn't a Dominik mistake.  It was Licht mistake. 

      aren't those two comments (in bold) inconsistent with each other? on the one hand, the well known structure of the contract ("deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment") is the reason any "decent GM"  would NOT trade for Revis . . . but ,on the other hand, letting Revis go "for nothing" is NOT Dom's mistake?  Here, this might help . . .  describe the scenario where Licht ever gets anything for Revis? I guess one scenario would be that the market catches up to Revis' salary, but other than that how was Licht ever really going to get anything for Revis? I can answer that one -There was no way Licht was ever going to get anything for Revis (let alone recoup the 1st and 4th) and that was because Revis was OVERPAID and WOULD NEVER RENEGOTIATE and was ON A SERIES OF ONE YEAR DEALS . . . .right? Those circumstances are not on Licht, they are on Dom, right?  LIcht just did what Dom would've had to do eventually too, just sooner.

      The difference is in what you think the reason we couldn't/didn't/wouldn't trade Revis is.  You are assuming the salary was the main sticking point.  That with a lower salary, we would've gotten rid of Revis no problem.  That is probably true.  But it also holds aside the fact that anyone and their Mom could see we had a $1.5 million bonus payment and the difference between a 3rd and 4th rounder on the 3rd day of the league year.  Even if you are comfortable with the $16 mln/yr salary, why would you go in on anything at this point if you think the Bucs are going to release Revis for nothing?  At a certain point its not as much about the salary as it is about the additional compensation you have to give up. . . . But I argue $16 million would've been very tradeable had that date passed and suddenly teams who wanted Revis enough to sign him within 3 hours of his release would at least SERIOUSLY contemplate eating that $16 million and sending a pick our way.

      Jay, a couple closing thoughts:1. whether its salary or any other factor they are all CONTRACT factors.  Nearly everyone would want Revis the player, BUT the contract was the issue, no matter how you dissect it. .AND . .  Dom created the contract.2. "sending a pick our way " --- LOL, all evidence to the contrary, but since you said it what type of pick?  You realize that any team that traded fOR Revis was essentially getting him for one year if things do not work out.  That was the flaw in the contract. But putting that aside for a second, if your theory is right, then Oakland or Cleveland or any other team where Revis ("I just want to win") wouldn't go voluntarily would have actually traded for him, right? If your theory is right, those are precisely the types of teams that would "at least SERIOUSLY contemplate eating that $16 million and sending a pick our way" . . . . and yet . . .  NONE OF THEM DID.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      Revis was signed to a $12 mln contract within 3 hours of his release and supposedly had another 25 teams interested in him.  You claim the contract is untradeable, but in reality, letting it known that we would release Revis by a certain date if not traded was what made him untradeable.  it had nothing to do with the contract at that point - why trade ANYTHING for a player you know is about to hit the open market?

      for the same reason we had to trade for him, 20 of those 26 teams had no realistic chance of signing him on the free market.

      I'd say any team that was willing to pay $4 Million a year more than the second highest bidder had not only a realistic chance of signing him, but a 100% chance of signing him.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Here's the thing though - we cut him this season with absolutely no impact on our salary cap.  None.  Ziltch.  For as bad as the contract is you all say, it has no impact on our cap moving forward.  Would you have wanted him to make $4 million less per season but then have $4 million of dead cap space in each of the next 3-4 seasons?  We weren't using that cap space on anyone else last year.  And we didn't HAVE to get rid of it this year.  At least not this minute.  Lovie and Licht made a business decision in their own best interests.  I'm cool with that.  Absolutely cool with spreading that $$ around to other areas if that's how they want to build their team.  Especially with how cheaply we got Verner.  What I'm not cool with however is just throwing away Revis for nothing when we didn't HAVE to.  There was no deadline to get rid of Revis except our own self-imposed one.  One that I don't think was worth a round in the draft and $1.5 million.  That's what it would've cost to slow play our hand a bit longer....

      That is a fair point BUT there really was "deadline" and we really had to because: a) these guys couldn't build the team the way they wanted without the space and, importantly, the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.  For example, it has been mentioned that the Bucs could have unilaterally altered this year's sum to make it more cap-friendly. That is true, but think about what happens next year if that was done.  Also, say they do not take the approach they did this year and keep Revis on at $16 million this year; well, next year the EXACT same situation occurs again. If the Bucs don't win it all this year (2014) they are in the same position all over again, cutting Revis with one more year of rental. So really, what's the value that justifies giving up the picks and the extra money? One year of a fully healthy Revis? That might make sense where the team is on the brink, but Dom could NOT have reasonably thought that to be the case when the deal was done and Dom could not have reasonably thought Revis would voluntarily renegotiate, so cutting him had to be part of the plan if things did not go well.Unless I misunderstand something about the contract, the part in bold is the issue (the structure of the contract was such that the end was coming one way or another.).  As I appreciate the contract, it was ALWAYS a rental, just a series of one year rentals. There was a way to make the contract more cap friendly BUT only with the understanding that you would be taking a HUGE cap hit the very next year (these were essentially one year deals, not a 5 year contract, right?).  So, the point is cutting Revis at some point (because he was not going to renegotiate) had to always be in the cards.  As someone said above, knowing what we know now, Dom should've walked away. More and more, the Revis deal is looking like a Dom Hail Mary play, either to save his job or because he seemed to think that "big names" were the key.(btw, there was an impact on our salary cap - we gained $16 million by cutting him, right?)

      I'm not saying I actually wanted to keep him another year either.  But the option should've been held on the table simply to give us a bit more leverage in trying to trade the guy.  I have no doubt they tried to trade him for a while.  But if you're a decent GM on another team, you see this deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment, and if you want Revis, the smart money is to wait it out.  . .  . . ..  We took our best asset and just let it go for nothing at the first opportunity.  That, to me at least, wasn't a Dominik mistake.  It was Licht mistake. 

      aren't those two comments (in bold) inconsistent with each other? on the one hand, the well known structure of the contract ("deadline of draft picks and a bonus payment") is the reason any "decent GM"  would NOT trade for Revis . . . but ,on the other hand, letting Revis go "for nothing" is NOT Dom's mistake?  Here, this might help . . .  describe the scenario where Licht ever gets anything for Revis? I guess one scenario would be that the market catches up to Revis' salary, but other than that how was Licht ever really going to get anything for Revis? I can answer that one -There was no way Licht was ever going to get anything for Revis (let alone recoup the 1st and 4th) and that was because Revis was OVERPAID and WOULD NEVER RENEGOTIATE and was ON A SERIES OF ONE YEAR DEALS . . . .right? Those circumstances are not on Licht, they are on Dom, right?  LIcht just did what Dom would've had to do eventually too, just sooner.

      The difference is in what you think the reason we couldn't/didn't/wouldn't trade Revis is.  You are assuming the salary was the main sticking point.  That with a lower salary, we would've gotten rid of Revis no problem.  That is probably true.  But it also holds aside the fact that anyone and their Mom could see we had a $1.5 million bonus payment and the difference between a 3rd and 4th rounder on the 3rd day of the league year.  Even if you are comfortable with the $16 mln/yr salary, why would you go in on anything at this point if you think the Bucs are going to release Revis for nothing?  At a certain point its not as much about the salary as it is about the additional compensation you have to give up. . . . But I argue $16 million would've been very tradeable had that date passed and suddenly teams who wanted Revis enough to sign him within 3 hours of his release would at least SERIOUSLY contemplate eating that $16 million and sending a pick our way.

      Jay, a couple closing thoughts:1. whether its salary or any other factor they are all CONTRACT factors.  Nearly everyone would want Revis the player, BUT the contract was the issue, no matter how you dissect it. .AND . .  Dom created the contract.2. "sending a pick our way " --- LOL, all evidence to the contrary, but since you said it what type of pick?  You realize that any team that traded fOR Revis was essentially getting him for one year if things do not work out.  That was the flaw in the contract. But putting that aside for a second, if your theory is right, then Oakland or Cleveland or any other team where Revis ("I just want to win") wouldn't go voluntarily would have actually traded for him, right? If your theory is right, those are precisely the types of teams that would "at least SERIOUSLY contemplate eating that $16 million and sending a pick our way" . . . . and yet . . .  NONE OF THEM DID.

      But why would they if they think they can get him without surrendering a pick?  If its made obvious he's getting released then why pay for anything?  To make sure you get him, maybe those teams didn't want him enough.  But New England certainly did.  And they basically have a one year rental going with the way the salary is structured with upwards of a $20 million cap hit in year 2.  if New England is willing to structure the contract like that, are you really THAT certain they wouldn't have coughed up a pick had we held out for longer?  The difference between $16 million and $12 million isn't really that much for a team who thinks this move puts them over the top.  Especially if it also means they have the player for cheaper next year.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      And to add – who is to say that those other teams didn’t offer more than New England.  New England structured the contract in that way for a reason.  Its basically $12 million this year, and $20 million, if he stays on, next year.  Pretty much the same amount of $ he would make in 2 years on the contract here.  We don’t know the other offers, but for New England to do it that way it means there were definitely others in that ball park, if not moreso.  And Revis and his agent/business manager have proven themselves smart enough in their history to keep every one of those teams on the hook to maximize his contract.  Each team putting in an offer probably thought they had a realistic shot at landing the guy without having to trade for him.  That, I would argue, is why he had no trade value before March 12th.  Because no one believed the Bucs would keep him past that date and the all-in price would drop.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      And to add - who is to say that those other teams didn't offer more than New England.  New England structured the contract in that way for a reason.  Its basically $12 million this year, and $20 million, if he stays on, next year.  Pretty much the same amount of $ he would make in 2 years on the contract here.  We don't know the other offers, but for New England to do it that way it means there were definitely others in that ball park, if not moreso.  And Revis and his agent/business manager have proven themselves smart enough in their history to keep every one of those teams on the hook to maximize his contract.  Each team putting in an offer probably thought they had a realistic shot at landing the guy without having to trade for him.  That, I would argue, is why he had no trade value before March 12th.  Because no one believed the Bucs would keep him past that date and the all-in price would drop.

      There were no reports of interest of any other team than the Bucs last season and the Bucs ended up supplying two picks to the Jets and $16million to Revis. So it's pretty apparent that the rest of the league thought it too expensive to even consider bringing Revis in which, in part, may have had something to do with the fact that he was injured. There were reports of interest this season when the word got out that he was available but no team decided to make a deal of any kind for the right to pay Revis $16 million. There were reports that teams wanted to restructure Revis in order to trade for him which he was unwilling to do apparently. Had the Bucs paid the bonus due a week or so ago it is pretty unlikely that changes anything. The Jets got away with it last season because they apparently knew they had Dominik on the hook for whatever reason. Revis' current deal with the Patriots is a one year $12million deal. The option is there to prevent the Pats from franchising him next year as the option is more than the franchise tag. There is no way that option is exercised as it would result in a $25mil cap hit to the Pats for one player.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      [Its honestly negotiating 101 - the longer the uncertainty about you getting the product you want is there the more you are willing to pay to get it.  Of course $16 million is untradeable before March 12th, because everyone expects that the player is getting released anyways (probably even before the media caught wind).  But I argue $16 million would've been very tradeable had that date passed and suddenly teams who wanted Revis enough to sign him within 3 hours of his release would at least SERIOUSLY contemplate eating that $16 million and sending a pick our way.

      So you honestly believe that the Browns thought they were going to get Revis for something under $16mil per year by waiting out the Bucs? The move to the Pats was so telegraphed that even a marginal football fan could have figure this one out. Even knowing this situation, no team was willing to give anything up for Revis. The other teams did what Dominik should have done last year and walked away when the price didn't go down.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      I don’t hold stock in “media” reports as much as you do ryan24.  Darrell Revis was available last year and that is the type of player that more than one team is always going to be interested in.  Dominik may very well be dumb, but I’m also not going to hold that fact that only “one” team was reportedly interested by media sources.  Remember Favre?  The Bucs were the one team interested according to the media - that is until Minnesota signed him.  The media knows things when teams, players, and/or agents want them to know.  Not the other way around.All I'm saying is we cashed out when Revis' value was at the lowest.  To me, he's the type of player worth holding onto as long as possible if you are getting rid of him to see if you can get something in return.  If that meant giving up a 3rd rounder for a 4th and $1.5 mill then so be it.  I think we could've gotten something for him - a first ballot hall of famer still in his prime.  In my opinion, the contract was not the issue, the deadline was.  And back to the original point, THAT decision not to maximize value is not on Dominik.  It is on Licht.  Licht made the decision to part ways without maximizing his value, and he owns that decision.  And like I said, at least he signed Verner to a VERY reasonable contract to at least make up for it.  It doesn't take away the fact we let go of one of the best players in the league for nothing, but it does blunt it quite a bit.  Hate Dominik all you want, he made some terrible decisions in his own right, but he can not be blamed for giving up Revis for nothing.  That is on Licht.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      And to your other point – I think it is very easy for any team to believe they have a chance at a player.  It’s the agents job to do that.  You saw what Emmanuel Sanders’ agent did with shopping an actual contract offer around after apparently accepting it.  The controversy was that he accepted it then shopped it – it would’ve been nothing if he had just shopped things around.  That’s how these ridiculous contracts get signed in the first place.As far as Revis, of course his agent made every team in the league who was interested feel like they had a chance."Hey Cleveland - Darrell is very intrigued by the idea of pairing with another shutdown corner in Joe Haden.  He thinks this could form a dominant defensive backfield and be a legitimate contender. He also likes the pieces on offense in Josh Gordon and Jordan Cameron.  And you're in position to draft a top QB.  Darrell is enthusiastic about those possibilities.  Plus he's from western PA and played his college ball at Pitt.  This is almost like returning home.  Our starting point is 12 million a year once the Bucs release - And they will - what can you do?""Hey Oakland - Darrell loves the idea of moving out to the West Coast.  He thinks the Raiders have a strong fan base and would love to be a part of Raider Nation.  Our starting point is 12 million a year once the Bucs release him, and they will, what can you do?"And so on and so on.  Its the agents business to blow as much smoke up general managers rears as he can.  The higher the demand the higher the compensation.Also - if Revis wanted to choose his own location and pick his own team, then FA was, in fact, the only way he could do that.  Even proving moreso that his agent would do everything in his power to tell every team within hearing distance that Darrell would be open to signing with them in the event of a release.  That lowers the chances of a trade even more and allows Revis to go where he wants, which ended up being N.E.  Any team which doesn't think Revis is interested via the FA route is higher potential trade partner.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      In my opinion, the contract was not the issue, the deadline was. 

      Of course the contract was the issue. That's why, on the open market, Revis got $4 million less than his contract with the Bucs, which is still significantly higher than any other CB in the league.  And given Revis being Revis, you can take it to the bank that if another team had offered him $12.1 million, he wouldn't be a Patriot.I think it's a good point, though, that the Bucs could have shown they were committed to keeping Revis, and thus increasing their bargaining strength, by paying the $1.5 million (which would at least make the first year of his contract $1.5 million better for a trading team).  That's what the Jets did, which bolstered Idzik's stance that he didn't have to trade Revis, and probably got Dominik to increase his trade offer.  The real question to me, though, is whether the Bucs could have convinced a team to give a (high) 3rd in exchange for Revis and a (high) 4th if they let the deadline pass.  That's the break even point, and they obviously felt it wasn't worth the risk.  Hard to second-guess that on the outside and given that I've liked the other savvy moves Licht has made (how in the world the Bucs convinced Verner and EDS to sign those below-market contracts), he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The real question to me, though, is whether the Bucs could have convinced a team to give a (high) 3rd in exchange for Revis and a (high) 4th if they let the deadline pass.  That's the break even point, and they obviously felt it wasn't worth the risk.  Hard to second-guess that on the outside and given that I've liked the other savvy moves Licht has made (how in the world the Bucs convinced Verner and EDS to sign those below-market contracts), he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

      The reason no one would give picks is because its essentially a ONE YEAR deal. Good for the team that Revis could be cut, but not worth giving up picks because the only way you keep him is to pay well over the market. The scenario you are describing is a team giving up a (high)4th or higher for paying Revis $14.5 million in 2014 and the $16 million in 2015 and so on. The Patriots only gave the guy $12 million FOR ONE YEAR  and gave up NO PICKS for the honor and privilege of paying the guy $12 million . ..  Talib got $12 million guaranteed (again, no picks). .  that tells you a little bit about the maket. . . .  nobody was giving up any picks up for Revis (or any of these guys) because they are all essentially on ONE YEAR deals

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 385

      The real question to me, though, is whether the Bucs could have convinced a team to give a (high) 3rd in exchange for Revis and a (high) 4th if they let the deadline pass.  That's the break even point, and they obviously felt it wasn't worth the risk.  Hard to second-guess that on the outside and given that I've liked the other savvy moves Licht has made (how in the world the Bucs convinced Verner and EDS to sign those below-market contracts), he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

      The reason no one would give picks is because its essentially a ONE YEAR deal. Good for the team that Revis could be cut, but not worth giving up picks because the only way you keep him is to pay well over the market. The scenario you are describing is a team giving up a (high)4th or higher for paying Revis $14.5 million in 2014 and the $16 million in 2015 and so on. The Patriots only gave the guy $12 million FOR ONE YEAR  and gave up NO PICKS for the honor and privilege of paying the guy $12 million . ..  Talib got $12 million guaranteed (again, no picks). .  that tells you a little bit about the maket. . . .  nobody was giving up any picks up for Revis (or any of these guys) because they are all essentially on ONE YEAR deals

      Yeah, I had thought that Revis would agree to restructure if he liked the team - but based on his contract with the Patriots, looks like that is a pipe dream.Yep, all in all, I think Licht did what he could and, strange as it is to say, I like the Bucs better without Revis.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2000

      [Yeah, I had thought that Revis would agree to restructure if he liked the team - but based on his contract with the Patriots, looks like that is a pipe dream.Yep, all in all, I think Licht did what he could and, strange as it is to say, I like the Bucs better without Revis.

      When the deal was made, I thought that the deal "really" was a $16mil first year payment with an agreement to restructure after a year. As time went on, it began to dawn on me and a few others that a restructure was pretty difficult and would never happened. While I wasn't thrilled with the deal in the first place and thought that Dominik spent entirely too much time on one player, the restructure aspect of it made it seem better than the abomination I feel it was.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1110

      The reason no one would give picks is because its essentially a ONE YEAR deal. Good for the team that Revis could be cut, but not worth giving up picks because the only way you keep him is to pay well over the market. The scenario you are describing is a team giving up a (high)4th or higher for paying Revis $14.5 million in 2014 and the $16 million in 2015 and so on. The Patriots only gave the guy $12 million FOR ONE YEAR  and gave up NO PICKS for the honor and privilege of paying the guy $12 million . ..  Talib got $12 million guaranteed (again, no picks). .  that tells you a little bit about the maket. . . .  nobody was giving up any picks up for Revis (or any of these guys) because they are all essentially on ONE YEAR deals

      Vin, I admit I'm ignorant on many things cap-wise. Keep that in mind,but I just don't get these were "one year deals".  Sure, maybe, 2, 3, or even 4 million more than the market this season, but I don't believe for a minute that the contract called for Revis to be released.  I believe as SR stated, he was here to be a pro-bowl player for 3 or 4 years.  And it wasn't Mark D.'s job to write a contract that enabled Revis to be traded by a successive regime.  He was here to play.  I also believe the previous regime would have let Penn go too.  They already parted ways with Freeman, and they could have let Nicks go as well.  I don't think salary cap wise they would have had to touch Revis' contract.  They would have been able to sign FA's as well.  They probably could have signed Johnson or Verner, but maybe not both.  Ok.If Revis does in fact make more pro-bowls, then Lovie better hit a home run with most of his selections in FA or he will be the one who made one of the worst decisions in Buc history, not Mark D.  Again, I was against the Revis deal a year ago for reasons of injury risk, draft picks, and cap cost.  But once the deal is done,  and he heals up, and you've got him, I would have kept him and left the contract alone.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      [Yeah, I had thought that Revis would agree to restructure if he liked the team - but based on his contract with the Patriots, looks like that is a pipe dream.Yep, all in all, I think Licht did what he could and, strange as it is to say, I like the Bucs better without Revis.

      When the deal was made, I thought that the deal "really" was a $16mil first year payment with an agreement to restructure after a year. As time went on, it began to dawn on me and a few others that a restructure was pretty difficult and would never happened. While I wasn't thrilled with the deal in the first place and thought that Dominik spent entirely too much time on one player, the restructure aspect of it made it seem better than the abomination I feel it was.

      +1

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 173

      Honestly folks, this is probably my favorite thread this offseason. Really good stuff.Jay, I kind of see where you're coming from about how we needed to bluff a little. But the fact remains that even if that's our play, what do we get on the other side of that deadline? A 5th? Later? Definitely not the 3rd that you'll lose THIS year, and certainly nothing approaching the picks invested in him. What about the free agents we went after with the Revis money? I'd wager a few of them might have found greener pastures long before that deadline had passed - all while we had $16 mil in cap space tied up in a guy we obviously didn't want anymore.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The reason no one would give picks is because its essentially a ONE YEAR deal. Good for the team that Revis could be cut, but not worth giving up picks because the only way you keep him is to pay well over the market. The scenario you are describing is a team giving up a (high)4th or higher for paying Revis $14.5 million in 2014 and the $16 million in 2015 and so on. The Patriots only gave the guy $12 million FOR ONE YEAR  and gave up NO PICKS for the honor and privilege of paying the guy $12 million . ..  Talib got $12 million guaranteed (again, no picks). .  that tells you a little bit about the maket. . . .  nobody was giving up any picks up for Revis (or any of these guys) because they are all essentially on ONE YEAR deals

      Vin, I admit I'm ignorant on many things cap-wise. Keep that in mind,but I just don't get these were "one year deals".  Sure, maybe, 2, 3, or even 4 million more than the market this season, but I don't believe for a minute that the contract called for Revis to be released.  I believe as SR stated, he was here to be a pro-bowl player for 3 or 4 years.  And it wasn't Mark D.'s job to write a contract that enabled Revis to be traded by a successive regime. 

      To the first part in bold:  $4million more this season and ANY season Revis played for us. The contract did not call for Revis to be released (obviously),  but a release was the ONLY way to get out of the deal if the team wanted. As I explained before, and touch on below, there were scenarios where the Bucs UNDER DOMINIK might want to get out of the deal.To the second part in bold: It was Dominik's job to sign the best contract he could for the Bucs. In this instance, he signed one that tied the hands of HIS regime and any "successive regime" because the deal called for giving up premium picks for a guy that would be untradeable (i.e., to recover picks)  I highlighted this part of your quote - "he was here to be a pro-bowl player for 3 or 4 years" - because it illustrates the point. The contract was drafted based solely on the assumption that Revis would be a "pro-bowl player for 3 or 4 years." The contract was NOT drafted to account for anything less than Revis being a "pro-bowl player for 3 or 4 years".  Keeping in mind that WE GAVE UP PICKS (that is the key point) . . . if Revis did not perform then there was no way in this contract for the Bucs to recover anything.  Let's say, for example, that last year Revis played 100% healthy but even then he was only now an average CB.  In that scenario, the Bucs had NO WAY to recoup any of their investment because no team would trade for his contract and so the only thing the Bucs could do was cut him. Do you see the point?I am okay with saying Dom was aware of that risk and accepted it . . BUT . . . you cant say that and then not hold him accountable when the accepted risk blows up in the teams face. Te new GM and coach did not think REvis was worth the above market deal, particularly in the context of building a new team.  Their hands were completely tied by the contract that Dom signed.  Dom's hands would have bene completely tied too if he was still here and, say, he realized that Revis was a shell of himself (just an example).  Everyone's hands were tied in terms of getting anything back for Revis and that was because of the deal.Last thing, just another way to think of things.  Revis is a great player but he was injured and in a bad situation with the Jets.  In the scenario, the Bucs have at least some leverage and the NORMAL result would be that both the team AND the player get a contract that is less than ideal, each ends up getting something that is a little less than they would want. For example, Revis might typically get a little less than he is worth if healthy, but the contract would probably be incentive laden to account for that. Now look at this deal and ask yourself what di the Bucs get in return for paying Revis way OVER market(not even under market with incentives) If you wonder why Revis would do this deal even when the Bucs were awful and had issues, ask yourself what did Revis give up in entering this deal? Stated differently, what did the Bucs actually get for paying him ABOVE MARKET? The answer is very, very, very little. Revis made a fortune to rhab for a season and he held all the cards because the only way the Bucs keep him is to keep overpaying. .  and if they don't . . .he gets to the open market . . .  beautiful . . for Revis . .  not for the team giving up picks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      Here’s the thing though – the contract and salary did not tie our hands.  I don’t see where that is coming from, at least not for this year.  You really think Brandon Myers, Josh McCown and Oniel Cousins are that necessary of signings that we needed to rush releasing Revis?  Because with $10 million of cap space still, we could’ve signed every one we did, with the exception of these three guys, and still had room for Revis contract.  And that doesn’t include Koenen or Zuttah’s salaries which could (and perhaps should) be released.  You only need $3 million or so of cap space to sign draft picks and you don’t even need that until middle of summer.Look, I get the move if we had a dire cap situation, and say what you want about Dominik's abilities to build a team and identify talent, he left this team in a fantastic position with respect to the cap.  A position where they could afford to pay a Revis the way they did (and were obviously planning to do so).As for trade compensation, yes, holding him would've lost a 3rd round pick, but then you still have a 4th rounder.  So the breakeven really isn't necessarily a high 3rd round pick in replacement, as, in this draft, two picks in the 4th to 5th round range may be even better than one pick in the 3rd round.And to say no team would trade for his contract is just silly.  We only know no team would trade for it before an obvious self-imposed deadline.  We telegraphed releasing Revis, so of course no team would trade for it.  The way things played out, I doubt we would've traded him had he been making 4 million less - no team is going to trade for a player when the agent is on the phone telling them wait, because we're certain he'll get released.  How some of you are just glossing over this fact is beyond me, but, I repeat, the deadline was a bigger reason than the salary with regards to a trade.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Here's the thing though - the contract and salary did not tie our hands. 

      Lol. all evidence to the contrary, right?  Kidding aside, I get your point except I would say it a bit differently:  the"contract and salary" tied our hand TO Revis.  Your point is that we could've kept Revis. I get that part, but would note that even you couched your comment by saying "this year," so I guess you agree that this team could've RENTED Revis for one  more year at $16 million dollars BUT that that leaves them in the same position next year, right? So, your point is if they rent him this year and this year Revis doesn't play worth $16 million or plays well but just isn't worth the $16 million in this defense, then the team cuts him next year, but at least they got some "value" from him this year, right? If that is what you mean, it doesn't address the contract issue that I am discussing, but that said it should be pretty obvious that this GM and this HC don't think that we are a single player away from a Super Bowl, they are rebuilding the entire team, they have a long leash and goodwill right now, so of course they are going to get rid of Revis right now rather than rent him for one more year BUT . .again . . . none of that changes the FACT that the structure of the contract prevents anyone, the current regime or past, from getting any value FOR Revis EVEN THOUGH WE GAVE UP PICKS.  That has been my point all along, the contract signed by Dom did NOT account for not wanting to keep Revis, particularly early on. That is the FLAW and there were scenarios, with Dom here even, where a $16 million player might not have been worth keeping around.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I repeat, the deadline was a bigger reason than the salary with regards to a trade.

      Jay, First, I don't think people are glossing over it, I think that people just don't think the trade efforts started with the Revis leak, right? Second, its the structure of the contract as much (if not more than the salary) that would've prevented someone from giving up PICK. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      “no team is going to trade for a player when the agent is on the phone telling them wait, because we’re certain he’ll get released”I'm not an expert on agent compensation but aren't they paid a set percentage of their client's salary?  If that's so, why would an agent try to undercut a deal which would have kept him getting a % of $16 million in lieu of Revis getting cut and signing elsewhere, resulting in lost compensation for Revis and the agent?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1951

      "no team is going to trade for a player when the agent is on the phone telling them wait, because we're certain he'll get released"I'm not an expert on agent compensation but aren't they paid a set percentage of their client's salary?  If that's so, why would an agent try to undercut a deal which would have kept him getting a % of $16 million in lieu of Revis getting cut and signing elsewhere, resulting in lost compensation for Revis and the agent?

      Because his job is to represent Revis' interests and not his own?

      Please wait…

    • 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…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      "no team is going to trade for a player when the agent is on the phone telling them wait, because we're certain he'll get released"I'm not an expert on agent compensation but aren't they paid a set percentage of their client's salary?  If that's so, why would an agent try to undercut a deal which would have kept him getting a % of $16 million in lieu of Revis getting cut and signing elsewhere, resulting in lost compensation for Revis and the agent?

      Because his job is to represent Revis' interests and not his own?

      Do you think Revis wanted to take a $4 Million pay cut so he could go to a contender?  I suppose it's possible but nothing I've ever read about the guy suggests someone who'd leave that kind of money on the table.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 171

      “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?”Maybe it wasn't a "leak", per se.  Maybe it was either 1. a rumor started by another team who hoped to land Revis  2.  Informed speculation by a journalist, like about 75% of what you read this time of year.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      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.

      Jay, its not more complicated than this:  even assuming Do stays here, what was the plan for the Bucs to get back any of their investment if they wanted to?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9276

      But in actuality there was absolutely no reason to release Revis when they did, and given the demand, I would've love to have seen what bidding war would be going on right now as FA dried up and teams got desperate.

      two little matters of bonus money and a 3rd round pick are definitely reasons to release him....especially when no one was gonna trade for and pay him $16mil/yr

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 690

      http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10675583/chip-kelly-noncommittal-desean-jackson-future-philadelphia-eagles

      ORLANDO, Fla. -- Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly acknowledged that he spoke with wide receiver DeSean Jackson "a couple days ago" regarding swirling reports that Jackson could be traded or released, but when he was peppered by the media at Wednesday's NFL annual meeting, Kelly didn't squash those reports by ensuring Jackson will be with the club in 2014."We've had a good conversation and we're always going to do what's best for the football team," Kelly said. "But I think he knows where we are, and I know where he is. I feel very comfortable about it. My conversations with him aren't things I think I need to have a conversation with anyone else about."Asked if he wants Jackson on the team, Kelly said, "I like DeSean. DeSean did a really nice job for us. But we're always going to do what's best for the organization."

      272b82c92c10ec2d9bde7406edb3077811b29ef205a7c5432a51f77c0665f840.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Hey Jay, I mentioned this earlier, but for what its worth, the “release” info would NEVER have come from the Bucs, it would’ve come from the Revis camp NEAR THE END OF THE PROCESS to prevent a trade (i.e., to sabotage the Bucs).  Here are the Bucs comments on Revis from January 4, 2014:The notion that cornerback Darrelle Revis doesn't fit in Lovie Smith's defense continues to be debunked. Appearing on NFL Network's "NFL GameDay First," NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport said Revis absolutely has a future with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Lovie Smith has big plans for the shut-down corner. The Bucs could get out of Revis' contract, which pays him $16 million this season, but the team has no plans to cut him, according to Rapoport. While the "Tampa 2" is a buzzword term when it comes to defining Smith's defense, the reality is that the coach de-emphasized that scheme towards the end of his nine-year coaching stint with the Chicago Bears. As Rapoport pointed out, Smith utilized mostly man coverage with the Bears -- playing to the strengths of corners Charles Tillman and Tim Jennings -- with Cover 2-zones mixed in mostly in obvious passing situations on long down-and-distances. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000308872/article/lovie-smith-has-big-plans-for-darrelle-revis-in-tampa

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3392

      I thought the “leak” talk was sort of ridiculous. I guess it could have been his agent, but really it was written in the initial reports as if it was pure speculation – i.e., someone who didn’t think the Bucs would be able to move that contract.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      That could be right BR. My point was really that it was not the Bucs.

      Please wait…

Viewing 102 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.