Revis skips start of camp....

[Spider-Dan]

The whole point, I hear, is that he wants to be paid more than Nnamdi Asomugha, who's making over $15 M a year for the Raiders. 

Well, two things on that: 

1 - What corner should make $15 M a year?
2 - Who cares what the Raiders do contractually?  They should be considered the way foreclosures are counted for real estate appraisals.  You only use them if there are no orther comparable sales / transactions.

1 - What person playing a game for a living should be making 1 million a year?  Let's not quibble about who is worth what.

2 - The Raiders are an NFL team, with the full standing of any of the other 31 teams.  Why wouldn't they count?  If the Lions give Matthew Stafford a $40M deal, does it "not count" because they're the Lions?

Asomugha is a CB for an NFL team.  Revis is a CB for an NFL team.  It's a comparable transaction.

I think Revis should not be holding out.  He is under contract.

Why do I never hear this rationale when teams are cutting players?

[Pappy13]

Why do I never hear this rationale when teams are cutting players?

Because cut players have already received their guaranteed money.  Everyone knows that the dollar amount you put on a contract is meaningless, the only important thing is the guaranteed dollar amount.

[Spider-Dan]

And Revis has already received his guaranteed money.

If the money that he would receive in 2011 is conditional on him not holding out (a right that has been negotiated for in collective bargaining, by the way), it's not actually guaranteed, is it?

For the record, am I to presume that according to you, a holdout is A.O.K. as long as there is no "guaranteed" money remaining?  I mean, since the numbers on a contract are "worthless" if not guaranteed, and all.  (Why should they be worthless if "a contract is a contract"?)

[Phishfan]

Sure he is a piece of shit because he held out to get the security of a 6 year deal, now 3 years in, he doesn't think his contract is fair and holds out again. 

In another article I read this wasn't the case. The holdout when he first signed was because he wanted a five year deal and the team wanted a six year deal. Devil's Advocate in me says maybe he was the one who gave in originally and never liked the deal he signed in the first place.

[Pappy13]

If the money that he would receive in 2011 is conditional on him not holding out (a right that has been negotiated for in collective bargaining, by the way), it's not actually guaranteed, is it?

It's guaranteed if he doesn't break his contract himself.  You don't honestly expect the Jets to honor the contract if HE doesn't do you?  If I understand his contract correctly he's already been paid about $14 million dollars for his first 3 years and he'd be paid another $20 million for his next 3 and all he had to do was show up.  He decided that wasn't good enough.  That's fine with me, but don't expect any sympathy from me.

[JVides]

1 - What person playing a game for a living should be making 1 million a year?  Let's not quibble about who is worth what.

Of course we can quibble!  Quibbling is FUN!

2 - The Raiders are an NFL team, with the full standing of any of the other 31 teams.  Why wouldn't they count?  If the Lions give Matthew Stafford a $40M deal, does it "not count" because they're the Lions?

Clearly, Spider-Dan, I was making a joke at the Raiders' expense.  That was not a serious argument.

Asomugha is a CB for an NFL team.  Revis is a CB for an NFL team.  It's a comparable transaction.
Why do I never hear this rationale when teams are cutting players?

Asomugha received his contract as he was about to become a free agent, when other teams were free to throw as much money as they pleased his way.  Revis is not a free agent, and will not be one for 3 more years.  There are no other markets competing with New York for his services.  That fact alone makes this an uncomparable transaction.  He is still under contract.  The reason you won't hear me complain when management cuts a player is because NFL contracts (it's fair to assume) stipulate that management has the right to terminate the contract, whereas players do not have the right to terminate their contracts.  The Jets have the contractual right; Revis does not.  That's not to say that I agree that players should have to work in this system, but it is a system that they collectively bargained with their owners.  They should abide by the agreements they made, is all.  I am fundamentally opposed to players holding out while under contract.  As Drew Rosenhaus has stated in various iinterviews, he prefers to never go the holdout route, as it's counterproductive and can result in acrimony.

[Spider-Dan]

The reason you won't hear me complain when management cuts a player is because NFL contracts (it's fair to assume) stipulate that management has the right to terminate the contract, whereas players do not have the right to terminate their contracts.  The Jets have the contractual right; Revis does not.  That's not to say that I agree that players should have to work in this system, but it is a system that they collectively bargained with their owners.  They should abide by the agreements they made, is all.  I am fundamentally opposed to players holding out while under contract.

Funny that you take that position.

The right to hold out is something that has been collectively bargained by the players.  There are specific rules that apply to holdouts, including:

 - in order to accrue a season of seniority, a player under contract must report to training camp 30 days before the first NFL game
 - unsigned franchised players and restricted free agents need to play at least six regular season games in order to earn an accrued season towards free agency

Holding out is, in fact, the player's RIGHT, in exactly the same sense that cutting a player is the team's right.

[JVides]

Spider-Dan, Revis is in violation of both of your listed points, or will be soon, right?

-in order to accrue a season of seniority, a player under contract must report to training camp 30 days before the first NFL game...which will take place on September 9.  The Jets play September 13.  Today is August 12.  He's either 3 days past the "contractual right" you cite (The first week 1 game), or he's 1 day away from a violation (the Jets' week one game).

unsigned franchised players and restricted free agents need to play at least six regular season games in order to earn an accrued season towards free agency
Revis is neither unsigned nor restricted, because he's not a free agent.  Therefore, this rule is inapplicable.

Absent more evidence, my position stands.  Revis has no collectively bargained right to the holdout.  Not after August 9th, at any rate (or is it the 13th?).

[fyo]

Absent more evidence, my position stands.  Revis has no collectively bargained right to the holdout.  Not after August 9th, at any rate (or is it the 13th?).

Of course he has. And the repercussions are explicitly defined by the CBA.

It's not entirely unlike a draft pick threatening to sit out a season and reenter the draft instead of signing with the team that picked him. It's the players right to do so, but he cannot sign with another team and the repercussions are defined in the CBA.

[Spider-Dan]

As fyo stated, Revis' position is completely valid.  He has the right to hold out, and (some of) the repercussions will be:

 - He won't get paid his salary
 - He will not accrue a season of seniority
 - He won't accrue a season towards free agency

However, another repercussion is that the Jets WILL NOT be suing Revis for breach of contract (which is what would happen if he was doing something that he's not allowed to; see: Williams, Ricky).  That's because the players' right to hold out is explicitly negotiated for in the collective bargaining agreement.

[JVides]

Again, FYO, a college kid entering the draft is not under contract.  Nor has he signed a contract to abide by the NFL's rules.  Once again, apples and oranges.

Revis has a right to hold out as much as I do to walk out on my job in violation of my employment contract.  There are repercussions to those actions, as you have enumerated, including losing the year you sat out (as in, it does not count as a contract year).  You sat out a season with 3 years left, you still have 3 seasons left, regardless of whether you got paid. 

I'm also fairly certain that the Jets actually COULD sue Revis, if they so chose, for breach of contract, but would not, as they want him back.

Last, I stated that Revis did not have the right to terminate his contract, originally, and that's what I meant to say rather than "no right to a holdout", as I later wrote.  As you (and Spider-Dan) state, he can hold out all he wants (I was wrong to write that he had no right), but there will be repercussions that make doing so, well, really painful.    The difference between team and player is a team has a right to terminate a contract while a player does not.  That's why I don't complain when teams cut players.  Again, personal preference, I do not like the holdout route.

[Spider-Dan]

Again, FYO, a college kid entering the draft is not under contract.  Nor has he signed a contract to abide by the NFL's rules.  Once again, apples and oranges.

Not really.  The collective bargaining agreement applies to college kids entering the draft, whether they sign anything or not; Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams can testify to this.  It's common for employees in a unionized business to be forced to comply with the collectively bargained terms of the union that represents labor (in this case, the players).

Revis has a right to hold out as much as I do to walk out on my job in violation of my employment contract.

I doubt that your job has negotiated tiers of repercussions that provide for specific penalties based on the timing and duration of your holdout.

Your job is not remotely comparable to that of an NFL player.  The closest analogy (if you are in a union) would be your ability to strike, but without the unique talents of an top-tier NFL player (one that's in a position to be worth holding out for), you would simply be terminated... which, it bears mentioning, is an option that the Jets have (dumb as it would be for them).

If you want a better analogy, look at NBA/MLB players.  AFAIK, they do not have provisions for holdouts, because their contracts are guaranteed.

The difference between team and player is a team has a right to terminate a contract while a player does not.  That's why I don't complain when teams cut players.

The player does not have the right to terminate his contract, and he's not terminating his contract.  (If he were, he'd be shopping himself on the open market.)  But he does have the right to hold out, just as the team has the right to terminate his contract.

Why do you begrudge the players for holding out (i.e. "a contract is a contract") but not the teams for not honoring the contracts that they signed?  If anything, the players should be able to terminate their own contracts, just like the teams can.

[Phishfan]

Anything with potential to damage the Jets is good for the Dolphins. Keep holding out Revis and while you are at it start making some derogatory tweets, interviews, etc. about the Jets' management, staff, and players. You have my full support.

[JVides]

Why do you begrudge the players for holding out (i.e. "a contract is a contract") but not the teams for not honoring the contracts that they signed?  If anything, the players should be able to terminate their own contracts, just like the teams can.

Probably because I've read enough contracts to know that the empolyer often / usually has more rights.  It's just the way of the world.  In return for their oversized salaries, NFL players deal with the possibility of being cut at a moment's notice.  Again, nothing against your view.  This is just mine.

[Spider-Dan]

OK, the employer usually has more rights.  But that doesn't explain why you "dislike" holdouts.

Again: why do you have a problem with the players exercising the limited rights that they have?