Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» 2018 Free Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis

Is Kirk Cousins the best free-agent quarterback in recent memory? Should Trumaine Johnson or Malcolm Butler have gotten the larger contract? And what makes a free-agent contract good or bad, anyway?

15 Jun 2010

Under The Cap: Show Revis the Money

by J.I. Halsell

Cornerback Darrelle Revis and the New York Jets are working on a contract extension -- one that Revis has indicated should rival, if not exceed, that of Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha. In 2009, Asomugha signed a three-year extension that would pay him nearly $45.5 million, or $15.2 million per year. The Asomugha deal stands out head and shoulders above the rest of the elite cornerback market, where players like the Eagles' Asante Samuel and the Falcons' Dunta Robinson trail at $9.5 million per year on their respective deals.

Before we discuss a possible contract for Revis, it should be noted that, if the Asomugha extension raised a few eyebrows, then Revis' rookie contract did the same. As the No. 14 overall pick in the 2007 draft, Revis received a contract in which the guaranteed money could escalate from nearly $10.5 million up to $22.5 million, and even as much as $26.5 million. To put $26.5 million guaranteed in perspective, Redskins safety LaRon Landry, the No. 6 overall pick that year, received $17.5 million guaranteed. The No. 3 overall pick, tackle Joe Thomas of the Browns, received $23 million guaranteed.

Revis' rookie deal was structured in a way that practically made it a four-year deal with the Jets having the ability to buy years five and six at a price tag of $15.7 million guaranteed. Due to Revis reaching a playtime threshold of his rookie deal, he will be eligible to pay back the $1.3 million that was advanced to him and void the fifth and sixth years of his contract starting the day after the 2010 Super Bowl. The Jets reserve the right to buy back those years by paying a $100 buyback bonus and guaranteeing Revis' 2011 and 2012 salaries at $15.7 million, with another $4 million of possible salary escalation in 2012 based on Revis' performance. Another interesting aspect of this structure is that, in the event of Revis voiding the final two years, the Jets are prevented from franchising Revis instead of buying back 2011 and 2012.

This contract is by far one of the most unique rookie contracts in the past few years. Under this deal, Revis is scheduled to make $550,000 in 2010, and assuming a Jets buyback, Revis would make a fully guaranteed $4.85 million in 2011. In 2009, Revis was paid a $5.6 million roster bonus in addition to $560,000 in base salary and workout bonus. Revis didn't exactly make peanuts in 2009, and the 30 percent rule threshold calculation isn't prohibitive of a new deal.

As we enter 2010, and the Jets and Revis look to do a deal, it's not absurd to envision Revis getting Asomugha-type money. People get hung up on Asomugha's $15 million average per year. While average per year is an important metric, so is the three-year total, and Revis' three-year total will more than likely equal Asomugha's. Non-quarterbacks with three-year totals in excess of $40 million include Asomugha ($45.5 million), Dallas' DeMarcus Ware ($45 million), Baltimore's Terrell Suggs ($43.4 million), Chicago's Julius Peppers ($42.3 million), and Washington's Albert Haynesworth ($41 million). All of these deals have been signed in the past few years and represent the three-year total market for elite defenders. Moreover, all of these defenders received guarantees equal to or greater than $40 million. So, while Revis may not equal Asomugha's per-year average, Revis should be handsomely compensated similarly by making more than $45 million in the first three years of his new deal.

Posted by: J.I. Halsell on 15 Jun 2010

46 comments, Last at 18 Jun 2010, 6:17am by DeltaWhiskey


by Jerry :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 6:40pm

As always, it's nice to see solid information about the contract. Thanks.

by RJ (not verified) :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:08pm

can someone explain how revis would make less than asomugha per year, but more over 3 years?

by J.I. Halsell :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:30pm

For example, DeMarcus Ware's current deal pays him $45M in the first three years; however, the total new money value of the six new years is $78M for an average per year of $13M/yr. Therefore, Ware is 500K less than Asomugha in 3-Year Total, while being $2M less than him in avg/yr. Accordingly, Revis, in theory, could receive a deal for say $46M in the first three years, but earn $70M over 5 new years at an avg/yr of $14M.

J.I. Halsell
Salary Cap Analyst | "Under the Cap"
Twitter | @SalaryCap101

by RJ (not verified) :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 12:13pm

thanks and nicely explained. from what i understand though the jets are dismissing asomugha's contract as an aberration and their starting point for negotiations is $9.5M/yr and $32.1M/3yr, asante samuel money, the next highest paid cb. revis will no doubt get more, but not likely close to asomugha money. i don't know if i can include links in this comment but i read a great article on revis' contract for those who are interested: http://www.nyjetscap.com/reviscontract.html

by jimbohead :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 1:52pm

It seems like the starting point Revis is using is his current contract, which could pay him $30 million over yrs 5 and 6 (provided the Jets exercise their $100 option). In order for the Jets to give him a contract that's at all worthwhile for him to sign, they'd have to give him a contract that has a three year total of about $40 million, which is Nmandi territory. I just don't see the logic in Revis even considering a deal with a three year total approximately equal to his 2 yr total over years 5-6 (again, assuming the Jets pick up that option, which I suspect they would)

by RJ (not verified) :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 3:20pm

the buyback option would pay him about $21M not $30M

by jimbohead :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 4:53pm

AH! misread $15.7 million number to be per year, not total.

by fek9wnr (not verified) :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:31pm

Imagine a 5-year, $70M contract with $50M over the first 3 years.

by tuluse :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 8:16pm

Big signing bonus, lower salary per year.

by nuk :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:12pm

"The Jets reserve the right to buy back those years by paying a $100 buyback bonus"

That's not right, is it? What's the point of $100?

by J.I. Halsell :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:31pm

The $100 buyback is indeed correct, and is simply a procedural amount to execute the buyback. The core of the buyback isn't the buyback bonus of $100 but instead the guaranteed salaries of $15M.

J.I. Halsell
Salary Cap Analyst | "Under the Cap"
Twitter | @SalaryCap101

by nuk :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 9:02pm

OK. Seems odd, but a lot of lawyer-stuff seems odd.

by Goofy Maloof Turkey (not verified) :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:18pm

Great info, thanks

by Big Johnson :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 7:33pm

that would be a huge mistake if he got paid like asomugha. the raider over priced him and the jets are trying to dodge over pricing revis. if revis gets paid 15.7 million in guaranteed money over 2011 and 2012 then that would put him virtually on par with the second tier cornerbacks in the league. That sounds pretty reasonable

by pouringlizards (not verified) :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 7:22am

It sounds just a little less reasonable when your head coach his consistently and publicly describing you as 'the best cornerback in the league' and has been for about the last year.

Plus, I think that Revis is a first-tier cornerback, no question. His results against the best speak for themselves, even without Ryan's hyperbole.

by Joseph :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 10:13am

Is there any somewhat knowledgeable football fan that would honestly say that Revis isn't, at worst, the 2nd best CB in the NFL (behind Nnamdi)???? I'm a Saints fan--Jabari Greer's stats from this last year are awesome. But--he's not on those 2 guys' level (at least yet). Revis deserves something like 6 yrs, 75 million total, 15 million signing bonus, and at half of the other 60 guaranteed.

by tuluse :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 1:42pm

On Big "Rivers is better than Peyton" Johnson

by Big Johnson :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 2:16pm

Revis is still in his rookie contract that what it sounds like from the article makes him the 4th highest paid cornerback in the league. How is that not reasonable??? Paying the "first or second best" cornerback in the league 4th best money isnt outrageous. It is reasonable. The jets are scared to overpay him because nnamdi is being overpaid as well.

Its true that I dont think revis is as good as the hype, but regardless of my stance I dont see how anyone should complain about his contract. Just because the team thinks hes the best cornerback in the league doesnt mean he deserves that money. Im sure the raiders think asomugha is better and would they then have to react to revis' deal and instantly give asomugha a quarter more than revis? No, that would be outrageous. It would lead to a neverending bidding war between the two. Revis needs to accept his 4th best cornerback contract and wait till 2012 to sign his outrageous team suiciding deal.

Peyton isnt the highest paid quarterback in the league even though the colts think he is the best, why is that not a big deal? because hes not a baby.

by Big Johnson :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 2:21pm

and im ok if revis gets paid top dollar based on his performance last year because he deserves it. But that also should go the other way. Once jamarcus looked like a bust the raiders should be able to dump him without giving him a dime more. That should be the nature of the beast if people want to get paid based on only last years performance.

by Big Johnson :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 4:47pm

3 year average would put him slightly over -8 million a year if i understand the contract correctly (which i probably don't). 6.2 million last year and lets assume he makes atleast that much this year. add the 15.7 million over years 2 and 3 and hes at 21.9 million. another 4 million based on his performance for the year 2012 and its at 25.9 million. this is 8.63 million per year over the next 3 years, good for 8th in the league at cornerback. But what seperates him from the fourth spot is only half a million per year. This is hardly an outrage even if he is as good as advertised. How many receivers were getting paid more than anquan boldin even though he has the highest yards per game out of any receiver in the history of the nfl? He never got paid. I guess the difference is that revis is already dubbed the new king of defense after 1 year of awesomeness. Like someone said earlier, he wants to get paid more than asomugha because his team proclaims hes the best in the business. Perception seems to matter too much

by speedegg :: Tue, 06/15/2010 - 8:07pm

I think Revis should be careful of what he asks. Of course, he wants more money, but his original deal is unusual, pays well, has decent escalation incentives, and has certain benefits for him (club not being to franchise him in his final years of the contract if voided). The Jets MIGHT give him a little more money up front, but extract significant concessions in return.

by David :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 8:25am

Cash is king, make it while you can

by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 11:46am

I don't know what concessions they might extract, but I can certainly see the Jets point of view in not wanting to give him a new contract. I mean, what's the point in giving a player a splendid rookie contract, if he's going to want to throw it out the window the moment he starts outperforming it? Some will say, yeah but the team can cut a player at any time if he underperforms. True, but they can't recoup the bonus money they already paid. In a way, they get their severance upfront.

Now, I'm not saying players should not get new contracts when they outperform their old one, but not every time and under every circumstance, and certainly not solely because some players are greedy bastards who will bitch and moan like the team is ruining their lives because they're "only" making a few million dollars a year... let alone 7.

by MJK :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 11:56am

The only time I feel bad for a player who outperforms their rookie contract is when they are a late-round pick or rookie FA who, because of the rookie contract structure, rarely get big paydays off the bat (as they should not), but are still subject to signing onerously long multi-year deals in order to even make the roster. That's when you end up (rarely, but it happens) with reliable starters or even pro-bowlers making $1M/year or less for multiple years at a time, with no recourse except for holding out/getting fined/killing their reputation.

A first round pick that gets handed millions or tens of millions before ever playing a down really can't complain. Yes, he may end up being underpaid relative to comparably skilled players, but then he will almost certainly, eventually, cash in when he gets extended/hits free agency. And if he doesn't pan out, he still gets to keep his millions.

by UTchamps (not verified) :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 10:10am

Elite cornerback Dunta Robinson Hahaha.

by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 10:15am

I don't think he gets 45/3. Asomugah's deal is just so far outside the normal realm of CBs, that I just don't think its a good comparison.

I think hes gonna end up an FA, looking for that money, and not get anything near it. (And I think hes the best CB in football)

by Karl Cuba :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 10:30am

Asomugha's deal included a 'having to play for the Raiders' bonus that the Jets shouldn't have to match because they're not a doomed franchise and they play in a much nicer city.

by Dean :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 11:31am

New York is a nicer city? Since when?

If I were an NFL Free Agent, you'd have to pay me extra to live in Hell On The Hudson. I tried it once and couldn't wait to get out of there.

I've never lived in the Bay Area, but I'd take it sight unseen over the Rotten Apple.

Now, as for the "doomed franchise," you may have a point. But even then, I could see the Raiders being a .500 team this year.

by MJK :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 11:52am

I've lived near New York for a good chunk of my life, and visited there frequently (and, more relevant to this point, visited northern New Jersey), but have lived in the Bay Area for about three years.

The Bay Area is a much nicer place to live, unless you're actually living in the heart of New York City itself, and even then it's only nicer if you're a hardcore city person (i.e. loves museums and upscale dining, doesn't own a car or know how to drive, is scared of mountains and wilderness...).

And if you're comparing the Bay Area to norther New Jersey, it isn't even close.

As for the teams...yes, the Jets are a better run organization (currently, at least). However, they play in an arguably much harder division...despite doom and gloom from the media, the Patriots aren't collapsing any time soon, and the Dolphins are very well run and on the rise. Whereas Oakland faces the Chiefs, who are comparable to Buffalo, Denver, who I would not put as good as either New England or Miami, and San Diego, a well run team that is nevertheless coached by Norv Turner.

by tuluse :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 2:59pm

If you enjoy nightlife, can any city compare with New York?

Well, maybe LA, but that's not even an option to a football player.

by chemical burn :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 3:22pm

New York is the best city on Earth, case closed. If you don't like New York, you don't like cities.

(I have some advanced stats to back this up... i swear.)

by Dean :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 4:36pm

Then I guess I don't like cities.

I have never been more miserable in my life than when I lived there, and immediately on moving away, my life was better.

by chemical burn :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 5:48pm

The only reasonable objections to NYC are: cold winters and terrible BBQ. And what's worse, people constantly try to tell you shit like Blue Smoke and Dinosaur are good.

by Dean :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 8:18am

"The only reasonable objections to NYC are"

You forgot:

Filth. Arguably the dirtiest city in America. Simply walk outside for 5 minutes and the grime will stick to you to the point where you feel the need to shower.

People. While I certainly met some exceptins to this, in general, New Yorkers are the worst of arrogant and provincial at the same time. They believe that their town is the center of the universe, you have to go through customs to get north of West Chester, and that the map ends at the Hudson River (west of there is a danger sign reading "here be dragons!"). They're worse than small-town USA with the belief that if it didn't happen locally, than it doesn't matter. Yet they combine it with a haughty arrogance that they somehow are better than everyone else due solely to geographical fiat.

People, part 2. There's just too many of them. I'm sure someone could cite a more densly populated area, but it's simply too crowded.

Economics: When $8 beer night at the local bar is a reason to get excited, your town is overpriced.

Culture: New Yorkers love to brag about their culture, yet none of them ever actually experience it. Know who keeps Broadway in business? The tourists. Same with The Met, and pretty much every other "attraction" there. Locals love to brag about these things, but they're too jaded and/or ignorant to ever actually go and be seen with "all the sheepfuckers from out of town." Culture, for New Yorkers, is something to be bragged about but not actually experienced.

I could keep at this for hours, but unfortunately, I have to get some work done today.

by chemical burn :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:29am

Absolute dirtiest? You, my friend, have never set foot in New Orleans.

Also, I probably have a different view of the cultural scene in New York as it is where I make my living and very few tourists are involved (I would guess maybe 1% of our annual business) - as a matter of fact, the organization I work for is supported almost entirely by membership within the zipcode. Also, any definition of culture should include things like music and movies - and it's not tourists coming to NYC to see show in Brooklyn or go to Film Forum. If you want to see any band in the world, they'll play in NYC. If you want to see any movie, it'll be on a screen there. . And that's accepting your false notion that NYer's don't go to MoMA or the Guggenheim or the Whitney. Which I'm sure the numbers wouldn't bear out.

Over-priced is a fair argument, but you shouldn't live here if you don't have money.

As for the people, I can honestly say that I had a far worse experience with folks in Nashville when I lived there, where people are rude and truly provincial in the literal sense of the word. I always had the same experiences in Dallas (where my sister formerly lived for 10 years) and Houston (where my parents lived for stretch.) Those are places that perhaps if you are a Texan or a Southerner it is comfortable to be, but you shouldn't go outside too much if you are, say, in a mixed race marriage and have a child. Also, please dress as bland as possible if you don't want to be treated like you are in a zoo everywhere you go. NYer's can be arrogant, I guess, but I find that folks are rarely hostile for no reason (hair trigger on what constitutes a "reason" maybe) whereas on more than one occasion I had people throw beer cans at me when I was walking down the street in Nashville.

Anyhoo, I'm mainly just joking around - I know people hate, hate, hate NYC and I like to place the stereotype of arrogant NYer. I'm assuming you live in Philadelphia because you're an Eagles fan. Can you at least admit Philly is a truly depressing place?

by MJK :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 11:49am

I lived in Boston for most of my life, so I have a lot of experience hating New York. :-)

Here's the thing...New York, like any city, has good points and bad points. Relative to the other cities I've experienced (lived in or spent substantial time visiting), Boston, Manchester (NH), San Francisco, New York, L.A., San Diego, Raleigh, Washington D.C., Sacramento, Salzburg; New York is pretty low on my list (but still ahead of L.A.), but at the same time I've never been to a lot of cities that you cite as being worse (Dallas, Houston, Nashville). For what it's worth, my dad spends a lot of time in Nashville on business, and hates it.

Con's of New York:
- Overpriced, especially if you want to live in the "good parts"
- Dirty, at least compared to the other cities I've experienced
- Too crowded, and the people are a...um...unique breed.
- Way too many Jets and Yankees fans :-)
- Overly restrictive gun laws
- No proximity to open space, and no I don't count Central Park. In California, or Boston, or many other places, you're a short drive away from gorgeous open country, and only a couple of hours away from state or national parks. In New York, the best you have is to go up the Hudson Valley, if you can get there after fighting through traffic (L.A. has the same problem). Then again, no one in New York owns a car, so driving through traffic is a moot point
- No view of the horizon. Every time I go to New York, I feel claustrophobic.
- No proximity to beaches or recreational waterfront. And no, I don't count the East River.
- Close proximity to the insufferable southwestern part of Connecticut.
- Close proximity to northern New Jersey. Ever heard the joke about why New Yorkers are so cross? Because, for them, the light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey. :-)
- The nasty winter's you've already mentioned.

On the other hand, the pro's of New York:
- You're probably right...New York has arguably the best night life, and unarguably the best cultural and arts scene of anywhere in the U.S. (some international cities might compete on one or both these fronts).
- New York is also one of the more pedestrian friendly cities in the U.S. (although Boston beats it out).

...And, that's all I've got. And the thing is, while New York has the best night life and cultural scene, other cities aren't too far off and are probably perfectly adequate for most folks. New York has the Met, Boston has the MFA (which, while only about 80% as awesome as the Met, is still really really awesome). New York has a happening night life, so does San Francisco. New York has good restaurants, L.A. has better.

So if you like living in cities, don't like driving, don't care about beaches, open space, or seeing the horizon, don't mind crowds, like art and night life, and are wealthy, New York is the place for you.

However, I think a lot of people don't fit all those criteria.

by Dred :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 6:40pm

You can take the subway to the beach. Manhattan is not the only place in NYC. The only really bad thing about living in NY is dealing with all the people who move here from Boston.

by Dean :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:38pm

Eagles fan? I was up until the moment they signed the dogkiller. Now? I suppose I followed the Bengals and Rams closest last year, and found Rex Ryan to be the most interesting thing going in the NFL. But I can’t say I’m an Eagles fan anymore. At this point, I don’t even know if I’d try to go back once they get rid of him. Maybe I’m kidding myself on that? Who knows. I'm a lifelong Flyers Fan and fully expect to be until the day I die and beyond if possible.

Anyway, yes, I was born and raised in Philly, but haven’t lived there in almost 20 years. I do still have family in the area and love going back to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there either. I also have family in North Jersey, and I visit only because family is there. Given a choice between Philly and NY, I’d pick Philly and not even have to think about it, but in truth both are way too crowded for my taste.

As for your experiences in the South, I can picture it. While I live in St. Louis now, I’ve spent most of the last 2 decades in various places south of the Mason-Dixon line. My experience was very different than yours, but I would certainly admit that the sort of trashy people that you described can be found in any city in the world, regardless of how nice or how awful. There IS a certain amount of apprehension about carpetbaggers, and damn Yankees, but I found that the transplants who had the most trouble coexisting with the native Southerners (and yes, a fiercely proud bunch they are), are the ones who judged them. I can honestly say I have never had garbage thrown at me anywhere. Most southerners were incredibly welcoming once they found that I wasn’t going to look down upon them for their beliefs, lifestyle, etc. There’s a reason it’s called Southern Hospitality. I found it to be very real, and a very welcome change from New York.

As a side note, Southern women are FAR better looking, and much less shallow/materialistic.

When my coworkers in New York found out I was leaving town and moving (to Charlotte), they had visions of Hee-Haw, inbreeding, and NASCAR. Only it wasn’t joking. They genuinely believed that everyone wore overalls, never finished 4th grade, and had questionable family trees. It was that sort of arrogant, condescending egocentricism that I was trying to leave behind, and that’s exactly the sort of attitude that I can easily see triggering defense mechanisms in even the most modern of Southern Men. But don’t judge/belittle the southerner, and you’ll find as loyal a friend as you could ever dream of having.

Texans are a hybrid of the worst of both, but that's a conversaton for another day. Lunch break over. Back to work.

by DeltaWhiskey :: Fri, 06/18/2010 - 6:17am

As a Texan, I'm dying to here your take.

Having lived many places, including overseas, is that the experience one has with the locals is often a reflection of what one puts out.

by Dean :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 4:36pm


by chemical burn :: Wed, 06/16/2010 - 5:45pm

The problem with Miami (aside from the crime) is that it is full of the type of people who want to live in Miami. Also, no left turns? What the hell is that shit? Additionally, it lacks any art institutions, has no real culture and a very limited range of excellent restaurants (not that it doesn't have excellent restaurants...)

by Jerry :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 1:25am

I'm guessing Dean was just answering the nightlife question.

by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:21am

Miami has a metric assload of fantastic cuban and south american restaurants. If you just like italian food, you SOL.

As to no culture, the fact that it isn't your culture doesn't mean its not culture.

by chemical burn :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:34am

Well, it's not like the Museo Del Oro or Machu Picchu is in Miami.

And Cuban but no Italian food is what I meant by limited range/variety. It's not just Italian food that's missing, if you want Indian food or Korean BBQ or even real Irish pub fare, Miami and its suburbs might have 1 place that is good.

by Dean :: Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:39pm

Yes, I was referring solely to the nightlife above. I lived in Miami for 4 years and loved it. I would move back in a heartbeat. Yes, there are a lot of annoyingly superficial people there, but they tend to cluster in a couple spots and are easy to ignore/dismiss. And to suggest that there’s no culture in Miami is just another example of New York egocentricism. It can’t have culture, ‘cause it’s not New York, so I don’t even need to bother paying attention! I know a few million Latinos and a few million more transplanted Northeasterners who would strongly dispute your ignorant assessment of their town.