Jets were asking for trouble with 2010 deal Dan Leberfeld
Darrelle Revis is gone.
A big reason for his trade to Tampa Bay were the non-stop contract disputes between the cornerback and the Jets, which turned into major distractions each time they reared their ugly head.
But one of these contract disputes was the Jets’ fault, and an example of poor vision.
When Revis signed his extension in the summer of 2010, after a lengthy smear campaign by agent Neil Schwartz, the structure of the contract made little sense, and the Jets were asking for trouble on the back end of the deal.
Revis made an average of $16.25 million in the first two years of the contract, and then made $7 million in 2012, and was scheduled to make $6 million this year.
Former Jets GM Mike Tannenbaum didn’t do the best job of structuring this contract.
Knowing how obsessed this player is about his contract, you didn’t need to be a great economist to see trouble on the horizon in 2012 and 2013.
To have his salary dip significantly in the last two years of the deal was inviting another distasteful scorched earth campaign from Schwartz.
I’m not defending the behavior of Schwartz and Revis, but in business, you need to be cognizant of who you are dealing with when you construct a contract.
And the contract that Revis signed in the summer of 2010, was asking for upheaval on the back end of the deal.
And that is exactly what the Jets got.