Over the last few months it seems to me that Mangini has handled the Pete Kendall situation very poorly with such things as putting him in the rookie dorm during training camp (a "mistake" that Mangini says he knew nothing about - yeah right.)
But at the end of the day, Kendall's under contract (like Branch was) and if indeed there's some truth to the contention of the hypothesis below, this situation could have an impact on other teams and other players pushing for a new contract.
Let's hope Mangini is smart enough to deal with this the right way given the implications it has for other teams.
Originally Posted by profootballtalk.com
POSTED 1:31 p.m. EDT, August 18, 2007
KENDALL USING ON-FIELD SCREWUPS TO GET CUT?
As disgruntled Jets offensive lineman Pete Kendall continues to stew about the team's refusal to adjust his contract or to cut him loose, we're starting to wonder whether Kendall is trying to get cut via his on-field performances.
On Friday night against the Vikings, Kendall played center in the second half -- and had two bad snaps, one of which was recovered in the end zone for a Minnesota touchdown.
And though we've got no specific reason to believe that Kendall was trying to throw the ball over the head of quarterback Kellen Clemens from shotgun formation, it's hard not to think that his unhappiness (justified or not) is influencing his actions, even if at a minimum his frustration is causing a subconscious distraction for him.
A reader is convinced that Kendall's actions were a not-so-subtle middle finger to management, especially since it's well known that Kendall doesn't want to play center.
Where this goes next remains to be seen. Kendall has quieted down a bit, apparently due to the possibility of a suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. But if he suddenly performs poorly, will the team be able to show that he is tanking it on purpose?
The bigger question might be whether the team will even want to bother with it. At some point, the smart move could be to cut the guy. If they do it after the start of the regular season, he will be allowed to take the balance of his salary as termination pay.
Then again, Kendall is largely responsible for his current situation. He signed a new contract in March 2006 and received a $3.9 million signing bonus. Though the deal also reduced his base salary for 2006 from $4.3 million to $1.3 million, he came out of the transaction with more money on his 1040.
But he had a solid season last year (possibly because he was sandwiched between two first-rounds who panned out), and now he wants more money. Pete, get in line. Unless there was a specific promise made to increase his pay on which the Jets are reneging, Kendall should be willing honor his deal.
Bottom line? No one forced him to sign the new contract that gave him $3.9 million bird in the hand. Sure, the new contract also slashed his 2007 salary. But, again, he didn't have to sign it.
Thus, yet another player doesn't want to respect the terms of the contract that carries his name, under the apparent guise that he has already "outperformed" the deal. But the system is what the system is. At a time in 2006 when Kendall might have been in danger of getting cut, he signed the paperwork -- and cashed the check. Less than 18 months later, he wants a do-over. And, like T.O. from two years ago, Kendall is opting not to hold out but to pout until he gets his way.
If there's any proof that Kendall is making mistakes on the field as a manifestation (thanks, Tiki) of his dissatisfaction, then the Jets need to enforce their rights aggressively. Regardless of the motivation, "tanking it" is a direct threat to the integrity of the game, and if it's happening it should be treated no differently than gambling.
08-18-2007 02:23 PM
Re: OT: Kendall's Bad Snaps = F.U. to Mangini?
In another PFT report many "insiders" email Florio regarding the Kendall contract.
It looks like Mangini and Tannenbaum completely gave in to Revis - but I think Florio and others are missing a point.
Yes - the Jets did cave to a degree, in that the deal reverts to a 4 year deal if Revis plays just 35% of the snaps on defense in any one season. But it looks like the Jets retain the right to buy back the two additional years at $5 million and $11 million respecitvely - or an average of $8 million.
Yes - that would be a whopping $27 million guaranteed if it comes to be - but as of today its not guaranteed. If Revis hasn't played up to high expectations they "let" him walk after 4 years. But I'd contend they might not really want him at that point anyway.
And if he's as good as they hope, they pay another $8 million a season for years 5 and 6 - possibly reupping him to lessen the cap hit in year 6.
So maybe this isn't the worst compromise for Mangini after all - but to me it still raises the point, on the heels of the Kendall situation, whether Mangini's (and Tannenbaum's) poor player management is going to have repercussions throughout the rest of the league
Ultimately the way this looks to me is this: The Jets retain the right to make this a 6 year deal - in which case they will have paid Revis a ton of moolah - but if Revis isn't worth it they all go their separate ways, with the Jets having overpaid somewhat for a 4 year deal.
POSTED 12:24 p.m. EDT, August 18, 2007
REVIS NUMBERS ARE REAL, AND THEY'RE SPECTACULAR
In the 48 hours or so since we got our hands on the contract numbers for Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis, the No. 14 overall pick in the draft, we've heard from league insiders on both sides of the fence -- agents and management -- who were skeptical about the terms.
Said one league insider on Friday: "According to your numbers, he'll be getting much more in every facet than Marshawn Lynch, the twelfth pick, who got a heck of a deal with Buffalo. According to your numbers, he'll be getting $11 million guaranteed on a four year deal versus $10.285 million for Lynch on a five year. And if the Jets buy back years five and six he'll get a total of $27 million guaranteed? No way it can be true. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. If your numbers are right, [G.M.] Mike Tannenbaum should be fired on the spot."
Oh, but the numbers are right.
As we reported on Thursday, the base value of the package is six years, $32 million. The deal voids to four years, $16 million (with $11 million guaranteed, which includes his 2007 base salary) if Revis participates in at least 35 percent of the snaps on defense in any one season. The Jets can then buy back years five and six for $5 million and $11 million, respectively. The year-six pay can drop to $9 million or increase to $13 million or $15 million based primarily on playing time -- but it apparently will require four Pro Bowl appearances in five years to get to the highest possible number in year six.
Said another league insider: "So much for the Jets digging in their heels, having the player hold out, and letting the world know they weren't going to do voidable years. Can you please tell me what was accomplished?"
Still, yet another league insider views it as a win-win, since the Jets will be paying huge money to Revis only if he becomes a star. And, if he does, the contract likely will be renegotiated after three or four NFL seasons.
"You pay for three positions," said the source, "cornerback, left tackle, and quarterback. By getting the full six years, the Jets won't have to franchise Revis and [left tackle D'Brickashaw] Ferguson in the same year. So if they both work out, they'll be able to keep both of them for the long haul."