Buzz: Are the Bucs Trying to Work out Trade for Revis?
PFT has revealed that the team who had a “good” offer on the table for Revis is the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
As the new league year approaches, the Jets have, for now, one serious trade partner for cornerback Darrelle Revis.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, it’s the Buccaneers.
The challenge becomes doing a deal that works for everyone involved — the teams and the player. Some, including former Jets G.M. Mike Tannenbaum, believe that Revis should bring in the same haul that the Vikings got for receiver Percy Harvin. But there are major differences between the deals.
Brian Bassett, theJetsBlog.com
There’s a lot of reasons why comparing the Harvin deal to this one won’t work.Both teams were in the NFC which is problematic for the trading team and Harvin’s salary will be substantially less than whatever the Bucs will need to pay Revis even in a best case, as soon as 2014. Harvin is coming off injury as well, but it’s not one that’s considered as serious as the one Revis sustained. Also there’s the mindset difference between valuing offensive and defensive players. Oh and Pete Carroll has eyed Harvin since his high school days as he wanted to recruit him to USC.
The public might not like whatever offer the Jets will get from the Bucs, but the front office is going to have to weigh carefully whether or not they will get any better offers in the future.
Aside from the Bucs, from what we hear (and take that that for what it’s worth on a day like today) there are three teams that have considered scenarios in acquiring Revis: the Colts, the Titans and the Browns. Of course that’s just cursory number crunching, so what’s unclear is how serious those teams might be at actually working with the Jets to acquire Revis.
UPDATE: Jason LaCanfora shares that the Jets trade talks are involving other teams as well, mentioning the Eagles by name. Note that the release of Nnamdi Asomougha might be a leading indicator to any intent that the Eagles might have with the Jets and Revis.
comments: