Marc Ryan -Laws of Economics Say Keep Darrelle Revis
I’ve aways been a best player available guy. I’ve always been a quality over quantity guy. In the draft, I want the BPA, regardless of position. In any trade, it’s the same thing. Was your trade successful? Easy to figure out – did you get the best player in the deal? Therefore, to this host, the Jets made a bad deal in shipping off the best corner in the game (although the pick received turned into Sheldon Richardson and he looks to be a beast), and the Bucs, landing the best cover corner in the league, won the deal.
So the basic premise of this blog is to share with you I do not believe Tampa should trade Darrelle Revis, because there’s ZERO chance they’ll get equal value in return for a player many personnel people believe is damaged goods. But there are some economic principles at play as well, here….
Flash back – senior year of high school, Economics class. My professor, Mr. Linton, was teaching us about the law of diminishing returns. Ever the snarky one, I set out to disprove his theory, which basically stated that the first of anything provides you with the most utility, with every subsequent item losing utility after that. He asked for a volunteer the day before, one that he would feed Snickers to until his theory was proven correct. In anticipation, I didn’t eat lunch on this day.
So Mr. Linton hands me snicker bar #1, asking me to rank it between 1-10. I eat it, and say “7.” Looking a bit befuddled, he says “Ok, here’s another.” After eating, “what would you rank this one?” My answer? “8.5, sir.” By this time, the class was laughing hysterically and smoke was coming out of his nostrils….”but that’s impossible according to the law of diminishing returns!!!” I simply said it wasn’t impossible, that the second snickers had more peanuts, and therefore gave me more utility. I proceeded to eat the entire back of Snickers, rating each one higher than the last by 0.1. Not surprisingly, I got a “C” in economics.
But many in the NFL believe the same law of diminishing returns applies to cornerbacks over 28, and more specifically, Darrelle Revis, coming off an ACL injury. After all, sports scientists will tell you the male athletic prime is 28 years of age. I’m not sure if it’s the Santa Claus beard or what, but the perception is Revis is just old.
Let’s check the facts – in the past five seasons, 22 CB’s who have made the Pro-Bowl have been under 28 or younger. 19 Pro Bowl participants have been 29 or older – almost a 50/50 wash and it would sway significantly in the older crew’s direction if you removed Revis’ name from the younger list all these years.
Secondly, I’m a big believer in the buy low, sell high principle. If the Bucs “sold” or traded Revis today, would they be getting back peak value in return? Not even close. They’d be getting fifty cents on the dollar, if that – because of the perception Revis is old and/or damaged goods.
I get that Revis’ $16 mill per season price tag is tougher to swallow than a kielbasa (unless you’re that female pro in Howard Stern’s movie “Private Parts.”) But now isn’t the time to move him….let him round back into form this season, let him return to his pre-injury level of play, and by this time next season, every option will be available to Love Smith and company, including getting back full value for a star in his prime.
Comment on this article to Marc via Twitter @MarcRyanOnAir