What am I missing on the VJax / AJ Smith situation? (2 Viewers)

[Touchdown There]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-player-inter...-holdout-stance

Here is what I see in VJax eyes, "this AJ guy is crazy and I am never playing for San Diego again". I believe that he wants to play for the Chargers but does not expect to be paid sufficiently by the Chargers.

Many people think that VJax will have to play either in week 7 or week 10 to accrue another year and all that jazz. However, why would this rule apply to 2011 because there is no CBA? Every portion of the new CBA will be negotiated by high dollar attorneys. There will be no contract between the Chargers and VJax and no contract between the union and the owners. AJ Smith has been quoted as saying something like, "Vincent thinks he can just go after this year". Can someone find that exact quote?

I wish La Canfora asked him "will you be a UFA if you sit out this season?"

 

[vandyt]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-player-inter...-holdout-stance

Here is what I see in VJax eyes, "this AJ guy is crazy and I am never playing for San Diego again". I believe that he wants to play for the Chargers but does not expect to be paid sufficiently by the Chargers.

Many people think that VJax will have to play either in week 7 or week 10 to accrue another year and all that jazz. However, why would this rule apply to 2011 because there is no CBA? Every portion of the new CBA will be negotiated by high dollar attorneys. There will be no contract between the Chargers and VJax and no contract between the union and the owners. AJ Smith has been quoted as saying something like, "Vincent thinks he can just go after this year". Can someone find that exact quote?

I wish La Canfora asked him "will you be a UFA if you sit out this season?"

The CBA will be renegotiated at some point. If UFA returns to 4 years, VJAX will be free. If it remains 5+ years for UFA, he won't be (assuming he doesn't report this year). VJAX (and anyone else) doesn't know the impact of him showing or not showing up at this point. Its all a guessing game.

 

[Touchdown There]

Isn't it at 5 years right now and Vincent served 5 years? He is just not a UFA because of some weird rule with this being the last year of the CBA?

 

[Tau837]

Maurile Tremblay has addressed this in multiple VJax related threads. There will be no football after 2010 until there is a new CBA.

The new CBA will presumably contain a similar UFA provision to the old CBA, in which case Jackson has enough time to qualify as a free agent without playing this year (he already has 5 years). But there is a small (non-zero) chance that the terms will be different and could require 6 years, in which case Jackson needs to accumulate another year of service this year in order to be a UFA after this season.

A new CBA will also presumably contain a franchise tag provision similar to the old CBA. So even if Jackson is a UFA, he cannot necessarily walk, if the Chargers were to franchise him. However, given the acrimony between Jackson and the organization, along with the pricetag of franchising him, he may be willing to gamble that the Chargers wouldn't franchise him.

 

[Touchdown There]

I continue to read report after report that VJax will need to report by week 7. Would you then say that Maurile Tremblay is on top of the situation and the rest is garbage?

Here is ESPNs report from yesterday: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?c...;source=twitter

The important quote from the article reads: If Jackson doesn't sign by Sept. 4, he will miss at least six games and if he doesn't play in the final six games of the year, Jackson will not accrue a year toward free agency. In that case, if there is no lockout in 2011, he'll still be a restricted free agent when the 2010 season ends.

It seems that Maurile Tremblay is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that if the CBA does not change and VJax does not report this year, he will be a UFA with the possibility of getting the franchise tag (if the new CBA has one).

Someone has to be incorrect here...

 

[Touchdown There]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=539174

11.43% of voters at FBG think that VJax will miss the whole season. You can see in the interview that Vincent Jackson expects to sit out the whole year. It is a look of resignation, not hardball negotiation.

If the Chargers believe they are good enough this year to win the Super Bowl without VJax, why would they franchise tag him next year?

 

[Captain Hook]

I continue to read report after report that VJax will need to report by week 7. Would you then say that Maurile Tremblay is on top of the situation and the rest is garbage?

Here is ESPNs report from yesterday: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?c...;source=twitter

The important quote from the article reads: If Jackson doesn't sign by Sept. 4, he will miss at least six games and if he doesn't play in the final six games of the year, Jackson will not accrue a year toward free agency. In that case, if there is no lockout in 2011, he'll still be a restricted free agent when the 2010 season ends.

It seems that Maurile Tremblay is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that if the CBA does not change and VJax does not report this year, he will be a UFA with the possibility of getting the franchise tag (if the new CBA has one).

Someone has to be incorrect here...

The original view was that he had to report by Week 10 to get his required games in (to be an UFA in 2011)Not sure that took into account the three game league suspension but even suspended they might count for being "on a roster"

Even less sure how the three games for not reporting would affect that

Pretty sure that you misinterpreted what yourread from MT......IF Jackson does not report at all (which I think is likely) then he will most likely still be under Chargers control in 2011

 

[Tau837]

I continue to read report after report that VJax will need to report by week 7. Would you then say that Maurile Tremblay is on top of the situation and the rest is garbage?

Here is ESPNs report from yesterday: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?c...;source=twitter

The important quote from the article reads: If Jackson doesn't sign by Sept. 4, he will miss at least six games and if he doesn't play in the final six games of the year, Jackson will not accrue a year toward free agency. In that case, if there is no lockout in 2011, he'll still be a restricted free agent when the 2010 season ends.

It seems that Maurile Tremblay is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that if the CBA does not change and VJax does not report this year, he will be a UFA with the possibility of getting the franchise tag (if the new CBA has one).

Someone has to be incorrect here...

If he wants/needs to accrue a year, he has to play 6 games. If he doesn't report before the opener, he has been put on some kind of roster exempt list that will require him to miss 3 games after he reports. So, to ensure he gets to play 6 games, he would have to report before the 8th game, when the Chargers still have 9 games remaining. So he has to report after week 7, since the Chargers' bye is in week 10.But accruing a year will only matter if one of two things happens. First, if there is still no CBA in place and the current rules carry over to 2011. But all indications I have read is that if there is no new CBA in place, there will be a lockout in 2011, so it won't really matter. Second, if there is a new CBA, but it raises the number of years required for UFA to 6 or more, in which case Jackson's current 5 years of service would be inadequate. While possible, that seems unlikely.

If a new CBA is in place, and it has similar rules with regard to UFA and franchise tags as the current CBA, then Jackson does not require another year of accrued service to be a UFA... but he would still be subject to a franchise tag.

ETA: Yes, I think Maurile is on top of the situation. And, to some degree, I think other reports are off base. But I also think different reports are at times talking about different things, which can make it confusing.

 

[Tau837]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=539174

11.43% of voters at FBG think that VJax will miss the whole season. You can see in the interview that Vincent Jackson expects to sit out the whole year. It is a look of resignation, not hardball negotiation.

If the Chargers believe they are good enough this year to win the Super Bowl without VJax, why would they franchise tag him next year?

They might not, but the point is that it would be their option if a new CBA has a similar franchise tag rule as the currrent CBA. So it's up to VJax and his agent to weigh that possibility.

 

[Tau837]

I continue to read report after report that VJax will need to report by week 7. Would you then say that Maurile Tremblay is on top of the situation and the rest is garbage?

Here is ESPNs report from yesterday: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?c...;source=twitter

The important quote from the article reads: If Jackson doesn't sign by Sept. 4, he will miss at least six games and if he doesn't play in the final six games of the year, Jackson will not accrue a year toward free agency. In that case, if there is no lockout in 2011, he'll still be a restricted free agent when the 2010 season ends.

It seems that Maurile Tremblay is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that if the CBA does not change and VJax does not report this year, he will be a UFA with the possibility of getting the franchise tag (if the new CBA has one).

Someone has to be incorrect here...

The original view was that he had to report by Week 10 to get his required games in (to be an UFA in 2011)Not sure that took into account the three game league suspension but even suspended they might count for being "on a roster"

Even less sure how the three games for not reporting would affect that

Pretty sure that you misinterpreted what yourread from MT......IF Jackson does not report at all (which I think is likely) then he will most likely still be under Chargers control in 2011

Week 10 was never correct. As I just posted, the original issue was that he would need to play 6 games to accrue a year of service. That would mean he would have to report before week 12 and play the last 6 games of the season. However, he will now be forced to miss the first 3 games after he reports because he has been placed on some kind of roster exempt list. The 3 game suspension for his DUIs will be served in the first 3 games of the season, regardless. So if he reports by the opener, the 3 games he has to miss for the roster exemption are the same as the 3 games he has to miss for the league suspension. And he would be able to play in 13 games. But if he doesn't report until after the first 3 games, he will still be forced to sit out his first 3 games back. So this backs us up from reporting before week 12 to reporting before week 8, since the Chargers' bye is in week 10. That means he would miss the games in weeks 8, 9, and 11, and be able to play in the final 6 games.If Jackson does not report, the most likely things that will happen related to this issue in 2011 are the following:

1. There is no new CBA and there is a lockout. Jackson would still be under the Chargers' control at that point if he sits out the season, but only until there is a new CBA... and it really doesn't matter if there is no football.

2. There is a new CBA and it requires 5 years or fewer for UFA. In that case, Jackson will not be under the Chargers' control, unless they should choose to franchise him (provided the new CBA allows for that).

 

[Touchdown There]

I am on the Maurile Tremblay boat with you. However, do you realize that almost 90% of voters think that Vincent Jackson will still play this year? While it may seem like old news to Tremblay, most people are not grabbing the complexity of his particular issue. Even VJax himself goes on record to say he is prepared to sit out all year. Still no one believes it!

I thought it was old news too, however, Fantasy Football drafters continue to draft VJax earlier than they should. They think that it is posturing that almost always gets resolved before the regular season.

Vincent Jackson does not think he needs another year towards free agency. This means that he is NOT forced back in week 7. Vincent Jackson will never play for the Chargers again. 90% of the voters need to pick up what Tremblay is laying down.

 

[Judge Smails]

Jackson's overvaluing his worth. This is not a Revis situation. Revis will get his - Jackson will not. Gonna be spensive.

 

[cr8f]

Jackson's overvaluing his worth. This is not a Revis situation. Revis will get his - Jackson will not. Gonna be spensive.

Unless he can get them to trade him but AJ is a stubborn old man probably trying to make a statement that will affect other teams down the line.They both seem equally stubborn.

 

[Touchdown There]

Equally stubborn and maybe even equally greedy.

In regards to Fantasy Football valuation, however, this situation blows my mind. The 11.43% of voters that know VJax will not play are getting great value in Floyd and Naanee.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There are a lot of complexities here. I'll explain the situation as simply as I can, but it's still complex.

Here are the facts.

1. The last date for any player to sign is the Tuesday following the tenth week (not the tenth game) of the season — in this case, November 16. If VJ does not sign by November 16, he cannot play this year. (That is just after the Chargers' bye week, so if VJ ends up signing with the Chargers for some reason, he would very likely sign at least a week early: no later than November 9. That's because players are paid during their bye week. Whether he reports Nov 9 or Nov 16, he'd play the same number of games, so there's no reason for him not to collect an extra paycheck.)

2. The current CBA (which will terminate after this season) allows players to become unrestricted free agents after they have accrued four seasons — except in uncapped years, when the requirement goes from four seasons up to six seasons. This is an uncapped year.

3. In order to earn an accrued season, a player must be eligible for six games. (More specifically, a player has to be on "full pay status" for six games. To be on full pay status in a given week, a player has to report in time to practice during the week of that game — he can't simply report five minutes before kickoff.)

4. VJ already has five accrued seasons.

5. Also, there is a provision in the current CBA which says that a player cannot go from restricted free agency to unrestricted free agency by sitting out the whole year — regardless of the number of accrued seasons he has.

6. VJ will be suspended from weeks 1–3 this season.

7. A player cannot report to his team during his suspension.

8. VJ has been placed on the roster-exempt list, which makes him ineligible to play in the three games following his report date. (The roster-exemption will apply whether or not he is traded.)

9. The Chargers' first game is September 13. The week of practice preceding that game starts September 4. (Two days after the final preseason game.)

10. The Chargers have a bye in week 10.

11. The trade deadline this year is October 19, after the week 6 games.

And here is what it all means for VJ.

1. VJ will not play weeks 1–3.

2. To be eligible to play in week 4, VJ would have to report by September 4. That way, the roster-exemption will make him ineligible during weeks 1-3, the same weeks as his suspension.

3. If he doesn't report by September 4, he won't be able to report until after the week 3 game of September 26. Whenever he does report, he'll be ineligible for the following three games.

4. To get an accrued season, VJ would have to report to the Chargers by October 26, so that he'd be on full pay status for the Halloween game in week eight. (If he is traded to a team that has its bye before week 9, he wouldn't have to report until November 2.)

5. VJ almost certainly does not need an accrued season, however. He already has five, and there's almost no chance that a new CBA would require six accrued seasons for unrestricted free agency.

6. To avoid sitting out the year, VJ would have to report by November 16, the NFL signing deadline. If he does report November 16 (or November 9 for the Chargers' bye week), he would be eligible to play the final four games of the season in weeks 14-17.

7. For purposes of becoming an unrestricted free agent, however, it probably doesn't matter whether he sits out the whole year. The current CBA says that a player can't go from restricted status to unrestricted status by sitting out a year, but any new CBA would very likely make VJ (and players like him, who already have at least four accrued seasons) unrestricted free agents. The players' union would want VJ, McNeill, and Mankins to be unrestricted free agents, and 30 of the 32 NFL owners probably would as well. (It's not a sure thing, though, and if I were VJ's agent, I'd have him report by Nov 16 to erase any doubt. I'm not VJ's agent, however.)

8. If VJ does become an unrestricted free agent in 2011 (or whenever the next season is), the Chargers would very likely (but not certainly) be able to slap the franchise tag on him if they wish.

9. So the important deadlines for VJ to sign are: September 4 (to allow him to play 13 games), October 26 (to allow him to play 6 games and get an accrued season), and November 16 (to allow him to play 4 games and avoid sitting out the season).

My guess.

I think the two most likely scenarios are: (a) VJ is traded and signs before September 4 [technically, he'd have to sign before he is traded]; or (b) VJ is not traded and sits out the whole year, likely (but not certainly) becoming an unrestricted free agent the following season (whether that's in 2011 or a later year). The latter possibility is looking fairly likely if VJ doesn't drastically reduce his salary demands pretty soon.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

2. The current CBA (which will terminate after this season) allows players to become unrestricted free agents after they have accrued four seasons — except in uncapped years, when the requirement goes from four seasons up to six seasons. This is an uncapped year.

So assuming no significant change in the next CBA, he'll be a UFA next year. I guess fundamentally what is the difference between him having unrealistic salary demands this year and unrealistic salary demands next year?

 

[Touchdown There]

1 - No 3 game suspension and;

2 - They do not have to give up draft picks to the former team

It is nice to get the facts, thanks Tremblay. With those facts in mind, if you watch VJax's interview it is clear he has no intention of showing up under the current pay offer.

 

[craxie]

5. Also, there is a provision in the current CBA which says that a player cannot go from restricted free agency to unrestricted free agency by sitting out the whole year — regardless of the number of accrued seasons he has.

which will certainly be challenged and likely overturned in arbitration if it's applied

(The roster-exemption will apply whether or not he is traded.)

that is the league's interpretation, the union is challenging it

 

[craxie]

if you watch VJax's interview it is clear he has no intention of showing up under the current pay offer.

correct, and given the odds of AJ budging off the current offer, he will never play for the Chargers againthe only question is if he will get traded this year or walk next season

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

5. Also, there is a provision in the current CBA which says that a player cannot go from restricted free agency to unrestricted free agency by sitting out the whole year — regardless of the number of accrued seasons he has.

which will certainly be challenged and likely overturned in arbitration if it's applied

An arbitrator doesn't have the authority to overturn a provision of the CBA.

 

[Raider Nation]

Replaceable players who act like irreplaceable players amuse me. I hope he never takes another snap.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

if you watch VJax's interview it is clear he has no intention of showing up under the current pay offer.

correct, and given the odds of AJ budging off the current offer, he will never play for the Chargers againthe only question is if he will get traded this year or walk next season

so the line forms with owners who are willing to give draft picks and overpay for a marginal player?Hello Chicago Bears!

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Replaceable players who act like irreplaceable players amuse me. I hope he never takes another snap.

There are few to no irreplaceable players. Maybe Manning? It's a VERY short list in any case.Jackson is acting like he's a valuable/important player, which he is. AJ is acting like he's a run of the mill player who has not provided a lot of value to his team, which he isn't.I almost never find myself agreeing with a player who is holding out, but in this case, Jackson is getting hosed and he knows it. What he has made in his career compared to what kind of player he has been is RIDICULOUS, and now he's been told that he has to be grossly underpaid again for his 6th year (which no other player in the league has had to do). He's calling BS and I don't blame him (though as an owner in several leagues, I'd love for him to just sign and play).As for his contract demands, everybody is making a LOT of assumptions on that front. We don't KNOW what his contract demands are, all we have are rumors (which have been denied by his agent). He is probably in negotiations with Seattle, and of COURSE there are going to leaks about how outrageous his demands are. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that has happened while a player is trying to negotiate a contract with a team.If Sept 4 goes by and he has not been traded, we will know his demands were really higher than his current situation dictated. But even then, it's not like he can even negotiate with more than one team since that's all SD is allowing him to speak with. In that scenario he's STILL somewhat hamstrung, and he may just choose to wait until next year (if there is one) to get a fair deal.

 

[shader]

I don't get the anger towards VJ by people. I don't think people understand that VJ has gotten the raw end of the deal here.

I have to say, I've done a 180 on this situation, thanks to Maurile and further research.

I do still think it's POSSIBLE that he gets traded and plays this year, but that would require him have a bigtime reality check in the next week.

I think he's fully committed to sitting out the entirety of 2010, whether it's a mistake or not.

I'm on record as saying it's a huge mistake, and I think VJ will regret it. I still think that. Jackson over-estimates what his value will be around the league next year. Also, you have to take into consideration that a lockout is becoming more and more likely for 2011. What happens if we head to 2012 and Vincent Jackson hasn't played in 2 years? There will be 2 years worth of fresh rookies, some of them guys who have been out busting their butts in college.

Why would a team at that time pay bigtime money to a guy who has been sitting out of football for 2 years, when they could draft rookies (who likely will be much cheaper under the new CBA)?

Just a huge error by Jackson's agents if they let him sit out for the entire year. The big payday that they deserve and hope to get will likely never come. I feel bad for Jackson too.

Hopefully, he'll back off his demands a little bit. Heck, I'd try to get a team to committ to a short-term, front-loaded, incentive-laden deal that can allow him to make a ton of money and still get another bigtime payday in 2-3 years or so.

 

[stbugs]

I don't get the anger towards VJ by people. I don't think people understand that VJ has gotten the raw end of the deal here.

I have to say, I've done a 180 on this situation, thanks to Maurile and further research.

I do still think it's POSSIBLE that he gets traded and plays this year, but that would require him have a bigtime reality check in the next week.

I think he's fully committed to sitting out the entirety of 2010, whether it's a mistake or not.

I'm on record as saying it's a huge mistake, and I think VJ will regret it. I still think that. Jackson over-estimates what his value will be around the league next year. Also, you have to take into consideration that a lockout is becoming more and more likely for 2011. What happens if we head to 2012 and Vincent Jackson hasn't played in 2 years? There will be 2 years worth of fresh rookies, some of them guys who have been out busting their butts in college.

Why would a team at that time pay bigtime money to a guy who has been sitting out of football for 2 years, when they could draft rookies (who likely will be much cheaper under the new CBA)?

Just a huge error by Jackson's agents if they let him sit out for the entire year. The big payday that they deserve and hope to get will likely never come. I feel bad for Jackson too.

Hopefully, he'll back off his demands a little bit. Heck, I'd try to get a team to committ to a short-term, front-loaded, incentive-laden deal that can allow him to make a ton of money and still get another bigtime payday in 2-3 years or so.

I don't see how Vj sitting out two years will make a difference at all when all players including the 2011 draft will have sat out of football for a year as well.

 

[Touchdown There]

I almost never find myself agreeing with a player who is holding out, but in this case, Jackson is getting hosed and he knows it.

Jackson was offered $3.268 million on the original tender offer. He took a chance rejecting that offer and holding out for a monster long-term contract. I am not sure that Vincent Jackson and his camp took all the variables into account before rejecting this offer.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I almost never find myself agreeing with a player who is holding out, but in this case, Jackson is getting hosed and he knows it.

Jackson was offered $3.268 million on the original tender offer. He took a chance rejecting that offer and holding out for a monster long-term contract. I am not sure that Vincent Jackson and his camp took all the variables into account before rejecting this offer.

That offer was a joke. He should be looking at a $20M+ (possibly a lot more) guaranteed money contract at this point in his career. He doesn't want to risk that payday (he's never had one) for one year at $3M. Even if he took that $3M, he's one injury away from having a 6 year career (spanning several seasons where was among the best at his position) that paid him a total less than what Craig "Bust" Davis was paid the day he walked into camp in his rookie year (let alone what stud WRs make).That's the "chance" he and his team are looking at. Barring something crazy, he'll someday soon get a deal that pays him some solid guaranteed money. Why risk that? Yeah, $3M sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But for a starting NFL WR, that's chump change compared to the guaranteed money that most guys are getting.

 

[jude]

aj and vincent are both idiots.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I almost never find myself agreeing with a player who is holding out, but in this case, Jackson is getting hosed and he knows it.

Jackson was offered $3.268 million on the original tender offer. He took a chance rejecting that offer and holding out for a monster long-term contract. I am not sure that Vincent Jackson and his camp took all the variables into account before rejecting this offer.

That offer was a joke. He should be looking at a $20M+ (possibly a lot more) guaranteed money contract at this point in his career. He doesn't want to risk that payday (he's never had one) for one year at $3M. Even if he took that $3M, he's one injury away from having a 6 year career (spanning several seasons where was among the best at his position) that paid him a total less than what Craig "Bust" Davis was paid the day he walked into camp in his rookie year (let alone what stud WRs make).That's the "chance" he and his team are looking at. Barring something crazy, he'll someday soon get a deal that pays him some solid guaranteed money. Why risk that? Yeah, $3M sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But for a starting NFL WR, that's chump change compared to the guaranteed money that most guys are getting.

Jackson is a talented WR, but he has not done enough to "earn" $20M or more in guaranteed money on a big deal IMO. Obviously you disagree. I understand the rookie system is broken, but this is just the way it is with rookies getting more than the moajority of them are going to end up being worth if they are drafted high enough.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/JackVi00-2.php

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I almost never find myself agreeing with a player who is holding out, but in this case, Jackson is getting hosed and he knows it.

Jackson was offered $3.268 million on the original tender offer. He took a chance rejecting that offer and holding out for a monster long-term contract. I am not sure that Vincent Jackson and his camp took all the variables into account before rejecting this offer.

That offer was a joke. He should be looking at a $20M+ (possibly a lot more) guaranteed money contract at this point in his career. He doesn't want to risk that payday (he's never had one) for one year at $3M. Even if he took that $3M, he's one injury away from having a 6 year career (spanning several seasons where was among the best at his position) that paid him a total less than what Craig "Bust" Davis was paid the day he walked into camp in his rookie year (let alone what stud WRs make).That's the "chance" he and his team are looking at. Barring something crazy, he'll someday soon get a deal that pays him some solid guaranteed money. Why risk that? Yeah, $3M sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But for a starting NFL WR, that's chump change compared to the guaranteed money that most guys are getting.

Jackson is a talented WR, but he has not done enough to "earn" $20M or more in guaranteed money on a big deal IMO. Obviously you disagree. I understand the rookie system is broken, but this is just the way it is with rookies getting more than the moajority of them are going to end up being worth if they are drafted high enough.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/players/JackVi00-2.php

I just posted in the other thread that statistically, he was the most effective receiver in the NFL last year. He got his team 11 yards for each ball thrown to him (on AVERAGE). He's huge, fast, tough (healthy) and has great hands. I'm not sure what else you want in a #1 WR. I also compared him to AJ and Marshall if you are interested in looking.And his current situation was not JUST a result of the rookie contract, it was also brought on by the lack of a CBA. If this wasn't an "uncapped year" he'd be a FA right now. He got double-hosed.

If anything, he should have held out LAST year (when all of the other underpaid players usually do near the end of the rookie contracts). He'd be in a better situation. But he didn't. He didn't even make that much noise about it. He just played. And now AJ tells him he'll continue to make WAY below market average and was offered the same deal as Malcolm Floyd.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That offer was a joke. He should be looking at a $20M+ (possibly a lot more) guaranteed money contract at this point in his career.

Not from the Chargers (he's not in their long-term plans), and they're the ones who have his exclusive rights since no other team made a qualifying offer during the free agency period.The CBA deprives Jackson of unrestricted free agency this year just like it deprives the owners of a salary cap. It's not ideal, but that's the way it is.Jackson has no obligation to play if he isn't offered enough to make it worth his while. By the same token, the Chargers have no obligation to offer him more than $3.2 million (now $583K) in order to keep his rights. I don't think it's fair to say that either side is getting screwed by the other. I don't think the Chargers are getting screwed at all; and if Jackson is getting screwed, it's by the CBA, not the Chargers.

 

[shader]

I don't get the anger towards VJ by people. I don't think people understand that VJ has gotten the raw end of the deal here.

I have to say, I've done a 180 on this situation, thanks to Maurile and further research.

I do still think it's POSSIBLE that he gets traded and plays this year, but that would require him have a bigtime reality check in the next week.

I think he's fully committed to sitting out the entirety of 2010, whether it's a mistake or not.

I'm on record as saying it's a huge mistake, and I think VJ will regret it. I still think that. Jackson over-estimates what his value will be around the league next year. Also, you have to take into consideration that a lockout is becoming more and more likely for 2011. What happens if we head to 2012 and Vincent Jackson hasn't played in 2 years? There will be 2 years worth of fresh rookies, some of them guys who have been out busting their butts in college.

Why would a team at that time pay bigtime money to a guy who has been sitting out of football for 2 years, when they could draft rookies (who likely will be much cheaper under the new CBA)?

Just a huge error by Jackson's agents if they let him sit out for the entire year. The big payday that they deserve and hope to get will likely never come. I feel bad for Jackson too.

Hopefully, he'll back off his demands a little bit. Heck, I'd try to get a team to committ to a short-term, front-loaded, incentive-laden deal that can allow him to make a ton of money and still get another bigtime payday in 2-3 years or so.

I don't see how Vj sitting out two years will make a difference at all when all players including the 2011 draft will have sat out of football for a year as well.

When one is commanding elite, top 5 money and the other gets a rookie contract, I think there's a huge difference.

 

[Willie Mays Hayes]

It's safe to say that many have their fingers crossed for a V-Jax trade in the coming days. This is ugly and it doesn't appear to be very business-focused. Hopefully a team comes forward willing to make it worth San Diego's attention to deal Jackson since he deserves to play for more money and the Chargers obviously don't want him.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

That offer was a joke. He should be looking at a $20M+ (possibly a lot more) guaranteed money contract at this point in his career.

Not from the Chargers (he's not in their long-term plans), and they're the ones who have his exclusive rights since no other team made a qualifying offer during the free agency period.The CBA deprives Jackson of unrestricted free agency this year just like it deprives the owners of a salary cap. It's not ideal, but that's the way it is.Jackson has no obligation to play if he isn't offered enough to make it worth his while. By the same token, the Chargers have no obligation to offer him more than $3.2 million (now $583K) in order to keep his rights. I don't think it's fair to say that either side is getting screwed by the other. I don't think the Chargers are getting screwed at all; and if Jackson is getting screwed, it's by the CBA, not the Chargers.

That's one point of view. From technical standpoint the Chargers have done nothing "wrong". From a realistic standpoint, they are essentially using the lack of a CBA against him to the utmost of their ability. They are trying to hardball him into yet another underpaid year. Combine that with the fact that he was grossly underpaid for his entire tenure as a Charger, and I think they are screwing him. They didn't HAVE to take that approach (and I'm not saying they had to break the bank if they didn't want him long-term - just offer him a decent one year deal or cut him loose). Heck, they aren't even letting him negotiate with other teams. That's petty.Maybe they are pissed and/or worried about the DUIs. That's fine. But even if they think Floyd is just as good, Floyd hasn't done what Jackson has done playing for the same team and with basically the same opportunities. To offer them the same contract is an insult. FLOYD sat out part of the off-season thinking the deal sucked, how is Jackson supposed to feel?

 

[Touchdown There]

...if Jackson is getting screwed, it's by the CBA, not the Chargers.

There is probably fault on both ends. The Chargers could have tried a little harder to work out an extra incentive for this year (think Chris Johnson with the Titans here). The consensus seems to be that AJ Smith is a tool and non-negotiable when he draws his line in the sand. He could have been fair.

 

[TommyGilmore]

If he wants/needs to accrue a year, he has to play 6 games.

He doesn't have to play 6 games; he just has to be on "full pay status" for 6 games. He could report to the team and be on the inactive list and still qualify. (As long as he's not suspended or put on the PUP list or something like that.)edit: this site says you can be on the PUP list and still qualify for an Accrued Season, but this site indicates that the PUP list doesn't count.

 

[Tau837]

If he wants/needs to accrue a year, he has to play 6 games.

He doesn't have to play 6 games; he just has to be on "full pay status" for 6 games. He could report to the team and be on the inactive list and still qualify. (As long as he's not suspended or put on the PUP list or something like that.)edit: this site says you can be on the PUP list and still qualify for an Accrued Season, but this site indicates that the PUP list doesn't count.

OK, the bolded is what I meant. I assume Norv will play him if he returns to the team and is eligible to be active.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But even if they think Floyd is just as good, Floyd hasn't done what Jackson has done playing for the same team and with basically the same opportunities.

I don't think Floyd is just as good, but your statement isn't all that true.Floyd's numbers as a backup were similar to Jackson's numbers as a backup. (And Jackson wasn't underpaid during his whole tenure with the Chargers. He was overpaid at least his first two seasons.)

Floyd became a starter for the final ten games last season. During that stretch, Floyd had three fewer receptions than Jackson for 17 fewer yards. The disparity in their stats and in their skill isn't as great as many people believe, IMO — though again I do think VJ is better.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But even if they think Floyd is just as good, Floyd hasn't done what Jackson has done playing for the same team and with basically the same opportunities.

I don't think Floyd is just as good, but your statement isn't all that true.Floyd's numbers as a backup were similar to Jackson's numbers as a backup. (And Jackson wasn't underpaid during his whole tenure with the Chargers. He was overpaid at least his first two seasons.)

Floyd became a starter for the final ten games last season. During that stretch, Floyd had three fewer receptions than Jackson for 17 fewer yards. The disparity in their stats and in their skill isn't as great as many people believe, IMO — though again I do think VJ is better.

My point is the Floyd was on the team for LONGER than Jackson, meaning that if he was as good or better than Jackson, he would have been starting and doing what Jackson has done over the last couple of years (which of course he hasn't). That's what I meant by same opportunities, not that he's been in the games in the same situations etc. He hasn't been in those situations because he's not as good (according to the SD Chargers). He's the same "style" receiver as Jackson, competing for the same starting slot, but Jackson has obviously beaten him pretty soundly over the years.Floyd had a decent stretch last year, but he got 140 yards (the 2nd 100 yard game in 5 year career) against the Skins in a meaningless (for both teams) final game - which Jackson wasn't even in.

As for Jackson being overpaid in the first couple of years, I have to disagree with that as well. His rookie year was "unproductive", but he was drafted by the team knowing he needed some development. By the end of his second season, he was delivering on that promise. I don't know what the breakdowns were, but at 3.5M over 5 years, that's about $700k/year. Maybe $700k was overpaid in his rookie year, but by that standard nearly every rookie is overpaid his rookie year.

Edit: for reference:

By his third year, Jackson put up the following 3 games in the PLAYOFFS: 5 for 114 and a TD against Tennessee, 7 for 93 and a TD in a very close game against Indy, and 6 for 93 in a losing effort for the conf championship against NE. That ALONE was probably worth more than 700k. That's overpaid? Buster Davis probably made a couple $M that year.

Also for reference, Jackson has missed one game in his career. The game he missed was meaningless (and he probably could have played if needed). The game AFTER that week 17 sit down, he put up 7 catches for 111 yards against Darrelle Revis and the Jets. He has one fumble in his career.

 

[Touchdown There]

But even if they think Floyd is just as good, Floyd hasn't done what Jackson has done playing for the same team and with basically the same opportunities.

Even if they are both starters, they do not get the same opportunities. They were both starting wide receivers for the Chargers, but one played the X and the other played the Y position. The middle linebacker is not the same as the outside linebacker. The left gaurd is not the same as the right tackle, although they may be starting offensive linemen.On this line of thought, is Naanee the X or is Floyd?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Even if they are both starters, they do not get the same opportunities. They were both starting wide receivers for the Chargers, but one played the X and the other played the Y position. The middle linebacker is not the same as the outside linebacker. The left gaurd is not the same as the right tackle, although they may be starting offensive linemen.On this line of thought, is Naanee the X or is Floyd?

Last year Jackson was the split end (X) and Chambers/Floyd was the flanker (Z). (Gates is the Y.)This year Floyd is at split end and Naanee is at flanker.(Although they all move around a bit.)

 

[Touchdown There]

Floyd Projections 2010:

CBSsports.com - 56 for 797

Tremblay - 61 for 1003

Dodds - 59 for 879

Woods - 56 for 800

V Jackson Stats:

2009 - 68 for 1167

2008 - 59 for 1098

The Chargers offense has not changed much from 2009. The X wide receiver position for this offense should be looked at as a 1000+ yard guy with high side potential. Low end #1 range.

 

[Tau837]

Floyd Projections 2010:CBSsports.com - 56 for 797Tremblay - 61 for 1003Dodds - 59 for 879Woods - 56 for 800V Jackson Stats:2009 - 68 for 11672008 - 59 for 1098The Chargers offense has not changed much from 2009. The X wide receiver position for this offense should be looked at as a 1000+ yard guy with high side potential. Low end #1 range.

I tend to agree... if one breaks down the entire Chargers passing game, I think it's easy to see Floyd breaking 1000 yards, assuming he and Rivers stay healthy. From the Floyd Spotlight thread:

Projections: 106 targets, 64 receptions, 1056 receiving yards, 6 receiving TDs

To put it another way, Jackson was WR10 last season (FBG scoring) while playing 15 games. Why would we assume that Floyd, his replacement, would finish as WR25 or worse? ... In his only game without Jackson last year, Floyd had 9 catches for 140 yards.

 

[stbugs]

I don't get the anger towards VJ by people. I don't think people understand that VJ has gotten the raw end of the deal here.

I have to say, I've done a 180 on this situation, thanks to Maurile and further research.

I do still think it's POSSIBLE that he gets traded and plays this year, but that would require him have a bigtime reality check in the next week.

I think he's fully committed to sitting out the entirety of 2010, whether it's a mistake or not.

I'm on record as saying it's a huge mistake, and I think VJ will regret it. I still think that. Jackson over-estimates what his value will be around the league next year. Also, you have to take into consideration that a lockout is becoming more and more likely for 2011. What happens if we head to 2012 and Vincent Jackson hasn't played in 2 years? There will be 2 years worth of fresh rookies, some of them guys who have been out busting their butts in college.

Why would a team at that time pay bigtime money to a guy who has been sitting out of football for 2 years, when they could draft rookies (who likely will be much cheaper under the new CBA)?

Just a huge error by Jackson's agents if they let him sit out for the entire year. The big payday that they deserve and hope to get will likely never come. I feel bad for Jackson too.

Hopefully, he'll back off his demands a little bit. Heck, I'd try to get a team to committ to a short-term, front-loaded, incentive-laden deal that can allow him to make a ton of money and still get another bigtime payday in 2-3 years or so.

I don't see how Vj sitting out two years will make a difference at all when all players including the 2011 draft will have sat out of football for a year as well.

When one is commanding elite, top 5 money and the other gets a rookie contract, I think there's a huge difference.

We'll just have to disagree. I think 2 years off versus 1 year off isn't much for a WR. A young QB, sure, but I don't think it would be much of a concern at all for a veteran WR. If there is no football at all in 2011, everyone will have been off for around 1.5 years from the end of this season. I think VJ will be in the same situation as everyone else at that point. As long as he doesn't get ridiculously out of shape, which is a danger for all players if there is no 2011, I don't think his extended layoff will be a big deal. I think the amount of teams needing a WR and his salary demands will be far more important than if he actually played for low contract this year and then became a UFA in 2012.I agree with the poster above that playing for $3M this year and risking a career ending injury or even a bad enough one like an ACL where he potentially misses some of 2011 is not worth the risk of blowing the opportunity to make 5-7x that guaranteed.

 

[Gr00vus]

aj and vincent are both idiots.

Sad as it may sound to fans of other teams, but if A.J. is an idiot, he's the idiot who's presided over the most successful 6 year (and counting, hopefully) run in Charger history. So I'm o.k. with that idiot not handing out a ton of money to a guy who plays a pretty fungible role and can't keep from getting slapped with DUIs, even if he is really talented.

 

[Touchdown There]

Here is what the future holds for Vincent Jackson: attorneys.

Here is what the future holds for AJ Smith: attorneys.

This story will go from cordial to messy over the course of the year. I see AJ Smith shenanigans looming. Will he privately petition to alter the CBA to keep V Jackson as an RFA? How far will AJ Smith go to "win" this time?

 

[Max Power]

So what exactly are the chargers "long term plans"? To be honest I'm suprised to see so many Charger fans who think this guy is easily replaceable.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I see AJ Smith shenanigans looming. Will he privately petition to alter the CBA to keep V Jackson as an RFA?

Petition whom? The players' union? The owners like Dan Snyder who might want to sign VJ themselves?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what exactly are the chargers "long term plans"? To be honest I'm suprised to see so many Charger fans who think this guy is easily replaceable.

He's a very good wide receiver. But we don't really know what's going on with him behind the scenes. There are always locker room stories that the coaches and players keep close to the vest until after a player leaves. All the stuff about Antonio Cromartie is just coming out now, for example. The Chargers are on a team-chemistry kick, and I know they were pretty unhappy about Jackson getting arrested for driving without a license on the way to the playoff game last year. The two DUIs before that already had him on thin ice, and that may have been the deal-breaker . . . along with whatever other stuff we don't currently know about.

 

[Tau837]

I see AJ Smith shenanigans looming. Will he privately petition to alter the CBA to keep V Jackson as an RFA?

Petition whom? The players' union? The owners like Dan Snyder who might want to sign VJ themselves?

That was a ridiculous post.