AJ Smith "Lord of NO Rings" Poll (1 Viewer)

[craxie]

How is it a fact? It couldn't possibly be more vague. Where is the direct source? Any kind of quote from anybody?

of course he didn't give a direct quote, that's how sources worklet me put it another way: do you have any evidence to contradict this? that the union will NOT support UFA for them?i had already figured that out without any quote

 

[Frot]

not that i condone faking an injury, but as i see it there's nothing the chargers could do

and that bypasses the "he sat out all year so is not a UFA" issue

and from the sounds of how contentious this is, I don't doubt he'd do it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The owners support an 18-game regular season. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't — as with every topic that will be subject to negotiation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A lot of people aren't giving VJ very much credit for not being a doosh. Maybe he deserves some of that for the DUIs, but I think people are carrying it too far.

If he shows up, he'll play hard and try to win like he always has. He's made some bad decisions in the past, but I've seen no indication from him that he's not a true professional when it comes to his work ethic.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

How is it a fact? It couldn't possibly be more vague. Where is the direct source? Any kind of quote from anybody?

of course he didn't give a direct quote, that's how sources worklet me put it another way: do you have any evidence to contradict this? that the union will NOT support UFA for them?i had already figured that out without any quote

Of course they will support it. To what ends is important. The reporter whose word you find trustworthy enough to cite when it corroborates your crystal ball seems to believe their support may not end up meaning anything next year,

 

[Frot]

A lot of people aren't giving VJ very much credit for not being a doosh. Maybe he deserves some of that for the DUIs, but I think people are carrying it too far.If he shows up, he'll play hard and try to win like he always has. He's made some bad decisions in the past, but I've seen no indication from him that he's not a true professional when it comes to his work ethic.

one could argue that when he's being forced to play for 600k it would not be dooshy to give minimal effort, but smarthe comes in week 10, gets what, 300k for the year, and gets severely injured he has just lost millions.if he's not a doosh, and he is a good player, it seems to me like the hardline stance is out of line. I don't see how anyone can argue that the current tender, while within the chargers rights, is any effort to get him to play for them. They don;t want him, and don't want to trade him, and depending on the CBA are willing to risk geting next to nothing for him.I find it impossible to believe this is not about AJ proving his point more than what is good for the team, and most reporters and writers I have read agree.

 

[Couch Potato]

A lot of people aren't giving VJ very much credit for not being a doosh. Maybe he deserves some of that for the DUIs, but I think people are carrying it too far.If he shows up, he'll play hard and try to win like he always has. He's made some bad decisions in the past, but I've seen no indication from him that he's not a true professional when it comes to his work ethic.

one could argue that when he's being forced to play for 600k it would not be dooshy to give minimal effort, but smarthe comes in week 10, gets what, 300k for the year, and gets severely injured he has just lost millions.if he's not a doosh, and he is a good player, it seems to me like the hardline stance is out of line. I don't see how anyone can argue that the current tender, while within the chargers rights, is any effort to get him to play for them. They don;t want him, and don't want to trade him, and depending on the CBA are willing to risk geting next to nothing for him.I find it impossible to believe this is not about AJ proving his point more than what is good for the team, and most reporters and writers I have read agree.

If he did show up to avoid any danger of not satisfying CBA requirements, even if he's not faking an injury it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see him playing it extra cautious and maybe even tanking a little bit to stick it to an organization paying him nothing that he no longer has any psychological allegiance to.A dropped pass here, and missed block there... how would anyone really know if it was or was not on purpose.

 

[wdh76]

MT,

Why are you splitting so many hairs in this thread. When someone say under the current CBA you know excatly what they mean. You are better than that. Take off yr SD colored glasses and look at this as if Al Davis was pulling this same crap. Be HONEST with yourself, would you be taking this same stance??? Until this thread I have always enjoyed the view you bring to the SP, so my hope is you tone it down a little...

 

[BoltBacker]

MT,

Why are you splitting so many hairs in this thread. When someone say under the current CBA you know excatly what they mean. You are better than that. Take off yr SD colored glasses and look at this as if Al Davis was pulling this same crap.

Actually, al davis unloaded Randy Moss for below market value and Moss went on to perform like a pro-bowler as a reward for throwing tantrums. Rumor has it he's still bent about the whole thing and blames others inside the organization for the move.... because we all know al davis never has a hand in every raider move.I can't speak for all Charger fans but I would prefer the Chargers and AJ Smith in particular NOT look to the raiders or al davis on how to run an NFL organization based on the relative levels of success in the modern free-agency NFL since AJ has been a GM.

 

[wdh76]

MT,

Why are you splitting so many hairs in this thread. When someone say under the current CBA you know excatly what they mean. You are better than that. Take off yr SD colored glasses and look at this as if Al Davis was pulling this same crap.

Actually, al davis unloaded Randy Moss for below market value and Moss went on to perform like a pro-bowler as a reward for throwing tantrums. Rumor has it he's still bent about the whole thing and blames others inside the organization for the move.... because we all know al davis never has a hand in every raider move.I can't speak for all Charger fans but I would prefer the Chargers and AJ Smith in particular NOT look to the raiders or al davis on how to run an NFL organization based on the relative levels of success in the modern free-agency NFL since AJ has been a GM.

I didn't mean for him to look to Al as someone to follow, but rather how would he analyze the situation if it were Al doing this to a player.

 

[geoff8695]

not that i condone faking an injury, but as i see it there's nothing the chargers could doand that bypasses the "he sat out all year so is not a UFA" issueand from the sounds of how contentious this is, I don't doubt he'd do it.

I've been thinking the exact same thing. Multiple teams successfully negotiated with Vincent's representatives, not only offering to make VJ a multi-millionaire on the spot, but also offering the Chargers a greater return on investment then they will be entitled to under almost any scenario going forward. After AJ just finished wiping Jackson's nose in it and escalating this from a business decision to a personal one between himself and Jackson, there is NO WAY Jackson will ever just let it go. This has gone way too far for that.A couple of scenarios I could see coming to pass - from the "Any news on Vincent Jackson trade rumors?" thread:

All they have to do is to have VJ sign whatever tender SD has offered and report in time to avoid losing 2010 as an accrued season, no matter what system is in place for 2011.Now obviously VJ doesn't want to risk an injury before his big pay day, so how shocked would you be if he has a perpetual mysterious wandering pain, strain, discomfort, migraines, and/or can't maintain his concentration to catch the ball, or has "forgotten" the playbook during his time off and just can't seem to run the correct pass patterns. I know some will cling to the belief that VJ will conduct himself professionally and go all out for their favorite football team. However, I'm a bit skeptical since he and his agent feel AJ SMith has been "unethical" in not trying to make a deal that would benefit both the Chargers and VJ.

IMO this approach would hurt Jackson's market value. It would be obvious what he was doing, and it would be viewed negatively by prospective suitors IMO. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, that means he would be negatively affecting his teammates and coaches, who as far as we know he likes. I think these kinds of posts are typically made by people who either haven't experienced or don't remember what it's like to play on a team in a competitive setting.

Everyone knows how contentious this situation is, and that Jackson can't afford to risk injury by seeing live action before his big future payday. Teammates and GMs will understand how propesterous it is for VJ to accept a tender for less than a few hundred thousand (what he'll actually see of it anyways) and risk his current value which is tens of millions of dollars. No one will begrudge his protecting himself by ensuring that SD can't control his future again next year, and seeing to it that he never sees live action this season.Heck, Brandon Marshall was "dogging it" for a while last year and had such a bad relationship with his coaching staff that he was suspended by the team before the season even began, and ultimately was benched for the team's final game. Yet Marshall, who some feel is comparable to and many others feel is a worse 'knucklehead' than VJ, was still richly rewarded with a big money long term contract. I doubt GMs with a need for a big time WR are going to be worried that after VJ gets the big contract he's been waiting for, that he will pose any problems to team chemistry or his new coaching staff.Rivers and company are doing a fine job of getting along without VJ now, and I expect they will be used to life without Jackson by the time he's able to rejoin them. And I do get what you mean about negatively affecting his teammates; I don't for a second believe that Jackson would ever embarass himself or let down his teammates in a live game. But in practices, he can 'act a fool' and his teammates and coaches will understand that his conflict is really with management.However, if the Chargers were to 'call his bluff' and actually activate him for game day, I'm confident VJ would give 100% if he were EVER to take the field. I just don't believe VJ can ever allow himself to be put into a position where he does take the field. If 'being out of shape' or 'not being able to catch a cold' or 'forgetting' where the play calls for him to be on the field isn't enough to keep him from being activated, then he could always be "too hurt" or "sick" to be activated for game day.No matter what AJ and the Chargers do from here on out, ultimately VJ can regain control of this situation by taking this approach. Obviously I'm not part of the strategizing, but I'ld be shocked if VJ and his agent aren't thinking about and discussing it.

 

[cvnpoka]

MT, I understood that VJ was going to be an UFA until the owners backed out of the current CBA. By doing this the poison pill changes took place including requiring an extra year of service to become an UFA. If that is correct, I would be shocked if the NFLPA did not require the number of years before acquiring UFA status return to the number in the previous CBA. That is the reason several of the players you mentioned are sitting out - up to the owner's backing out of the CBA, they would have been UFA.

Yes, but it's not just about the number of years. There's also a (sensible) provision in the current CBA, which might be retained in the next one, that says a restricted free agent can't become unrestricted by sitting out the whole year. If a team has RFA rights to a player by virtue of making a qualifying tender, it doesn't lose those rights just because its offer is rejected. That provision isn't tied to any particular number of years of accrued service. So even if the next CBA requires only four years to become an unrestricted free agent, it still could very easily say that no matter how many years you have, if you're an RFA in year N, you'll still be an RFA in year N+1 if you sit out the whole year.It's a good provision because without it, more players would have an incentive to sit out, which benefits nobody. And teams would not get the benefit of their RFA rights. If there's going to be such a thing as restricted free agency going forward, and I suspect there will be, it has to work in such a way that it actually means something, and doesn't simply encourage players to sit out a year whenever they become an RFA.

It's possible that a one-time exception would be carved out for Jackson, McNeill, and Mankins. But I wouldn't count on it if I were their agents.

lol at thinking its good to infringe on a players ability to seek a fair wage.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT, I understood that VJ was going to be an UFA until the owners backed out of the current CBA. By doing this the poison pill changes took place including requiring an extra year of service to become an UFA. If that is correct, I would be shocked if the NFLPA did not require the number of years before acquiring UFA status return to the number in the previous CBA. That is the reason several of the players you mentioned are sitting out - up to the owner's backing out of the CBA, they would have been UFA.

Yes, but it's not just about the number of years. There's also a (sensible) provision in the current CBA, which might be retained in the next one, that says a restricted free agent can't become unrestricted by sitting out the whole year. If a team has RFA rights to a player by virtue of making a qualifying tender, it doesn't lose those rights just because its offer is rejected. That provision isn't tied to any particular number of years of accrued service. So even if the next CBA requires only four years to become an unrestricted free agent, it still could very easily say that no matter how many years you have, if you're an RFA in year N, you'll still be an RFA in year N+1 if you sit out the whole year.It's a good provision because without it, more players would have an incentive to sit out, which benefits nobody. And teams would not get the benefit of their RFA rights. If there's going to be such a thing as restricted free agency going forward, and I suspect there will be, it has to work in such a way that it actually means something, and doesn't simply encourage players to sit out a year whenever they become an RFA.

It's possible that a one-time exception would be carved out for Jackson, McNeill, and Mankins. But I wouldn't count on it if I were their agents.

lol at thinking its good to infringe on a players ability to seek a fair wage.

$3.3 million is a fair wage for a restricted free agent.