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

[Gr00vus]

It was obviously implied in his quote that is posted all over these threads. He said something along the lines of "If youre going to pay that much money for a guy, the chargers asking price isn't unreasonable." He was talking long term. Not the 6mil one year deal that Minny was rumored to have ready for him.

So he didn't make that qualification, which is what I thought. Your interpretation about obvious implications makes no sense. In fact the opposite is clearly stated in articles containing the quote. For example:

St. Louis Rams General Manager Billy Devaney said it was “great” working with Smith, because the Chargers were “up front” about their demands.

"We never got really deep into it," Rams G.M. Billy Devaney said of talks about Jackson. "But I thought if you're willing to pay the money for the guy, the draft picks the Chargers were talking about were not unreasonable."...

The Chargers’ price started as two second-round draft picks and ended up being a second-rounder in 2011 and a fourth-rounder in 2012. That scenario was based on a one-year deal. The Chargers would have expected more if Jackson had signed a multi-year contract. Chargers sources said that to their knowledge no such multi-year deal existed.

So there's pretty much no support for your contention. It makes even less sense considering people are looking at the deal Marshall got as a basis for comparison, in which the draft pick compensation was what the Chargers were expecting if a long term deal was in place. I'm sure the Rams GM was well aware of that as well.

 

[Sebowski]

The BIG consideration in this though is that compensatory picks is that they are never guaranteed when you lose a FA. They are awarded to teams that have lost more qualifying free agents than they gained the previous year in free agency. So, while people generally think its a give, its not. It jsut happens that usually teams that lose FA are normally good teams getting picked over or are letting a guy walk to get another guy, etc. If this situation tarnishes people's opinions of the Chargers enough or they sign more guys than they lose next year, or if anything happens to where they lose less than they get, they won't even get a compensatory pick.

I was just going to post this. It is a great mistake to count on a Comp pick. Especially with a new deal coming that might not even have them. In fact, AJ is making a good case for the Players Association to get rid of them. If VJax is the only player they lose to FA in the offseason and they happen to sign at least one guy themselves, they might not get any comp picks. If the number of gained players is the same as lost they can only recieve picks after the 7th round, regardless of contract and playing differences. More than likely they will lose more than one and sign more than one. It will be interesting to see if AJ purposely doesn't sign anyone to stay under the number to get a better comp pick.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it's decently likely that the Chargers will be able to get at least the 2nd and 5th that the Vikings were offering (or whatever it was), either this year or next year. And they might even get Jackson for the 2010 playoffs in the meantime. It's not really my opinion that matters, though, since I haven't been negotiating with other NFL GM's. AJ Smith's opinion is a lot better informed than mine.

we'll seei just don't see how the price anyone pay would go up for less time with him

I don't think two games worth of less time out of a four- or five-year deal really makes a difference. Also, it's not even necessarily less time. If he signs a four-year deal as part of a trade next April, be'd play in more games for his new team than if he signs a four-year deal as part of a trade right now.

 

[Sebowski]

I think it's decently likely that the Chargers will be able to get at least the 2nd and 5th that the Vikings were offering (or whatever it was), either this year or next year. And they might even get Jackson for the 2010 playoffs in the meantime. It's not really my opinion that matters, though, since I haven't been negotiating with other NFL GM's. AJ Smith's opinion is a lot better informed than mine.

we'll seei just don't see how the price anyone pay would go up for less time with him

I don't think two games worth of less time out of a four- or five-year deal really makes a difference. Also, it's not even necessarily less time. If he signs a four-year deal as part of a trade next April, be'd play in more games for his new team than if he signs a four-year deal as part of a trade right now.

You are assuming the Chargers will still hold his rights next April. Most people are assuming they won't. Don't forget that under the last CBA he would be an UFA right now. I don't see the PA letting a new CBA extend the years of service needed to be a FA. I think it is more likely that restricted free agency goes out the window all together.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You are assuming the Chargers will still hold his rights next April. Most people are assuming they won't. Don't forget that under the last CBA he would be an UFA right now.

We're under the "last" CBA right now, and he's a restricted free agent.There are several ways the Chargers could hold his rights next season. If no new CBA is reached, the current one would continue to govern, and Jackson would still be a restricted free agent.

If there is a new CBA, it may retain the current provision making it impossible to go from restricted to unrestricted by sitting out, and Jackson would still be a restricted free agent (unless there is a special exception carved out for Jackson, McNeill, and Mankins).

If there is a new CBA and it does specifically exempt Jackson from such a provision, the Chargers could still use the franchise tag on him.

There is almost no way the Chargers won't have the ability to trade him next year unless they choose not to (either by choosing not to tag him if he's a UFA, or by choosing not to make him a qualifying tender offer if he's an RFA). (Tagging him would be a risk, because if it turns out that they can't trade him, they'd be stuck with his $9 million salary. But it seems unrealistic to think that they wouldn't be able to trade him at all. And since he won't even be suspended next year [as far as we currently know], they may be able to trade him for more than they can now.)

 

[Ksquared]

You are assuming the Chargers will still hold his rights next April. Most people are assuming they won't. Don't forget that under the last CBA he would be an UFA right now.

We're under the "last" CBA right now, and he's a restricted free agent.There are several ways the Chargers could hold his rights next season. If no new CBA is reached, the current one would continue to govern, and Jackson would still be a restricted free agent.

If there is a new CBA, it may retain the current provision making it impossible to go from restricted to unrestricted by sitting out, and Jackson would still be a restricted free agent (unless there is a special exception carved out for Jackson, McNeill, and Mankins).

If there is a new CBA and it does specifically exempt Jackson from such a provision, the Chargers could still use the franchise tag on him.

There is almost no way the Chargers won't have the ability to trade him next year unless they choose not to (either by choosing not to tag him if he's a UFA, or by choosing not to make him a qualifying tender offer if he's an RFA). (Tagging him would be a risk, because if it turns out that they can't trade him, they'd be stuck with his $9 million salary. But it seems unrealistic to think that they wouldn't be able to trade him at all. And since he won't even be suspended next year [as far as we currently know], they may be able to trade him for more than they can now.)

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.

 

[Marauder]

Here are some stats from 2008-2009 for some of the more notable receivers in the NFL.Calvin Johnson - 2383 yards, 17 TDsBrandon Marshall - 2431 yards, 16 TDsReggie Wayne - 2409 yards, 16 TDsVincent Jackson - 2345 yards, 16 TDsThe only guys head and shoulders above VJax over the last two years are Fitzgerald, Johnson, Moss, and White. Now, it's possible that you have a very high threshold for "elite" and think there are only 4 "elite" WRs in the league right now, and I'm 100% fine with that position... but over the last two seasons, Vincent Jackson has been every bit as prolific as Calvin, Marshall, and Wayne. And he's been more prolific than anyone else.

The problem I have with this is the two year window. There are lots of players who flash for one or two years and in any two year period there will be some elite players who have a down year, either because of injury or some other reason, allowing some second tier players to crack the top 10.In 2008, VJax finished 11th among WR's in yards and tied for 12th in TD's. In 2009 he finished tied for 9th in yards and tied for 9th in TD's. Are you really going to consider him in the same class as Reggie Wayne after those two years? I'm sorry but a player who has never finished in the top 5 in either category does not qualify as elite in my book.

 

[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.

 

[SSOG]

Here are some stats from 2008-2009 for some of the more notable receivers in the NFL.Calvin Johnson - 2383 yards, 17 TDsBrandon Marshall - 2431 yards, 16 TDsReggie Wayne - 2409 yards, 16 TDsVincent Jackson - 2345 yards, 16 TDsThe only guys head and shoulders above VJax over the last two years are Fitzgerald, Johnson, Moss, and White. Now, it's possible that you have a very high threshold for "elite" and think there are only 4 "elite" WRs in the league right now, and I'm 100% fine with that position... but over the last two seasons, Vincent Jackson has been every bit as prolific as Calvin, Marshall, and Wayne. And he's been more prolific than anyone else.

The problem I have with this is the two year window. There are lots of players who flash for one or two years and in any two year period there will be some elite players who have a down year, either because of injury or some other reason, allowing some second tier players to crack the top 10.In 2008, VJax finished 11th among WR's in yards and tied for 12th in TD's. In 2009 he finished tied for 9th in yards and tied for 9th in TD's. Are you really going to consider him in the same class as Reggie Wayne after those two years? I'm sorry but a player who has never finished in the top 5 in either category does not qualify as elite in my book.

Which is just fine. As I said, if you want to say that there are only 4 or 5 elite WRs in the league, then I have no problem with anyone who says that VJax isn't one of them.Worth pointing out that Brandon Marshall has never finished in the top 5 in either category, as well.

 

[Ksquared]

That makes sense except I thought the mentioned players were UFA this season if the original CBA would have stayed in affect. Therefore, having been on both sides of union negotiations over the years, I don't see an agreement occurring without the original four years of service being increased. The NFLPA has focused on this area the last couple of negotiations and have made sacrifices in other areas to get the gains they have made in getting players to be UFA as soon as possible. But I still come back to my original statement - VJ, McNeill, and Mankins would be UFA right now under the old CBA, correct? If that is the case, I am sure the new CBA, whenever that occurs will not require them to put in any more years of service to become UFA. At least that is what I have heard from several different sources on radio and TV in the last few months (of course those sources could easily be wrong). Because of the likely hood that VJ could immediately be an UFA if the new CBA occurs, AJ is taking a big gamble that he will get anything IMO.

 

[Shutout]

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.

The info is correct, but it DOES make a difference.The reason a player can't become a UFA under that circumstance is because they have no way to accrue the number of years required in the CBA (currently 4 years). But what we need to realize in this case, and why its different, is that, the rules that say that for this one and only year, what is called the "final year", the requirements are different. In every other year, a person reaches UFA after 4 years. In this one particular final year, it changes to 6. VJAX has 5, of course, so under the rules of the Final year, he is a RFA.

So, one of two things will happen. There will either be a new CBA put into place before next year or there won't. If there is not, then its all irrelevant because there will be a work stoppage. But let's assume there will be a new one. In that case, then VJAX WILL be a UFA as long as the new CBA awards UFA at five or less years. In that case, the Chargers have no hold on him and can only go the tag route. Post #76 in this thread outlines why it would be odd to do that.

So, if there is football next year, VJAX stands a very good chance of being a UFA because the only thing that would bump him out of meeting the requirement is if the requirement for becoming a UFA is set at 6 years or more. That is extremely unlikely because career are so short players just won't agree to that. That would significantly reduce a players chance of ever hitting UFA and cashing in on the big payday.

 

[Shutout]

That makes sense except I thought the mentioned players were UFA this season if the original CBA would have stayed in affect. Therefore, having been on both sides of union negotiations over the years, I don't see an agreement occurring without the original four years of service being increased. The NFLPA has focused on this area the last couple of negotiations and have made sacrifices in other areas to get the gains they have made in getting players to be UFA as soon as possible. But I still come back to my original statement - VJ, McNeill, and Mankins would be UFA right now under the old CBA, correct? If that is the case, I am sure the new CBA, whenever that occurs will not require them to put in any more years of service to become UFA. At least that is what I have heard from several different sources on radio and TV in the last few months (of course those sources could easily be wrong). Because of the likely hood that VJ could immediately be an UFA if the new CBA occurs, AJ is taking a big gamble that he will get anything IMO.

Correct. There could be a CBA that pushes the number up and then say the players did not meet the new requirements and were not eligible but in order to affect VJAX, it has to go from 4 to 6 years and that is just not something the union will concede.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I still come back to my original statement - VJ, McNeill, and Mankins would be UFA right now under the old CBA, correct?

They are under the "old" CBA now, and those players are restricted free agents.

If that is the case, I am sure the new CBA, whenever that occurs will not require them to put in any more years of service to become UFA.

Yeah, it's not really about years of service. It's about not refusing to sign the tender, which is a different issue. (You can sign the tender without getting a year of service; that would be good enough for Jackson under the current CBA. Refusing to sign the tender would not be good enough under the current CBA.)

At least that is what I have heard from several different sources on radio and TV in the last few months (of course those sources could easily be wrong). Because of the likely hood that VJ could immediately be an UFA if the new CBA occurs, AJ is taking a big gamble that he will get anything IMO.

It's a gamble on both sides because we don't know what the CBA will say. I don't think the owners or players' reps know what it will say at this point. AJ is gambling that he'll either be able to get comp picks for Jackson, or that he'll still have RFA rights or franchise tag rights with him. VJ is gambling that he'll be an unrestricted free agent. I dislike VJ's gamble more, and if I were his agent, I'd recommend that he sign by November 16. He'd only be active for three games that way (plus the playoffs), but it would substantially reduce his risk of being an RFA again.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The reason a player can't become a UFA under that circumstance is because they have no way to accrue the number of years required in the CBA (currently 4 years).

That's not the only reason. There's a separate provision that applies independently of any accrued season requirement.

So, one of two things will happen. There will either be a new CBA put into place before next year or there won't. If there is not, then its all irrelevant because there will be a work stoppage.

I agree with you, but some people don't agree. Some people believe that the owners will not lock the players out.

But let's assume there will be a new one. In that case, then VJAX WILL be a UFA as long as the new CBA awards UFA at five or less years.

That's not his primary obstacle. His primary obstacle is the provision in the current CBA saying that an RFA can't become a UFA by refusing to sign his tender, no matter how many accrued seasons he has.

 

[Sebowski]

The reason a player can't become a UFA under that circumstance is because they have no way to accrue the number of years required in the CBA (currently 4 years).

That's not the only reason. There's a separate provision that applies independently of any accrued season requirement.

So, one of two things will happen. There will either be a new CBA put into place before next year or there won't. If there is not, then its all irrelevant because there will be a work stoppage.

I agree with you, but some people don't agree. Some people believe that the owners will not lock the players out.

But let's assume there will be a new one. In that case, then VJAX WILL be a UFA as long as the new CBA awards UFA at five or less years.

That's not his primary obstacle. His primary obstacle is the provision in the current CBA saying that an RFA can't become a UFA by refusing to sign his tender, no matter how many accrued seasons he has.

I think you are way off base. Common sense will prevail and they will be UFA next year. When the wrote the last CBA they didn't foresee these exceptions. Changes will be made to fix that. Didn't Sproles go from an UFA to a RFA because of all of this? I'm sure those things will be fixed in the new CBA. Years accrued will be paramount to refusing to sign a tender. VJ's original contract is up. He complied with it. He will be set free.

 

[Spike]

If you can get a 2nd rounder and another pick and you decline it when the best that you can get is a 3rd (and that could potentially go away) then you took a loss. How is this even debatable? 

 

[tommyGunZ]

If you can get a 2nd rounder and another pick and you decline it when the best that you can get is a 3rd (and that could potentially go away) then you took a loss. How is this even debatable? 

For the 398th time, a 3rd is not the best that the Chargers can get for VJ right now. No one knows exactly what the Chargers can get for VJ going forward. They could deal him tomorrow for 5 first rounders.

 

[Ysatnaf_Gnik]

If you can get a 2nd rounder and another pick and you decline it when the best that you can get is a 3rd (and that could potentially go away) then you took a loss. How is this even debatable? 

For the 398th time, a 3rd is not the best that the Chargers can get for VJ right now. No one knows exactly what the Chargers can get for VJ going forward. They could deal him tomorrow for 5 first rounders.

I don't think Al Davis has contacted AJ "No Rings" Smith yet....

 

[craxie]

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

there is literally no way for that provision to be triggered in the current CBA, so how is it sensible?players who sit out a year don't accrue a season and thus don't move any closer to unrestricted free agency anywaysthat clause in the current CBA is utterly redundantif it were included in the new CBA, it would only EVER apply to at most 3 playersthere is simply no way anyone else can trigger it

 

[YouthofToday]

If you can get a 2nd rounder and another pick and you decline it when the best that you can get is a 3rd (and that could potentially go away) then you took a loss. How is this even debatable? 

For the 398th time, a 3rd is not the best that the Chargers can get for VJ right now. No one knows exactly what the Chargers can get for VJ going forward. They could deal him tomorrow for 5 first rounders.

A team is not going to pay more to have him play week 7 on than week 5 on. The window for the Chargers to get the best deal just closed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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

there is literally no way for that provision to be triggered in the current CBA, so how is it sensible?players who sit out a year don't accrue a season and thus don't move any closer to unrestricted free agency anywaysthat clause in the current CBA is utterly redundantif it were included in the new CBA, it would only EVER apply to at most 3 playersthere is simply no way anyone else can trigger it

It's only redundant most years. It's not redundant right now, which suggests that right now is exactly why it was included.Suppose there's a new CBA next year which reduces the required years of service for unrestricted free agency back down to four years, but otherwise retains similar restrictions on free agency.Suppose VJ signs on November 16 of this year, which puts him on full pay status for the final three games (after his roster-exemption).In that case, he would fail to gain an accrued season, but he would still satisfy the requirement of signing his tender. Thus VJ would be an unrestricted free agent next season even though he failed to gain an accrued season. Alternatively, if he refused to sign his tender this season, he'd be a restricted free agent again even though he's already got five years of service.The provision regarding accrued seasons and the provision regarding what happens when an RFA refuses to sign his tender are not identical or redundant under the current situation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you can get a 2nd rounder and another pick and you decline it when the best that you can get is a 3rd (and that could potentially go away) then you took a loss. How is this even debatable? 

For the 398th time, a 3rd is not the best that the Chargers can get for VJ right now. No one knows exactly what the Chargers can get for VJ going forward. They could deal him tomorrow for 5 first rounders.

A team is not going to pay more to have him play week 7 on than week 5 on. The window for the Chargers to get the best deal just closed.

Why not? A team might be willing to pay more to have him for 4.5 seasons than to have him for 0.5 seasons. You can't possibly know that a team who's only interested in renting him for one year right now (or isn't interested in him at all) won't be interested in signing him long-term a few weeks from now if that team's circumstances change.Also, there's a good chance that the Chargers would be able to trade him next April if they want to. At that point, he will no longer be facing a suspension or a roster-exemption, which might make him worth more.

 

[cstu]

If you can get a 2nd rounder and another pick and you decline it when the best that you can get is a 3rd (and that could potentially go away) then you took a loss. How is this even debatable? 

For the 398th time, a 3rd is not the best that the Chargers can get for VJ right now. No one knows exactly what the Chargers can get for VJ going forward. They could deal him tomorrow for 5 first rounders.

A team is not going to pay more to have him play week 7 on than week 5 on. The window for the Chargers to get the best deal just closed.

Why not? A team might be willing to pay more to have him for 4.5 seasons than to have him for 0.5 seasons. You can't possibly know that a team who's only interested in renting him for one year right now (or isn't interested in him at all) won't be interested in signing him long-term a few weeks from now if that team's circumstances change.Also, there's a good chance that the Chargers would be able to trade him next April if they want to. At that point, he will no longer be facing a suspension or a roster-exemption, which might make him worth more.

I hope you're right MT, but I don't know who is going to want to give up more now when if they were that serious about a long-term deal they would have got it done by now. I imagine teams would rather keep their picks and try to sign him after the season. Obviously with no CBA in place right now anything could happen with regard to his trade rights next year, but it doesn't look like a smart move right now.

 

[craxie]

It's only redundant most years. It's not redundant right now, which suggests that right now is exactly why it was included.

no, it is still redundant right now because the requirement is still 6 and VJ isn't getting 6 by sitting outit will only go down with a new CBAonce the new CBA comes in, the old one is irrelevantthus there is no way the provision in THIS CBA is ever relevant

Suppose there's a new CBA next year which reduces the required years of service for unrestricted free agency back down to four years, but otherwise retains similar restrictions on free agency.Suppose VJ signs on November 16 of this year, which puts him on full pay status for the final three games (after his roster-exemption).In that case, he would fail to gain an accrued season, but he would still satisfy the requirement of signing his tender.

you are mistakenif he doesn't gain an accrued season, he doesn't gain anything towards unrestricted free agency, periodthere is no separate requirement about 'signing his tender'he needs 6 games on the active rosterhe would have to sign by game 8 so he would be roster-exempt games 8, 9 and 10 and then accumulate the 6 active games for 11-16if he signs right before game 11, he would not accumulate enough games to accrue a season and thus be no closer to unrestricted free agency

 

[Couch Potato]

I apologize in advance for saying this, because some of my fav posters and good friends here are Chargers fans, but my visceral reaction to this whole thing is that I now want very badly for AJ Smith to fail miserably in the future. And I definitely believe the way this situation has played out will hurt his team in future dealings with players, agents, and other teams.

I believe AJ Smith's overall disposition is bad for management/player/agent relations, Charger/other team relations, and therefore bad for the NFL in general. I certainly believe he has let this VJax thing become personal and it has resulted in poor judgment on his part. He has hurt his team, first by not signing the player to a reasonable deal that would have helped his team, and second by not making a trade that would have helped his team.

The NFL is a business, yes. But in any business goodwill is a very valuable if not tangible commodity. AJ Smith for whatever reason does not understand this, and it will eventually be his downfall.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

there is no separate requirement about 'signing his tender'

Article XIX, Section 2(i)(iii). If an RFA doesn't sign his tender by the Tuesday following the tenth week of the season, he can't play that year, and "his Prior Team shall have the right to tender such player any Qualifying Offer ... prior to the next League Year’s Restricted Free Agent Signing Period. In the event such a Qualifying Offer is tendered, the Prior Team shall have the applicable rights regarding such player according to such tender, and such player shall have the same rights regarding negotiations with other Clubs as he had the previous League Year."Under the current CBA, if he doesn't sign his tender by Nov 16, next year is the same deal as this year. The Chargers can put the same tender on him again.I understand that the current CBA won't apply next season if there's a new one, but the new one very well might contain that same provision. It doesn't make an exception for players with lots of accrued seasons. If he doesn't sign his tender, he's an RFA again, period.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if he signs right before game 11, he would not accumulate enough games to accrue a season and thus be no closer to unrestricted free agency

He wouldn't need another accrued season if a new CBA moves the requirement back to four (or even five) years.He'd just need to avoid the provision stating that an RFA who doesn't sign his tender is an RFA again, which the new CBA might include just like the current one does.

 

[craxie]

If an RFA doesn't sign his tender by the Tuesday following the tenth week of the season, he can't play that year, and "his Prior Team shall have the right to tender such player any Qualifying Offer ... prior to the next League Year’s Restricted Free Agent Signing Period.

all that says if that he doesn't sign by week 10, he can't play at allit does NOT say he will automatically accrue a season if he signs on that dateif VJ signs week 10, he can play and earn such salary as he can, BUT he will NOT accrue a season to unrestricted free agency and will still be in the exact same position next year

Under the current CBA, if he doesn't sign his tender by Nov 16, next year is the same deal as this year. The Chargers can put the same tender on him again.

Under the current CBA if he doesn't sign before game 8, the Chargers can put the same tender on him again

but the new one very well might contain that same provision.

that's the next CBAthe point i was making is that the provision in THIS CBA is pointless because there's no possible way for a player under THIS CBA to become unrestricted by sitting out even without that clause

 

[craxie]

He wouldn't need another accrued season if a new CBA moves the requirement back to four (or even five) years.He'd just need to avoid the provision stating that an RFA who doesn't sign his tender is an RFA again, which the new CBA might include just like the current one does.

I understand that. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where the current CBA is extended another year

 

[Yenrub]

there is no separate requirement about 'signing his tender'

Article XIX, Section 2(i)(iii). If an RFA doesn't sign his tender by the Tuesday following the tenth week of the season, he can't play that year, and "his Prior Team shall have the right to tender such player any Qualifying Offer ... prior to the next League Year’s Restricted Free Agent Signing Period. In the event such a Qualifying Offer is tendered, the Prior Team shall have the applicable rights regarding such player according to such tender, and such player shall have the same rights regarding negotiations with other Clubs as he had the previous League Year."Under the current CBA, if he doesn't sign his tender by Nov 16, next year is the same deal as this year. The Chargers can put the same tender on him again.I understand that the current CBA won't apply next season if there's a new one, but the new one very well might contain that same provision. It doesn't make an exception for players with lots of accrued seasons. If he doesn't sign his tender, he's an RFA again, period.

So we can expect VJ to sign his tender as late as possible then play 1 game then pull something and miss the rest of the season due to injury...then become a UFA

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

the point i was making is that the provision in THIS CBA is pointless because there's no possible way for a player under THIS CBA to become unrestricted by sitting out even without that clause

It's not pointless because the next CBA may well have the same language. Therefore, figuring out the implications is a worthwhile exercise for both the Chargers and Jackson. (The Chargers are likely way ahead in that regard since Ed McGuire had a big hand in drafting the current CBA.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

there is no separate requirement about 'signing his tender'

Article XIX, Section 2(i)(iii). If an RFA doesn't sign his tender by the Tuesday following the tenth week of the season, he can't play that year, and "his Prior Team shall have the right to tender such player any Qualifying Offer ... prior to the next League Year’s Restricted Free Agent Signing Period. In the event such a Qualifying Offer is tendered, the Prior Team shall have the applicable rights regarding such player according to such tender, and such player shall have the same rights regarding negotiations with other Clubs as he had the previous League Year."Under the current CBA, if he doesn't sign his tender by Nov 16, next year is the same deal as this year. The Chargers can put the same tender on him again.I understand that the current CBA won't apply next season if there's a new one, but the new one very well might contain that same provision. It doesn't make an exception for players with lots of accrued seasons. If he doesn't sign his tender, he's an RFA again, period.

So we can expect VJ to sign his tender as late as possible then play 1 game then pull something and miss the rest of the season due to injury...then become a UFA

According to his agent, he's not going to sign his tender at all.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I understand that. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where the current CBA is extended another year

If the current CBA is extended another year, Jackson will be an RFA because he won't have six accrued seasons. That's obvious. (Assuming he sits out.)The less obvious point I was making is that Jackson could be an RFA next year even if there's a new CBA that reduces the accrued season requirement back down to four years.

 

[mambomambo]

I understand that. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where the current CBA is extended another year

If the current CBA is extended another year, Jackson will be an RFA because he won't have six accrued seasons. That's obvious. (Assuming he sits out.)The less obvious point I was making is that Jackson could be an RFA next year even if there's a new CBA that reduces the accrued season requirement back down to four years.

If this happens, I guarantee this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[craxie]

It's not pointless because the next CBA may well have the same language.

it can never be used in this CBAif it is in the next CBA, it will impact no more than 3 playerscalling it 'sensible' when the only players it can possibly impact are those who have put in enough years to be unrestricted otherwise seems very odd. if the requirement goes back to 4 years, how is it 'sensible' to require these 3 players to play 5 years?but never fear, now that the issue has been brought to the forefront, the union will ensure it's not in the next CBAproblem solved

Therefore, figuring out the implications is a worthwhile exercise for both the Chargers and Jackson. (The Chargers are likely way ahead in that regard since Ed McGuire had a big hand in drafting the current CBA.)

If AJ turned down a 2 on the assumption that VJ will still be an RFA next year, he's going to look very, very sillyThe union will never ever allow them to remain RFAs under the new CBA, just not going to happen

 

[Riffraff]

Lord of No Rings. Precious.

AJ has brought in quite a bit of talent and kept the Chargers competitive. May not be the best people person in contract negotiations, but he's doing quite a good job of bringing in talent. Had a similar face-off with Gates and won. This off-season Gates got his big contract, so in reality, both won. Very low percentage, but I don't completely put it past VJ to come to his senses and eventually figure out where he is in the contract pecking order. McNeil is playing it smart by biding his time and keeping his mouth shut.

As for the "no rings' part: I guess AJ is responsible for finding one of the most accurate regular season kickers in NFL history who has also cost the Chargers 3 play-off games (2005, 2006, and 2009). He missed a FG in 4 straight play-off games (2006-2007). Big reason for "no rings." Nate Kaeding

 

[Sebowski]

I understand that. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where the current CBA is extended another year

If the current CBA is extended another year, Jackson will be an RFA because he won't have six accrued seasons. That's obvious. (Assuming he sits out.)The less obvious point I was making is that Jackson could be an RFA next year even if there's a new CBA that reduces the accrued season requirement back down to four years.

Under the latest CBA VJax would be an UFA. By opting out of the final year of that the owners triggered the Uncapped year which has the rules we are dealing with right now. These Uncapped Year rules most certainly won't apply next year. The most likely scenario is a different set of rules will be introduced and the terms of the last CBA where Jackson had finished his time served will apply. The exceptions made for the Uncapped Year won't have any carry over.

 

[hoopvillian]

Lord of No Rings. Precious.As for the "no rings' part: I guess AJ is responsible for finding one of the most accurate regular season kickers in NFL history who has also cost the Chargers 3 play-off games (2005, 2006, and 2009). He missed a FG in 4 straight play-off games (2006-2007). Big reason for "no rings." Nate Kaeding

This. Kaeding is the sole reason the Bolts haven't advanced far in the playoffs.AJ has strung together for a handful of seasons extremely competitive playoff-caliber teams after recovering from Bobby Beathards devastating senile years quicker than a lot of San Diegans thought possible. How could you hate on that? In AJ We Trust

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Under the latest CBA VJax would be an UFA.

Under the latest CBA, VJax is an RFA.

By opting out of the final year of that the owners triggered the Uncapped year which has the rules we are dealing with right now. These Uncapped Year rules most certainly won't apply next year. The most likely scenario is a different set of rules will be introduced and the terms of the last CBA where Jackson had finished his time served will apply. The exceptions made for the Uncapped Year won't have any carry over.

The rule stating that if an RFA doesn't sign his tender, his prior team can give him the same tender again the following year is not just an Uncapped Year rule. It's an every year rule.

 

[Sebowski]

Lord of No Rings. Precious.As for the "no rings' part: I guess AJ is responsible for finding one of the most accurate regular season kickers in NFL history who has also cost the Chargers 3 play-off games (2005, 2006, and 2009). He missed a FG in 4 straight play-off games (2006-2007). Big reason for "no rings." Nate Kaeding

This. Kaeding is the sole reason the Bolts haven't advanced far in the playoffs.AJ has strung together for a handful of seasons extremely competitive playoff-caliber teams after recovering from Bobby Beathards devastating senile years quicker than a lot of San Diegans thought possible. How could you hate on that? In AJ We Trust

Ever think that maybe those games might not have come down to a single kick if other things were done better? Did Nate Kaeding let Greene have a career day against them? Did Kaeding blow the lead in the 4th quarter against the Pats? It's because of Kaeding that they lost by 11 to the Steelers?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If AJ turned down a 2 on the assumption that VJ will still be an RFA next year, he's going to look very, very silly

The union will never ever allow them to remain RFAs under the new CBA, just not going to happen

I don't know how it will turn out. I don't think anyone does. How hard will the union go to bat on something that pertains to only three players? I don't know. How much solidarity will the owners show on an issue that adversely affects only two teams? I don't know. I don't see a huge impetus on either side to change the status quo on the issue, but anything can happen.If VJ sits out the whole year, he'll be taking a risk I wouldn't want to take. But that's nothing new — he's been doing that since June 15. I really don't know how things will turn out. I don't think anyone can know at this point.

 

[Sebowski]

Under the latest CBA VJax would be an UFA.

Under the latest CBA, VJax is an RFA.

By opting out of the final year of that the owners triggered the Uncapped year which has the rules we are dealing with right now. These Uncapped Year rules most certainly won't apply next year. The most likely scenario is a different set of rules will be introduced and the terms of the last CBA where Jackson had finished his time served will apply. The exceptions made for the Uncapped Year won't have any carry over.

The rule stating that if an RFA doesn't sign his tender, his prior team can give him the same tender again the following year is not just an Uncapped Year rule. It's an every year rule.

We're going in circles. I know you have to understand what I'm saying. The owners opted out of the CBA. Yes, there was language in that CBA to trigger the Uncapped Year, so you can argue that all the rules that come with the Uncapped Year were part of the CBA, but that is misleading. In the end a CBA, whether new or old, will supersede an exception year. That is when the terms of Vincent Jackson's expired contract will be honored and he will be set free. I'm sure you'll disagree, so agree to disagree. We'll just have to wait and see who was right. If you're willing to wager on it, let me know.

 

[Sebowski]

For the record I think Jackson should have signed the original tender, but AJ should have also been willing to talk about a creative contract. I'm sure Jackson would have signed a 3.3 mil base with incentive clauses on top of that. That could have been a win-win, but AJ doesn't negotiate. He dictates. Like a previous poster said. That isn't good business.

 

[Shutout]

I understand that. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where the current CBA is extended another year

If the current CBA is extended another year, Jackson will be an RFA because he won't have six accrued seasons. That's obvious. (Assuming he sits out.)The less obvious point I was making is that Jackson could be an RFA next year even if there's a new CBA that reduces the accrued season requirement back down to four years.

Under the latest CBA VJax would be an UFA. By opting out of the final year of that the owners triggered the Uncapped year which has the rules we are dealing with right now. These Uncapped Year rules most certainly won't apply next year. The most likely scenario is a different set of rules will be introduced and the terms of the last CBA where Jackson had finished his time served will apply. The exceptions made for the Uncapped Year won't have any carry over.

Exactly! For the guys that were discussing all the "could be a RFA" issues, go back to post#76. It details why all this is almost 100% guaranteed no to hold VJAX as a RFA. In short, if there is no CBA, we don't just carry over again with this unique year's rules. That's it. Work stops. There is no work agreement in palce between management and the union. If there is a CBA, then they go by those rules and it is almost inconceivable that the requirement for UFA would be pushed to 6 years or more (the only point that would prevent VJAX from being a UFA).The info on article XIX, section 2 (i), (iii) is the standard language for the CBA in any given year but would have no bearing on the new CBA. Even if that exact language is carried over to the new CBA (and it probably will be...its been the language in several CBAs), it won't apply to VJAX because THEN the 1st rule to consider is: What is the requirement for UFA and if that requirement is not 6 years or more, then the Article XIX, section 2 (i), (iii) doesn't come to play because he wont be a RFA that has to sign by a certain date, he will be a UFA.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In short, if there is no CBA, we don't just carry over again with this unique year's rules. That's it. Work stops.

That's only if there's a strike or lockout. If there's no strike or lockout, we do carry over again with the 2010 rules.

If there is a CBA, then they go by those rules and it is almost inconceivable that the requirement for UFA would be pushed to 6 years or more (the only point that would prevent VJAX from being a UFA).

I agree with the first part. But Jackson could be an RFA even if the requirement for accrued seasons is brought back down to four years.

The info on article XIX, section 2 (i), (iii) is the standard language for the CBA in any given year but would have no bearing on the new CBA. Even if that exact language is carried over to the new CBA (and it probably will be...its been the language in several CBAs), it won't apply to VJAX because THEN the 1st rule to consider is: What is the requirement for UFA and if that requirement is not 6 years or more, then the Article XIX, section 2 (i), (iii) doesn't come to play because he wont be a RFA that has to sign by a certain date, he will be a UFA.

It comes into play because Jackson is an RFA this year. So next year, the Chargers will be his prior team that still can still make a qualifying tender to him, and still have the same rights as it did the previous season.

 

[craxie]

I agree. But Jackson could be an RFA even if the requirement for accrued seasons is brought back down to four years.

if there ever was any doubt, there isn't nowthe union has committed itself to making them UFAs regardless

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/se...-ashes-vj-vs-j/

Remember, the Chargers believe Jackson will still be under their control next season based on language in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement that says a restricted free agent who doesn’t play in a league year remains under his old team’s control. Word is that the players’ union has assured agents that won’t be the case under the new CBA

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

I agree. But Jackson could be an RFA even if the requirement for accrued seasons is brought back down to four years.

if there ever was any doubt, there isn't nowthe union has committed itself to making them UFAs regardless

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/se...-ashes-vj-vs-j/

Remember, the Chargers believe Jackson will still be under their control next season based on language in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement that says a restricted free agent who doesn’t play in a league year remains under his old team’s control. Word is that the players’ union has assured agents that won’t be the case under the new CBA

At least finish the quote...

Word is that the players’ union has assured agents that won’t be the case under the new CBA, but we could be doing this all over again next year.

Why did you omit it in the first place? Didn't fit the "No Doubt" theorem?

 

[craxie]

Why did you omit it in the first place? Didn't fit the "No Doubt" theorem?

that's the reporter's opinionor more properly, the beat reporter who has to suck up to the team's opinionthe key part is that FACT that the union has committed itself to making them UFAs next season

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Why did you omit it in the first place? Didn't fit the "No Doubt" theorem?

that's the reporter's opinionor more properly, the beat reporter who has to suck up to the team's opinionthe key part is that FACT that the union has committed itself to making them UFAs next season

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

 

[Frot]

wouldn't the right play for Vjax be to report week 10, fake an injury (concussion) and sit the rest of the season but accrue his time

then the only way the chargers hold his rights is if the new CBA, whenever it comes, has the UFA at 6 years, which it won't