Any news on Vincent Jackson trade rumors? (1 Viewer)

[Pittsburgh P]

Let's discuss the mythical lockout. If you look at the payroll for this year, teams can spend whatever but I think they receive at least $125 million and maybe a lot more in revenue right now. Certainly enough to cover pay roll. But you look and you'll find at least half the league is well under that numbers. San Diego really isn't that far off at about $111 million but teams like New England and Baltimore are operating almost $25 million under that $115 million from a year ago...where is that money going? (rhetorical question)

So what's gonna happen is if they can't get the players to agree to new terms they won't lock them out because the owners are making too much money. They're not going to stop that money flow you can be sure of it. So they'll just extend the terms they have now for another year while they continue to negotiate. But the lockout is a joke, it will never happen the way so many of these teams are set up. Oakland is spending the most if you want to know...$152+ million, Dallas is 2nd with $146 million, that's $300 million well spent

If you're right about this, Vincent Jackson will be a restricted free agent again and the Chargers will likely give him the first- and third-round tender again for $3.3 million.Then the interesting question is: will Jackson sign that tender next year before June 15 (when it would go down to $583,000), or would he sit out again for a second consecutive season?

I had seen many reports in the weeks leading up to this that seemed to suggest that Jackson would just sit this year out and be an unrestricted free agent next year but doesn't he have to report for the six games this year in order to become an UFA under the current collective bargaining agreement? Obviously the bargaining agreement could change this but if it is just extended as MOP's post suggests then it could be a reality.

He doesn't need six games. He just needs to sign by Nov 16 (the last day that players are allowed to sign), which would make him eligible to play in three games. He wouldn't get an accrued season that way, but he doesn't need one since he already has five. What he does need to do, under the current CBA, is avoid sitting out the whole year. The current CBA says that a restricted free agent can never become an unrestricted free agent by sitting out the whole season. If there is no new CBA next year, and no lockout, the terms of the current CBA would still apply.

If he does not get his six games and accrue a season, and there is no new CBA next year, then wouldn't that just put him in the exact same situation next year, since the current CBA with no salary cap requires a player to have more than 5 years of accrued service to qualify as an UFA?

 

[thehornet]

How is his production in year 4+5 darn near identical to marshall's?

. . .

Jackson's year 3+4+5:

you're not even trying any more are you?

I supplied 3 years running stats? Not sure of the problem on that one.

The problem is that the original argument was for the last two years and you supplied that last three years solely because it makes your argument look better. Over the last two years:Marshall:

205 Receptions

2385 Yards

16 TDs

79.50 YPG

Jackson:

127 Receptions

2265 Yards

16 TDs

73.06 YPG

So... Jackson was able to replicate Marshall's yardage and touchdown numbers with 80 less receptions. That's why he deserves to get paid.

one guy has rivers, the other guy had cutler and orton. i'd say it's easier to be more efficient with Rivers wouldnt you?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's discuss the mythical lockout. If you look at the payroll for this year, teams can spend whatever but I think they receive at least $125 million and maybe a lot more in revenue right now. Certainly enough to cover pay roll. But you look and you'll find at least half the league is well under that numbers. San Diego really isn't that far off at about $111 million but teams like New England and Baltimore are operating almost $25 million under that $115 million from a year ago...where is that money going? (rhetorical question)

So what's gonna happen is if they can't get the players to agree to new terms they won't lock them out because the owners are making too much money. They're not going to stop that money flow you can be sure of it. So they'll just extend the terms they have now for another year while they continue to negotiate. But the lockout is a joke, it will never happen the way so many of these teams are set up. Oakland is spending the most if you want to know...$152+ million, Dallas is 2nd with $146 million, that's $300 million well spent

If you're right about this, Vincent Jackson will be a restricted free agent again and the Chargers will likely give him the first- and third-round tender again for $3.3 million.Then the interesting question is: will Jackson sign that tender next year before June 15 (when it would go down to $583,000), or would he sit out again for a second consecutive season?

I had seen many reports in the weeks leading up to this that seemed to suggest that Jackson would just sit this year out and be an unrestricted free agent next year but doesn't he have to report for the six games this year in order to become an UFA under the current collective bargaining agreement? Obviously the bargaining agreement could change this but if it is just extended as MOP's post suggests then it could be a reality.

He doesn't need six games. He just needs to sign by Nov 16 (the last day that players are allowed to sign), which would make him eligible to play in three games. He wouldn't get an accrued season that way, but he doesn't need one since he already has five. What he does need to do, under the current CBA, is avoid sitting out the whole year. The current CBA says that a restricted free agent can never become an unrestricted free agent by sitting out the whole season. If there is no new CBA next year, and no lockout, the terms of the current CBA would still apply.

If he does not get his six games and accrue a season, and there is no new CBA next year, then wouldn't that just put him in the exact same situation next year, since the current CBA with no salary cap requires a player to have more than 5 years of accrued service to qualify as an UFA?

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

 

[Sebowski]

We forgot to add Wes Welker to the players AJ let walk away for zero compensation.

So that's:

Brees

Turner

Welker

All gone with no return.

Soon we may add VJ and McNeil to that list.

Get your head out of your ###, AJ. The team has some tickets to sell so the games can actually be on TV.

On top of never adequately replacing NT and DE, he never replaced Lorenzo Neal either.

Add me to the list that LOVES Rivers, but knows that AJ should have never drafted a QB. Brees was not the problem. He was a scapegoat. I was screaming at the Chargers fans around here that Brees was a good QB. He just needed the pieces to fall in place.

They got compensation for Brees and Turner. The rest of your posts have been similarly uninformed/flat out wrong.

Compensatory picks They were awarded those 4th rounders. AJ didn't get them himself.

Now, let's get this straight. You were screaming that Brees was a good QB before the 2004 draft? After he had just posted a 67.5 QB rating and a 2-9 record as the Chargers' primary starting QB in 2003? I don't believe you.

Doesn't matter. It's the truth.

If antsports hadn't gone down I might be able to give you a link. I was hoping AJ would trade the pick with the Giants and then draft Roy Williams to give Brees a weapon in the passing game. Turn out Roy Williams sucks, but the point is I didn't think QB was a position of need, and I have proven correct on that. AJ, not so much.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I was hoping AJ would trade the pick with the Giants and then draft Roy Williams to give Brees a weapon in the passing game. Turn out Roy Williams sucks, but the point is I didn't think QB was a position of need, and I have proven correct on that. AJ, not so much.

I wanted Robert Gallery, myself.Turns out AJ got a much better player than either of us would have.

 

[Moniker]

The problem is that the original argument was for the last two years and you supplied that last three years solely because it makes your argument look better. Over the last two years:Marshall:205 Receptions2385 Yards16 TDs79.50 YPGJackson:127 Receptions2265 Yards16 TDs73.06 YPGSo... Jackson was able to replicate Marshall's yardage and touchdown numbers with 80 less receptions. That's why he deserves to get paid.

one guy has rivers, the other guy had cutler and orton. i'd say it's easier to be more efficient with Rivers wouldnt you?

I'd say so, yes, but it goes both ways. The question was why does Jackson deserve Marshall money. Given that they both have a 61% catch ratio (although Jackson's yards/target is over 3 yards higher than Marshall's - but I'll even write that off to QB play, even though Jackson is far outproducing Marshall), if the roles were reversed it seems pretty obvious that Jackson would have no trouble putting up the amount of receptions that Marshall has in Denver. He deserves to be paid.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I was hoping AJ would trade the pick with the Giants and then draft Roy Williams to give Brees a weapon in the passing game. Turn out Roy Williams sucks, but the point is I didn't think QB was a position of need, and I have proven correct on that. AJ, not so much.

I wanted Robert Gallery, myself.Turns out AJ got a much better player than either of us would have.

I wanted him to stay at #1 and grab Fitz

 

[FantasyMan]

I was hoping AJ would trade the pick with the Giants and then draft Roy Williams to give Brees a weapon in the passing game. Turn out Roy Williams sucks, but the point is I didn't think QB was a position of need, and I have proven correct on that. AJ, not so much.

I wanted Robert Gallery, myself.Turns out AJ got a much better player than either of us would have.

I wanted him to stay at #1 and grab Fitz

Ha, then Fitz would be at home right now because we insulted him with a tender instead of giving him at least some semblance of what he's worth.

 

[Sam Quentin]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

 

[Gr00vus]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

Welcome to antitrust exemption land.

 

[renesauz]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

Welcome to antitrust exemption land.

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

 

[Gr00vus]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?

That can't be right.

Welcome to antitrust exemption land.

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

Basically true. They have an exemption regarding broadcasting. Also the CBA has put the NFL in murky territory when it comes to antitrust exemption in the labor area.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

$3.3 million isn't the league minimum. Also, any other team is free to sign him for more than that as long as they give up their first- and third-round picks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

Welcome to antitrust exemption land.

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

All employers have an antitrust exemption when it comes to labor issues decided by collective bargaining.If the players decertify their union, that antitrust exemption would no longer apply, and any restrictions on free agency would ultimately be illegal. Until then, restrictions on free agency agreed to by the players' union are valid.

 

[cstu]

I was hoping AJ would trade the pick with the Giants and then draft Roy Williams to give Brees a weapon in the passing game. Turn out Roy Williams sucks, but the point is I didn't think QB was a position of need, and I have proven correct on that. AJ, not so much.

I wanted Robert Gallery, myself.Turns out AJ got a much better player than either of us would have.

I wanted him to stay at #1 and grab Fitz

Ha, then Fitz would be at home right now because we insulted him with a tender instead of giving him at least some semblance of what he's worth.

No, he would have been signed to a long-term deal since he doesn't have 2 DUI's.

 

[Max Power]

I was hoping AJ would trade the pick with the Giants and then draft Roy Williams to give Brees a weapon in the passing game. Turn out Roy Williams sucks, but the point is I didn't think QB was a position of need, and I have proven correct on that. AJ, not so much.

I wanted Robert Gallery, myself.Turns out AJ got a much better player than either of us would have.

I wanted him to stay at #1 and grab Fitz

Ha, then Fitz would be at home right now because we insulted him with a tender instead of giving him at least some semblance of what he's worth.

No, he would have been signed to a long-term deal since he doesn't have 2 DUI's.

speculation? or did I miss AJ stating this?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No, he would have been signed to a long-term deal since he doesn't have 2 DUI's.

speculation? or did I miss AJ stating this?

Kevin Acee is (often accused of being) AJ's mouthpiece, and he's said a number of times that it was getting pulled over for driving without a license on the way to the Jets' playoff game last year that was the final straw. A single DUI, or even two DUIs without any further trouble, likely would have kept VJ in the Chargers' long-term plans, and he'd probably have a contract extension by now. The fact that he hasn't shown that he's wised up even after getting his second DUI is the reason the Chargers don't want to give him a long-term contract, at least if you believe what Acee says.

 

[Ksquared]

No, he would have been signed to a long-term deal since he doesn't have 2 DUI's.

speculation? or did I miss AJ stating this?

Kevin Acee is (often accused of being) AJ's mouthpiece, and he's said a number of times that it was getting pulled over for driving without a license on the way to the Jets' playoff game last year that was the final straw. A single DUI, or even two DUIs without any further trouble, likely would have kept VJ in the Chargers' long-term plans, and he'd probably have a contract extension by now. The fact that he hasn't shown that he's wised up even after getting his second DUI is the reason the Chargers don't want to give him a long-term contract, at least if you believe what Acee says.

Which is exactly why many of us see this as a vindictive move by AJ and not necessarily what is best for the Chargers (short or long term). It appears that AJ just wants to stick it to him because he can - if not either AJ would have traded him and let him be someone elses problem or would not be asking for as much since he will only pay him the $600,000 figure. No way around these two points except to let VJ and any other player know AJ is the boss and l will play hard ball if you don't toe the line. Which AJ has the right to do, but just like in our working world - these managers are the ones that worker look to leave at the first opportunity.I almost always side with the GMs in these situations, but AJ's handling of other personnel issues have made me strongly doubt he is anyone I would want to work for at any level and I am sure many others in the NFL see it the same way (Archie Manning anyone???) BTW, I am sure there are other examples that I don't remember (I can only think of players nearing the end of their peak years), but when was the last time a top player on a team got tendered to cost a 1st and 3rd pick and the team that kept them did not try to negotiate a long term contract. I know in some cases the two parties could not agree and the player left after the RFA season, but almost all of the examples I can think of involved older aging stars.

 

[HenryMuto]

This might have already been posted but just in case here is what Jackson and his agent plan to do next year.

**Note: Those quick to jump to Smith's defense shouldn't consider it a lock that the Chargers will receive a third-round pick when Jackson signs elsewhere as a free agent. According to Yahoo's Michael Silver, Jackson's agent plans to spite Smith by ensuring that his client's next contract has an "inordinately low 2011 base salary," thereby lowering the Bolts' compensation to a sixth- or seventh-round draft pick.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

People are sleeping on this possibility. It would be very interesting to see a truly free market in the NFL. No doubt the owners, good capitalists all, would welcome this development?

 

[John 14:6]

This might have already been posted but just in case here is what Jackson and his agent plan to do next year.**Note: Those quick to jump to Smith's defense shouldn't consider it a lock that the Chargers will receive a third-round pick when Jackson signs elsewhere as a free agent. According to Yahoo's Michael Silver, Jackson's agent plans to spite Smith by ensuring that his client's next contract has an "inordinately low 2011 base salary," thereby lowering the Bolts' compensation to a sixth- or seventh-round draft pick.

Maybe the Vikings will sign him next year, especially if Rice walks...

 

[Rockchild]

Let's discuss the mythical lockout. If you look at the payroll for this year, teams can spend whatever but I think they receive at least $125 million and maybe a lot more in revenue right now. Certainly enough to cover pay roll. But you look and you'll find at least half the league is well under that numbers. San Diego really isn't that far off at about $111 million but teams like New England and Baltimore are operating almost $25 million under that $115 million from a year ago...where is that money going? (rhetorical question)

So what's gonna happen is if they can't get the players to agree to new terms they won't lock them out because the owners are making too much money. They're not going to stop that money flow you can be sure of it. So they'll just extend the terms they have now for another year while they continue to negotiate. But the lockout is a joke, it will never happen the way so many of these teams are set up. Oakland is spending the most if you want to know...$152+ million, Dallas is 2nd with $146 million, that's $300 million well spent

If you're right about this, Vincent Jackson will be a restricted free agent again and the Chargers will likely give him the first- and third-round tender again for $3.3 million.Then the interesting question is: will Jackson sign that tender next year before June 15 (when it would go down to $583,000), or would he sit out again for a second consecutive season?

I had seen many reports in the weeks leading up to this that seemed to suggest that Jackson would just sit this year out and be an unrestricted free agent next year but doesn't he have to report for the six games this year in order to become an UFA under the current collective bargaining agreement? Obviously the bargaining agreement could change this but if it is just extended as MOP's post suggests then it could be a reality.

He doesn't need six games. He just needs to sign by Nov 16 (the last day that players are allowed to sign), which would make him eligible to play in three games. He wouldn't get an accrued season that way, but he doesn't need one since he already has five. What he does need to do, under the current CBA, is avoid sitting out the whole year. The current CBA says that a restricted free agent can never become an unrestricted free agent by sitting out the whole season. If there is no new CBA next year, and no lockout, the terms of the current CBA would still apply.

If he does not get his six games and accrue a season, and there is no new CBA next year, then wouldn't that just put him in the exact same situation next year, since the current CBA with no salary cap requires a player to have more than 5 years of accrued service to qualify as an UFA?

That's certainly possible and what it looks like now but if the players decertify that could change.

 

[Sebowski]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

$3.3 million isn't the league minimum. Also, any other team is free to sign him for more than that as long as they give up their first- and third-round picks.

That 3.3 is no longer on the table. Hasn't been for months. AJ has said its 300k or nothing. Aren't we suppose to take him at his word?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Which is exactly why many of us see this as a vindictive move by AJ and not necessarily what is best for the Chargers (short or long term). It appears that AJ just wants to stick it to him because he can - if not either AJ would have traded him and let him be someone elses problem or would not be asking for as much since he will only pay him the $600,000 figure. No way around these two points except to let VJ and any other player know AJ is the boss and l will play hard ball if you don't toe the line. Which AJ has the right to do, but just like in our working world - these managers are the ones that worker look to leave at the first opportunity.

You can either believe that AJ is cutting off his nose to spite his face and acting on a personal vendetta and not in the Chargers best interests, or you can believe that AJ felt he wasn't getting fair value for VJax and feels that keeping him and exercising any number of options in the future is in the best interests of the Chargers.I have no problem giving AJ the benefit of the doubt here, due to his strong track record as the Chargers GM, the comments from the Rams GM suggesting that the Chargers demands were reasonable, and the compensation Miami paid for a similar WR.

 

[Sebowski]

Which is exactly why many of us see this as a vindictive move by AJ and not necessarily what is best for the Chargers (short or long term). It appears that AJ just wants to stick it to him because he can - if not either AJ would have traded him and let him be someone elses problem or would not be asking for as much since he will only pay him the $600,000 figure. No way around these two points except to let VJ and any other player know AJ is the boss and l will play hard ball if you don't toe the line. Which AJ has the right to do, but just like in our working world - these managers are the ones that worker look to leave at the first opportunity.

You can either believe that AJ is cutting off his nose to spite his face and acting on a personal vendetta and not in the Chargers best interests, or you can believe that AJ felt he wasn't getting fair value for VJax and feels that keeping him and exercising any number of options in the future is in the best interests of the Chargers.I have no problem giving AJ the benefit of the doubt here, due to his strong track record as the Chargers GM, the comments from the Rams GM suggesting that the Chargers demands were reasonable, and the compensation Miami paid for a similar WR.

And the Raiders got a 4th rounder for Randy Moss. Every trade situation is different. AJ can demand all he wants. At the end of the day he needs to take the best offer or let Jax walk with the very real possibility of getting nothing in return.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You can either believe that AJ is cutting off his nose to spite his face and acting on a personal vendetta and not in the Chargers best interests, or you can believe that AJ felt he wasn't getting fair value for VJax and feels that keeping him and exercising any number of options in the future is in the best interests of the Chargers.

Excellent! Finally an answer. What options will he have in the future that are better than the ones he just had?

 

[craxie]

Excellent! Finally an answer. What options will he have in the future that are better than the ones he just had?

the league will feel sorry for him losing a player of VJ's caliber, so they will put a provision in the next CBA granting the Chargers two additional first round picks as compensation for his pain and suffering

 

[az_prof]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

Welcome to antitrust exemption land.

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

I don't think Jackson is an angel in this by any means, but, if I were him, I would probably sue the Chargers and the NFL. This man is being denied an opportunity to earn a living by a company that is holding him hostage even though there are other companies that want to hire him. What other business does this happen in? His right to seek employment freely is clearly being obstructed.

 

[renesauz]

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

People are sleeping on this possibility. It would be very interesting to see a truly free market in the NFL. No doubt the owners, good capitalists all, would welcome this development?

God I hope not. A true salary cap is great for the league. It's perhaps the biggest single factor in the enormous popularity of the NFL.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

You can either believe that AJ is cutting off his nose to spite his face and acting on a personal vendetta and not in the Chargers best interests, or you can believe that AJ felt he wasn't getting fair value for VJax and feels that keeping him and exercising any number of options in the future is in the best interests of the Chargers.

Excellent! Finally an answer. What options will he have in the future that are better than the ones he just had?

I'll let you know when the time comes. Unless you can predict the future nobody knows. It's a gamble. Some gambles pay off and some gambles don't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

$3.3 million isn't the league minimum. Also, any other team is free to sign him for more than that as long as they give up their first- and third-round picks.

That 3.3 is no longer on the table. Hasn't been for months. AJ has said its 300k or nothing. Aren't we suppose to take him at his word?

It's $583K this year, but the Chargers can't hold his rights forever if he decides not to play for that: the $3.27 million will be back on the table again next year. In any case, neither of those is the league minimum.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You can either believe that AJ is cutting off his nose to spite his face and acting on a personal vendetta and not in the Chargers best interests, or you can believe that AJ felt he wasn't getting fair value for VJax and feels that keeping him and exercising any number of options in the future is in the best interests of the Chargers.

Excellent! Finally an answer. What options will he have in the future that are better than the ones he just had?

This was answered quite capably (before it was asked and re-asked) by Camel Gold (I think his name is) earlier in the thread. I'll see if I can find the post in a bit.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

Welcome to antitrust exemption land.

Except that the NFL hasn't been granted anti-trust exemption! As I have said repeatedly...this is an issue that could get bad for the NFL if they aren't careful.

I don't think Jackson is an angel in this by any means, but, if I were him, I would probably sue the Chargers and the NFL. This man is being denied an opportunity to earn a living by a company that is holding him hostage even though there are other companies that want to hire him. What other business does this happen in? His right to seek employment freely is clearly being obstructed.

What cause of action does he have against the Chargers or the NFL? If he has a valid cause of action against anybody, it's against the NFLPA for failing to represent his interests with sufficient competence. (But he really doesn't have a valid action against the NFLPA, either.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's a post summarizing why a second-rounder isn't the best possible deal the Chargers might be able to get.

Can someone explain to me what AJ is thinking by passing up a 2nd for VJax?

The only things I can think are this:1. Prevents the talent from going to a competitor2. Still retains the rights for all sorts of unknowns next year, including2a. He's still a RFA next year from not playing -> Trade2b. Franchise Tag -> Trade3. Minuscule shot at him signing and playing weeks 12-17 (and any possible post season games)4. Still waiting for his up front asking price of a 2nd+3rd rounder by October 19thHe's still in the power position at the moment until someone meets his demands, or the season ends and RFA + Franchise Tagging are GONE in the new CBA

 

[Sam Quentin]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

$3.3 million isn't the league minimum. Also, any other team is free to sign him for more than that as long as they give up their first- and third-round picks.

That 3.3 is no longer on the table. Hasn't been for months. AJ has said its 300k or nothing. Aren't we suppose to take him at his word?

It's $583K this year, but the Chargers can't hold his rights forever if he decides not to play for that: the $3.27 million will be back on the table again next year. In any case, neither of those is the league minimum.

Why would the Chrgers put 3.3 million back on the table?What would have to happen for the Chargers not to hold his rights forever?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That 3.3 is no longer on the table. Hasn't been for months. AJ has said its 300k or nothing. Aren't we suppose to take him at his word?

It's $583K this year, but the Chargers can't hold his rights forever if he decides not to play for that: the $3.27 million will be back on the table again next year. In any case, neither of those is the league minimum.

Why would the Chrgers put 3.3 million back on the table?

That's the qualifying tender for first- and third-round compensation.

What would have to happen for the Chargers not to hold his rights forever?

Under the current CBA, for the Chargers to hold his rights forever, they'd have to keep making a qualifying tender every year, and VJ would have to keep refusing to sign it every year. (And he'd also have to refuse signing with any other team who beats the Chargers' offer and is willing to give up the required draft pick compensation.)

 

[Deaddawg]

I think Indy players have already voted to decertify the union. Other teams are also voting now through the end of the season. Once that is done than the bonds that hold VJ are gone. This is why I think that MOP might be off base on the lock out. If the season ends and the union is gone, than the antitrust exemption is gone.

 

[None_More_Black]

That's a good point. If it happens exactly like MOP says, Jackson would need six accrued seasons instead of five to be unrestricted next season, so he would have to report by week eight this season.

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

$3.3 million isn't the league minimum. Also, any other team is free to sign him for more than that as long as they give up their first- and third-round picks.

That 3.3 is no longer on the table. Hasn't been for months. AJ has said its 300k or nothing. Aren't we suppose to take him at his word?

It's $583K this year, but the Chargers can't hold his rights forever if he decides not to play for that: the $3.27 million will be back on the table again next year. In any case, neither of those is the league minimum.

He is being offered the veteran minimum - missed games which is in the 300k range. He could not have been offered less.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So basically, even hough he's not under any contract, the Chargers can force him to play at league minimum for a year or he never plays football again?That can't be right.

$3.3 million isn't the league minimum. Also, any other team is free to sign him for more than that as long as they give up their first- and third-round picks.

That 3.3 is no longer on the table. Hasn't been for months. AJ has said its 300k or nothing. Aren't we suppose to take him at his word?

It's $583K this year, but the Chargers can't hold his rights forever if he decides not to play for that: the $3.27 million will be back on the table again next year. In any case, neither of those is the league minimum.

He is being offered the veteran minimum - missed games which is in the 300k range. He could not have been offered less.

The $583K is not calculated based on the vet minimum; it's calculated based on being 110% of his 2009 salary.

 

[geoff8695]

Here's a post summarizing why a second-rounder isn't the best possible deal the Chargers might be able to get.

Can someone explain to me what AJ is thinking by passing up a 2nd for VJax?

The only things I can think are this:1. Prevents the talent from going to a competitor2. Still retains the rights for all sorts of unknowns next year, including2a. He's still a RFA next year from not playing -> Trade2b. Franchise Tag -> Trade3. Minuscule shot at him signing and playing weeks 12-17 (and any possible post season games)4. Still waiting for his up front asking price of a 2nd+3rd rounder by October 19thHe's still in the power position at the moment until someone meets his demands, or the season ends and RFA + Franchise Tagging are GONE in the new CBA

If VJ and his agent feel strongly enough to structure the next contract in such a way that it is designed specifically to minimize Chargers' compensation (assuming there still is compensation under a new CBA). What makes anyone think they aren't willing to do EVERYTHING it takes to remove any other options AJ might have and ensure SD has no possible way to exert control over him ever again in the future. I really don't think that's much of a stretch.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. It really doesn't matter whether you think AJ is in the right, or if you're upset with the way VJ has handled himself. VJ feels strongly enough about the way AJ has handled this situation to do whatever it takes to "stick it to the man". I really doubt that VJ and his agent leave open any more options for AJ to control him in the future, and any dreams that San Diego fans have of VJ risking his future payday by playing for the Chargers in the regular or postseason, are pipe dreams at best IMO.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[PranksterJD]

I think Indy players have already voted to decertify the union. Other teams are also voting now through the end of the season. Once that is done than the bonds that hold VJ are gone. This is why I think that MOP might be off base on the lock out. If the season ends and the union is gone, than the antitrust exemption is gone.

Pretty sure they've voted to **allow** the union to decertify, not to actually decertify it, and there's a difference. From what I gather, decertification is basically dropping an A-bomb if it actually occurs. Seems to me that MoP's Cold War approach where everyone involved just extends the status quo is the more likely scenario.

 

[geoff8695]

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.

 

[renesauz]

The $583K is not calculated based on the vet minimum; it's calculated based on being 110% of his 2009 salary.

And THAT salary was remotely fair? Guy played out his contract, and would be an unrestricted FA in any other year. AJ is lucky he didn't hold out LAST year.This could get to be uglier for the NFL, not just these two parties.

 

[Tau837]

The $583K is not calculated based on the vet minimum; it's calculated based on being 110% of his 2009 salary.

And THAT salary was remotely fair? Guy played out his contract, and would be an unrestricted FA in any other year. AJ is lucky he didn't hold out LAST year.This could get to be uglier for the NFL, not just these two parties.

His salary last year was fair. It was in his contract, which he willingly signed. If you are saying that he could have made more last year had he been a UFA, well, sure... but he signed a 5 year contract when he was drafted, so that is irrelevant.

 

[renesauz]

The $583K is not calculated based on the vet minimum; it's calculated based on being 110% of his 2009 salary.

And THAT salary was remotely fair? Guy played out his contract, and would be an unrestricted FA in any other year. AJ is lucky he didn't hold out LAST year.This could get to be uglier for the NFL, not just these two parties.

His salary last year was fair. It was in his contract, which he willingly signed. If you are saying that he could have made more last year had he been a UFA, well, sure... but he signed a 5 year contract when he was drafted, so that is irrelevant.

Come on JWB...rookie contracts are a crap shoot. High picks are almost always well overpaid. Other picks are almost always underpaid. Very rarely do high caliber young players play out their rookie deals without getting a new deal....ESPECIALLY long deals like that one.9 of 10 players would have held out last summer for a better deal...and 9 of 10 GM's and fans would have understood why.

I have a real hard time seeing AJ as anything but an arrrse in this one. And no...I don't own Jackson in many leagues (only 1 actually). As pointed out, even the 3 million plus tender was the LOWEST possible for the 1/3 compensation. Jackson significantly outperformed his rookie deal...and honored it anyway. Minimum offers since are absolutely unjustified and degrading.

AJ is doing the NFL in general no favors with this stance. The commissioner should step in.

 

[Shutout]

This is such a huge thread its easy to see how people missed some things but there is A LOT of incorrect info on the RFA, who has the upper hand in this that has been tossed around in the past 100 or so posts here.

GO to http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=557585

Post #76 outlines it all and posts #150 to present or so clarify how the Article 2, section (i), (iii) paragraph becomes secondary when the new CBA is signed.

Long story short: VJAX has the leverage and the significant likelihood that he will get what he wanted all along, etc. the only thing that can hurt him is if must cave because he can't afford to live right now or the remote (VERY VERY REMOTE) chance that the requirement for UFA is increased to 6 years or more. I never say never...anything is possible, but there is simply just no way to find it likely that the requirement for UFA would ever be pushed that far because the careers are so short to begin with.

 

[Tau837]

The $583K is not calculated based on the vet minimum; it's calculated based on being 110% of his 2009 salary.

And THAT salary was remotely fair? Guy played out his contract, and would be an unrestricted FA in any other year. AJ is lucky he didn't hold out LAST year.This could get to be uglier for the NFL, not just these two parties.

His salary last year was fair. It was in his contract, which he willingly signed. If you are saying that he could have made more last year had he been a UFA, well, sure... but he signed a 5 year contract when he was drafted, so that is irrelevant.

Come on JWB...rookie contracts are a crap shoot. High picks are almost always well overpaid. Other picks are almost always underpaid. Very rarely do high caliber young players play out their rookie deals without getting a new deal....ESPECIALLY long deals like that one.9 of 10 players would have held out last summer for a better deal...and 9 of 10 GM's and fans would have understood why.

I have a real hard time seeing AJ as anything but an arrrse in this one. And no...I don't own Jackson in many leagues (only 1 actually). As pointed out, even the 3 million plus tender was the LOWEST possible for the 1/3 compensation. Jackson significantly outperformed his rookie deal...and honored it anyway. Minimum offers since are absolutely unjustified and degrading.

AJ is doing the NFL in general no favors with this stance. The commissioner should step in.

IMO this subject has become tiresome. You are just regurgitating the same thing that has been said 1000 times in this forum since this situation began.Yes, he outperformed his rookie contract, as do many players. The vast majority of them do not hold out (or fail to report, as in this case). On the flip side, many players do not perform up to their contracts... the team doesn't get a refund in those cases.

IMO it is misleading to say his original tender amount was the lowest it could be. It was the standard amount for the tender he was given, which was the highest tender. IMO there is no reason to offer a player more than the standard tender. If a team thinks a player is worth paying more, they would typically work out a contract extension. I don't think they would typically offer him a tender amount higher than the standard amount. Can you cite a single instance where a team offered more than the standard tender amount when tendering a player (as opposed to negotiating a contract extension)?

And the Chargers have made it clear that they don't have him in their long term plans at the price he is demanding. So there is no reason for them to pay him more than they have to. And guess what, it looks like their offense will be fine without him.

I'm a Chargers fan, and I'd like to see him stay. But not for $50M. I would have been fine if he was traded, but I am willing to trust that Smith has good reasons for handling it this way. Many want to say its personal for him, and I don't agree. We'll see how it works out. In the meantime:

Jackson earned his draft slot.

Jackson signed his rookie contract.

Jackson got two DUIs and got stopped on his way to a playoff game last year while driving on a suspended license.

Jackson chose not to sign the tender.

Jackson chose to ask for an extremely high contract from all suitors.

Jackson is choosing not to report.

IMO the situation exists because of his actions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And THAT salary was remotely fair? Guy played out his contract, and would be an unrestricted FA in any other year. AJ is lucky he didn't hold out LAST year.

I don't think luck had anything to do with VJ not holding out last year. He didn't hold out because if he had, his fines would have been several million more than his salary.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

IMO it is misleading to say his original tender amount was the lowest it could be. It was the standard amount for the tender he was given, which was the highest tender. IMO there is no reason to offer a player more than the standard tender. If a team thinks a player is worth paying more, they would typically work out a contract extension. I don't think they would typically offer him a tender amount higher than the standard amount. Can you cite a single instance where a team offered more than the standard tender amount when tendering a player (as opposed to negotiating a contract extension)?

It would be like putting the franchise tag on a player and then offering him a one-year deal for more than the franchise tag amount.There's no reason it can't be done, but I don't think it ever has (or ever will).