Any news on Vincent Jackson trade rumors? (2 Viewers)

[Sam Quentin]

AJ is doing the NFL in general no favors with this stance.

I agree. This is more fodder for next year's lockout/strike.As a fan who ususally gives owners more slack than I should, AJ has shown me the error of my ways.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Some commentary from Kevin Acee, who tends to have a pro-AJ bias (but tries not to).

Sifting through ashes of VJ vs. A.J.

BY KEVIN ACEE

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

This has to start with the bottom line.

A.J. Smith should have traded Vincent Jackson. This isn’t the first time I’ve written it. I’ve sat in the man’s office and asked again and again why he doesn’t just do it. I think Jackson still being a Charger (in name only) is a mistake.

It’s almost certain the best the Chargers can hope for now is the 97th pick in the 2012 draft as compensation should Jackson leave as an unrestricted free agent after this season. They could have gotten a pick 35 or so spots higher in 2011 from the Minnesota Vikings.

But it is the Chargers’ right not to trade Jackson, just like it was Vincent Jackson’s right not to play for $3.268 million.

And as the world turns away from what Jackson’s agents have devolved into a soap opera, here’s your guiding light to a few issues:

The Whitehurst Factor

Every general manager I’ve ever covered in any sport has reminded me you don’t trade your gold for someone else’s bronze. Pretty easy for armchair GMs to say the Chargers should have taken a second-round pick for Jackson. But Smith gets to assign value, because even though Jackson and his agents seem to have forgotten, Smith is in charge. Consider: In exchange for Charlie Whitehurst , who has never thrown an NFL pass, Smith in March moved up 20 spots in the second round and got a third-round pick to boot.

Setting precedent

Yes, this was a message: Don’t mess with A.J. It was about not being taken advantage of. I’ve talked to executives with three different teams who think the Jets were foolish to deal as they did with Darrelle Revis (who has the same agents as Jackson). I’ve talked with dozens of agents about how agents Neil Schwartz and Jonathan Feinsod handled Jackson’s situation over the past four months, and not one agreed with their tactics.

This will not hurt

Everyone who says Smith’s hardball tactics will bite him because players won’t want to play for the Chargers should consider the cases of Philip Rivers and Antonio Gates . Smith publicly flogged Rivers’ agent while they were negotiating the QB’s rookie deal. Smith absolutely put the screws to Gates in their 2005 contract negotiation. Yet in the last 13 months both players signed long-term deals with the Chargers. (You know who represents Gates? Tom Condon, whom Smith can’t stand.) Also, consider Jackson’s agents continue to say Jackson would happily still play for the Chargers if they paid him properly.

Ignoring three little letters

In March I wrote the Chargers should pay Jackson more than Brandon Marshall got from Miami. But the Chargers had already made up their minds — following Jackson’s Jan. 17 game-day citation for driving on a suspended license, which followed his two DUI arrests — that the receiver was not in their long-term plans. When Jackson talks about being treated unethically and his agents say they don’t understand why the Chargers haven’t just given Jackson a long-term deal, it is a case of selective amnesia. It’s also pretty easy to say the Chargers should construct a contract that protects them financially in the event Jackson gets in trouble again. What about having committed to him as your No.1 receiver with the very real potential he would be out for a season?

Lord of No Rings

To put stock in the contention by Schwartz and Feinsod that “more than one” general manager they dealt with referred to Smith as “The Lord of No Rings” seems far-fetched. First, there are only four or five GMs who could have said it, since that is all that were involved. None of those have won rings themselves. One of them, Washington's Bruce Allen, is Smith's closest friend. And if one of the general managers did say it, that’s even more difficult to take seriously.

And one more ...

As in one more year. 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, but we could be doing this all over again next year.

 

[craxie]

IMO there is no reason to offer a player more than the standard tender.. . .So there is no reason for them to pay him more than they have to.

no reason at all . . . unless they actually want him to playif you don't care if he plays or not, sure there's no reason to offer him more than the minimumheck, if you don't care if he plays, why offer him a contract at all? just cut himon the other hand, if you actually want him to play, well you have to offer a contract that makes it worth his while

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)?

every 1st round pick except Kindleteams are only required to offer $325k or whateverwhy offer more than the minimum?the draftees have no rights and no options. the chargers could have offered Mathews a $325k tender and said 'take it or leave it'but they knew if they did that, Mathews would sit out all year and reenter the draftjust like VJ will sit out all year be a UFA next yearso while they don't have to offer Mathews more than the minimum, they do because they want him to playsimilarly they don't have to offer VJ more than the minimum, but they do if they want him to play

And guess what, it looks like their offense will be fine without him.

I am glad you were able to determine this from playing 2 of the worst defenses in the league.PS: Naanee missed a very costly 4th down grab in the Chiefs game and caused an interception in the Jacksonville game

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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)?

every 1st round pick except Kindle

No, those aren't RFA tenders.Rookies are typically offered multi-year deals because they're in their teams' long-term plans (or else they wouldn't have been drafted by them).More importantly, if a rookie refuses to sign, he goes back in the draft the following year and the team loses its rights to him. If an RFA refuses to sign, he doesn't go back in the draft; he's still stuck in the exact same place again the following year. (This year's RFAs may be an exception.) So there's a good reason for teams to offer rookies more than the minimum — if they don't, they're throwing away their draft picks because they'll lose the rights to the players who don't sign. But that reason doesn't apply to RFAs (at least in most years).That's why I doubt that any RFA has ever been offered a one-year deal that's better than the minimum qualifying tender (aside from having to match an offer from another team). Similarly, I doubt that any franchise player has ever been offered a one-year deal for more than the franchise tag. Same with transition players.

 

[craxie]

More importantly, if a rookie refuses to sign, he goes back in the draft the following year and the team loses its rights to him. If an RFA refuses to sign, he doesn't go back in the draft; he's still stuck in the exact same place again the following year. (This year's RFAs may be an exception.)

exactlythere's no substantive difference between a draft pick's and VJ's situation

if the team doesn't want VJ to play, then why offer him anything?

if they do want him to play, then they're going to have to offer enough to make it worth his while

That's why I doubt that any RFA has ever been offered a one-year deal that's better than the minimum qualifying tender (aside from having to match an offer from another team). Similarly, I doubt that any franchise player has ever been offered a one-year deal for more than the franchise tag. Same with transition players.

right, because otherwise the team will retain their rights next season, so the players have no leveragehere, VJ does have leverage because he will be free next season

thus comparing him to other RFAs doesn't make sense

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

here, VJ does have leverage because he will be free next season

Your crystal ball works better than mine, I suppose.

 

[lyon812]

Don't think this has been linked, apologies if so, but found it interesting. Apparently Rams wouldn't give a 2nd and 3rd for Jackson, but had a long-term deal in place.

http://www.101espn.com/post/59153_cole_ram...kson_deal/audio

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

If this stops any other future Chargers holdouts its a huge win for the organization.

I don't see any reason to believe that it would affect another player's contact and playing status.

Marcus McNeill signs Chargers' tender

Marcus McNeill has reported to the San Diego Chargers, signing his one-year, $630,000 tender, according to sources.

The veteran left tackle will miss the next three games, then will be eligible to play against the St. Louis Rams in Week 6.

The two sides have the next few weeks to try to work out a long-term deal.

McNeill had been holding out in search of a long-term deal with the team.

Although the Chargers had been in talks to trade fellow holdout Vincent Jackson, it had not entertained offers for McNeill, and San Diego had moved forward without him.

In McNeill's place, second-year player Brandyn Dombrowski has protected quarterback Philip Rivers' blindside as the Chargers have opened the season 1-1.

 

[Sebowski]

If this stops any other future Chargers holdouts its a huge win for the organization.

I don't see any reason to believe that it would affect another player's contact and playing status.

Marcus McNeill signs Chargers' tender

Marcus McNeill has reported to the San Diego Chargers, signing his one-year, $630,000 tender, according to sources.

The veteran left tackle will miss the next three games, then will be eligible to play against the St. Louis Rams in Week 6.

The two sides have the next few weeks to try to work out a long-term deal.

McNeill had been holding out in search of a long-term deal with the team.

Although the Chargers had been in talks to trade fellow holdout Vincent Jackson, it had not entertained offers for McNeill, and San Diego had moved forward without him.

In McNeill's place, second-year player Brandyn Dombrowski has protected quarterback Philip Rivers' blindside as the Chargers have opened the season 1-1.

So he signed his reduced tender.... Intresting. I guess it is safe to say that AJ is sticking to what he said. Once the higher tender is gone, it is gone. So we can stop talking about VJax signing for 3mill. That ship has sailed as some of us have been saying. I will not be suprised to see McNeil sign a different deal prior to when he reports for duty week 6. I am betting this was AJ saying show me faith here, make me look good, and I will at least give you back that original money as "an extension" before your risk of injury comes week 6. Just guessing. Time will tell.

 

[Max Power]

Don't think this has been linked, apologies if so, but found it interesting. Apparently Rams wouldn't give a 2nd and 3rd for Jackson, but had a long-term deal in place.

http://www.101espn.com/post/59153_cole_ram...kson_deal/audio

the rams GM just stated that a 2 and 4 were perfectlly reasonable....

 

[Multiple Scores]

Good for mcneil.

As far as Jackson goes Fred sanford says it best... Big dummy.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Good for mcneil. As far as Jackson goes Fred sanford says it best... Big dummy.

Be a lot dummer to risk a big payday for comparative peanuts

 

[todisco1]

Good for mcneil. As far as Jackson goes Fred sanford says it best... Big dummy.

Leon Washington disagrees.

 

[craxie]

Good for mcneil. As far as Jackson goes Fred sanford says it best... Big dummy.

unless MM has some private assurance that a deal will be done shortly, this move is completely illogical

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Good for mcneil.

As far as Jackson goes Fred sanford says it best... Big dummy.

unless MM has some private assurance that a deal will be done shortly, this move is completely illogical

Doesn't look like it..

McNeill's request to have original tender of $3.168M restored was rejected. 2010 compensation will now be $444,000 (37k for 12 weeks).

http://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/25525720235Maybe word of the no doubt lock of the century that holdout RFA will be considered UFA next season didn't reach his agents yet.

 

[craxie]

Doesn't look like it..

McNeill's request to have original tender of $3.168M restored was rejected. 2010 compensation will now be $444,000 (37k for 12 weeks).

http://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/25525720235

let's just wait 3 weeks and see . . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Doesn't look like it..

McNeill's request to have original tender of $3.168M restored was rejected. 2010 compensation will now be $444,000 (37k for 12 weeks).

http://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/25525720235

let's just wait 3 weeks and see . . . .

Make it (at least) six weeks, IMO.Some people still don't take AJ at his word, but I've never known him to fib. He says what he's going to do and he sticks to it.

I believe he's said all along that he'd negotiate with McNeill only after he signed his tender. So I highly doubt that a deal is already in place. I also doubt that a deal will get done within three weeks, because McNeill won't be on the field until then, and I strongly suspect that AJ wants to see McNeill play well before he gives him a big contract. I think that's been an issue all along. McNeill hasn't played to anywhere near his potential in the past few seasons, and the Chargers want to see him do so before extending him. (Same issue with Merriman, who also hasn't played up to his potential in the last couple years. Although I think AJ has other issues with Merriman as well, while with McNeill his only issue is on-field production.)

 

[flranger]

McNeil has to sign, since if he doesn't he is still considered a 4 year player. The extra year Jackson has is a huge difference. Most feel that the league will agree to go back to 4, but if they split the difference and made it 5 McNeil would be totally screwed if he didn't get an accrued year of service.

Easy fix, fire the agents in three weeks, get someone new, sign a deal, and blame it all on the old agents. Everyone is happy.

 

[mightyeskimo]

Anyone know what Jackson has been doing since last year? Has he been working out somewhere? Taking part in other players workout programs? Anyone spot him in a dive gym?

 

[craxie]

I think that's been an issue all along. McNeill hasn't played to anywhere near his potential in the past few seasons, and the Chargers want to see him do so before extending him.

if Acee is to be believed, they were very happy with his performance in the latter part of last season

 

[Raider Nation]

Jackson was just dropped in my redraft league. Any reason whatsoever to pick him up?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Jackson was just dropped in my redraft league. Any reason whatsoever to pick him up?

I really dont see it. He has no incentive to report unlike McNeil who needed to

 

[Gr00vus]

Jackson was just dropped in my redraft league. Any reason whatsoever to pick him up?

If the last guy on your bench is useless it'd be worth it to pick Jackson up instead and hold him to the trade deadline if you can afford it.

 

[Akira]

Made me laugh.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yeah, I just saw that. It's no bradyfan83 production, but it's pretty well done.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

There's talk Seattle is still going to make a push for this guy? He's on a lot of redraft ww's...

 

[DesertDawg]

There's talk Seattle is still going to make a push for this guy? He's on a lot of redraft ww's...

can someone tell me the details on the whole VJAX situation. I had no interest in him before but now with the whole pats/seahwks rumors I might wanna make a play for this guy in my league while his value is real low but I'm not sure about the details of his whole situation, like, " if he doesn't get traded he won't play this season" or "a deal has to be done by such and such date or VJAX will sit out the enitre year". Is it a possibility he won't play this entire season? When is the earliest he can play?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is it a possibility he won't play this entire season?

It's 99% probable that he won't play this season.

When is the earliest he can play?

The fourth game after he signs his tender.

 

[wudaben]

Probably another wild rumor but a little spark to the Jackson to NE rumors:

http://www.necn.com/10/07/10/Pats-Chargers...amp;feedID=3352

 

[Sebowski]

I will not be surprised to see McNeil sign a different deal prior to when he reports for duty week 6. I am betting this was AJ saying show me faith here, make me look good, and I will at least give you back that original money as "an extension" before your risk of injury comes week 6. Just guessing. Time will tell.

Chargers signed LT Marcus McNeill to a five-year extension through 2015.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Is it a possibility he won't play this entire season?

It's 99% probable that he won't play this season.

When is the earliest he can play?

The fourth game after he signs his tender.

If he sits out the entire season, will he have to sit out 4 more games next year?

 

[craxie]

If he sits out the entire season, will he have to sit out 4 more games next year?

no(unless the charger's somehow retain his rights and put him on roster-exempt list AGAIN, neither of which is going to happen. and even then it would be 3 games, not 4)

 

[djjosee]

In a re-draft and I dropping him tonight. Don't let the door hit ya on your was out!

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

Is anyone still holding him in redraft? Still waiting for the trade deadline?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Is anyone still holding him in redraft? Still waiting for the trade deadline?

AT THIS POINT I wouldn't see any reason to drop him. If you've invested a roster spot on him this long, you may as well wait one more week, then drop him when it is certain he won't be traded.I don't think anyone expects him to be traded (myself included), but things that no one expects happen all the time in the NFL. If you've had him on your roster for 5 weeks then drop him only to see him traded later in the week to a powerhouse team you are going to want to seriously injure yourself.If you were going to cut him based on odds, you probably should have done it after Minnesota couldn't get anything worked out a couple of weeks ago (or even back when the original "out only 2 weeks" deadline expired). I think deals were more likely to be get done then than now.

 

[wudaben]

Is it a possibility he won't play this entire season?

It's 99% probable that he won't play this season.

When is the earliest he can play?

The fourth game after he signs his tender.

If he sits out the entire season, will he have to sit out 4 more games next year?

Well... if they don't come up with a new labor agreement and continue the existing agreement over to next season then he will still be under the Chargers control next season and we'll be doing this all over again. At this point Jackson should just suck up his pride and sign his tender for this season by (I believe it is) week 10 so he can accumulate enough games to become a UFA next season.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I never say never, but I dont think he's playing this year

 

[wudaben]

Just saw this: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-j...onmankins101310

Apparently the union and the league have been in discussions about when Jackson and Mankins must report to their respective teams in order to satisfy their year of service so they can be UFAs next season.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I seriously think Jackson should sue the NFL and the Chargers on Anti-trust and collusion. He is simply getting screwed over.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I seriously think Jackson should sue the NFL and the Chargers on Anti-trust and collusion. He is simply getting screwed over.

Collective bargaining trumps anti-trust law here. I badly want VJ to play this year, but this is really his (and his agent's) fault for signing a deal that expired in the year that UFA doesn't kick in until after year 6.

 

[beavers]

I seriously think Jackson should sue the NFL and the Chargers on Anti-trust and collusion. He is simply getting screwed over.