Did AJ Smith "win" with the way he handled Jackson? (1 Viewer)

[KellysHeroes]

I really don't see how Vincent Jackson lost here. At worst he's playing for the Chargers for 10m next season. He avoided injury by playing the minimum number of games. The team floundered off to a weak start without him.

VJax is one of the few players that should pray for the franchise tag next yr... I doubt that another team is going to give him the huge contract he wants especially since he has 2 strikes against him with the DUIs.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I've posted in this thread too much already, but I'll try to sum up my thinking as succinctly as possible.Was the $3.26 million offer reasonable? That was the "market rate" for VJ given the limited market for RFAs, since that was his best offer.It doesn't matter what I think is reasonable, or what any other posters think. It matters only what AJ and VJ thought. Ultimately, the question is whether playing a full season for $3.26 million (prorated down to 14 out of 17 weeks = $2.68 million) is better for VJ than playing six games for $583K (prorated down to seven weeks = $240K).AJ believed that the $3.26 million would be preferable to Jackson.Jackson, by his actions, apparently believed that the $583K was preferable. The effective difference of $349K per game for the extra 7 games wasn't worth the injury risk. (By the way, $349K per game for a full season would be $5.9 million. That's what Jackson apparently thinks isn't worthwhile on a per-game basis.)I strongly suspect, however, that Jackson would have taken the $3.26 million if he had it all to do over again. He would have preferred to play 13 games instead of 6 games to make an extra $2.4 million. I think that would be my preference if I were in Jackson's shoes.If my suspicion is correct — if Jackson's best option was to take the $3.26 million — then IMO that makes the "market rate" offer to him reasonable. It's always reasonable to offer someone a deal that is better than any of his other options.If my suspicion is incorrect — if Jackson really is happy to play six games for $240K instead of thirteen games for $2.68 million — then I'd say that AJ's $3.26 million offer was unreasonable, and that if he wanted VJ to play in 2010, he should have offered more. Enough more to make playing 13 games preferable to playing 6 games.

Let's say we have Bill, AJ, and Vincent.Bill is an eccentric billionaire who is a good friend of AJ, but is afraid of contact or dealings with anyone other than AJ.Bill has a strong attachment to/desire for a particular coin that is owned by Vincent. He is willing to pay $10M for it, but only to AJ, and not to Vincent. The coin is worthless to anyone else including Vincent, who has no interest in keeping the coin (other than for it's value to Bill).So Vincent and AJ enter into negotions for the transfer of the coin from Vincent to AJ who can then turn around and sell the coin to Bill for $10M.Vincent wants $9.9M figuring AJ is just a pass-through, and the coin is worth what it is worth. AJ offers $.1M figuring Vincent has no other options and will eventually sell the coin to him for whatever he can get.What is a "reasonable" price for the coin? Without an agreement, neither AJ nor Vincent gets anything at all, so it is in their best interests to get a deal done. Nobody gets anything without the coin, and nobody gets anything without Bill's affinity for AJ, both are vital.If AJ does not budge at all on the $.1M offer, would Vincent be "crazy" to just turn him down and not get anything? He is losing money that way, and not really gaining anything in return. Should that potential decision by Vincent be something that AJ should consider in making his offer?But if Vincent's decision to just drop out of the deal altogether without what he consider's to be a "fair" offer is crazy, what is AJ's decicsion to NOT pay Vincent's asking price since he gets nothing without a deal either? Isn't it just as crazy?Now, who is crazy when Vincent says, "Alright, let's work something out", and AJ says "Nope, all I'm ever going to offer you is $.1M, and if you don't take it today, I'm going to drop my offer to $1."According to your RFA theory, Vincent is the only crazy one and ANY offer he gets is better than no offer, so he should just take whatever is offered and AJ shouldn't even bother considering that Vincent might not cave and take the offer. I don't think negotiations should/do work like that. It completely ignores the other perspective (which is really just a mirror version of the one that you are focusing on) that AJ is ALSO gets nothing if a deal is not reached.And that is exactly what they both got - nothing.And of course, ALL of this completely ignores all of the history of him being massively underpaid, all of the "special" circumstances that have driven Jackson to be a RFA when in any other year he would be a full FA, etc. Since you don't think any of that matters (I do, and I think Jackson does, but let's say it doesn't), I'm willing to focus on just the RFA situation.You keep saying no one offered Jackson anything over his tender when he was being "shopped". Well of course not, because the 1st and 3rd compensation is a HUGE factor that almost makes salary irrelevant. When is the last time a RFA was grabbed by another team with the 1st and 3rd tender requirement on him? It may have happened, but I can't think of one.Then you mention in other threads that no team has offered more than the "required" 1st and 3rd tender amount for a single season. Again, that is VERY misleading. First of all, players as good as Jackson almost never become RFAs, because most are drafted players who typically signed 4 or 5 year rookie deals which in every year but this one eliminates the RFA status. 2nd, even among the rare cases where an excellent player was undrafted (or didn't have enough years for UFA status for whatever reason), when they show signs of their greatness they are signed to long term deals before they hit RFA status. Others are traded away, or just aren't very good etc. That just doesn't leave a lot of cases in which what you are looking for could even possibly be met. I might just as easily say no RFA player that was a pro-bowler the year before has ever played under the minimum 1st and 3rd tender going into a season. I don't know for sure that is true, but again I can't think of one.I just think a lot of folks are looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. "Jackson should have played because he cost himself money". That may be true, but he was at least willing to negotiate for his services, while AJ wasn't.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

VJax is one of the few players that should pray for the franchise tag next yr... I doubt that another team is going to give him the huge contract he wants especially since he has 2 strikes against him with the DUIs.

So his performance at the end of the year is actually going to hurt him somehow? Because there were reportedly a couple teams that had agreed to a long-term deal with him before he came back.

 

[Tau837]

VJax is one of the few players that should pray for the franchise tag next yr... I doubt that another team is going to give him the huge contract he wants especially since he has 2 strikes against him with the DUIs.

So his performance at the end of the year is actually going to hurt him somehow? Because there were reportedly a couple teams that had agreed to a long-term deal with him before he came back.

I believe the bolded is incorrect. I think multiple teams (Seattle, St. Louis) backed away from his contract demands. Minnesota was the only team willing to pay him, but they intended to give him a one year deal for this season due to Rice's injury.If I'm wrong, please cite the teams that agreed to terms with him.

ETA: I originally asked you to back up this claim in post 334, but you never responded.

 

[Tau837]

Then you mention in other threads that no team has offered more than the "required" 1st and 3rd tender amount for a single season. Again, that is VERY misleading. First of all, players as good as Jackson almost never become RFAs, because most are drafted players who typically signed 4 or 5 year rookie deals which in every year but this one eliminates the RFA status. 2nd, even among the rare cases where an excellent player was undrafted (or didn't have enough years for UFA status for whatever reason), when they show signs of their greatness they are signed to long term deals before they hit RFA status. Others are traded away, or just aren't very good etc. That just doesn't leave a lot of cases in which what you are looking for could even possibly be met. I might just as easily say no RFA player that was a pro-bowler the year before has ever played under the minimum 1st and 3rd tender going into a season. I don't know for sure that is true, but again I can't think of one.

On the bolded, can you name any such player who got the type of deal VJax was looking for who already had two DUIs or equivalent drug issues? I think that issue played heavily into the Chargers' decision not to reward him as you indicate is more typical of a player who excels but has not yet become a UFA. But that issue is IMO underplayed by those who take Jackson's side in this situation.

I just think a lot of folks are looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. "Jackson should have played because he cost himself money". That may be true, but he was at least willing to negotiate for his services, while AJ wasn't.

It is indisputable that he lost money. He will never make that $2M+ for the 2010 season that was offered to him. He very likely will end up with essentially the same contract that he would have if he had played all season outside of his suspension. Sure, there is a chance that he could have gotten hurt, though the odds of him sustaining an injury serious enough to hurt his market value were very low. And that is somewhat offset by the chance that he could've played even better than he has previously and earned the contract he wants, which he doesn't seem likely to get at this point.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You're right about the long-term thing, but there were multiple teams willing to pay him... and AJ was the hold up. Jackson negotiated flexibly.

BY JIM THOMAS www.STLtoday.com | (9) Comments | Posted: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:20 amHow involved were the St. Louis Rams with Vincent Jackson?Two league sources told the Post-Dispatch on Wednesday that the Rams made a contract offer to the San Diego Chargers' wide receiver.One of the sources also said that the hangup in Jackson going to the Rams was the trade terms with the Chargers.

Agent Neil Schwartz said he heard from multiple general managers, whom he declined to identify, that the Chargers were asking for "wholly unreasonable" compensation for Jackson, a Pro Bowl player who had two straight 1,000-yard seasons. Schwartz said another GM told him that Chargers general manager A.J. Smith seemed to be "squatting" on Jackson.[snip]Schwartz said the legal language with one team was already drawn up and ready for Jackson to read and sign. That was a one-year deal with an option, with an average salary of more than $9 million. Schwartz declined to identify that team. It was widely reported that the Minnesota Vikings were a major suitor.

 

[Tau837]

You're right about the long-term thing, but there were multiple teams willing to pay him... and AJ was the hold up. Jackson negotiated flexibly.

BY JIM THOMAS www.STLtoday.com | (9) Comments | Posted: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:20 amHow involved were the St. Louis Rams with Vincent Jackson?Two league sources told the Post-Dispatch on Wednesday that the Rams made a contract offer to the San Diego Chargers' wide receiver.One of the sources also said that the hangup in Jackson going to the Rams was the trade terms with the Chargers.

Agent Neil Schwartz said he heard from multiple general managers, whom he declined to identify, that the Chargers were asking for "wholly unreasonable" compensation for Jackson, a Pro Bowl player who had two straight 1,000-yard seasons. Schwartz said another GM told him that Chargers general manager A.J. Smith seemed to be "squatting" on Jackson.[snip]Schwartz said the legal language with one team was already drawn up and ready for Jackson to read and sign. That was a one-year deal with an option, with an average salary of more than $9 million. Schwartz declined to identify that team. It was widely reported that the Minnesota Vikings were a major suitor.

1. I wouldn't call a one year deal with an option a long term deal with Minnesota.2. This simply says St. Louis made an offer to Jackson. It doesn't show that they agreed to a deal in principle, and thus doesn't show that they were willing to pay his price.So this doesn't show that multiple teams were willing to pay his price for long term deals.

 

[kingmalaki]

It is indisputable that he lost money.

Also indisputable that the Chargers will miss the playoffs and they entered the season without their best WR because the GM didn't want to pay for him. Lose-Lose all the way around.

 

[Tau837]

It is indisputable that he lost money.

Also indisputable that the Chargers will miss the playoffs and they entered the season without their best WR because the GM didn't want to pay for him. Lose-Lose all the way around.

Yes, I agree. I already posted that earlier in this thread. Although there were quite a few bigger reasons they will miss the playoffs than Jackson's absence.

 

[Sabertooth]

It is indisputable that he lost money.

Also indisputable that the Chargers will miss the playoffs and they entered the season without their best WR because the GM didn't want to pay for him. Lose-Lose all the way around.

Yes, I agree. I already posted that earlier in this thread. Although there were quite a few bigger reasons they will miss the playoffs than Jackson's absence.

I think it is the sum of all the little reasons. Obviously not having Jackson contributed to them missing the playoffs in some way. How much each reason mattered is not quantifiable nor does it matter. They missed. He missed.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Then you mention in other threads that no team has offered more than the "required" 1st and 3rd tender amount for a single season. Again, that is VERY misleading. First of all, players as good as Jackson almost never become RFAs, because most are drafted players who typically signed 4 or 5 year rookie deals which in every year but this one eliminates the RFA status. 2nd, even among the rare cases where an excellent player was undrafted (or didn't have enough years for UFA status for whatever reason), when they show signs of their greatness they are signed to long term deals before they hit RFA status. Others are traded away, or just aren't very good etc. That just doesn't leave a lot of cases in which what you are looking for could even possibly be met. I might just as easily say no RFA player that was a pro-bowler the year before has ever played under the minimum 1st and 3rd tender going into a season. I don't know for sure that is true, but again I can't think of one.

On the bolded, can you name any such player who got the type of deal VJax was looking for who already had two DUIs or equivalent drug issues? I think that issue played heavily into the Chargers' decision not to reward him as you indicate is more typical of a player who excels but has not yet become a UFA. But that issue is IMO underplayed by those who take Jackson's side in this situation.

I just think a lot of folks are looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. "Jackson should have played because he cost himself money". That may be true, but he was at least willing to negotiate for his services, while AJ wasn't.

It is indisputable that he lost money. He will never make that $2M+ for the 2010 season that was offered to him. He very likely will end up with essentially the same contract that he would have if he had played all season outside of his suspension. Sure, there is a chance that he could have gotten hurt, though the odds of him sustaining an injury serious enough to hurt his market value were very low. And that is somewhat offset by the chance that he could've played even better than he has previously and earned the contract he wants, which he doesn't seem likely to get at this point.

On the first part, no I can't. You are asking for something very specific from a fairly small data set. I don't disagree in the least that those issues were likely a large part of what drove this situation toward ugliness. But it doesn't mean he wasn't worth more than he was offered (by a big margin). My exact point is that it is meaningless to say "this never happened" or "that never happened" when the data set you are drawing from is so minute.On the second part, yes, I think all are agreed he lost money. You lose money every time you par your car insurance premium too (at least until you have a big claim). I'm not saying he got a good deal for his insurance, but that's PART of what it was. And what kind of deal he will get is WIDE open right now. We frankly just don't know. We know that a team was willing to pay him $6M+ this year PLUS make a substantial draft pick investment. He was offered $3M with no draft pick investment (the pick used to get him is a sunk cost). That's all we have to go on. It makes no sense to just disregard the draft pick aspect of what it would have taken to "get him" this year, and draw conclusions about his "real" market value, and it's fair to say he was worth MORE than the $6M he was offered considering the pick investment ON TOP of the financial one. Given his RFA status, the Chargers were under no obligation to offer him his full FA market value - that's MTs big point. But what I am saying is, they could have and probably should have offered him more than the minimum tender amount if they really wanted him to play. They could have at least negotiated with him and met him half way on a ONE YEAR DEAL. I've never said that they should have offered him his mega-deal if they didn't need him around long-term (especially given the DUIs you mention, which I agree is a very significant issue).

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Well, not only did AJ's arrogance hose Jackson and his team, he may have hosed the entire NFL. Too funny.The contract "offer" was so "fair" that a federal judge considered potential similar offers grounds for ignoring the NFL's request for a stay on her decision. And people wondered why he was pissed.

ESPN's Adam Schefter revealed on the "BS Report" podcast with Bill Simmons that the Vikings offered Vincent Jackson a two-year, $18 million contract before last year's tradeline only to fail to satisfy the Chargers' demands for compensation.V-Jax would have received $8 million in 2010 and $10 million in 2011. Here's where it gets particularly interesting: When Judge Nelson ruled in favor of the players to lift the lockout, she cited the offer as a primary factor. The Vikes were willing to pay Jackson $18 million. Instead, the Chargers opted to keep him on their roster at less than $600,000 for 2010, which was a striking example of "irreparable harm." It's little solace for a player ultimately missing out on $5-6 million, but it does serve as justification for V-Jax's decision to hold out for the first 10 weeks of the season.

 

[CalBear]

Well, not only did AJ's arrogance hose Jackson and his team, he may have hosed the entire NFL. Too funny.The contract "offer" was so "fair" that a federal judge considered potential similar offers grounds for ignoring the NFL's request for a stay on her decision. And people wondered why he was pissed.

ESPN's Adam Schefter revealed on the "BS Report" podcast with Bill Simmons that the Vikings offered Vincent Jackson a two-year, $18 million contract before last year's tradeline only to fail to satisfy the Chargers' demands for compensation.V-Jax would have received $8 million in 2010 and $10 million in 2011. Here's where it gets particularly interesting: When Judge Nelson ruled in favor of the players to lift the lockout, she cited the offer as a primary factor. The Vikes were willing to pay Jackson $18 million. Instead, the Chargers opted to keep him on their roster at less than $600,000 for 2010, which was a striking example of "irreparable harm." It's little solace for a player ultimately missing out on $5-6 million, but it does serve as justification for V-Jax's decision to hold out for the first 10 weeks of the season.

There would have been other examples, but yes, that situation shows the asymmetrical nature of NFL contracts and the lack of power that players have.