Given Vincent Jackson's current status will he play in 2010? (1 Viewer)

[amnesiac]

just adding a white corner.

picked Jackson up in two leagues cause i am not a hawk.

 

[Tau837]

After watching the Vikings tonight, it appears there is a trade market for V-Jax's services as early as next week. They need to do something dramatic or risk losing their window with the 2010 season.

Jackson can't be traded until he reports. He can't report until after San Diego's third game. So he definitely can't be traded next week.Then there is the issue of whether or not he will have to sit out the extra three games for San Diego's roster exemption if he is traded. He may not be able to play until after 6 weeks. And all of that is if he is even traded, which seems unlikely at this point.

I believe Jackson could be signed at any point after he signs his tender, whether he's suspended or not. The Steelers traded Holmes when he was suspended.The issue (which is being hashed out) is whether he would have to miss the 3 other games or not. So I don't think getting traded or not matters, it's when he would be eligible to play that is in question . . . whether it be for SD or another team.

I trust Maurile on this:

He's not allowed to report during his suspension.

The roster-exemption starts to run when he reports.

The question is whether the roster-exemption would apply with his new team after he is traded. The league says yes, the players' union says no. The CBA doesn't directly address the point, but I think the players' union's argument is persuasive. (When he reports to the Chargers, he'd be on the roster-exempt list of his club — i.e., the Chargers. It makes little sense to force the Vikings to put him on their roster-exempt list. If they didn't want him to count against their roster until three weeks later, they could just wait and trade for him three weeks later.)

So if Jackson doesn't sign by Sept 4, he can't be traded until after the third game (since he can't be traded until after he signs, and he can't sign during his suspension). But if he is traded immediately after the third game, he could be eligible to play in the fourth game, depending on whether an arbitrator sides with the league or with the players' union.

Also, it's incorrect that the Steelers traded Holmes when he was suspended. His suspension did not begin until September 5 IIRC.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I'll ask again (since I was pwnd), can anyone name a receiver that came anywhere near those accomplishments that was making the kind of money he was making?

Marques Colston, Jericho Cotchery, Brandon Marshall, Steve Smith (NYG), Mike Sims-Walker when he's healthy . . .

Colston was underpaid for two years, then got a new deal in 2008. He IS underpaid overall (the 2008 deal wasn't monstrous), but has been paid about twice as much over four years as Jackson has over 5 years. In my mind, that doesn't qualify (but is a perfect example of a guy getting his due after over-performing).Cotchery. I have no idea what you are thinking on this one. He had two very marginal years, then one very nice year, then signed signed a $19M contract in 2007 the year after that (more than 5 times what Jackson has made in his career). Oh, and he's not half the receiver Jackson is. You are making my point here.Steve Smith MIGHT be similar if he continues on his current trend (2nd round money and performing very well). But he WON'T of course. He's had one good season so far, and will be a free agent (or will have gotten paid) in 2011.Brandon Marshall WAS in the same category more or less. Through 4 years (3 of them excellent), he was paid about the same as Jackson through 5. BUT (and it's a big one) he obviously got PAID this season. Until then, he would have been a solid example of somebody on par with Jackson in terms of production vs pay.Walker is what he is. One decent season so far and he'll be a FA in 2011. That's not close.But we keep going back and forth on the early years. Let's just say he sucked for the first two years (I think he provided a lot of value to the team in his 2nd year, but I'm willing to concede it). And let's say he was paid about right in his third year (again, that one is even more of an obviously underpaid year to me, but I'm willing to concede it). Then we are left with his two excellent years.The simple fact is that guys who vastly outperform their contract for ONE year are often handled, one way or another. Austin, one great year, one huge contract. Cotchery, one good year, fairly big contract next year. Burleson, one big year, solid contract to follow. Houshmandzadeh had one good year and then got a big extension. Welker had one season at less than 700 yards, then signed an $18M contract.Sometimes they last two years. Roddy White, two good years (on a first round contract so he wasn't broke) then a hold-out and mega-deal. Colston two good years then a re-work. Steve Smith (NYG) one good year, a complaint, then probably another year follwoed by a FA deal. Walker (assuming he manages to get through this season), will have 2 good years then a new deal (FA). Same with Rice, he'll be a FA after one good year. Boldin vastly outperformed for two years, big new contract in 2005. Steve Smith (Car) had two big years underpaid, then a huge contract. Jennings had 2 and a half (his 1st year was nearly identical to Jackson's 2007 except he wasn't the team's leading WR where Jackson was) good years in before his mega deal.For the most part players simply don't keep on being vastly underpaid for three or four years. Marshall was the ONE guy you list who had a 3 year vastly underpaid stretch (and he made a little more than Jackson). And guess what? He was pissed to the point of making a spectacle of himself, got traded, and GOT PAID. The only other guy that comes to mind is DeSean Jackson. He is very underpaid, and assuming no deal gets done soon (which is possible I think), he might make three years severely underpaid. But he was talking holdout as well. That's 2 guys out of everybody I could find that had (or are likely to have in DeSean's case) three heavily underpaid years in a row. Almost universally, guys get taken care of after one or two years unless they had big rookie contracts to begin with.This is why I totally understand why Jackson doesn't feel like adding ANOTHER year to seriously underpaid WR status. If he's NOT the most underpaid WR in the NFL over the last three years (that might be Marshall as you mentioned), there is simply no debate that's he's right up there. Going forward, assuming he would play well this year, it would be indisputably be the 3rd year in a row of very high performance with no big payday. In my mind, it would be his 4th year in a row without too much in the way of a reasonable dispute. He was his team's "leading" wide receiver in 2007 by numbers and was by far the best wide receiver on the team - he just had LT and Gates both in their prime gobbling up stats. Arguably, it could easily be his 5th year in a row considering his playoff performances in 2006 (I happen to think those are important, plus he did have 6 TDs in the regular season, twice as many as the next WR on the team and was a huge threat throughout the season opening things up for other guys) but I recognize that some might disagree on that.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-j...onhearing090910

Reported that Washington and Minny are possible suitors, among others... If V-Jax can play 13 games with Farve or McNabb, his fantasy owners will be very happy... At this point though I bet even St Louis or Seattle sound good.. lol