Vincent Jackson can play in the 5th game (1 Viewer)

[None_More_Black]

If Jackson sits out the whole year he would be an unrestricted free agent next year correct? (assuming a labor deal that says players with 5 years of service are free agents)? Don't think he would want to give up a year's salary, just wondering how much leverage Smith has.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's play a little game. Imagine there's a guy who gets paid to write about fantasy football. We'll call him, I don't know, "Maurice Trambley". Maurice signs a 5-year contract with FootballDudes.com and he just kills it. His articles are awesome, and his rankings are the best in the business. Towards the end of that 5 years, an independent service rates the best Fantasy Football analysts in the business and Maurice makes their top 10 list (just for fun, let's call this list a "pro bowl"). Maurice sees that everyone else on the top 10 list went out and signed lucrative new contracts with their employers, radically increasing their pay. Maurice then goes to FootballDudes.com brass and says he'd like to sign a new contract with them, but he'd like a salary more commensurate with his talents and with the value he provides. FootballDudes.com, instead, offers him a contract worth maybe a third of what Maurice knows he would be worth on the open market. Maurice decides to shop his services elsewhere, but he finds that the legal team at FootballDudes.com managed to slip a No Compete clause into the final contract without Maurice's knowledge or approval. Maurice has two options- he can either remain with FootballDudes for a year, making a fraction of what he is worth and knowing that if his projections for that season are weak, his value on the open market will plummet... or he can tell FootballDudes.com where to stick their joke of an offer, take a year off of writing about fantasy football, and then sign a lucrative new deal with EPSN, a big-time rival sports website.

Let's add some details to make it more analogous to the Vincent Jackson situation.Say that FootballDudes is offering me $50K a year. My next best employment opportunity is for $5K a year. The writers for other sites make about $500K a year, which is what I might make without the non-compete clause.

Should I resent being offered $50K a year? Maybe. That's kind of subjective. But I think it's quite obvious that writing for $50K a year is still awesome compared to doing something else for $5K a year. I would still jump at the chance to write for $50K a year instead of being a librarian (or whatever) for $5K. If I decided to "hold out" from FootballDudes, it would not be because my life would be terrible if I made only $50K a year. (It would be awesome!) If I held out, it would not be because I'd prefer not to write about football; my holdout would be only a negotiating tactic to try to make writing about football even more awesome. It would be part of a long-term plan to keep writing about football; it would not be part of a plan to get out of writing about football because it's such a terrible deal for me. It's an awesome deal. Just not as awesome as I think I can get by using the negotiating tactic of holding out.

I guarantee you that Vincent Jackson isn't refusing to play football for $3.2 million because he thinks football is stupid and he'd rather do something else if that's all he can make. Rather, he's refusing to play football for $3.2 million as part of a long-term plan . . . to play football for even more than that. Because why not get the most he can get?

I'm not blaming him for trying to get the most he can get. I'm just pointing out that playing for $3.2 million doesn't suck — not to VJ, and not to the average fan. It is in fact awesome compared to their realistic non-NFL alternatives.

There's a big difference between saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because the working conditions are so terrible," and saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because I think I can get $7 million if I hold out." Vincent Jackson is surely saying the latter. For $3.2 million, the working conditions aren't terrible, as the average fan would be quick to agree.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Jackson sits out the whole year he would be an unrestricted free agent next year correct?

That's all up in the air. If there's a new CBA, it would probably make him an unrestricted free agent, but not for sure. If there's no new CBA, there probably won't be a season (at least with NFLPA players). If there's no new CBA and there is a season, Jackson would probably still be a restricted free agent, but not for sure.

 

[redBourne]

I think his point is you're not going to find a whole lot of sympathy around here for multi-millionaires playing a game to earn their living, and crying because they're underpaid. Especially given the economy for the 98% of the rest of us. If you want to hold a torch for Jackson (even though I'm convinced you are him), then you go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to follow you off the cliff.

I know that's how you feel. I think it's idiotic. Human beings are human beings. If you were in his position, I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be doing the same damn thing. And don't play that "no man, it's a game and I love it and I'd do it for the veteran minimum!" line, either. I get that you're a football fan and you think being a player would be the most amazing thing ever... but almost every single player in the NFL was also once exactly like you, a football fan who thought that being a player would be the most amazing thing ever. The fact that they still hold out for every penny they can get is probably a pretty good sign that you would do exactly the same thing, in their shoes.Look, at the end of the day, this is a disagreement between player and management. Either you support the player, or you support the management. You can say "why should I support the player, he's getting paid millions of dollars to play a game?!", but I'm just going to respond with "why should you support management, they're getting paid millions of dollars to watch other people play a game?!". The simple fact is that, if Vincent Jackson plays for an NFL franchise, he will be worth some monetary amount to that franchise. Every player generates revenue for their franchise, either through merchandising, or through increased ticket sales, or through increased wins (which in turn leads to higher merchandising and ticket sales), or whatever. Every single player generates money for the league. Star players make a ton of money, but that's because they're generating a commensurately higher amount of money for their franchise. Indy pays Peyton Manning, what, $15 million a year? But I bet Indy makes $20 million more a year because Peyton Manning is on their team. Peyton Manning gets paid such a huge sum of money because it's commensurate with the amount of revenue he generates for his bosses.Vincent Jackson, whether you like it or not, generates a huge amount of revenue for his franchise. As a result of his labors, his franchise is making millions of dollars. All Vincent Jackson wants is a portion of what he's earning for his bosses. That's a pretty reasonable request, in my mind, whether we're talking about wanting a piece of a $20,000 pie or a $20,000,000 pie. If you generate revenue for your employer, you deserve to be compensated appropriately. Vincent Jackson generates a huge amount of revenue for the billionaire owner of the San Diego Chargers, and he has been denied his opportunity to be compensated appropriately. That's an injustice any way you slice it, and I don't know what kind of person you are, but I'm not big on condoning injustices because I'm jealous of some guy's job.

While I don't necessarily agree 100% with all of your points, SSOG, I've always felt that the average NFL fan's reluctance to show sympathy for NFL players and their salaries was like a little dirt in my eye. Not crucial but quite the annoyance. The NFL is a business and players wouldn't be making millions of dollars if they weren't generating millions for their owners. I wouldn't be making $20,000 if my employer didn't think I would help the company recoup MORE than that amount. Simple as that. NFL players have an ability (whether it's god given or through hard work) to do a job that VERY VERY VERY few people in society can do. If everyone could catch passes like VJ, than the market would be saturated and the average NFL player wouldn't make nearly as much. Rest assured, the average NFL fan wouldn't watch on Sunday's nearly as much either. American's find it difficult to feel sorry for someone that has more than they do. Plain and simple. Whether it's greed, jealousy, or ignorance to that person's daily struggles. You won't change their minds, and I can tell your extremely frustrated by the conversation. Best to just walk away.

 

[redBourne]

Ask the average fan if he'd play this year for $3.2 million. He'd say hes.I'm not saying that Jackson should play for that amount. He can do what he wants. I'm just pointing out that it's probably wrong to say that the average fan wouldn't "put up with" playing for that amount.(It wasn't a substantive point to begin with; it was just a one-liner.)

I'd play NFL football for $50k, right now. So what? But I wouldn't paint houses for $50k. There's an obvious flaw in your logic. The average fan would take pennies to play because they know, deep down, they never will.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Let's play a little game. Imagine there's a guy who gets paid to write about fantasy football. We'll call him, I don't know, "Maurice Trambley". Maurice signs a 5-year contract with FootballDudes.com and he just kills it. His articles are awesome, and his rankings are the best in the business. Towards the end of that 5 years, an independent service rates the best Fantasy Football analysts in the business and Maurice makes their top 10 list (just for fun, let's call this list a "pro bowl"). Maurice sees that everyone else on the top 10 list went out and signed lucrative new contracts with their employers, radically increasing their pay. Maurice then goes to FootballDudes.com brass and says he'd like to sign a new contract with them, but he'd like a salary more commensurate with his talents and with the value he provides. FootballDudes.com, instead, offers him a contract worth maybe a third of what Maurice knows he would be worth on the open market. Maurice decides to shop his services elsewhere, but he finds that the legal team at FootballDudes.com managed to slip a No Compete clause into the final contract without Maurice's knowledge or approval. Maurice has two options- he can either remain with FootballDudes for a year, making a fraction of what he is worth and knowing that if his projections for that season are weak, his value on the open market will plummet... or he can tell FootballDudes.com where to stick their joke of an offer, take a year off of writing about fantasy football, and then sign a lucrative new deal with EPSN, a big-time rival sports website.

Let's add some details to make it more analogous to the Vincent Jackson situation.Say that FootballDudes is offering me $50K a year. My next best employment opportunity is for $5K a year. The writers for other sites make about $500K a year, which is what I might make without the non-compete clause.

Should I resent being offered $50K a year? Maybe. That's kind of subjective. But I think it's quite obvious that writing for $50K a year is still awesome compared to doing something else for $5K a year. I would still jump at the chance to write for $50K a year instead of being a librarian (or whatever) for $5K. If I decided to "hold out" from FootballDudes, it would not be because my life would be terrible if I made only $50K a year. (It would be awesome!) If I held out, it would not be because I'd prefer not to write about football; my holdout would be only a negotiating tactic to try to make writing about football even more awesome. It would be part of a long-term plan to keep writing about football; it would not be part of a plan to get out of writing about football because it's such a terrible deal for me. It's an awesome deal. Just not as awesome as I think I can get by using the negotiating tactic of holding out.

I guarantee you that Vincent Jackson isn't refusing to play football for $3.2 million because he thinks football is stupid and he'd rather do something else if that's all he can make. Rather, he's refusing to play football for $3.2 million as part of a long-term plan . . . to play football for even more than that. Because why not get the most he can get?

I'm not blaming him for trying to get the most he can get. I'm just pointing out that playing for $3.2 million doesn't suck — not to VJ, and not to the average fan. It is in fact awesome compared to their realistic non-NFL alternatives.

There's a big difference between saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because the working conditions are so terrible," and saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because I think I can get $7 million if I hold out." Vincent Jackson is surely saying the latter. For $3.2 million, the working conditions aren't terrible, as the average fan would be quick to agree.

Main difference between the two jobs is the violence involved. Theres no chance of getting hurt writing so theres no chance of losing a future pay day. Guarantee thats vjaxs chief concern. Why risk the big pay day for the money offered. Risk reward isnt there.

 

[None_More_Black]

I think his point is you're not going to find a whole lot of sympathy around here for multi-millionaires playing a game to earn their living, and crying because they're underpaid. Especially given the economy for the 98% of the rest of us. If you want to hold a torch for Jackson (even though I'm convinced you are him), then you go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to follow you off the cliff.

I know that's how you feel. I think it's idiotic. Human beings are human beings. If you were in his position, I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be doing the same damn thing. And don't play that "no man, it's a game and I love it and I'd do it for the veteran minimum!" line, either. I get that you're a football fan and you think being a player would be the most amazing thing ever... but almost every single player in the NFL was also once exactly like you, a football fan who thought that being a player would be the most amazing thing ever. The fact that they still hold out for every penny they can get is probably a pretty good sign that you would do exactly the same thing, in their shoes.Look, at the end of the day, this is a disagreement between player and management. Either you support the player, or you support the management. You can say "why should I support the player, he's getting paid millions of dollars to play a game?!", but I'm just going to respond with "why should you support management, they're getting paid millions of dollars to watch other people play a game?!". The simple fact is that, if Vincent Jackson plays for an NFL franchise, he will be worth some monetary amount to that franchise. Every player generates revenue for their franchise, either through merchandising, or through increased ticket sales, or through increased wins (which in turn leads to higher merchandising and ticket sales), or whatever. Every single player generates money for the league. Star players make a ton of money, but that's because they're generating a commensurately higher amount of money for their franchise. Indy pays Peyton Manning, what, $15 million a year? But I bet Indy makes $20 million more a year because Peyton Manning is on their team. Peyton Manning gets paid such a huge sum of money because it's commensurate with the amount of revenue he generates for his bosses.Vincent Jackson, whether you like it or not, generates a huge amount of revenue for his franchise. As a result of his labors, his franchise is making millions of dollars. All Vincent Jackson wants is a portion of what he's earning for his bosses. That's a pretty reasonable request, in my mind, whether we're talking about wanting a piece of a $20,000 pie or a $20,000,000 pie. If you generate revenue for your employer, you deserve to be compensated appropriately. Vincent Jackson generates a huge amount of revenue for the billionaire owner of the San Diego Chargers, and he has been denied his opportunity to be compensated appropriately. That's an injustice any way you slice it, and I don't know what kind of person you are, but I'm not big on condoning injustices because I'm jealous of some guy's job.

While I don't necessarily agree 100% with all of your points, SSOG, I've always felt that the average NFL fan's reluctance to show sympathy for NFL players and their salaries was like a little dirt in my eye. Not crucial but quite the annoyance. The NFL is a business and players wouldn't be making millions of dollars if they weren't generating millions for their owners. I wouldn't be making $20,000 if my employer didn't think I would help the company recoup MORE than that amount. Simple as that. NFL players have an ability (whether it's god given or through hard work) to do a job that VERY VERY VERY few people in society can do. If everyone could catch passes like VJ, than the market would be saturated and the average NFL player wouldn't make nearly as much. Rest assured, the average NFL fan wouldn't watch on Sunday's nearly as much either. American's find it difficult to feel sorry for someone that has more than they do. Plain and simple. Whether it's greed, jealousy, or ignorance to that person's daily struggles. You won't change their minds, and I can tell your extremely frustrated by the conversation. Best to just walk away.

I think there is a big difference between what Jackson is doing and what someone like Randy Moss is doing. Moss is whining, and when he says he is worried about things like his "family's security" that annoys many regular, hard working people. As it probably should.

 

[scott72]

I think his point is you're not going to find a whole lot of sympathy around here for multi-millionaires playing a game to earn their living, and crying because they're underpaid. Especially given the economy for the 98% of the rest of us. If you want to hold a torch for Jackson (even though I'm convinced you are him), then you go ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to follow you off the cliff.

I know that's how you feel. I think it's idiotic. Human beings are human beings. If you were in his position, I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be doing the same damn thing. And don't play that "no man, it's a game and I love it and I'd do it for the veteran minimum!" line, either. I get that you're a football fan and you think being a player would be the most amazing thing ever... but almost every single player in the NFL was also once exactly like you, a football fan who thought that being a player would be the most amazing thing ever. The fact that they still hold out for every penny they can get is probably a pretty good sign that you would do exactly the same thing, in their shoes.Look, at the end of the day, this is a disagreement between player and management. Either you support the player, or you support the management. You can say "why should I support the player, he's getting paid millions of dollars to play a game?!", but I'm just going to respond with "why should you support management, they're getting paid millions of dollars to watch other people play a game?!". The simple fact is that, if Vincent Jackson plays for an NFL franchise, he will be worth some monetary amount to that franchise. Every player generates revenue for their franchise, either through merchandising, or through increased ticket sales, or through increased wins (which in turn leads to higher merchandising and ticket sales), or whatever. Every single player generates money for the league. Star players make a ton of money, but that's because they're generating a commensurately higher amount of money for their franchise. Indy pays Peyton Manning, what, $15 million a year? But I bet Indy makes $20 million more a year because Peyton Manning is on their team. Peyton Manning gets paid such a huge sum of money because it's commensurate with the amount of revenue he generates for his bosses.Vincent Jackson, whether you like it or not, generates a huge amount of revenue for his franchise. As a result of his labors, his franchise is making millions of dollars. All Vincent Jackson wants is a portion of what he's earning for his bosses. That's a pretty reasonable request, in my mind, whether we're talking about wanting a piece of a $20,000 pie or a $20,000,000 pie. If you generate revenue for your employer, you deserve to be compensated appropriately. Vincent Jackson generates a huge amount of revenue for the billionaire owner of the San Diego Chargers, and he has been denied his opportunity to be compensated appropriately. That's an injustice any way you slice it, and I don't know what kind of person you are, but I'm not big on condoning injustices because I'm jealous of some guy's job.

You're completely missing the point. I DON'T CARE! I won't lose sleep whether Jackson plays this year or not, whether he makes $550,000 or 10 million, just like Vincent Jackson doesn't give a rats ### whether I can pay my bills or not. If all pro athletes ( not just football) wouldn't think they need to be paid millions and millions of dollars, then maybe an NFL game would be an affordable option of entertainment for a family of 4. Right now IT ISN'T. And the owners aren't blameless either. I do agree with you there. If they'd quit paying the ridiculous salaries then they wouldn't have to milk every penny they can out of fans. Plenty of blame to go around here for both sides, but don't give me this garbage that poor Vincent Jackson is getting a screw job.

 

[scott72]

I hate how the average football fan expects the average football player to blithely put up with working conditions that they would themselves find wholly unacceptable in their own lives.

Yes. That's why I personally refuse to play in the NFL.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. It seems to me that you're implying that NFL players should just suck it up and ignore any injustices because they have a glamorous job. Is that an accurate interpretation, or would you rather expound on this for me?

I'm just saying that most football fans would not find playing in the NFL (on the terms of working conditions offered to Vincent Jackson) wholly unacceptable.

Probably because most football fans don't have a blessed clue what it would be like to play in the NFL. I think it's telling that all of these football fans who go on to play in the league do things like hold out, while all of the football fans who DON'T go to the league are totally convinced that they'd never hold out if they'd gotten a shot.Let's play a little game. Imagine there's a guy who gets paid to write about fantasy football. We'll call him, I don't know, "Maurice Trambley". Maurice signs a 5-year contract with FootballDudes.com and he just kills it. His articles are awesome, and his rankings are the best in the business. Towards the end of that 5 years, an independent service rates the best Fantasy Football analysts in the business and Maurice makes their top 10 list (just for fun, let's call this list a "pro bowl"). Maurice sees that everyone else on the top 10 list went out and signed lucrative new contracts with their employers, radically increasing their pay. Maurice then goes to FootballDudes.com brass and says he'd like to sign a new contract with them, but he'd like a salary more commensurate with his talents and with the value he provides. FootballDudes.com, instead, offers him a contract worth maybe a third of what Maurice knows he would be worth on the open market. Maurice decides to shop his services elsewhere, but he finds that the legal team at FootballDudes.com managed to slip a No Compete clause into the final contract without Maurice's knowledge or approval. Maurice has two options- he can either remain with FootballDudes for a year, making a fraction of what he is worth and knowing that if his projections for that season are weak, his value on the open market will plummet... or he can tell FootballDudes.com where to stick their joke of an offer, take a year off of writing about fantasy football, and then sign a lucrative new deal with EPSN, a big-time rival sports website.In this situation, what thoughts do you think might be running through the hypothetical "Maurice's" head? Do you think he might feel upset at FootballDudes.com? Do you think he might feel cheated? If there was some guy on the FootballDudes.com website who would have loved to get paid to write about a hobby like fantasy football, do you think that should factor into Maurice's decision-making process? Would it be okay for Maurice to be upset if he didn't work in a desirable job, but the fact that he works in a desirable job makes it a sign of how bad Maurice's character is for feeling cheated?

I'll give you credit for a nice thought out analogy, but it's not realistic. How many of us in the real world think we're worth more than we're getting paid? I bet ya a lot of us do. Do we get to tell our bosses to "stuff it" and just move on? Highly doubtful unless you have a job in high demand. Hell I bet there are a lot of us that took pay freezes ( I did) for a year because of tight budgets. Again, I don't shed a tear for Mr. Vincent Jackson.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

NFL players have an ability (whether it's god given or through hard work) to do a job that VERY VERY VERY few people in society can do.

Very true. And that's why they should (and do) make so much money.The owners and players are together creating a lot of value for the fans, and collectively bringing in a lot of money for doing so.

I don't know what the average ROI is for owning a football team. I suspect it's higher than the expected ROI from investing in an index fund. But it's probably not that much higher. (I really don't know.)

Meanwhile, players make a lot more than they would by choosing another line of work.

If I'm right about the owners' ROI being a lot more ordinary than the players' salaries are, then the producer-surplus created by the league is going mostly to the players rather than the owners. And that's as it should be. Because the players are creating most of the value for the fans. The owners' invested capital is largely fungible; the players' talents, however, are rare.

But it's not like the players got a raw deal under the last CBA. Collectively, they seemed to make out extremely well. And the very CBA that allowed them to make out so well also says that VJ is a restricted free agent this year. The players can't have just the good parts of the CBA while rejecting the other parts. The owners can't either, of course. They all have to abide by the whole thing. The Chargers and VJ are both doing so. The Chargers made VJ the offer they needed to make, and VJ exercised his right to turn that offer down. We don't need to shed tears for either party.

 

[SSOG]

Let's add some details to make it more analogous to the Vincent Jackson situation.

Say that FootballDudes is offering me $50K a year. My next best employment opportunity is for $5K a year. The writers for other sites make about $500K a year, which is what I might make without the non-compete clause.

Should I resent being offered $50K a year? Maybe. That's kind of subjective. But I think it's quite obvious that writing for $50K a year is still awesome compared to doing something else for $5K a year. I would still jump at the chance to write for $50K a year instead of being a librarian (or whatever) for $5K. If I decided to "hold out" from FootballDudes, it would not be because my life would be terrible if I made only $50K a year. (It would be awesome!) If I held out, it would not be because I'd prefer not to write about football; my holdout would be only a negotiating tactic to try to make writing about football even more awesome. It would be part of a long-term plan to keep writing about football; it would not be part of a plan to get out of writing about football because it's such a terrible deal for me. It's an awesome deal. Just not as awesome as I think I can get by using the negotiating tactic of holding out.

I guarantee you that Vincent Jackson isn't refusing to play football for $3.2 million because he thinks football is stupid and he'd rather do something else if that's all he can make. Rather, he's refusing to play football for $3.2 million as part of a long-term plan . . . to play football for even more than that. Because why not get the most he can get?

I'm not blaming him for trying to get the most he can get. I'm just pointing out that playing for $3.2 million doesn't suck — not to VJ, and not to the average fan. It is in fact awesome compared to their realistic non-NFL alternatives.

There's a big difference between saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because the working conditions are so terrible," and saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because I think I can get $7 million if I hold out." Vincent Jackson is surely saying the latter. For $3.2 million, the working conditions aren't terrible, as the average fan would be quick to agree.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether you'd think Maurice would be getting screwed, and whether you'd think it was a character flaw if Maurice sat out the year to guarantee his big payday? Personally, my answers would be "yes he's getting screwed", and "no I would not view it as a character flaw". Maurice is entitled to make what he is worth.I wasn't saying that the working conditions were so terrible that $3 million was a mere pittance, I was saying that it's terrible that he's being denied a right to make what he's worth. Everyone deserves the right to make what they are worth. Vincent Jackson has been denied that basic consideration which the overwhelming majority of Americans take for granted.

Heard also that Rice's rehab is ahead of schedule - so potentially:

The Vikes could have Rice and VJ for half a year. Next year they wont have a Qb to throw to them - seems like the Vikes are putting the cart before the horse (again) -

VJax and Rice are both UFAs after this season, and I doubt the Vikes would keep them both. If they do the VJax trade, it'll be an example of Minnesota sacrificing future value (the draft pick) for present value (Vincent Jackson), which makes sense since this is their last chance at a superbowl for a while.

While I don't necessarily agree 100% with all of your points, SSOG, I've always felt that the average NFL fan's reluctance to show sympathy for NFL players and their salaries was like a little dirt in my eye. Not crucial but quite the annoyance. The NFL is a business and players wouldn't be making millions of dollars if they weren't generating millions for their owners. I wouldn't be making $20,000 if my employer didn't think I would help the company recoup MORE than that amount. Simple as that. NFL players have an ability (whether it's god given or through hard work) to do a job that VERY VERY VERY few people in society can do. If everyone could catch passes like VJ, than the market would be saturated and the average NFL player wouldn't make nearly as much. Rest assured, the average NFL fan wouldn't watch on Sunday's nearly as much either.

American's find it difficult to feel sorry for someone that has more than they do. Plain and simple. Whether it's greed, jealousy, or ignorance to that person's daily struggles. You won't change their minds, and I can tell your extremely frustrated by the conversation. Best to just walk away.

Very solid advice, but I actually haven't hit my frustration limit yet. I'm sure I will at some point, but when I do, I'm no stranger to walking away rather than continuing to keep making the same points I've been making.

You're completely missing the point. I DON'T CARE! I won't lose sleep whether Jackson plays this year or not, whether he makes $550,000 or 10 million, just like Vincent Jackson doesn't give a rats ### whether I can pay my bills or not. If all pro athletes ( not just football) wouldn't think they need to be paid millions and millions of dollars, then maybe an NFL game would be an affordable option of entertainment for a family of 4. Right now IT ISN'T. And the owners aren't blameless either. I do agree with you there. If they'd quit paying the ridiculous salaries then they wouldn't have to milk every penny they can out of fans. Plenty of blame to go around here for both sides, but don't give me this garbage that poor Vincent Jackson is getting a screw job.

Now you act like the owners and the players are screwing the fans, here. That's simply not true. Ticket prices are set by the free market. Ticket prices are high because that's what people will pay for them. The public decides how much tickets are worth to them, and that's what ticket prices are set to.If you created this cool product, and you made 100 of them, and a bunch of rich people came up to you and said "wow, I'd pay you $5,000 for that product!", you wouldn't say "nah man, I want to make my product available to the poor working families, so I'm only going to charge $50". You'd say "great!" and take the $5,000. NFL franchises are the same way. If they charge a lot for tickets, it's because the public has decided that those tickets are worth a lot and that the public therefore pays a lot.

Check out Jacksonville for the perfect illustration. The public in Jacksonville has decided that tickets are barely worth anything. Nobody attends the games. As a result, you can take a family of four to an NFL game in Jacksonville for under $100. My wife and I used to live near Jacksonville and every year we'd wake up one morning, drive in to the city, and catch an NFL game for $50. Is it because Jacksonville's owners are these benevolent saints who sympathize with the plight of the working man? Hell no, it's because that's what the public has decided that tickets are worth in Jacksonville.

 

[redBourne]

You're completely missing the point. I DON'T CARE! I won't lose sleep whether Jackson plays this year or not, whether he makes $550,000 or 10 million, just like Vincent Jackson doesn't give a rats ### whether I can pay my bills or not. If all pro athletes ( not just football) wouldn't think they need to be paid millions and millions of dollars, then maybe an NFL game would be an affordable option of entertainment for a family of 4. Right now IT ISN'T. And the owners aren't blameless either. I do agree with you there. If they'd quit paying the ridiculous salaries then they wouldn't have to milk every penny they can out of fans. Plenty of blame to go around here for both sides, but don't give me this garbage that poor Vincent Jackson is getting a screw job.

I would imagine your above post might resemble the early days of football. Football players didn't make a lot of money and owners didn't charge a lot for attending games. The overall entertainment was good, but not what it could have been. Players that would have made great pro's went on to do other things because they could make more money that profession than playing football. Without much fan support, and thus revenue, this kept owners from shelling out big pay days.As fans became more enamored with the sport, more people started attending and buying merchandise. Revenue went up, and the desire to spend on players that would generate more soon followed. An 'upward' spiral if you will. Obviously, there are some hiccups and hurdles along the way, but this is an overview of how I think the NFL came to be since 1920. So if owners started paying the players pennies, more players would find other professions that would generate a higher salary. Sure, there would be the few who just love playing because it's their dream, but it's obvious the level of ability would suffer as a whole. The sport would become less enjoyable for the average fan and revenue would fall shortly thereafter. The downward spiral...So in a way, you do care. You like the sport enough to sign up on a fantasy football site, post your thoughts on current NFL situations, and watch games on your HD tv. You want the level of play to be at it's highest, and there's probably a few pieces of NFL merchandise in your home. VJ's contract dispute is not just about VJ, because every player has an agent for a reason. I would wager that you would care if every player held out and there was no season next year. The same goes for VJ. He might think he cares a rat's ### about you either, but he just doesn't know he does. Without you, there is no VJ contract dispute.

 

[SSOG]

I'll give you credit for a nice thought out analogy, but it's not realistic. How many of us in the real world think we're worth more than we're getting paid? I bet ya a lot of us do. Do we get to tell our bosses to "stuff it" and just move on? Highly doubtful unless you have a job in high demand. Hell I bet there are a lot of us that took pay freezes ( I did) for a year because of tight budgets. Again, I don't shed a tear for Mr. Vincent Jackson.

I don't know how many people think they're worth more than they're getting paid... but that's not the point. If someone thinks he's worth more than he's getting paid, he's absolutely free to shop his services around to the highest bidder. If he's right, then someone will pay him more than he's currently making. That's their right- the right to go out and make what they are worth. That's the right that has been denied to Vincent Jackson. Unlike you or me, if he thinks he's worth more than he's getting paid, there isn't a single blessed thing he can do about it.Furthermore, Vincent Jackson doesn't think he's getting underpaid, he knows he's getting underpaid. Most of us make somewhere around the average salary for a person in our position with our level of performance and experience. Vincent Jackson is making a fraction of the average salary for a person in his position with his level of performance and experience. Vincent Jackson has multiple companies vying for the right to acquire his services. He can go to sleep at night absolutely certain of the fact that he is underpaid.

I'm not saying you should shed a tear for Vincent Jackson. I don't feel bad for him, either. Jackson is a big boy and he doesn't need my sympathy. All in all, I would say that he has been incredibly lucky in a lot of ways in his life. I'm just saying this sentiment that Jackson is "greedy" or "a bad guy" is ridiculous. If I'm being honest with myself, if I was in his situation, I'd probably be doing the exact same thing. I suspect the overwhelming majority of people on this message board would, too.

 

[scott72]

Now you act like the owners and the players are screwing the fans, here. That's simply not true. Ticket prices are set by the free market. Ticket prices are high because that's what people will pay for them. The public decides how much tickets are worth to them, and that's what ticket prices are set to.If you created this cool product, and you made 100 of them, and a bunch of rich people came up to you and said "wow, I'd pay you $5,000 for that product!", you wouldn't say "nah man, I want to make my product available to the poor working families, so I'm only going to charge $50". You'd say "great!" and take the $5,000. NFL franchises are the same way. If they charge a lot for tickets, it's because the public has decided that those tickets are worth a lot and that the public therefore pays a lot.Check out Jacksonville for the perfect illustration. The public in Jacksonville has decided that tickets are barely worth anything. Nobody attends the games. As a result, you can take a family of four to an NFL game in Jacksonville for under $100. My wife and I used to live near Jacksonville and every year we'd wake up one morning, drive in to the city, and catch an NFL game for $50. Is it because Jacksonville's owners are these benevolent saints who sympathize with the plight of the working man? Hell no, it's because that's what the public has decided that tickets are worth in Jacksonville.

Yes but you quickly forget how the games get blacked out in local markets if they don't sell out. How is that fair to the average fan that can't afford to attend the game, but could watch it on his TV, which he pays cable or sat fees. The Jacksonville market is an anomaly. That's great or was great for your family, but isn't typical of most markets.

 

[NumNums]

Hope he sits the whole year unless the Chargers get a good deal (2nd round / 3rd round) draft picks, or some good player in return. I'd let him for the whole season then watch this VJ drama again next year when he'll prob be a restricted player for the Chargers once again

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether you'd think Maurice would be getting screwed, and whether you'd think it was a character flaw if Maurice sat out the year to guarantee his big payday? Personally, my answers would be "yes he's getting screwed", and "no I would not view it as a character flaw". Maurice is entitled to make what he is worth.

Oh, sorry, I don't think he's getting screwed (as long as you take out the part about the non-compete clause not being known about or agreed to; the players did agree to the limitations on free agency contained in the CBA, and VJ's contract incorporates the terms of the CBA). But I don't view holding out as a character flaw.

I wasn't saying that the working conditions were so terrible that $3 million was a mere pittance, I was saying that it's terrible that he's being denied a right to make what he's worth. Everyone deserves the right to make what they are worth. Vincent Jackson has been denied that basic consideration which the overwhelming majority of Americans take for granted.

"What he's worth" is what somebody is willing to legally offer him. I agree that he has the right to make what somebody legally offers him (if he accepts it). I don't think he has a right to make what somebody would offer him if only the CBA were different.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In other words, if VJ wanted to negotiate a deal where the final year of his contract was voidable if the owners opted out of the CBA early (such that he'd be an unrestricted free agent after five years no matter what), he could have negotiated that provision by compromising on some other term of the contract. But he didn't, so here we are. I don't think it's right to say that he got screwed by failing to negotiate a different deal than the one he negotiated. (By the same token, if the Chargers wanted to prevent the current situation in which VJ can sit out without being fined, they could have negotiated a six-year deal instead of a five-year deal. Both sides are lying in the beds they made.)

 

[CalBear]

And the owners aren't blameless either. I do agree with you there. If they'd quit paying the ridiculous salaries then they wouldn't have to milk every penny they can out of fans. Plenty of blame to go around here for both sides, but don't give me this garbage that poor Vincent Jackson is getting a screw job.

The owners aren't paying ridiculous salaries. Spanos is worth over one billion dollars. He got San Diego taxpayers to essentially give him $78 million for luxury boxes that he gets the profits from--and without any downside risk, because the city agreed to pay for all unsold tickets. Essentially he has managed to extort nine figures from the city of San Diego--and he still makes rumblings about moving out of town because they haven't agreed to build him a whole new stadium. Forbes sets the value of the Chargers franchise at $907 million dollars. In that context, paying something like $10 million/year to one of your best players is not at all ridiculous.[On the other hand, Spanos needs his money so he can fund political campaigns to cut taxes for the wealthy and reduce social services for the poor.]

 

[renesauz]

I'll give you credit for a nice thought out analogy, but it's not realistic. How many of us in the real world think we're worth more than we're getting paid? I bet ya a lot of us do. Do we get to tell our bosses to "stuff it" and just move on? Highly doubtful unless you have a job in high demand. Hell I bet there are a lot of us that took pay freezes ( I did) for a year because of tight budgets. Again, I don't shed a tear for Mr. Vincent Jackson.

I don't know how many people think they're worth more than they're getting paid... but that's not the point. If someone thinks he's worth more than he's getting paid, he's absolutely free to shop his services around to the highest bidder. If he's right, then someone will pay him more than he's currently making. That's their right- the right to go out and make what they are worth. That's the right that has been denied to Vincent Jackson. Unlike you or me, if he thinks he's worth more than he's getting paid, there isn't a single blessed thing he can do about it.Furthermore, Vincent Jackson doesn't think he's getting underpaid, he knows he's getting underpaid. Most of us make somewhere around the average salary for a person in our position with our level of performance and experience. Vincent Jackson is making a fraction of the average salary for a person in his position with his level of performance and experience. Vincent Jackson has multiple companies vying for the right to acquire his services. He can go to sleep at night absolutely certain of the fact that he is underpaid.

I'm not saying you should shed a tear for Vincent Jackson. I don't feel bad for him, either. Jackson is a big boy and he doesn't need my sympathy. All in all, I would say that he has been incredibly lucky in a lot of ways in his life. I'm just saying this sentiment that Jackson is "greedy" or "a bad guy" is ridiculous. If I'm being honest with myself, if I was in his situation, I'd probably be doing the exact same thing. I suspect the overwhelming majority of people on this message board would, too.

When AJ backed the tender offer down to the minimum...it was more then a slap in the face. No way Jackson should play for that. The original tender wasn't enough.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

ssog quite honestly everything you have pointed out in your arguement is pretty solid.....however, you really haven't addressed VJ's hiccups....you want to act like he has been a poster child for the good boy during his 5 years....he hasn't......he is a risk.....the team could have signed him to a huge deal which would have made him a conerstone of that team with a ton of money invested in him, and depending on him to carry them.....so they invest all this money in him at the expense of other portions of the team, and then he goes out and has another problem and they are screwed by a long suspension...

had he not had off the field issues, he would have a phat contract right now.......he screwed up during his current contract and luckily it didn't affect the team.....he is paying the price for his mistakes now........he may have "honored" his contract with stats, but he changed his worth with his off field trouble....translate his potential future suspension to any of the real world scenerios you have presented, and you can see why an employer may call a bluff and play hard ball.....I lock up all this money in you and can't back you up or fill other positions....and then one thing you do (that is out of my control) gets you suspended and costs me the playoffs or worst yet a super bowl and a ton of future revenue.....

look...VJ with no off field issues is probably worth top 10 money..........but with his off field issues and the timing and uncertainity of the future of the NFL, he is in a bad spot, and he ran into a GM that wasn't messing around....the timing for someone like him that has made some mistakes couldn't have been worse.....the thing about the NFL is it is only 16 weeks that matter during the regular season and if you are on the edge of missing a bunch of those weeks, your value goes down (long term)....

I live 6 miles from where VJ played in college and watched him dominate on many a many Saturday....I am disappointed this is where he is at right now.........

sad thing is he will get his $$$ in the long run and he has a lifestyle that allows him to not really feel any consequence for the bad decisions he has made.....if I get 2 dui's I probably ain't got much of a job or a bunch of people after my services....they know I get another one and I ain't working for awhile.....

 

[SSOG]

ssog quite honestly everything you have pointed out in your arguement is pretty solid.....however, you really haven't addressed VJ's hiccups....you want to act like he has been a poster child for the good boy during his 5 years....he hasn't......he is a risk.....the team could have signed him to a huge deal which would have made him a conerstone of that team with a ton of money invested in him, and depending on him to carry them.....so they invest all this money in him at the expense of other portions of the team, and then he goes out and has another problem and they are screwed by a long suspension...

The reason I haven't addressed it is because it's absolutely irrelevant to discussion about Vincent Jackson's contract. I get that San Diego doesn't want to extend him because they view him as a risk. That's their prerogative. It's beside the point, though. For 99% of players, if their original team views them as risky and decides not to offer them a second contract, they just go negotiate with some other team willing to take the risk. For Vincent Jackson... he does absolutely nothing, because a bizarre loophole in the rules makes it so that, despite not having a contract, he's not allowed to discuss contracts with anyone but the Chargers (who don't want to pay him what he's worth).I'm not saying that San Diego should extend him. If they don't want to extend him, then fine, they don't have to extend him. It's irrelevant whether the reason they don't want to extend him is because he has two DUIs, or because A.J. Smith has a phobia of the letter V, or because he slept with the owner's daughter, or because he only ran a 4.42 instead of a 4.39, or whatever reason. It's all irrelevant to the point at hand, here. The point at hand is that VJax played out his contract and is prohibited from negotiating another contract. Everything else is just noise.

 

[scott72]

ssog quite honestly everything you have pointed out in your arguement is pretty solid.....however, you really haven't addressed VJ's hiccups....you want to act like he has been a poster child for the good boy during his 5 years....he hasn't......he is a risk.....the team could have signed him to a huge deal which would have made him a conerstone of that team with a ton of money invested in him, and depending on him to carry them.....so they invest all this money in him at the expense of other portions of the team, and then he goes out and has another problem and they are screwed by a long suspension...

The reason I haven't addressed it is because it's absolutely irrelevant to discussion about Vincent Jackson's contract. I get that San Diego doesn't want to extend him because they view him as a risk. That's their prerogative. It's beside the point, though. For 99% of players, if their original team views them as risky and decides not to offer them a second contract, they just go negotiate with some other team willing to take the risk. For Vincent Jackson... he does absolutely nothing, because a bizarre loophole in the rules makes it so that, despite not having a contract, he's not allowed to discuss contracts with anyone but the Chargers (who don't want to pay him what he's worth).I'm not saying that San Diego should extend him. If they don't want to extend him, then fine, they don't have to extend him. It's irrelevant whether the reason they don't want to extend him is because he has two DUIs, or because A.J. Smith has a phobia of the letter V, or because he slept with the owner's daughter, or because he only ran a 4.42 instead of a 4.39, or whatever reason. It's all irrelevant to the point at hand, here. The point at hand is that VJax played out his contract and is prohibited from negotiating another contract. Everything else is just noise.

Again like was mentioned by another poster, these are the rules the players negotiated in the current CBA. The Chargers are just playing by the rules that were laid out in the agreement, just like VJ is playing by those same rules. It's like you're pissed off at the Chargers because they're taking advantage of a certain part of the CBA that just so happens isn't in VJ's best interest. It's their right to offer him a tender, so they did. The Chargers alone didn't make the rules, the owners and players agreed to those rules.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

.......... Everything else is just noise.

No, it's not noise.The fact is VJax has diminished market value with the 2 DUI's. The third will likely cost him a season suspension by Roger Goodell. Sleeping with the owners daughter or having a name that starts with a J or running 4.5 won't potentially erase a full year of future production. Any team that is going to deal for him has to accept a potential off the wagon alcoholic, and what do they care, right? But if that is a risk to thier long term plan, it affects any future deal. Imagine next year, Favre decides he wants one more year after a magical postseason run that includes VJax as his primary receiver. Then near training camp, VJax gets pulled over again for DUI. Then Goodell announces a year long suspension. Then Favre retires for good. Then the Vikings go into a freefall. But really, any team that takes him on should know the implication of one more strike. The DUI's can't easily be dismissed from the coming contract discussion.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The whole "It's within the rules so it's all good" thing is a major oversimplification.

It would be within the rules for a team to offer it's #1 overall draft pick a 200k, 6 year contract (or whatever the min/max values are). I know top draft picks are generally considered over-paid, but I think we can all agree they'd be "worth" more than that offer (unless it was Russell ).

So this draft pick would be ineligible to negotiate with any other team, and unless he wants to sign that awful contract he would basically miss an entire season in his career (at least). Of course in the mean-time all of the rest of the first rounders have already been signed to the typical mega-contracts. So is that player getting hosed? Would he sign the deal? Do you think he might take it personally, or feel slighted in any way? It's within the rules, right?

Or let's say some random UDFA QB through some miraculous series of events leads his new team to the Superbowl and wins. He's the team's new starter, and his efforts were a very large part of their success. He had signed a 5 year deal at some very low price. The former starting QB, now backup QB is making $10M/year. The team has plenty of room under the cap to rework the contact. But they aren't obligated under the rules to pay the UDFA an extra penny or let him out of the deal, so they don't. They play hardball and say you signed the deal, and that's what you will play for. Yeah, he signed it, so in some ways it's "fair" that he honor it and continue making league minimum for the next 5 years. But is that going to happen? Or is he going to call BS and sit down? Would he feel slighted by the team in any way?

Neither of these are perfect analogies, but my point is that just because a situation is allowable under the rules doesn't mean that it's going to be agreeable to all parties. OR that one party can't be getting "hosed" by something essentially out of their control. Some offers (or lack thereof) ARE BS in certain circumstances regardless if they are "allowable" or not.

 

[Breesisdaman]

So lets asume Jackson is just hours/days away from signing with his new team. He becomes the #1 passing threat on whatever team that signs him. Based on the QB play and the protection of the offensive line of each team, what kind of numbers do you see him putting up with these teams

The Vikings:

The Rams:

The Seahawks:

Redskins:

New England (Just to piss off Randy Moss):

Chargers (Long shot but I have to include them)

 

[Raiderfan32904]

So lets asume Jackson is just hours/days away from signing with his new team. He becomes the #1 passing threat on whatever team that signs him. Based on the QB play and the protection of the offensive line of each team, what kind of numbers do you see him putting up with these teamsThe Vikings:The Rams:The Seahawks:Redskins:New England (Just to piss off Randy Moss):Chargers (Long shot but I have to include them)

First, I love your segue from the dry talk of ramifications of all the legal twists and turns of Vincent Jackson to assuming a new deal. Out with the grey clouds, bring in the sunshine, I’m warming up.The Vikings: Currently have arguably the worst starting WR’s of any of the preseason contenders. The injury to Sidney Rice seriously derailed their train. Favre currently only has Visanthe Shiancoe as a safety valve. Percy Harvin will have to deal with more double coverage until the Vikings can get a legit WR…and Camarillo is not one. I love the upside of the potential Favre/VJAX pairing, as a Favre has always liked throwing to the big tall guys. He throws a good jump ball that will be a challenge for smaller defenders to get to. VJAX can literally carry the Vikings to the playoffs as he will open up the entire offense. You see what not having VJAX meant last Monday night in Kansas City to San Diego. The Rams: An upcoming star QB in Sam Bradford who currently lacks the weapons in his arsenal to maximize his talent. VJAX has less upside here in my opinion as the Rams aren’t going to be a pass happy team. Stephen Jackson is their prime talent, and he won’t see his contributions lessen. No proven receiver on the opposite side, means more double coverage for VJAX. Not a good fit.The Seahawks: Old near broken down QB on his last legs, but who can still throw (similar to Favre). But this team is not good, and I am not convinced by their week #1 surprising upset of the 49ers. Again, no legit starter opposite side, so more double teams. Not a good fit.The Redskins: Old QB that still is in his prime. I love this situation. With Santana Moss opposite of him, and Chris Cooley as a legit TE weapon, this is the best situation of all for VJAX. VJAX could be the topper ingredient of what makes the Redskins divisional champs.New England. No way in hellChargers. Even less of a chance than New England.As a skeptical VJAX owner, hoping that a trade happens, I’d like the Vikings or the Redskins to get him. I’d prefer the Skins, but that’s splitting hairs.

 

[pecorino]

been thinking Redskins, too. daniel snyder never met an expensive free agent he didn't like and Donovan needs a true #1 WR.

 

[RUSF18]

If I'm a Vikings fan, I'm a little worried about giving up a high pick for Jackson...is he really going to put the team over the top, considering Favre could break down at any minute? I understand "going for it" but eventually that 1st/2nd rounder needs to be used on a QB.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Let's play a little game. Imagine there's a guy who gets paid to write about fantasy football. We'll call him, I don't know, "Maurice Trambley". Maurice signs a 5-year contract with FootballDudes.com and he just kills it. His articles are awesome, and his rankings are the best in the business. Towards the end of that 5 years, an independent service rates the best Fantasy Football analysts in the business and Maurice makes their top 10 list (just for fun, let's call this list a "pro bowl"). Maurice sees that everyone else on the top 10 list went out and signed lucrative new contracts with their employers, radically increasing their pay. Maurice then goes to FootballDudes.com brass and says he'd like to sign a new contract with them, but he'd like a salary more commensurate with his talents and with the value he provides. FootballDudes.com, instead, offers him a contract worth maybe a third of what Maurice knows he would be worth on the open market. Maurice decides to shop his services elsewhere, but he finds that the legal team at FootballDudes.com managed to slip a No Compete clause into the final contract without Maurice's knowledge or approval. Maurice has two options- he can either remain with FootballDudes for a year, making a fraction of what he is worth and knowing that if his projections for that season are weak, his value on the open market will plummet... or he can tell FootballDudes.com where to stick their joke of an offer, take a year off of writing about fantasy football, and then sign a lucrative new deal with EPSN, a big-time rival sports website.

Let's add some details to make it more analogous to the Vincent Jackson situation.Say that FootballDudes is offering me $50K a year. My next best employment opportunity is for $5K a year. The writers for other sites make about $500K a year, which is what I might make without the non-compete clause.

Should I resent being offered $50K a year? Maybe. That's kind of subjective. But I think it's quite obvious that writing for $50K a year is still awesome compared to doing something else for $5K a year. I would still jump at the chance to write for $50K a year instead of being a librarian (or whatever) for $5K. If I decided to "hold out" from FootballDudes, it would not be because my life would be terrible if I made only $50K a year. (It would be awesome!) If I held out, it would not be because I'd prefer not to write about football; my holdout would be only a negotiating tactic to try to make writing about football even more awesome. It would be part of a long-term plan to keep writing about football; it would not be part of a plan to get out of writing about football because it's such a terrible deal for me. It's an awesome deal. Just not as awesome as I think I can get by using the negotiating tactic of holding out.

I guarantee you that Vincent Jackson isn't refusing to play football for $3.2 million because he thinks football is stupid and he'd rather do something else if that's all he can make. Rather, he's refusing to play football for $3.2 million as part of a long-term plan . . . to play football for even more than that. Because why not get the most he can get?

I'm not blaming him for trying to get the most he can get. I'm just pointing out that playing for $3.2 million doesn't suck — not to VJ, and not to the average fan. It is in fact awesome compared to their realistic non-NFL alternatives.

There's a big difference between saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because the working conditions are so terrible," and saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because I think I can get $7 million if I hold out." Vincent Jackson is surely saying the latter. For $3.2 million, the working conditions aren't terrible, as the average fan would be quick to agree.

Maurile, I don't believe you'd feel that way if you were actually in the situation.There's loads of behavioral economic research that shows that once people are pushed over some mentally demarcated "unfair" line they're willing to suffer to ensure that the unfair party takes a hit too. (Which is why a labor deal isn't a foregone conclusion; if the above wasn't true you'd always find a compromise without one or both sides having to inflict major damage on the other.)

Likewise there's a lot of evidence that in the real world most people are happier making $50k on a street where everyone makes $50k than making $75k in a neighborhood of millionaires.

We're not rational creatures when it comes to money and fairness.

 

[Breesisdaman]

New England. No way in hell

Chargers. Even less of a chance than New England.

As a skeptical VJAX owner, hoping that a trade happens, I’d like the Vikings or the Redskins to get him. I’d prefer the Skins, but that’s splitting hairs.

Skins for me too but wouldn't mind the Vikings. And New England never pays what AJ wants for compensatory but it would make for good drama if they did it dont you think? Moss might even demand a trade under those circmunstances. Maybe ship Moss off for Vjax straight up . That would send a strong message to the Patriots team that no ones job is safe especially if you go to the media to create drama about not having a respectable contract. Ah Im dreaming I know.

 

[CalBear]

The Vikings: Currently have arguably the worst starting WR’s of any of the preseason contenders.

...except perhaps the San Diego Chargers.

 

[Eastwood]

been thinking Redskins, too. daniel snyder never met an expensive free agent he didn't like and Donovan needs a true #1 WR.

I'm hearing Shanny and Snyder are seriously considering Jackson. I've got my fingers crossed as a Skins fan.

 

[thehornet]

Let's play a little game. Imagine there's a guy who gets paid to write about fantasy football. We'll call him, I don't know, "Maurice Trambley". Maurice signs a 5-year contract with FootballDudes.com and he just kills it. His articles are awesome, and his rankings are the best in the business. Towards the end of that 5 years, an independent service rates the best Fantasy Football analysts in the business and Maurice makes their top 10 list (just for fun, let's call this list a "pro bowl"). Maurice sees that everyone else on the top 10 list went out and signed lucrative new contracts with their employers, radically increasing their pay. Maurice then goes to FootballDudes.com brass and says he'd like to sign a new contract with them, but he'd like a salary more commensurate with his talents and with the value he provides. FootballDudes.com, instead, offers him a contract worth maybe a third of what Maurice knows he would be worth on the open market. Maurice decides to shop his services elsewhere, but he finds that the legal team at FootballDudes.com managed to slip a No Compete clause into the final contract without Maurice's knowledge or approval. Maurice has two options- he can either remain with FootballDudes for a year, making a fraction of what he is worth and knowing that if his projections for that season are weak, his value on the open market will plummet... or he can tell FootballDudes.com where to stick their joke of an offer, take a year off of writing about fantasy football, and then sign a lucrative new deal with EPSN, a big-time rival sports website.

maybe if Vincent Jackson performed like a Top 5 Receiver his first 4 FULL YEARS in the league then the Chargers may have given him the new contract alreadyor.........

maybe he just needs a new lawyer.

 

[Nagle2998]

been thinking Redskins, too. daniel snyder never met an expensive free agent he didn't like and Donovan needs a true #1 WR.

I'm hearing Shanny and Snyder are seriously considering Jackson. I've got my fingers crossed as a Skins fan.

Im an Eagles fan so I hope it doesn't happen but as a VJ owner that would be the best spot for him IMO in dynasty I would love to see him go to the Rams.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The whole "It's within the rules so it's all good" thing is a major oversimplification.

It would be within the rules for a team to offer it's #1 overall draft pick a 200k, 6 year contract (or whatever the min/max values are). I know top draft picks are generally considered over-paid, but I think we can all agree they'd be "worth" more than that offer (unless it was Russell ).

So this draft pick would be ineligible to negotiate with any other team, and unless he wants to sign that awful contract he would basically miss an entire season in his career (at least). Of course in the mean-time all of the rest of the first rounders have already been signed to the typical mega-contracts. So is that player getting hosed? Would he sign the deal? Do you think he might take it personally, or feel slighted in any way? It's within the rules, right?

Or let's say some random UDFA QB through some miraculous series of events leads his new team to the Superbowl and wins. He's the team's new starter, and his efforts were a very large part of their success. He had signed a 5 year deal at some very low price. The former starting QB, now backup QB is making $10M/year. The team has plenty of room under the cap to rework the contact. But they aren't obligated under the rules to pay the UDFA an extra penny or let him out of the deal, so they don't. They play hardball and say you signed the deal, and that's what you will play for. Yeah, he signed it, so in some ways it's "fair" that he honor it and continue making league minimum for the next 5 years. But is that going to happen? Or is he going to call BS and sit down? Would he feel slighted by the team in any way?

Neither of these are perfect analogies, but my point is that just because a situation is allowable under the rules doesn't mean that it's going to be agreeable to all parties. OR that one party can't be getting "hosed" by something essentially out of their control. Some offers (or lack thereof) ARE BS in certain circumstances regardless if they are "allowable" or not.

You're quite right that what is reasonable is not determined simply by what the rules allow. It's also determined by common custom and standard patterns of past practice. If a team made the worst allowable offer to its first-round draft pick and then didn't budge, that would be completely unreasonable.You're also quite right that the analogy isn't perfect. Part of the reason teams are expected to make serious offers to their draft picks is that, by drafting them, the team is indicating that those players are in their long-term plans. (Otherwise, why draft them?) There's no such indication with RFAs. Also, it would not only be unreasonable to lowball a first-round draft pick, but quite stupid as well. It would be a complete waste of a first-round pick since the team would lose its rights to the player after a year; and teams do not become winners by throwing away first-round picks. With an RFA, a team typically does not lose its rights to the player if it makes a qualifying tender offer. (Although in Jackson's case, it may.) Moreover, the penalty for losing the rights to a player who's not in the team's long-term plans, as an RFA might not be, is not as limiting as the penalty for losing the rights to a player who is in the team's long-term plans, as a draft pick presumably is. (Of course, things could change between the time that a player is drafted and the time that he is offered a contract. He might get two DUIs, for example, which might cause a team to change its mind and not worry about losing his rights and letting him go back into the draft the following year.) But with RFAs, unlike with rookie draft picks, there is no common custom or standard practice dictating that a team should offer them more than the qualifying tender offer (in Jackson's case, the highest tender available). It is simply not unreasonable for a team to offer the highest qualifying one-year tender to a player who's not in its long-term plans in the same way that it would be unreasonable for a team to refuse to make an offer to a draft pick in line with the slotting system. (And note that when a team does make an offer to a draft pick in line with the slotting system, it is not paying him what he is worth, as measured by what he'd make on the open market. Other than the top few picks, rookies are substantially underpaid by that criterion. And yet nobody thinks it's unreasonable for a team to offer its second-round pick what second-round picks normally make, even though it's far less than his "market value" assuming he were an unrestricted free agent. By the same token, I don't think it's unreasonable for a team to offer a restricted free agent what restricted free agents normally make, even though it's far less than his "market value" assuming he were an unrestricted free agent. In both cases, the terms of the CBA state that the player is not an unrestricted free agent. Jackson was not offered the vet minimum; he was offered the highest tender amount for RFAs, not the lowest tender amount. Which you might say is kind of like offering a draft pick the highest amount allowable under the rookie cap, not the lowest amount allowable.)

The UDFA analogy is also imperfect because, as far as I know, UDFAs never sign five-year deals. They usually sign one-year deals; they occasionally sign two-year deals. (At the end of their initial deals, they become RFAs, and are negotiated with as RFAs.) If a UDFA did sign a five-year deal for some strange reason, and it didn't have any incentive clauses that paid him reasonably if he performed well, he's in a really tough spot. The team might re-work his deal if he's in the team's long-term plans and it wants to keep him happy; but if it decides not to, I don't think it's acting unreasonably if it's willing to live with the consequences.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So lets asume Jackson is just hours/days away from signing with his new team. He becomes the #1 passing threat on whatever team that signs him. Based on the QB play and the protection of the offensive line of each team, what kind of numbers do you see him putting up with these teamsThe Vikings:The Rams:The Seahawks:Redskins:New England (Just to piss off Randy Moss):Chargers (Long shot but I have to include them)

This could be a fun exercise. I'll do projections for each scenario later today.

 

[CrossEyed]

VJAX can literally carry the Vikings to the playoffs

No, he really can't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's play a little game. Imagine there's a guy who gets paid to write about fantasy football. We'll call him, I don't know, "Maurice Trambley". Maurice signs a 5-year contract with FootballDudes.com and he just kills it. His articles are awesome, and his rankings are the best in the business. Towards the end of that 5 years, an independent service rates the best Fantasy Football analysts in the business and Maurice makes their top 10 list (just for fun, let's call this list a "pro bowl"). Maurice sees that everyone else on the top 10 list went out and signed lucrative new contracts with their employers, radically increasing their pay. Maurice then goes to FootballDudes.com brass and says he'd like to sign a new contract with them, but he'd like a salary more commensurate with his talents and with the value he provides. FootballDudes.com, instead, offers him a contract worth maybe a third of what Maurice knows he would be worth on the open market. Maurice decides to shop his services elsewhere, but he finds that the legal team at FootballDudes.com managed to slip a No Compete clause into the final contract without Maurice's knowledge or approval. Maurice has two options- he can either remain with FootballDudes for a year, making a fraction of what he is worth and knowing that if his projections for that season are weak, his value on the open market will plummet... or he can tell FootballDudes.com where to stick their joke of an offer, take a year off of writing about fantasy football, and then sign a lucrative new deal with EPSN, a big-time rival sports website.

Let's add some details to make it more analogous to the Vincent Jackson situation.Say that FootballDudes is offering me $50K a year. My next best employment opportunity is for $5K a year. The writers for other sites make about $500K a year, which is what I might make without the non-compete clause.

Should I resent being offered $50K a year? Maybe. That's kind of subjective. But I think it's quite obvious that writing for $50K a year is still awesome compared to doing something else for $5K a year. I would still jump at the chance to write for $50K a year instead of being a librarian (or whatever) for $5K. If I decided to "hold out" from FootballDudes, it would not be because my life would be terrible if I made only $50K a year. (It would be awesome!) If I held out, it would not be because I'd prefer not to write about football; my holdout would be only a negotiating tactic to try to make writing about football even more awesome. It would be part of a long-term plan to keep writing about football; it would not be part of a plan to get out of writing about football because it's such a terrible deal for me. It's an awesome deal. Just not as awesome as I think I can get by using the negotiating tactic of holding out.

I guarantee you that Vincent Jackson isn't refusing to play football for $3.2 million because he thinks football is stupid and he'd rather do something else if that's all he can make. Rather, he's refusing to play football for $3.2 million as part of a long-term plan . . . to play football for even more than that. Because why not get the most he can get?

I'm not blaming him for trying to get the most he can get. I'm just pointing out that playing for $3.2 million doesn't suck — not to VJ, and not to the average fan. It is in fact awesome compared to their realistic non-NFL alternatives.

There's a big difference between saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because the working conditions are so terrible," and saying "I won't play football for $3.2 million because I think I can get $7 million if I hold out." Vincent Jackson is surely saying the latter. For $3.2 million, the working conditions aren't terrible, as the average fan would be quick to agree.

Maurile, I don't believe you'd feel that way if you were actually in the situation.There's loads of behavioral economic research that shows that once people are pushed over some mentally demarcated "unfair" line they're willing to suffer to ensure that the unfair party takes a hit too. (Which is why a labor deal isn't a foregone conclusion; if the above wasn't true you'd always find a compromise without one or both sides having to inflict major damage on the other.)

Likewise there's a lot of evidence that in the real world most people are happier making $50k on a street where everyone makes $50k than making $75k in a neighborhood of millionaires.

We're not rational creatures when it comes to money and fairness.

I agree with everything you just wrote (in your latter three paragraphs). I don't think it contradicts anything I wrote before that.

 

[dapunisher]

And the owners aren't blameless either. I do agree with you there. If they'd quit paying the ridiculous salaries then they wouldn't have to milk every penny they can out of fans. Plenty of blame to go around here for both sides, but don't give me this garbage that poor Vincent Jackson is getting a screw job.

The owners aren't paying ridiculous salaries. Spanos is worth over one billion dollars. He got San Diego taxpayers to essentially give him $78 million for luxury boxes that he gets the profits from--and without any downside risk, because the city agreed to pay for all unsold tickets. Essentially he has managed to extort nine figures from the city of San Diego--and he still makes rumblings about moving out of town because they haven't agreed to build him a whole new stadium. Forbes sets the value of the Chargers franchise at $907 million dollars. In that context, paying something like $10 million/year to one of your best players is not at all ridiculous.[On the other hand, Spanos needs his money so he can fund political campaigns to cut taxes for the wealthy and reduce social services for the poor.]

Excellent post. Same story in so many cities. Baseball is the worst - DC, Miami, Pittsburgh, and the list goes on and on and on - but it's essentially the same story everywhere. Millionaires and billionaires riding the backs of taxpayers to build enormous income-generating enterprises with insanely reduced risk, and then holding cities hostage to milk every dime they can. Disgusting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So lets asume Jackson is just hours/days away from signing with his new team. He becomes the #1 passing threat on whatever team that signs him. Based on the QB play and the protection of the offensive line of each team, what kind of numbers do you see him putting up with these teams

The Vikings:

The Rams:

The Seahawks:

Redskins:

New England (Just to piss off Randy Moss):

Chargers (Long shot but I have to include them)

This could be a fun exercise. I'll do projections for each scenario later today.

Here's a per-game average set of projections.Vikings without Rice:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 78 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Percy Harvin: 4 receptions for 46 yards and 0.3 touchdowns; 1 rush for 5 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Bernard Berrian: 1 reception for 16 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Greg Camarillo: 1 reception for 14 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Greg Lewis: 0.5 receptions for 6 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Vikings with Rice:

Vincent Jackson: 4 receptions for 65 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Sidney Rice: 4 receptions for 53 yards and 0.4 touchdowns.

Percy Harvin: 2 receptions for 29 yards and 0.2 touchdowns; 1 rush for 5 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Bernard Berrian: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Greg Camarillo: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Rams:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 83 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Mark Clayton: 3 receptions for 35 yards and 0.2 touchdowns.

Laurent Robinson: 2 receptions for 27 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Danny Amendola: 1 reception for 13 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Seahawks:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 87 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Mike Williams: 3 receptions for 45 yards and 0.3 touchdowns.

Deion Branch: 1 reception for 19 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Deon Butler: 1 reception for 14 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Ben Obomanu: 0.5 receptions for 6 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Redskins:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 77 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Santana Moss: 4 receptions for 48 yards and 0.2 touchdowns.

Anthony Armstrong: 2 receptions for 21 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Joey Galloway: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Patriots:

Wes Welker: 5 receptions for 54 yards and 0.3 touchdowns.

Vincent Jackson: 4 receptions for 67 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Randy Moss: 4 receptions for 56 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Brandon Tate: 1 reception for 14 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Julian Edelman: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Chargers:

Vincent Jackson: 4 receptions for 70 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Malcom Floyd: 3 receptions for 48 yards and 0.3 touchdowns.

Legedu Naanee: 2 receptions for 26 yards and 0.2 touchdowns.

Craig Davis: 1 reception for 8 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Patrick Crayton: 1 reception for 10 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

 

[scott72]

The whole "It's within the rules so it's all good" thing is a major oversimplification.It would be within the rules for a team to offer it's #1 overall draft pick a 200k, 6 year contract (or whatever the min/max values are). I know top draft picks are generally considered over-paid, but I think we can all agree they'd be "worth" more than that offer (unless it was Russell ).So this draft pick would be ineligible to negotiate with any other team, and unless he wants to sign that awful contract he would basically miss an entire season in his career (at least). Of course in the mean-time all of the rest of the first rounders have already been signed to the typical mega-contracts. So is that player getting hosed? Would he sign the deal? Do you think he might take it personally, or feel slighted in any way? It's within the rules, right?Or let's say some random UDFA QB through some miraculous series of events leads his new team to the Superbowl and wins. He's the team's new starter, and his efforts were a very large part of their success. He had signed a 5 year deal at some very low price. The former starting QB, now backup QB is making $10M/year. The team has plenty of room under the cap to rework the contact. But they aren't obligated under the rules to pay the UDFA an extra penny or let him out of the deal, so they don't. They play hardball and say you signed the deal, and that's what you will play for. Yeah, he signed it, so in some ways it's "fair" that he honor it and continue making league minimum for the next 5 years. But is that going to happen? Or is he going to call BS and sit down? Would he feel slighted by the team in any way?Neither of these are perfect analogies, but my point is that just because a situation is allowable under the rules doesn't mean that it's going to be agreeable to all parties. OR that one party can't be getting "hosed" by something essentially out of their control. Some offers (or lack thereof) ARE BS in certain circumstances regardless if they are "allowable" or not.

I get your point, and for the most part teams don't operate that way, because it you consistently mistreated contract situations, then you'd have a hard time getting FA's to come to your team knowing this. As a Packer fan I've seen this play out over and over. For the most part the Packers take care of their own. If the player does a fine job he gets paid. Deals get re-worked. However, if the player holds out, or starts running his mouth (Walker) then he doesn't. It's really that simple. Keep your mouth shut, do your job, stay out of trouble, and you get rewarded.

 

[scott72]

Just got a tweet that the Seahawks are the first team granted permission to talk to his agents.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What has changed?

Teams were unwilling to match the Chargers' price before the suspension was reduced, why would they match it now?

 

[scott72]

What has changed?Teams were unwilling to match the Chargers' price before the suspension was reduced, why would they match it now?

Teams have injuries they didn't have before week 1.

 

[jonessed]

What has changed?Teams were unwilling to match the Chargers' price before the suspension was reduced, why would they match it now?

Teams have injuries they didn't have before week 1.

Or the offense simply isn't operating like they had hoped. Minnesota clearly misses Sidney Rice more than they thought they would.

 

[SSOG]

No, it's not noise.The fact is VJax has diminished market value with the 2 DUI's. The third will likely cost him a season suspension by Roger Goodell. Sleeping with the owners daughter or having a name that starts with a J or running 4.5 won't potentially erase a full year of future production. Any team that is going to deal for him has to accept a potential off the wagon alcoholic, and what do they care, right? But if that is a risk to thier long term plan, it affects any future deal. Imagine next year, Favre decides he wants one more year after a magical postseason run that includes VJax as his primary receiver. Then near training camp, VJax gets pulled over again for DUI. Then Goodell announces a year long suspension. Then Favre retires for good. Then the Vikings go into a freefall. But really, any team that takes him on should know the implication of one more strike. The DUI's can't easily be dismissed from the coming contract discussion.

I'm not saying they should be, but this isn't a discussion about the coming contract. This is a discussion about how when Vincent Jackson started his contract, players needed 4 seasons to become UFAs, and when he finished his contract, players needed 6 years to become UFAs. I fail to see what Vincent Jackson getting 2 DUIs has to do with that. Did the owners opt out of the CBA because they knew that Vincent Jackson was going to get a pair of DUIs a couple of years later?

What has changed?Teams were unwilling to match the Chargers' price before the suspension was reduced, why would they match it now?

There were reports that one team was busy working out compensation with the Chargers when the deadline ran out. I seriously doubt Vincent Jackson and his agent and the NFLPA would have gone through that entire process if they didn't believe there was a very good chance of a trade going down.

 

[Breesisdaman]

So lets asume Jackson is just hours/days away from signing with his new team. He becomes the #1 passing threat on whatever team that signs him. Based on the QB play and the protection of the offensive line of each team, what kind of numbers do you see him putting up with these teams

The Vikings:

The Rams:

The Seahawks:

Redskins:

New England (Just to piss off Randy Moss):

Chargers (Long shot but I have to include them)

This could be a fun exercise. I'll do projections for each scenario later today.

Here's a per-game average set of projections.Vikings without Rice:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 78 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Percy Harvin: 4 receptions for 46 yards and 0.3 touchdowns; 1 rush for 5 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Bernard Berrian: 1 reception for 16 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Greg Camarillo: 1 reception for 14 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Greg Lewis: 0.5 receptions for 6 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Vikings with Rice:

Vincent Jackson: 4 receptions for 65 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Sidney Rice: 4 receptions for 53 yards and 0.4 touchdowns.

Percy Harvin: 2 receptions for 29 yards and 0.2 touchdowns; 1 rush for 5 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Bernard Berrian: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Greg Camarillo: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Rams:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 83 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Mark Clayton: 3 receptions for 35 yards and 0.2 touchdowns.

Laurent Robinson: 2 receptions for 27 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Danny Amendola: 1 reception for 13 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Seahawks:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 87 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Mike Williams: 3 receptions for 45 yards and 0.3 touchdowns.

Deion Branch: 1 reception for 19 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Deon Butler: 1 reception for 14 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Ben Obomanu: 0.5 receptions for 6 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Redskins:

Vincent Jackson: 5 receptions for 77 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Santana Moss: 4 receptions for 48 yards and 0.2 touchdowns.

Anthony Armstrong: 2 receptions for 21 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Joey Galloway: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Patriots:

Wes Welker: 5 receptions for 54 yards and 0.3 touchdowns.

Vincent Jackson: 4 receptions for 67 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Randy Moss: 4 receptions for 56 yards and 0.6 touchdowns.

Brandon Tate: 1 reception for 14 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Julian Edelman: 0.5 receptions for 7 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Chargers:

Vincent Jackson: 4 receptions for 70 yards and 0.5 touchdowns.

Malcom Floyd: 3 receptions for 48 yards and 0.3 touchdowns.

Legedu Naanee: 2 receptions for 26 yards and 0.2 touchdowns.

Craig Davis: 1 reception for 8 yards and 0 touchdowns.

Patrick Crayton: 1 reception for 10 yards and 0.1 touchdowns.

Thanks that is exactly what I was looking for. LOL

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Some Chattter in Jet-land that Wash & SD have talked with the Jets about a 3-way in which picks go to SD, V-Jax to Wash and Fat Albert to NYJ.

 

[Deaddawg]

Some Chattter in Jet-land that Wash & SD have talked with the Jets about a 3-way in which picks go to SD, V-Jax to Wash and Fat Albert to NYJ.

WoW, that sounds like a very plausible scenario. Instantly helps the Jets with their defensive loss, solves the Haynesworth problem in Washington and would satisfy SD. I call this the lead rumor.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Some Chattter in Jet-land that Wash & SD have talked with the Jets about a 3-way in which picks go to SD, V-Jax to Wash and Fat Albert to NYJ.

WoW, that sounds like a very plausible scenario. Instantly helps the Jets with their defensive loss, solves the Haynesworth problem in Washington and would satisfy SD. I call this the lead rumor.

Do the Jets have enough bank roll to take on Haynesworth? I guess they might huh?