Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
VJax situation: Post-3 pm deadline (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rawdog
- Start date
Diamond One
Footballguy
Great question. What is it with AFC West WR's as of late BTW? Last season, it was Brandon Marshall. This year, enter VJAX to fill the void. Any early predections on next season's soap opera?I think in a dynasty league if you are deep enough, then yes, buy and stash him. Under most fantasy formats though, I fail to see where there is any value in having him on the roster.
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
how can a guy get suspended for not reporting when hes not signed? Its the most illegal legal thing I ever heard of.
That's not why he's suspended. He's suspended for getting two DUIs.(Edit: If you're referring to the roster-exemption, that's not a suspension, but it has a similar effect. The idea is that if a player is going to skip training camp and report right before a game, he shouldn't take up a roster spot and be on full pay status for that game since he's probably not ready to play yet. He might be out of shape. He might not know the playbook. He hasn't practiced and his timing is probably off. Therefore, teams can use a roster-exemption on a player so that he'll get three weeks of practice in before he takes up a roster spot. While he's not taking up a roster spot, he's obviously ineligible to play.)
Last edited by a moderator:
az_prof
Footballguy
So he is definitely out six games? It isn't the sort of thing a team that traded for him could appeal to the commisioner?
The league says he's out six games. The players' union says that the roster exemption shouldn't follow him in a trade, so he should only be out three games (if he signs and is traded before the fourth game). The difference of opinion could be decided by an arbitrator (if it's not rendered moot by Jackson sitting out all year).
Last edited by a moderator:
JbizzleMan
Footballguy
Rams or Seahawks.Problem for V. Jackson is that even if the Chargers lose him in FA next year they'll still get a compensatory draft pick out of him. I heard at the very least a 3rd. So unless a team is giving up multiple picks, including a 2nd, it's not really in their best interest to let him go for cheap.
It's actually at the very most a third — but yeah, it will almost certainly be a third. (Assuming a new CBA still has compensatory picks.)
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
I paid $22 for him in a semi-dynasty auction league with deep benches ($200 budget, unlimited keepers, but the price goes up $5 every year). I didn't want to spend quite that much, but if he turns out to be anything what he appeared to be at the end of last season, he'll be a steal for dynasty purposes. The top 10 WRs (if they ever come up for auction, which is rare) go for $50, easily, in our league. Over $60 is common. To have a potential stud that'll be under $50 for a long-time is a great asset, as long as he lands in a positive situation. I don't plan on him returning any value at all this season, and I wouldn't spend more than a buck or 2 in a yearly league for him.
pantherclub
Footballguy
So basically in a redraft league he is just wasting a roster space for at least 6 weeks? Is that what the consensus is here?
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Probably, but see the bolded part below.-- Vincent Jackson Trade Held Up by Roster Exemption --
Sun Sep 5, 2010 --from FFMastermind.com
Yahoo Sports' Jason Cole reports a roster exemption placed on WR Vincent Jackson last month is preventing the San Diego Chargers holdout from joining a new team. Jackson reached an agreement on a one-year deal with an undisclosed team before his 6 p.m. deadline to join the Chargers on Saturday night, according to two sources close to the situation. However, the undisclosed team’s ability to agree on trade compensation with the Chargers and the possibility that Jackson would be forced to miss six games even if the Chargers trade him are holding up a potential swap. Under the roster exemption status designated by San Diego, Jackson would have to sit at least the first six games of the season: three because he violated the league’s substance abuse policy (Jackson has two convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol) and the first three once he joins the Chargers. NFL Players Association attorney Richard Berthelsen argues that the roster exempt status applies only to the Chargers and said the union is willing to take the matter to expedited arbitration. “Our position on this is that the rights of the procedure only apply to that club that gave him the [roster exemption] notice,” Berthelsen said. “If you read that part of the CBA, it clearly says ‘the club.’ If the player is not with ‘the club’ by the second preseason game, he must miss the first game of the season … it does not include a club that he is traded to.” League spokesman Greg Aiello said the rule applies to wherever Jackson plays this season.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
The union's is referencing what appears to be pretty clear language in the CBA. The league's position seems to be "because we say so." I like VJax's odds on this one.
All of this only matters if he has a team to play for and I doubt he will.
Tau837
Footballguy
He can't be traded now until after the third game of the season, since he didn't report. And any team trading for him would have to do so without knowing how this dispute would be resolved, and thus with the possibility of him missing the first 3 games for that team. How likely is it that a team will trade for him in that circumstance? Seems pretty unlikely.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
If I understood the quote right, they're going to get an expedited ruling - i.e. right away. Probably to facilitate a trade.
Tau837
Footballguy
You're right, I missed that. Should be interesting. Does anyone know the league's success rate in disputes like this?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
No idea on that one.Here's a shot at taking all the media reports and trying to piece them into a coherent story that makes sense...Yesterday just before the deadline the Seahawks (or maybe the Rams, but I think the Seahawks) reached a deal with VJax to play for one year. But the negotiations were either close enough to the 6pm deadline (or had already passed it) that the team trading for him was concerned about his roster exempt status. Specifically whether the exempt status would follow the player from one team to another.Because if VJax signs a one year deal he's worth a lot less playing 10 games than he's worth if he plays 13. And the Chargers weren't willing to accept what they were offered for 10 games of VJax's services.Thus the "impasse" and the need for an expedited ruling on whether the roster exemption follows VJax to a new team.Just one possibility - but I think it fits all the known reports and makes a simple story (to me at least).Just Win Baby said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Beerguzzler
Footballguy
There's a reason the Chargers only gave permission to the seahawks to speak with VJ. They don't want to trade him. He's going to sit out this season and go through it all over it again once the new cba is hammered out. Then the Chargers will negotiate with him IF they feel Floyd and Nanee didn't pan out as starters this season.
massraider
Footballguy
Yeah, are you expecting the free agency rules to change? Because unless the CBA dramatically changes, he'll be a free agent next year. He doesn't need the accrued season, and in any new CBA, I am pretty sure the players won't allow a change to SIX seasons needed. I doubt the owners would even ask for it.There are a lot of people that think VJax is screwing himself because they don't understand the situation. The ONLY reason he is an RFA is because the CBA expired. In all likelihood, he doesn't need a single game played to be an unrestricted free agent next year.
Tau837
Footballguy
But the Chargers will be able to franchise him, unless the CBA changes. I think that is an unlikely scenario, but it's possible.
massraider
Footballguy
It is possible, but you know that isn't where the confusion is coming from. People are assuming if he sits out the year, he loses an accrued season, which is a red herring. In all likelihood, he is going to not need the accrued season. The only way he is not a UFA next year (assuming he isn't franchised) is if the new CBA says players need 6 years to be unrestricted, instead of 5. The NFLPA would never agree to it, and I doubt the owners would even bother asking for it. I think it is possible that there is no football next year (this isn't MLB, the NFL players have no union solidarity, and will crumble), I think it is possible that the Chargers franchise him, and I think it is possible that the new CBA screws him. But I think all of those are highly, highly unlikely.
Barring a trade-and-sign, I am willing to bet that VJax is shopping his service free and clear next spring.
The language is not pretty clear at all. Nonetheless, I think the union has the better argument on that issue.wdcrob said:
That's not the only way. The current CBA says that, without regard to the number of accrued seasons he has, if a restricted free agent sits out the whole year he is a restricted free agent again the following season. It's unlikely that a new CBA would contain that same provision (specifically because it would screw VJ & McNeill again), but it's not completely out of the question.
massraider
Footballguy
I am assuming that the CBA is assuming that the player is restricted because he doesn't have enough accrued seasons, and by sitting out the year, the player doesn't accrue another one, thus making him still restricted. This situation is different, because VJax already has enough seasons, and if not for the bad luck of the CBA ending when it did, he'd be a UFA now. You are right, it is not completely out of the question, but that scenario, the Chargers using a loophole like that, and the NFLPA allowing it, sounds as likely to me as the Chargers franchising him next year.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Yeah, I guess you could read "the club" to mean something other than one club. But I'm with you that it sounds like the NFLPA has the better argument.
az_prof
Footballguy
I think VJax is screwing himself. He should have played this year for the three million dollar tender.Now, if he holds out the whole season and if there is a lockout in 2011 (which seems likely), he may not play another game until 2012. At that point, he will be a 29 year old receiver who hasn't been on the field for two years. I don't think he will command a 30 million dollar contract at that point.
GregR_2
Footballguy
MT, I was wondering as a Chargers fan what your overall take is on how this situation has gone down. As in, how happy (or not) are you with how the Chargers have handled it so far? Do you think they've hurt the team's own interests with their handling of it?
massraider
Footballguy
I think you are right. And I think he will still get less after sitting out a year than if he had played for the tender.I just think the chances of the players staying strong, and refusing to cave to the owners, are slim to none. The NFL always had a weak union, and will continue that way.
I agree that it is very unlikely.If they're were willing to pay him $9 million to play next year, why not just pay it to him this year this year?The only possibility is perhaps if they were confident they could do a sign and trade, but that doesn't seem to be the Charger's way
I'd like to have V.Jax and McNeill in pads. But I fully understand not wanting to pay a restricted free agent as if he were an unrestricted free agent. The Chargers aren't the ones who decided not to have a salary cap this season. They are subject to the CBA just like McNeill and Jackson are; and under the CBA, McNeill and Jackson are restricted free agents this year. The Chargers put the 1st & 3rd tender on them, which requires them to offer $3.2 million. If they didn't want the $3.2 million, they were free to negotiate and sign an offer sheet with another team, and the Chargers would have had to match it or let them go (in return for the draft picks). The Chargers said all along that they were willing to accept alternative compensation rather than demanding the 1st and 3rd. I think AJ Smith really expected Jackson and McNeill to sign before June 15 — either with the Chargers or with another team. He miscalculated. But given that they didn't sign, I understand why he doesn't want to reward them for it by offering the $3.2 million they should have accepted originally. (Not that putting the $3.2 million back on the table would do anything. Jackson has made it clear that he won't play for that amount.)From Jackson's perspective . . . man, being an agent is a difficult job. If the agent had advised Jackson to take the $3.2 million, Jackson would probably resent him for failing to get a contract reflecting his true worth. Compared to the alternative of sitting out the year, I think taking the $3.2 million would have been by far the smart play. But it's a difficult play for the agent to recommend: it feels like admitting defeat. Sometimes an agent can't easily recommend the smart move because he'll appear soft. But I do think that Jackson made a big mistake by not signing before June 15 — either with the Chargers or with another team. As far as I know, he didn't even talk to other teams during the free agency period. He wouldn't have even needed the Chargers' permission back then.
It's an unfortunate situation all around. I don't think either side is acting immorally in any way. The claims that Jackson is failing to perform his obligations are just wrong. He played out his full contract, and he has every right to sit out now if he isn't offered enough to get him off the couch. By the same token, the Chargers are not obligated to pay a restricted free agent as if he were unrestricted. A consistent policy of doing so every time an restricted free agent threatens to sit out would be horrible.
I have an easier time understanding why the Chargers won't pay him like an unrestricted free agent than I do understanding why Jackson wouldn't play for the $3.2 million he was offered. But that's Jackson's decision to make, not mine. I do hope it eventually works out for him. Despite the DUIs, he doesn't seem like a bad guy, and he is fun to watch. But the Chargers are correct to move on without him, IMO.
