Think we had it bad with Gaither?

[RavenScallywag]

Imagine being the Chargers...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5292257


As expected, San Diego restricted free agents Vincent Jackson and Marcus McNeill didn't sign their tenders by the June 15 deadline. Now, Chargers general manager A.J. Smith says the team is preparing for the 2010 season without them.

"We lost a couple of great players [Tuesday], and it hurts," Smith told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "We are trying to build a championship team, and losing the services of both Vincent and Marcus just made that more difficult -- but not impossible. In due time, Coach [Norv] Turner will name two new starters. We will rally as a team, compete and try to win as many games as we can."

The two players do not plan to report for the start of training camp and quite possibly well beyond, league sources have told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter. The Union-Tribune is reporting that the two players plan to hold out until after Week 10 of the 2010 season unless they receive long-term deals or are traded.Jackson and McNeill need to play six weeks to get credit for an accrued season.

As a result of not signing their tenders, the Chargers have cut McNeill's salary from $3.168 million to $583,000 and Jackson's salary from $3.268 million to $600,000.


Kind've dumb move on the parts of McNeill and Jackson if you ask me. both guys just lost about 3 mil. If they'd just played this year, the Chargers probably have a decent shot of making the playoffs and competing, so they earn a truck load of money, probably pad their value for next year, where theoretically, they get their big deals because the CBA is in place. And if it's not, they need that money for the anticipated lockout.

Yeah there's chances of injury and all, but this just sets them up for a huge loss of money and probably a tarnished rep from holding out like this.

[psuasskicker]

There's a next to zero percent chance either of these guys simply don't show up till week 11. It'd be a financial disaster for them. They'll do way more damage to themselves financially by not showing up than they would by showing up. They may not show up till week 1, but I would be literally shocked if they were still holding out into the regular season.

It's possible they're traded prior to week 1...

- C -

[UKRavenGordon]

There's a next to zero percent chance either of these guys simply don't show up till week 11. It'd be a financial disaster for them. They'll do way more damage to themselves financially by not showing up than they would by showing up. They may not show up till week 1, but I would be literally shocked if they were still holding out into the regular season.

It's possible they're traded prior to week 1...

- C -

I read somewhere last week that both had been financially savvy expecting this is a possibility. What they'll likely do is show up in week 11, allow themselves to get the year of play to their name and get them closer to FA.

I admire them for it to be honest. If VJax or McNeil sign the 1 year tender and they get a career ending injury are the Chargers going to pay them a nice big contract? Somehow I doubt it. By losing a little money this year, they'll gain more in the long run. I'd do exactly the same thing.

[psuasskicker]

You think someone is going to pay them a massive contract after willfully sitting out more than half the year as a malcontent? They'll get good deals, sure; but nowhere close to what they could get if they play the whole season. If this were the case you'd see players doing it all over the place.

- C -

[rastaman831226]

I read somewhere last week that both had been financially savvy expecting this is a possibility. What they'll likely do is show up in week 11, allow themselves to get the year of play to their name and get them closer to FA.

I admire them for it to be honest. If VJax or McNeil sign the 1 year tender and they get a career ending injury are the Chargers going to pay them a nice big contract? Somehow I doubt it. By losing a little money this year, they'll gain more in the long run. I'd do exactly the same thing.

Well said. These are young PRIMO receivers who know their value. It doesn't hurt them at all to take 2 steps backward this year to leap 4 steps forward as FA next year. Smart move on their part.

[RavenScallywag]

it's a gamble...same way Crabtree seemed ready to gamble when he was demanding more money than DHB and was about ready to sit out and go back into the draft or hit free agency.

But someone wised his ass up and he cut a deal. Why? Because taking a year off of football (if they site out until Week 11 and play 6 weeks, that may count as a year of football, but half of that will likely be shaking off rust) can really screw with your mojo. Didn't work for WR Mike Williams from USC either.

I understand the frustration of getting a 1 year deal as opposed to long term deal. But that is the "rules" and they way the NFL and NFLPA worked this out. Both of them are Restricted FA. How many other RFAs got long term deals this year? This is just how the free agency game goes.

All I'm saying is this is a huge risk for each player. They could still get that injury in the 6 weeks they play this season, and then they STILL don't get the long term deal and they are 3 mil dollars lost. If you want to make a career out of being an elite player, sign your rich ass tender, bust your ass this year, and earn an even more ridiculous contract next year.

[rastaman831226]

it's a gamble...same way Crabtree seemed ready to gamble when he was demanding more money than DHB and was about ready to sit out and go back into the draft or hit free agency.

But someone wised his ass up and he cut a deal. Why? Because taking a year off of football (if they site out until Week 11 and play 6 weeks, that may count as a year of football, but half of that will likely be shaking off rust) can really screw with your mojo. Didn't work for WR Mike Williams from USC either.

I understand the frustration of getting a 1 year deal as opposed to long term deal. But that is the "rules" and they way the NFL and NFLPA worked this out. Both of them are Restricted FA. How many other RFAs got long term deals this year? This is just how the free agency game goes.

All I'm saying is this is a huge risk for each player. They could still get that injury in the 6 weeks they play this season, and then they STILL don't get the long term deal and they are 3 mil dollars lost. If you want to make a career out of being an elite player, sign your rich ass tender, bust your ass this year, and earn an even more ridiculous contract next year.

Apples and oranges. Both Jackson and McNeil have what Crabtree and Williams never had in negotiations- great NFL resumes. It's a win win win for Jackson and McNeil in a league that's becoming more and more pass happy. There's nothing but big $$$$ at the end of this rainbow. Smart business move by Jackson and McNeil- bad business move by the Chargers.

[RavenScallywag]

I still somewhat disagree that their value would stay the same or go up by sitting out the year, or most of it, and going after a big contract in free agency next year.

I'm guessing VJax will want top 5 WR money...so, as an NFL team offering it up...yes, you do know what he can do. But there is a risk you have to take in from that year off. Let's say he signs his big, front loaded deal. Then, because he sat out last year and messed with his conditioning, he hits a season-ending injury right off the bat. So you just shelled out tons of money and your big acquisition is already one year down. Injuries can happen anytime, no doubt, but someone who's spent a year off, without the benefit of an NFL caliber facility, trainers, training program...I can't believe their conditioning wouldn't suffer at least somewhat.

And again, hitting on the "1 year off"...Stallworth is playing for the vet min. Granted, there was a bit of stigma because he had been suspended. But I'd say the biggest reason teams weren't willing to give him something more substantial was the year away from football. No one knew how long it would take him to shake the rust off. Heck, we still don't know how he'll look in TC and after.

I just think taking a year off, or at least significant time for a holdout, will cause some negative side effects. Teams are going to take that into consideration when making him offers, and he'll either decide to sit out another year, or he'll take a lesser deal. If he stays, plays, keeps healthy, keeps production up...that contract only goes upwards.

and you say it was a bad business move by the Chargers...what, to tender them and not sign them long term? Because if that's the case, 31 other NFL teams must be wiping sweat off their brows and patting each other on the back for dodging bullets. Again, almost EVERY RFA got tender deals, not long term deals. If you are referring to cutting the tender amount...well, that's their bargainning chip. They want these guys to come in and get ready for the season, and they decided to hold out and not sign their tenders. So why should they keep offering 3 mil to guys who are showing they are more interested in money than in getting on with their business.

If Gaither had pulled the same thing, if McClain, if Landry...any of our RFAs...I would support the same move. I hate hold outs, these guys know the rules and structure of free agency and contracts. Why should you be able to hold a team hostage for deals you signed already or rules your union put into place?

[AirFlacco]

You think someone is going to pay them a massive contract after willfully sitting out more than half the year as a malcontent?

- C -


Rex will.

[RavenScallywag]

maybe...but after a couple of years, bringing in guys like that are going to start biting him back when he's got to find a way to keep them all happy under a salary cap.

[Captain Offense]

I am not sure that anybody can say it is "good" or "bad" until you have hindsight. There are valid points on both fronts, but you can get injured sitting around not playing and ruin any chance for future money, too. Every day is a gamble in life, whether you are playing or not. And taking time out of football can raise the risk of injury, by not coming back in "football shape".

Of course, with the CBA issue looming, who knows what happens. I heard on Sirius NFL Radio the other day the plan for the players to run the season to Week 15, then sit out the playoffs unless a CBA is done. How will these guys be counted in "years of service" if the season is cut short? Are they casualties of the negotiations because the owners want them out of the count and the majority of players roll them under the bus? And although there are owners who will pay for players to walk out of contract terms, Haynesworth shows that you can be a very unhappy millionaire at times.

If these guys sit and come back at less than full power, or if some young pup blows the doors off by their performance, then they pay for sitting. Remember, you cannot sit on your laurels, because there is always someone looking to take your wallet. What is cash today worth?

[psuasskicker]

Rex will.

With Braylon Edwards and Santonio Holmes on the roster? I'll take that bet.

And FTR, McNeil is a tackle, not a receiver.

If it were that easy for players to simply hold out till week 11 and then get massive bucks, you'd see players doing it all the time. Crabtree was an idiot. He certainly didn't get what he was demanding, and he probably wound up getting less than he could have if he'd have signed right away. I'm not stupid enough to suggest these guys wouldn't get great deals if they hold out. But deals equivalent to what they'd get if they come in and play? Um, no.

- C -

[Jeremiah W]

Apples and oranges. Both Jackson and McNeil have what Crabtree and Williams never had in negotiations- great NFL resumes. It's a win win win for Jackson and McNeil in a league that's becoming more and more pass happy. There's nothing but big $$$$ at the end of this rainbow. Smart business move by Jackson and McNeil- bad business move by the Chargers.

This is more comparable to T.O. in Philly than Crabtree. Even after all the drama in Philly, Jerry Jones paid him his monies. Jackson is a top 5 WR, McNiel is at least a top 10 LT, somone will pay them.

At this point they pretty much have to hold out. They already let the 3 mil go so now to sign would mean playing at 5-600k like CJ 2k. They just can not play for less than any starter at the position. The injury risk is not worth it at all. Not even close. Sure they may take a hit in PR, but not the kind of hit they could take if they take a big hit.

[Jeremiah W]

With Braylon Edwards and Santonio Holmes on the roster? I'll take that bet.

And FTR, McNeil is a tackle, not a receiver.

If it were that easy for players to simply hold out till week 11 and then get massive bucks, you'd see players doing it all the time. Crabtree was an idiot. He certainly didn't get what he was demanding, and he probably wound up getting less than he could have if he'd have signed right away. I'm not stupid enough to suggest these guys wouldn't get great deals if they hold out. But deals equivalent to what they'd get if they come in and play? Um, no.

- C -

That is not true at all. There was a comprimise by both sides to get the Crabtree deal done. There are a ton of details beyond the guaranteed money like likley to be earned incentives and almost impossible to earn incentives.

I do not know what the starting details and final ones were, but how could you?

[Dave Lap]

Or, how would you like to be the Redskins dealing with Haynesworth? What a mess....

[RavenScallywag]

Redskins brought that on themselves. Good to see one of their high dollar ridiculous moves finally come back to bite them in the face.

A $100 million DT who only plays one season, then decides to throw a tantrum.

[JimZipCode]

What they'll likely do is show up in week 11, allow themselves to get the year of play to their name and get them closer to FA.
Here's something I don't understand. If they show up after game 10, to start the week of preparations for game 11, why do they think they will get 6 games of service? The ESPN piece says:
Jackson and McNeill need to play six weeks to get credit for an accrued season. Most players are not in game shape the minute they arrive after a lengthy holdout. They need a couple weeks of practice to be ready to play. If the Chargers keep them out a game or two, do they still get the six games of service time? If I were the Chargers, I would absolutely screw them if I could, if they showed up week 11, by keeping them inactive so they fall a game or two short of whatever they would need to qualify for a year of playing time.

Or do they get credit for the year of service if they're with the team and practicing, whether active for games or not? Anyone know how it works?

[trailhiker85]

Or, how would you like to be the Redskins dealing with Haynesworth? What a mess....

Ah, that annual DC football soap opera known as the Washington Redskins. The cast may feature different actors from year to year, but for me it remains a (not-so-guilty) pleasure to sit back and laugh. Just one more reason to appreciate our Ravens.

[psuasskicker]

Or do they get credit for the year of service if they're with the team and practicing, whether active for games or not? Anyone know how it works?

I can't say this for sure, but the team certainly doesn't need to allow them to show up. They could suspend them the same way Philly did with TO. I don't know whether they get credit for that being the season anyway. But anyone here that thinks these guys can essentially sit a year and not have it negatively impact their market value is IMO smoking something.

- C -

[Jeremiah W]

I can't say this for sure, but the team certainly doesn't need to allow them to show up. They could suspend them the same way Philly did with TO. I don't know whether they get credit for that being the season anyway. But anyone here that thinks these guys can essentially sit a year and not have it negatively impact their market value is IMO smoking something.

- C -

Of course it would affect the value, but how much? Not enough to risk playing the first 10 weeks for a fraction of 600k.

The leverage is that they would already be UFAs under the old system. If there is a new CBA with the old rules of how long it takes to become UFAs, they will not be restricted next year even if they do not advance a year toward free agency.

The value they would lose if they get hurt dwarfs what they lose for getting a bad rep as a holdout when SD is offering them 600k.

[rastaman831226]

Ah, that annual DC football soap opera known as the Washington Redskins. The cast may feature different actors from year to year, but for me it remains a (not-so-guilty) pleasure to sit back and laugh. Just one more reason to appreciate our Ravens.

Well said. What a goof of an organization. I can't wait 'til next season when McNabb leaves them high and dry for Minnesota and a potential SB ring.