Blog Entry

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

Posted on: July 5, 2010 4:18 pm
  •  
 
Adam Schefter of ESPN reported today that the San Diego Chargers are in fact NOT actively looking to trade wide receiver Vincent Jackson. And they don’t seem inclined to negotiate with him, either. Jackson is staging a holdout to express his displease with being tendered as a restricted free agent, rather than being offered a long-term contract. When he refused to sign the $3.628 million RFA tender, Chargers GM executed his right to reduce the offer to 110 percent of Jackson’s ’09 salary ($583,000).
V.Jackson (US Presswire)

Jackson plans to hold out until the final six games. Chargers GM A.J. Smith has already referred to Jackson (as well as disgruntled left tackle Marcus McNeil) as “lost” players. Even though Jackson will serve a three-game suspension in September (multiple DUI’s,), there is undoubtedly a viable market for the sixth-year pro. He’s one of the best deep-ball threats in the game and, at 6’5”, 230, he can also operate in traffic over the middle. Fifty eight of Jackson’s 68 catches moved the chains last season.

The Chargers signed receiver Josh Reed, but he’s an inadequate replacement for a Pro Bowl receiver. If Jackson does indeed sit out, look for San Diego to have Legedu Naanee start opposite Malcom Floyd.

--Andy Benoit

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter.

  •  
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: February 2, 2012 1:48 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

We were notably cheerful to find out this website.I wanted to help you i appreciate you that astonishing come across as to!! I just absolutely working for the most of the every single separate little is very low little that and moreover Truly you can added and check out a new challenge buyers reveal.


peulouy
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 17, 2011 9:36 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 7, 2011 12:44 am
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

It's about time apt to be a couple of boring aged editorial, having said that without doubt , truthfully settled regarding time.



Since: May 31, 2007
Posted on: July 7, 2010 9:51 am
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

Anyone know if Jackson's still on contract? He is not on contract at this time.

Due to the collective bargaining agreement, the Chargers offered him a restricted tender (i.e. a one year contract... in this case for about $3.6 million).  He didn't have to take the offer, but he also couldn't negotiate with any other teams.  After a certain point if he didn't sign it, they could (and did) reduce the offer to a fraction of that, which amounts to about $583,000.  He also has not signed the reduced offer.

So as of right now, the answer is no... Jackson is NOT under contract with the Chargers because he has not signed the contract.  However, because of the CBA rules, he also cannot sign with any other team.  He is refusing to sign because he feels the amount is inusltingly low, and the team is refusing to raise it because... well... they don't have to.

His options are:  sign the contract and play for the small amount, or sit out until game 11, then sign and play the last 6 games and become a free agent after the season.

Their options are:  let him sit out and just move on, trade him for whatever you can get, or offer him a big contract.

I don't see him singing the half-a-mil contract, and I don't see the Chargers offering a big one.  So either he'll end up sitting out most of the season, or they'll end up trading him... but that decision rests with the Chargers.

But as to the original question, no... Jackson is not under contract to play right now unless he signs the restricted free agent tender, which I don't see happening.



Since: May 9, 2008
Posted on: July 6, 2010 8:51 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

i agree 6'5 230 lb wideouts with speed are abundant in the nfl. i mean they can go find one as a rookie FA. man i hope the charger management feels the same and they trade him. smh



Since: Dec 1, 2006
Posted on: July 6, 2010 5:22 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

When I read this headline my first thought was "what in the world is anal-zing, and how does having it affect VJs performance?"


Sounds like something he won't take sitting down!



Since: Jul 6, 2010
Posted on: July 6, 2010 5:00 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

I think that San Diego is looking at a tougher season than most expect.  First off The Vincent Jackson ordeal, secondly Marcus Mcneil is a holdout also.  Thirdly, no LT, no Cromartie,  Jamal Williams who has been solid when not hurt is gone,  There are alot of shoes to fill in San Diego right now, i'm watering at the mouth as a BRONCO fan,  No Mcneil + Elvis Dumervil= Phillip Rivers on the ground



Since: Feb 22, 2008
Posted on: July 6, 2010 4:53 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

Anyone know if Jackson's still on contract?  I'm thinking that when the Chargers put him on restricted free agency, then he must be.  In which case, he needs to play to his contract like in any other business and then go about his merry way when he's done, if that's what he wants.   I'm rather sick of professional ballplayers with their hand out for a fat raise when they do well, but not turning out their pockets when they do poorly. This an old argument that will never end, but in the NFL where contracts aren't guaranteed some of the culpability has to be taken off of players. 

Jackson has problems, but I can't think of any excuse for a WR who went over 1000 yards in the past two seasons should be getting 500K.  Without really knowing what the salary distribution is like for players in that production category I would venture that 3.6m would be a pretty huge bargain.  Now I don't think Jackson is a top 10 WR, but it's pretty clear to me that the Chargers are trying to squeeze a cheap year out of him.  I don't consider that to be good faith negotiating and Jackson has a right to be upset about that.  If the Chargers believed in this guy they should be trying to hammer out a long term deal.  If they don't they should deal him and not try to hold him hostage for a year.  What they are doing is strictly within their rights but I consider it tasteless.  There are plenty of teams out there who think Jackson is destined for a top 10 position in the league and would be giving him a long deal.  If ther Chargers aren't going to even bother trying for one they should let him go.



Since: Dec 21, 2008
Posted on: July 6, 2010 2:58 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

Anyone know if Jackson's still on contract?  I'm thinking that when the Chargers put him on restricted free agency, then he must be.  In which case, he needs to play to his contract like in any other business and then go about his merry way when he's done, if that's what he wants.   I'm rather sick of professional ballplayers with their hand out for a fat raise when they do well, but not turning out their pockets when they do poorly.   Don't like "small" money for big plays?  Then sign a shorter contract.  And if you can't sign shorter, than go for all you can 'cause from there on, the team's got you!  What part of this do players not understand?    I understand they risk personal injury and harm when performing, but they are being paid with good salary and benefits.

While I don't like seeing Jackson & The Chargers in contention over a contract, I do agree with what A.J. has done; after all, it's in the contract and if Jackson didn't understand it, that's what his agent is for! 



Since: May 31, 2007
Posted on: July 6, 2010 2:25 pm
 

Analzing the latest in Vincent Jackson drama

Actually, at this point there's no reason for V-Jack to NOT sit out.

It's probably true that the Chargers will be fine without him.  I'm not saying sitting out will gain Jackson any kind of significant leverage in contract negotiation or whatever at this point.  But considering what his payday is likely to be on the open market, even for a partial season, or even if there's a lost season (he's young enough)... it's not worth playing.

What I mean is this:  if he signs, he makes around $583,000 for 16 games.  If he doesn't, he plays the last 6 games and makes around $218,000 (assuming it's straight division).  Considering the millions he will probably make on his next contract... whether it's 2011 or 2012... is it worth the injury risk in those 10 games to make $300k?  I mean, for a schlep like me sure it would be... I make a tiny fraction of that per year.  But for a guy who has made millions already and will make millions more in the next couple years?  I would think not.  At this point, the money isn't worth playing for under the circumstances, and the risk isn't worth taking.  He would have been better off taking the $3.6 mil, but now that that ship has sailed, he is best off just sitting it out.

From the other perspective, the Chargers still have lots of talent on the roster, Jackson has a suspension coming, and they don't want to dig a financial hole if the new CBA retroactively makes the salary cap thing a problem.  So while Jackson has little or no reason to sign the tender, the Chargers likewise have little or no reason to talk long-term contract.

The bottom line is that Jackson probably won't do anything but sit until either he's traded or the first 10 games are over.  The Chargers basically have 2 options:  either they can hang on to him and just ride it out until game 11, then let him walk after the season... or they can pawn him off on another team in a trade and be done with it.  Really it just comes down to whether the team feels that making a statement is worth more than what they would get in a trade at this point.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com