"Vikings prepared to make offer for Vincent Jackson."

Posted by CoronaDoug-

Redskins coach Mike Shanahan on the subject of pursuing Vincent Jackson: "We'll always be trying to upgrade our football team, if that presented itself. We have people evaluating different people on teams all the time."

"While new Redskins GM Bruce Allen and Chargers GM A.J. Smith are said to be close, the Redskins have not as yet been included among the teams granted permission to discussion a long-term contract." Vikings And Redskins Said To Be Pursuing Trade For Vincent Jackson - SBNation.com

All I can deduce is that AJ Smith is fearful that if a high-revenue team like Washington is allowed to compete against the Rams, Vikings or Seahawks for Jackson's services, that will be the only team Neil Schwartz will even bother discussing trade with. As I've said before, I think Neil Schwartz already knows full well what sort of parameters he can expect to be negotiating with Washington. Thing is, Minnesota is leary to offer much in the way of compensation, due to their short-term circumstance. This artificial, knee-jerk demand has yet to yield what some thought it would. I believe it's Washington that is most interested in Vincent Jackson long-term. Now, while we could place the burden onto Smith, it's not like we're reading that Washington has asked for permission and been denied, so... the between-the-lines is difficult to perceive.

This is part of the reason VJ is not allowed to talk to whomever he wants. Why drive up the players price if the Chargers are looking to tag him next year at $11 million or maybe even offer a long term contract ? Those are possibilities.

Allan Rossum KR from Atlanta was doing the pimp tour when he left the Falcons seeking better compensation. Rossum stopped here and there and AJ expressed interest in the player. This is before we had Sproles returning kicks

When AJ found out that Rossum had no intention of playing here unless he was the highest paid player at his position AND most importantly that Rossum had used the Chargers as a tool to get a better deal with other teams that frosted AJ's *** big time. He will not let players use other teams to leverage salary (see our left guard Dielman who signed for less here) and get away with team salary suicide.

With Gates as others there was the threat that the Chargers were taking money off of the table because he was not signing. It was commented on at 1090 and other places. When Gates signed, nothing was removed.

The Chargers are consistent if anything in the way the do business and indeed they have threatened to take money off the table to several players when negotiations were shaking.

Maybe AJ is waiting to take the other teams highest offer to Washington? It doesn't matter what kind of offer VJ gets if AJ is not happy with the compensation then there is no trade. Then again Washington may be waiting in the wings and come in with a last minute offer. Wait and see what the others are offering then add a little to it. There is no need to drive up the value now. Either way I think that it is safe to say that we have a chess match happening.

I'd be surprised if VJ is traded. The problem I see is VJ only wants a one yr deal so he can be a free agent next year. Perhaps he wants to be a Bronco? No team is going to give up a 2nd Rd pick for a half a year rental. I wouldn't be surprised if AJ wants a 1st(He seems to gamble high ie Sproles and Michael Turner's tender). Either way VJ needs to sign a long term contract to get a trade and I don't think he wants a long term deal with any of the teams the Chargers are allowing to talk to him.

As I pointed out, The Chargers got tough on Gates AFTER offering him a 5 year deal which would make him a top 5 paid player, and he didn't sign it. That is a lot different than getting tough after offering a 1 year deal for less than half of market value. I don't care if that is all they were required to pay them. That is just a BS excuse. It isn't a hard decision. If you want them, sit down and negotiate a deal with them. If you don't want them, then trade their *** and lets move on!

Brad Childress has no comment on Vincent Jackson

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on September 17, 2010 6:29 PM ET
Vikings fans that don't have faith in Bernard Berrian inevitably were refreshing their favorite Vikings news source at 4:01 ET Friday.

That's the moment the "moratorium" on a potential Vincent Jackson trade ended, allowing the Chargers to make a deal. Even with a soft deadline of next Wednesday before Jackson's trade value diminishes, a Friday deal was likely wishful thinking.

Any team that wants to get Jackson has to give up big money and agree on trade terms for what could possibly be a one-year rental player with two DUIs to his name. It won't be easy, and all camps are staying mum on the issue for now.

"He's really not a guy I'm able to speak about for the fact that he's their property," Vikings coach Brad Childress said, via the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "I wouldn't get into any speculation on anybody on anybody else's roster."

It's believed the Vikings showed interest previously, but got scared away from Jackson's contractual asking price. Any team that wants to talk contract with Jackson has to get permission from the Chargers first.


ProFootballTalk.com

my question is. How dumb could jackson or mcneil be to sit out this year. They'll be in the same limbo next year if they do. Got to get one more year in until they are really free agents.

Jackson. Get on another team. Get the chargers a 2nd rounder and make millions plus being able to be a free agent next year. Think. Try and think here jackson.

I think the only issue at this point is getting the 2nd rounder.

And I have bet that the team that gets him will come completley out of left field, some team nobody is talking about, like the Carolina Panthers.

Not necessarily true, it will depend on the new CBA. The previous CBA only required 4 years to be a unrestricted free agent, and whether these guys play or not, they already have 4 years. So unless the new CBS increases it, which is unlikely since the NFLPA is pushing to have it dropped to 3 years as a concession for a rookie cap. Likely, it will revert back to 4 years and both MM and VJ will be free to walk or one may be able to be franchised

So jackson and mcneil have to hope like heel that the new cba will allow them to be free agents. Thats a big if when it comes to your furture life and making money. Plus. That next year will very probably be a non year. Jackson and mcneil really needed better agents who understand how to play the game. Their agents very well might screw up thier lives.

I'm guessing the nfl is prodding jacksons agents with this window to try and get things right to get thier sheet together. I wouldn't be surprised if the nfl didn't talk to jacksons agents and spell it out to them. No one wants jackson to wind up poor at the mercy of some stupid agents.

I thought AJ had clearly established that fact a long time ago.

Some of these dudes are slow learners.

John Riggins helps VJ - An OMEN ????

John Riggins helped settle the Vincent Jackson case
Posted by Mike Florio on September 18, 2010 7:46 AM ET

As it turns out, a Hall of Fame running back helped resolve the dispute regarding whether a receiver who presumably would like to be in the Hall of Fame will miss fewer than six games if he's traded to a new team.

But former Jets and Redskins chain-mover John Riggins didn't show up and tell anyone to "lighten up, Sandy baby." A full-season holdout he staged during his playing career provided the precedent for forging a compromise.

As Thursday's hearing-that-never-happened approached, the battle lines had been drawn. The NFL believed that the placement of receiver Vincent Jackson on the roster exempt list would follow him to a new team, requiring him to miss three games after his three-game suspension for violation of the substance-abuse policy. The NFLPA believed that, if Jackson were traded, he would not be on the roster exempt list once he joins a new roster.

But there was another issue on which the two sides focused. The NFL believed that Jackson could not "report" to the Chargers -- or any other team -- and trigger the commencement of his three-game stay on the roster exempt list while serving a three-game suspension under the substance-abuse policy. The NFLPA believed that Jackson could "report," given that players suspended under the substance-abuse policy may show up to the facility for meetings and other activities, but not practice.

Enter Riggins.

In 1980, Riggins wanted a new contract from the Redskins. He showed up for training camp, participated in a team meal, and left before practices started. The Redskins sent him a five-day letter, warning him that if he didn't return in (you guessed it) five days, they could shut him down for the entire season. Riggins didn't return, and the Redskins shelved him for the year.

Riggins and the union fought the issue, arguing that because he hadn't officially "reported" he couldn't be issued a five-day letter after leaving camp. An arbitrator ruled that showing up for the meal constituted "reporting" for camp.

Thirty years later, we're told that this precedent helped get Jackson's ultimate absence reduced to four games, if he is traded by Wednesday. Since Riggins' arrival for a plate of food was enough to constitute "reporting," Jackson's appearance at the team facility during his suspension also would be "reporting." So if, in theory, Jackson had "reported" to a new team after Week One, he would have missed only the next three games under the rules of the roster exempt list.

Thus, his total absence if traded will be four games.

But there are a couple of twists here. Even if Jackson isn't traded until after Week Two (which appears to be the more likely scenario), he'll still miss only the next two games. Also, the settlement doesn't apply to the Chargers; even if he "reports" today, he'll still miss six games.

That said, it doesn't matter as to the Chargers because he won't be "reporting" to the Chargers until they give him the kind of contract he wants. And it's been clear for months that, for whatever reason, they won't.

So now the question becomes whether a deal can be worked out between the Chargers and another team, and between another team and Jackson, by Wednesday.

It would be fitting if he ends up with the Redskins, given their role in setting the precedent that could grease the skids for Jackson's exit from San Diego.

It definitely is a gamble, but so would playing on a 1 year contract. Either way, the players are gambling. In all likelihood, they wouldn't get injured if they played, and the CBA will revert back to 4 years. so it is all about personal choice. They chose to not play for a 1 year contract, and I really can't say that I think it is unreasonable to want more than a 1 year deal. Personally, I think the players AND the chargers handled the situation poorly, and the fans and team overall are hurt by it

It is Deans master plan to tank this season - then the lockout - then you are pissed = an easier exit out of dodge for the team.

I have heard sever people on other board calling for that conspiracy theory, but I don't buy it. I think AJ and Dean just took a gamble that they would be able to strong arm VJ and MM into playing an additional year cheaply, and when that game plan didn't pan out, they found themselves backed into a corner

When Rivers heard of the plan he went ape **** and that was the meltdown we all saw. Linemen were telling Rivers to chill the f-out because they needed to lose the game to send a message to management that the players were in charge.

Sometimes ya gotta just roll with it. :icon_banana:

No matter the angle, people keep saying AJ Smith will eat Vincent Jackson if he doesn't receive favorable compensation. It's probably true, but I refuse to believe it. Would Smith really reject a 3rd rd selection or a package of 4th & 5th rd selections? Nobody is that stupid. The logic revolves around the notion that the Chargers will retain the rights to Jackson with a new CBA. If not, well, they'll franchise him. I don't want to debate either premise any further other than to say that the former is false and the latter makes no sense. However, as the players continue to announce their intention to decertify the union, this third premise and its uncertainties, seem more likely. According to a source posted in this forum, the antitrust suits that derived from decertification are what provided the basis for the current CBA.

Here are several paragraphs of the CBA that have been cited before:

Section 3. CBA Expiration:
"(a) Following the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, then, if the NFLPA is in existence as a union, the Parties agree that none of the Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) nor any player represented by the NFLPA shall be able to commence an action, or assert a claim, under the antitrust laws for conduct occurring, until either: (i) the Management Council and NFLPA have bargained to impasse; or (ii) six (6) months after such expiration, whichever is later; at that time, the Parties reserve any arguments they may make regarding the application of the labor exemption.
(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred."

What I think is being said in the agreement is that once the CBA expires, the players agree not to bring antitrust litigation and the owners agree to respect the NFLPA's decertification as legitimate. Here is additional material that may help clarify:

"The possible decertification of the Players Association is based on the relationship between national labor law and antitrust law. ... The collective bargaining agreement between the clubs and the union includes all kinds of provisions that limit economic competition between the clubs. For example, NFL teams are limited by the salary cap in what they can pay their employees, the players. They are limited in the number of employees they can hire, 53 during the regular season. They even share their revenues. Think of any other group of economic competitors pulling off the same trick. These "restraints of trade," as they are called in antitrust law, would be easy targets in an antitrust suit. ... How then do the NFL teams get away with these antitrust violations? When the economic restraints are embodied in a collective bargaining agreement, they are insulated from antitrust liability under prevailing court precedent.

Congress enacted both the antitrust laws and the labor laws, and the courts, in seeking to reconcile the two statutes, have said that labor law trumps antitrust law when the restraints are the product of free and open collective bargaining. ... The union has used this strategy before. After the disastrous 1987 strike, the union decertified and players filed an antitrust suit. While the case was pending, the parties secretly negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement. (If the negotiations had been made public, then the union's decertification would have been revealed to be a sham. Both sides honored the secrecy pledge.) That ushered in decades of labor peace on the football field. ... A genuine decertification of the Players Association accompanied by an antitrust suit would mean the end of the NFL as we know it. Thus, the risk to the NFL by the union's strategy is real." Roger I. Abrams: Kickoff Week for the NFL Negotiations

A reader's comment: "Labor law dictates that the previous rules (of 4 years to be UFA) will go into effect for the period in which the CBA expires. NFLPA can decertify and file suits like White v ; Brown v ; McNeil v and the Union will have leverage unless players sell their marketing rights again like when Ornstein went around with the owners bag of cash and paid off the newly formed QB club, Lott, Marcus Allen and every greedy USC star player and force Uphaw to cut a deal that ultimately was beneficial to players." Fate of unsigned RFAs could hinge on next CBA | ProFootballTalk.com

Interesting... Clearly, small market teams want absolutely nothing to do with decertification, the sharks will devour the chum! The Buffalos and San Diegos of the world will become a B league, at best.

I'm done with VJack, its pretty much settled he's not a Charger anymore.


So whats the deal with McNeill?
We're not negotiating with him.
We're not allowing other teams to talk to him.
We're not going to trade him.
We're not going to restore the 3mil tender.
He's never going to sign the 600k tender.


WTF is AJ's plan exactly? Because I get the feeling this is being handled a lot worse than the VJack situation.