I didn't see this article posted yet. I thought it brought up some good points. "http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-directsnap062510 "Logan Mankins, Vincent Jackson(notes) and Marcus McNeill(notes): These three are among nine restricted free agents who haven’t signed their contract tenders yet. The catch for these three is that not signing the tenders before the June 15 has theoretically cost them anywhere from $1.7 million (Mankins) to $2.6 million (Jackson) because the teams have reduced the tenders to each player. The other six restricted free agents lose no more than $100,000 on their offers because CBA rules stipulate that tendered players make 110 percent of last year’s salaries. As a result, the other six restricted free agents will feel far less of a financial impact than Jackson, Mankins and McNeill. However, not signing is the best strategic move these three could make, even if it costs them more money than some people make in a career. The reason is this: All three players can now stay away from their teams without incurring significant fines and/or other penalties (such as losing a year toward free agency). At issue is that all three were prevented from becoming unrestricted free agents this year when NFL owners opted to go to an uncapped year. By rule, the uncapped year pushed the requirement for unrestricted free agency from four years of service to six years. Sure, those are the breaks, but it’s fair to say that all three would have gotten much greater contracts if the rules were different. Much greater. For instance, based on recent contract figures for other players at these positions, Mankins would likely be making an average of $8 million a year with at least $25 million guaranteed on a long-term deal rather than the $3.168 million tender he was offered. Jackson would be getting close to $10 million a year with roughly $30 million guaranteed rather than the $3.268 million he was tendered for one year. McNeill would be making as much as Jackson, if not more. Now, before you start crying crocodile tears about this and claim they should just show up and play, consider this: All of them watched what happened to then-New York Jets running back Leon Washington(notes) last season. Washington, traded to the Seattle Seahawks in April, played last season on a one-year tender, broke his leg and wasn’t able to get a long-term deal done. In fact, he may not be ready to play by the beginning of this season. That’s the nature of football, which gets us back to the strategy of not signing the tender. The only power players really have is their ability to withhold services: the more talented the player, the greater his impact on the fortunes of his team. In the case of Jackson and McNeill, the Chargers are kidding themselves if they think they can be a serious contender without either or both of them. Refusing to sign the tender allows both players to hold out well into the regular season (they will have to report sometime between Week 6 and Week 11 of the season depending on how the CBA is interpreted). Then again, all three probably could get away with not playing at all and still be unrestricted free agents if a new CBA is finally negotiated sometime in 2011. It’s likely a new CBA would again feature a four-year requirement for unrestricted free agency, if not shorter. In other words, players like Mankins and Jackson are probably better served sitting out and refusing to play for $3 million or so for one year rather than risk playing, getting hurt and missing a chance at $8 million or so a year. While this is a hard concept for most fans to accept, it is logical. Moreover, fans should think about it this way: What would you do in the same situation? Would you risk the chance to make life-changing money for one year’s worth of pay that, while still good, doesn’t have anything close to that impact?"