Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

Now I’m genuinely aggravated!

Lupz27

By Lupz27
in NY Jets Forum

Recommended Posts

slats

slats

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

And the Jets have no reason to cave into demands that other top picks didn't get..

All I know is that Macc has zero history of being unreasonable and forcing picks to hold out while Darnold has no history. So if I'm going to take sides here it's Macc who I'm siding with. Macc is also looking out for the interests of jets while Darnold is looking out for himself (which is his right). 

3

I'm disappointed it's not done, but I'll wait until all the facts are available before I decide where to place blame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply
batman10023

batman10023

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, HawkeyeJet said:

I did not realize Darnold's agent is the same guy that represented Fitzpatrick in that nightmare a few years ago.

Darnold needs to tell him I'm either practicing today or I'm getting a new agent. 

fitzpatrick got paid very well that year if i recall correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dcat

Dcat

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Not sure if that's even negotiable, but if it is there is no way Macc can cave on that one. I'd rather he sits out the year then give him a free out in a few years.

I suppose we'd find the answer to that question somewhere in the CBA.  @Charlie Brown and the other legal eagles can search through that document for us and let us know.

 :Typotux: 

Pro bono work! You can probably get state bar credit for the time.  

(for the good of Jets fans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
flgreen

flgreen

Posted
Posted

Jets' Josh McCown on Sam Darnold's holdout: 'There's no substitute for being here'

Updated Posted 
 
 

By Darryl Slater

dslater@njadvancemedia.com

NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

With high-profile rookie quarterback Sam Darnold going through a contract holdout -- and, for now, pulling himself out of the Jets' competition for their starting job -- Josh McCown and Teddy Bridgewater handled the workloadduring Friday's first training camp practice. 

McCown, a 39-year-old veteran journeyman, has seen a lot since his NFL career began in 2002. And he knows how important it is for a young quarterback to be in camp immediately. 

"Obviously, from a learning standpoint, you want to be here as a soon as possible," McCown said. "There's no substitute for being here -- the walk-throughs in the morning, where so much teaching takes place, and just these practices, where you can get reps. So obviously, there's no substitute for it." 

McCown said it's tough when the NFL's business side impacts a player's availability. 

"It is, but I think guys get it," McCown said. "It's unfortunate, because you're coming together as a team. But we focus on the guys that are here, and those guys coming together as a team." 

McCown didn't say how many practices Darnold would have to miss before things got really concerning. But McCown does understand Darnold's situation. 

"It's just part of the business, and you deal with it and move on," McCown said. "When he gets here, he gets here, and we'll welcome him and get rolling." 

 

 

McCown and Darnold regularly exchanged text messages during the Jets' five-week break between the end of minicamp and the start of training camp. 

"We developed a relationship over the spring," McCown said. "He's going through the business side of the sport, and we understand that. Just wish him the best and can't wait to see him." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Dcat said:

I suppose we'd find the answer to that question somewhere in the CBA.  @Charlie Brown and the other legal eagles can search through that document for us and let us know.

 :Typotux: 

Pro bono work! You can probably get state bar credit for the time.  

(for the good of Jets fans)

Hmmmm I have not looked at the current contracts from since about 2010. 

It is my understanding however that the CBA does not permit a team to opt out of the 5th year option.

The key here is the offset language; whereby if the Jets were to cut Darnold and then another team were to pick him up, the monies the Jets may owe Darnold would then be "offset" against the new monies that the new acquiring team would be providing him. As opposed to a scenario whereby Darnold is cut and he gets to keep the monies the Jets have or are paying that final year. 

This money, the Jets payment, is on top of the monies that Darnold gets from his new team.

It is worth in my opinion about 3 to 5 million dollars in savings for the Jets if Darnold is effectively a bust.

Darnold's position seems out of step when the QB chosen before and after him have all accepted this language as far as I can tell.....

All I know is while it it is only one day ......... It is not a good feeling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fantasy Island

Fantasy Island

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Lets start with drafting Leo, who was the consensus "best player in the draft"?  

I like Leo, but he hasn't made a difference.  We do not have one player in the top 100 NFL players for 2018.  Mac hasn't made a pick in the first round that has made a difference on our team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joewilly12

joewilly12

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fantasy Island said:

I like Leo, but he hasn't made a difference.  We do not have one player in the top 100 NFL players for 2018.  Mac hasn't made a pick in the first round that has made a difference on our team.  

Or the 2nd or the 3rd.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nycdan

nycdan

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

Hmmmm I have not looked at the current contracts from since about 2010. 

It is my understanding however that the CBA does not permit a team to opt out of the 5th year option.

The key here is the offset language; whereby if the Jets were to cut Darnold and then another team were to pick him up, the monies the Jets may owe Darnold would then be "offset" against the new monies that the new acquiring team would be providing him. As opposed to a scenario whereby Darnold is cut and he gets to keep the monies the Jets have or are paying that final year. 

This money, the Jets payment, is on top of the monies that Darnold gets from his new team.

It is worth in my opinion about 3 to 5 million dollars in savings for the Jets if Darnold is effectively a bust.

Darnold's position seems out of step when the QB chosen before and after him have all accepted this language as far as I can tell.....

All I know is while it it is only one day ......... It is not a good feeling...

Correct.  The fifth year option for 1st rounder is mandatory in all contracts and cannot be given away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jet Nut

Jet Nut

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Fantasy Island said:

I like Leo, but he hasn't made a difference.  We do not have one player in the top 100 NFL players for 2018.  Mac hasn't made a pick in the first round that has made a difference on our team.  

Makes no difference, wasnt a referendum on how good the picks are or havent turned out to be.  Just like the whole Darnold deal wouldnt change if he busts.  Leo was considered the best player in the draft.  Whether that turns out to be right or wrong years down the road doesnt change the fact that he was signed and in camp on time.  Right?

Same with every 1st round pick under Macc until this pick up to this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoJoTownsell1

JoJoTownsell1

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Losmeister said:

totally on sams side.

jets are boobs

So the Jets should give Darnold a deal the likes of Mayfield and Allen didn't get just because Darnolds agent wants them to?

That's not Smart way to do business. Sure, in the short term it makes us happy but then next year you'll have players demanding it from the Jets. 

Jets are right to stick to their guns because they know Darnold wants to play and ever day he sits out he gives Mccown and Bridgewater an edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
flgreen

flgreen

Posted
Posted

On one hand I understand why Darnold , and Sexton, would want this.  All you have to do is look across the QB room at Bridgewater and understand why a young QB might not want off-set language in his contract.

On the other hand the Jets hold all the cards.  #1 QB signed with out OS language as did #3 QB. 

Except for a few whining fans the Jets have no pressure to get him in.  They have 2 other QB's who were starters.  Only one who is being hurt by the hold out is Darnold if he wants to be opening day starter.  Even if he were signed early there is no guarantee he would be the starter.  Vegas odds are +360, and probably climbing.

As far as Macc's job security goes, this has no bearing on it.  If Darnold is late to camp, and turns out to be a franchise QB, and wins a Super Bowl down the road, Macc goes to the ring of honor right next to Weeb. If Darnold signs tomorrow, and goes bust, Macc gets fired.

Nobody will care about this in a month.  Well except for a few posters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Losmeister

Losmeister

Posted
Posted

i'v earned the right to treat this organization for exactly what they are.

my relation to the jets...

like this from buke- 

"now
lighting new cigarettes
pouring more
drinks

it has been a beautiful
fight

still
is.”

if i'm sam, im like go right ahead and start mclown or teddy. shrug.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dcat

Dcat

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

Hmmmm I have not looked at the current contracts from since about 2010. 

It is my understanding however that the CBA does not permit a team to opt out of the 5th year option.

The key here is the offset language; whereby if the Jets were to cut Darnold and then another team were to pick him up, the monies the Jets may owe Darnold would then be "offset" against the new monies that the new acquiring team would be providing him. As opposed to a scenario whereby Darnold is cut and he gets to keep the monies the Jets have or are paying that final year. 

This money, the Jets payment, is on top of the monies that Darnold gets from his new team.

It is worth in my opinion about 3 to 5 million dollars in savings for the Jets if Darnold is effectively a bust.

Darnold's position seems out of step when the QB chosen before and after him have all accepted this language as far as I can tell.....

All I know is while it it is only one day ......... It is not a good feeling...

The question was whether a team can forfeit the right to use the franchise tag after completion of the 5th year option  in a rookie contract.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Dcat said:

The question was whether a team can forfeit the right to use the franchise tag after completion of the 5th year option  in a rookie contract.   

Hi thank you!

I was obviously confused with the initial question. 

However I quickly reviewed the CBA and the relevant sections and I don't think anything stops a player for being tagged just because the 5th year option was initiated by a club. Indeed by that time a player would be deemed under the NFL rules to be an unrestricted free agent and therefore could fall under the franchise tag.

Granted I only looked at Section 10 and the ancillary clauses for 10 minutes but I think I am correct.

Here is link to the CBA:

https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/cba/private/7991_2-1-20.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SAR I

SAR I

Posted
Posted

Don’t forget that a player can force a trade to another team by holding out and denouncing the team that drafted him. 

Eli Manning did it to the Chargers on draft day, John Elway did it, Rich Gannon did it, Sam Darnold can do it now too.

SAR I

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nycdan

nycdan

Posted
Posted

What sucks is that next year's QB class looks much weaker than this one.  It's a doomsday scenario but Darnold could reasonably expect to be #1 next year if he sits out the season.  Now THAT would be the Jetsiest thing ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dcat

Dcat

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

Hi thank you!

I was obviously confused with the initial question. 

However I quickly reviewed the CBA and the relevant sections and I don't think anything stops a player for being tagged just because the 5th year option was initiated by a club. Indeed by that time a player would be deemed under the NFL rules to be an unrestricted free agent and therefore could fall under the franchise tag.

Granted I only looked at Section 10 and the ancillary clauses for 10 minutes but I think I am correct.

Here is link to the CBA:

https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/cba/private/7991_2-1-20.pdf

So could Darnold be asking them to agree not to franchise him after his 5th year?  Thereby ensuring he is an unfettered UFA after 5 years?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jet Nut

Jet Nut

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, nycdan said:

What sucks is that next year's QB class looks much weaker than this one.  It's a doomsday scenario but Darnold could reasonably expect to be #1 next year if he sits out the season.  Now THAT would be the Jetsiest thing ever.

Not believing a player throws away $7.5 mil to make a point over a couple of hundred thousand from offset language to maybe get drafted high next year, never getting the $7.5 mil back

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sec101row23

sec101row23

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Dcat said:

So could Darnold be asking them to agree not to franchise him after his 5th year?  Thereby ensuring he is an unfettered UFA after 5 years?  

That would be so short-slighted by Darnold.  He would be better off having the franchise tag available.  Look at how much money Kirk Cousins made from being franchised.  If Darnold is a legit top 5-6 QB in the league at the end of 4 years, he’ll get his deal.  If he’s kind of a middle of the pack QB and hasn’t a great 4 years and the Jets aren’t willing or can’t reach a longer term deal then having the tag available for a year or two would be beneficial for Darnold.  

 

To me, Darnold and his team worrying about offsets sets a bad precedent in that they are planning on contingencies if Darnold isn’t the player the Jets believe they drafted.  They are almost saying, “hey, there is a good chance my client isn’t going to work out for you, so we want him to be able to profit from failing here”.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dcat

Dcat

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, SouthernJet said:

agree, why I said maybe sticking point is "cant use Franchis Tag on me" clause that may be issue. Wants back in california eventually.?

 

17 hours ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

Not sure if that's even negotiable, but if it is there is no way Macc can cave on that one. I'd rather he sits out the year then give him a free out in a few years.

 

10 hours ago, Dcat said:

The question was whether a team can forfeit the right to use the franchise tag after completion of the 5th year option  in a rookie contract.   

 

10 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

Hi thank you!

I was obviously confused with the initial question. 

However I quickly reviewed the CBA and the relevant sections and I don't think anything stops a player for being tagged just because the 5th year option was initiated by a club. Indeed by that time a player would be deemed under the NFL rules to be an unrestricted free agent and therefore could fall under the franchise tag.

Granted I only looked at Section 10 and the ancillary clauses for 10 minutes but I think I am correct.

Here is link to the CBA:

https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/cba/private/7991_2-1-20.pdf

the question was raised whether the stall could be over Darnold wanting the Jets to agree NOT to Franchise Tag him after his 5th year option.  I asked whether or not the CBA allows that point to be negotiated.  Here is what I found:

In Article 7 (Rookie Contracts), I found this:

  Quote

A Rookie Contract may also contain non-compensation terms relating to: (1) player appearances/promotions; (2) workers' compensation issues; (3) waivers of Club liability for preexisting injuries/physical conditions; (4) forfeiture of 25 compensation and/ or of guarantees to the extent permitted in Article 4; (5) deduction or repayment of advanced non-guaranteed year-one Paragraph 5 Salary; (6) insurance policies; (7) tax implications; (8) confidentiality (subject to Article 26); (9) the severability of unenforceable contract terms; (10) legal/contractual interpretation issues; (11) representations and warranties that at the time the contract is executed, no circumstances exist that would prevent the player's continuing availability to the Club for the duration of the contract; (12) waiver of a Club's right to enforce any of the terms of Paragraph 3 of the NFL Player Contract; and (13) waiver of a Club's rights regarding the designations of, or the Required Tender amounts for, Franchise or Transition Players. With the sole exception of the compensation terms that appear in Subsection (b) above, the other permissible terms that appear in this Subsection, and, if applicable, the Proven Performance Escalator in Section 4 and the Fifth-Year Option in Section 7 of this Article, any other contract terms will be deemed null and void ab initio unless the parties to this Agreement agree otherwise.

So "waiver of a club's rights to designate the Franchise Tag" is indeed a negotiable item.  Darnold may want out of NY as fast as possible.  If Sexton can force the Jets to waive their right to Franchise him after the 5th year option is over, then Sam can escape after his 5th year here without being subjected to a Cousins-like imprisonment in Washington for an additional year or two by being tagged.  

the next clause in the CBA is for "prohibited items in a rookie contract, and there is no stated prohibition against waiving the right to apply the Franchise Tag after the 5th year option is over.  

  Quote

(d) Prohibited Terms. The following contract provisions are prohibited in a Rookie Contract: option bonuses, option exercise fees, option nonexercise fees, Salary advances (other than advances of non-guaranteed year-one Paragraph 5 Salary as described in Subsection (b)(iii)(3) above), voidable year(s) provisions, buybacks of voidable year(s) provisions, and any "contract within the contract" (i.e., terms and conditions of a contemplated superseding contract within the Rookie Contract).

Maybe this is the issue and not offsets at all.  It would sure make more sense if this is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Crusher

The Crusher

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, flgreen said:

On one hand I understand why Darnold , and Sexton, would want this.  All you have to do is look across the QB room at Bridgewater and understand why a young QB might not want off-set language in his contract.

On the other hand the Jets hold all the cards.  #1 QB signed with out OS language as did #3 QB. 

Except for a few whining fans the Jets have no pressure to get him in.  They have 2 other QB's who were starters.  Only one who is being hurt by the hold out is Darnold if he wants to be opening day starter.  Even if he were signed early there is no guarantee he would be the starter.  Vegas odds are +360, and probably climbing.

As far as Macc's job security goes, this has no bearing on it.  If Darnold is late to camp, and turns out to be a franchise QB, and wins a Super Bowl down the road, Macc goes to the ring of honor right next to Weeb. If Darnold signs tomorrow, and goes bust, Macc gets fired.

Nobody will care about this in a month.  Well except for a few posters. 

 

At this point Im probably going to hate Sam forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Crusher

The Crusher

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, SAR I said:

Don’t forget that a player can force a trade to another team by holding out and denouncing the team that drafted him. 

Eli Manning did it to the Chargers on draft day, John Elway did it, Rich Gannon did it, Sam Darnold can do it now too.

SAR I

Yep. Its pretty obvious he doesn't want to play for this regime and doesn't want till next year for them to be removed. It was nice while it lasted. GFY Sam!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ToonforPrez

ToonforPrez

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

NFLN is reporting that Darnold told his agent to get him in to camp and theyve told him to sit tight and let them handle it.  Ugh

At this point he should tell his Agent NOW!!

nobody is benefiting in the debacle and sideshow Sexton is creating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...