Cimini's Mail Bag: Clemens' Future, Wilson's Role

[flgreen]

Mailbag:Clemens' future, Wilson's role, etc.

July, 1, 2010 Jul 1

8:23

AM ET

By Rich Cimini

As promised, here are more Jets questions and, hopefully, cogent answers. If there

[Sperm Edwards]

He can't be right about the tender to Clemens not being guaranteed. If it wasn't guaranteed, why would Clemens sign it?

There would never be a league rule where a RFA has the following choice:

1) sign a non-guaranteed 1 year contract with your current team. That team can release you right before the season starts and you end up with nothing. Now you hit free agency when everyone's roster is already full. Net: you are unemployed this year.

2) You don't sign it, and any team who wants you has to give up a 2nd round draft pick (which no one will do). Net: you are unemployed this year.

The team could, effectively, stop someone of Kellen's level from working anywhere this year. There's no way that's in the current CBA, as the union would never agree to that. There has to be something each side gets with any rule. The team gets the player for another year on the cheap, and the player (though not really satisfied) gets a guaranteed salary that the team can't take back.

The team has to give up something (in this case, they give up the ability to cut the player without paying him) in order to warrant draft pick compensation if the player instead signed with someone else.

It makes no sense whatsoever to have a rule where a player is tendered way higher than his value and then the team says, "Nah, we've changed our minds. We're going to pay you zero instead. Enjoy being a free agent in September."

Pretty sure Cimini is dead-wrong on this. Otherwise, just about no one would sign a RFA contract, risk injury over the summer, and then the team can still cut you without paying a dime.

[aec4]

He can't be right about the tender to Clemens not being guaranteed. If it wasn't guaranteed, why would Clemens sign it?

There would never be a league rule where a RFA has the following choice:

1) sign a non-guaranteed 1 year contract with your current team. That team can release you right before the season starts and you end up with nothing. Now you hit free agency when everyone's roster is already full. Net: you are unemployed this year.

2) You don't sign it, and any team who wants you has to give up a 2nd round draft pick (which no one will do). Net: you are unemployed this year.

The team could, effectively, stop someone of Kellen's level from working anywhere this year. There's no way that's in the current CBA, as the union would never agree to that. There has to be something each side gets with any rule. The team gets the player for another year on the cheap, and the player (though not really satisfied) gets a guaranteed salary that the team can't take back.

The team has to give up something (in this case, they give up the ability to cut the player without paying him) in order to warrant draft pick compensation if the player instead signed with someone else.

It makes no sense whatsoever to have a rule where a player is tendered way higher than his value and then the team says, "Nah, we've changed our minds. We're going to pay you zero instead. Enjoy being a free agent in September."

Pretty sure Cimini is dead-wrong on this. Otherwise, just about no one would sign a RFA contract, risk injury over the summer, and then the team can still cut you without paying a dime.

Restricted Free Agent tenders are not guaranteed.

He signed it because if he didn't, on June 15 they could reduce it's value,a nd he had a better opportunity showing his wares, so to speak, in OTAs, etc instead of sitting unsigned

[Sperm Edwards]

Restricted Free Agent tenders are not guaranteed.

He signed it because if he didn't, on June 15 they could reduce it's value,a nd he had a better opportunity showing his wares, so to speak, in OTAs, etc instead of sitting unsigned

I thought that was the whole point of the contract was that it was guaranteed.

So a team can stop someone from playing with anyone until the season starts.

If they tendered Clemens or someone similar for the highest tender (a first and a third) to absolutely guarantee no one else would be interested, and then cut him at the end of August (also pretty much guaranteeing no one else would be interested), the player ends up with nothing. Even if he found a team to sign with he would have no leverage because 30 teams have already decide who their #1 and #2 and #3 QB's are already.

Just read that section of the CBA and you're right. Guarantee terms may be included if the team feels like offering that up, but they are not automatically included by terms of the CBA.

Wacky rule, and one that really should be changed. How the hell could the players union let this go through?

[slats]

I don

[jason423]

I think the whole RFA deal is something that will come up again in new sessions. The non guaranteed amount really hurts borderline players like Clemens. Even if Brunell does not sign there is no guarantee that KC makes the team anyway and rather than have a full camp with the club he has to find a team in late August? There is almost no chance. The players have no real choice in the matter either. If they dont sign it the team still holds their rights even if they sit the whole season as long as the club does not withdraw the offer.

[slats]

Lowery isn

[jason423]

Wacky rule, and one that really should be changed. How the hell could the players union let this go through?

My guess is they never really fought over it because RFA's have been somewhat of a non-issue in the past. I say that for two reasons. One is that in most years 4 years of service gets you unrestricted status and most teams had stopped doing 3 year contracts anyway. So most players never dealt with being a restricted free agent. Their threat was the franchise tag. This year ended up being unique because of the uncapped rules which saw a billion guys have their rights controlled by the team.

The second reason was when they made the original framework of the deal teams were willing to part with draft picks and spend huge chunks of money on RFAs, franchise players, etc... In the last few years the league has changed and nobody wants anything to do with those players. Every now and them it happens like us trading Abe back in 2006, but I think its pretty rare.

[visajets]

Edwards,Holmes and Cromartie will all be back. Tanne will make it happen. Theres interesting financial ways bonuses and incentives to pay players its not all about up front money.

[#27TheDominator]

Hi Rich, what do you think Rex's plan for Kyle Wilson is? I've heard reports that he is very high on him as a nickel corner. Personally, I feel the nickel corner is the harder position to get a hold of. They do not have any sideline help, and they have to go up against shifty, quick receivers. Do you think Rex might put Dwight Lowery (who I believe is a decent corner) in to start the season as the nickel and ease Wilson into the role? This, to me, is one of the bigger questions facing training camp. (Scott, Hoboken, N.J.)

Scott, Wilson is slated to be the starting nickel/slot corner. You