Skip to content

Chargers notify Marcus McNeill and Vincent Jackson of June 15 tender drops

We’ve mentioned a time or two the twist in restricted free agency that, as to some restricted free agents, allows a dramatic drop in their tenders offers as of June 15.

On that date, the offer extended on or before March 4 can be dropped to 110 percent of the player’s 2009 salary.

For some players, the decrease is negligible.  For others, the difference becomes dramatic.

Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the the Chargers have informed two of their unsigned restricted free agents — left tackle Marcus McNeill and receiver Vincent Jackson — that their tenders will drop as of June 15.

Per Acee, Jackson’s tender offer will plummet from $3.268 million to $583,000. McNeill’s salary would fall from $3.168
million to $600,000.

It’s our current understanding that McNeill is inclined to sign his tender and then hold out, since the daily fines would be dwarfed by the $2.568 million in salary he’ll be losing if he doesn’t sign by June 15.  As we recently mentioned, however, McNeill would lose a year of service if he fails while under contract to report for training camp by August 10, 30 days before the start of the regular season.

So with McNeill currently having only four years of service, he’d still have only four years in 2011 — and he’d be back where he is right now, as a restricted free agent.  (Then again, if the new CBA keeps eligibility for unrestricted free agency at six years, it won’t matter.)

As to Jackson, don’t be shocked if he refuses to sign the tender and then sits out into the regular season, possibly until Week 10 and possibly for the entire year.

If anyone thinks that a greatly reduced or nonexistent season for Jackson would harm his value for 2011, consider this — Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford, Oklahoma tight end Jermaine Gresham, and Oklahoma State Dez Bryant played greatly reduced or nonexistent seasons in 2009, and each became first-round draft picks.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Chargers, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
18 Responses to “Chargers notify Marcus McNeill and Vincent Jackson of June 15 tender drops”
  1. BigMikeSkinsFan says: Jun 8, 2010 12:18 AM

    one year does not a career make vincent. you blew up last year but right now the chargers have bigger fish to fry then worry about some WR who cant keep out of trouble anyways.
    come back this year, play your ass off and then get that contract. if the sparks dont give it to you then some other team will.

  2. 46&2 says: Jun 8, 2010 12:22 AM

    dude, those guys are draft picks with potential, vincent jackson is… vincent jackson. that is some serious apples and oranges right there

  3. steely devil hab says: Jun 8, 2010 12:37 AM

    Nice! We can only hope that Marcus and Vincent sit out as long as it takes to receive every penny that they feel they are worth. If it takes until 2013…that’s how long it takes!

  4. jagsfan says: Jun 8, 2010 12:46 AM

    Nice analysis of Jackson’s situation? However, who was the last player to sit out a full year? through ten games? And not a rookie please. It just doesn’t seem to happen.

  5. Tyler says: Jun 8, 2010 12:47 AM

    If Jackson sits out the season, he will be suspended in 2011.

  6. jimboslice says: Jun 8, 2010 1:22 AM

    so, if vincent jackson an emerging top NFL receiver sits out a year crying about his contract it is equivalent to sam bradford and jermaine gresham getting injured in their senior COLLEGE season as well as dez bryant getting suspended for most of his senior college season… nice try though.

  7. FriarBob says: Jun 8, 2010 1:51 AM

    If he (McNeill) has four years already, he would have been a UFA this year without the CBA opt-out.
    True, there’s no guarantee it will still be 4 years next time, but the league would have to give the union a mint to get 5 years out of them as a standard provision. It’s far more likely to be less than more.
    So why should McNeill care if he still has only “four” years this time next year? Without a new CBA everything is completely up in the air anyway, and with it he’ll have about a 99% chance of being a UFA.

  8. Steve W. says: Jun 8, 2010 4:21 AM

    If I were Jackson, and they reduced my tender to $583,000 I’d tell them where to stick it, invite the media over to have them film me burning my Jersey, and swear that I’d never play another down for the team. I have nothing against the Chargers, and I’m not just sitting around and hoping bad things happen to them. Jackson, however, busted his butt for them last season and put up great numbers in what was a pass obsessed offense. Now, the Chargers are taking advantage of the changes brought about by the owners when they opted out of the cba to try and force him to play for them at a sizable discount as a RFA. Even worse, he doesn’t immediately roll over for them, so they threaten to cut their offer down to $583,000.
    Seriously, $583,000 for a number one receiver with four years experience playing on a pass happy team? Considering what his talents would be worth as a free agent when a new cba is signed, he would be risking more by playing than he would by sitting out a year. He’d lose some money sure, but he’d lose a lot more if he played and suffered a serious injury. It wouldn’t even have to be a career threatening injury, just enough to cool the market for him when he hit free agency.
    Most years I don’t side with players wanting more money. I tended to be one of those people calling the players greedy. This year, however, I keep finding myself siding with the players. That’s because many of these teams seem to be using the consequences of their own actions to stiff their players. I have no problem with teams using the uncapped year to shed bad contracts, but this sort of thing is a step too far in my opinion.

  9. Mike_in_Texas says: Jun 8, 2010 4:51 AM

    This could only mean that the 2010 AFC WEST Champions will now easily be the Men in the
    Silver & Black. Yep!!

  10. trademcscab says: Jun 8, 2010 5:51 AM

    just move the chargers to LA and get it over with…….its either them or someone else one way or another someone is comin to LA

  11. Filbertkiwi71 says: Jun 8, 2010 5:53 AM

    “As to Jackson, don’t be shocked if he refuses to sign the tender and then sits out into the regular season, possibly until Week 10 and possibly for the entire year.”
    IMO, if VJ didn’t have any off the field issues he probably would have been signed long term by now. BTW, what about his possible suspension coming up? Shouldn’t you have factored that into your column?

  12. irishsamurai says: Jun 8, 2010 7:17 AM

    when should the player[jackson],or the public know more about this suspension that is looming over his head,it would be good to know so the team and others can plan acordingly

  13. realitypolice says: Jun 8, 2010 8:53 AM

    Steve W. says:
    June 8, 2010 4:21 AM
    If I were Jackson, and they reduced my tender to $583,000 I’d tell them where to stick it, invite the media over to have them film me burning my Jersey, and swear that I’d never play another down for the team.
    or……he could sign the tender now and make $3.268 million, which isn’t too shabby for a guy who had 68 catches last year for a little over 1,100 yards. Not great, but unfortunately for him, his union agreed to these rules.
    You make it sound as if the chargers think he is only worth $583k. That’s not true, or they wouldn’t have tendered him at $3.268M. They are simply using this threat as a tool to get him to sign the higher tender.
    I typically side with the players- I feel a player has a responsibility to squeeze as much income as they can out of their relatively short careers. In this case, due to the rules as they are written, that means Jackson should sign his tender now before the reduction kicks in, have a monster year, and position himself for a better deal down the road.

  14. SF Saints Fan says: Jun 8, 2010 9:29 AM

    Vincent Jackson has been getting better every year he has been in the league. He is worth more than $583,000 for one season, but the $3.268 million sounds about right. He should sign his tender and work his butt off this year and cash in next year, assuming there is a season, and make the big bucks then. His big contract should basically be a three year deal with phony years 4-6, so that he can cash in again after three years.
    If he sits out, he risks having two years with no paychecks if the league decides to lock out the players next year.
    One simple question Vincent Jackson, at your current burn rate do you have enough in the bank to last you two years without an NFL paycheck? If the answer is no, then sign the tender.

  15. jj jones says: Jun 8, 2010 9:35 AM

    Trade Vincent Jackson to the Bears for their 2011 first round pick.

  16. myeaglescantwin says: Jun 8, 2010 9:40 AM

    It makes me sick how teams and owners can just man handle the contracts and lives of these players.
    Its set up like the players owe the teams service, even if they dont like the contract that is being offered.
    But at any point during this contract or a players career, the team can cut them without any heads up or real compensation (unless previously gauranteed)
    seems like the owers have a heavy upperhand here. & now they wanna make the season longer & keep these players under the same contracts. COMPLETE BULL

  17. Roethlisberger's Bitch Tits says: Jun 8, 2010 10:53 AM

    Mike_in_Texas says:
    June 8, 2010 4:51 AM
    This could only mean that the 2010 AFC WEST Champions will now easily be the Men in the
    Silver & Black. Yep!!
    If the Raiders were the only team in the AFC West, they would still find a way to come in last place.

  18. boltfanfromwv says: Jun 8, 2010 11:33 AM

    @ myeaglescantwin: Dude he’s got a $3.268 million dollar contract on the table. Imagine you’re the owner. How’d you like writing that check plus the other 53 that go along with it. That’s a lot of money. The owners pay the players well. Better than they can make doing anything else. So don’t tell me how the owners manhandle the players. That’s a great offer for someone with baggage. The Chargers are in a tough spot with all these free agents and the current CBA situation and the poor economy. It’s called being fiscally responsible and using your leverage appropriately.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!