Chargers May Use Franchise Tag on Vincent Jackson

As noted in this morning's spin around the NFL, Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports the San Diego Chargers won't sign wide receiver Vincent Jackson to a long-term contract, but are considering using the franchise tag on him.

Jackson's agents are believed to be seeking a Brandon Marshall-sized contract--5-years, ~$50 million with $12.5 million guaranteed --which the Chargers have balked at, primarily because of Jackson's multiple DUI arrests.

Assuming the franchise tag formula (average of the Top 5 at the player's position) remains the same in the next collective bargaining agreement--whenever that is reached--the cost of franchising a wide receiver in 2011 could be nearly $12 million, an increase of nearly $2.5 million over the 2010 franchise tag amount of $9.521 million.

The large increase is due in large part to Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Miles Austin's six-year, $54 million contract extension, which included a $17.078 million salary in 2010.

Acee notes that the Chargers could use the exclusive franchise tag, which prevents a player from negotiating with other teams. The exclusive tag, which Richard Seymour received from the Oakland Raiders last off-season, currently uses either the average of the Top 5 salaries at that position at the end of the restricted free agent signing period, a 20% increase over the player's 2010 salary, or the average of the Top 5 salaries at the end of the 2010 season, whichever number is higher.

If the Chargers are willing to guarantee nearly $12 million, or even $10 million, to Jackson for one season, would A.J. Smith remain so stubborn that he wouldn't add multiple years of non-guaranteed base salaries to bring this matter to a close?

0 points

Comments (3)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Josh's picture

December 21, 2010 at 09:13 pm

Why don't players file charges against CBA abuses like this. The purpose of the tag was to allow teams to negotiate long-term deals with people they believe to be difference-makers. The Chargers have repeatedly shown they don't value him as a difference-maker. Franchise tags should be thrown out of the CBA, but NFLPA won't do anything but cowtow in these negotiations.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cpheph1's picture

January 01, 2011 at 01:23 am

I'm confused on what the Chargers did being a CBA abuse...how/please explain because I've much of the CBA and cannot find any documentation that cites what the Chargers did as abuse. FYI, the purpose of the franchise tag was to allow teams to keep tagged players for the duration of the tag.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cpheph1's picture

January 01, 2011 at 01:24 am

I’m confused on what the Chargers did being a CBA abuse…how/please explain because I’ve READ much of the CBA and cannot find any documentation that cites what the Chargers did as abuse. FYI, the purpose of the franchise tag was to allow teams to keep tagged players for the duration of the tag.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.