CC to the Jaguars

[Dan H]

1.5 mill per loss for the next 4 years . . .

 

[MadCardDisease]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-campbell-will-sign-with-jacksonville-jaguars

WOW! Even more than I expected. Good for the big guy!

 

[WindCardinal]

3rd round compensation pick here we come

 

[Chopper0080]

Make that 4 years $60 mil 30 GTD. 15/season

Holy ****.

Cardinals would have been stupid to match an offer like that. You don't get better losing a player like Campbell, but it doesn't mean it wasn't smart to let someone else pay him that contract.

Good luck to him.

 

[DemsMyBoys]

I wish him well. Super nice guy. Will miss having him on the team.

Me too. He was one of my favorite players and it won't be the same without him.

 

[Bert]

14 mil a season for Campbell? Holy crap. Good for him. No way in hell we could do that. I hope he excels but man that's a rich deal

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Exactly, anyone blaming the Cardinals is just a hater. I love CC but 14-16mil a season? That's QB money. I would have been more pissed if we had paid him that, and I love me some CC.

Just have to replace him. Also, IDK how many this will offend, but I'm really glad CC is not going to be doing the BRR anymore, because honestly I found it un-listenable once he took over. His voice sounds like Tom Waits gargling sand... lol

 

[daves]

You still haven't given me any explanation as to how the Jones contract he's signing is any different that what he would have received before he got tagged! You honestly believe that there was any room for negotiation? You think the Cards would have somehow gotten a reduced rate by waiting? If so, they really pulled one over on Jones at 50 mil guaranteed and 80+ million!

Simply put, Jones was making 50+ million guaranteed and 80+ million total no matter when we signed him. If we did it before we franchised him, we could have had Campbell back for one year. We have a ONE YEAR WINDOW to win a championship, and we just lost one of our best players on defense with no clear replacement.

You are not recognizing the leverage that applying the franchise tag gives the team. Without being restricted by the franchise tag, why WOULDN'T Jones wait to test free agency - where the Cardinals would have to compete with other teams with MUCH more cap room. Once the tag was applied, he has to weigh the risk of getting injured this year and ruining his value on the free agent market next year. He was thus willing to sign a smaller deal than he likely would've seen as an unrestricted free agent.

You may say, "Prior to the franchise tag deadline, just the THREAT that the Cardinals COULD apply the tag should've made Jones willing to sign this same contract. But the whole premise of this scenario is that the Cardinals wanted to sign Jones, then apply the tag to Campbell. Prior to the tag being applied to Jones, Jones and his agent knew that they could hold out for a bigger contract because the Cardinals (in this scenario) would've preferred not to apply the tag to Jones. So Jones' camp forced the Cardinals' hand, making them choose between Jones and Campbell. Once the team in fact chose to franchise Jones, he was then willing to sign his current long-term deal.

But to say that "Jones was making 50+ million guaranteed and 80+ million total no matter when we signed him" is naiive.

...dbs

 

[ASUCHRIS]

But to say that "Jones was making 50+ million guaranteed and 80+ million total no matter when we signed him" is naiive.

...dbs

No, it's not. Jones had no leverage, the threat of the franchise tag was all the leverage the Cards needed to negotiate the deal!

I can understand if we franchised him and got a sweetheart deal, but we didn't! By any standard, the Cards payed him top of the market money. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of references that say as much - https://theringer.com/chandler-jones-arizona-cardinals-nfl-free-agency-a3d9e3005f71#.61h78fyrm

 

[BigRedRage]

Exactly, anyone blaming the Cardinals is just a hater. I love CC but 14-16mil a season? That's QB money. I would have been more pissed if we had paid him that, and I love me some CC.

Just have to replace him. Also, IDK how many this will offend, but I'm really glad CC is not going to be doing the BRR anymore, because honestly I found it un-listenable once he took over. His voice sounds like Tom Waits gargling sand... lol

especially if your radio has a lot of bass

 

[JeffGollin]

3rd round compensation pick here we come

Golden Rule:

Whatever you think the Cards will get in compensatory picks...divide by 2.

It's part of the Cardinal Curse. (or maybe just League policy).

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Ouchie, everyone here knows you are an attorney. Quite amusing that you are using a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) to make your argument, as opposed to discussing this particular situation. Everything else you said was just noise and not pertinent to this particular situation. If you want to speak in generalities and blow smoke, that's fine, but it doesn't do much to advance to conversation.

You still haven't given me any explanation as to how the Jones contract he's signing is any different that what he would have received before he got tagged! You honestly believe that there was any room for negotiation? You think the Cards would have somehow gotten a reduced rate by waiting? If so, they really pulled one over on Jones at 50 mil guaranteed and 80+ million!

Simply put, Jones was making 50+ million guaranteed and 80+ million total no matter when we signed him. If we did it before we franchised him, we could have had Campbell back for one year. We have a ONE YEAR WINDOW to win a championship, and we just lost one of our best players on defense with no clear replacement.

You think this wasn't negotiated?!? What are you smoking. His contract is actually a tad bit SMALLER than Vernon signed for LAST year and Jones is a more accomplished Passrusher. You bet your ass this isn't the deal that EITHER side began with. To argue otherwise is pure conjecture with less probability than my argument.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

You think this wasn't negotiated?!? What are you smoking. His contract is actually a tad bit SMALLER than Vernon signed for LAST year and Jones is a more accomplished Passrusher. You bet your ass this isn't the deal that EITHER side began with. To argue otherwise is pure conjecture with less probability than my argument.

Exactly! Vernon was a free agent, and Jones had the franchise tag hanging over his head! Are you saying that doesn't make a difference?

Jones was always going to get paid, and he did get paid. There was an opportunity to negotiate a deal with Jones before the franchise tag designation was needed, and the Cards couldn't get it done. Pretty unfortunate, as all signs point to this being our last real opportunity to get a ring for a long time.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Pretty unfortunate, as all signs point to this being our last real opportunity to get a ring for a long time.

I don't believe that.

 

[daves]

The mistake was in not franchising Campbell. Did the Cards really need to franchise Jones to negotiate a long term deal with him? The market for stud pass rushers is pretty well set, and we would be a much better with both Jones and Campbell.

You are not recognizing the leverage that applying the franchise tag gives the team. [....] to say that "Jones was making 50+ million guaranteed and 80+ million total no matter when we signed him" is naiive

No, it's not. Jones had no leverage, the threat of the franchise tag was all the leverage the Cards needed to negotiate the deal!

I can understand if we franchised him and got a sweetheart deal, but we didn't! By any standard, the Cards payed him top of the market money.

You think this wasn't negotiated?!? What are you smoking. His contract is actually a tad bit SMALLER than Vernon signed for LAST year and Jones is a more accomplished Passrusher.

Exactly! Vernon was a free agent, and Jones had the franchise tag hanging over his head! Are you saying that doesn't make a difference?

Jones was always going to get paid, and he did get paid.

You just contradicted yourself. Jones DID have leverage because the Cardinals may have wanted to use the franchise tag on CC. He then refused to sign the deal that he eventually signed, until after he forced the Cardinals to actually apply the tag to him. Then he signed a below-market deal. The Cardinals franchised him and then they got a below-market deal - less than Vernon's.

Before the Cardinals actually applied the tag to Jones, he had leverage - "Give me a better deal, i'll sign it, and you can use the tag on Campbell." The Cardinals did NOT have the option of having their cake - getting Jones to sign his current deal - and eating it too, applying the franchise tag to Campbell. Jones forced them to make the choice and apply the tag to him, and then and only then was he willing to sign the offer he signed.

...dbs

 

[ASUCHRIS]

You just contradicted yourself. Jones DID have leverage because the Cardinals may have wanted to use the franchise tag on CC.

Whether they may have wanted to or not, the Cards made it very clear from the end of the season that they would franchise Jones if they didn't come to a long term deal before the deadline. That's exactly what happened, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as Jones using leverage. He called their bluff and the Cards franchised him.

He then refused to sign the deal that he eventually signed, until after he forced the Cardinals to actually apply the tag to him. Then he signed a below-market deal. The Cardinals franchised him and then they got a below-market deal - less than Vernon's.

Below average deal!?! I would love for you to find any legitimate mainstream sources that would call that deal a below market deal. He's paid as one of the top pass rushers in the NFL, just as he always was going to be. (whether by the Cards or another team)

Before the Cardinals actually applied the tag to Jones, he had leverage - "Give me a better deal, i'll sign it, and you can use the tag on Campbell."

You're supposing what Jones and his agent said in the initial negotiations or did you actually hear this? The tag is the ultimate leverage, not a speculative conversation.

The Cardinals did NOT have the option of having their cake - getting Jones to sign his current deal - and eating it too, applying the franchise tag to Campbell.

If Jones signed for what he did before the application of the tag, there would be money to franchise Campbell as well.

Jones forced them to make the choice and apply the tag to him, and then and only then was he willing to sign the offer he signed.

Not very strategic, (by the team and Jones) if the goal is to win a championship this year.

 

[Buckybird]

I don't believe that.

If they don't get a stud QB he's likely right

 

[daves]

Below average deal!?! I would love for you to find any legitimate mainstream sources that would call that deal a below market deal. He's paid as one of the top pass rushers in the NFL, just as he always was going to be. (whether by the Cards or another team)

It's almost as though you're being deliberately obtuse in claiming that there is no difference in the relative leverage between the player and the team in scenario A - where the team suggests that they will apply the franchise tag, but very likely also wants to apply it to another player - vs. scenario B - where the team has in fact applied the franchise tag.

Jones' deal is less favorable to him than it would have been had the tag not been applied to him. Thus, it's a below-market deal. You even previously agreed with Ouchie when he noted that Jones' deal was below the value of Vernon's:

His contract is actually a tad bit SMALLER than Vernon signed for LAST year and Jones is a more accomplished Passrusher.

Exactly! Vernon was a free agent, and Jones had the franchise tag hanging over his head! Are you saying that doesn't make a difference?

Before the Cardinals actually applied the tag to Jones, he had leverage - "Give me a better deal, i'll sign it, and you can use the tag on Campbell."

You're supposing what Jones and his agent said in the initial negotiations or did you actually hear this? The tag is the ultimate leverage, not a speculative conversation.

Come on, really? What i wrote was obviously an example of what Jones' could have said before the tag was actually applied. It spells out the additional leverage Jones had before the tag was actually applied to him. After the tag was applied, he had no choice but to play out the one-year contract, or accept a deal that was less than he could've received as an unrestricted free agent.

If Jones signed for what he did before the application of the tag, there would be money to franchise Campbell as well.

There you are again suggesting that the Cardinals could've had their cake and eaten it, too. A team can't use the threat of the tag to leverage TWO players. They used it on Jones, they got him to sign a long-term deal, and they lost Campbell to free agency. Such is life.

Or perhaps you're just smarter than Steve Keim, and have come up with a strategy that Keim never thought of.

Not very strategic, (by the team and Jones) if the goal is to win a championship this year.

Imagine that - Jones acted in his own self-interest, rather than conceding to the team and signing a deal as if he were f-tagged, then letting the team use the actual f-tag on Campbell. Welcome to the real world.

...dbs

 

[WisconsinCard]

The thing is we could not afford to pay CC on the f-tag and CJ's current contract. If they did that they would have had to find more cap relief somewhere. They would be paying somewhere is the neighborhood of 30 million this year on two D-lineman. Probably would not even had enough for the rookie contracts.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Jones' deal is less favorable to him than it would have been had the tag not been applied to him. Thus, it's a below-market deal. You even previously agreed with Ouchie when he noted that Jones' deal was below the value of Vernon's:

http://arizonasports.com/story/1050533/cardinals-signing-chandler-jones-earns-c-grade-one-analyst/

Honestly, you're a pretty smart guy, but to continue to call this a below market deal and throw around the word obtuse? That's pretty hilarious.

As Barnwell explains:

"You don’t see ads on TV for Ferraris, do you? It’s hard to get discounts on premium talent, and the Cardinals weren’t ever going to get much of one on Jones. We’ll have to wait for the year-to-year details to get a sense of where this contract truly stands compared to other edge rushers, but Jones’ new deal gives him $83 million over five years with $53 million in guarantees.

The obvious comparison is to the contract Olivier Vernon signed with the Giants last year. Vernon’s five-year deal was worth $85 million and held $52.5 million in guarantees. Jones is the better edge rusher of the two, but Vernon is considered to be better against the run. Jones would have gotten more, but there’s one more important factor. Vernon was a true unrestricted free agent and allowed to negotiate with any team, while Jones was franchised by the Cardinals and prevented from hitting the free market. The Cardinals didn’t get much of a discount, but even Ferrari has to sell cars."

You seriously are going to continue to argue that he received a below market deal? Care to come up with any major media sources that say as much? I've provided two that wholeheartedly agree the Cards didn't get any discount.

There you are again suggesting that the Cardinals could've had their cake and eaten it, too. A team can't use the threat of the tag to leverage TWO players. They used it on Jones, they got him to sign a long-term deal, and they lost Campbell to free agency. Such is life.

Or perhaps you're just smarter than Steve Keim, and have come up with a strategy that Keim never thought of.

Dave - this is pretty simple. I'll try to explain it slowly. The Cards could have told Jones (as they did repeatedly from the end of the season) that they would tag him if they couldn't reach an agreement. That's all the leverage they would have needed to sign him to a fair market deal. (which is what they did in the end anyway!!) The threat of the franchise tag should be compelling enough to get the player to sign to a market value deal. If they were able to negotiate this deal with Jones pre tag designation, they could have tagged Campbell.

You fall into the same "appeal to authority" fallacy that Ouchie did - SK isn't infallible because he is a GM. Anyway, water under the bridget at this point and time will tell, but it's hard to imagine our D being better without Calais.

 

[daves]

As Barnwell explains:

"Jones would have gotten more, but there’s one more important factor. Vernon was a true unrestricted free agent and allowed to negotiate with any team, while Jones was franchised by the Cardinals and prevented from hitting the free market. The Cardinals didn’t get much of a discount, but even Ferrari has to sell cars."

You seriously are going to continue to argue that he received a below market deal? Care to come up with any major media sources that say as much? I've provided two that wholeheartedly agree the Cards didn't get any discount.

Are you seriously going to claim that "the Cardinals didn't get any discount", when the very source you quote says that they GOT a discount, albeit not much of one?!? THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT!

Dave - this is pretty simple. I'll try to explain it slowly. The Cards could have told Jones (as they did repeatedly from the end of the season) that they would tag him if they couldn't reach an agreement. That's all the leverage they would have needed to sign him to a fair market deal. (which is what they did in the end anyway!!) The threat of the franchise tag should be compelling enough to get the player to sign to a market value deal. If they were able to negotiate this deal with Jones pre tag designation, they could have tagged Campbell.

Yes, it IS SIMPLE. The THREAT of a franchise tag is NOT as good as actually applying it. Otherwise every team with multiple big-name free agents-to-be could use the THREAT of the tag to leverage ALL of them. But that's not reality. Until the tag is ACTUALLY APPLIED, each of the players have MORE LEVERAGE. Once the tag is applied, the players have LESS leverage than if they were free agents, and ONLY THEN are willing to sign SLIGHTLY below-market deals. Below-market meaning, below what they would have signed on the FREE market as unrestricted free agents.

I've explained this ad-nauseam, but if you still don't get it, that's fine. I think everyone else reading this is tired of the discussion, so i'm out.

...dbs

 

[GuernseyCard]

Keep in mind, that the Vernon deal had a consideration for the higher NY state taxes. It's not what you sign for but what you actually take home.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I've explained this ad-nauseam, but if you still don't get it, that's fine.

Oh, I get it. You said he signed a below market deal, and by any standard he didn't. I found multiple major news sites that said as much, you have your own conjecture on your side. Keep on believing!

I think everyone else reading this is tired of the discussion, so i'm out.

Indeed, have a good one!

 

[Cheesebeef]

You fall into the same "appeal to authority" fallacy that Ouchie did - SK isn't infallible because he is a GM. Anyway, water under the bridget at this point and time will tell, but it's hard to imagine our D being better without Calais.

lol... do you really think Ouchie's ever been an "appeal to authority" poster who thinks anything the Cards do is infallible?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Keep in mind, that the Vernon deal had a consideration for the higher NY state taxes. It's not what you sign for but what you actually take home.

also, keep in mind that Vernon signed his deal last year, and contracts usually only get bigger the next year, especially when the cap continues to balloon the way it has this year.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

lol... do you really think Ouchie's ever been an "appeal to authority" poster who thinks anything the Cards do is infallible?

Of course not, I never said as much. I was referring to a specific post. C'mon Cheese.