Ram's Jackson loses accrued year of NFL service

[abomb]

...due to his holdout. Talk about digging in one's heels.

http://nationalpost.pa-sportsticker.com/default.aspx?s=nfl-news-display&nid=A11680991217981911A

 

[football karma]

PFT has an ongoing discussion on exactly what the rules are --

I guess there are conflicting sections of the CBA on what qualifies for an accrued year of service

 

[nidan]

Seems like a pretty dumb move to me

 

[BACH]

I'm 99.9999% sure that the deadline is between game 8 and 9, meaning that Jackson doesn't lose a year of eligibility if reporting before early November.

 

[scXfreakX]

Well, that sucks. Because of a holdout?

 

[nidan]

I thought that as well

 

[Shane]

Idiot.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

PFT has an ongoing discussion on exactly what the rules are --

I guess there are conflicting sections of the CBA on what qualifies for an accrued year of service

ESPN had an article about the same thing. I guess Jackson is treading muddy waters with his holdout. The article talks about the 30 days before the season starts...and the 8th game scenario. With that, it's the 8th week, including byes, I think. They mentioned the mess Joey Galloway got into in 1999 with Seattle because he didn't calculate the bye week.

 

[Stout]

The article is completely wrong.

 

[abomb]

The article is completely wrong.

Based on what? The local STL papers are reporting it as such too.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...682ef36c880c5fef8625749d00127161?OpenDocument

 

[1DS]

This should clarify things.

http://www.stltoday.com/discussions/sports/jim-thomas-live/LD080208438/all


thirteen28: Jim,

There seems to be a conflict between your reporting on Steven Jackson's free agency eligibility and that of Mike Florio of profootballtalk.com. Florio is reporting (in this post: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/05/no-progress-on-jackson/#comments) that Jackson merely needs to show up by week 10 in order to get credit for this year and become an unrestricted free agent in 2009. Please clarify, as we would all like to know where both parties have leverage in the ongoing stalemate.

Thanks.
Jim Thomas: There is no conflict. What I'm talking about is credit for an "accrued" season (which disappears today). What Florio is talking about is credit for a "credited" season, which doesn't disappear until Week 10.
If Jackson merely shows up by Week 10, he will get credit for playing in 2008 in terms of playing out the last year of his contract. If that happens, his current contract indeed will be expired, and he will in fact be a free agent. But I guarantee you, the Rams will franchise him after this season under that scenario.
But since Jackson has not reported today _ he's already missed the day's only practice _ this season will not count towards his seniority in terms of free agency. In other words, even if he shows up Wednesday _ much less by Week 10 _ he will still have only four years of seniority according the NFL. Not five. And after he gets franchised for '09, he will still have only five years of seniority after the '09 season. And if the owners opt out of the final year of the current CBA, that would make him a restricted free agent entering the 2010 offseason. (Because under that scenario, players would not be eligible for free agency until they have 6 "accrued" seasons in the league.)
This would be a disaster scenario for Jackson. This is a guy who wants guaranteed money, and a long-term deal. Under the scenario spelled out above, the Rams could string him out for three years without the money and long-term security he wants _ all because he hasn't reported by today.
Will all this happen this way? Probably not. But Jackson has at least opened the door to that possibility by his continued absence.

 

[joeshmo]

I'm 99.9999% sure that the deadline is between game 8 and 9, meaning that Jackson doesn't lose a year of eligibility if reporting before early November.

I dont know much about this 30 day rule thing becuase it is pretty obscure.

But for an accrued season a player needs to be active for 6 games of the season. Meaning a holdout player can miss the teams first 9 games come back for the 10 through 16th game and still be good to go.

 

[SECTION 11]

What a loser!

 

[CardLogic]

What a loser!

Any of you other ASFN old-timers catch the irony!

Nicely done, S-11!

 

[red desert]

Any of you other ASFN old-timers catch the irony!

Nicely done, S-11!

Indeed.

 

[Stout]

Based on what? The local STL papers are reporting it as such too.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...682ef36c880c5fef8625749d00127161?OpenDocument

ESPN said that someone mentioned this 30 day rule, but it is completely unfounded. He has to report by the 8th week of the season. I might have the week wrong, but it sure in the heck isn't the 30 day rule. Otherwise vets wouldn't be able to play the hold out until the end of camp charade and get away with it.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Any of you other ASFN old-timers catch the irony!

Nicely done, S-11!

I'm there...

 

[Renz]

I don't get why Jackson is holding out. He's practically the only legit superstar on that team and everyone knows it.

The Rams are going to pay him eventually, just like the Cards paid Fitz. He is accomplishing nothing by holding out, IMO.

 

[AtlHawksFan]

I actually think this is a smart move on his part. I'm a St. Lousian (Cards fan for life) and have been following this quite closely. The Rams thought he'd give in on this point but now he's gained leverage. The lifespan of a NFL RB is what - 3 to 5 years? Given that, I'd be more concerned about getting a fat contract with $20 guaranteed today instead of waiting for free agency. The Rams will pay him now and again in 3 - 4 years if he's still performing at a Pro Bowl. If he's not performing then it doesn't matter whether he's a FA or not.

 

[Stout]

I don't get why Jackson is holding out. He's practically the only legit superstar on that team and everyone knows it.

The Rams are going to pay him eventually, just like the Cards paid Fitz. He is accomplishing nothing by holding out, IMO.

Yeah, the wear and tear on his body isn't worth playing on a small contract to gain free agency, especially since they could just franchise him anyway. He's doing the right thing, IMO.