Andy Richardson

I own both Chris Johnson and Vincent Jackson in my dynasty league. I don't know if they're the two most prominent possible NFL holdouts, but they're definitely in the top 3.

Naturally, scarcely a day goes by that I don't get a lowball offer for one of them, or consider dealing them away. To read the media, it's a given that Jackson plans to hold out for the first 10 games of the season, and Johnson wants to be the league's highest-paid player, so holdouts from both players seem not only likely but unavoidable.

It all sounds reasonable, but I'm not buying it. Let's go case by case.

Chris Johnson: Johnson is underpaid, although his complaints about his salary ignores that he did receive a decent signing bonus in his rookie contract just two years ago. Vince Young expects Johnson to show up for training camp, while Jeff Fisher is optimistic something will get worked out. Thus far, nothing particularly contentious as occurred.

It sounds likely, then, that something will get done; perhaps a slight contract modification that gives Johnson a chance to make a lot more money via incentives and additional bonuses. He's the centerpiece of the team's offense -- indeed, the entire team -- and the Titans can't manage without him.

I kind of wish I had Javon Ringer on my dynasty team, but it's not even a given that he'll be the backup this year; he could lose that spot to another youngster in the preseason. Johnson will be there by the time the exhibition games start.

Vincent Jackson: This one has already been uglier than Johnson, with those "close to Jackson" saying he's prepared to hold out the first 10 games, showing up only to qualify for a year's accrued NFL service and being able to be an unrestricted free agent in 2011. The Chargers, meanwhile, say they're assuming that's what will happen and will go with the players they have.

Here's the problem with such talk. First, what exactly is Jackson going to do with himself for the next several months? Watch TV? Conduct interviews saying how mistreated he is? And what if he shows up for the final six games, the new collective bargaining agreement retains the franchise tag option, and the team slaps the tag on him next February? He's missed most of an entire season, seen his value diminish considerably, and is in the same boat. Not much good can come from that decision.

Then there's the fact that whatever A.J. Smith may say, the Chargers' receiving corps without Jackson looks pretty thin. Legedu Naanee would be the No. 2 lining up across from Malcom Floyd. Craig Davis has shown nothing. Josh Reed? Sure.

Basically, both sides are saying what they have to say. If Jackson didn't talk tough (through "those close to him"), the team wouldn't take him seriously. If Smith didn't talk tough, Jackson would be confident the team will cave.

This one worries me a little bit, just because you can never underestimate the stubbornness of a general manager or greed/stupidity/whatever of a player/agent/advisor. If I could deal Jackson away for close to full value, I would, and if he's on the board with somebody of similar or slightly lesser value in a redraft, I'd take the other player.

But I can't believe that Jackson is actually going to miss much of the season (beyond a likely 1- or 2-game suspension to start). He has nothing else to do and no great hope of even being free next year even if he does, given the team could use the franchise tag on him. Best guess here is that maybe he and the team work out an agreement where he shows up and they agree not to franchise him a year from now, which buys them a year to try to work out a deal with him if he has a monster season -- and gets him rich either way, from San Diego or someone else.

A couple of months from now, I'll revisit these sticky situations if it turns out I'm wrong.

• Comments [0]

Readers' Comments

Add a Comment

Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.

To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.