Jansen- Not even Close!

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Here's a further clarification of the issues from the WT:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20021024-21061635.htm

Right tackle Jon Jansen did not accept the six-year,$24 million contract proposal the Redskins submitted Tuesday and now is waiting for the team to submit another offer to extend his expiring deal, sources close to the talks said.

Jansen's camp wanted more upfront money than the Redskins were offering, sources said. The proposal included a $5.5million signing bonus, but only $1million of it was payable immediately. Jansen could have lost the remainder of it, an option bonus due in the spring, if he were injured this season.

Thus, there was little reward for staying out of free agency, where Jansen might be able to net a deal similar to the game's highest-paid right tackles ($7million to $8million to sign, $5million average annual value).

It looks like a big issue here is the upfront money. I'm with Jansen on this. Why should he sign if he doesn't get rewarded with a major signing bonus? Such a bonus would be amortized over the length of the contract, so it doesn't hurt the Redskin cap.

The Redskins need to kick in this upfront money. If they don't, they are being cash cheap, which would cause me to question the current cash flow of the team.

[fansince62]

recall that the davis negotiations were acrimonious then boom it all happened. we'll see where this goes..

[Art]

ASF,

You don't probably understand roster bonus money.

If the contract is framed the way the Redskins want, with $1 million today and $4.5 million on March 1, then the contract is different than straight bonus money we are used to discussing. It would mean that the $1 million would get rated over the length of the contract -- unless the team decided to write it all of this year.

The $4.5 million then would hit the cap all at once next year. My guess is the team would then have a first year cap value of say, $750,000 for a total next year cap worth of $5.25 million for Jansen, but, they'd have NO more guranteed hit for him, and the rest of the contract would be straight contract value that could be tweaked over time.

To me, that appears to be the way the team was going. They have a little cushion next year and they could take the whole of Jansen's bonus accelerated if the contract was acceptable to Jansen. The team is trying to structure the cash so it actually benefits the program. What Jansen is missing though is that if he IS injured this season, he's not going to get money next year anyway.

So, by signing now, he gets a million up front. While he could get $7 million in free agency, the fact is, if he blows out a knee, he gets neither the $7 million, or the $5.5 million the Redskins are offering anyway. So, it's a pretty stupid play on his part. The team could offer him the whole $5.5 million right now and he'd sign it, but then the team would carry that $5.5 million over the life of the contract and that is what the team is trying to avoid.

My guess is this will find a solution that is likely to be that he gets the bonus on THIS year's check rather than in March, but, it's got nothing to do with the team's current cash flow. It has to do with structuring the cap hit. The team has the greatest cash flow in the league with the most revenue coming in. We're just trying to structure the deal so that it actually is off the CAP books in March of next year, and that would leave us free to sign other free agents more easily next year and for years to come.

[BCS:BraveCaringSoul]

I wrote this earlier...

Originally posted by BallCoachSpurrier

...Putting aside team loyalty for the moment the prime economic motivation for Jansen to sign prior to free agency is to protect himself and his family in the event that he suffers a serious injury during the season...the only injury protection we're offering is the $1mil. portion of his $5.5 mil. total signing bonus that he will receive immediately...If I were Jansen I wouldn't sign this contract either...

The Times has now confirmed that while there were other concerns the main sticking point in negotiations between the Skins and Jansen is in fact the relatively small $1mil signing bonus.

from today's Washington Times:

Sides far apart

Offensive tackle Jon Jansen appears unlikely to sign a contract extension anytime soon. Although there seemed to be a good chance that he would accept the club's proposal Tuesday, his camp isn't necessarily optimistic that another offer will come or that it will address his concerns, sources close to the talks said.

Also, Jansen is taking a step back from negotiations personally, sources said. Jansen met twice individually with Redskins director of football operations Joe Mendes but now will be focusing on football, leaving the bulk of deliberations to agent Rick Smith.

Jansen's camp considered a key problem to be that Tuesday's proposal would have paid just $1million up front. If Jansen had signed it, he could have been injured this season and cut without receiving the rest of the $5.5million bonus. However, his camp ultimately considered the offer inadequate on several fronts.

If the Skins don't step up to the plate soon and make an offer with a signing bonus comensurate with what Jansen could expect in free agency then we will lose him.

We need to do the right thing and spend some of that money we've been throwing around for other team's players on our homegrown talent. Jansen has pride and he WILL NOT sign unless he feels he has been offered a fair contract.

This needs to get done.

[Art]

BCS,

Read my post just above yours. If the Redskins offered $5.5 million right now, with the bonus money starting immediately and being pro-rated out over the length, Jansen would sign the deal. The team is trying to structure the same money so the bonus is off the books by March 1 of next year.

The problem with Jansen's thinking is simple. If he signs the contract with the Redskins, then gets hurt and waived, he's STILL a free agent and he still has $1 million in his pocket and he can get what he can. If he does NOT sign this contract, and he gets hurt, he doesn't get $1 million and he is a free agent. So, essentially, he's losing a free million .

His "gamble" is that the longer he doesn't suffer a career-ending injury and the closer the team gets to free agency the more likely that bonus will come in one lump. I think eventually he'll get the one lump. I just wish he'd sign it like this because it allows the team so much flexibility to burn the cap hit immediately and pursue other players later rather than carrying the bonus each year against us.

To be honest, I really don't understand his position if it's true that he's protecting himself against injury. Since I don't think it's true I do understand his point, but, if I'm Mendes and Snyder, I give him a firm handshake and a wink and say, "Even if you're done, we'll find a way around that. Ok?" But, hey, that'd be cheating .

[Sailor]

Originally posted by Art

ASF,

You don't probably understand roster bonus money.

If the contract is framed the way the Redskins want, with $1 million today and $4.5 million on March 1, then the contract is different than straight bonus money we are used to discussing. It would mean that the $1 million would get rated over the length of the contract -- unless the team decided to write it all of this year.

The $4.5 million then would hit the cap all at once next year.

Art -

I don't think that is the way it works. According to the CBA from nflpa.org:

For purposes of the Salary Cap and Entering Player Pool, any roster or reporting bonus which is earned or paid before the start of the Club’s pre-season training camp shall be treated as a signing bonus.

Which would mean that the roster bonus would be written off over the duration of the contract. The only difference I can see is that the roster bonus would hit next year and not affect this year's cap numbers the way a signing bonus today would affect this year's numbers.

Honestly, I don't know what Jansen's market value is. But if the FO wanted to try to sign Jon to a below market offer, the time to do it was last year, or at the very least, in preseason this year. It appears to me that the FO is a day late and a dollar short.

In 65 days, plus or minus (assuming we don't make the playoffs), Jansen's risk of injury goes to zero and he might as well test the free agent waters. What does he have to lose? Does anyone think the FO will pull the offer off the table?

[Art]

Sailor,

The difference is from the wording of the response from Jansen and his agent is that the money coming in March of next year is non-guaranteed. The sentence you found refers to guaranteed roster bonus money. If the team said to Jansen that he gets $5.5 million, with $1 million today and $4.5 million in March, then the whole of the $5.5 million would count as a signing bonus and be pro-rated over the life of the deal.

This is what Trotter signed. He got $1 million right away and the rest later. But, as it is guaranteed, it counts as a roster bonus. What has gotten the deal pulled off the table by the agent and Jansen is the non-guarantee portion. Here is the section of the CBA dealing with that:

* Except as set forth in [the] Paragraph [to follow], the full non-guaranteed amount of any Salary advance, off-season

Page 104

work-out bonus, off-season roster bonus, or off-season reporting bonus shall be included in Team Salary only in the League Year in which it is earned by the player, without any pro-ration. For purposes of this paragraph only, “guaranteed” means Salary that is fully guaranteed, prior to being earned, for skill, for injury, and regardless of any termination of the contract by the Club. The definition of “guaranteed” set forth above shall not affect Salary Cap accounting for any other purpose.

This is clearly what the team offered if the response from the Jansen side is true. They responded by saying if the team cut him before March 1 of next year he wouldn't get the $4.5 million so the money is therefore not guranteed and when you deal with that type of payment, you accelerate it onto the specific year it is paid. This is why you will hear of people being cut before the roster bonus goes into effect.

If the team were offering $5.5 million in a straight guarantee, he'd probably have taken it. But, the team is trying to time the hit to get all of his money off the books next year. It's a tricky accounting practice and the player has to have great faith in the ownership of the team not to reneg on. Now, I haven't seen the contract, but, the response from the Jansen camp leads me to conclude we're talking a non-guranteed bonus which is not pro-rated per the above.

[Sailor]

Originally posted by Art

Sailor,

The difference is from the wording of the response from Jansen and his agent is that the money coming in March of next year is non-guaranteed. The sentence you found refers to guaranteed roster bonus money. If the team said to Jansen that he gets $5.5 million, with $1 million today and $4.5 million in March, then the whole of the $5.5 million would count as a signing bonus and be pro-rated over the life of the deal.

This is what Trotter signed. He got $1 million right away and the rest later. But, as it is guaranteed, it counts as a roster bonus. What has gotten the deal pulled off the table by the agent and Jansen is the non-guarantee portion. Here is the section of the CBA dealing with that:

This is clearly what the team offered if the response from the Jansen side is true. They responded by saying if the team cut him before March 1 of next year he wouldn't get the $4.5 million so the money is therefore not guranteed and when you deal with that type of payment, you accelerate it onto the specific year it is paid. This is why you will hear of people being cut before the roster bonus goes into effect.

If the team were offering $5.5 million in a straight guarantee, he'd probably have taken it. But, the team is trying to time the hit to get all of his money off the books next year. It's a tricky accounting practice and the player has to have great faith in the ownership of the team not to reneg on. Now, I haven't seen the contract, but, the response from the Jansen camp leads me to conclude we're talking a non-guranteed bonus which is not pro-rated per the above.

Thank you, Art. You know, every time I watch a rerun of LA Law I think maybe I should have been an attorney. It takes a conversation like this to remind me why I didn't do that. (Apologies to redman and any other attorneys on this board).

OK, let's follow your line of reasoning. You say that the only money that is guaranteed is the 1 million signing bonus. We could cut Jansen between now and March 1 and not be obligated to pay the roster bonus.

Why would we do that? Because we don't need him? Hah! Fat chance. The only reason we cut Jansen between now and March 1 is that he gets seriously injured.

OK, but guess what. The only incentive Jansen has to sign a contract now rather than test free agency is to guard against that very possibility.

So by structruring that contract in that way, you have eliminated the only incentive that Jansen has to sign it. Does that make sense?

And then you say:

It's a tricky accounting practice and the player has to have great faith in the ownership of the team not to reneg on.

Yeah right. :laugh:

This is the same ownership that fired half the staff upon assuming control. The same ownership that let Brian Mitchell go so it could bring on Deion Sanders. The same ownership that signed Marty to a multi-year deal giving him total control and then fired him after the first year. The same ownership that proclaimed Stephen Davis "a Redskin for Life" and will quite likely cut him next year.

I wouldn't give this ownership 75¢ and trust them to go to the Coke machine and bring me back a soda....

[Montilar]

I wouldn't give this ownership 75¢ and trust them to go to the Coke machine and bring me back a soda....

Well, since a bottle of coke generally cost $1.00 from a machine anymore, I wouldn't expect it either. :laugh:

[Sailor]

Originally posted by Montilar

Well, since a bottle of coke generally cost $1.00 from a machine anymore, I wouldn't expect it either. :laugh:

Hey, bro, you're not that far away. Didn't know that Manassas had gotten so pricey. Where I work in Herndon, the machine only charges 55¢. You ought to come up and visit us - save some money

[Art]

Sailor,

Let me answer the pertinent questions you've asked.

"OK, let's follow your line of reasoning. You say that the only money that is guaranteed is the 1 million signing bonus. We could cut Jansen between now and March 1 and not be obligated to pay the roster bonus."

It's not my line of reasoning. It appears to be the team's line of reasoning. Also, I'm not saying the only money that is guaranteed is the $1 million signing bonus. It appears Jansen's people are saying that through media reports.

As I explained, if these statements are true, it's clear the team is attempting to get Jansen signed for a $5.5 million bonus and having all of it accelerate off the books on March 1 of next year so the remainder of his contract is salary only and flexible.

"Why would we do that? Because we don't need him? Hah! Fat chance. The only reason we cut Jansen between now and March 1 is that he gets seriously injured."

Correct. You'd only cut Jansen if he suffered a likely career-ending injury. You likely wouldn't if he just suffered a season ending one. That's a pretty remote chance to be honest.

"OK, but guess what. The only incentive Jansen has to sign a contract now rather than test free agency is to guard against that very possibility."

Not really, no. If Jansen signs NO contract at all and he gets hurt, he still gets cut and gets a total payout of zippo and he's a free agent. If Jansen signed this exact contract the way it appears to be offered and he suffers an injury that causes us to cut him he would get a total payout of $1 million and he'd be a free agent.

So, the rationale is flawed since if what he really is against is the structure, essentially he's really for everything else. And if he's essentially for everything else, it means he's turning down $1 million free dollars in the same situation. Now, obviously, he's probably not sure about everything else either. He probably wouldn't mind a bit more cash up front and in yearly compensation.

"So by structruring that contract in that way, you have eliminated the only incentive that Jansen has to sign it. Does that make sense?"

But, here's where the incentive to sign is tricky. If he doesn't sign and tests the waters, then he gets slapped with a franchise or more likely a transistion tag and a tender offer highly limiting his options and guarantee.

Essentially here's the bargain he's got to weigh. Enter free agency almost completely certain not to be a true free agent. As a true free agent he could probably get $7 million. We're offering $5.5 million. Since he won't probably be a true free agent, the price will come down in free agency since a team would have to surrender a pick and we could match. Basically his option is to get that whole game out of the way by signing now, or playing that whole game through. Tricky business on both sides then.

"This is the same ownership that fired half the staff upon assuming control. The same ownership that let Brian Mitchell go so it could bring on Deion Sanders. The same ownership that signed Marty to a multi-year deal giving him total control and then fired him after the first year. The same ownership that proclaimed Stephen Davis "a Redskin for Life" and will quite likely cut him next year."

This isn't an unfair point. But, you're talking a different level of trust here. If the team makes this deal and Jansen goes for it, it's helping the team. This kind of thing is great for a team. You only get one chance to screw that up. Nothing that's happened in the past pertains to this situation. It's completely different.

Here you are basically telling a player that the team wants help in structuring his money. If the team goes back on its word, it'll never sign another free agent at value again. Everyone will gouge us because we won't be trusted. For years the Giants have done these types of signings. They've never failed to deliver. When Strahan balked, questioning their honesty, his teammates rallied around the team saying how honest it had been in the past and how the contracts they do help the team.

We don't have that team's history right now. Jansen would be a good way to establish it. It's clear the team is trying to, essentially, pay him market value and to have it structured so it's off the books in March. Market value for Jansen, now, remember, is not going to be much higher than this when you factor in the likely tag he'll get.

There is no question that this contract was offered in such a way as to help the team. Jansen just has to decide if he trusts enough to take it, or if he feels, rightly as you feel, that it's not worth the risk yet.

[Sailor]

OK, Art. I will concede to the logic of your argument. 90% because what you say has merit and 10% because I don't want this to mirror the ongoing debate between you and OSF. (Sheesh, are you guys married or what? I thought only married folks got into it so deep. If you guys are married you outghta get a divorce.)

But what you are talking about is a 180 degree turnaround from what has characterized this team's personnel policies for the last several years.

Kudos to bulldog's "Grass is always greener" post, which I thought had a lot of merit. You are saying that a player should trust management to take care of it's own, even when not bound by the written word. Management, who, in the past, has evidenced a bit of disdain of its own.

Well, Ok. It is clear that the personnel policy of the past several years is a failed policy. It has to change. We cannot afford to lose players like James Thrash, much less players like Jon Jansen. So if Jansen is to be the turning point, then so be it.

You and I can agree on this. I wonder if Jon can?

[Art]

Sailor,

I don't think we're saying different things. I think it's a tough wager to make that Jansen will take this contract as offered even if it is about what he could expect as a tagged free agent next year. It's just clear if he does take it he'd be helping the team out a great deal.

I don't know that this is different from the way we've gone after free agents the past several seasons. In 1999 we didn't sign any free agents really. A spending freeze was on due to the ownership change. This is a very different path than 2000. Last year was a lot like this though with carefully structured deals.

This front office is, right now, the Mendes front office and his tact to get people in is different than most because he's a very careful cap guy and he writes contracts with a specific intent in mind. The personnel policy of the past few years is hard to judge because we've basically had four different personnel groups running things the last four years which makes judgements almost impossible.

It could be that any of the four methods would have been completely successful if allowed to be followed through over a period of time. With hope we'll stay in tact for the most part and give this way a go for a while.

[bulldog]

isn't it just a bit ironic that when it comes to productive players already on our roster like Davis and Jansen, the front office seems to be very conscious of not 'overpaying' to extend them while with players we scout from other teams like Deion and Bruce in 2000 and Trotter in 2002 we don't blink in paying them large contracts?

Davis, after a 1,400 yard season, had to wait in line in 2000 until the spending spree was over before the front office addressed his contract. As one would expect the free money being thrown around to Deion, Carrier, George and Bruce Smith hardened Davis' position so he and his agent were not going to compromise very much on a long-term contract. So, we ended up with a deal that was basically a three year.

The same thing happened this offseason. We could have re-worked Davis' deal but chose not to.

We could have extended Jansen ahead of his final year and avoid the in-season back and forth but again chose not to.

Don't think for a moment that other players on this team aren't watching how Davis and Jansen are treated by the club.

There is no greater dis-incentive than feeling your contribution is valued more by others than your own people.

The salary cap demands that teams release players of value over time. That is inescapable.

Not every player released is one that clubs would rather be without. Sometimes it IS just the money.

The shame in the case of the Redskins is we may lose valuable contributors down the road because we spent too much on players at positions that could have been addressed in the draft.

I look at all the time and money spent on the defensive line since 1996:

Sean Gilbert, Dana Stubblefield, Dan Wilkinson, Bruce Smith, Marco Coleman, etc......................

Wouldn't it have made more sense in the long-run to just use our draft choices to secure some help on the line like we used to do?

And the effect of some of those contracts on the cap..........Stuby ended up costing us $9 million last year to get rid of...........Bruce THIS year if we had released him would have cost $5 million.......Coleman is going to cost us a lot if you combine the hits from 2002 and 2003............................

All that for ONE pro bowl berth by Coleman in 2000?

We just didn't get value for money.

And for those who say, well, our defense did improve from the end of 1999 through 2001, I will agree.

But, wouldn't the team's defense have improved just as well with other, better-value pickups and more attention in the draft?

Look at 2002. By drafting Anthony Weaver in round 2 we could have avoided paying Renaldo Wynn to play out at LDE. Younger player, cheaper contract, equal or even better performance.

Once again, value for money.

Bruce wasn't worth what he has been paid the past 2 years. Marco wasn't worth what he was being paid in 2001. Deion wasn't worth what he was paid in 2000.

This year it appears we aren't going to be seeing pro bowl repeat performance from Trotter and Wynn doesn't appear nearly as active as he did last year in Jacksonville.

Some may say, well, give 'em time. It may be awhile before these guys learn and fit into the scheme, etc.........

That is well and good for draft picks and value pickups, but isn't part of the reason you are paying professionals large contracts in free agency because they have the talent and ability to come in and contribute quickly?

If not, then you are using free agency as you own form of a supplemental draft where players are expected to make a contribution AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

Unfortunately with the way free agent deals are often backloaded and become unmanageable, you can't wait a couple of years for a veteran with a large salary to find his way.

For a veteran with elite talent, a healthy offseason, training camp and preseason should be enough to get prepared for the regular season.

[Art]

Bulldog,

Again, this isn't 2000. We're not coming off a division title won on the back of a strong offense and hurt by a weak defense. It's not a year after we did nothing in free agency due to an owner change, essentially leaving us with lots of cash floating around. And, it's a different man in charge this time than that time. I don't know that any of us were for the contract to Deion. Bruce, however, was a contract I think fairly signed and earned. Now it's just getting out of hand because he shouldn't still be here. Two years was the intent of that contract and we should have found a way to move on by now.

I think you are pretty ridiculous here to say that aftera 1,400 yard season Davis had to wait in line in 2000. Davis was was under contract. Of course he had to wait in line. Spent more money on draft picks and Davis than it did on free agents, so, it seems to me that time and money was also spent on cultivating from the inside.

But, again, this is a different situation. Davis was and could have been a one-year wonder. Remember, every other person on that offense from 1999 WAS a one-year wonder. You don't give a contract to a guy with one good year under his belt one that makes him the greatest running back of all time. Now, we DID do that in a way, but it was structured as a three-year deal written to allow both sides to tweak it at that point.

The Jansen contract though is less an attempt not to overpay. This is approximately what he'd receive as a tagged free agent in the offseason. Perhaps a hair more, but, often first formal contract offers aren't last formal contract offers and perhaps we should wait to see what we've done with Jansen until we've done what we're going to do with Jansen?

[Blondie]

If this has been posted already I apologize. I hate to see the same things over and over. Please delete, Art, if it is redundant.

From ESPN Insider:

Pasquarelli says 'Skins would be wise to pay Jansen

How much is a young, quality right tackle worth these days? If you ask the Redskins, they'll probably tell you $4 million. They'd also be in the minority. But right now, that seems to be all they're willing to offer Jon Jansen.

The Redskins are also offering the former Michigan star a signing bonus around $5.5 million. But Jansen and his agent, Rick Smith, are seeking a base salary of $5 million per annum, and a much heftier signing bonus.

Though Jansen isn't playing at his usual level this season, he is definitely one of the cornerstones of the line, along with left tackle Chris Samuels.

I was talking to Len Pasquarelli, who was mystified with the Redskins' attempt to lowball Jansen.

"That's crazy," he told me. "To allow hm to go into free agency would mean they'd have to fill yet another hole when they've already got tons of holes.

"Why create a vacancy when you won't be able to upgrade the position."

He's absolutely right about the Redskins not being able to get better at right tackle through free agency, and probably the draft. Their offensive line is a shambles and they have no adequate backups. The 'Skins still have the second half of the season to get something accomplished, but they'll have to become more pliable in the negotiating posture.

That's because Smith, and his partner Mark Bartelstein, both worked the deals for centers Olin Kreutz and Kevin Mawae. Centers typically get less money than tackles, yet both players got at least $8 million in signing bonuses.

The Redskins don't want to overspend on Jansen because they'll need to use some of their $4 million in 2003 cap space to re-work the deals of running back Stephen Davis and Samuels.

On Davis:

Memo to Steve Spurrier: Stephen Davis is the key to your future success as the coach of the Redskins.

Ever since Davis became the team's feature back in 1999, the 'Skins are 25-7 when the Auburn product finishes the day with at least 80 yards rushing. On the days when he's held under that mark, Washington has won only two of 21 games.

I think that's a pretty strong indicator that as Davis goes, so go the Redskins. Luckily for Spurrier's bunch, they play the Colts, who are 30th in the league at stopping the run. So it seems that victory is almost assured if they can just keep giving the ball to Davis.

Blondie

[bulldog]

what we need to do in terms of player contracts and in terms of who we depend upon on the field to give us the best chance to win is all but obvious to most people who have watched the NFL for a significant amount of time.

the question is whether the egos and preset agendas of front office people and coaches on the team will allow that logic to win out.

Gibbs didn't start off as a running coach but he became such when given Riggins and the line and a quarterback better suited to a play action offense and not the Coryell-Dan Fouts system.

Play Shane, use Davis and the short pass. Develop confidence.

And let's stop worrying about becoming the Rams East

[Nerm]

My gut feeling tells me that if Jansen is a FA, Jerry Jones will look to sign him.

Did the Skins use a zone blocking scheme last year? Right now both OTs that Dallas has will be free agents and they are not playing well (when they are playing). They have been unable to pick up the new blocking scheme. Jones may let these guys go and look for "West Coast" linemen. I bet Jansen would get his 5 mil per year from Jones.