http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ll-insist-on-offset-language-for-dion-jordan/ Lovely. I forgot about this. I wish I'd not been reminded. You remember a year ago how even after a new CBA that makes rookies inordinately EASY to sign, the Dolphins still entered training camp without Ryan Tannehill reporting? Remember that scene in Hard Knocks when Dawn Aponte told Ireland and Philbin that right now with Tannehill's agents digging in on their stance about "offset" language, we're set to allow Ryan Tannehill to re-enter the Draft in 2013? Wonderfully, this rigid stance of the Dolphins' to include offset language in any/all rookie contracts may result in the same thing. Or worse. You see, Ryan Tannehill was a quarterback. And he had designs on being a starter right away. He knows how important it is for quarterbacks to be there every step of the way, a first in/last out guy, getting chemistry with everyone, being there. He also had a rapport with coaches that were already on the team. This all made him more likely to cave on the offset language issue. The importance of the position also made it more likely for the Dolphins to "compromise" on the issue, which is what ended up happening. This is a different set of circumstances. Dion Jordan isn't a quarterback. He's here to rush the passer. The #5 overall pick Ezekiel Ansah just got a deal with no offset language. Others will follow, like last year, and it wouldn't shock me if the Dolphins are the only team in the top ten insisting on the language. Certainly the only team in the top five. It also wouldn't shock me if Dion let his agents handle it and didn't feel the same kind of pressure to get into camp right away like Tannehill did as the hopeful face of the team. And it wouldn't shock me if the Dolphins were less inclined to compromise because this is not a quarterback. Wouldn't that just be a fart in a crowded elevator. We get this guy we're all excited about and the offset language issue pops back up and so he misses half of training camp.
This is going to be an issue with every first round pick for the foreseeable future. Hopefully more teams start insisting, so it becomes less of an issue. And to be fair, while it sucks having this problem, the front office has done a great job managing money.
You believed in Jordan enough to trade up for him and draft him, so believe in him enough to give him a contract with no offset language.
The team's policy is sound IMO. Theres no reason they should agree to pay someone that is being paid by another team.
Jordan is still returning to form after the shoulder surgery and wouldn't likely partake in the majority of upcoming drills that required pads or hitting anyway. Also, he can't participate in the remainder of the offseason training program because Oregon's academic calendar does not end until June 7. Under NFL rules, rookies can't take part in any training with the team, other than the rookie minicamp, until the current academic term ends. Jordan will be rehabbing the shoulder and learning the playbook maybe until he can return to the team on June 11 for the mandatory minicamp. Until then he will be working on his shoulder and trying to get ready for the later training camps. So he is likely to miss some time anyway.
I see most teams signing their draft picks while I havent seen any of our draft picks signed .This requirement could be part of the problem.
I think there were only like 5 1st round draft picks that agreed to offset language last year. That number is not going to increase unless there is a league wide stance on the issue, which there won't be (for this year at least). As an agent you would look really stupid taking a contract with offset language.
I read the article but do not understand what "offset" means in this context. First I've heard of it to be honest. What exactly does it mean?
Agents are paid to get the best deal possible for their clients - even if it includes the offset language. Yes? Personally, I like the policy myself.
Well, for me I think this is a blessing in disguise as if Jordan is not in camp you have the chance to see what other guys can do in the role, if you already know DJ will be here a long time there is no harm in offering the opportunity to other players to show what they have to offer. Shelby, Vernon, Misi, this would be an opportunity for them
Right, but the more teams that do it, the easier it will be for others to join. Its going to be an incremental process.
Ireland is under even more pressure to win this season. Is he going to let a concern for future $$$ keep a player out of camp which might help them win??
Whatever. There's no way anyone should be complaining about how they sign their players considering how well they've managed the cap. Wake me when he's missed weeks of camp.
With the new CBA, 1st round contracts are 4 year deals with a 5th year option for the team. That option must be picked up by the March following the player's 3rd year. Once that kicks in, a player's 5th year of the contract is guaranteed for injury. In the 4th year is where offset language come into play... If there is offset language, it allows the team to save money when releasing a player. If it isn't there and a team releases a player, who signs with another team, the player still receives the guaranteed money from the rookie contract from his original team and the full salary from his new team. For a team, offset language is a good thing. Not having offset language allows the players to double dip and get paid by both the old team and the new...
It isn't logical for Ireland to let this be an issue. Which is why it is prudent the team employ Dawn Aponte in her current role.
Because it is such a small issue on the individual level. The affect it could have on Dion Jordan is so unlikely and so small, that he's personally worse off missing camp over it. Where it becomes an important issue is on the macro level. If you factor how much owners pay for this over a ten year period, it starts adding up.
To recap what this issue is about, it's about guaranteed money. First round rookie contracts under the new CBA have been reduced by a lot. In exchange, a much higher percentage of the contract is guaranteed. This may include salaries that are guaranteed for all four years. If you cut a guy after his third year and he has a guaranteed fourth year salary, well guess what. You have to pay that salary. It was guaranteed. Offset language is a way of taking guaranteed money and essentially making it no longer guaranteed. More like half-guaranteed. It's a creative way for a team to say that we want to cut you but we don't want to have to buy out the remainder of your GUARANTEED contract. We want our cake and we want to eat it, too. So what happens is the amount that the team is on the hook for a "guaranteed" salary is reduced by whatever amount the player may be receiving from another team during that same year. It's all very stupid, very minor, and most teams in the NFL have not decided this is worth fighting with agents about. The cost-benefit is set up so that the offset issue is a lot more important to the player than it is the team, so the player ends up caring about this more than the team. And if you think about how this plays out, let's say you cut a guy about to make $3 million guaranteed from you in his 4th year. He hits the market. Is he worth more than $3 million? Probably not. If he was, why did you cut him? If he goes onto the market and is worth $4 million, why did you cut him for making only $3 million with your team? So the chances are if you cut him he's not going to make the same money he was scheduled to get from you, else why did you cut him. If that's the case, why would that player insist that his new team pay him $2 million when he's going to get $3 million regardless? Follow it through. You're the player. You've got $3 million guaranteed to be coming to you this year (presumably 2016) regardless of what happens. If you can get more than $3 million from a team, you do that. But you've just been cut and if you were actually worth $3 million you probably wouldn't have been cut in the first place. So let's say you want $3 million for 2016. You're talking to the Redskins. Why would the Redskins offer to pay you $3 million? Why would YOU insist that they actually do so? If they offered you the veteran's minimum, you're still going to get $3 million and not a penny more or less regardless. Whatever the Redskins don't pay, the Dolphins are forced to make up the difference. IN FACT, as a sign of good faith (and as a means of sticking it to the team that just cut you), you would probably prefer your new team pay you only the vet's minimum and that your old team foot as much of the bill as possible. As I kept saying a year ago, this issue is insanely minor and stupid and not worth battling over. But Dolphins be all Dolphin-y so we'll see what happens.
If you were going to be a Top 32 pick in next years draft, would you hire a agent whose client in 2013 agreed to a contract with offset language? I think the big driving factor in this issue is the agents and how it looks on them for their future clients.
The only problem with that is the trend has been going the other way, with less teams holding out for offset language.
No. If you were the NFL owners, would you agree to pay a player that isn't playing on your team? It cuts both ways. The difference here is that the owners act in concert. Most players aren't considering the impacts on the entire players association over a long-term period.
It's called guaranteed money. You might have heard of it. It's a device that has been used in NFL contracts for decades and entails paying and expensing compensation to players even if they don't end up on the team for the full life of the contract.
And why would an owner agree to guarantee more money than they're required to? Why would he guarantee to pay a player, while that player is being paid by another owner?
I guess when they said they were going to bring Jordan along slowly, they knew this was going to happen.
IMO it's a minor issue and probably not worth fighting over from either side. I don't view it as overly affecting either side. Either way a player has to get the guaranteed money. Off-set language just prevents a player from getting guaranteed money +. (and obviously saves the drafting team some money should a player be cut in that specific time frame and resign with another team). The biggest factor in all of this is really customary practice. And since most teams don't insist on it, it hurts the Dolphin's position on the matter.
I don't see how anyone could argue that this is an issue that reflects poorly on management. Everyone should be able to agree that it's unfair that a team should have to pay someone who doesn't work for them. The argument can only be about getting players in camp but this is mitigated by the fact that Jordan is injured and it's already agreed upon as unfair. This is almost a non issue in terms of scale and importance. As for wanting Jordan so pay him, the contract language directly addresses a scenario in which the team doesn't want Jordan so that logic is flawed. Any business, especially one in debt would be foolish to pay a non employee, especially if that person directly enriches one of 31 competing firms. This is a fandom issue from the inside and a display of pedantry and systemic bias from the outside. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
Great. So if you're owner, you're not offering guaranteed money to any player in free agency. Good luck with that.
Again, it's called guaranteed money. You may have heard of it. It's a device that has been in use in NFL contracts for half a century and entails paying and expensing player compensation even if the player isn't still on the roster for the full life of the contract, and it's generally used as a means of disincentivizing the team from cutting the player (i.e. BREAKING the contract).
With Jordan's shoulder this particular case isn't too bad to try and hold out for offset money I will give you that, but if more teams don't hold out for offset language (which I doubt they will) it doesn't reflect greatly on our management. In the future prospect might have an "Oh **** I just got drafted by Miami" moment. And not a good one at that.
Apples to oranges. Teams do not have exclusive rights to players in free agency. And either way, I'm fairly certain most FA contracts include offset language. Same thing for coaches.
People act like it would be the player's choice if he's no longer on the roster in that fourth year. WRONG. Team choice. They'd be breaking the contract to cut him. This is about devices in the contract that make that process either easier, or harder. As rafael says, what ends up most important is the precedent and the leverage. And those aren't working in the Dolphins' favor at the moment.
This doesn't reduce the amount of guaranteed money. If a team cuts a rookie after his 4th year, he's still going to make the guaranteed money for the fifth year.
Additionally with most rookie contracts lasting 4 years with a club option for a 5th year, what are the chances that a rookie doesn't play out his entire contract? I mean if you drafted them in the 1st round they should have some ability and I think the only case in which you would cut a player would be in a case like Titus Young, where there is serious off the field issues.
This implies that a convention is a hard and fast rule. Offset language exists because the state of guaranteed money given to rookies had gotten ridiculous. It's a protection for teams who it seems aren't allowed to have a side in negotiations anymore. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
