Quote:However, the initial contract that he signed with us is pretty much done. He would have to get a new contract. How do you structure such a contract?
The Jaguars will still retain his rights regardless of the suspension. He's still got 2 years left on his deal. Assuming he returns prior to that, he's going to at the very least play out his rookie deal.
Quote:The Jaguars will still retain his rights regardless of the suspension. He's still got 2 years left on his deal. Assuming he returns prior to that, he's going to at the very least play out his rookie deal.
right and its also not the kind of thing where once 2 years passes, he's free to sign elsewhere, right?
He must give the Jags 2 years of
service before that happens, correct?
(actually, maybe more - as he was suspended for 12 of the 16 games in year 2.)
OK, so as I understand it there are three options.
1. Allow him to come back to the team and play out the last two years of his rookie contract.
2. Shop him and trade him with his "issues" as well as what remains of his rookie contract.
3. Outright just cut him.
If you can't count on the guy to stay clean and sober. If it's possible in the least bit that he can "slip up", then why keep him?
If no team will offer any kind of trade for him, then why keep him?
I guess I just don't understand why you would keep a guy IF he got reinstated if he really gives no value to your team.
Quote:OK, so as I understand it there are three options.
1. Allow him to come back to the team and play out the last two years of his rookie contract.
2. Shop him and trade him with his "issues" as well as what remains of his rookie contract.
3. Outright just cut him.
If you can't count on the guy to stay clean and sober. If it's possible in the least bit that he can "slip up", then why keep him?
If no team will offer any kind of trade for him, then why keep him?
I guess I just don't understand why you would keep a guy IF he got reinstated if he really gives no value to your team.
Because there's literally no penalty for keeping him. He doesn't get paid and he doesn't take up a roster spot.
Quote:OK, so as I understand it there are three options.
1. Allow him to come back to the team and play out the last two years of his rookie contract.
2. Shop him and trade him with his "issues" as well as what remains of his rookie contract.
3. Outright just cut him.
If you can't count on the guy to stay clean and sober. If it's possible in the least bit that he can "slip up", then why keep him?
If no team will offer any kind of trade for him, then why keep him?
I guess I just don't understand why you would keep a guy IF he got reinstated if he really gives no value to your team.
Him slipping up or us cutting him results in the same negative outcome for the team. Either way, he is no longer a jag and we had a top 10 bust.
However there isn't a guarantee that he will slip up. So holding onto him leaves open the opportunity that he gets his act together and becomes a valuable asset to the team.
When facing a decision between two options that have the exact same negative risk, you always go with the one with the highest possible reward.
That is just basic business 101.
Quote:Because there's literally no penalty for keeping him. He doesn't get paid and he doesn't take up a roster spot.
I don't understand how people cant understand this simple concept.
Quote:Him slipping up or us cutting him results in the same negative outcome for the team. Either way, he is no longer a jag and we had a top 10 bust.
However there isn't a guarantee that he will slip up. So holding onto him leaves open the opportunity that he gets his act together and becomes a valuable asset to the team.
When facing a decision between two options that have the exact same negative risk, you always go with the one with the highest possible reward.
That is just basic business 101.
^^^This^^^ And if in a month or two you're wondering why we're considering hanging on to JB, read this post again.
Quote:I don't understand how people cant understand this simple concept.
I don't understand it either.
There is literally ZERO penalty/ liability for retaining his rights.
Nothing, NOTHING bad can happen by hanging onto him.
Quote:Him slipping up or us cutting him results in the same negative outcome for the team. Either way, he is no longer a jag and we had a top 10 bust.
However there isn't a guarantee that he will slip up. So holding onto him leaves open the opportunity that he gets his act together and becomes a valuable asset to the team.
When facing a decision between two options that have the exact same negative risk, you always go with the one with the highest possible reward.
That is just basic business 101.
Totally agree.
The one thing I would point out is that it's not Business 101. Many business decisions are made that only have short term gratification in mind and ignore the long run.
What you described is how a rational actor would behave. When one states "business" most people consider large corporations (Apple, Walmart, Comcast, etc) with that term. However, the decisions those large oligopolies consider have nothing to do with rationality and logic but rather shareholder equity and Wall-Street pressure. Those types of businesses do not act rationally, they act selfishly in a world of no consequentiality. Meaning they do not reaside in the the real world of supply/demand and limited resources.
That's why I think what you are describing is a thought process or a rational person: Take a situation, figure outcomes that will be occur. Decide which outcomes are best for you and which are worse, and make a choice that best gives you the chance for a positive outcome.
In the Justin Blackmon situation, there is no negative loss for keeping him as a commodity for the next 2 years. Therefore, the possession of his contract which has no implication untill he is reinstated should be held. Of course this would change if some team would offer a player or draft pick that is of equal value. But most likely that is not going to happen.
So why cut bait on something that you already own that has a value with no expense? I have a pair of glasses I don't wear anymore. But I'm not throwing them away because they are nice frames and have my same prescription in them. To throw them away would be irrational because I know how careless I can be sometimes, so a back up would be nice. Now with Justin, there's even a possibility that he produces. So there is an even larger incentive to keep him.
I'm no fan of Justin. I wish I could be. But he's just proven to me too much that he's not capable of being an NFL player. But that doesn't mean I think we should cut him before he fails us for the final time The fact that we drafted 2 WRs this draft proves that the Front Office is thinking rationally.
Quote:The Jaguars will still retain his rights regardless of the suspension. He's still got 2 years left on his deal. Assuming he returns prior to that, he's going to at the very least play out his rookie deal.
Is that Reading Rainbow on your signature .gif? If so, bravo, to YOU!!!
Quote:I don't understand it either.
There is literally ZERO penalty/ liability for retaining his rights.
Nothing, NOTHING bad can happen by hanging onto him.
It's a vengeance mentality.
"Justin let me down and we must have revenge. It doesn't matter if it isn't in our best interest, we must act with spite. We must have our pound of flesh."
Quote:It's a vengeance mentality.
"Justin let me down and we must have revenge. It doesn't matter if it isn't in our best interest, we must act with spite. We must have our pound of flesh."
Naw, I don't think that's how posters are thinking. It's not about revenge. It's more about fool me once, shame... Shame on you? Fool me we don't get fooled again" type of mentality. Which is totally acceptable.
I have no doubt that Justin will not be the player everyone wants him to be. He's a bust, not because he doesn't have talent. But because he has mental issues. Either way, he's not going to be the player we all want him to be.
So yeah, I'm not projecting anything positive of him. Some people want to just cut bait because they know the outcome. It's a totally rational concept. If a person thinks the pain of watching him fail again is more painful than letting him go now, it's understandable.
At the end of the day, the outcome is probably gonna be the same. He's not gonna be what we invested into him. We traded up to get him. He's not worth it. He may be, but he's not right now.
He probably won't be. So what's the difference? The difference is the hope that he still possesses versus dropping him. Right now, the hope is still of zero cost. At some point soon the cost will outweigh the hope. Once that happens, you drop Justin.
We're not there yet. I'm hoping he figures it out before the cost outweighs the hope.
Quote:It's a vengeance mentality.
"Justin let me down and we must have revenge. It doesn't matter if it isn't in our best interest, we must act with spite. We must have our pound of flesh."
It must be, because theres no other logical guess why these people cannot see that theres no downside to keeping his rights.
And to be honest, its really only a few of the vocal minority that keep beating the drum of wanting to outright release him....
Most of the posters are smart enough to realize that the smart thing is to keep him until theres literally no reason to....i.e. any lifetime ban.
Quote:Totally agree.
The one thing I would point out is that it's not Business 101. Many business decisions are made that only have short term gratification in mind and ignore the long run.
Having short term goals has nothing to do with it. This is possible return vs. no possible return. Possible positive short term results still beats no possible positive results.
Picking something because it has a possible return over something that is guaranteed to have zero return is business 101. If your goal is to purposely devalue your company and you do the opposite, then it would still be business 101.
Considering the jags are trying to maximize team value, retaining Justin at this point would be a sound fundamental business move.
Doing it because you are ignorant of how to maximize value wouldn't be business 101.
Quote:Naw, I don't think that's how posters are thinking. It's not about revenge. It's more about fool me once, shame... Shame on you? Fool me we don't get fooled again" type of mentality. Which is totally acceptable.
I have no doubt that Justin will not be the player everyone wants him to be. He's a bust, not because he doesn't have talent. But because he has mental issues. Either way, he's not going to be the player we all want him to be.
So yeah, I'm not projecting anything positive of him. Some people want to just cut bait because they know the outcome. It's a totally rational concept. If a person thinks the pain of watching him fail again is more painful than letting him go now, it's understandable.
At the end of the day, the outcome is probably gonna be the same. He's not gonna be what we invested into him. We traded up to get him. He's not worth it. He may be, but he's not right now.
He probably won't be. So what's the difference? The difference is the hope that he still possesses versus dropping him. Right now, the hope is still of zero cost. At some point soon the cost will outweigh the hope. Once that happens, you drop Justin.
We're not there yet. I'm hoping he figures it out before the cost outweighs the hope.
That is still just a spite driven emotional response considering we have nothing to lose.
Justin isn't fooling anyone at this point.
Quote:Is that Reading Rainbow on your signature .gif? If so, bravo, to YOU!!!
I'm somewhat saddened that you'd ask.
Caddyshack
Quote:Because there's literally no penalty for keeping him. He doesn't get paid and he doesn't take up a roster spot.
Not only that, but let's assume for argument's sake he gets reinstated and he plays 4-5 games for us, and has another monster game or two like he did last year, which contributes greatly to two wins, and then he gets suspended again.
Was his value maximized/realized for this year?
No.
Is it wrong to assume he had "no" value whatsoever?
Yes.
I'd take Blackmon for 4-5 games with a monster game or two contributing significantly to wins over a guy like Prosinski who contributes little to nothing of any positive value, is taking up a roster spot and is easily replaceable by a mid season signing guy.
Quote:Because there's literally no penalty for keeping him. He doesn't get paid and he doesn't take up a roster spot.
Precisely. He's already shown he can be special if he's on the field.
So, there's no reason not to because it's literally costing you nothing.