(03-16-2018, 05:06 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 04:44 PM)Predator Wrote: He would get the vet minimum not based on his skill level but because it would be smart for the signing team to force us to pay the bulk of his salary in 2019.

6.5 mil is a high salary for a back up. It's higher than the salary than we are paying him this year.

Just look at the deal McCown got. A team could pay Bortles a base salary of 800k give him a 3.5 mil signing bonus and then we would be on the hook for 5.7 mil, effectively giving him a 1 year 10 mil contract.

So the offset language doesn't protect us unless Bortles signs a big contract somewhere.

Fair point, but all it would take is two teams or more to be interested in his services for the “let’s stick it to the Jags” strategy to likely go out the window.  You make me question whether the offset is salary only and not just total guaranteed amount in a new deal, else why would anyone ever use offset language?  The Jags front office would have thought of all this, right?  So why would the Jags bother putting the language in the deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If two teams were competing for him, all they would need to do is up his signing bonus. I'm sure Bortles would rather have the money up front anyway and wouldn't be concerned about the salary. It would have nothing to do with wanting to "stick it to the jags" but rater save almost 6 mil on their salary cap which would be a benefit to their organization.

From some further reading, it sounds like if another team takes over Bortles contract (ie trade or picked up off waiver), they become responsible for the 6.7 mil. So it sounds like we would recoup the 6.7 mil if someone were to take over Bortles contract, but we would most likely eat about 5.7 mil if we were to allow him to become a FA before the second season.

---