Raiders sign ALDON SMITH

[Twinkie defense]

I still think this has worked out just fine for the Raiders. When he first signed I thought, what's the point? He'll likely be suspended for a year. What I didn't expect was that it would take so long for the suspension to take affect. So it turned out better than I thought - we got games and production from Aldon THIS season. What I also didn't realize at that time was that the entire contract would roll over if he didn't play this season (this is what Florio is talking above above) - or if he only played a couple games (which Reg clarified earlier in his thread).

So, low risk. Aldon helped the defense. The Raiders will be in good position to re-sign him to finish up next season and beyond.

Aldon demonstrated he's no longer a sack machine, but I knew that for a long time - he benefited a lot playing with the Niners stellar front seven, and particularly Justin Smith, who would routinely occupy two linemen.

The only alarming thing to me is some people say Aldon is our best defensive player, and even with him the defense has been terrible. This tells me how far the defense has to go to become even an average unit.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[benchmobbin02]

I didn't provide a link because I'm using an iPhone and it's hard to go back and forth from the app copying and pasting. If you just paste that paragraph into Google I'm sure you can find the original ESPN article - just Google "Aldon Smith suspension" and I'm sure you can find a lot of info about Aldon's contract status.

Here is the link to the article. http://espn.go.com/blog/oakland-raiders/print?id=13374. It was posted on the same day as the pod when Bill got clarification for Andrew Brandt on the issue. Before Brandt explained how it works, Bill was still of the mind that he would be a free agent in the pod.

The contract does not toll (roll over) because Aldon wasn't suspended for the whole season (aka year). He was suspended for one calendar year which stretches across two seasons. Once Aldon played three (or was it four? I believe three) games for the Raiders this season the Raiders no longer had him under contract next season.

That is what was believed before. Then I got info from a credible source saying other wise (which I posted with link and sources qualifications on subject) and I tend to believe that until PROVEN otherwise. So it is your opinion that the contract doesn't toll. It is mine that it does and I have given my reasoning why.

If he were still contractually committed to the Raiders you think it would be easy to find other documentation of that fact, don't you think? Instead of burying that important bit 19 minutes into a podcast?

Haha...What kind of documentation would be out there? His contract posted online? SMH. There is nothing either way except statements from people in the "know". You have to chose who you believe. I believe the guy who has dealt with it and constructed deals for decades and has personal knowledge of how Reggie works.

And why do the Raiders say they want to have Aldon back, Aldon say he wants to play for the Raiders again, if his contract was just on pause? Makes no sense.

They say they want him back because it is not for sure that he will be back. That could mean from suspension just like it could mean on their team. Lots of players out there right now that haven't come back from a year suspension. It makes perfect sense if you look at it without clouding you view with the tint of opinion. Just admit that it isn't known for sure and you have to discern the two different theories for yourself at this point. That is what I have done and have given my reasons why I have landed on this line of thinking.

[FNQ]

Ahhh good to be back talking Raiders

Sucks that he's gone for the year, but he's still clearly very talented and we invested in him. Fully expect to see him for the last half of 2016, and beyond. Very low risk for us in that we got him essentially for free (cap space) and will be able to retain him via the same avenues considering we have no legitimate cap problems going forward.

His contract isn't on pause (didnt read whole thread, just caught last bit of last post), but he obviously doesn't get paid either. He played 3 games, thus the contract ticks over and he's technically a UFA in 2016. We have the option of franchising him still too. I was a bit discouraged by the lack of sacks, but IIRC we didnt play him that much with Mack, and I think that's something that would make him a monster

[benchmobbin02]

You are basing that on the same thing that I was previously. A report from a columnist. I choose to believe the guy who actually wrote and executed the contracts from both sides when he says the contract does toll. The only thing i have heard refuting that is people saying that they didn't bother to even listen to him.

[FNQ]

The contract does not toll. Period. Him not being able to sign with anyone while suspended is unrelated, and not a suspension of the contract. So in unequivocal terms: the second his suspension is lifted, Aldon Smith is a UFA. Which = the contract does not toll over. Even in the article posted - why is it called a reunion if he's under contract? Or, this from the above article:

Oakland will be looking for a pass-rusher in the draft and/or free agency, where the Raiders are poised to have the most salary cap room in the NFL. If the Raiders are set at pass-rusher when Smith is reinstated, they might not be as interested -- or Smith could get an offer he can’t turn down elsewhere.

How can he get an offer he can't turn down elsewhere if he's under contract with us?

If the contract tolled, Aldon would need to play out the 2016 season for the Raiders as he would be under contract. Only mistake I made was assuming we could franchise him, but I guess we can't due to the franchise window being early in the year (March?) so in theory, Aldon Smith has the option to leave us (shown above) He likely won't, but the fact that he can explicitly means that the contract does not toll over.

What's strange here is that suspended players are unable to sign new deals if their contracts expire. Hypothetically, let's say a bad team (Tennessee) had a great player (Jurrell Casey) who was a pending FA. In week 17, he stomps on someone's facemask drawing a one (or multi) game suspension. He wouldn't be allowed to hit free agency in the allotted time, curbing his value dramatically? Seems like an odd rule.

[benchmobbin02]

Your rehashing the same argument and would get the same explanation from me that Twink got. Nice post but it doesn't change anything. You should go back and read the posts before you jumped in the topic if you want clarity on my position and why I have it. We are all just taking someone word for it. You guys are going off bloggers and reporters and I believe I have a more solid source.

[FNQ]

Nah, I've seen the argument, it hinges on *one* person, against multiple NFL sources. And here's why its incorrect: Josh Gordon.

Josh Gordon was suspended for a year, amended to 10 games, for weed. His contract did not toll, the year counted, despite him only playing in 6 games. The same exact thing is going on with Aldon Smith, its just that instead of him playing the final X games like Gordon did, he played a middle 9 games. Gordon's contract didn't toll over to the next year because he played more than 3 games per the CBA. His contract did not freeze, because that would create a contract down the line that would end in the middle of the season. And it would be a ridiculous premise for a multiyear contract like Gordon's to have a different effect from the suspension than Aldon's expiring contract.

Take my Jurrell Casey argument from before. He gets suspended week 17, does his contract toll over? No. BUT, he can't sign with any other team in the upcoming FA period, and cannot sign with anyone until he comes off suspension. So if only by technicality, he would be on the Titans to start 2016 and the contract would "toll" for the life of the suspension. But the instant the suspension ends, so does the contract. So best case scenario Brandt technically correct in his argument, though functionally wrong.

[benchmobbin02]

I respect your standing in the forum. But that explanation cleared nothing up. It's the same arguments and statements made previously and that Brandt refuted on the podcast. He teaches sports law, sports business and negotiations at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and worked with Reggie and therefore has inside knowledge on how he structures his deals. I gonna take his word over a reporter. We can disagree, that's why the forum exists.

[FNQ]

Well, in theory I was responding to Brandt in the podcast. The claims he make seem to not apply to Josh Gordon.. and that's my issue with his take on the situation.

But again, regardless of deal structure, you cannot circumvent the CBA - because it would not only piss off the NFL, but also the NFLPA. So Reggie could structure the deal anyway he wants, but after the whole Steve Hutchison/Nate Burleson poison pill nonsense, contracts have to have common standard ground. Its possible there's another loophole, but why would the Raiders go that route? Either sign him to a 2 year deal or don't. And why would Aldon's agent want a deal when he could command more than the 1.2m base salary in free agency (pro-rated), even in the middle of a season?

I'm saying Brandt's observation makes sense if this were before a season. But his argument in the podcast or whatever directly conflicts with how Josh Gordon was handled, so I tend to take the majority's word at this point

[benchmobbin02]

And I don't so we disagree. And that's okay.

[Twinkie defense]

Your rehashing the same argument and would get the same explanation from me that Twink got. Nice post but it doesn't change anything. You should go back and read the posts before you jumped in the topic if you want clarity on my position and why I have it. We are all just taking someone word for it. You guys are going off bloggers and reporters and I believe I have a more solid source.

What's strange about this objection is that FNQ confirmed way back in the summer that if Aldon was on the field for the Raiders less than three games this season due to suspension, his contract would roll over to next season, and if he played three games or more for us before being suspended, he would be UFA next summer. So it's you that is forgetting the history of this thread and rehashing settled arguments.

It makes no point to go back and forth on this like banging my head against a wall, which is why I've stayed clear of the Aldon Smith contract debates of late. Suffice to say you are wrong about his contract, like you were wrong about the length of his suspension before

[Twinkie defense]

September 12:

If Smith plays 3 games, his contract vests. If he doesn't, we have him inked for next year

[benchmobbin02]

Your rehashing the same argument and would get the same explanation from me that Twink got. Nice post but it doesn't change anything. You should go back and read the posts before you jumped in the topic if you want clarity on my position and why I have it. We are all just taking someone word for it. You guys are going off bloggers and reporters and I believe I have a more solid source.

What's strange about this objection is that FNQ confirmed way back in the summer that if Aldon was on the field for the Raiders less than three games this season due to suspension, his contract would roll over to next season, and if he played three games or more for us before being suspended, he would be UFA next summer. So it's you that is forgetting the history of this thread and rehashing settled arguments.

It makes no point to go back and forth on this like banging my head against a wall, which is why I've stayed clear of the Aldon Smith contract debates of late. Suffice to say you are wrong about his contract, like you were wrong about the length of his suspension before

Yeah and the thread agreed with that at the time. I was referring to the new understanding that I pointed out from Brandt and have been discussing recently. I didn't forget any of the history of the thread. I no longer agreed with it so it wasn't settle to me.

We will see next year how the contract shakes out. I didn't just pull this conclusion out of a hat so if I have taken the wrong side in believing Brandt then I can accept that but it remains to be seen.

[Quake Griffin]

Appeal to authority and then hijack a thread while doing it.

ZZZzzz

any way I can stop getting notifications from this thread?

[benchmobbin02]

If replying to comments directed at me is hijacking a thread then I'm guilty. And fine with it.

Appeals to authority are often valid, as when we tell someone to use a certain medicine because the doctor has prescribed it. But appeals to authority can be fallacious, as when we cite those who have no special competence regarding the matter at hand.

I would count Brandt as an expert in the field.

[Quake Griffin]

Yea.
most people who appeal to authority consider their authorities expe-

nvm.


We'll see how it plays out.

[benchmobbin02]

I'll be waiting and as I said before I don't mind disagreeing or admitting that I'm wrong if factual proven so.

[FNQ]

any way I can stop getting notifications from this thread?

Before I tell you, I realize the irony of giving you a notification in order to post this..

Preferences - (far right) Edit Notifications tab - uncheck the corresponding boxes. Dont think there's a workaround for specific threads.

That said, I think this thread has run its course. We all know our stances and we're just waiting on new info. So I'll put the old Master on this one and re-open it when there's new info, or we can just start a new thread, w/e.