As the holdout of Jets rookie quarterback Sam Darnold continues, conflicting reports have emerged regarding the actual reason for his absence.
Rich Cimini of ESPN.com reported on Sunday that the impasse arising from an effort by the Jets to wipe out Darnold’s guarantees in the event not only of a suspension but also of a fine arising from any on- or off-field misconduct. Manish Mehta of the New York Daily News has painted a sharply different picture.
Via Mehta, the real issue is the effort to get the Jets to remove the offset language from the deal, allowing Darnold to double dip in the event he’s cut at some point during the four-year contract.
“CAA was fuming (and expressed their annoyance) after Baker Mayfield agreed to the deal with offsets,” Manish Mehta said on Twitter, in reference to the agency that represents the former USC quarterback. “They lost leverage for Darnold.”
Mehta adds that anything else is a “red herring,” and that Darnold’s camp is simply trying to emerge from the process with a victory over the team. Mehta points out that multiple other CAA clients have agreed to the same language in contracts with the Jets. The language voiding the guarantee, according to Mehta, relates to fines arising from team-imposed punishment for conduct detrimental to the team or from league-imposed punishment under the PED policy. (That last part is a bit confusing, since any violation of the PED policy results in a suspension, not a fine.)
Mehta claims that Darnold is “pissed” about the situation, and Mehta speculates that Darnold and his family won’t let the situation last much longer.
So the question becomes whether the Jets and CAA can work something out before Darnold simply instructs CAA to accept whatever the team’s current offer is. Which could shift the fight from team vs. agent to agent vs. client. Which could, in theory, result in the client ending up with a new agent.
