PDA

View Full Version : LT, Bolts agree to restructured 3-year deal


Splat
03-10-2009, 09:33 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/03/10/LT.chargers/index.html

Running back LaDainian Tomlinson (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/5452)'s career as a Charger will last at least one more season, as the franchise's career rushing leader told SI.com Tuesday night that he's agreed to a restructured three-year contract that according to L.T. benefits both sides. Terms were not immediately available.

"I'm happy to remain a Charger," Tomlinson said. "I look forward to trying to win a championship here."

BmoreBlackByrdz
03-10-2009, 09:34 PM
good move on both sides IMHO. Sorry Drew Brees.

CJSchneider
03-10-2009, 09:35 PM
Should have come down to "The Big Easy".

Flyboy
03-10-2009, 09:39 PM
There goes that.

Beanie Wells or Malcolm Jenkins at 14 plz!

CC.SD
03-10-2009, 09:40 PM
Alright baby!

bantx
03-10-2009, 09:41 PM
I am pelvis thrusting so hardcore right now

Xenos
03-10-2009, 09:42 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnpKzAxdZVT1m.V2bsawi0dDubYF?slug=jc-ltstayingwithchargers031009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The deal, which concludes nearly two weeks of contract talks, will also allow Tomlinson to make the $6.725 million he was scheduled to earn this season. That amount was originally in base salary, but has been restructured to be part signing bonus and part salary to help the team create room under the salary cap. Tomlinson’s pay for this season had been a sticking point because his backup, Darrren Sproles, is scheduled to make $6.6 million this season as a result of the one-year tender for being designated with the team’s franchise tag.

As part of the deal, Tomlinson also reworked the final two years of the contract to help the Chargers. Tomlinson will reduce his base salaries of $8 million in 2010 and $9.275 million in 2011. Tomlinson will be able to earn the money back in incentives. In addition, some of his contract will be converted to a roster bonus payable in March 2010, forcing the Chargers to have to make an earlier decision on whether to keep him.
__________________________________________________ ___________

I would just like to point out the bolded part. First, Sproles hasn't signed the tag yet because he's working on a long term deal with the Chargers so LT is still the highest paid running back on the team. Second, the NO rumours made no sense because LT would have been the second highest paid running back after Reggie Bush if he left there. So if his pride about money was keeping from restructure with the Chargers, why would he sign with NO?

Third, I would just like to point out that Mike Florio is an idiot and has always bashed LT. Even when negotiations were just beginning, he still decides to make things up about LT leaving due to contract reasons.

CashmoneyDrew
03-10-2009, 09:44 PM
Do you hear that? That noise in the distance is Drew Brees weeping.

Splat
03-10-2009, 09:47 PM
I still can't believe they tagged Sproles.

bantx
03-10-2009, 09:51 PM
Sproles hasn't signed the franchise tender yet, he will most likely do what Suggs did and sign the long term deal later.

Xenos
03-10-2009, 09:54 PM
I still can't believe they tagged Sproles.
Why wouldn't they? There's almost no chance Sproles signs it until camp begins anyways. What it does is it buys the Chargers time to work out a long term deal. The argument I keep hearing is that it's risky because Sproles may sign it. But the reason he hasn't yet is because he gains more by getting a long term contract, one that guarantees him more money, though not necessarily as much per year. I think that's the big misconception that people have about the franchise tag. They don't understand why players like Sproles would rather sign a long term contract where he may make less per year compared to the franchise tag. The answer is all in the guaranteed money. In the end, it's a smart move by an organization because the probability is in their favor.

Now, on the other hand, if a player gets injured (like Drew Brees did at the end of 2005), then using the franchise tag would have been stupid because that player would have immediately signed it. Sproles, however, is healthy and stands to gain more by waiting for long term deal (because if he signs that tag and gets injured at the end of the year, he loses out on more money and financial security).

Splat
03-10-2009, 10:01 PM
Why wouldn't they? There's almost no chance Sproles signs it until camp begins anyways. What it does is it buys the Chargers time to work out a long term deal. The argument I keep hearing is that it's risky because Sproles may sign it. But the reason he hasn't yet is because he gains more by getting a long term contract, one that guarantees him more money, though not necessarily as much per year. I think that's the big misconception that people have about the franchise tag. They don't understand why players like Sproles would rather sign a long term contract where he may make less per year compared to the franchise tag. The answer is all in the guaranteed money. In the end, it's a smart move by an organization because the probability is in their favor.

Now, on the other hand, if a player gets injured (like Drew Brees did at the end of 2005), then using the franchise tag would have been stupid because that player would have immediately signed it. Sproles, however, is healthy and stands to gain more by waiting for long term deal (because if he signs that tag and gets injured at the end of the year, he loses out on more money and financial security).

Why would he want to sign long term when they just gave LT a new deal?

I don't think he can be a full time starter in the NFL but I'm sure he will try to and will ask for starter money some where else.

Xenos
03-10-2009, 10:06 PM
Why would he want to sign long term when they just gave LT a new deal?

I don't think he can be a full time starter in the NFL but I'm sure he will try to and will ask for starter money some where else.
Because no one is going to pay him Turner money. And he's better as a utility player than a full time starter. Additionally, it's in his own interest to get financial security. Like I said before, what happens if he gets injured during the year? He'll lose out on making possibly twice as much guaranteed money.

Of course, the Chargers don't have to sign him to a long term deal. The other option is to trade him to a team that will give him starter money. I personally don't see the Chargers paying him the franchise tag money. In the end, it's either a long term deal or a trade.

T-RICH49
03-10-2009, 10:07 PM
glad to hear this.some guys should never play a game in another team's uni and LT is one of them IMO

Splat
03-10-2009, 10:13 PM
Because no one is going to pay him Turner money. And he's better as a utility player than a full time starter. Additionally, it's in his own interest to get financial security. Like I said before, what happens if he gets injured during the year? He'll lose out on making possibly twice as much guaranteed money.

Of course, the Chargers don't have to sign him to a long term deal. The other option is to trade him to a team that will give him starter money. I personally don't see the Chargers paying him the franchise tag money. In the end, it's either a long term deal or a trade.

I agree that he is better as a utility player but it doesn't matter what we think what matters is what he and his agent think.

I would not be shocked at all if his agent is telling him to play on the tag and test FA next year I for one really don't see him signing a new deal with SD.

CC.SD
03-10-2009, 10:17 PM
"This is a good day for the Chargers and for Chargers fans," owner Dean Spanos said. "It was important for me to get this done so L.T. could continue his career here in San Diego where he means so much to our team, our fans and our community. The alternative was just unthinkable. He belongs in San Diego."

Tomlinson said, "I love San Diego and being a part of this team with my teammates. My No. 1 priority was to stay here in San Diego. I truly believe this is the place that gives me the best chance to be successful and win a championship. I want to finish the job we started when I got here eight years ago. My heart has always been in San Diego. I couldn't imagine putting on another uniform.

"I really appreciate the role Dean played throughout this process. He made it work for everyone and I appreciate his friendship more than he knows."

Awwww twu luv.

Splat
03-10-2009, 10:20 PM
"This is a good day for the Chargers and for Chargers fans," owner Dean Spanos said. "It was important for me to get this done so L.T. could continue his career here in San Diego where he means so much to our team, our fans and our community. The alternative was just unthinkable. He belongs in San Diego."

Tomlinson said, "I love San Diego and being a part of this team with my teammates. My No. 1 priority was to stay here in San Diego. I truly believe this is the place that gives me the best chance to be successful and win a championship. I want to finish the job we started when I got here eight years ago. My heart has always been in San Diego. I couldn't imagine putting on another uniform.

"I really appreciate the role Dean played throughout this process. He made it work for everyone and I appreciate his friendship more than he knows."

Awwww twu luv.

What no quote from AJ Smith?

I see LT didn't thank him.:)

Xenos
03-10-2009, 10:33 PM
What no quote from AJ Smith?

I see LT didn't thank him.:)

AJ already spilled out his heart on radio about how he felt about LT and the misunderstanding that led to this mess.

Xenos
03-10-2009, 10:34 PM
I agree that he is better as a utility player but it doesn't matter what we think what matters is what he and his agent think.

I would not be shocked at all if his agent is telling him to play on the tag and test FA next year I for one really don't see him signing a new deal with SD.
His agent also realizes the importance of getting more money, otherwise Sproles would have signed that tag two weeks ago.

Splat
03-10-2009, 10:51 PM
His agent also realizes the importance of getting more money, otherwise Sproles would have signed that tag two weeks ago.

Your right but I'm pretty sure he is thinking starter money not back up money he won't get that kinda deal in SD.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2009, 10:55 PM
I still can't believe they tagged Sproles.

Me too. Waste of money on a glorified third down runningback.

How the hell do you tag Sproles but let Michael Turner walk for nothing? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

JRTPlaya21
03-10-2009, 10:57 PM
Glad they didn't dump him. One of the all-time greats when it's all said and done.

Xenos
03-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Me too. Waste of money on a glorified third down runningback.

How the hell do you tag Sproles but let Michael Turner walk for nothing? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Once again, we haven't lost any money because Sproles hasn't signed yet. And I strongly believe he won't.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2009, 11:44 PM
Once again, we haven't lost any money because Sproles hasn't signed yet. And I strongly believe he won't.

What's he going to do, sit out this year? He's got until June 15 to sign the tender, he's in no rush.

Xenos
03-11-2009, 12:05 AM
What no quote from AJ Smith?

I see LT didn't thank him.:)
Players will always thank the owner because they're the one who write the checks. For example, you will always hear NE players thank Mr. Kraft, but never hear them thank Mr. Pioli.

Xenos
03-11-2009, 12:07 AM
What's he going to do, sit out this year? He's got until June 15 to sign the tender, he's in no rush.
Read my previous posts on why Sproles would rather sign a long term deal than sign a tag. He's not Terrell Suggs in terms of running backs (I use that analogy because they both have the same agent). He's going to want a long term deal that gives him more guaranteed money than the franchise tag. If he signs the tag and hurts himself during the season then he'll miss out on more money the next year as well as more financial security. So it's in his interest and his agent to try to get a long term deal now.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-11-2009, 12:11 AM
I wonder if Tomlinson never did anything meaningful again in the NFL how long it would take him to get into the HOF.

LonghornsLegend
03-11-2009, 12:20 AM
Still think they should of franchised Turner last off-season, and no that's not really hindsight because I feel like someone in the organization should have known what they had in Turner, and that LT was growing older each year.


Sproles was a huge part of what they did last year, but I also don't think it's hard to find guys like him, at least not as hard as it is to find another LT or Michael Turner for that matter.

yourfavestoner
03-11-2009, 12:30 AM
Read my previous posts on why Sproles would rather sign a long term deal than sign a tag. He's not Terrell Suggs in terms of running backs (I use that analogy because they both have the same agent). He's going to want a long term deal that gives him more guaranteed money than the franchise tag. If he signs the tag and hurts himself during the season then he'll miss out on more money the next year as well as more financial security. So it's in his interest and his agent to try to get a long term deal now.

No **** it's in his best interest to get a long term deal. But what is he going to do if there's not a long term deal in place by June 15? He's going to have to sign the tender.

Xenos
03-11-2009, 12:45 AM
No **** it's in his best interest to get a long term deal. But what is he going to do if there's not a long term deal in place by June 15? He's going to have to sign the tender.
Hey dude. Take it easy. No need to be a ****ing *****. You said the tag was a waste and I just pointed out that it wasn't yet because nothing has been signed. They have until June 15, and if it gets that far I think a long term deal will be in place. There's too much risk for Sproles to just sign the tag right away.

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 02:26 AM
Turner WAS tagged, he played 2007 under the tag. They didn't do it twice because sometimes you must let a bird spread its wings and fly.

Sproles became our entire offense and kicking game late last year, to call him a glorified third down back is a bit of a misnomer. He's a gamechanger and the organization didn't want to lose him just yet.

Xenos
03-11-2009, 04:03 AM
Turner WAS tagged, he played 2007 under the tag. They didn't do it twice because sometimes you must let a bird spread its wings and fly.

Sproles became our entire offense and kicking game late last year, to call him a glorified third down back is a bit of a misnomer. He's a gamechanger and the organization didn't want to lose him just yet.

They decided to be nice with Turner. In hindsight, they should have tagged and traded him. Though I wonder if they would have got a second for an unproven back.

Brent
03-11-2009, 10:00 AM
It's still possible to deal Sproles during the draft, right?

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 10:15 AM
It's still possible to deal Sproles during the draft, right?

Yep, and it's been floated, although personally I don't feel it's likely.

bantx
03-11-2009, 11:24 AM
Sproles would leave if he was guaranteed a starting position, but he knows its not likely someone would give him that money or the opportunity. So he'll wait for that long term deal, Ive heard he has the same agent as Suggs and hes done something similar to what hes doing now, not signing the tender and waiting for the long term deal to get worked out.

EDIT just read xenos post so he basically said the same thing i said about Suggs and the same agent.

Xenos
03-11-2009, 01:10 PM
Sproles would leave if he was guaranteed a starting position, but he knows its not likely someone would give him that money or the opportunity. So he'll wait for that long term deal, Ive heard he has the same agent as Suggs and hes done something similar to what hes doing now, not signing the tender and waiting for the long term deal to get worked out.

EDIT just read xenos post so he basically said the same thing i said about Suggs and the same agent.
The difference is that Suggs is one of the best DE in the league. It's more like comparing Merriman's eventual contract. Sproles, on the other hand, is a specialist who won't get nearly the same monetary interest in running back terms as say a Michael Turner.

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 02:04 PM
Thank god the only uniforms we will ever see LT in are Bolts and Vizio. I'm still pumped about this.

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 02:21 PM
I wonder if Tomlinson never did anything meaningful again in the NFL how long it would take him to get into the HOF.

1st ballot.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/makeitrainiantomlinson/Clipboard10-1.gif

2006 MVP
2006, 2007 Rushing Leader
141 career touchdowns (126 rushing, #2 all time.)
11,760 career rushing yards. (#14 all time, 1000 yards to get to #6)
3,801 career receiving yards.
7 career tackles. (ZOMG)
7 career passing TDs, all time record by a RB is 8 (Payton)

1900+ rushing yards in 16 career games against the Raiders.

San Diego Chicken
03-11-2009, 05:18 PM
I feel great that Chargers got this done. It's a smart business move, because Tomlinson has alot of value as an ambassador for the Chargers. The running game still needs to be fixed on the OL. Right now San Diego has no right guard and our RT is average at best.

nepg
03-11-2009, 05:21 PM
They're just extending their mistake of letting Turner go and keeping Tomlinson last year... Sproles is an idiot if he doesn't sign that F-tag and refuse to negotiate until next off-season. His risk of injury is low, and he holds all the cards.
________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 06:37 PM
They're just extending their mistake of letting Turner go and keeping Tomlinson last year... Sproles is an idiot if he doesn't sign that F-tag and refuse to negotiate until next off-season. His risk of injury is low, and he holds all the cards.

Yes LT is a horrible mistake. Thanks for the input, yay freedom of speech.

Here's a gem from the presser:

Now that the contract negotiations are done, when do you start negotiations with Norv Turner about returning the halfback option?

“We just got through talking about that to be honest with you. Norv has told me that, I don’t want to give it away to all the teams out there, but you’d better watch out. It’s going to be in.”

Time to show all these wildcats how it's really done! Make it rainian Tomlinson~

Matthew Jones
03-11-2009, 07:06 PM
I'm not sure how much Tomlinson is worth, or whether he'll be any good in three years, as running backs tend to drop off around this point and Tomlinson has looked to continue that trend in the past three years, but we're talking about one of the best players in franchise history here, so obviously the dynamic is changed a little bit.

That said, I don't think he's going to be too effective in three years and I would be trying like hell right now to sign Darren Sproles to a long-term deal. If he's not receptive to that at all, I don't think San Diego stays with just Tomlinson after Sproles leaves. He's a 300-1,000-10 guy right now, which isn't bad, but it's not a Pro Bowl level anymore. This deal was primarily based on reputation over production.

cdf_2108
03-11-2009, 08:33 PM
He's a 300-1,000-10 guy right now, which isn't bad, but it's not a Pro Bowl level anymore. This deal was primarily based on reputation over production.


I don't think the front office of the chargers is being nice. I think a 300-1000-10 guy is valuable to any team that doesnt have a rising star. He's not getting a blockbuster 5-6 year deal, he's gettinga 300-1000-10 kind of contract, seems fair and he and sproles should continue to be an effective part of their offense. Now that Rivers, Osgood, and Jackson are developing some chemistry and of course Gates, they don't really need Michael Turner. So i disagree with the guys who are saying that it was a mistake to let Turner go, no way back in 2007 you can sign turner to a long term deal without having to significantly shorten LT's playing time...LT was still just 1` year removed from arguably the best season a RB has ever had. Nobody really knew how mediocre of a year LT was going to have, everybody was pretty optimistic i feel at the beginning of 2008..

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 08:59 PM
I don't think the front office of the chargers is being nice. I think a 300-1000-10 guy is valuable to any team that doesnt have a rising star. He's not getting a blockbuster 5-6 year deal, he's gettinga 300-1000-10 kind of contract, seems fair and he and sproles should continue to be an effective part of their offense. Now that Rivers, Osgood, and Jackson are developing some chemistry and of course Gates, they don't really need Michael Turner. So i disagree with the guys who are saying that it was a mistake to let Turner go, no way back in 2007 you can sign turner to a long term deal without having to significantly shorten LT's playing time...LT was still just 1` year removed from arguably the best season a RB has ever had. Nobody really knew how mediocre of a year LT was going to have, everybody was pretty optimistic i feel at the beginning of 2008..

Despite your bizarre reference to Osgood actually seeing the field as a wideout (Floyd? Actually my buddy knows Osgood from his Aztec days and says he's being vetted at safety this offseason, he hits like a mack truck after all) this is a great post.

Anyone ripping on Turner's lack of a long term contract would essentially be advocating giving the reigning 2x rushing leader (only 28) and franchise GOD the boot for a backup. I am bitter about Turner but only because we got no compensation when there were plenty of trade rumors out there.

Xenos
03-11-2009, 09:11 PM
They're just extending their mistake of letting Turner go and keeping Tomlinson last year... Sproles is an idiot if he doesn't sign that F-tag and refuse to negotiate until next off-season. His risk of injury is low, and he holds all the cards.
Why would Sproles be an idiot for wanting to get a long term contract with more guaranteed money than the franchise tag? And he did miss the entire 2006 season because of one freak incident in the preseason game so anything can happen. Man, if only we had Sproles during that season, we might have beaten the Patriots.

cdf_2108
03-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Despite your bizarre reference to Osgood actually seeing the field as a wideout (Floyd? Actually my buddy knows Osgood from his Aztec days and says he's being vetted at safety this offseason, he hits like a mack truck after all) this is a great post.

.

haha yeah i got him confused with floyd...they seem to be coming along nicely, people used to say SD receivers were irrelevant, but those two with chambers provided some nice deep threats for Rivers

CC.SD
03-11-2009, 09:53 PM
haha yeah i got him confused with floyd...they seem to be coming along nicely, people used to say SD receivers were irrelevant, but those two with chambers provided some nice deep threats for Rivers

I have always liked Floyd but never in a million years thought he'd still be around. That he caught Rivers' first TD pass is a great little tidbit.

nepg
03-12-2009, 09:40 AM
I don't think the front office of the chargers is being nice. I think a 300-1000-10 guy is valuable to any team that doesnt have a rising star. He's not getting a blockbuster 5-6 year deal, he's gettinga 300-1000-10 kind of contract, seems fair and he and sproles should continue to be an effective part of their offense. Now that Rivers, Osgood, and Jackson are developing some chemistry and of course Gates, they don't really need Michael Turner. So i disagree with the guys who are saying that it was a mistake to let Turner go, no way back in 2007 you can sign turner to a long term deal without having to significantly shorten LT's playing time...LT was still just 1` year removed from arguably the best season a RB has ever had. Nobody really knew how mediocre of a year LT was going to have, everybody was pretty optimistic i feel at the beginning of 2008..

That's why you trade LT. He was obviously toast, and the Chargers should have jumped on that before the rest of the league figured it out.
________
StickyAndSweet (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/StickyAndSweet)

Bengalsrocket
03-12-2009, 12:29 PM
That's why you trade LT. He was obviously toast, and the Chargers should have jumped on that before the rest of the league figured it out.

Just because you get some draft picks doesn't mean you'll get a good RB in return. I'd take LT's 300-1000-10 over half of the starting RB's in the league / up coming draft.

Remember folks, not everyone on your team is going to be a superstar. For one, you can't afford to pay 22 superstars to start on your team, and secondly it's near impossible to find that many superstars.

As far as Turner already being there, it's unfortunate they got rid of him with no compensation, but they had three good halfbacks on the roster, and had to make a decision. Maybe not the best one, but I don't think anyone in San Diego is crying about having Tomlinson / Sproles.

Xenos
03-12-2009, 08:40 PM
Just because you get some draft picks doesn't mean you'll get a good RB in return. I'd take LT's 300-1000-10 over half of the starting RB's in the league / up coming draft.

Remember folks, not everyone on your team is going to be a superstar. For one, you can't afford to pay 22 superstars to start on your team, and secondly it's near impossible to find that many superstars.

As far as Turner already being there, it's unfortunate they got rid of him with no compensation, but they had three good halfbacks on the roster, and had to make a decision. Maybe not the best one, but I don't think anyone in San Diego is crying about having Tomlinson / Sproles.

We could still get a third round or fourth round compensation pick. We could use that pick to get a decent guard or center in this draft (which is pretty deep in olinemen especially guards can fit in our system).

Splat
03-12-2009, 10:33 PM
L.T. EYEBALLED SAINTS, RAVENS, BRONCOS (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/03/12/lt-eyeballed-saints-ravens-broncos/)

Not that is matters now but some thing to think about.

CC.SD
03-13-2009, 01:27 AM
L.T. EYEBALLED SAINTS, RAVENS, BRONCOS (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/03/12/lt-eyeballed-saints-ravens-broncos/)

Not that is matters now but some thing to think about.

The Broncos definitely means he was ready to stick it to AJ if he cut him. Saints=Drew, Ravens=Cam.

E-Man
03-17-2009, 07:09 PM
I'm glad he's staying put. I'm a big LT fan, and I really want to see him finish his HOF career in San Diego. I think he'll put together a few more decent seasons.

BlindSite
03-17-2009, 07:10 PM
I'd really like to see him get the rushing record, but I don't think he will.

E-Man
03-17-2009, 07:23 PM
I'd really like to see him get the rushing record, but I don't think he will.

I don't think so either. Maybe the TD rush record, but even that would take alot. But I'm an Emmitt Smith mark so I kinda want that record to hold for awhile.:) But LT is a Texas native so it wouldn't be that bad. lol

SenorGato
03-17-2009, 07:43 PM
LT getting the rushing record would require SD to get an offensive line that absolutely destroys run D's.

The rushing record requires the endurance of a compiler who doesn't take risks...someone like Emmitt Smith.

I respect guys like Smith of course...to be durable in a sport where men beat the crap out of each other is stunning...but he was an extremely lucky man and I don't even consider him one of the top 5 backs in history...sh*t he really might not even make my top 10 if I thought about it...can't confirm that one though.

Splat
03-17-2009, 09:08 PM
I have to agree as much as I respect E.Smith he is not a top 5 all time back.

iowatreat54
03-17-2009, 09:18 PM
I have to agree as much as I respect E.Smith he is not a top 5 all time back.

Payton, Sanders, Brown, Sayers, Dickerson...yea, skill wise Smith isn't top 5. Overall, I believe Smith is top 5 but more like 4 or 5, no contest. Smith doesn't even touch top 3 without question.

Xenos
03-17-2009, 09:27 PM
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/17/17chargers-tomlinson-contract-compromise172417/?chargers

Numbers show compromise in new Tomlinson deal
By Kevin Acee

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The numbers on LaDainian Tomlinson's reworked contract are in, and they tell a story of compromise.

Tomlinson forfeited at least $6.125 million in potential salary over the three years on the deal, though he does have a chance to earn back $2 million of that by reaching yardage milestones in 2010.

Tomlinson, credited last week by team President Dean Spanos and General Manager A.J. Smith for helping the team create salary cap room so it could try to sign other players, afforded the Chargers approximately $4.1 million in cap relief over the three years.

As reported previously, Tomlinson will make $6.725 million in 2009, same as in the old contract. But $2.875 million was in a signing bonus, which means that amount is prorated over the life of the contract and saves the Chargers $1.25 million in cap room for '09.

Tomlinson's 2010 base salary is $3 million, of which $1 million is guaranteed even if he is released. There is also a $2 million roster bonus due next March, which means the Chargers have to release Tomlinson before then or pay him that money. Tomlinson can also make $2 million in incentives in 2010.

His 2011 salary is $6.15 million.

While Tomlinson was scheduled to make $24 million between now and 2011, he still has the potential to make almost $20 million.

“Being fair was what I was looking for,” Tomlinson said last week after agreeing to terms. “Not to really try to break the bank, just to be fair. That was all I was looking for. The Chargers have always been that. I didn't think they wouldn't be fair, and when it came down to it they were.

“(Providing cap relief for the team) is to get players here and help us win games. I've never been a selfish guy. The more guys we can have here to help us win. ... History tells us usually you do restructure late in your contract, and sometimes you don't get to; you end up getting released or traded. I was just happy I got the chance to restructure rather than be released or traded.”