BarleyNY

He looks like he’s a finalist for One Direction 2.0

My favorite Best Supporting Actor Oscar winners are Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny and Kevin Klein for A Fish Called Wanda.

The answer is no with almost 100% certainty. I can’t see any reason that the grand juries were utilized other than to give prosecutors political rear end coverage for not bringing charges. They either knew they couldn’t get a conviction or that the evidence was not sufficient to bring charges. They needed a way out of indicting Watson that wasn’t on them and they found it. There’s no way they wade back into that kind of mess without incontrovertible evidence - and where are they going to get that now? So barring some damning bit of evidence that Buzbee has been sitting on coming to light there won’t be any more criminal action. Oh, and remember who Buzbee is. If he has that piece of info, he’ll use it as leverage to get a payday, not send Watson to jail.

No. Two grand juries already declined to indict him. So just civil cases and NFL punishment to come.

I admit that I'm generalizing with respect to companies. Most of the ones I’ve worked for have lacked ethics to a moderate or large degree. Laws were meant to either be adhered to technically or the violation of them was to be separated from management enough that they could claim ignorance. Luckily I am happy to be at a company that is very ethical, which has been a refreshing change.

Agree on NFL, but disagree on companies. They do little besides protect themselves and do what is in the interest of those at the top.

While it is possible things go this way, faking injury is not the best way for someone to set themselves up for their next opportunity.

There is a very big difference between dead cap from cutting overpaid players not performing to their contract and from kicking cap hits into future years. Star is an example of the former. We didn’t get our money’s worth out of him and are left with a fair bit of dead money because he had to be released before we originally planned to. Now consider a situation where a player lives up to his contract, but where cap hits are delayed. Assuming the cap increases every season (which it has except for the pandemic year and work stoppages), then that player’s percentage of the total cap is reduced. On large contracts that makes a real difference.

To the bolded question, teams have started to include team controlled options to restructure contracts. That way they don’t have to go through the process of getting the agent involved, they just execute their option.

They can void his contract if he doesn’t show or refuses to play (unless he has a legitimate football related injury). They’d do that in a heartbeat.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33933533/former-bears-rb-tarik-cohen-injured-live-streamed-workout?platform=amp Unsurprisingly the Achilles tear is confirmed.

I suspect the hold up with trading Mayfield has been that the Browns have not dropped their asking price - the combination of eating salary and draft pick compensation - enough. I think they’re hoping they get a desperate team. I see the logic. There really isn’t much risk to holding onto him for a bit. Heck, there’s still the chance that Mayfield’s emotions get the best of him and they wind up not owing him anything.

I would think that it is structured how Watson’s agent would have insisted it be done. Ultimately the NFL can postpone any suspension until after the courts finish. Then it would be served when he’s be making a much higher salary. The only wrench in the works is timing. His deal is set up to be restructured next season, which would look even worse than this does now - even though it’s also pretty standard cap stuff.

Yeah. It’s nuts. He could’ve had kept women with signed NDAs across the country (and globe) and it wouldn’t have been a blip on his financial radar. If all parties are happy with that kind of arrangement, then that seems fairly simple to me and a whole lot safer than going to a seedy rub and tug. Just the possibility of extortion alone….

That’s fair. IMO sex work where it is legal and it isn’t a situation where people are being exploited or put at risk is very different. Not really my thing, but I’ve got no problem with it.

I think context matters with respect to sex workers. IMO it matters a great deal whether a sex worker is trafficked - and whether someone paying for their services could reasonably assume that they were. In Watson’s case I doubt that the women involved were, but that’s not to say that he is not guilty of other things. I’m not getting worked up about him asking masseuses (and non-masseuses) for a HJ, but (allegedly) intentionally exposing himself and moving his body to cause his naughty bits to touch them is definitely way over a line. My first point above about sex workers is why I have such a huge issue with Robert Kraft and his frequenting of the Florida massage parlor. It’s common for trafficked women to be forced to work in those places and that’s not exactly a secret. Even if he could feign ignorance, it was made public that it was indeed the case. The women there had been lured to the US with the promise of legitimate jobs, then had their passports taken from them, were isolated and forced to work there. Even after all of that came out he did nothing to help them. A negligible amount of money for him could have helped them all, including the ones he took advantage of. You’d think he’d have some small amount decency (yeah, I know).

Fully guaranteeing the contract was almost certainly what Cleveland did to entice him. The structure was standard practice for cap purposes.

It’s exactly the same structure as any large contract. Von Miller’s is structured the same way, with a vet minimum salary in year 1. The Browns would have actually helped themselves by putting more salary into games that Watson would be suspended for. That’s because teams recoup cap space for the forfeited salary in that situation.

The “wanting an adult at QB” comment wasn’t exactly a press release. It was anonymously given to one reporter. Haslam denied saying it (though I think it likely that it likely was said by him). I’m sure Mayfield doesn’t want to play for the Browns again and the Browns don’t want him to. But to answer your question with the very obvious: $18.9M. If Mayfield refuses to play, practice or if he badmouths the organization badly enough, then the Browns can void his contract. Unless his emotions get the better of him, he will do what he has to in order to get paid.

I do not think he will be released anytime soon. The Browns will look for a trade partner until the they find one or the trade deadline passes (week 9). Then they might release him at that point or just keep him inactive every week. The only other possibility is that they make a deal where Mayfield takes a pay cut in order to be released.

Jacoby Brissett. He’s not as good as Mayfield can be, but they’d want to avoid any drama associated with Mayfield playing. Not really a winning scenario there for the FO. Plus they won’t want to give Mayfield practice reps with the first team. This assumes a short to moderate suspension.

I don’t think that Mayfield will ever take another snap for the Browns in a regular season game. But that’s because he won’t be asked to do that. If he was asked and he refused, then he’d forfeit his otherwise guaranteed $18.9M salary. The only out he would have is a football related injury.

I can think of $18.9M reasons Mayfield would play for the Browns this season.

No. It’s exactly how it would be structured for salary cap purposes if there were no threat of suspension. For example, Von Miller’s 6 year, $120M contract pays him the vet minimum salary of $1.1M this season.

Unless Lewan is in possession of real evidence that PFF has taken bribes (which is highly unlikely), then he is probably the one that’s in trouble. PFF is not a small business and that is a potentially very damaging accusation. I am surprised we have not seen a retraction by now. I’m sure he’s gotten a cease and desist letter from PFF’s lawyers discussing how slanderous his statements are and what the legal ramifications could be.