Houston and Miami could have Deshaun Watson deal (update - no deal prior to trade deadline)

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

OK. I think most everybody can agree with this. So why do you think he’s not?

That’s the question. Makes no sense to me, but I don’t know the ins and outs of the commissioner’s exempt rule.  It’s possible they’ve told the Texans that if they activate Watson, they’ll put him on the exempt list.  
 

 

[frostbitmic]

How many points will Watson put up against the Falcons today ?

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

OK. I think most everybody can agree with this. So why do you think he’s not?

 

No idea.  He would have been wise to---especially with a guy who is clearly going to be traded to a team that will pay a king's ransom and won't want to sit him indefinitely.

 

 

[Warcodered]

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Didn't see this up-thread.  Mike Florio talks about a potential trade for Watson by the Dolphins and lays it out

 

(for those who don't know, Florio has a law degree from WVU, entered the bar, and practiced as a litigator for almost a decade before making a career change to sportswriting)

 

https://dolphinstalk.com/2021/10/21/mike-florio-talks-about-dolphins-possibly-trading-for-watson-this-week/

1:25 in:

Myles Simmons: "If Watson does get traded, does this mean you think he's going to be able to play this year?  You don't think that the Commisioner would step in and say we're going to put you on the exempt list?"

Mike Florio: "We Don't know."

"We reported back in September that the NFL has not decided what to do about DeShaun Watson because it doesn't need to make a decision because the Texans are already putting him on paid leave.  So the NFL would have to move forward.... here's the reality.  Personal conduct policy, paid leave, ...All these things are a PR tool for the NFL.  So the NFL will ultimately do whatever it thinks it needs to do to advance its PR interests.  And this WFT stuff, and all the criticism the league is taking for that...you could say "they don't want any more heat in the Hot Kitchen, they're not going to let DeShaun Watson on the field.  The other side, oh, we'd much rather be criticized for letting DeShaun Watson play, maybe they'll leave us alone on the WFT Investigation.  I don't know which way it goes.  But it's all a High Level PR Game for the NFL.  It's not about Legalities, It's not about Right and Wrong, it's about PR.  How much grief will we take, how aggressive will it be, how deserved will it be from the media and from the fans, if we let this guy play with 22 civil lawsuits pending alleging sexual assault and sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions and 10 criminal complains that have yet to be resolved.  Look, if I'm the Dolphins, I'm assuming there's a pretty damned good chance the commissioner's going to say that he can't play." (he goes on to talk about whether that would still help the Dolphins)

 

So there you have it.  At least one US trained and formerly practicing lawyer lays it out there pretty bluntly - it's about PR, it's not about legalities (YIKES!)  But he doesn't seem to have any concerns that legalities would PREVENT the NFL from utilizing the Commissioner's Exempt List for any reason at this point.

That's a great summary of the situation, and I can't see the league thinking that Watson would distract from the WTF situation and not just compound it the two things have too many of the same issues. The thing from this that people may be ignoring is the league doesn't need to be successful in keeping on the list just off the field this year which would likely still be the case even if manages to appeal the decision as that's not likely to happen quickly.

 

I'd also say if the plan is to get Watson to play this year it's really already too late, even if the league didn't put him on the exempt list if they made the trade at this point he's not going to be playing against us next week and that's absolutely a game they would of needed him for.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Do you (and GB) think Watson should be on the exempt list now?

 

Yes. I thought he should have gone on as soon as the pre-season was over.

[Doc]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

No idea.  He would have been wise to---especially with a guy who is clearly going to be traded to a team that will pay a king's ransom and won't want to sit him indefinitely.

No idea at all? Come on, I gave you the most obvious explanation a few pages ago: it was an agreement among Watson/his agent, the NFLPA, Goodell/the league and the Texans that the Texans would make him inactive instead of putting him on the list. Any team in the NFL would be privy to this information and know that if they don’t also make him inactive after trading for him, he will put them on the exempt list.  So there’s nothing to challenge.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

No idea at all? Come on, I gave you the most obvious explanation a few pages ago: it was an agreement among Watson/his agent, the NFLPA, Goodell/the league and the Texans that the Texans would make him inactive instead of putting him on the list. Any team in the NFL would be privy to this information and know that if they don’t also make him inactive after trading for him, he will put them on the exempt list.  So there’s nothing to challenge.

 

Interesting theory. Whether a player could agree to that in a way that was legally binding is an interesting question. Would have to go back to the precise wording of the CBA. What do you think Watson's reasoning for agreeing to that would be? Cos it isn't financial, on the exempt list he still gets paid.

[Mr. WEO]

33 minutes ago, Doc said:

No idea at all? Come on, I gave you the most obvious explanation a few pages ago: it was an agreement among Watson/his agent, the NFLPA, Goodell/the league and the Texans that the Texans would make him inactive instead of putting him on the list. Any team in the NFL would be privy to this information and know that if they don’t also make him inactive after trading for him, he will put them on the exempt list.  So there’s nothing to challenge.

 

Why would Goodell go through all that?  If he wants "The Shield"  to "look good", he should just take charge and exempt him, as he has done with others in the past?

 

Why would the NFLPA agree to this?  What do they get out of secretly agreeing to bench one of their stars?

 

Why would the team that trades for him agree to do the same?  Even if some "secret deal" with the Texans existed, nothing prevents the player for challenging/appealing exemption on his next team.

 

The only "obvious" deal is between the Texans and Watson:  he won't play for them, they won't play him.  Watson isn't playing because he told them in February that he would never play another game for them.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why would Goodell go through all that?  If he wants "The Shield"  to "look good", he should just take charge and exempt him, as he has done with others in the past?

 

Why would the NFLPA agree to this?  What do they get out of secretly agreeing to bench one of their stars?

 

Why would the team that trades for him agree to do the same?  Even if some "secret deal" with the Texans existed, nothing prevents the player for challenging/appealing exemption on his next team.

 

The only "obvious" deal is between the Texans and Watson:  he won't play for them, they won't play him.  Watson isn't playing because he told them in February that he would never play another game for them.

 

Doesn't matter why he would go through all that: he did, did he not?  You and everyone else agrees he should be on the list and he's not.  I gave the most obvious and reasonable explanation.

 

31 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Interesting theory. Whether a player could agree to that in a way that was legally binding is an interesting question. Would have to go back to the precise wording of the CBA. What do you think Watson's reasoning for agreeing to that would be? Cos it isn't financial, on the exempt list he still gets paid.

 

Less of a stigma and ability to practice and attend games.  And maybe the ability to be traded.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Doesn't matter why he would go through all that: he did, did he not?  You and everyone else agrees he should be on the list and he's not.  I gave the most obvious and reasonable explanation.

 

We don't know about any "deal".  Neither do you.

 

And again, it's impossible to include "Watson/his agent" in such an imagined scheme.  HE (not the Texans or the NFLPA) decided he would not play for them weeks  before any of these allegations  came out.  They were refusing to trade him and fully expecting him to honor his contract. 

 

 

[Doc]

37 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

We don't know about any "deal".  Neither do you.

 

And again, it's impossible to include "Watson/his agent" in such an imagined scheme.  HE (not the Texans or the NFLPA) decided he would not play for them weeks  before any of these allegations  came out.  They were refusing to trade him and fully expecting him to honor his contract.

 

We don't need to know of a specific deal: it's obvious what happened.  Saying "I have no idea at all" or thinking that Goodell forgot to put him in the exempt list is no answer at all.

 

And Watson/his agent would be involved in a "this is how it's going to be done" type of way.  They wouldn't have had much say.

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

We don't need to know of a specific deal: it's obvious what happened.  Saying "I have no idea at all" or thinking that Goodell forgot to put him in the exempt list is no answer at all.

 

And Watson/his agent would be involved in a "this is how it's going to be done" type of way.  They wouldn't have had much say.

 

So the deal includes "an agreement" with  the player who declared he would not play another game for them many months ago?  And somehow the NFLPA is in on it too, for reasons unknown?  lol, ok.  

 

Watson (February): "i'm never playing another down for you"

 

Texans (months later): "we've made a deal with the Commissioner that we aren't going to play you"

 

Anyway, let me ask you a different way:  do you think the player can't challenge his placement on the exemption list? 

 

If you agree he can, how would Goodell answer the question "given this player has been under investigation for 8 months and you never exempted him, why have you now exempted him?  What new evidence has prompted this action?"

 

You're saying Goodell could just say "oh there's no new evidence.  I had a secret deal with the Texans to keep  him from playing"?

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

So the deal includes "an agreement" with  the player who declared he would not play another game for them many months ago?  And somehow the NFLPA is in on it too, for reasons unknown?  lol, ok.  

 

Watson (February): "i'm never playing another down for you"

 

Texans (months later): "we've made a deal with the Commissioner that we aren't going to play you"

 

Anyway, let me ask you a different way:  do you think the player can't challenge his placement on the exemption list? 

 

If you agree he can, how would Goodell answer the question "given this player has been under investigation for 8 months and you never exempted him, why have you now exempted him?  What new evidence has prompted this action?"

 

You're saying Goodell could just say "oh there's no new evidence.  I had a secret deal with the Texans to keep  him from playing"?

 

Yes, he says he's not playing for them and they agree not to activate him, so no need for the exempt list.  The idea is the player doesn't play, by whatever means.  He's traded to, say, the Dols, he wants to play for them and the Dols want to activate him, Rog puts him on the exempt list to prevent him from playing.

 

There's no need for it to be a "secret" deal.  Just because we don't know about it doesn't make it "secret."

 

Sure Watson can challenge it.  If he's dumb enough to do it, he wouldn't win because, again as you admitted, everyone knows he should be on the exempt list.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Doc

[TBBills]

Tua is making the decision easier by the week.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Yes, he says he's not playing for them and they agree not to activate him, so no need for the exempt list.  The idea is the player doesn't play, by whatever means.  He's traded to, say, the Dols, he wants to play for them and the Dols want to activate him, Rog puts him on the exempt list. 

 

There's no need for a "secret" deal.  Just because we don't know about it doesn't make it "secret."

 

Sure Watson can challenge it.  He wouldn't win because, again as you admitted, he should be on the exempt list.

 

but he's not.  Him switching jerseys seems an arbitrary reason to exempt him.   His lawyer would ask Goodell what are the criteria for exemption. Then he will ask if Watson met those criteria at any time from March until he was traded.  Wouldn't an arbitrator want to know that? And the NFLPA?

 

Even if such a deal exists (obviously it doesn't include the player, his agent or his union), my point has been that Goodell has set himself to fail on his threat to any another team to exempt Watson immediately if they put him on their roster.  Hence, since there was no downside to exempting Watson back in the spring as the accusations piled up, he should have done it.  No reason not to.  It would be consistent with other exemptions. 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[DJB]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Posted after the horrible game by Darnold and his benching. Smells fishy

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Texans HQ: "So which hot seat QB had a terrible game this week?"

[billsherd]

5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

I like that, get more teams involved and get the asking price higher.

[78thealltimegreat]

It seems pretty obvious if your QB is playing mediocre get a bunch of lackeys with ties to the Texans to leak your teams name in association with the serial massager 

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, billsherd said:

I like that, get more teams involved and get the asking price higher.

 

Makes sense. They are already done on Darnold.

[HappyDays]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Makes sense. They are already done on Darnold.

 

Another blown up offseason narrative - Darnold was not bad just because of Adam Gase. He simply does not have the mental makeup needed to be a starting QB.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

Another blown up offseason narrative - Darnold was not bad just because of Adam Gase. He simply does not have the mental makeup needed to be a starting QB.

 

Yea. I have to say I thought he'd be kinda middle of the road Daniel Jones good enough with those weapons to have Carolina in playoff contention. He has unravelled very quickly. He is toast.

[Scott7975]

I also thought Darnold would be decent QB without Gase.  Guess not.

[HappyDays]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

I also thought Darnold would be decent QB without Gase.  Guess not.

 

I knew his career was over when he ran out of bounds short of the line of scrimmage on a 4th down play last year. Teenagers playing Madden have more awareness than that. That isn't Adam Gase's fault. People act like if one part of the team is bad you can't judge the other parts. I hope the Dolphins use the same logic to keep Tua as their QB for the next couple years.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

but he's not.  Him switching jerseys seems an arbitrary reason to exempt him.   His lawyer would ask Goodell what are the criteria for exemption. Then he will ask if Watson met those criteria at any time from March until he was traded.  Wouldn't an arbitrator want to know that? And the NFLPA?

 

Even if such a deal exists (obviously it doesn't include the player, his agent or his union), my point has been that Goodell has set himself to fail on his threat to any another team to exempt Watson immediately if they put him on their roster.  Hence, since there was no downside to exempting Watson back in the spring as the accusations piled up, he should have done it.  No reason not to.  It would be consistent with other exemptions.

 

It's not arbitrary at all.  Again the point is the player shouldn't be playing while he's under investigation (a player gets paid and benefits on the exempt list so money isn't the/an issue), and if he's being made inactive by the team and/or refusing to play, that's what is happening and Goodell is allowing it.  And sure, maybe all the player/his agent/the NFLPA's involvement is being told "this is how we're doing it while you're on the Texans but if you get traded it's either inactive or exempt list," but he won't be playing again until his legal situation is resolved and punishment, if any is deemed necessary, is meted-out.

 

13 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

I'm sure more will be interested.  Which is why they would be smart to wait to trade him.

[Warcodered]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Another blown up offseason narrative - Darnold was not bad just because of Adam Gase. He simply does not have the mental makeup needed to be a starting QB.

Are we sure Gase hasn't died and come back to haunt Darnold, he's apparently admitted the ability to see ghosts before.

[Doc]

Darnold is who I thought he was after his sophomore season of college. 

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's not arbitrary at all.

 

It is from a legal perspective. The law is interested in actions not contexts. Your reason for a change of approach can't be context. That is arbitrary. 

[UKBillFan]

Peter King on Sky in the UK saying he expects Carolina or Miami might overpay for Watson before the trade deadline despite not knowing about future sanctions.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It is from a legal perspective. The law is interested in actions not contexts. Your reason for a change of approach can't be context. That is arbitrary. 

 

But Gunnar, the aspect of the law that this concerns is a collectively bargained contract under which the league/commissioner have broad powers to discipline players for vaguely-defined “conduct detrimental to the league”.  Which can basically be, whatever the NFL/Goodall says it is, acted upon whenever the NFL/Goodall decide to act on it (independent of legal proceedings or “material new information” discovered during them)

 

The only action the law is interested with regard to voiding league disciplinary actions, is “did they follow their own procedures?” And you have yet to explain how, in acting now and not earlier, they wouldn’t be.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

But Gunnar, the aspect of the law that this concerns is a collectively bargained contract under which the league/commissioner have broad powers to discipline players for vaguely-defined “conduct detrimental to the league”.  Which can basically be, whatever the NFL/Goodall says it is, acted upon whenever the NFL/Goodall decide to act on it (independent of legal proceedings or “material new information” discovered during them)

 

The only action the law is interested with regard to voiding league disciplinary actions, is “did they follow their own procedures?” And you have yet to explain how, in acting now and not earlier, they wouldn’t be.

 

I have explained that. You don't buy my explanation. You are entitled not to. They wouldn't be because changing your mind on whether behaviour warrants the exempt list based on context rather than evidence is to my mind very clearly by law an irrational use of powers. Where we disagree is whether the Commissioner is allowed to act irrationally. I say he isn't that is one of the limits on his power (remember the Court of Appeals accepts that there are limits even though it didn't spell them out) and to act irrationally is to exceed the authority give to the arbitrator . He is allowed to make errors of fact. The court has no business getting involved if he has used his powers rationally but on the basis of fundamentally flawed evidence that in the words of the material you quote previously "wouldn't pass the muster in a local traffic court." But he is not allowed to act irrationally. That would equate to exceeding one's powers. 

[Meatloaf63]

On 10/20/2021 at 3:36 PM, Dont Stop Billeiving said:

Hope he winds up in the NFC, but couldn't blame Miami for swinging for the fences. It's their only move at this point.

Why would Houston want to wait till 2023 for a first round pick. Miami only has a 2nd rounder to give them for the next draft?

[Scott7975]

4 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Why would Houston want to wait till 2023 for a first round pick. Miami only has a 2nd rounder to give them for the next draft?

 

Miami has 49ers first rounder I think.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Why would Houston want to wait till 2023 for a first round pick. Miami only has a 2nd rounder to give them for the next draft?

 

Miami has San Fran's #1 next year.

[Rc2catch]

Carolina is really low on draft capital. They’d have to package some decent level players into any possible deal I’d imagine plus future picks which have less value. 

[Meatloaf63]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Miami has San Fran's #1 next year.

Did not know, I just heard all their fans complaining they gave their pick to Philly. 

[YoloinOhio]

8 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Did not know, I just heard all their fans complaining they gave their pick to Philly. 

They did and they are complaining because it looks like it will be a top 5 pick. But they also have SF’s pick. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

It's not arbitrary at all.  Again the point is the player shouldn't be playing while he's under investigation (a player gets paid and benefits on the exempt list so money isn't the/an issue), and if he's being made inactive by the team and/or refusing to play, that's what is happening and Goodell is allowing it.  And sure, maybe all the player/his agent/the NFLPA's involvement is being told "this is how we're doing it while you're on the Texans but if you get traded it's either inactive or exempt list," but he won't be playing again until his legal situation is resolved and punishment, if any is deemed necessary, is meted-out.

 

 

I'm sure more will be interested.  Which is why they would be smart to wait to trade him.

Again, they can tell him all of that, but if he challenges it,  Goodell has to explain his decision not to xempt him under circumstances in which he has exempted others.   His answer can’t be “I’ll do whatever I want” because that’s no longer true.

 

Also. given that the next team will be getting a player who is at least exempted, possibly suspended and at worst criminally charged as the legal process goes forward, how does Watson’s value to the Texans as trade go up the longer they wait?

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have explained that. You don't buy my explanation. You are entitled not to. They wouldn't be because changing your mind on whether behaviour warrants the exempt list based on context rather than evidence is to my mind very clearly by law an irrational use of powers. Where we disagree is whether the Commissioner is allowed to act irrationally. I say he isn't that is one of the limits on his power (remember the Court of Appeals accepts that there are limits even though it didn't spell them out) and to act irrationally is to exceed the authority give to the arbitrator . He is allowed to make errors of fact. The court has no business getting involved if he has used his powers rationally but on the basis of fundamentally flawed evidence that in the words of the material you quote previously "wouldn't pass the muster in a local traffic court." But he is not allowed to act irrationally. That would equate to exceeding one's powers. 

 

You haven’t actually.  You keep referencing legal actions and the law, but the point is, the relevant standard isn’t a legal standard, it’s the standard set out in the NFL/NFLPA CBA for “conduct detrimental” - which is vague as hell. 

 

There’s nothing that says the NFL’s definition of “conduct detrimental” or its decision as to when to apply that standard has to meet a your standard of “rational behavior” - what standard for “rational behavior”?  Decided upon by whom?  You said it - it’s in your mind that applies.  

 

Florio spelled it out quite clearly:  This isn’t about legalities, the “conduct detrimental” and the rest of it are PR tools for the league, and the league will act in its PR interests.  As far as the flawed evidence, the NFL controls its own investigation and evidence can be brought forward as “new to them” at any point they like.  But then whether they actually had or could have had or should have had the evidence months ago becomes a moot point.  We’ve seen that over and over and over again with different NFL disciplinary matters.

 

I’m out.  You aren’t interested in reviewing any of the material I linked or transcribed that disagrees with your assumptions about how this process works in the US and I’m not going to persuade you of anything.