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

[CincyBillsFan]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is true while he doesn't want to play (he doesn't in Houston) and while his team doesn't want him to play. Once on of those changes the situation changes.

Does it?  The NFL owes a player able to and/or willing to play a paycheck.  It would be a lot harder IMO to argue that they owe them playing time while they work through personal conduct issues.  This is like when a police officer is placed on paid leave.

 

Right now letting Watson play would be very damaging to the NFL if it turns out that criminal charges are brought.  On the other hand if Watson did nothing wrong it would be damaging to withhold his paycheck while he's being investigated.  The way it was described on Sirius NFL seemed very reasonable to me.

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

Does it?  The NFL owes a player able to and/or willing to play a paycheck.  It would be a lot harder IMO to argue that they owe them playing time while they work through personal conduct issues.  This is like when a police officer is placed on paid leave.

 

Right now letting Watson play would be very damaging to the NFL if it turns out that criminal charges are brought.  On the other hand if Watson did nothing wrong it would be damaging to withhold his paycheck while he's being investigated.  The way it was described on Sirius NFL seemed very reasonable to me.

 

But if Watson or his team wants him to play then what does the NFL do? It has to put him on the exempt list. And we end up back at the question that plagues this thread. How do they justify that now when they haven't justified it before? 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

Does it?  The NFL owes a player able to and/or willing to play a paycheck.  It would be a lot harder IMO to argue that they owe them playing time while they work through personal conduct issues.  This is like when a police officer is placed on paid leave.

 

Right now letting Watson play would be very damaging to the NFL if it turns out that criminal charges are brought.  On the other hand if Watson did nothing wrong it would be damaging to withhold his paycheck while he's being investigated.  The way it was described on Sirius NFL seemed very reasonable to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Why would he not get paid?

 

[CincyBillsFan]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why would he not get paid?

 

If he did what the women say he did should he get paid?

 

 

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But if Watson or his team wants him to play then what does the NFL do? It has to put him on the exempt list. And we end up back at the question that plagues this thread. How do they justify that now when they haven't justified it before? 

The NFL has to protect their reputation and not allow Watson to play until he is cleared.  As long as they pay him there's no damage to Watson.  But if he plays and it turns out he did what the women claim he did the NFL is seriously damaged.  This is a league that has invested enormously into attracting women to the game. 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

If he did what the women say he did should he get paid?

 

 

 

He would be in jail.  Texas doesn't pay prisoners for their work

 

But you said it would be wrong to withhold his paycheck while being investigated , but nobody has said anything about withholding his pay.  He's getting paid.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Mr. WEO

[FLFan]

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But if Watson or his team wants him to play then what does the NFL do? It has to put him on the exempt list. And we end up back at the question that plagues this thread. How do they justify that now when they haven't justified it before? 

Houston took it out of the league’s hands by declaring that Watson would remain on the active roster but would not play.  Once that situation changes, the league will be forced to declare a position. Their justification, though none is really needed, is that Houston’s action made NFL intervention moot.   I do not see the dilemma here.  If he is traded and the receiving team plans to play him, he will very likely end up on the exempt list.  The Commissioner has absolute authority on that.  

[Doc]

LOL!  No, Rog can absolutely demand that a trading team keep Watson inactive or threaten to put him on the exempt list until his legal issues are resolved.  There's also the PCP he can invoke.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Doc

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

[Mr. WEO]

Why does everyone keep posting “of course Goodell can put Watson on exempt list” when no one is saying he can’t?  

[Virgil]

End of the week is here and another BS rumor 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

The NFL has to protect their reputation and not allow Watson to play until he is cleared.  As long as they pay him there's no damage to Watson.  But if he plays and it turns out he did what the women claim he did the NFL is seriously damaged.  This is a league that has invested enormously into attracting women to the game. 

 

 

 

I don't disagree with that but I come back again to the legal position not necessarily being that straightforward.

7 hours ago, FLFan said:

Houston took it out of the league’s hands by declaring that Watson would remain on the active roster but would not play.  Once that situation changes, the league will be forced to declare a position. Their justification, though none is really needed, is that Houston’s action made NFL intervention moot.   I do not see the dilemma here.  If he is traded and the receiving team plans to play him, he will very likely end up on the exempt list.  The Commissioner has absolute authority on that.  

 

I am afraid that is not correct. A team cannot apply discipline in lieu of the NFL on a matter related to the personal conduct policy. That is beyond question. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why does everyone keep posting “of course Goodell can put Watson on exempt list” when no one is saying he can’t?  

that appears to be @GunnerBill’s position- that legally it would be tenuous to do so

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

that appears to be @GunnerBill’s position- that legally it would be tenuous to do so

 

Yep. He can do it. But I think it Watson / a trading team issued a legal challenge I think he would struggle to justify his change of approach unless there is new information pursuant to the actual allegations. 

 

I do think the more we have discussed this the legal advice Goodell is getting might be "it is legally questionable but even if they challenge by the time Watson got to a court to challenge it this season would be over and the embarrassment of him playing before the civil trial takes place is avoided." 

 

Again without going into details I am advising on something very similar right now. Where we ultimately expect we will lose but it suits our purposes to push the point at which we lose some distance into the future at the end of a legal process. 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

that appears to be @GunnerBill’s position- that legally it would be tenuous to do so

 

I've been saying as much as well.  Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.  He can put him on the list but Im not sure how that would be affirmed in arbitration.

 

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yep. He can do it. But I think it Watson / a trading team issued a legal challenge I think he would struggle to justify his change of approach unless there is new information pursuant to the actual allegations. 

 

I do think the more we have discussed this the legal advice Goodell is getting might be "it is legally questionable but even if they challenge by the time Watson got to a court to challenge it this season would be over and the embarrassment of him playing before the civil trial takes place is avoided." 

 

Again without going into details I am advising on something very similar right now. Where we ultimately expect we will lose but it suits our purposes to push the point at which we lose some distance into the future at the end of a legal process. 

 

indeed

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I've been saying as much as well.  Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.  He can put him on the list but Im not sure how that would be affirmed in arbitration.

 

On the arbitration issue, even Gunnerbill agrees that arbitration/the NFL process to appeal it would not change a thing:

 

I think it's time to explain exactly why you think Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.

I've explained exactly how I think that would work, several times now, and you and Gunner are not addressing this.

 

[Scott7975]

You guys know my stance on Watson being put on the list.  Lets say for arguments sake you are right @GunnerBill... What exactly do you think a trial would look like for Watson?  Might he not be questioned about the accusations?  It might not work in Watsons favor to try and push a trial with all his other legal issues going on.

 

[Doc]

52 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I've been saying as much as well.  Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.  He can put him on the list but Im not sure how that would be affirmed in arbitration.

 

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

[GunnerBill]

32 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

You guys know my stance on Watson being put on the list.  Lets say for arguments sake you are right @GunnerBill... What exactly do you think a trial would look like for Watson?  Might he not be questioned about the accusations?  It might not work in Watsons favor to try and push a trial with all his other legal issues going on.

 

 

If an appeal against an NFL arbitration decision ended up in the courts the court only has jurisdiction to hear that appeal. They would only be allowed to hear evidence relevant to the question of whether the Commissioner was acting within his powers. Now in the case where the NFL's defense is as Hapless argues it could be "well we have new information" then the court could interrogate the league about that evidence, but it could not question Watson about the allegations themselves. That would be outside of their jurisdiction. 

44 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think it's time to explain exactly why you think Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.

I've explained exactly how I think that would work, several times now, and you and Gunner are not addressing this.

 

 

He could try that. Maybe it works. Ultimately that would be for the court to decide. Remember it is established the Commissioner cannot act in bad faith. So in the long run he would still end up having to demonstrate that he did indeed have new information.

[Mr. WEO]

18 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

On the arbitration issue, even Gunnerbill agrees that arbitration/the NFL process to appeal it would not change a thing:

 

I think it's time to explain exactly why you think Goodell can't logically defend prohibiting the next team from playing Watson.

I've explained exactly how I think that would work, several times now, and you and Gunner are not addressing this.

 

 

I have done so multiple times.

 

If his behavior is such that he would deserve to be on the list, why isn't he?  As Gunner pointed out, the team's choice of handling a player's discipline has no bearing on the Commissioners actions to discipline a player.

 

An example is Antonio Brown.  Despite being investigated for assault, he was not initially placed on the exemption list -- because he was not on a team (released by Patriots).  It was understood that if a team signed him, he would likely be placed on the list.

 

Watson has been under investigation for multiple assaults for 8 months, yet the Commissioner has not put him on the exempt list.  His choice to exempt or not is  based on the situation of player/investigation/charges---not whether the team is doing some other discipline.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

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

 

 

Of course.  He is under investigation for multiple assault charges.  This is who gets exempted.

[Doc]

30 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Of course.  He is under investigation for multiple assault charges.  This is who gets exempted.

 

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