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

[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.