BarleyNY

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.

He would have been very cheap in year 1 for the Bills at about $1.2M, but then about $12M/year for the next 3. So it seems like it would have been a short term play. Two seasons at $6.6M AAV or even three at $8.4M AAV is reasonable if he stayed reasonably healthy. Nothing significant hanging over the team’s head if they had to cut him either.

I do not think Basham was supposed to play much in his rookie season. He did get some time and did okay, especially in the post season. We should be getting a better idea of what we have in him this year.

Sure, but you are still operating under the assumption that Beane is being forthcoming. Two years in a row he said he got the last guy he had a first round grade on. :Eyeroll

Why would anyone take an NFL GM at his word about the draft? Before it, after it, whatever. Every one of them say the same things about all of their picks. It means nothing.

Her personal quote is unintentionally hilarious in context of her Walmart incident.

Maybe we can get a game in Moscow next year Probably goes along with the American Cowboy lore that is popular around the world. Cowboys are likely 3rd for that reason.

I remember reports that Whaley was so angry about having no real role in the draft that he walked out of the War Room mid draft.

While Goodell obviously works for the owners and takes direction on big issues from them, the narrative that dismisses him as little more than a figurehead and errand boy for 32 owners is very exaggerated by NFL fans. He has plenty of responsibility and quite a bit of opportunity to influence and inform the owners. The closest comparison to this situation I can come up with is the negotiation for the 2006 CBA. The owners spent so much time infighting that the league could not properly negotiate with the NFLPA. This resulted in Goodell telling the owners that there was a bad deal on the table, but that - due to them not getting on the same page - they needed to take it. They did, by a 30-2 vote IIRC. The one positive thing for the owners that he got added the agreement was an opt out clause that enabled an early exit. Vote year 2, exit after year 5 IIRC. The owners got their act together and stuck it to the players pretty good on the next deal. So it’s certainly possible that Goodell encountered something similar with owners this time too. But I still contend that it drug out as long as it possibly could have and was managed horribly in the interim. I will give him this though. Once he did move forward, he did a fantastic job of it. It was like a team went 1-16, 2-15, then 15-2 and won the SB performance-wise.

And here I thought he’d have to do things like: - direct research on issues that impact the NFLs bottom line - determine possible courses of action and likely consequences of each course - recommend a plan (or plans) of action - determine contingency plans for above - lead or delegate important courses of action That’s what one would expect of someone in such a position. But apparently just an incredibly well paid figurehead. Crazy.

That can’t have anything to do with him. I just read that he just does what the owners tell him to do after they decide everything. Pretty good gig at almost $50M a year.

You seriously think Goodell’s job is to just be a mouthpiece for the owners after they get done arguing with each other?

How can you be sure of that? It’s difficult for me to believe that 30 owners wanted him to drag his feet for 2 years on the issue. And it’s even more difficult for me to believe that none of the owners would listen to his council on the matter, which is a big part of his job. I am sure that some owners had different personal opinions on the matter and that they wanted him to deal with it in a way that reflected those opinions. But, again, it is his job to manage conflicts like that.. and let’s face it, the overarching goal of NFL owners is to make money. It’s no surprise that the NFL’s stance on the matters at hand changed when public opinion changed. It’s about marketability and profitability. Maybe Goodell didn’t have a lot of great options, but did he really do a job worthy of the $40M-$50M he makes every year?

While I don’t think there is a single decent or likable person in that article, there is one good point. It took Goodell and the NFL waaaay too long to properly address the protests during national anthems. Goodell has a tough job, but he chooses to do it and he gets paid an obscene amount of money for it. The reality is that he performed poorly - or at least egregiously slowly - in that difficult situation.