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

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:

The NFL hasn't put him on the list because they haven't had to. It's rationally fine. Im sure the NFL was in contact with the Texans over the situation from the beginning.  Im sure the Texans told him that Watson would sit, get paid, and not play a down of Texans football.  That is essentially the same as a commissioners exempt list.  Once the situation changes the NFL can act if it wants to.  There is nothing stopping them from doing so.  It's fair and rational.  All the league has to say is Watson was handled by the team and that is no longer the case so we are handling it.  Using better speak than that of course.

 

This.  Houston's inactive list is basically Rog's exempt list.  The only difference is that Watson can still practice and attend games.  I'm thinking that Rog/the league allowed the Texans to do that because it allows them to trade him, but I'm not sure if you can trade a player on the exempt list or not.  If he's dealt before his legal issues have been resolved, the new team either makes him inactive until they are or he goes on Rog's list.

[ColoradoBills]

42 minutes ago, Doc said:

but I'm not sure if you can trade a player on the exempt list or not. 

 

I don't think anyone does even the commissioner.  It's not spelled out anywhere.  Being the commissioner is the only person who can assign

a player to the list I would imagine he is the only one who can rule on a trade.

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

I don't think anyone does even the commissioner.  It's not spelled out anywhere.  Being the commissioner is the only person who can assign

a player to the list I would imagine he is the only one who can rule on a trade.

 

Yeah I couldn't find anywhere where it said either way. 

[longtimebillsfan]

8 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

 

I dont think that is true

 

 

 

And they can put him on it at anytime.  There is nothing in there that states they can't just because they havent

It is true based on ESPN radio.

[BuffaloBills1998]

So I think we can conclude that this trade isn’t happening lol. 

[longtimebillsfan]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No not expressly but by law they have to apply their own discipline policy in a rational way. So if they haven't yet and now want to they need a better explanation than "we we didn't think we needed to before." 

 

In which case if traded he will play.

That is correct. 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

 

 

The NFL hasn't put him on the list because they haven't had to. It's rationally fine. Im sure the NFL was in contact with the Texans over the situation from the beginning.  Im sure the Texans told him that Watson would sit, get paid, and not play a down of Texans football.  That is essentially the same as a commissioners exempt list.  Once the situation changes the NFL can act if it wants to.  There is nothing stopping them from doing so.  It's fair and rational.  All the league has to say is Watson was handled by the team and that is no longer the case so we are handling it.  Using better speak than that of course.

 

I am afraid legally it is not that clear cut.

[GunnerBill]

27 minutes ago, longtimebillsfan said:

That is correct. 

 

The deflategate judgment, even though the Court of Appeals reinstated the suspension, was pretty instructive about the boundaries of the NFL's power in enforcing it's own disciplinary procedure. I would submit that one must conclude that they can't make disciplinary decisions for presentational convenience. 

 

I repeat yet again for the thread that it might be the league puts Watson straight on the exempt list if he is traded and he and the NFLPA decide just to swallow it because of the optics of challenging a procedural point given the nature of the allegations he is facing. But I think if the NFL did put him on the exempt list and his legal team and the NFLPA challenged it they would have a medium-high chance of successful legal challenge.

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I am afraid legally it is not that clear cut.

 

Yeah but who would challenge it?  The differences between being inactive and the exempt list are you avoid the stigma of being on the exempt list and you have the ability to practice and attend games.  He's still getting paid and benefits.  So in that regard, the Texans (league?) are doing Watson a favor.  And I doubt anyone would disagree that he should be on the exempt list while his case is being investigated and this is a reasonable alternative.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but who would challenge it?  The differences between being inactive and the exempt list are you avoid the stigma of being on the exempt list and you have the ability to practice and attend games.  He's still getting paid and benefits.  So in that regard, the Texans (league?) are doing Watson a favor.  And I doubt anyone would disagree that he should be on the exempt list while his case is being investigated and this is a reasonable alternative.

 

You might be right. I have acknowledged that numerous times. Watson and the NFLPA might decide the optics of challenging a decision to put him on the exempt list at the point he is traded when he hasn't been before make it not worth it. But if they did I think they would have a better than average chance of winning. 

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

You might be right. I have acknowledged that numerous times. Watson and the NFLPA might decide the optics of challenging a decision to put him on the exempt list at the point he is traded when he hasn't been before make it not worth it. But if they did I think they would have a better than average chance of winning. 

 

Actually I'm thinking that if (there was a deal and) he's traded, it's with the caveat that the new team also has to make him inactive.  Or risk him being put on the exempt list.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Doc

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 10/22/2021 at 5:45 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

I think this is increasingly unlikely to be correct. I think there is a very good chance now that he gets on a field this season if traded. I see no legal basis in their own rules for the NFL to suddenly put him on the Commissioner's Exempt List once traded, with no material change in his legal situation, when they have failed to do so for the first 6 weeks of the season. I suppose the NFL could, behind closed doors, come to a gentleman's agreement with whoever is trading for him that he will continue to sit this season. Even then Watson could claim that is an unfair restriction of his labour and the Dolphins and the NFL would be hard pressed to argue that he is sitting for performance reasons if they give up a sizeable draft haul to get him. 

 

Don't like the way the NFL has handled this. He should have gone on the exempt list as soon as the regular season started IMO. By leaving it open and being content that he was never going to play in Houston because nobody wanted him to (including Watson himself) they have got themselves in a bit of a mess. Maybe they put him on the Commissioner's List post a trade and Watson and Dolphins decide because of the optics just to swallow that... but they wouldn't have to. I think they'd have a pretty sound basis to challenge the NFL on that. 

 

Gunner, with all respect, Give It a Rest.  You've repeated this multiple times now.  You can state what you believe to be true, Fine, we all can.  But AFAIK, you really don't know: do you have experience with litigating US employment law or deep knowledge of the prior applications of the NFL's personal conduct policy and court challenges to them?

 

From what I can see, the NFL's personal conduct policy is deliberately broad and open-ended and the NFL has traditionally behaved like the 2 ton grizzly bear: "where does it sit?" "anywhere it wants".  It does not appear to depend upon a "material change in his legal situation" or any aspect of his legal situation at all.  The NFL has acted in the past in the absence of criminal charges or a legal case. All the NFL has to do is claim findings from their own internal investigation, whose timeline they essentially control.

 

Of course the Dolphins and Watson's attorneys could legally challenge any decision by the NFL to place Watson on the exempt list or discipline him in any other way.  Players and their attorneys challenge NFL disciplinary decisions regularly.  Doesn't mean they win.

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/18/16141526/ezekiel-elliott-suspension-appeal-explained-nfl-domestic-violence

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said:

Until the legal issues are settled in court, the NFL will not begin their investigation into Watson nor will they place him on the commissioners exempt list.

 

Incorrect.  The NFL has already begun an investigation into Watson. 

https://theclemsoninsider.com/2021/03/18/nfl-opens-investigation-into-watson-allegations/

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-investigation-into-deshaun-watson-ongoing-and-active-qb-eligible-to-particip

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/08/13/the-problems-with-deshaun-watson-nfl-investigation

 

Previously, the NFL has not awaited completion of legal issues nor of their own investigation to place players on the commissioners exempt list.

https://www.nfl.com/news/what-is-the-reserve-commissioner-exempt-list-0ap3000000725141

Now in this case, the NFL points to obtaining new evidence after the Sheriff's Office released information, but nothing I read in their Personal Conduct Policy or the description of the Exempt List limits them to information released by law enforcement.

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

 

22 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Gunner, with all respect, Give It a Rest.  You've repeated this multiple times now.  You can state what you believe to be true, Fine, we all can.  But AFAIK, you really don't know: do you have experience with litigating US employment law or deep knowledge of the prior applications of the NFL's personal conduct policy and court challenges to them?

 

From what I can see, the NFL's personal conduct policy is deliberately broad and open-ended and the NFL has traditionally behaved like the 2 ton grizzly bear: "where does it sit?" "anywhere it wants".  It does not appear to depend upon a "material change in his legal situation" or any aspect of his legal situation at all.  The NFL has acted in the past in the absence of criminal charges or a legal case. All the NFL has to do is claim findings from their own internal investigation, whose timeline they essentially control.

 

Of course the Dolphins and Watson's attorneys could legally challenge any decision by the NFL to place Watson on the exempt list or discipline him in any other way.  Players and their attorneys challenge NFL disciplinary decisions regularly.  Doesn't mean they win.

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/18/16141526/ezekiel-elliott-suspension-appeal-explained-nfl-domestic-violence

 

 

With respect Hapless, while I am not a US attorney nor an expert on American employment law, civil and administrative law is my day job. While our systems and our law is different a lot of the fundamental principles are similar. You can present my opinion as just one among many if you like but I come at this with a good understanding of what I am talking about. When people want respond and question that I will engage with it. Apologies if that comes across as labouring the point, that was not my intention. 

 

Edit: as for the precedent point the deflategate rulings are instructive. They basically said the NFL can't sit "wherever it wants". It concluded that Goodell has "limited authority" in his role as arbitrator under the CBA. Even the Court of Appeals that actually reinstated the Brady suspension did not disagree on that point. They simply held that Goodell had not acted outside the bounds of that authority in determining the penalty in Brady's case. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by GunnerBill

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am afraid legally it is not that clear cut.

 

How so? Its perfectly rational to me.  Show me legally how it isn't.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

How so? Its perfectly rational to me.  Show me legally how it isn't.

 

Because the law is concerned with actions not context. The information about the alleged actions that Watson is being suspended for have not changed. All thar has changed is the context. If the NFL has new information about the allegations it can change its decision on whether to exempt list him at any point. 

[Scott7975]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Because the law is concerned with actions not context. The information about the alleged actions that Watson is being suspended for have not changed. All thar has changed is the context. If the NFL has new information about the allegations it can change its decision on whether to exempt list him at any point. 

 

That doesn't really matter.  In essence Watson is being "disciplined" by his supervisor (Texans.) The manager (NFL/Goodell) is ok with that.  Supervisor transfers Watson to a different department in which Watson may not be "disciplined."  Manager is now not ok with that and enforces discipline.

 

At the end of the day a trade is unlikely to happen anyways.  It's PR suicide for any team to make a trade for Watson.  This is like the 4th time that this "trade talks heating up" stuff has happened this season.  It's all bogus.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Scott7975

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

That doesn't really matter.  In essence Watson is being "disciplined" by his supervisor (Texans.) The manager (NFL/Goodell) is ok with that.  Supervisor transfers Watson to a different department in which Watson may not be "disciplined."  Manager is now not ok with that and enforces discipline.

 

At the end of the day a trade is unlikely to happen anyways.  It's PR suicide for any team to make a trade for Watson.  This is like the 4th time that this "trade talks heating up" stuff has happened this season.  It's all bogus.

 

He might not be traded. Agree with that. Never disputed it.

 

As for your interpretation at the top that is not the way the CBA works. The Commisioner's authority to impart disciplinary sanctions is unaffected by team discipline. A team can not discipline a player "in lieu" of the NFL for a breach of the personal conduct policy.

Edited October 23, 2021 by GunnerBill

[Mr. WEO]

Why would a team trading for him agree not to play him?  

54 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Gunner, with all respect, Give It a Rest.  You've repeated this multiple times now.  You can state what you believe to be true, Fine, we all can.  But AFAIK, you really don't know: do you have experience with litigating US employment law or deep knowledge of the prior applications of the NFL's personal conduct policy and court challenges to them?

 

From what I can see, the NFL's personal conduct policy is deliberately broad and open-ended and the NFL has traditionally behaved like the 2 ton grizzly bear: "where does it sit?" "anywhere it wants".  It does not appear to depend upon a "material change in his legal situation" or any aspect of his legal situation at all.  The NFL has acted in the past in the absence of criminal charges or a legal case. All the NFL has to do is claim findings from their own internal investigation, whose timeline they essentially control.

 

Of course the Dolphins and Watson's attorneys could legally challenge any decision by the NFL to place Watson on the exempt list or discipline him in any other way.  Players and their attorneys challenge NFL disciplinary decisions regularly.  Doesn't mean they win.

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/18/16141526/ezekiel-elliott-suspension-appeal-explained-nfl-domestic-violence

 

 

 

If I'm the Dolphins and the Commish calls me and says "keep him out of the game or I will put him on MY Exemption List", I'm definitely seeking arbitration ruling here.  As Gunner says, Rog can't make a convincing argument that Watson did not belong on the List in Houston, but he does belong on it in Miami.

[Scott7975]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He might not be traded. Agree with that. Never disputed it.

 

As for your interpretation at the top that is not the way the CBA works. The Commisioner's authority to impart disciplinary sanctions is unaffected by team discipline. A team can not discipline a player "in lieu" of the NFL for a breach of the personal conduct policy.

 

I agree with most of the stuff you post on this board.  You are a very smart person.  I simply disagree with you on this topic.  I believe if the NFL wants to later put Watson on the list that they have every right to do so and will if its needed.

 

I'm just going to leave it at agree to disagree.