Russ benched

[pittpnthrs]

Haha. You get dumber by the post. I didn't think that was possible

I'd ask what the issue is, but I know you didn't understand the grown up conversation you commented on.

 

[RiverDog]

I'd really like to know what in the collective bargaining agreement or in New York law (not sure why that's applicable to the DENVER Broncos, maybe because the NFL is based in NY?) guarantees a player a starting position. So if Pete sits DK because he had too many penalties the week before, he's violating the CBA? Serious question.

Yes, the NFL is based in New York, so like any other business, they're subject to that state's laws.

I don't know the details of the CBA and how it applies with this current situation with Russell, but I do agree with the concept, that teams should not be allowed to use what is essentially an unfair labor practice to force players to renegotiate terms of an agreement that they themselves were a party to.

But the problem with this situation is that the burden of proof is on the accuser, ie the prosecution, and there is no verifiable evidence that the threat actually occurred let alone that he was benched for a non-football reason. IMO the union/Wilson would need a smoking gun, ie emails, text messages, recorded conversations, something of that nature that shows he was benched in an attempt to force him to take out his injury clause in order for them to successfully sue the Broncos.

To the contrary, there is evidence that supports the exact opposite, that Wilson started 7 straight games after the threat was supposedly made, he was benched after the team had lost 3 of the past 4 games and were virtually eliminated from playoff contention. Even if the Broncos plan on keeping him, it would be a reasonable action to protect him from getting injured in a meaningless game, treat it like a preseason game.

But I have no doubt that the Broncos did make the threat and that benching Russell, although it may not have been retaliation for him not removing the clause, was likely done to prevent him from getting injured so they didn't have to be on the hook for $35M or so.

 

[IndyHawk]

Russell Wilson was mic’d up for what was likely his final start for Broncos

Russell Wilson was mic'd up for what might have been his last start with the Broncos.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Torc]

Yes, the NFL is based in New York, so like any other business, they're subject to that state's laws.

I don't know the details of the CBA and how it applies with this current situation with Russell, but I do agree with the concept, that teams should not be allowed to use what is essentially an unfair labor practice to force players to renegotiate terms of an agreement that they themselves were a party to.

I don't think it's unfair to ask a player to renegotiate portions of a contract. Teams do it all the time, usually with the intent of freeing up cap space. Russ is within his rights to say "no" but I don't think it's unethical to ask a player to come back to the bargaining table - the player has the leverage in this case.

To me the point of the injury clause is to protect the player from the financial impact of a severe injury - if he were to tear his ACL or blow a hamstring it's reasonable to expect to not be back to full strength for two years (thus the guarantee of the 2025 season). But sitting him because the team plans to release him after the season prevents him from sustaining that injury, and after his release he'll be free to sign with another team for the market value of his skills. Essentially, he wants a guarantee that he'll be able to be paid for games that the team has no plan of him playing. I think the team is well within it's rights to make sure he doesn't get injured. (of course, barring language in the contract or the CBA that would prevent this scenario)

 

[jammerhawk]

B-O-O H-O-O!!!

Who cares?

Glad he’s no longer a Seahawks problem.

 

[RiverDog]

I don't think it's unfair to ask a player to renegotiate portions of a contract. Teams do it all the time, usually with the intent of freeing up cap space. Russ is within his rights to say "no" but I don't think it's unethical to ask a player to come back to the bargaining table - the player has the leverage in this case.

I don't, either, but if they're threatening him with benching, in my eyes, that's an unfair labor practice. I'm not sure how good of an analogy this is, but one that I can think of would be if your prof in a college class threatens you with a failing grade if you didn't pay the lab fee on time. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

To me the point of the injury clause is to protect the player from the financial impact of a severe injury - if he were to tear his ACL or blow a hamstring it's reasonable to expect to not be back to full strength for two years (thus the guarantee of the 2025 season). But sitting him because the team plans to release him after the season prevents him from sustaining that injury, and after his release he'll be free to sign with another team for the market value of his skills. Essentially, he wants a guarantee that he'll be able to be paid for games that the team has no plan of him playing. I think the team is well within it's rights to make sure he doesn't get injured. (of course, barring language in the contract or the CBA that would prevent this scenario)

I agree with you, that the Broncos are well within their rights to sit him to prevent injury for any reason, financial or otherwise. It's a virtually meaningless game anyway, so treat it like a glorified preseason game.

My problem is with the supposed threat. IMO it's an unfair labor practice.

 

[jammerhawk]

Undoubtedl, but not contrary to their CBA.

 

[ccla]

But what if the Broncos said: you are not playing for us next year. If you want to continue playing to showcase your abilities and land a new starting gig then you are going to have to waive your guarantee, otherwise we are going to sit you because we fo not want to be on the hook for another 35m. Would that be considered a threat?
This is a serious question, because i am not a lawyer and would like to know.

 

[RiverDog]

But what if the Broncos said: you are not playing for us next year. If you want to continue playing to showcase your abilities and land a new starting gig then you are going to have to waive your guarantee, otherwise we are going to sit you because we fo not want to be on the hook for another 35m. Would that be considered a threat?
This is a serious question, because i am not a lawyer and would like to know.

I would say yes, that would be a threat, ie unfair labor practice.

And like you, I should qualify my remarks by saying that I am not a labor attorney, but I have worked as a manager in an environment with labor unions for 40 years. Not that it makes me an expert.

 

[renofox]

Yes, the NFL is based in New York, so like any other business, they're subject to that state's laws.

I don't know the details of the CBA and how it applies with this current situation with Russell, but I do agree with the concept, that teams should not be allowed to use what is essentially an unfair labor practice to force players to renegotiate terms of an agreement that they themselves were a party to.

But the problem with this situation is that the burden of proof is on the accuser, ie the prosecution, and there is no verifiable evidence that the threat actually occurred let alone that he was benched for a non-football reason. IMO the union/Wilson would need a smoking gun, ie emails, text messages, recorded conversations, something of that nature that shows he was benched in an attempt to force him to take out his injury clause in order for them to successfully sue the Broncos.

To the contrary, there is evidence that supports the exact opposite, that Wilson started 7 straight games after the threat was supposedly made, he was benched after the team had lost 3 of the past 4 games and were virtually eliminated from playoff contention. Even if the Broncos plan on keeping him, it would be a reasonable action to protect him from getting injured in a meaningless game, treat it like a preseason game.

But I have no doubt that the Broncos did make the threat and that benching Russell, although it may not have been retaliation for him not removing the clause, was likely done to prevent him from getting injured so they didn't have to be on the hook for $35M or so.

I agree with what you're saying, but I have a slight caveat.

Your interpretation is based on the benching being the act that caused damages.

I have not read the CBA and have only heard other's synopses of the complaint, but it sound like he is alleging that the damages were caused by the initial act of using threats as coercion to renegotiate the contract mid-season (as opposed to off-season when that strategy is acceptable).

The act of benching is only being used as one point of evidence that the initial threats were, in fact, made. The strongest point of evidence is the union complaint made 2 months before the benching. That far outweighs the evidentiary value of the actual benching. The benching serves to support the complaint, but is not strong evidence in itself.

 

[RiverDog]

I agree with what you're saying, but I have a slight caveat.

Your interpretation is based on the benching being the act that caused damages.

I have not read the CBA and have only heard other's synopses of the complaint, but it sound like he is alleging that the damages were caused by the initial act of using threats as coercion to renegotiate the contract mid-season (as opposed to off-season when that strategy is acceptable).

The act of benching is only being used as one point of evidence that the initial threats were, in fact, made. The strongest point of evidence is the union complaint made 2 months before the benching. That far outweighs the evidentiary value of the actual benching. The benching serves to support the complaint, but is not strong evidence in itself.

I completely agree. The fact that Russell started 7 straight games after the supposed threat to bench him was made and that the team had lost three out of the last four and was virtually eliminated from playoff contention is very strong evidence that his benching was a football decision.

IMO the only way that the union/Wilson could win this case would be if they find a smoking gun, an email, text message, eyewitness accounts, etc, that occurred a few days before the benching.

The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution, and in this case, although I fully believe that the Broncos did make a threat, there's no way to prove it.

 

[renofox]

I completely agree. The fact that Russell started 7 straight games after the supposed threat to bench him was made and that the team had lost three out of the last four and was virtually eliminated from playoff contention is very strong evidence that his benching was a football decision.

IMO the only way that the union/Wilson could win this case would be if they find a smoking gun, an email, text message, eyewitness accounts, etc, that occurred a few days before the benching.

The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution, and in this case, although I fully believe that the Broncos did make a threat, there's no way to prove it.

Agreed. Actual evidence aside from the union complaint may be non-existent. Even with the preponderance standard, which is usually laughably easy to meet, this is far from a slam dunk. It will depend on the Arbitrator who is assigned to the case.

 

[LastRideOut]

I can see the comparisons with the Carr benching last season BUT I think a more apt comparison is the benching of Eli Manning for.... guess who? Geno.

What did Eli do? Did he whine about it to the media? Did he leak stories to the media about contract stuff? No of course he didn't, because he's not Russ. What did Eli do? He put on his big boy pants and said he'll be a good teammate and support Geno.

 

[keasley45]

I don't, either, but if they're threatening him with benching, in my eyes, that's an unfair labor practice. I'm not sure how good of an analogy this is, but one that I can think of would be if your prof in a college class threatens you with a failing grade if you didn't pay the lab fee on time. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

I agree with you, that the Broncos are well within their rights to sit him to prevent injury for any reason, financial or otherwise. It's a virtually meaningless game anyway, so treat it like a glorified preseason game.

My problem is with the supposed threat. IMO it's an unfair labor practice.

Is there any proof of a threat? Written, recorded? Or is this just ME3 camp spin?

 

[RiverDog]

Is there any proof of a threat? Written, recorded? Or is this just ME3 camp spin?

None that I'm aware of. But I don't doubt his account. It makes perfect sense that they'd do something like that. As the saying goes, follow the money.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I don't, either, but if they're threatening him with benching, in my eyes, that's an unfair labor practice. I'm not sure how good of an analogy this is, but one that I can think of would be if your prof in a college class threatens you with a failing grade if you didn't pay the lab fee on time. One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

I agree with you, that the Broncos are well within their rights to sit him to prevent injury for any reason, financial or otherwise. It's a virtually meaningless game anyway, so treat it like a glorified preseason game.

My problem is with the supposed threat. IMO it's an unfair labor practice.

I think the disconnect is, if the action of benching him to protect against injury isn't against the CBA or labor laws ( as evidenced by the Carr situation last year ), how can telling the player you're gonna do that unless the injury guarantee date is moved in violation? That makes it hard to reconcile

 

[RiverDog]

I think the disconnect is, if the action of benching him to protect against injury isn't against the CBA or labor laws ( as evidenced by the Carr situation last year ), how can telling the player you're gonna do that unless the injury guarantee date is moved in violation? That makes it hard to reconcile

Benching him to protect him from injury isn't against the CBA. Teams do it all the time, especially when they rest their starters in a meaningless game, such as the Niners will be doing this weekend, so they'll be fresh for the playoffs. It's a football decision meant to increase their chances of winning the next game.

The problem is the threat to remove the clause. If the team doesn't like that clause, then they shouldn't have agreed to it to being put in the contract in the first place. The only reason why they want to remove it now is that they've apparently decided to move on from Russell. It's a purely financial move on the Broncos part that has nothing to do with football.

 

[Torc]

I'm curious how that conversation was phrased. "We're going to play Stidham to avoid triggering the injury clause once we're out of playoff contention" is a slightly different conversation than "you must agree to eliminate the clause or we're going to bench you".

 

[Torc]

Benching him to protect him from injury isn't against the CBA. Teams do it all the time, especially when they rest their starters in a meaningless game, such as the Niners will be doing this weekend, so they'll be fresh for the playoffs. It's a football decision meant to increase their chances of winning the next game.

The problem is the threat to remove the clause. If the team doesn't like that clause, then they shouldn't have agreed to it to being put in the contract in the first place. The only reason why they want to remove it now is that they've apparently decided to move on from Russell. It's a purely financial move on the Broncos part that has nothing to do with football.

It has everything to do with football. If Russ gets injured in a meaningless game after they're out of contention, then that $37 million trigger impedes their ability to field a competitive team in 2025, even if (as we presume) he isn't on the team.

You can't separate the financial from the football. In the NFL they're almost the same thing.

 

[RiverDog]

It has everything to do with football. If Russ gets injured in a meaningless game after they're out of contention, then that $37 million trigger impedes their ability to field a competitive team in 2025, even if (as we presume) he isn't on the team.

You can't separate the financial from the football. In the NFL they're almost the same thing.

You're talking about a strategic or long-term management decision, like who to hire has your chief of scouting. I'm talking about winning the next game, a coaching decision.

If the Broncos didn't like that clause, then they shouldn't have been a party to the contract. They have only themselves to blame. I have zero sympathy for them.