Players union wants Eagles to cut Owens (1 Viewer)

[FrostBite]

link

"We're not asking them to play him, we can't force them to do that," Gene Upshaw, the NFLPA's executive director, said Wednesday. "But if they're not going to let him come back to practice and do all the other things associated with that, then we want them to cut him, let him become a free agent now."

"A team has the right to inactivate a player for whatever reason it wants," he said. "But in T.O.'s case, this is a team suspension, not a commissioner's deal. They're different. When we bargained in those rules, there was a reason for it. The most a player can be suspended is four games. You can't go beyond that."

 

[JohnnyU]

Interesting, and thanks for the info

 

[PoolShark]

Is this the first thread on this subject? I was reading this online at work 2 hours ago.

 

[ericttspikes]

I knew the NFLPA wouldn't lie down over this one. No matter what anybody thinks of TO. If the Eagles can sit him for being a jerk all year that is bad for all players...period. CBA is coming due soom, mark it down, if they don't figure out a fair resolution to this now it will impact things in 2008.

 

[JohnnyU]

As much as I despise TO, I do think allowing the Eagles to prevent TO from playing the rest of the year gives the owners too much power. However, there should be a rule where only teams from the other conference can sign him if he wants to play this year.

 

[packersfan]

Did Upshaw take the same position when the Bucs did the same thing to Keyshawn a couple of years ago? Just curious because I don't recall. If he did then he's being consistent but if he didn't you have to wonder why he's making an issue here when he didn't then.

 

[Red Apples]

if he is cut..he can be picked up by...1) houston2) green bayimagine to w/ farve.

 

[The Commish]

What can the players' association do though? It was laid out plain and simple to TO...either apologize or you won't play. It's not like they ambushed him and sprung this on him. He knew his choices and the consequences that would result from those choices. He chose poorly and now has to sit. Seems pretty simple to me. If the players association wanted to step in, they should have stepped in when the rules were laid out...not after the fact.

 

[John 14:6]

But wasn't precedent set when the same thing happened to Keyshawn a few years back in TB?IMO the Eagles should be able to sit him all they want. They can sit any of their other players for whatever reason, why not TO?

 

[The Commish]

As much as I despise TO, I do think allowing the Eagles to prevent TO from playing the rest of the year gives the owners too much power. However, there should be a rule where only teams from the other conference can sign him if he wants to play this year.

I guess this is where I view the situation differently. The Eagles did not force him NOT to apologize on time. This suspension was the result of laid out stipulations that TO was fully aware of.....so IMO, TO is preventing himself from playing....

 

[chet]

After the suspension, he's going to get paid. Fair enough in my book.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

As much as I despise TO, I do think allowing the Eagles to prevent TO from playing the rest of the year gives the owners too much power. However, there should be a rule where only teams from the other conference can sign him if he wants to play this year.

I guess this is where I view the situation differently. The Eagles did not force him NOT to apologize on time. This suspension was the result of laid out stipulations that TO was fully aware of.....so IMO, TO is preventing himself from playing....

I feel the same as well. I think the Eagles gave him an ultimatum last week. He failed to live up to what they spelled out and they suspended him for the year.

 

[The Commish]

After the suspension, he's going to get paid. Fair enough in my book.

More than fair if you ask me. But I understand they have to follow the rules....seems like they are.

 

[PoolShark]

But wasn't precedent set when the same thing happened to Keyshawn a few years back in TB?

IMO the Eagles should be able to sit him all they want.  They can sit any of their other players for whatever reason, why not TO?

They're saying that is isn't the same, because the Bucs didn't suspend him first. They only deactivated him for the last 4 or 5 (?) games. The gripe is that you can't do both.

I don't really get the arguement, though. They say the Eagles should either cut him or keep him, but they don't have to let him play.

If you're TO, would you rather collect a cool million for doing nothing, or would you want to have to practice all week with the team, knowing you would never hit the field?

 

[JetMaxx]

If the Eagles can sit him for being a jerk all year that is bad for all players...period.

If a player can try get instant free agency by being a team cancer and a jackass, that's bad for the NFL.

 

[John 14:6]

If the Eagles can sit him for being a jerk all year that is bad for all players...period.

If a player can try get instant free agency by being a team cancer and a jackass, that's bad for the NFL.

 

[CalBear]

Owens has no leverage here. There's no contractual difference between sitting someone because he's a jerk, and sitting someone because he sucks. It's exactly the same as every other "play me or trade/cut me" scenario; the player is expressing what he wants, but doesn't have anything in the contract on his side.

 

[Bird]

As much as I despise TO, I do think allowing the Eagles to prevent TO from playing the rest of the year gives the owners too much power.  However, there should be a rule where only teams from the other conference can sign him if he wants to play this year.

I guess this is where I view the situation differently. The Eagles did not force him NOT to apologize on time. This suspension was the result of laid out stipulations that TO was fully aware of.....so IMO, TO is preventing himself from playing....

I feel the same as well. I think the Eagles gave him an ultimatum last week. He failed to live up to what they spelled out and they suspended him for the year.

And that's the Union's gripe. The most a team can suspend a player under the CBA is four games. They're going to claim this psuedo-inactive-suspension violates the spirit of the agreement.

 

[glumpy]

Did Upshaw take the same position when the Bucs did the same thing to Keyshawn a couple of years ago? Just curious because I don't recall. If he did then he's being consistent but if he didn't you have to wonder why he's making an issue here when he didn't then.

My question as well--anyone?edit--I guess not, based on Poolshark's post.

 

[The Commish]

As much as I despise TO, I do think allowing the Eagles to prevent TO from playing the rest of the year gives the owners too much power.  However, there should be a rule where only teams from the other conference can sign him if he wants to play this year.

I guess this is where I view the situation differently. The Eagles did not force him NOT to apologize on time. This suspension was the result of laid out stipulations that TO was fully aware of.....so IMO, TO is preventing himself from playing....

I feel the same as well. I think the Eagles gave him an ultimatum last week. He failed to live up to what they spelled out and they suspended him for the year.

And that's the Union's gripe. The most a team can suspend a player under the CBA is four games. They're going to claim this psuedo-inactive-suspension violates the spirit of the agreement.

Isn't that all they ARE suspending him for? Four weeks? Then they will inactivate him. I am assuming the suspension is just so they don't have to pay him. I am sure they don't really care one way or the other suspension/deactivation....they just want rid of it, but figure if they can suspend him, maybe save some money in the process. I don't see a problem with it.

 

[The Commish]

Did Upshaw take the same position when the Bucs did the same thing to Keyshawn a couple of years ago? Just curious because I don't recall. If he did then he's being consistent but if he didn't you have to wonder why he's making an issue here when he didn't then.

He didn't have to. Keyshawn never filed a grievence with the NFLPA.

 

[Sundog]

My understanding, which might be wrong, is that a team cannot suspend a player w/o pay for longer than 4 games. After that, the team has to pay him, but doesn't have to play him. The Eagles have suspended TO for 4 games. During this period, the team will not pay him. When he comes off suspension, the team will have to pay his salary again, but there's no obligation to play him, and the team has said they won't. Deactivating a player isn't the same as suspending him -- the key difference is whether the player is paid or not.

 

[Bird]

Isn't that all they ARE suspending him for? Four weeks? Then they will inactivate him. I am assuming the suspension is just so they don't have to pay him. I am sure they don't really care one way or the other suspension/deactivation....they just want rid of it, but figure if they can suspend him, maybe save some money in the process. I don't see a problem with it.

Will they let TO practice with the team during the week? I think not. So the "deactivation" is a continuation of the four game suspension. Now if the Eagles let him practice after the suspension but deactivate him on gameday then I think the Union has no argument.

 

[ericttspikes]

If the Eagles can sit him for being a jerk all year that is bad for all players...period.

If a player can try get instant free agency by being a team cancer and a jackass, that's bad for the NFL.

Why? All I see are the talking heads saying only a handful of teams would want him anyway and at a very reduced rate. No question that being a cancer limits a players ability to make money. Heck, he stood to make way more cash with the Eagles if he was "nice" to folks. Sure he could sit home and make cash, but he wants to play. Not many NBA teams wanted to deal with Rodman either. The Lakers couldn't deal with him and released him after 23 games. They didn't shelve him for the season, they got rid of him only for him to land with San Antonio where he only played 12 games. Rodman was WAY worse than TO. He'd not show for games, kicked a camera man in the nuts, partied hard before games, etc. TO, as far as we know, didn't like McNabb and the Eagles front office. Bother were talented jerks, but worlds apart.

 

[ericttspikes]

Did Upshaw take the same position when the Bucs did the same thing to Keyshawn a couple of years ago? Just curious because I don't recall. If he did then he's being consistent but if he didn't you have to wonder why he's making an issue here when he didn't then.

He didn't have to. Keyshawn never filed a grievence with the NFLPA.

Yeah, Key was excited to make money for doing nothing. I remember him interviewed sitting at home with his USC hat smilling ear to ear. Key can't hold TO's jock, and he actually wants to play....imagine that.

 

[bostonfred]

As much as I despise TO, I do think allowing the Eagles to prevent TO from playing the rest of the year gives the owners too much power.  However, there should be a rule where only teams from the other conference can sign him if he wants to play this year.

I guess this is where I view the situation differently. The Eagles did not force him NOT to apologize on time. This suspension was the result of laid out stipulations that TO was fully aware of.....so IMO, TO is preventing himself from playing....

I feel the same as well. I think the Eagles gave him an ultimatum last week. He failed to live up to what they spelled out and they suspended him for the year.

And that's the Union's gripe. The most a team can suspend a player under the CBA is four games. They're going to claim this psuedo-inactive-suspension violates the spirit of the agreement.

Isn't that all they ARE suspending him for? Four weeks? Then they will inactivate him. I am assuming the suspension is just so they don't have to pay him. I am sure they don't really care one way or the other suspension/deactivation....they just want rid of it, but figure if they can suspend him, maybe save some money in the process. I don't see a problem with it.

The spirit of the CBA limiting a suspension for conduct detrimental to the team to four games is to place a limit on the punishment that a team can give. There's a cap on the punishment that can be doled out to a player, and the Eagles have made it clear they are benching him because of his behavior, so it is clear that they are punishing him with more than a 4 game suspension. I doubt they'll be able to force the Eagles to drop him, and I doubt the Eagles would be willing to drop him until/unless they are out of contention. So basically, they're fighting for about 800,000 of salary for Owens if they can block the suspension.

 

[FrostBite]

That's fine that they don't want him to play, but their angle is that he should be allowed back into practice and the training facility. They can not tell someone to not come to practice... that is the punishment that is above and beyond the 4 game suspension.

 

[Muahahaha]

I have a sneaky suspicion the union is going to win this one. I have been trying to get TO in return for one of my backup WRs in all my leagues. Just doesn't seem right to me that you can forbid a player who is on your roster from showing up for work, inactive or not. I think Upshaw has a good point. This situation is not one that the union can/should accept; this would set a very bad precedent.

 

[Da Guru]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash. The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

 

[Muahahaha]

I have also yet to see TO get dropped in any of my leagues. However, he has dropped from the FBG top 200.

 

[ericttspikes]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash. The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

Exactly. Parcells wouldn't dance around him like Reid and the Eagles did, or shelve him out of spite. TO rubbed Tuna the wrong way he'd be out of there. That's the way it should be. I really can't believe how lame it is the Eagles are taking arguably the most talented WR in the NFL and letting him rot.

 

[clint_c]

If I am the eagles.....I would never cut him. I would keep him for the length of his contract,and if I was Andy Reid I would point to the bench and say "hey TO this is your new position for the next 3 or 4 years...enjoy and say goodbye to your career"that won't happen, but man would that be great.I do agree that players cannot have it where they don't like their team or contract and can think...if I act like an ### I will be cut and get a better contract with a team.

 

[Serenity Now]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash.  The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

Exactly. Parcells wouldn't dance around him like Reid and the Eagles did, or shelve him out of spite. TO rubbed Tuna the wrong way he'd be out of there. That's the way it should be. I really can't believe how lame it is the Eagles are taking arguably the most talented WR in the NFL and letting him rot.

What's lame is TO being a narcissistic crybaby. A grown man whining about getting recognition all the time. That's lame.The Eagles wouldn't save any money by cutting him, all it would do is accelerate the cap hit. If they have to pay him, and they don't save money by cutting him, then it's more punishing to TO this way and I'm all for it. There's too many damn prima donnas in pro sports.

 

[John 14:6]

Exactly. Parcells wouldn't dance around him like Reid and the Eagles did, or shelve him out of spite. TO rubbed Tuna the wrong way he'd be out of there. That's the way it should be. I really can't believe how lame it is the Eagles are taking arguably the most talented WR in the NFL and letting him rot.

If I were the Eagles I would want to keep him off the Cowboys, or anyone else's roster, as long as possible.

 

[Raiders Fan]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash.  The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

Exactly. Parcells wouldn't dance around him like Reid and the Eagles did, or shelve him out of spite. TO rubbed Tuna the wrong way he'd be out of there. That's the way it should be. I really can't believe how lame it is the Eagles are taking arguably the most talented WR in the NFL and letting him rot.

What's lame is TO being a narcissistic crybaby. A grown man whining about getting recognition all the time. That's lame.The Eagles wouldn't save any money by cutting him, all it would do is accelerate the cap hit. If they have to pay him, and they don't save money by cutting him, then it's more punishing to TO this way and I'm all for it. There's too many damn prima donnas in pro sports.

Not if he was put on Waivers.. I think it would be different..

 

[BigRed]

link

"We're not asking them to play him, we can't force them to do that," Gene Upshaw, the NFLPA's executive director, said Wednesday. "But if they're not going to let him come back to practice and do all the other things associated with that, then we want them to cut him, let him become a free agent now."

"A team has the right to inactivate a player for whatever reason it wants," he said. "But in T.O.'s case, this is a team suspension, not a commissioner's deal. They're different. When we bargained in those rules, there was a reason for it. The most a player can be suspended is four games. You can't go beyond that."

They aren't going beyond that Gene, you pathetic slime of a mental midget. Stop slobbering over Owen's.....whatever....and shut tf up. Better yet, take a flying leap off of a cliff because like him, you're one massive net minus to the game.

And what clint_c and serenity now said also. Bravo.

 

[Borak]

Anybody else not give a good ### #### about what the NFLPA wants? The guy's a jackass. End of story.If I were Lurie, I'd eat his full contract and sit him for the duration of his contract. I'd ruin his career right then and there. If need be, I'd lock him in a soundproof room during games.

 

[Borak]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash. The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

Therein is the reason why they won't cut him. They need to better the Boys down the stretch. Why give him to someone else for nothing, especially when that someone else could bounce you from the playoffs?

 

[CalBear]

I have a sneaky suspicion the union is going to win this one. I have been trying to get TO in return for one of my backup WRs in all my leagues. Just doesn't seem right to me that you can forbid a player who is on your roster from showing up for work, inactive or not. I think Upshaw has a good point. This situation is not one that the union can/should accept; this would set a very bad precedent.

They already did exactly this in the pre-season.

 

[gman8343]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash.  The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

Therein is the reason why they won't cut him. They need to better the Boys down the stretch. Why give him to someone else for nothing, especially when that someone else could bounce you from the playoffs?

I wonder if Drew/TO could help their cause in getting cut if they included a stipulation that they wouldn't sign with an NFC team.

 

[JuniorNB]

The Eagles don`t want him. Cut him loose now and save some cash.  The Cowboys would sign him in a second for the stretch drive!

Therein is the reason why they won't cut him. They need to better the Boys down the stretch. Why give him to someone else for nothing, especially when that someone else could bounce you from the playoffs?

I wonder if Drew/TO could help their cause in getting cut if they included a stipulation that they wouldn't sign with an NFC team.

It'll be hard enough for Owens to find a team that'll take him without eliminating half the possibilities.

 

[GOroute]

someone in this post said the owners are showing too much power and i agree. the suspension is a max 4 weeks. and they are basically suspending him for the year. It isn't fair. This will be a huuuuge issue when the CBA comes due. The Eagles should cut him.

 

[CalBear]

someone in this post said the owners are showing too much power and i agree. the suspension is a max 4 weeks. and they are basically suspending him for the year. It isn't fair. This will be a huuuuge issue when the CBA comes due. The Eagles should cut him.

Right, just like the Titans suspended Billy Volek.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

link

"We're not asking them to play him, we can't force them to do that," Gene Upshaw, the NFLPA's executive director, said Wednesday. "But if they're not going to let him come back to practice and do all the other things associated with that, then we want them to cut him, let him become a free agent now."

"A team has the right to inactivate a player for whatever reason it wants," he said. "But in T.O.'s case, this is a team suspension, not a commissioner's deal. They're different. When we bargained in those rules, there was a reason for it. The most a player can be suspended is four games. You can't go beyond that."

They aren't going beyond that Gene, you pathetic slime of a mental midget. Stop slobbering over Owen's.....whatever....and shut tf up. Better yet, take a flying leap off of a cliff because like him, you're one massive net minus to the game.

And what clint_c and serenity now said also. Bravo.

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Serenity Now]

someone in this post said the owners are showing too much power and i agree. the suspension is a max 4 weeks. and they are basically suspending him for the year. It isn't fair. This will be a huuuuge issue when the CBA comes due. The Eagles should cut him.

When this happened with Keyshawn, rather than tell him he was suspended, they simply informed him he would be inactive for the last 4-5 games. So he got paid BUT, they sent him home. He was not allowed at the facility at all for the remainder of the season.I could see the Eagles relenting on the suspension but continuing to make TO inactive.

 

[buccosfan]

as an eagles fan, i could care less about the cap hit ... i'd keep him until his contract expired just to spite him.

 

[ericttspikes]

as an eagles fan, i could care less about the cap hit ... i'd keep him until his contract expired just to spite him.

I agree with this. Eagles can't have it both ways. Honor the whole contract not just the part of it that you are comfortable to take the hit on. If you plan to cut him, cut him. If you plan to honor the contract you signed but don't want to play him do that. How much exactly did TO get out of his 7-year $49 million contract?

 

[bostonfred]

as an eagles fan

 

[Favre4Pack]

T.O. has talent. NFLPA says to Eagles "cut him".Hell, I agree with post #7, Red Apples, who suggested Green Bay could use him.T.O. did say Eagles would be undefeated with Favre as their QB - let him prove it!WTF NOT?Maybe Favre would throw bullets at him, and break a finger or two...And win some games in the processWould definitely make for an interesting combination...And undoubtedly upset some Green Bay locals and many, many Packer fans...but not if he helped turn their season around!JMTC

 

[ericttspikes]

Exactly. Parcells wouldn't dance around him like Reid and the Eagles did, or shelve him out of spite. TO rubbed Tuna the wrong way he'd be out of there. That's the way it should be. I really can't believe how lame it is the Eagles are taking arguably the most talented WR in the NFL and letting him rot.

If I were the Eagles I would want to keep him off the Cowboys, or anyone else's roster, as long as possible.

That might take honoring the whole contract. Not sure why the downward spiraling Eagles are worried about facing TO this year. Seems like they should be more worried about the next several years. Taking it to this extreme I can see TO being the kind of guy to take the minimum from any of the other NFC East teams next year just to make sure the Eagles stay down.