Players union wants Eagles to cut Owens (1 Viewer)

[BigJim®]

As I suspected, from Profootballtalk.com2. The Five-Game Deactivation.All due respect, the union's argument that a five-game deactivation constitutes "punishment" simply makes no sense. Article XXXIII of the CBA expressly contemplates that there will be 53 players under contract, and that 45 of them will be active for any given game. This means that eight of the players, at any given time and for any reason, will be inactive.The CBA contains no mechanism for challenging a decision to deactivate a player, and sets forth no rules for making this decision. Thus, the decision falls within the discretion of the team, and it should not be subject to second-guessing.With that said, the union might be able to argue that Owens should be permitted to attend practices and to work out at the facility. Article XXXIII, Section 3 states that "Inactive List players will receive the same benefits and protections as Active List players." The question is whether the phrase "benefits and protections" refers only to issues like salary and pension rights, or whether the "benefits" include access to the team and the facilities.The problem with this argument is that the term "benefits" is defined by Article I, Section 3 as the "specific benefits paid to players." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Eagles should argue that, if Owens is getting his game checks during the period of deactivation, he is getting his "benefits." The union also argues in this regard that the deactivation prevents Owens from "earning any additional incentives" or from proving to other teams that "he's worthy of playing for them next year." But couldn't every player on the inactive list raise this same argument? The Eagles have decided that, notwithstanding T.O.'s objective ability, the team will perform better as a unit without him on the field or in the locker room. Nothing in the CBA prevents a team from making that decision.As to the argument that Owens can't earn any additional incentives, the only additional incentive in his contract is a $250,000 payment for being elected to the Pro Bowl squad. Again, if one player can challenge a team's decision to make him inactive on the basis that it would keep him from making it onto the Pro Bowl roster, then every player could make that argument.Bottom line -- it looks like the union's attack on the decision to deactivate will fail. Badly.

 

[Irish]

As I suspected, from Profootballtalk.com

2. The Five-Game Deactivation.

All due respect, the union's argument that a five-game deactivation constitutes "punishment" simply makes no sense.

Article XXXIII of the CBA expressly contemplates that there will be 53 players under contract, and that 45 of them will be active for any given game. This means that eight of the players, at any given time and for any reason, will be inactive.

The CBA contains no mechanism for challenging a decision to deactivate a player, and sets forth no rules for making this decision. Thus, the decision falls within the discretion of the team, and it should not be subject to second-guessing.

With that said, the union might be able to argue that Owens should be permitted to attend practices and to work out at the facility. Article XXXIII, Section 3 states that "Inactive List players will receive the same benefits and protections as Active List players." The question is whether the phrase "benefits and protections" refers only to issues like salary and pension rights, or whether the "benefits" include access to the team and the facilities.

The problem with this argument is that the term "benefits" is defined by Article I, Section 3 as the "specific benefits paid to players." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Eagles should argue that, if Owens is getting his game checks during the period of deactivation, he is getting his "benefits."

The union also argues in this regard that the deactivation prevents Owens from "earning any additional incentives" or from proving to other teams that "he's worthy of playing for them next year." But couldn't every player on the inactive list raise this same argument?

The Eagles have decided that, notwithstanding T.O.'s objective ability, the team will perform better as a unit without him on the field or in the locker room. Nothing in the CBA prevents a team from making that decision.

As to the argument that Owens can't earn any additional incentives, the only additional incentive in his contract is a $250,000 payment for being elected to the Pro Bowl squad. Again, if one player can challenge a team's decision to make him inactive on the basis that it would keep him from making it onto the Pro Bowl roster, then every player could make that argument.

Bottom line -- it looks like the union's attack on the decision to deactivate will fail. Badly.

Actually I think you make some points that favor the union's position.

 

[Red Apples]

I heard an interview on SIRIUS NFL that had Troy Vincent on. He is the head of the NFPLA from the players side. He said the goal is to get the suspension reduced and to get two more paychecks for TO. He specificly(sp) mentioned that after the suspension it would be a "Keyshawn like event". What i got from this is that the NFLPA is saying that a four game suspension was to harsh for a first time offense. There main point is to reduce the suspension to one or two games, collect one or two more paychecks for TO and then the team can do what they want. At no point during the interview did say anything about TO being released.

this will all be decided soon enough, but what i have read/heard is that the major difference between keyshawn & TO's situation is that keyshawn said, "cool give me the money i'll go home." keyshawn did not fight it.TO is/will fight it.

 

[BigJim®]

Actually I think you make some points that favor the union's position.

Just because the players association has "points" to offer up doesn't mean they'll get anything resembling substantive victory. I expect an arbitrator at worst [from the Eagles standpoint] to rule the suspension gets reduced by 1 game but they can deactivate him at will. Even if [and I do think it is far from certain] they need to allow him into facilities, he won't be able to see the starting unit from where he's running wind sprints. That doesn't mean he gets to dress for games, or travel with the team [most deactivated players don't], and the very first peep he makes will land him another 4-game suspension. I don't call that a victory.

 

[CalBear]

It's laughable that Owens is arguing that he should be allowed to practice; he's argued all year that he doesn't want to.

 

[Irish]

Actually I think you make some points that favor the union's position.

Just because the players association has "points" to offer up doesn't mean they'll get anything resembling substantive victory. I expect an arbitrator at worst [from the Eagles standpoint] to rule the suspension gets reduced by 1 game but they can deactivate him at will. Even if [and I do think it is far from certain] they need to allow him into facilities, he won't be able to see the starting unit from where he's running wind sprints. That doesn't mean he gets to dress for games, or travel with the team [most deactivated players don't], and the very first peep he makes will land him another 4-game suspension. I don't call that a victory.

Do you think the union will allow a team to treat a player like that? The Eagles also would be shooting themselves in foot in regards to luring future free agents.

 

[BigJim®]

Actually I think you make some points that favor the union's position.

Just because the players association has "points" to offer up doesn't mean they'll get anything resembling substantive victory. I expect an arbitrator at worst [from the Eagles standpoint] to rule the suspension gets reduced by 1 game but they can deactivate him at will. Even if [and I do think it is far from certain] they need to allow him into facilities, he won't be able to see the starting unit from where he's running wind sprints. That doesn't mean he gets to dress for games, or travel with the team [most deactivated players don't], and the very first peep he makes will land him another 4-game suspension. I don't call that a victory.

Do you think the union will allow a team to treat a player like that? The Eagles also would be shooting themselves in foot in regards to luring future free agents.

I can't believe you think they have the power to "allow" or not allow anything. That's why it's in front of an arbitrator. This will be a conclusive arbitration ruling based solely on what the existing CBA says, not what a union wish it said. If they want to renegotiate the CBA to make every management decision in the world subject to red tape and union approval, good luck with all that. Not happening. I also think this will have zero impact on FAs coming to Philly. Less than zero in fact. TO is a cartoon figure at this point.

 

[raceguy]

As I suspected, from Profootballtalk.com

2. The Five-Game Deactivation.

All due respect, the union's argument that a five-game deactivation constitutes "punishment" simply makes no sense.

Article XXXIII of the CBA expressly contemplates that there will be 53 players under contract, and that 45 of them will be active for any given game. This means that eight of the players, at any given time and for any reason, will be inactive.

The CBA contains no mechanism for challenging a decision to deactivate a player, and sets forth no rules for making this decision. Thus, the decision falls within the discretion of the team, and it should not be subject to second-guessing.

With that said, the union might be able to argue that Owens should be permitted to attend practices and to work out at the facility. Article XXXIII, Section 3 states that "Inactive List players will receive the same benefits and protections as Active List players." The question is whether the phrase "benefits and protections" refers only to issues like salary and pension rights, or whether the "benefits" include access to the team and the facilities.

The problem with this argument is that the term "benefits" is defined by Article I, Section 3 as the "specific benefits paid to players." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Eagles should argue that, if Owens is getting his game checks during the period of deactivation, he is getting his "benefits."

The union also argues in this regard that the deactivation prevents Owens from "earning any additional incentives" or from proving to other teams that "he's worthy of playing for them next year." But couldn't every player on the inactive list raise this same argument?

The Eagles have decided that, notwithstanding T.O.'s objective ability, the team will perform better as a unit without him on the field or in the locker room. Nothing in the CBA prevents a team from making that decision.

As to the argument that Owens can't earn any additional incentives, the only additional incentive in his contract is a $250,000 payment for being elected to the Pro Bowl squad. Again, if one player can challenge a team's decision to make him inactive on the basis that it would keep him from making it onto the Pro Bowl roster, then every player could make that argument.

Bottom line -- it looks like the union's attack on the decision to deactivate will fail. Badly.

I see what you are saying Big Jim, but let me play devils advocate. Please don't take offense to any of this. Could you reference the specific "mechanism" for challenging a suspension? How about the mechanism for challenging a fine? team dismissal? etc. etc.Of the few vague rules there are regarding player/team discrepancies within the CBA, what is the mechanism for determination within those rules I.e "Up to four weeks suspension" or "fine not to exceed $1000". The CBA does not contain a specific mechanisn or sets forth rules as to say X kind of conduct is only a 1-week suspension versus Y conduct is a 4-weeks. Does it?

As I read and understand, there are only two mechanisms available so to speak: an injury grievance and an non-injury grievance. That's it. Nothing more. Only two mechanisms that handle the infinate amount of possible disputes which may occur between players and management.

The CBA is just that, an agreement. If I remember correctly is less than 300 pages. It does not outline every specific circumstance which can or could happen and give specific rules within circumstances to abide by. There are not hundreds of years of case precedent (or grievance precedent if you may) to rely or base decisions on.

If you read under the Non-injury Grievance section (forgive me but I left my CBA book at work) there really is no set list of circumstances of which a player may file a grievance aganst his team. They can file a grievance for just about anything they wish, and that grievance will be heard by an Independent Arbitratior and a binding decision will be made. The Independent Arbitrator has a ton of authority to overturn or reverse any fine or suspension, reinstate a player, apply cease and decist orders as well as award monetary damages. The Arbitrator, in essence can reverse anything a team does if given enough evidence or lack thereof. He/she will use what little rules there are, but more than likely use a "spirit of the rules" and hopefully a little reasoning when basing a binding decision (which may be appealed of course). Just because there is an absent of rules (in this case rules regarding deactiviation) does not mean they cannot be not implied by an Arbitrator.

I guess what I am saying is that you cannot apply many of the same principles or applications of modern day law into a grievance between player and team within the CBA. It simply wont work as the CBA does not encompass the vast majority of possible events and circumstances.

Make sense?

 

[BigJim®]

Raceguy, no offense taken at all. There are a number of great issues to be resolved. PFT has a legal eye and is one of the best sources for dissecting the CBA. In a couple historic instances, they've pointed out things from the CBA that teams themselves didn't realize. The article I'll link to does a terrific job of analyzing some of the questions you've raised, and many issues involved do have conclusive answers. Of course the NFLPA will urge a reading it wants, but the bottom line is an arbitrator will absolutely not "renegotiate" the document the players union/NFL itself negotiated. If the CBA does not say something, it will not be interpreted into the CBA. Go here and page down to the article titled "UNION'S T.O. ARGUMENTS OFF BASE" and you'll get some of your answers.

 

[malaka]

Just to add another thought to this whole mess. The Eagles have stated Owens could of avoided all this by saying he was sorry in a timely manner. He didn't. So it appears the suspension and the deactivation is because Owens refuse to say he was sorry.If a "Sorry" was going to be good enough to put this whole mess behind the Eagles, how can the punsihment they are giving now, not be considered to harsh by a arbitrator?

 

[raceguy]

Just to add another thought to this whole mess.

The Eagles have stated Owens could of avoided all this by saying he was sorry in a timely manner. He didn't. So it appears the suspension and the deactivation is because Owens refuse to say he was sorry.

If a "Sorry" was going to be good enough to put this whole mess behind the Eagles, how can the punsihment they are giving now, not be considered to harsh by a arbitrator?

Another good point. As I recall though he did say he was sorry pretty quick, he just didn't read the entire statement given to him by the team. So THEN they suspended him.Big Jim, a pretty interesting read. I could be wrong, but it seems almost a little too simplified. Out of curiosity, how did this guy get a copy of T.O's contract (he mentions it). Is it public? I would find it hard to believe the NFLPA would tell the Plilidelphia Inquirer their entire gamplan though, which it seems he draws most of his conclusions.

Of course, if I had a nickel for every criminal attorney who said Michael Jackson was going down......I'd be playing in WCOFF this year

 

[suchislife]

I heard an interview on SIRIUS NFL that had Troy Vincent on. He is the head of the NFPLA from the players side. He said the goal is to get the suspension reduced and to get two more paychecks for TO.  He specificly(sp) mentioned that after the suspension it would be a "Keyshawn like event". What i got from this is that the NFLPA is saying that a four game suspension was to harsh for a first time offense. There main point is to reduce the suspension to one or two games, collect one or two more paychecks for TO and then the team can do what they want. At no point during the interview did say anything about TO being released.

ETA: "I find the punishment is too harsh. The suspension is hereby reduced to 2 games and the Eagles must play him in the same manner as before the suspension". Serioulsy people, does anyone expect this to be the arbitrator's decision?? Just because you drafted him in the 2nd round and Holmes in the first does not mean squat. *IF* Owens wins anything it will be a reduction in the length of suspension. I urge any of you doubters to go read Troy Vincent's take on it at espn.com. Please. He says the union "has a fiduciary responsibility to take the player's side". Not a ringing endorsement by any means. And if you think that the Eagles will have a hard time signing FA's, money talks. Period. Do you think that TO has that much sympathy among the players? Go read what Rodney Harrison had to say.

With all due respect to the real lawyers on this board, all the pretend lawyers are pretty amusing! "The union has a good lawyer so they will argue...." LOL. Yeah, the union has all the good lawyers!

 

[Warsteinner]

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.

Thats pretty stupid. You're going to pay the guy the $8million roster bonus he has coming in March and let him rot on the bench just for the sake of being a hardass?

 

[Riggo]

ETA: "I find the punishment is too harsh. The suspension is hereby reduced to 2 games and the Eagles must play him in the same manner as before the suspension". Serioulsy people, does anyone expect this to be the arbitrator's decision??

No, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the arbitrator says the Eagles went too far in banning TO from team facilities, and tells the Eagles that as long as TO's under contract he has a right to use the facilities as any other inactive player would. Given the relationship between the team and TO, I think the Eagles will (and should) cut TO. The sad thing is that's exactly what TO wants, but I think it's the right thing for the Eagles to do.

Just because you drafted him in the 2nd round and Holmes in the first does not mean squat.

FWIW, I don't have TO and I drafted LJ not Holmes. I've traded away LJ for Chad Johnson (my other RBs are Edge, Tiki, Kevin Jones, Droughns). I'm looking to get TO cheap right now for the playoffs. I think it's a good risk.

 

[Irish]

Actually I think you make some points that favor the union's position.

Just because the players association has "points" to offer up doesn't mean they'll get anything resembling substantive victory. I expect an arbitrator at worst [from the Eagles standpoint] to rule the suspension gets reduced by 1 game but they can deactivate him at will. Even if [and I do think it is far from certain] they need to allow him into facilities, he won't be able to see the starting unit from where he's running wind sprints. That doesn't mean he gets to dress for games, or travel with the team [most deactivated players don't], and the very first peep he makes will land him another 4-game suspension. I don't call that a victory.

Do you think the union will allow a team to treat a player like that? The Eagles also would be shooting themselves in foot in regards to luring future free agents.

I can't believe you think they have the power to "allow" or not allow anything. That's why it's in front of an arbitrator. This will be a conclusive arbitration ruling based solely on what the existing CBA says, not what a union wish it said. If they want to renegotiate the CBA to make every management decision in the world subject to red tape and union approval, good luck with all that. Not happening. I also think this will have zero impact on FAs coming to Philly. Less than zero in fact. TO is a cartoon figure at this point.

We can say the same thing about the team. Going to the arbitrator is part of the CBA. Labor relations arbitrators do not always rule on based on exact language in a labor contract, they sometimes rule on the intent of the language.

 

[BigJim®]

Actually I think you make some points that favor the union's position.

Just because the players association has "points" to offer up doesn't mean they'll get anything resembling substantive victory. I expect an arbitrator at worst [from the Eagles standpoint] to rule the suspension gets reduced by 1 game but they can deactivate him at will. Even if [and I do think it is far from certain] they need to allow him into facilities, he won't be able to see the starting unit from where he's running wind sprints. That doesn't mean he gets to dress for games, or travel with the team [most deactivated players don't], and the very first peep he makes will land him another 4-game suspension. I don't call that a victory.

Do you think the union will allow a team to treat a player like that? The Eagles also would be shooting themselves in foot in regards to luring future free agents.

I can't believe you think they have the power to "allow" or not allow anything. That's why it's in front of an arbitrator. This will be a conclusive arbitration ruling based solely on what the existing CBA says, not what a union wish it said. If they want to renegotiate the CBA to make every management decision in the world subject to red tape and union approval, good luck with all that. Not happening. I also think this will have zero impact on FAs coming to Philly. Less than zero in fact. TO is a cartoon figure at this point.

We can say the same thing about the team. Going to the arbitrator is part of the CBA. Labor relations arbitrators do not always rule on based on exact language in a labor contract, they sometimes rule on the intent of the language.

I didn't say otherwise. I stated my opinion on how an arbitrator would rule and your response was "Do you think the NFLPA would allow that." If an arbitrator rules something, the NFLPA is not in a position to allow or not allow that determination. That was my only point.

 

[Ridgelake]

I heard an interview on SIRIUS NFL that had Troy Vincent on. He is the head of the NFPLA from the players side. He said the goal is to get the suspension reduced and to get two more paychecks for TO. He specificly(sp) mentioned that after the suspension it would be a "Keyshawn like event". What i got from this is that the NFLPA is saying that a four game suspension was to harsh for a first time offense. There main point is to reduce the suspension to one or two games, collect one or two more paychecks for TO and then the team can do what they want. At no point during the interview did say anything about TO being released.

Bingo!This is the only solution that makes any real sense. The union (or anyone else) is not going to be able to make a team activate a player. TO is not going to be released this season because that would reward someone for causing problems. A horrible precedent to set. The union saves some face by getting TO more money than he otherwise would get.

 

[gman8343]

Dan Patrick is saying he believes the arbitrator will rule in TO's favor and the Eagles will end up cutting him, where he could end up with Washington or Denver...

 

[gman8343]

Now Mort is saying TO may play again this season (Dan Patrick show on espn radio).

 

[BigJim®]

It's so nice to see these NFL experts taking a stand. Talk about cya'ing either way. I'll be shocked if this is the outcome, personally. If it is, get ready for every NFL player who feels he's underpaid to follow this blueprint.

 

[gman8343]

It's so nice to see these NFL experts taking a stand. Talk about cya'ing either way. I'll be shocked if this is the outcome, personally. If it is, get ready for every NFL player who feels he's underpaid to follow this blueprint.

Great point -- but the reason Mort thinks he may play again is the Eagles handled the situation wrong. If they'd just deactivated Owens, there would be no problem whatsoever. Same thing if they simply said they were suspending him 4 games. The issue is that Andy Reid announced they were suspending Owens 4 games, and then deactivating him for the rest of the season. Mort/Patrick think that the arbitrator (who has ruled in player's favore before) will see this as two punishments for the same crime, which it is. The Eagles are blatantly trying to circumnavigate the rules and tipped their hand.

In the future, teams wouldn't fall into the trap the Eagles fell into. They'd just deactivate the player or suspend him four games, then wait until he screws up again and suspend him again. So in that respect if they rule in favor of Owens I don't think all the malcontent players will be able to force getting cut. It just won't work...

 

[roadkill1292]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.How can this be so?

 

[Red Apples]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so?

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

 

[Red Apples]

It's so nice to see these NFL experts taking a stand. Talk about cya'ing either way. I'll be shocked if this is the outcome, personally. If it is, get ready for every NFL player who feels he's underpaid to follow this blueprint.

Great point -- but the reason Mort thinks he may play again is the Eagles handled the situation wrong. If they'd just deactivated Owens, there would be no problem whatsoever. Same thing if they simply said they were suspending him 4 games. The issue is that Andy Reid announced they were suspending Owens 4 games, and then deactivating him for the rest of the season. Mort/Patrick think that the arbitrator (who has ruled in player's favore before) will see this as two punishments for the same crime, which it is. The Eagles are blatantly trying to circumnavigate the rules and tipped their hand.

In the future, teams wouldn't fall into the trap the Eagles fell into. They'd just deactivate the player or suspend him four games, then wait until he screws up again and suspend him again. So in that respect if they rule in favor of Owens I don't think all the malcontent players will be able to force getting cut. It just won't work...

gman8343 that is exactly right!!!

 

[raceguy]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so?

How can what be so? TO playing or the power of an Arbitrator?

 

[BigJim®]

In the future, teams wouldn't fall into the trap the Eagles fell into. They'd just deactivate the player or suspend him four games, then wait until he screws up again and suspend him again.

So the options are allowing a cancer to fester and subjecting teammates/management to ongoing "what's next" questioning while you're faking standing by "your guy", or alternatively granting a player his wish and making him a FA? I just don't buy it. First off, I don't agree that anything needs to be contrived in this way based on a clear reading of the CBA... there is absolutely nothing in there that says you cannot name deactivated players in advance and the only open issue in my mind is whether deactivated players must be allowed to come to team facilities. Second off, teams need to be able to deal with this sort of clownsmanship with decisiveness and finality to help the other 52 players move forward re: team aspirations, without it occupying every press conference or alternatively jeopardizing them from a competitive standpoint (allowing their star player in this instance to perhaps go sign with a future playoff opponent). Like I said a few hundred posts ago, if that's how it shakes out, just go ahead and fold up shop. I still say this is just a case of Mort covering his bases so he doesn't look wrong either way.

 

[gman8343]

In the future, teams wouldn't fall into the trap the Eagles fell into. They'd just deactivate the player or suspend him four games, then wait until he screws up again and suspend him again.

So the options are allowing a cancer to fester and subjecting teammates/management to ongoing "what's next" questioning while you're faking standing by "your guy", or alternatively granting a player his wish and making him a FA? I just don't buy it. First off, I don't agree that anything needs to be contrived in this way based on a clear reading of the CBA... there is absolutely nothing in there that says you cannot name deactivated players in advance and the only open issue in my mind is whether deactivated players must be allowed to come to team facilities. Second off, teams need to be able to deal with this sort of clownsmanship with decisiveness and finality to help the other 52 players move forward re: team aspirations, without it occupying every press conference or alternatively jeopardizing them from a competitive standpoint (allowing their star player in this instance to perhaps go sign with a future playoff opponent). Like I said a few hundred posts ago, if that's how it shakes out, just go ahead and fold up shop. I still say this is just a case of Mort covering his bases so he doesn't look wrong either way.

Very possible. However, if you've got guy on your team who's a cancer you can just suspend him. When he comes back, if he's still a cancer, you can suspend him again for a separate incident. The problem is you can't say the player is suspended AND deactivated. I don't think this limits a team's power in dealing with malcontent players, you just have to be careful how you proceed. It seems the Eagles should have either deactivated him or suspended him, but NOT BOTH.

 

[Red Apples]

ABC News

But Upshaw said that even if the suspension is upheld, the Eagles can't just tell Owens to stay away from the team and its practice facility.

"We are taking the position that's additional punishment," Upshaw told The Associated Press. "It's not fair to a player not to have an additional chance."

Upshaw differentiated between the Eagles' suspension of Owens and Tampa Bay's decision two years ago to make Keyshawn Johnson inactive for the final six games of the season. Johnson signed in 2004 with Dallas, for whom he now plays.

"There was no suspension there. 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."

A key difference between the Owens and Johnson situations is that Johnson didn't ask the union to file a grievance, instead accepting his punishment — being excused from work with pay.

 

[suchislife]

In the future, teams wouldn't fall into the trap the Eagles fell into. They'd just deactivate the player or suspend him four games, then wait until he screws up again and suspend him again.

So the options are allowing a cancer to fester and subjecting teammates/management to ongoing "what's next" questioning while you're faking standing by "your guy", or alternatively granting a player his wish and making him a FA? I just don't buy it. First off, I don't agree that anything needs to be contrived in this way based on a clear reading of the CBA... there is absolutely nothing in there that says you cannot name deactivated players in advance and the only open issue in my mind is whether deactivated players must be allowed to come to team facilities. Second off, teams need to be able to deal with this sort of clownsmanship with decisiveness and finality to help the other 52 players move forward re: team aspirations, without it occupying every press conference or alternatively jeopardizing them from a competitive standpoint (allowing their star player in this instance to perhaps go sign with a future playoff opponent). Like I said a few hundred posts ago, if that's how it shakes out, just go ahead and fold up shop. I still say this is just a case of Mort covering his bases so he doesn't look wrong either way.

I think its a way for DP/ESPN/Mort to keep us all listening and talking about them. I have no doubt the arbitrator will reduce the suspension - probably to just 2 games. That leaves the Eagles with 2 choices - keep Owens on the team and declare him inactive for the remainder of the season or cut him. If they cut him, T.O. if free to do/say whatever he wants and play for whatever team will take a chance on him. Eagles lose all control over him.

If he stays on the team, they'll certainly declare him inactive. I'm assuming there's a difference between "deactivating" him and making him "inactive" for games. Now, you can say that keeping him on the team would be a distraction. But even DP said that T.O. would be on his best behavior the rest of the way so he can prove he's a changed man for next year. If he's a distraction, the Eagles could just suspend him again and he's further hurting his chances for next year.

Its fun to speculate, but we won't know for sure until after the hearing.

 

[Christo]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

So the 8 players on each team that are not active for each game are being punished?

 

[Riggo]

In the future, teams wouldn't fall into the trap the Eagles fell into. They'd just deactivate the player or suspend him four games, then wait until he screws up again and suspend him again.

So the options are allowing a cancer to fester and subjecting teammates/management to ongoing "what's next" questioning while you're faking standing by "your guy", or alternatively granting a player his wish and making him a FA?

No, the options are suspending the guy for up to four games, cutting him or both. Take your pick. Cutting him does have the side effect of granting the player his wish, but that's life. This should be less about retribution and more about doing what's right for the Eagles. Getting revenge doesn't solve the Eagles' problems.

 

[Da Guru]

If Owens agrees to terminate his contract the Eagles shouls cut him loose right away! Be done with it!

 

[gman8343]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

So the 8 players on each team that are not active for each game are being punished?

I think the arbitrator will be able to differentiate between a premier WR and someone fighting for a roster spot.

 

[CBusAlex]

Now Mort is saying TO may play again this season (Dan Patrick show on espn radio).

According to Trev Alberts, TO will be traded to the Knicks for Sidney Crosby.

 

[suchislife]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so?

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

So the 8 players on each team that are not active for each game are being punished?

I think the arbitrator will be able to differentiate between a premier WR and someone fighting for a roster spot.

So where do you draw the line? A player is active for the first 2 or 3 games of the season and then gets deactiveated, does he file a suit? Would an arbitrator set that precedence?ETA: Or how about THolt this week...He says he's ready to play. Rams say he needs another week and decide to sit him. Can Holt file a greivance saying he's being punished? <hypothetical, btw>

 

[raceguy]

If Owens agrees to terminate his contract the Eagles shouls cut him loose right away! Be done with it!

The Eagles want nothing more to do with TO, they have said so publicly. They have no intention of ever using his services ever again. Waive him, just like they have done to every other player whom they felt the same way.

 

[Riggo]

So where do you draw the line? A player is active for the first 2 or 3 games of the season and then gets deactiveated, does he file a suit? Would an arbitrator set that precedence?

I think that today you draw the line just shy of having the head coach holding a press conference announcing to the world that a player's being suspended four games for conduct detrimental to the team. Oh yeah, and we're deactivating him for the rest of the season and banning him from team facilities. That's all the arbitrator has to do.The rest will be up to the NFLPA and the NFL to negotiate in the next CBA. It'll be forever known as The Terrell Owens Rule. Right up there with the Larry Bird Exception, the Bronco Nagurski Rule and the Emmitt Rule.

 

[raceguy]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

So the 8 players on each team that are not active for each game are being punished?

I think the arbitrator will be able to differentiate between a premier WR and someone fighting for a roster spot.

So where do you draw the line? A player is active for the first 2 or 3 games of the season and then gets deactiveated, does he file a suit? Would an arbitrator set that precedence?ETA: Or how about THolt this week...He says he's ready to play. Rams say he needs another week and decide to sit him. Can Holt file a greivance saying he's being punished? <hypothetical, btw>

Yes, Holt could file a grievance should he choose. Players can file grievances for just about anything. BTW there are very few instances where a player can file an actual lawsuit against his team. When they become an active member of the players union, they give up those rights.So where is a line drawn? In your example, did the team say publicly that this player will never ever have the opportunity to play for this team ever again, that they absolutely do not want him anymore?

Thats where the line needs to be drawn IMHO. Yes players get deactivated every single weekend. Yet after that weekend they rejoin the team and practice as usual knowing that, at least, the opportunity exists to play the following weekend.

That is not so in the TO situation. The mangement has already declared he will never play for the Eagles again.

If that is their stance, fine. Then be consistent and waive him like they would do any other player. By keeping him (through deactivation) and not allowing him the opportiunity to play for the team in the future could be considered as a form of punishment for prior actions.

 

[bjabrad]

If Owens agrees to terminate his contract the Eagles shouls cut him loose right away!  Be done with it!

The Eagles want nothing more to do with TO, they have said so publicly. They have no intention of ever using his services ever again. Waive him, just like they have done to every other player whom they felt the same way.

would the eagles take a salary cap hit for cutting him prior to the end of the season?

 

[BigJim®]

The problem is you can't say the player is suspended AND deactivated. I don't think this limits a team's power in dealing with malcontent players, you just have to be careful how you proceed. It seems the Eagles should have either deactivated him or suspended him, but NOT BOTH.

As of now, that is a theory, an argument which will be made, which is far from an arbitrators conclusion based on a reading of the CBA. I'd ask you to point out where in the CBA it states this rule that you can't do both, or there's some timing element which must be followed, but frankly I already know it doesn't exist. If it did exist the Eagles would not have acted as they did under guidance of counsel, and everyone would be citing that provision.

 

[bjabrad]

I can't seem to recall any examples right now but aren't there cases where teams will sit players so that they can't reach their contract incentives?

 

[bjabrad]

The problem is you can't say the player is suspended AND deactivated. I don't think this limits a team's power in dealing with malcontent players, you just have to be careful how you proceed. It seems the Eagles should have either deactivated him or suspended him, but NOT BOTH.

As of now, that is a theory, an argument which will be made, which is far from an arbitrators conclusion based on a reading of the CBA. I'd ask you to point out where in the CBA it states this rule that you can't do both, or there's some timing element which must be followed, but frankly I already know it doesn't exist. If it did exist the Eagles would not have acted as they did under guidance of counsel, and everyone would be citing that provision.

you've got a lot of faith in the eagles and their counsel or maybe just in the NFL and their power over the inept NFLPA CBA.

 

[raceguy]

would the eagles take a salary cap hit for cutting him prior to the end of the season?

Yep. However they have already stated they are going to waive him anyway before having to pay him a roster bonus. Either way they are going to take a cap hit.

 

[mbuehner]

Tell the players union to pony up and buy the franchise. Otherwise keep their traps shut.

 

[roadkill1292]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

That's just it. I can't get my head around it. Players are deactivated every week. They continue to get paid. Where is this punishment?

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

How can what be so? TO playing or the power of an Arbitrator?

Both. This seems pretty cut and dried to me -- since the Eagles will continue to pay him.

 

[Riggo]

That's just it. I can't get my head around it. Players are deactivated every week. They continue to get paid. Where is this punishment?

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

How can what be so? TO playing or the power of an Arbitrator?

Both. This seems pretty cut and dried to me -- since the Eagles will continue to pay him.

Deactivation of TO is punishment because of the way the Eagles have gone about it. They tied it directly to the suspension and the announcement that TO has engaged in conduct detrimental to the team. They've banned him from practice, sidelines, team facilities, etc. Other deactivated players are permitted access to all of those things.

 

[faulkfan]

The EaglEs hold TOs contract which means they control his ability to play football.The suspension is fair (not talking about the amount of games, only their right to suspend him for being a ##### and screwing over everyone on the team by his actions) because the CBA says it is. If the Union is going to take this stance about this situation now, then where do THEY draw the line? Next time Moss gets caught hopped up on weed and suspended then they jump up and stat crying that he should be playing football because he's a good WR. It doesn't work that way. As for deactiviation. The Eagles have every right in the world to sit Owens down for the remainder of the season because they are doing it WHILE THEY ARE PAYING HIM! He isn't losing money over this, and judging from his constant tirades about his contract, money is all he cares about. Since he is still getting paid he has no grounds for complaint.The Eagles have worked within the outline of the CBA and Owens and Drew burned their bridges all by themselves. As long as the Eagles are willing to waste money on a player sitting on the bench, and Owens is getting his paycheck then the Union should shut up and focus on getting Ricky and Randy to stop toking fattys.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The CBA is a contract between the Union and the teams.That contract states that the maximum punishment is 4 games.The eagles' public statements state that TO's punishment exceeds 4 games. Even if he's getting paid, he's still being punished.The CBA has specific guidelines for dealing with players caught toking fattysTIA

 

[BigJim®]

you've got a lot of faith in the eagles and their counsel or maybe just in the NFL and their power over the inept NFLPA CBA.

Please don't patronize me. I'm just seeing a lot of speculators suggesting CBA rules that do not even exist and then drawing mysterious conclusions which simply are not supported by the CBA. ESPN wants this to be a controversial story... it's not good sensationalism to acknowledge it's a slam dunk. Everyone is a speculator but few know what the document says or discuss what should result from an actual reading of the CBA. If you read my other posts, you'd see I linked to a very succinct legal analysis of the issues, citing specific provisions in the CBA. In my mind, having seen a number of judges bend the words of a law/regulation to support a ruling they want to make, if either side should be worried about the arbitrator taking liberties reading the CBA to conclude in a "fair" way, it's the players association. TO is not a sympathetic figure, and no one is going to want to bend the words of the CBA to help this guy out.

 

[BigJim®]

The CBA is a contract between the Union and the teams.

That contract states that the maximum punishment is 4 games.

The eagles' public statements state that TO's punishment exceeds 4 games. Even if he's getting paid, he's still being punished.

The CBA has specific guidelines for dealing with players caught toking fattys

TIA

I've corrected you once already. Deactivation is absolutely not punishment as far as the CBA is concerned. In fact, the CBA rules state 8 players MUST be deactivated each week. Are you suggesting the CBA is saying 8 players must be PUNISHED each week? It is not punishment under the CBA to deactivate or it would not be a weekly requirement to do it.