Players union wants Eagles to cut Owens (1 Viewer)

[Gambler]

I don't see the Iggle's releasing him. More likely keep him and make him inactive every week the rest of the year. By the time this is sorted out, the season will be over anyway. JMO

 

[raceguy]

I don't see the Iggle's releasing him. More likely keep him and make him inactive every week the rest of the year. By the time this is sorted out, the season will be over anyway. JMO

Actually I think the Arbitration meeting is later this week and a decision would come about very quickly. Not really much different than when a player fails a drug test then appeals the decision. It's not like the usual court/legal system we are use to.

 

[zoonation]

The arbitrator will rule in favor of TO.  The Eagles will cut him, and he'll go to the Redskins.  Then he'll blow up for 3tds next time he faces the Eagles.

Why?  Because the NFL needs the TO controversy to continue, it's a huge money maker.

You're assuming about 20 other teams won't take him first.Might be a good assumption, we'll see.

I honestly only see a contending team want to take the chance on TO this year. What other reason would you have for throwing money at a huge problem like that?I think the contenders are Denver and Washington...but I think he's more likely to go to Denver if he's cut.

You may be right, but if a team has nothing to lose, they may take the chance on him to either sell tickets or think they might be able to keep him for 2006 and contend. I'm not saying it would be a smart move, but who knows really?

T.O. to Denver would make that team instant favorites in the AFC alongside the Colts IMO. Shanahan would sign him for sure. The more I think about what happened, the more I think the Eagles dropped the ball. Their failure to capitulate on ANY level to keep their team a Superbowl contender is a huge failure on their part. We'll see how happy the Eagles fans are not being in the post season this year. Why? Because a guy feels betrayed by the team and lashes out immaturely? Should be a manageable problem IMO.

When I heard the Eagles ammo for all the ways TO's conduct was "detrimental" I laughed. Late for team meeting?...LMFAO.

 

[raceguy]

When I heard the Eagles ammo for all the ways TO's conduct was "detrimental" I laughed. Late for team meeting?...LMFAO.

Dont forget "parked in a hadicapped spot"

 

[FFdork]

Eagles | Jackson weighs in on Owens' saga

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:14:58 -0800

NBC10.com reports Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined another former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, in calling for the NFL to let Philadelphia Eagles WR Terrell Owens rejoin the Eagles or release him from his contract. "This punishment is much too severe for the charge," Jackson said. "If (Owens) had been caught shaving points, selling drugs, carrying a gun or fighting some fans, who provoked him, and he had not shown sufficient restraint, we could understand the severe suspension." "If the Philadelphia Eagles' owners do not find his apology acceptable and no longer aim to maintain an association with him, they should release him to the open market or free agency," Jackson added. The Philadelphia Inquirer also reports Jackson spoke with Owens on the phone this week, and he's trying to contact Eagles QB Donovan McNabb and owner Jeffrey Lurie.

You know, this really bugs me. At its core, the issue here is whether TO has to sit home and make a lot of $ or get cut to go somewhere else to play and make a lot of $. This is an important enough issue for our society/country that both Nader and Jackson have to weigh in on it? Or maybe they just desperately want to use this issue to force there way back into the public eye?

 

[gman8343]

Eagles | Jackson weighs in on Owens' saga

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:14:58 -0800

NBC10.com reports Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined another former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, in calling for the NFL to let Philadelphia Eagles WR Terrell Owens rejoin the Eagles or release him from his contract. "This punishment is much too severe for the charge," Jackson said. "If (Owens) had been caught shaving points, selling drugs, carrying a gun or fighting some fans, who provoked him, and he had not shown sufficient restraint, we could understand the severe suspension." "If the Philadelphia Eagles' owners do not find his apology acceptable and no longer aim to maintain an association with him, they should release him to the open market or free agency," Jackson added. The Philadelphia Inquirer also reports Jackson spoke with Owens on the phone this week, and he's trying to contact Eagles QB Donovan McNabb and owner Jeffrey Lurie.

You know, this really bugs me. At its core, the issue here is whether TO has to sit home and make a lot of $ or get cut to go somewhere else to play and make a lot of $. This is an important enough issue for our society/country that both Nader and Jackson have to weigh in on it? Or maybe they just desperately want to use this issue to force there way back into the public eye?

Both have Owens on their FF teams. Obviously.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I’m organizing a “FREE TO” protest march for later today. I will have more details later on; I am busy now making “FREE TO” T-shirts.

:TOowner:

Classic.

 

[Gigantomachia]

The arbitrator will rule in favor of TO.  The Eagles will cut him, and he'll go to the Redskins.  Then he'll blow up for 3tds next time he faces the Eagles.

Why?  Because the NFL needs the TO controversy to continue, it's a huge money maker.

You're assuming about 20 other teams won't take him first.Might be a good assumption, we'll see.

I honestly only see a contending team want to take the chance on TO this year. What other reason would you have for throwing money at a huge problem like that?I think the contenders are Denver and Washington...but I think he's more likely to go to Denver if he's cut.

You may be right, but if a team has nothing to lose, they may take the chance on him to either sell tickets or think they might be able to keep him for 2006 and contend. I'm not saying it would be a smart move, but who knows really?

T.O. to Denver would make that team instant favorites in the AFC alongside the Colts IMO. Shanahan would sign him for sure. The more I think about what happened, the more I think the Eagles dropped the ball. Their failure to capitulate on ANY level to keep their team a Superbowl contender is a huge failure on their part. We'll see how happy the Eagles fans are not being in the post season this year. Why? Because a guy feels betrayed by the team and lashes out immaturely? Should be a manageable problem IMO.

When I heard the Eagles ammo for all the ways TO's conduct was "detrimental" I laughed. Late for team meeting?...LMFAO.

A lot of people have been saying that since day one.

Course everyone thought they were crazy as well, so . . .

 

[Muahahaha]

Well, looks like that site of integrity, ProFootballTalk.com, has flip-flopped on this issue & now believes that Owens could play for another team this year.

T.O. COULD WIN, AFTER ALL

On Thursday, we outlined the various arguments of the NFLPA in T.O.'s looming grievance, and we offered our takes regarding the viability of those contentions under the CBA. But after considering the information set forth by Chris Mortensen on Thursday afternoon regarding arbitrator Richard Bloch and after talking to some of our colleagues in the legal community, we think that Owens' case might be a bit stronger than we previously realized.

As to his attempt to eliminate and/or reduce the four-game suspension, the absence in the CBA of any specific rules for determining the penalties for detrimental conduct should, in theory, make this a matter of team discretion, with uniformity in penalties imposed by the team being the only requirement. If, as in this case, the facts are unprecedented for a given team, the CBA seems to authorize the maximum penalty.

But Bloch's history, as outlined by Mortensen, of tinkering with such penalties without, by all appearances, relying upon notions of uniformity within a given team makes us think that Bloch could merely substitute his own judgment for the business judgment of the team, if Bloch so desires.

The fact that Bloch's decision is not subject to an appeal of any kind essentially gives him the authority to do whatever he wants. This could end up cutting either way, since we think that Bloch likely will realize that Owens' behavior was part of a calculated plan to force his way out of town, once he knew that he wouldn't get a re-worked contract. If Bloch sees it this way, the four-game suspension might stick.

Owens' better argument could be that, if the team is going to deactivate him, the team should still permit him to attend practices, work out at the facilities, and attend games. As we explained on Thursday, Article XXXIII, Section 3 of the CBA says that "Inactive List players will receive the same benefits and protections as Active List players." Even though the CBA defines "benefits" as "benefits paid" to players, the CBA is still not as clear as it could be regarding whether a team may elect to pay a player and at the same time bar him from the premises.

Though some states recognize the notion that, as long as an employee is receiving his or her regular salary, there is no "adverse employment action," there's a fundamental difference between Wendy from Wal-Mart getting paid to not punch a cash register for two months and a professional athlete being prevented from using the equipment and services available to him as he tries to keep his body in tip-top condition.



That's why, after further review, we think that Bloch is likely to require the Eagles to give him full access to the team, even if the team chooses not to play him.

Is Owens' desire to be with the team genuine? No. Why else, as our buddy Howard Balzer pointed out to us on Saturday, would Owens have headed to Atlanta hours after Drew Rosenhaus declared that T.O. wants to return to practice immediately?

Even so, if Owens is given the right to return to the team, the team will then have to decide whether to keep him -- or whether to let him go.

But if Owens is released and if he lands elsewhere this season, T.O. will get an unwarranted windfall, since he'll be entitled to the rest of his salary as termination pay -- and he'll then get paid by his new team for the same games.

And that's why there's a chance (if the parties are willing to talk to each other) for a compromise without a ruling from the arbitrator. The Eagles, for example, could offer to release Owens right now in exchange for a waiver by Owens of his rights to any further compensation (and possibly a partial refund by Owens of his signing bonus, given that $1.725 million of his original signing bonus is riding on whether the suspension is upheld).

If T.O. is released (either as a result of a settlement to his grievance or because the arbitrator orders that as long as he's on the roster he has the right to go to work), the question then becomes whether anyone would make a waiver claim on his contract. Any team who does so would need to have enough cap room to absorb the prorated value of T.O.'s $3.25 million salary -- and would have to be willing to welcome him to the team.

And the teams who would think about doing it fall into two categories: (1) teams who think Owens can make them better this year; and (2) teams who want to keep him away from teams that he could make better this year.

For example, the Raiders might be inclined to grab Owens in order to keep him from being signed by the Broncos, just as the Chargers made a claim on Deion Sanders three years ago in order to prevent him from joining the Raiders for the Super Bowl run.

Or maybe the Saints, who would keep the Panthers or Falcons from adding him -- and maybe sell some more tickets to their games if T.O. is on the field.

Then there's the Vikings, who are desperate to vindicate a lost season by making it to the playoffs. If Koren Robinson gets a second chance there after drinking his career away, Minny surely would be interested in a guy who used his mouth for something other than inserting al-kee-hol into it.

And don't forget about the 49ers. Just as Marty Schottenheimer's decision to put in a claim for Sanders was likely fueled in part by Deion's decision to force his way out of D.C. once Marty became the coach there, the Niners could decide to squat on Owens because he then would, as a practical matter, refuse to report -- and get no pay. (The Ravens could fall into this "claim him to prove a point" category as well, given his refusal to report to Baltimore after they traded for him a year ago.)

If Owens clears waivers, someone will sign him. And the contract will be slanted heavily toward protecting the team, in the event that he merely continues his turd tour in a new city.

But if he ends up in a place where he wants to be, special terms won't be necessary, at least for this season. He will be even more motivated and driven than he was in 2004, and he could be the right ingredient to push an elite team to the top of the mountain.

Some league observers fear that an arbitration ruling resulting in T.O. gaining his freedom might send a Kinsellaesque message to players unhappy with their contracts: "If you ##### enough, you'll get released." But the real message might be to the 32 teams, who already have the ability (as Chris Mortensen explained on Thursday) to add terms to player contracts like the "Loyalty Clause."

We'd use a provision like this, which would have given the Eagles an air-tight case regarding the five-game deactivation: "Player grants to Club the ability, at its sole discretion, to make decisions regarding the extent to which Player's services will be utilized during games, practices, and other Club activities. Player also grants to Club the ability, at its sole discretion, to place Player on the Inactive List and to instruct Player, as part of Player's duties as an employee on the Inactive List, not to participate in any Club functions, including practices or games, and to refrain from visiting Club facilities and property."

The bottom line here is that there is much uncertainty regarding the upcoming grievance hearing because both the CBA and the contract between the Eagles and Owens contain multiple gaps that, frankly, the lawyers should have foreseen.

 

[packersfan]

It would be a horrible precedent for the NFL if TO wins this case. Essentially, it would give players cart blanche to do anything and everything in their power to become a disruptive force on a team in order to force their way out of a situation they do not like. It would be akin to the situations we saw in the NBA last season with guys like Alonzo Mourning and Jim Jackson, who didn't like the teams they were traded to and thus refused to report thus forcing their new teams to trade them again (for lesser value). Basically if a player doesn't like where they are they can now force their way out of town and the team is powerless to do anything about it other than to give in to their demands. Any decision that allows the inmates to run the asylum is a bad one in my opinion.

 

[Kovax]

Any decision that allows the inmates to run the asylum is a bad one in my opinion.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[packersfan]

Any decision that allows the inmates to run the asylum is a bad one in my opinion.

What is that supposed to mean?

It means that TO has had one agenda for nearly a full year -- to do everything within his power to get out of Philadelphia. He has been a disruptive force on that team with that sole agenda in mind. And if an arbitrator decides the Eagles are not within their rights to decide how they can handle a player they are prepared to pay in full then he will have won. And I believe that is a very bad precedent because it will open up the door for any player in any bad situation to basically decide he can do whatever he wants and the team is powerless to stop him or effectively deal with him. As long as the Eagles are prepared to pay TO his full salary after his suspension is over I think they should be able to decide whether they want him on their premises or not.

 

[CravenM]

NBC10.com reports Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined another former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, in calling for the NFL to let Philadelphia Eagles WR Terrell Owens rejoin the Eagles or release him from his contract. "This punishment is much too severe for the charge," Jackson said. blah blah blah

I don't get it - how can Jesse shakedown the Eagles and the NFL? You know he has an angle to extort money - we just need to figure how's he's going to do it.

 

[shakeybarn]

>>The more I think about what happened, the more I think the Eagles dropped the ball. Someone wake me from this idiotic posting nightmare...

 

[shakeybarn]

Further...Let's let TO run onto the Dallas star a few more times, call other players ###s, showboat in his own driveway with media afloat, let Rosenhaus run amuck, ##### about $$$, ##### about the Ravens, ##### about Philly, ##### about SF, ##### about the media, ##### about whitey, ##### about the NFL...Yeah the Eagles surely botched the whole thing up.. and the next team that takes this idiot will handle "it" just fine.

 

[gman8343]

It would be a horrible precedent for the NFL if TO wins this case. Essentially, it would give players cart blanche to do anything and everything in their power to become a disruptive force on a team in order to force their way out of a situation they do not like. It would be akin to the situations we saw in the NBA last season with guys like Alonzo Mourning and Jim Jackson, who didn't like the teams they were traded to and thus refused to report thus forcing their new teams to trade them again (for lesser value). Basically if a player doesn't like where they are they can now force their way out of town and the team is powerless to do anything about it other than to give in to their demands. Any decision that allows the inmates to run the asylum is a bad one in my opinion.

This has been discussed at length in this thread. It's untrue that any player would be able to push a team to cut them by acting out.Any team can suspend a player if they act up enough -- and when they return to the team after their suspension they can be suspended again if they act up again. Obviously the player isn't paid during their suspension, to it's not in their best interest to use this method to force the team to cut him.

Also, a team can choose to deactivate a malcontent player. They would still have to pay him, but he wouldn't be on the team. This was the case with Keyshawn, who didn't push the issue, just collected his checks and hung out at home.

The problem the Eagles may have is that they announced they were suspending TO for four games AND deactivating him for the remainder of the season. This was a mistake (some people believe) because they are clearly using deactivation as a form of punishment, admitting it on national TV. That's a no-no. This is somethin the arbitrator will look into -- in all likelyhood TO's suspension will be shortened and he'll collect game checks but not play again, though some suspect there's a chance TO can force the team to cut him if the arbitrator rules he has to be allowed at team practices, workouts etc.

If anything, it will make teams wiser when dealing with problem players, as they won't be apt to fall into the same trap the Eagles did -- you either suspend the player or deactivate him, just not both at the same time.

Make sense?

 

[packersfan]

I stand by my position. I do not believe the Eagles have acted improperly and I would be very concerned if an outside party essentially told them how they should deal with a problem player. If the PA wants to include a more specific explanation of what can and can't be done in this type of situation going forward then by all means they can negotiate for it with the next CBA. Until that time comes, however, I see nothing wrong with what the Eagles intend to do since they are prepared to pay Owens his salary once the suspension is over.

 

[Red Apples]

It would be a horrible precedent for the NFL if TO wins this case. Essentially, it would give players cart blanche to do anything and everything in their power to become a disruptive force on a team in order to force their way out of a situation they do not like. It would be akin to the situations we saw in the NBA last season with guys like Alonzo Mourning and Jim Jackson, who didn't like the teams they were traded to and thus refused to report thus forcing their new teams to trade them again (for lesser value). Basically if a player doesn't like where they are they can now force their way out of town and the team is powerless to do anything about it other than to give in to their demands. Any decision that allows the inmates to run the asylum is a bad one in my opinion.

This has been discussed at length in this thread. It's untrue that any player would be able to push a team to cut them by acting out.Any team can suspend a player if they act up enough -- and when they return to the team after their suspension they can be suspended again if they act up again. Obviously the player isn't paid during their suspension, to it's not in their best interest to use this method to force the team to cut him.

Also, a team can choose to deactivate a malcontent player. They would still have to pay him, but he wouldn't be on the team. This was the case with Keyshawn, who didn't push the issue, just collected his checks and hung out at home.

The problem the Eagles may have is that they announced they were suspending TO for four games AND deactivating him for the remainder of the season. This was a mistake (some people believe) because they are clearly using deactivation as a form of punishment, admitting it on national TV. That's a no-no. This is somethin the arbitrator will look into -- in all likelyhood TO's suspension will be shortened and he'll collect game checks but not play again, though some suspect there's a chance TO can force the team to cut him if the arbitrator rules he has to be allowed at team practices, workouts etc.

If anything, it will make teams wiser when dealing with problem players, as they won't be apt to fall into the same trap the Eagles did -- you either suspend the player or deactivate him, just not both at the same time.

Make sense?

 

[MACHINE]

Reverend Al Sharpton is organizing a Rally outside of the Stadium for Monday Night game... (wouldn't that be great)

 

[zoonation]

Further...

Let's let TO run onto the Dallas star a few more times, call other players ###s, showboat in his own driveway with media afloat, let Rosenhaus run amuck, ##### about $$$, ##### about the Ravens, ##### about Philly, ##### about SF, ##### about the media, ##### about whitey, ##### about the NFL...

Yeah the Eagles surely botched the whole thing up.. and the next team that takes this idiot will handle "it" just fine.

Settle down there Cowboy. All I am saying is that the Eagles could have taken measures that would have difused the whole situation, but didn't out of principle. I am suggesting that those "principles" cost them a chance at going tback to the Superbowl.The funny thing is, if TO had just been busted for cocaine, he would serve a little suspension, and be back at work.

They dropped the ball in allowing their season to be tanked over a couple million dollars that they could have moved up a bit in the contract (and easily would have recoupped in playoff ticket sales), but didn't because they were sticking to their "principles". When they didn't, it sent a clear message to TO that they had no intention of honouring the contract past this year, despite what he did to get himself ready for the Superbowl. The Eagles wanted Terrell to believe the team was good with or without him - which clearly isn't the case - and that he wasn't worth renegotiating for them. (please no references to years when the defense could win games)

I believe the Eagles' pigheadedness as an organization cost them the playoffs this year, so rather than splashing irony all over the board with your posts, bring something tangible if you will (and legible).

TIA,

Zoo.

 

[Jedeye]

Here's a question...If the Eagles are forced to release Owens (which I doubt will happen), Will the NFL compensate the Eagles in some manner? For example the could be given a compensatory ppick in the 2006 draft.Just a thought.

 

[Muahahaha]

FBGs should put Owens back in the Top 200 forward; he's got to have SOME trade value. Roddy White is WR84. Given this uncertainty, I would rank Owens above White, and possibly many others, at least until the arbitrator rules. I think this was premature.I'm in five leagues; NO ONE has dropped Owens. This is not cut and dry.

 

[raceguy]

It would be a horrible precedent for the NFL if TO wins this case. Essentially, it would give players cart blanche to do anything and everything in their power to become a disruptive force on a team in order to force their way out of a situation they do not like.

On the flip side I believe it would horrible to NOT set some sort of precedent. Owners should not be given unlimited and unrestricted use of the inactive list to obviously punish or hinder a player's ablity to further a career/earn bonuses/recognition awards/ etc. etc.I know many of you don't like Owens which is fine. I don't either. However what if this was another player who is well respected and liked? Just under different circumstances such as:

A player gets into a minor argument with team owner, not even enough to warrant a CBA suspension....inactive for rest of year?

A player very close to earning a contractual performance bonus and owner does not feel like paying ............placed on inactive list?

Player doesn't like the same music as owner's son ..... can he be deactivated for this too?

Any ruling or precedent set will affect ALL players, not just the jerks. This should also be considered as well.

 

[Christo]

Further...

Let's let TO run onto the Dallas star a few more times, call other players ###s, showboat in his own driveway with media afloat, let Rosenhaus run amuck, ##### about $$$, ##### about the Ravens, ##### about Philly, ##### about SF, ##### about the media, ##### about whitey, ##### about the NFL...

Yeah the Eagles surely botched the whole thing up.. and the next team that takes this idiot will handle "it" just fine.

Settle down there Cowboy. All I am saying is that the Eagles could have taken measures that would have difused the whole situation, but didn't out of principle. I am suggesting that those "principles" cost them a chance at going tback to the Superbowl.The funny thing is, if TO had just been busted for cocaine, he would serve a little suspension, and be back at work.

They dropped the ball in allowing their season to be tanked over a couple million dollars that they could have moved up a bit in the contract (and easily would have recoupped in playoff ticket sales), but didn't because they were sticking to their "principles". When they didn't, it sent a clear message to TO that they had no intention of honouring the contract past this year, despite what he did to get himself ready for the Superbowl. The Eagles wanted Terrell to believe the team was good with or without him - which clearly isn't the case - and that he wasn't worth renegotiating for them. (please no references to years when the defense could win games)

I believe the Eagles' pigheadedness as an organization cost them the playoffs this year, so rather than splashing irony all over the board with your posts, bring something tangible if you will (and legible).

TIA,

Zoo.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But didn't the Eagles manage to reach the NFC East cellar this year with TO "in the fold" so to speak?

 

[Aerial Assault]

Further...

Let's let TO run onto the Dallas star a few more times, call other players ###s, showboat in his own driveway with media afloat, let Rosenhaus run amuck, ##### about $$$, ##### about the Ravens, ##### about Philly, ##### about SF, ##### about the media, ##### about whitey, ##### about the NFL...

Yeah the Eagles surely botched the whole thing up.. and the next team that takes this idiot will handle "it" just fine.

Settle down there Cowboy. All I am saying is that the Eagles could have taken measures that would have difused the whole situation, but didn't out of principle. I am suggesting that those "principles" cost them a chance at going tback to the Superbowl.The funny thing is, if TO had just been busted for cocaine, he would serve a little suspension, and be back at work.

They dropped the ball in allowing their season to be tanked over a couple million dollars that they could have moved up a bit in the contract (and easily would have recoupped in playoff ticket sales), but didn't because they were sticking to their "principles". When they didn't, it sent a clear message to TO that they had no intention of honouring the contract past this year, despite what he did to get himself ready for the Superbowl. The Eagles wanted Terrell to believe the team was good with or without him - which clearly isn't the case - and that he wasn't worth renegotiating for them. (please no references to years when the defense could win games)

I believe the Eagles' pigheadedness as an organization cost them the playoffs this year, so rather than splashing irony all over the board with your posts, bring something tangible if you will (and legible).

TIA,

Zoo.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But didn't the Eagles manage to reach the NFC East cellar this year with TO "in the fold" so to speak?

(1) Do you think having TO might have made a difference against the Redskins? If so, then you must also think that having TO might have enabled the Eagles to avoid the cellar, since they would have done so with a win last Sunday night. (2) The NFC East is the best division in football this year, so being in the cellar of it isn't really the way to judge the Eagles' performance.

(3) Despite the above, the issue isn't correct as you've presented it. The actual issue is whether or not the Eagles would go the playoffs with Owens on their roster the rest of the way. I believe they probably would. However, one thing we know for sure is that NOT having him severely hurts their chances.

 

[TommyKramer]

8 pages....ok, I admit that I skimmed (at best).I just picked up Owens in a re-draft league. Help me out, any chance this pays off (i.e. the cliff notes version).

 

[Kovax]

8 pages....ok, I admit that I skimmed (at best).

I just picked up Owens in a re-draft league. Help me out, any chance this pays off (i.e. the cliff notes version).

Wise move. We'll know more in a week. I have TO and am waiting till then to decide.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

The Players Union doesn't want a salary cap either.The Gridiron Assassin doesn't want to pay taxes.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

btw.... flying under the radar with the TO soap opera is:

HOW LOUSY Javon Kearse has been.

In essense, 'they CUT' DT Corey Simon, and he is probably going to propel the Indy Colts defense into the Super Bowl. Not that he ALONE is going to do it, but he's provided enough push up the middle to allow Robert Mathis and Dwight Freeney to feast on QBs this season - with Mathis leading the league in sacks. The Colts now have the Fourth Best Defense in the NFL - they couldn't say that PRIOR to getting Simon.

 

[Billy1x]

Here's a question...If the Eagles are forced to release Owens (which I doubt will happen), Will the NFL compensate the Eagles in some manner? For example the could be given a compensatory ppick in the 2006 draft.

Just a thought.

Interesting idea. Arbitrator will try to negociate a solution. TO can only be suspended 4 games and then HE MUST BE ALLOWED TO USE THE FACILITIES AND PRACTICE. Is it worth the disruption.Not sure he has the power to do it but cutting him, eliminating the salarly cap penalty, and giving them a 3rd round pick (isn't that what Baltimore got) should make everyone happy.

QUESTION: Did TO diliberetly wait until AFTER the trade deadline to act up. A trade would mean that he had to keep the contract. Getting cut is the only way out. Remember the wink he gave when they asked what Drew had done for him lately.

 

[raceguy]

Here's a question...If the Eagles are forced to release Owens (which I doubt will happen), Will the NFL compensate the Eagles in some manner? For example the could be given a compensatory ppick in the 2006 draft.

Just a thought.

I wouldn't think so.I don't think the Eagles can be "forced" to release Owens in this case. That will be a decision for the Eagles to make on their own.

The NFLPA is asking for a reduced suspension and a return to active status, not a releasment. If this happens, the Eagles will have several options only one of which is releasing him.

 

[FFdork]

One thing I was just thinking about (that someone may have discussed already--it's hard to read every post in 9 pages): let's say the arbitrator does rule that T.O. has to be allowed to practice and attend games. At that point, can't the Eagles say fine, let him practice (with the 3rd string or special teams maybe), deactivate him each game and wait for him to, well, be T.O. again ? As soon as he does so they can then suspend him again.I just don't see them cutting him and facing the possibility that an angry, vengeful T.O. plays for another team they might face.

 

[Red Apples]

One thing I was just thinking about (that someone may have discussed already--it's hard to read every post in 9 pages): let's say the arbitrator does rule that T.O. has to be allowed to practice and attend games. At that point, can't the Eagles say fine, let him practice (with the 3rd string or special teams maybe), deactivate him each game and wait for him to, well, be T.O. again ? As soon as he does so they can then suspend him again.

I just don't see them cutting him and facing the possibility that an angry, vengeful T.O. plays for another team they might face.

yes, they can let him practice & deactivate him for game days.if they cut TO, he cannot sign w/ just any team, TO has to clear waivers 1st.

houston or green bay would have 1st dibs.

 

[Bri]

One thing I was just thinking about (that someone may have discussed already--it's hard to read every post in 9 pages): let's say the arbitrator does rule that T.O. has to be allowed to practice and attend games. At that point, can't the Eagles say fine, let him practice (with the 3rd string or special teams maybe), deactivate him each game and wait for him to, well, be T.O. again ? As soon as he does so they can then suspend him again.

I just don't see them cutting him and facing the possibility that an angry, vengeful T.O. plays for another team they might face.

TO is TO I don't think vengeance will make him play any better or worse, plus the Eagles have good CBs and likely wouldn't worry as much as most teams.As for your other point, that'd be shooting themselves in the foot. I would imagine all sides would agree to roll with whatever the arbitrator/league decide and go from there. While doing that now would make them pro-team and be a good thing, to keep punishing him after the fact would make them look like the dopes. It would be past that step

 

[raceguy]

At that point, can't the Eagles say fine, let him practice (with the 3rd string or special teams maybe), deactivate him each game and wait for him to, well, be T.O. again ? As soon as he does so they can then suspend him again.

If the Eagles would have simply just done this in the first place they would'nt be in this mess.

 

[FFdork]

One thing I was just thinking about (that someone may have discussed already--it's hard to read every post in 9 pages): let's say the arbitrator does rule that T.O. has to be allowed to practice and attend games. At that point, can't the Eagles say fine, let him practice (with the 3rd string or special teams maybe), deactivate him each game and wait for him to, well, be T.O. again ? As soon as he does so they can then suspend him again.

I just don't see them cutting him and facing the possibility that an angry, vengeful T.O. plays for another team they might face.

yes, they can let him practice & deactivate him for game days.if they cut TO, he cannot sign w/ just any team, TO has to clear waivers 1st.

houston or green bay would have 1st dibs.

No, I get all that. You're missing my point. My point is that even if the arbitrator rules T.O. has to be able to practice, the Eagles have no intention of playing him again. At that point he will inevitably do something suspension-worthy again. Then they can suspend him again without pay. I really don't think the Eagles have any intention of letting him play for someone else, whether he would clear waivers or not. Why take that chance if you have to pay him the $ anyway? Mortenson's article, quoted ealier in this thread, speculated their could be a pre-arbitration arrangement where T.O. agrees the Eagles don't have to pay him and they in turn agree to cut him. Something like that (where there is some benefit for the Eagles) is the only way I see them doing it. Even then, I just don't think they want to give in and let T.O. get what he's been wanting all along--especially if there is even the slightest chance he'd end up on another NFC playoff contender.

The other poster's suggestion that the Eagles wouldn't be concerned because of their corners is rediculous. You're saying they woulnd't be worried if TO were a Redskin and now they have to gameplan for Portis, Moss and TO?

Finally, if he does get dropped, I hope either San Fransisco or Baltimore claims him just to give him the finger.

 

[David Dodds]

My take on this whole thing:The Eagles are violating the spirit of the CBA by trying to both suspend him and then keep him away from all team functions going forward after the suspension. Hence the grievance.If he serves the maximum suspension according to the CBA, then the team really has two options:1. Allow him to come back to the team (or)2. Cut himNo one disagrees that the team can make him inactive every week. That is their right. They can also ask the player to stay home while they pay him (Keyshawn Johnson). But if the player decides he wants to attend all the team meetings, use the whirlpool and workout with the team, I believe he has that right.I also think the Eagles gave him one suspension and then turned around and added another one after they did not like the depth of his apology. That likely won't fly either. Don't think for a minute this is NOT a huge CBA issue going forward. Players already don't have guaranteed money. Now they also could be sent home for up to 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team. How many times do we see a player fired up on the sidelines, or things get heated in practice. The Eagles are saying he parked in handicapped parking places, etc. Do these things qualify for the 4 games, etc? What about an injured player. Can a team state something like this and not have to pay somebody that they won't be able to use, etc? This is likely the reason that this was CAPPED at 4 games maximum. The CBA wants to make sure that owners don't use this to keep finances in order on under-performing players, etc.When all the smoke clears, I think TO will receive a 1 to 2 game suspension without pay. Since this will be determined on the 18th, he will effectively be cleared to return to practice. I think if the Eagles create a separate time for practice, exclude him from meetings, etc this will be grieved again with the outcome that the Eagles can not do this. He has the right to use participate as a team member according to the CBA. The Eagles are likely going to have to make a decision. Is TO being around the club too much of a distraction? If so they are going to need to cut him. If they do not want to do that (because of cap problems, not wanting someone this talented on another roster, etc) then they will need to suck it up and deal with him at their facilities and their meetings. They negotiated this CBA and must abide by it as well. Failure to do this is really going to screw up negotions going forward with the players.When all the dust settles, I think we will see TO practicing in a Eagles uniform. I doubt he will play again for them, but stranger things have happened.------------------------------Some other points:1. I have heard some people say: In the real world, a company has this right. That is simply not true. If you do something that is deemed "conduct detrimental to your job", you are going to be either sent home for a specified period or fired. If you are sent home and come back, then you are free to work again after serving the penalty. If they fire you, you are free to seek employment elsewhere(provided you don't have a no-compete agreement). And no-competes rarely hold up in court. people have a right to earn a living.2. For those that say they are paying him, so this is only the one suspension, the union will successfully argue that they are applying the team rules differently to TO. He should be allowed all the same priviliges as other CBA member on a roster. And that includes the whirlpool, access to the team doctor, film review, team meetings, getting a locker back etc. And if I am TO, I would want to participate in film review, game plans, meetings, etc because these things could be the very reason some other NFC team gives him a contract. 3. I don't disagree that TO has been a distraction here. I don't dispute that he stupidly keeps saying really dumb things. If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that. But with that being said, I think the punishment that the Eagles are trying to do here does not fit the crime. They purposely entered into an agreement where they knew they would rent TO for two years max. The big lump sum was NEVER going to be paid. The Eagles knew that TO was going to be a very unhappy camper if he did not renegotiate after year 1. In my opinion, the Eagles were never honest in this situation. They made it sound like a seven year deal, but had no intention of it going past two years. They do not offer long-term contracts to people over 30. To those that say TO signed the deal...That is correct, but if you remember he had no options. His previous agent screwed him by not filing paperwork, etc. He was first traded to Baltimore. He never got months to test the FA market, etc. So he signed the only deal he could. and he did so with TO's old agent. Once Drew saw the contract, he told TO you are never seeing any money after the 2nd year no matter how well you play. Again not trying to say TO is without fault, but the Eagles created part of this disaster with the first contract. I would be interested in seeing a vote of the players whether they would want TO back on their roster. Most commented after the long apology that he appeared sincere. Does anyone think TOs actions were worse than what Ricky Williams did? and the Dolphins gave him another chance. 4. From what I have seen with how the Eagles cut everyone over 30 and how they are pushing so hard on this situation, I think there will be backlash from FA players wanting to play there. Their formula has been successful to date, but I could see it backfiring bigtime if the players do not trust management. and I think that's exactly what is brewing here.

 

[Muahahaha]

Wow, Dodds. Very nice job of summing up this whole mess. Now if there were only a way we could sticky that specific post so that everyone would have to read it before commenting on this situation....Spot on.

 

[Jason Wood]

If this is really Upshaw's take, then the Eagles hearing is going to go VERY well. Had they made the case the suspension with no pay was too long, they had a case. But no way can they arbitrarily make the case that a team HAS TO cut someone it's PAYING but NOT PLAYING.Imagine the Pandora's Box that would open up..The "can't miss' rookie is sitting behind an all pro and says, "I deserve to be cut b/c I'm not getting my reps!"It's laughable.

 

[Jason Wood]

One more thought...Upshaw is trying to make the case "this isn't what we intended when we signed the CBA."

Well...

1) You have a new CBA coming...remember this during the negotiations

2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

How many teams WANT to keep a player home while paying them? That's a desperate and last ditch decision with significant bearing on team performance and economics...THAT is why this has happened so rarely. What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?

 

[allaces10]

My take on this whole thing:

The Eagles are violating the spirit of the CBA by trying to both suspend him and then keep him away from all team functions going forward after the suspension. Hence the grievance.

If he serves the maximum suspension according to the CBA, then the team really has two options:

1. Allow him to come back to the team (or)

2. Cut him

No one disagrees that the team can make him inactive every week. That is their right. They can also ask the player to stay home while they pay him (Keyshawn Johnson). But if the player decides he wants to attend all the team meetings, use the whirlpool and workout with the team, I believe he has that right.

I also think the Eagles gave him one suspension and then turned around and added another one after they did not like the depth of his apology. That likely won't fly either.

Don't think for a minute this is NOT a huge CBA issue going forward. Players already don't have guaranteed money. Now they also could be sent home for up to 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team. How many times do we see a player fired up on the sidelines, or things get heated in practice. The Eagles are saying he parked in handicapped parking places, etc. Do these things qualify for the 4 games, etc? What about an injured player. Can a team state something like this and not have to pay somebody that they won't be able to use, etc?

This is likely the reason that this was CAPPED at 4 games maximum. The CBA wants to make sure that owners don't use this to keep finances in order on under-performing players, etc.

When all the smoke clears, I think TO will receive a 1 to 2 game suspension without pay. Since this will be determined on the 18th, he will effectively be cleared to return to practice.

I think if the Eagles create a separate time for practice, exclude him from meetings, etc this will be grieved again with the outcome that the Eagles can not do this. He has the right to use participate as a team member according to the CBA.

The Eagles are likely going to have to make a decision. Is TO being around the club too much of a distraction? If so they are going to need to cut him. If they do not want to do that (because of cap problems, not wanting someone this talented on another roster, etc) then they will need to suck it up and deal with him at their facilities and their meetings. They negotiated this CBA and must abide by it as well. Failure to do this is really going to screw up negotions going forward with the players.

When all the dust settles, I think we will see TO practicing in a Eagles uniform. I doubt he will play again for them, but stranger things have happened.

------------------------------

Some other points:

1. I have heard some people say: In the real world, a company has this right. That is simply not true. If you do something that is deemed "conduct detrimental to your job", you are going to be either sent home for a specified period or fired. If you are sent home and come back, then you are free to work again after serving the penalty. If they fire you, you are free to seek employment elsewhere(provided you don't have a no-compete agreement). And no-competes rarely hold up in court. people have a right to earn a living.

2. For those that say they are paying him, so this is only the one suspension, the union will successfully argue that they are applying the team rules differently to TO. He should be allowed all the same priviliges as other CBA member on a roster. And that includes the whirlpool, access to the team doctor, film review, team meetings, getting a locker back etc. And if I am TO, I would want to participate in film review, game plans, meetings, etc because these things could be the very reason some other NFC team gives him a contract.

3. I don't disagree that TO has been a distraction here. I don't dispute that he stupidly keeps saying really dumb things. If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that. But with that being said, I think the punishment that the Eagles are trying to do here does not fit the crime. They purposely entered into an agreement where they knew they would rent TO for two years max. The big lump sum was NEVER going to be paid. The Eagles knew that TO was going to be a very unhappy camper if he did not renegotiate after year 1. In my opinion, the Eagles were never honest in this situation. They made it sound like a seven year deal, but had no intention of it going past two years. They do not offer long-term contracts to people over 30. To those that say TO signed the deal...That is correct, but if you remember he had no options. His previous agent screwed him by not filing paperwork, etc. He was first traded to Baltimore. He never got months to test the FA market, etc. So he signed the only deal he could. and he did so with TO's old agent. Once Drew saw the contract, he told TO you are never seeing any money after the 2nd year no matter how well you play. Again not trying to say TO is without fault, but the Eagles created part of this disaster with the first contract. I would be interested in seeing a vote of the players whether they would want TO back on their roster. Most commented after the long apology that he appeared sincere. Does anyone think TOs actions were worse than what Ricky Williams did? and the Dolphins gave him another chance.

4. From what I have seen with how the Eagles cut everyone over 30 and how they are pushing so hard on this situation, I think there will be backlash from FA players wanting to play there. Their formula has been successful to date, but I could see it backfiring bigtime if the players do not trust management. and I think that's exactly what is brewing here.

I disagree with virtually this entire post...especially points 3 and 4. Purposely entered into an agreement to rent TO for 2 years? Its the eagles fault the prior agent screwed up the filing date? Its the eagles fault TO decided not to wait another few days for the arbitrater to rule on the case and most likely grant him his desired free agency? You KNOW for a fact the eagles would not be more than happy with TO up to date and more than willingly would have paid him the roster bonus in March had he been a model citizen? You speculate most players would want TO back on the team after the apology? Have you been paying attention to the backlash of that arguement? Name 2 players who have come back and said they would allow him back after that? Virtually ever single player and organization asked about TO said they want nothing to do with him...and you think him being sincere in his apology means squat? He's sincere the same way a kid is sincere after being a total pain in the ### to his parents....repeatedly warned he will be grounded and cant play with his friends if he keeps his act up..and only after the parents ground him and he realizes his parents meant business does the kid finally get it..and by then..its too late....The bottom line is...TO has been such a distraction..such a pain the rear to the eagles Front office and locker room that the eagles at this point had no other option than to get this cancer away from their facilities so the rest of the team that wants to be there can finally focus on trying to salvage this season before its too late.

 

[Irish]

One thing I was just thinking about (that someone may have discussed already--it's hard to read every post in 9 pages): let's say the arbitrator does rule that T.O. has to be allowed to practice and attend games. At that point, can't the Eagles say fine, let him practice (with the 3rd string or special teams maybe), deactivate him each game and wait for him to, well, be T.O. again ? As soon as he does so they can then suspend him again.

I just don't see them cutting him and facing the possibility that an angry, vengeful T.O. plays for another team they might face.

yes, they can let him practice & deactivate him for game days.if they cut TO, he cannot sign w/ just any team, TO has to clear waivers 1st.

houston or green bay would have 1st dibs.

As a vested veteran in the league, TO does not have to clear waivers and automatically becomes a free agent if the Eagles decide to cut him.

 

[Irish]

My take on this whole thing:

The Eagles are violating the spirit of the CBA by trying to both suspend him and then keep him away from all team functions going forward after the suspension. Hence the grievance.

If he serves the maximum suspension according to the CBA, then the team really has two options:

1. Allow him to come back to the team (or)

2. Cut him

No one disagrees that the team can make him inactive every week. That is their right. They can also ask the player to stay home while they pay him (Keyshawn Johnson). But if the player decides he wants to attend all the team meetings, use the whirlpool and workout with the team, I believe he has that right.

I also think the Eagles gave him one suspension and then turned around and added another one after they did not like the depth of his apology. That likely won't fly either.

Don't think for a minute this is NOT a huge CBA issue going forward. Players already don't have guaranteed money. Now they also could be sent home for up to 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team. How many times do we see a player fired up on the sidelines, or things get heated in practice. The Eagles are saying he parked in handicapped parking places, etc. Do these things qualify for the 4 games, etc? What about an injured player. Can a team state something like this and not have to pay somebody that they won't be able to use, etc?

This is likely the reason that this was CAPPED at 4 games maximum. The CBA wants to make sure that owners don't use this to keep finances in order on under-performing players, etc.

When all the smoke clears, I think TO will receive a 1 to 2 game suspension without pay. Since this will be determined on the 18th, he will effectively be cleared to return to practice.

I think if the Eagles create a separate time for practice, exclude him from meetings, etc this will be grieved again with the outcome that the Eagles can not do this. He has the right to use participate as a team member according to the CBA.

The Eagles are likely going to have to make a decision. Is TO being around the club too much of a distraction? If so they are going to need to cut him. If they do not want to do that (because of cap problems, not wanting someone this talented on another roster, etc) then they will need to suck it up and deal with him at their facilities and their meetings. They negotiated this CBA and must abide by it as well. Failure to do this is really going to screw up negotions going forward with the players.

When all the dust settles, I think we will see TO practicing in a Eagles uniform. I doubt he will play again for them, but stranger things have happened.

------------------------------

Some other points:

1. I have heard some people say: In the real world, a company has this right. That is simply not true. If you do something that is deemed "conduct detrimental to your job", you are going to be either sent home for a specified period or fired. If you are sent home and come back, then you are free to work again after serving the penalty. If they fire you, you are free to seek employment elsewhere(provided you don't have a no-compete agreement). And no-competes rarely hold up in court. people have a right to earn a living.

2. For those that say they are paying him, so this is only the one suspension, the union will successfully argue that they are applying the team rules differently to TO. He should be allowed all the same priviliges as other CBA member on a roster. And that includes the whirlpool, access to the team doctor, film review, team meetings, getting a locker back etc. And if I am TO, I would want to participate in film review, game plans, meetings, etc because these things could be the very reason some other NFC team gives him a contract.

3. I don't disagree that TO has been a distraction here. I don't dispute that he stupidly keeps saying really dumb things. If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that. But with that being said, I think the punishment that the Eagles are trying to do here does not fit the crime. They purposely entered into an agreement where they knew they would rent TO for two years max. The big lump sum was NEVER going to be paid. The Eagles knew that TO was going to be a very unhappy camper if he did not renegotiate after year 1. In my opinion, the Eagles were never honest in this situation. They made it sound like a seven year deal, but had no intention of it going past two years. They do not offer long-term contracts to people over 30. To those that say TO signed the deal...That is correct, but if you remember he had no options. His previous agent screwed him by not filing paperwork, etc. He was first traded to Baltimore. He never got months to test the FA market, etc. So he signed the only deal he could. and he did so with TO's old agent. Once Drew saw the contract, he told TO you are never seeing any money after the 2nd year no matter how well you play. Again not trying to say TO is without fault, but the Eagles created part of this disaster with the first contract. I would be interested in seeing a vote of the players whether they would want TO back on their roster. Most commented after the long apology that he appeared sincere. Does anyone think TOs actions were worse than what Ricky Williams did? and the Dolphins gave him another chance.

4. From what I have seen with how the Eagles cut everyone over 30 and how they are pushing so hard on this situation, I think there will be backlash from FA players wanting to play there. Their formula has been successful to date, but I could see it backfiring bigtime if the players do not trust management. and I think that's exactly what is brewing here.

I disagree with virtually this entire post...especially points 3 and 4. Purposely entered into an agreement to rent TO for 2 years? Its the eagles fault the prior agent screwed up the filing date? Its the eagles fault TO decided not to wait another few days for the arbitrater to rule on the case and most likely grant him his desired free agency? You KNOW for a fact the eagles would not be more than happy with TO up to date and more than willingly would have paid him the roster bonus in March had he been a model citizen? You speculate most players would want TO back on the team after the apology? Have you been paying attention to the backlash of that arguement? Name 2 players who have come back and said they would allow him back after that? Virtually ever single player and organization asked about TO said they want nothing to do with him...and you think him being sincere in his apology means squat? He's sincere the same way a kid is sincere after being a total pain in the ### to his parents....repeatedly warned he will be grounded and cant play with his friends if he keeps his act up..and only after the parents ground him and he realizes his parents meant business does the kid finally get it..and by then..its too late....The bottom line is...TO has been such a distraction..such a pain the rear to the eagles Front office and locker room that the eagles at this point had no other option than to get this cancer away from their facilities so the rest of the team that wants to be there can finally focus on trying to salvage this season before its too late.

Did you not read his very good point about the Ricky Williams situation. Every player , former player, and analyst was saying how Ricky would never be welcomed back on any team let alone the Dolphins, the team he quit on at the last minute. Players that have served suspensions for drugs, players that beat their wives, and players that serve time in prison are welcomed back by teams. Organizations and players want to win badly and they forgive a lot of things in order to achieve it.

 

[Raiders Fan]

My take on this whole thing:

The Eagles are violating the spirit of the CBA by trying to both suspend him and then keep him away from all team functions going forward after the suspension. Hence the grievance.

If he serves the maximum suspension according to the CBA, then the team really has two options:

1.  Allow him to come back to the team (or)

2.  Cut him

No one disagrees that the team can make him inactive every week.  That is their right.  They can also ask the player to stay home while they pay him (Keyshawn Johnson).  But if the player decides he wants to attend all the team meetings, use the whirlpool and workout with the team, I believe he has that right.

I also think the Eagles gave him one suspension and then turned around and added another one after they did not like the depth of his apology. That likely won't fly either. 

Don't think for a minute this is NOT a huge CBA issue going forward.  Players already don't have guaranteed money.  Now they also could be sent home for up to 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team.  How many times do we see a player fired up on the sidelines, or things get heated in practice.  The Eagles are saying he parked in handicapped parking places, etc.  Do these things qualify for the 4 games, etc?  What about an injured player.  Can a team state something like this and not have to pay somebody that they won't be able to use, etc? 

This is likely the reason that this was CAPPED at 4 games maximum.  The CBA wants to make sure that owners don't use this to keep finances in order on under-performing players, etc.

When all the smoke clears, I think TO will receive a 1 to 2 game suspension without pay.  Since this will be determined on the 18th, he will effectively be cleared to return to practice. 

I think if the Eagles create a separate time for practice, exclude him from meetings, etc this will be grieved again with the outcome that the Eagles can not do this.  He has the right to use participate as a team member according to the CBA. 

The Eagles are likely going to have to make a decision.  Is TO being around the club too much of a distraction?  If so they are going to need to cut him.  If they do not want to do that (because of cap problems, not wanting someone this talented on another roster, etc) then they will need to suck it up and deal with him at their facilities and their meetings.  They negotiated this CBA and must abide by it as well.  Failure to do this is really going to screw up negotions going forward with the players.

When all the dust settles, I think we will see TO practicing in a Eagles uniform.  I doubt he will play again for them, but stranger things have happened.

------------------------------

Some other points:

1.  I have heard some people say: In the real world, a company has this right.  That is simply not true.  If you do something that is deemed "conduct detrimental to your job", you are going to be either sent home for a specified period or fired.  If you are sent home and come back, then you are free to work again after serving the penalty.  If they fire you, you are free to seek employment elsewhere(provided you don't have a no-compete agreement).  And no-competes rarely hold up in court.  people have a right to earn a living.

2.  For those that say they are paying him, so this is only the one suspension, the union will successfully argue that they are applying the team rules differently to TO.  He should be allowed all the same priviliges as other CBA member on a roster.  And that includes the whirlpool, access to the team doctor, film review, team meetings, getting a locker back etc.  And if I am TO, I would want to participate in film review, game plans, meetings, etc because these things could be the very reason some other NFC team gives him a contract. 

3. I don't disagree that TO has been a distraction here.  I don't dispute that he stupidly keeps saying really dumb things.  If I was an owner I would not want him as I don't think you can win with people like that.  But with that being said, I think the punishment that the Eagles are trying to do here does not fit the crime.  They purposely entered into an agreement where they knew they would rent TO for two years max.  The big lump sum was NEVER going to be paid.  The Eagles knew that TO was going to be a very unhappy camper if he did not renegotiate after year 1.  In my opinion, the Eagles were never honest in this situation.  They made it sound like a seven year deal, but had no intention of it going past two years.  They do not offer long-term contracts to people over 30.  To those that say TO signed the deal...That is correct, but if you remember he had no options.  His previous agent screwed him by not filing paperwork, etc.  He was first traded to Baltimore.  He never got months to test the FA market, etc.  So he signed the only deal he could.  and he did so with TO's old agent.  Once Drew saw the contract, he told TO you are never seeing any money after the 2nd year no matter how well you play.  Again not trying to say TO is without fault, but the Eagles created part of this disaster with the first contract.  I would be interested in seeing a vote of the players whether they would want TO back on their roster.  Most commented after the long apology that he appeared sincere.  Does anyone think TOs actions were worse than what Ricky Williams did?  and the Dolphins gave him another chance.

4.  From what I have seen with how the Eagles cut everyone over 30 and how they are pushing so hard on this situation, I think there will be backlash from FA players wanting to play there.  Their formula has been successful to date, but I could see it backfiring bigtime if the players do not trust management.  and I think that's exactly what is brewing here.

I disagree with virtually this entire post...especially points 3 and 4. Purposely entered into an agreement to rent TO for 2 years? Its the eagles fault the prior agent screwed up the filing date? Its the eagles fault TO decided not to wait another few days for the arbitrater to rule on the case and most likely grant him his desired free agency? You KNOW for a fact the eagles would not be more than happy with TO up to date and more than willingly would have paid him the roster bonus in March had he been a model citizen? You speculate most players would want TO back on the team after the apology? Have you been paying attention to the backlash of that arguement? Name 2 players who have come back and said they would allow him back after that? Virtually ever single player and organization asked about TO said they want nothing to do with him...and you think him being sincere in his apology means squat? He's sincere the same way a kid is sincere after being a total pain in the ### to his parents....repeatedly warned he will be grounded and cant play with his friends if he keeps his act up..and only after the parents ground him and he realizes his parents meant business does the kid finally get it..and by then..its too late....The bottom line is...TO has been such a distraction..such a pain the rear to the eagles Front office and locker room that the eagles at this point had no other option than to get this cancer away from their facilities so the rest of the team that wants to be there can finally focus on trying to salvage this season before its too late.

Did you not read his very good point about the Ricky Williams situation. Every player , former player, and analyst was saying how Ricky would never be welcomed back on any team let alone the Dolphins, the team he quit on at the last minute. Players that have served suspensions for drugs, players that beat their wives, and players that serve time in prison are welcomed back by teams. Organizations and players want to win badly and they forgive a lot of things in order to achieve it.

Good points.. I think people are over dramatizing the situation cause its TO.. He deserved a 1 game suspension for what he said but it's kind of like taking a convicted shoplifter and sentencing him to the electric chair. The punishment does not fit the crime.. Yeah and the glove doesn't fit... Ahhh never mind..

 

[cowboyz]

2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?

it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?

it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.

Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.

 

[Saint]

I agree.TO has been an incredible distraction to the team. He has skills, no doubt about that, but then there is the baggage that comes with those skills. Look at how the TO situation has been from his history back at SF. This is not a singular incident. At ths point, I believe the eagles had every right to suspend him.There are plenty of teams in the league that play well as a team without the hype. (Patriots over the last few years for example). I think we'll see TO maintain his suspension, and I imagine that after the suspension the Eagles will choose to deactivate him as long as they have a shot at making the playoffs. If the eagles don't have a shot at the playoffs, at that point they cut him. No sense in cutting a player that may come back and play against you at a future date until you are sure you are either in or out.I'm sure some team will want him though... and the saga will continue.

 

[Snotbubbles]

it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.

As long as the Eagles are paying him during the deactivation, the NFLPA has no leg to stand on. At best, the appeal can reduce the amount of UNPAID suspension games.

also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

I didn't write the original post, but I believe you missed the point. The point was that should TO win his appeal and the Eagles are forced to practice and play him, then under-used players would raise a similar, they are "deactivating" me argument to either get their release, or more reps in practice and games. To much of a pandora's box, which I don't believe the Special Master will open.IMO, the bottom line is that the Eagles and TO have agreed to a contract in which the Eagles own the rights of TO as a football player for them to use him in any manner they deem appropriate, as long as they are paying his salary. If that means they want to pay him to sit at home so no other team can use his services, then that is their perrogative. If the Eagles do lose and are forced to allow TO to practice, I tell him practices are at 4am and have Joeballboy watch him do windsprints for a couple of hours.

 

[Christo]

2) He's acting like this is some loophole that teams are going to exploit

What scenarios can Upshaw come up with that would prompt more teams to start sending high paid veterans home for half the season WITH pay?

it is a loophole, because deactivation was not meant to be used as a punishment. which is exactly the scenario Upshaw is defending, using deactivation as a punishment, thus exceeding the 4 game rule.also your first point about rookies, the rookie would play if he was better, TO would play on any team. so the deactivation is obviously being used as a punishment, the eagles have said it, and everyone knows it.

also the talk of using him on special teams or keeping him off the field if the arbitrator rules against it, would I believe fall under the same argument, since TO would never be used like that, hence it is a form of punishment.

IMO, the arbitrator will force them do limit their punishment to 4 games, then the eagles either take him back or cut him. If I were the eagles, I would take him back, and TO either behaves or doesn't, whereupon they suspend him another 4 games. I don't see how the eagles lose, other than their pride and inability to spite him. Looks like a win-win. TO plays hard gets a contract with another team. Eagles gets a motivated top-flight WR that doesn't cause any trouble.

Deactivation is meant to be used to deactivate players the team doesn't want to activate. The Eagles don't want to activate T.O. He's not a better player than any of the other WRs on the team. He has better physical skills, but (in the coaches' opinion) he doesn't give the team the best chance to win. He's a distraction.The coaches are allowed to play the guys they think give the team the best chance to win, and their judgment on that isn't reviewable by the league or the NFLPA.

T.O. probably has the right to attend practice and work out with the team. But no way does he have the right to be activated or to get playing time.

I wouldn't even go that far. If the Eagles feel his presence at practice is detrimental to the team, he does not have the "right" to be there.

 

[NJ]

They just mentioned on ESPN that the arbitrator on Friday is a Redskins season ticket holder.