The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't know why you'd bench your starting quarterback when you are not out of the playoff race yet.

Christmas Eve was not his fault.  He rallied them from behind.

Talk about second guessing.  If they had won that game, they'd have a realistic chance of tying KC for the division lead next week.

It's about money.  Wilson's contract was always terrible.  They paid top QB money for a guy who needs more support than they can now afford to give him.  By not starting him the last couple of weeks, it gives them financial flexibility, as per their contract agreement.

The Broncos are ESSENTIALLY eliminated from the playoffs.  They don't control their own destiny and they need to jump 5 teams to even get into the 7th spot.  It ain't happening.

Sean Payton is not as good as he thinks he is, he's Bill Belichick Lite; neither very good without an all-star QB.  Payton started off throwing shade against the prior coach and started off with losses.  He's been anti-Wilson since before the season, and what he's done is deplorable.  I guarantee there are many FA's that are not going to want to go play for the Bronco's the way he has treated Wilson.  Yeah the Bronco's overpaid Wilson, but you don't fix that by disrespecting Wilson in the media.  By the way it's not the offense that is giving up all those points, and Wilson has actually been playing better.  Wilson is still guaranteed like $38M next year, so he's going to get paid.

I don't like the way Payton is doing it, by saying the next guy in line gives them the best chance to win.  We all know that he thinks that's bullshit and it's disingenuous.

However, I don't fault them for sitting Wilson if he doesn't negotiate.

Wilson's contract is poison and they need to be able to get out of whatever part of it they can.  They need that flexibility.  I don't blame Wilson for refusing if he doesn't want to -- I understand his side.  But this is a business and you can't throw good money after bad.

The villain of this story isn't Peyton; it's the GM who allowed this terrible deal in the first place.  It was doomed for failure.

Well the NFLPA is going after the Broncos, and the NFL is looking into it, as they believe they are violating the collective bargaining agreement.

I'm surprised to hear why.  It seems well within their choice.

They threatened to bench him if he didn't rework his contract to remove guaranteed pay if injured, you can't do that.

Why not?

^^^ It violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

How so?

Isn't it a coach's decision on who starts on gameday?  Guys are rested all the time to prevent injury.

Pretty sure it's a black-letter CBA violation to tell a player "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you."
If you want to cut him for not agreeing to reduce his pay, then fine: cut him.  But you can't bench players for not accepting a pay cut.

What rule prohibits a coach from deciding who is or isn't active or inactive?   

Let me draw an analogy:

It is perfectly legal to publicly expose someone cheating on their spouse.
It is illegal extortion to tell that person, "Give me money or I will publicly expose you cheating on your spouse," and then, after they refuse to pay, publicly expose them cheating on their spouse.

You cannot tell a player, "Accept a pay cut or we will bench you," and then bench them after they refuse the pay cut.

I don't think that is true for sports players in the same way no one gets arrested for punching someone else. Players get cut all the time for not reworking their contract. The only difference is it typically happens after the season.  For another reason a coach decides who plays for numerous reasons. no contract guarantees playing time.

If you are drawing analogies you are not talking black letter law.

Can your employee tell you to stay home, but we will pay you anyway? 

There is nothing in the CBA that prohibits this, if the NFLPA is as upset about this as you are they could negotiate a provision for the next CBA, but it would be a difficult provision to word in such without hampering a team’s ability to set their game day roster. 

He was paid for those games.

You and I can leave our current employer at any time and get hired by someone else who will pay us more money, the same day.  Russell Wilson cannot.

As I already said, if the Broncos wanted to cut Wilson for not restructuring his contract, fine.  If they cut him, then - provided no other team willing to pay his existing contract claims him on waivers - he is free to sign with whichever team he pleases.  But if they bench him, he is not.

Can the Broncos bench Wilson?  Yes.
Can the Broncos tell Wilson he must restructure his contract or he'll be cut?  Again, yes.
Can the Broncos tell Wilson he must restructure his contract or he'll be benched, while the Broncos retain control of his rights?  No.

The key here is that they asked him to restructure and told him he would be benched if he didn't agree.  Had they not done that, they could have benched him, just like Jimmy G is benched now and Derek Carr was benched last year.  It is the tying of restructuring to benching that is the CBA violation.

To say "They have the right to bench him, regardless of what they told him before they benched him" is no different than saying "It's legal to expose cheating, regardless of whether you told the person you're exposing 'Give me money or I will expose you' first."  Circumstances matter.

I am not versed in the CBA but I expect the NFLPA is grasping at straws. I  bet this situation is not spelled out so they are trying to stretch something that is written out hoping that someone would bite.

I'm surprised y'all don't see why teams telling players "Renegotiate your contract immediately or you won't play, for us or anyone else" is something that would be explicitly prohibited under a CBA.

They can choose to play him or not, but he still gets paid under his contract, right?  I don't see anything weird about that.  They don't want to play him because the injury risk is too high.  That just makes smart sense to me.

Maybe there's some part of this I don't understand.  As long as they abide by the contract, they can choose to sit him, no?

Not wanting to play him because the injury risk is too high is what the Raiders did with Derek Carr last year and Jimmy G this year.  This is fine.
What you cannot do is say, "Hey, restructure your contract or we'll bench you."  You can bench him, but you cannot tie it to a request to restructure his contract.

I mean, you guys understand why tampering is prohibited, right?  Even though Michigan alum (and Dolphins owner) Stephen Ross is allowed to have a conversation with Michigan alum (and Tampa Bay QB) Tom Brady, and Tom Brady is allowed to retire, that conversation cannot be "Hey, if you retire, I'll trade for you and the Bucs will be coerced to take the deal."

You have used the terms "black letter"  and "explicitly prohibited"   It is neither as if it was you could point to a specific term in the CBA.

At best you are arguing that it is implied as unfair or coercive. 

It is not.  He is being paid not to play.  There is no limitations in the CBA on when a player can be benched.  As for the concern that allowing this would lead to widespread, it won't.  The standard response to "take a pay cut or be benched" is "okay, as long as I am still getting paid."

Neither one of us has access to the text of the CBA, yet we can both say that tampering is "explicitly prohibited" as a "black letter" provision.

False.
For example, if a head coach tells a player, "I am benching you in Week 1 specifically because you missed a voluntary offseason workout," that is also a black letter violation of the CBA.  And you don't need access to the text of the CBA to understand this.

In the world you describe, no player would complain about being benched because hey, they're still getting the same paycheck either way!

[I deleted this post because it was unproductive]

I took a look at the linked CBA.  Benching a player for missing a voluntary workout is definitely prohibited:


As to the question of benching Wilson for refusing to restructure:

I'm not saying the case is open-and-shut, because the Broncos are going to argue that they didn't bench him because of the failed negotiation; they're going to claim (and already have) that it was strictly a football decision.  What I am saying is that admitting that they benched him over the failed negotiation would make it open-and-shut.  So the crux of the matter is whether the arbitrator believes that's why he was benched.

I don't think it's an actually CBA violation that i could see. the NFLPA and wilson are salty about it, but what can you do.

As long as he's getting paid, and the team isn't making him do something that isn't outlined in his contract (like cleaning toilets) i don't think he has a leg to stand on.

Benching a player however, so you don't have to pay them bonuses or otherwise purely for financial considerations after you gave them the contract you did is busch league bullshit at best. It doesn't reflect well on the organization or on free agents when given a choice between a garbage org and a winning org that treats their players right.

I'm not sure if it matters, but Wilson's injury guarantee for 2025 gets locked in on March 1st I believe.  If the Bronco's designate him a June 1st cut, then the cap hit to them is much smaller.  So I think they want that injury guarantee removed so it doesn't get locked in March 1st, and then they can wait until June 1st to take a lower cap hit.  Or, I could be wrong but I think this has something to do with it if they wanted to trade him, it would be more beneficial without the injury guarantee locked in.

There's no way to trade him (i.e. under the same contract) without the injury guarantee triggering.