If available, would you trade for Deshaun Watson?

[masterfins]

It's going to come down to 1 of 2 things. 1) What offer is being left on their voicemail? 2) Is Watson willing to sacrifice a lot of money to sit out but play in the last 9-10 games so that it counts as a year off his contract?

Once the draft passes and no trade has been made, sititng out is the only play left.

There are so many QB's looking at switching teams this off-season, and projections of QB's being drafted, that I don't see any team willing to give up what Texas would want for him.  IMO there just aren't any teams that are that close to making the hurdle to the SB that they would give up multiple #1's and take on a huge contract.

I really see this going the Le'Veon Bell route where he sits out the entire season and he gets traded next year (probably for what the Texans could get this year), and he loses out on a year's salary.

[Fau Teixeira]

I think if Houston ends up playing hardball with watson he's going to full on pull a Kawhi Leonard and have an "injury" that lasts for months while they're still paying him the full amount

[EDGECRUSHER]

There are so many QB's looking at switching teams this off-season, and projections of QB's being drafted, that I don't see any team willing to give up what Texas would want for him.  IMO there just aren't any teams that are that close to making the hurdle to the SB that they would give up multiple #1's and take on a huge contract.

I really see this going the Le'Veon Bell route where he sits out the entire season and he gets traded next year (probably for what the Texans could get this year), and he loses out on a year's salary.

You're probably right and it's kind of what I have been saying for a bit too. Why go to the 2 win Jets who have very little talent and now will have very little draft picks and less cap space? Only a few teams make sense in terms of being close to contending like us and the Colts.

Then again, all it takes is one team to give up 3 years worth of 1s and 2s to make it happen.

[Spider-Dan]

Watson signed his deal when he knew how messed up the team was.

Sadly, the team was much better off when he signed his deal!  It sounds almost comical to say that HOU was a more stable and respectable franchise when Bill O'Brien was in charge, but that's what we're looking at.

In any case, had Watson not signed that deal, he would still be under contract until the end of this upcoming season.  He would have much less leverage in every respect.  If this were like the NBA, where you can go to free agency and hit the open market, then Watson may have been better off not signing... but in the NFL, where teams can just franchise you repeatedly and offload all the risk to you, you take the money when it's offered.

[CF DolFan]

Houston sports writer John McClain said teams have been calling Houston to tell them not to give in as they don't want the NFL turning into the NBA.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Houston sports writer John McClain said teams have been calling Houston to tell them not to give in as they don't want the NFL turning into the NBA.

......interesting. FWIW, I agree with them in that the NBA became European soccer with letting the players run the team, but of the 4 major sports leagues the NFL treats the players the worst so I'm not against things like this happening either.

[Spider-Dan]

Houston sports writer John McClain said teams have been calling Houston to tell them not to give in as they don't want the NFL turning into the NBA.

Deshaun Watson's lawyer (and the NFLPA) would definitely like this reporting on illegal collusion to be accurate.

I mean, you cannot have a clearer example of textbook collusion than this.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Deshaun Watson's lawyer (and the NFLPA) would definitely like this reporting on illegal collusion to be accurate.

I mean, you cannot have a clearer example of textbook collusion than this.

It's definitely on the shadier side, but is it collusion to deny a trade request? It's definitely collusion if the owners all agreed to not pay someone what they are worth, but a trade request is essentially a wish. I don't think Houston has to grant his wish, although they are so poorly run it wouldn't be surprising if they did collude in other areas.

[CF DolFan]

Personally I wouldn't think its illegal to give trade advice to another team when the advice is about something that is legal in the first place. It isn't like they are tying to mess with his salary. They are just suggesting you hold him to the contract he already signed. Oh, the horror to make him work for the agreement he signed.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Personally I wouldn't think its illegal to give trade advice to another team when the advice is about something that is legal in the first place. It isn't like they are tying to mess with his salary. They are just suggesting you hold him to the contract he already signed. Oh, the horror to make him work for the agreement he signed.

I think so too, although I am sure the league itself won't be happy if any of this is proven. It's not illegal but it's still a bad look.

[Spider-Dan]

It is absolutely, positively, without question illegal collusion for other teams to ask the Texans NOT to take an acceptable deal* because it would give future players too much leverage.  That is the whole reason you have anti-collusion LAWS (because these aren't NFL "rules," they're federal laws) in the first place.

Personally I wouldn't think its illegal to give trade advice to another team when the advice is about something that is legal in the first place.

You have literally just described what collusion is.

For example: it's not illegal for NFL teams to individually choose not to pay players more than $x, but it absolutely is illegal for NFL teams to ask other NFL teams not to pay players more than $x so that salaries stay lower.  Again, this is textbook collusion: the kind of example you would specifically use in law school.

By law, NFL teams are supposed to be competitors.  This is no different than Microsoft and Sony asking Nintendo not to make a game console that's less than $500 so all three companies can protect their profits.

*You don't need to "advise" the Texans to reject a deal that they find UNacceptable; they would do that anyway.  The premise of the ask (from the other teams) is for the Texans to reject a deal they otherwise would have taken, in service of a greater good: preventing the players from gaining leverage.  That's collusion, without a doubt.

[EDGECRUSHER]

It is absolutely, positively, without question illegal collusion for other teams to ask the Texans NOT to take an acceptable deal* because it would give future players too much leverage.  That is the whole reason you have anti-collusion LAWS (because these aren't NFL "rules," they're federal laws) in the first place.
You have literally just described what collusion is.

For example: it's not illegal for NFL teams to individually choose not to pay players more than $x, but it absolutely is illegal for NFL teams to ask other NFL teams not to pay players more than $x so that salaries stay lower.  Again, this is textbook collusion: the kind of example you would specifically use in law school.

By law, NFL teams are supposed to be competitors.  This is no different than Microsoft and Sony asking Nintendo not to make a game console that's less than $500 so all three companies can protect their profits.

*You don't need to "advise" the Texans to reject a deal that they find UNacceptable; they would do that anyway.  The premise of the ask (from the other teams) is for the Texans to reject a deal they otherwise would have taken, in service of a greater good: preventing the players from gaining leverage.  That's collusion, without a doubt.

And I learned something today. Thank you.

[masterfins]

It is absolutely, positively, without question illegal collusion for other teams to ask the Texans NOT to take an acceptable deal* because it would give future players too much leverage.  That is the whole reason you have anti-collusion LAWS (because these aren't NFL "rules," they're federal laws) in the first place.
You have literally just described what collusion is.

Yes, but based on your statement it would have to be "an Acceptable Deal", which is open to interpretation.  More importantly the Texans have stated they do not want to trade Watson, and therefore are under no obligation to trade him.  So if another team is saying stick to your guns and don't trade him, then how is that collusion (whether it's an acceptable deal or not)??  Throw in the fact that Watson has a No Trade clause in his contract why should the Texans put any work into creating a trade deal when Watson could just turn around and say "NO"?

[Spider-Dan]

To make it crystal clear:

The act of any NFL team asking a competitor (in this case, the Texans) to reject a deal because doing so would help teams in future dealings with the players is illegal collusion.  Period, end of story.  It doesn't matter whether the Texans follow their advice, or ignore them.  If Dan Snyder calls up Cal McNair and tells him not to trade Watson to "keep the NFL from turning into the NBA," the Washington Football Team has committed illegal collusion, full stop.

You are legally not allowed to coordinate actions with your competitors outside of collective bargaining.  Now, if the league wanted to go directly to the NFLPA and handle things that way, that would not be collusion... but that's not what has been described.  What has been described is illegal collusion, plain and simple.

[CF DolFan]

Unlike many of you I'm not a lawyer so I'm guessing what is legally right and wrong. Either way I do know that "proving" a crime has been committed is different than actually believing someone committed one.