No Greg Hardy ruling yet, too many days later

Rogah said:
You joking, right? Peterson would have loved to have been cut and been an unrestricted free agent.
Click to expand...
No, he wouldn't have at the time. Because no one would have signed him until 2015 and he would have lost all of last season's pay. That would have been utterly stupid.
 
theogt said:
No, he wouldn't have at the time.
Click to expand...
Yes he would have.
theogt said:
Because no one would have signed him until 2015 and he would have lost all of last season's pay. That would have been utterly stupid.
Click to expand...
What color is the sky on your world? If the Vikings cut him when all this broke, he would have been signed immediately to a HUGE contract elsewhere. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Furthermore, he would have structured a new deal in such a way that it had a small base salary for 2014. That way when he got suspended, he wouldn't have lost as much. Not to mention he wouldn't be dealing with his current offseason mess.

Getting cut by the Vikings last year would have been a win-win-win scenario for the Peterson camp.
 
bkight13 said:
The Federal case may not be resolved for months. Hardy has to be dealt with before then.

They didn't have to assign Henderson to Hardy's appeal. They could have assigned Judge Jones who heard the Rice appeal or Goodell himself.
Click to expand...

They will have to address Hardy after Doty forces them to following the contempt hearing.

Yes, it was no coincidence that they chose Henderson, as I said in the topic I made on this before.
 
theogt said:
No, he wouldn't have at the time. Because no one would have signed him until 2015 and he would have lost all of last season's pay. That would have been utterly stupid.
Click to expand...

He played the first game of the season, his contract was already guaranteed. He already wanted to be a Cowboy. This would have worked out nicely for him.
 
Rogah said:
Yes he would have.What color is the sky on your world? If the Vikings cut him when all this broke, he would have been signed immediately to a HUGE contract elsewhere. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Furthermore, he would have structured a new deal in such a way that it had a small base salary for 2014. That way when he got suspended, he wouldn't have lost as much. Not to mention he wouldn't be dealing with his current offseason mess.

Getting cut by the Vikings last year would have been a win-win-win scenario for the Peterson camp.
Click to expand...
Wasnt going to happen. No one knew what kind of suspension he was going to serve or when the league was going to impose it. Not a single team would have touched him with what was going on.

Even after everything was pretty much resolved, they couldn't find anyone willing to trade for him. Peterson's agent tried to get other teams to make trade offers, but not a single one even made an offer.
 
Galian Beast said:
He played the first game of the season, his contract was already guaranteed. He already wanted to be a Cowboy. This would have worked out nicely for him.
Click to expand...
If not for the possibility of him being placed on the exempt list, and with the hindsight of the Rice debacle, he wouldn't have played that game.
 
theogt said:
If not for the possibility of him being placed on the exempt list, and with the hindsight of the Rice debacle, he wouldn't have played that game.
Click to expand...

He was indicted on September 12th, 5 days after their week one game. I don't know when the story first broke (couldn't have been but a couple days before week 1), but I don't think it is at all realistic that they would have released him, when after deactivating him for week 2, they were planning to play him in week 3, before deciding against it.
 
Manwiththeplan said:
He was indicted on September 12th, 5 days after their week one game. I don't know when the story first broke (couldn't have been but a couple days before week 1), but I don't think it is at all realistic that they would have released him, when after deactivating him for week 2, they were planning to play him in week 3, before deciding against it.
Click to expand...

MINN could've released him but they would've had to pay him his whole 12m. BAL had to pay Rice after waiving him.

The League came up with the CEL as a way for the team to gain a roster spot, but they lied about the way it would be used and when and how Peterson and Hardy would be re-instated.
 
Manwiththeplan said:
He was indicted on September 12th, 5 days after their week one game. I don't know when the story first broke (couldn't have been but a couple days before week 1), but I don't think it is at all realistic that they would have released him, when after deactivating him for week 2, they were planning to play him in week 3, before deciding against it.
Click to expand...
The reports of abuse came out before the first game. He was only formally indicted after the first game. It wasn't until the Ray Rice video came out, though, that the fit hit the shan. Before that, no one even contemplated Peterson sitting out a full season.

But does it really matter to the point of this discussion? If a team has the choice of (1) having a large salary count against their cap without the player playing all season and a potentially large portion of the next, and (2) simply cutting the player, then it's obvious teams are going to choose the second option in many cases. Thus, the player isn't given much of an option in whether to agree to the exempt list or not.

It's a severe form of punishment prior to actually being punished. That makes zero sense to me.
 
Last edited:
theogt said:
The reports of abuse came out before the first game. He was only formally indicted after the first game. But does it really matter to the point of this discussion?

If a team has the choice of (1) having a large salary count against their cap without the player playing all season and a potentially large portion of the next, and (2) simply cutting the player, then it's obvious teams are going to choose the second option in many cases. Thus, the player isn't given much of an option in whether to agree to the exempt list or not.

It's a severe form of punishment prior to actually being punished. That makes zero sense to me.
Click to expand...

I don't think they would have made that choice with Peterson, let alone on such short notice. If the report came out before the first game, it was only by days
 
theogt said:
The reports of abuse came out before the first game. He was only formally indicted after the first game. It wasn't until the Ray Rice video came out, though, that the fit hit the shan. Before that, no one even contemplated Peterson sitting out a full season.

But does it really matter to the point of this discussion? If a team has the choice of (1) having a large salary count against their cap without the player playing all season and a potentially large portion of the next, and (2) simply cutting the player, then it's obvious teams are going to choose the second option in many cases. Thus, the player isn't given much of an option in whether to agree to the exempt list or not.

It's a severe form of punishment prior to actually being punished. That makes zero sense to me.
Click to expand...

But that is the choice a team should be forced to make.

If the Ravens came out last Spring and said they were releasing Rice, I would have no problem with it. They would have chosen principles over production. But they wanted it both ways. They said they were standing behind Rice, he was a good guy and he was family. They accepted the 2 game suspension and were ready to bring him back when the video dropped.

THEN they released him even though he already admitted he hit her and we all already saw the video of him dragging her limp body. By waiting they cost themselves over 3m+ in salary and had a PR disaster.

CAR could have released Hardy when he was arrested last Spring, especially after the bench trial ruling. But they wanted him to quietly play until his case was fully resolved. But the Rice fiasco brought too much heat on Hardy and they came up with the CEL as cover.

The LA Angels just traded Josh Hamilton and ate over 60m on his deal because he had another relapse with drugs. Teams can stand on principles. Unlike the Yankees who are trying to ignore all the accomplishments from ARod because he is stained with steroids. But they didn't eat his contract and walk away, they just hoped he would get into more trouble on his own and forfeit his remaining 63m.
 
theogt said:
Wasnt going to happen. No one knew what kind of suspension he was going to serve or when the league was going to impose it. Not a single team would have touched him with what was going on.
Click to expand...
Just like no team touched Greg Hardy this past offseason with all his uncertainty, right?

Oh, wait....
 
bkight13 said:
But that is the choice a team should be forced to make.
Click to expand...
I agree. But they aren't necessarily because of the exempt list. My point was that a player doesn't really have a choice whether to agree to the exempt list if the alternative is to give the team the option to cut them. With the exempt list, only in the most egregious case will the team go ahead and cut the player regardless of the exempt list.

Perhaps, when all is weighed, the exempt list is favorable to the players, but the idea that it's not taken into account when determining the ultimate punishment is a joke.
 
Rogah said:
Just like no team touched Greg Hardy this past offseason with all his uncertainty, right?

Oh, wait....
Click to expand...
Only one team apparently showed interest.

Do you think that team would have showed interest in August 2014? Time cures all, and people forget/forgive after a while.
 
theogt said:
Only one team apparently showed interest.
Click to expand...
1 team is all it takes. Hardy got a deal even with all the uncertainty around him. And at least 1 team would have given Peterson a truckload of money despite his uncertainty.
 
I'm wondering if tomorrow (july 3rd) isn't the day the NFL sneaks its' ruling out?

It's effectively a 'non-holiday holiday' for all intents and purposes, and it's a Friday leading into the 4th of July weekend. I see it as the perfect time for the overly image-conscious league to try to slip one by.

And the more I'm thinking about it, the more I expect a reduction to 2 games. I think the league will try to get Hardy to take that deal and avoid having this thing dragged into the courts.

I think they know that if they push it, they're headed back to court, with Hardy likely requesting and being granted an injunction allowing him to play, and having to explain in court how they have completely mishandled their player discipline system.

That opens up a huge can of worms that I don't think the league wants the courts involved in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 4,887 (members: 173, guests: 4,714)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,206
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top