JonCJG
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 162
PFT PIC OF THE DAY
Before. After.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/photo.htm
POSTED 10:50 a.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 12:26 p.m. EDT, June 17, 2006
STEELERS THINK BEN OWES $6 MILLION IF HE MISSES ONE PRACTICE
A league source tells us that the Pittsburgh Steelers believe that the plain language of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's contract requires him to repay up to $6 million if he misses a little as one training camp practice because of injuries resulting from a June 12 motorcycle accident.
Roethlisberger currently is recuperating at home with a series of titanium plates holding together the bones in his face. There is no specific timetable for his return. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Tuesday that he'd miss one preseason game, but our sources close to the situation tell us that it's way to early to know when he'll be ready to go.
Even if he misses at least one training camp practice, we can't imagine the Steelers asking him to give back nearly $6 million. The Cleveland Browns, who had an open-and-shut case against Kellen Winslow after he blew out an ACL in a motorbike accident in May 2005, didn't put it to Evel Kellnievel nearly as hard as they could have, withholding roughly $2 million in earned but unpaid bonus money -- even though, as we reported on May 2, 2005, the team could have recouped $9.4125 million.
(Winslow also extended his contract by a year and received incentives that, if reached, would allow him to earn back the forfeited $2 million.)
Moreover, the question of whether the Steelers could successfully recover the money hinges on currently ongoing negotiations between the NFL and the NFL Players Association regarding whether new restrictions on bonus forfeiture apply to existing deals. We explained earlier in the week that the language of the CBA Term Sheet is ambiguous in this regard. If the new rules are found to be retroactive, the Steelers would be able to recover only 25 percent of the bonus allocation for 2006 or 1/17th of the allocation for each regular-season game missed, whichever is greater.
WELBOURN WALKED OVER MONEY
Although our first reaction upon learning that Chiefs tackle John Welbourn had retired "on my own terms rather than somebody else's" was that he'd possibly tested positive (again) for banned substances, a league source tells us that Welbourn retired simply because he wanted more money, and that the Chiefs wouldn't give it to him.
Welbourn was traded to Kansas City in April 2004 after asking for more money from the Eagles, not getting it, requesting to be moved out of town, and then blasting the team on the radio -- which included questioning the quality of the team's recent drafts.
Philly selected Welbourn in the fourth round of the 1999 draft. In 2001, he committed to the team through 2008, and received a $2.5 million signing bonus in the process.
The raise he didn't get in Philly he also didn't receive in Kansas City, where the Chiefs paid him at a base rate of $1 million in 2004 and $1.2 million in 2005.
With three years remaining on his contract (at salaries of $1.4 million, $1.7 million, and $2.0 million), the Chiefs had no reason to give in, especially since he'd done little in two years with the team to merit more coin. Injuries limited Welbourn to only 10 games in 2004, and a four-game suspension for violation of the steroids policy kept him to 12 appearances in 2005.
WELBOURN COULD OWE MONEY TO CHIEFS
In retiring three years prematurely from the Kansas City Chiefs, tackle John Welbourn might not have only walked away from $5.1 million in future salary. He also might have put himself in the position of owing a nice chunk of money back to the Chiefs.
Even though the Chiefs didn't pay Welbourn's signing bonus, the Chiefs have the ability to enforce any language in his deal requiring him to pay back bonus money if he quits the game. Two years ago, for example, the Dolphins successfully enforced signing bonus forfeiture language in the contract Ricky Williams had signed with the Saints.
In this regard, two factors will control: (1) the language of the contract Welbourn signed with the Eagles; and (2) whether the new CBA restrictions on bonus forfeiture apply retroactively.
Under the new CBA, a player who retires prematurely must only repay the remainder of the signing bonus allocation. In Welbourn's case, that amount is $416,666. But if the Eagles beefed up his contract to require a greater repayment obligation -- and if the changes to the CBA ultimately aren't determined to be retroactive, the final bill could be much bigger.
Assuming that, at a mimum, the contract signed by Welbourn with the Eagles contains a requirement that any remaining bonus allocation be paid in the event of a retirement, he's looking at a final price tag of more than $5.5 million for his early exit -- more than $400,000 of which he'd have to come up with out of his own pocket.
And although there's a feeling in light of the Ricky Williams situation that clauses like this are essentially meaningless because team's aren't inclined to throw good money after bad, the Fins know that they'll never get a dime out of a guy whose only other life ambitions appear to be practicing yoga and impregnating women. In Welbourn's case, the amount owed would be much lower, he plans to become a lawyer, and (as far as we know) he's not required by law to finance the rearing of multiple children.
Finally, there could be a way for Welbourn to avoid paying back anything to the Chiefs. If the contract generally requires repayment for a "default" and includes within the definition of the term both retirement and league-imposed suspensions, and if the Chiefs didn't file a grievance against Welbourn after he was suspended for four games in 2005, he might be able to argue that the team has waived its ability to pursue him for repayment now. Whether he'd be successful is another story -- but with more than 400 large riding on the outcome it makes sense to throw out any plausible argument he can muster.
LEN "IS AN IDIOT"
Now that we've sort of embraced this quasi-NFL-media watchdog role thing, we're getting more and more e-mails from readers who point out problems with published work product of guys who cover football as their full-time gigs. And since our own postings have plenty of minor errors from time to time, we've decided not to make an issue out of whether, for example, Mike Minter or Chris Gamble is the guy who turned Daunte Culpepper's into a half-eaten plate of chicken lo mein.
So we're looking for things like big, glaring errors and/or obvious instances of bias. But we nevertheless appreciate all of the e-mails we've been receiving, and we pay even closer attention to those that come from the folks who work in and around the NFL.
This time around, we're back to scrutinizing the efforts of ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, who has some harsh words for Ravens receiver Mark Clayton in the pay-only portion of Len's June 16 Tip Sheet. The P-man writes that the Ravens are miffed at Clayton for missing offseason practice time due to a hamstring problem, and Len says that "[t]he Ravens' first-round choice in 2005 is coming off a disappointing rookie campaign."
Every rookie first-rounder should be so disappointing in his first season. Clayton led all members of the class of 2005 in receptions, and he was named to various 2005 all-rookie teams, including the "official" NFL all-rookie team determined by the Pro Football Writers of America.
Said the NFL source who pointed out to us this most recent gaffe: "The guy is an idiot."
INJURY RULES NEED TO BE REVISED
In the modern NFL, the rule of thumb regarding the concealment of injuries seems that be that, if the injury doesn't come to light until after the season in which it occurred, the team won't get punished for failing to properly disclose it.
For example, when it was revealed after the 2005 season that Pats quarterback Tom Brady played much of the year with a sports hernia, no one (except us) said a thing about the fact that he should have been, at a minimum, listed each week as "probable" on the injury report due to the hernia (he's been listed as "probable" pretty much every week of his career with a shoulder injury), because "probable" actually means (as NFL spokesman Steve Alic told us on October 10, 2005) that there is a "virtual certainty that player will be available for normal duty."
By implication, any bump or bruise or busted ball that nevertheless leaves the player "virtually certain" to play should be disclosed. (Amazingly, much of the "real" media continues to assume that "probable" simply means that there's a 75 percent chance that the guy will play.)
It now appears that the Bengals also played fast and loose with those rules.
Per the Columbus Dispatch, Bengals running back Rudi Johnson tore cartilage in his left knee during the second week of the 2005 season, and was plagued by the injury all year. "When it first happened," Johnson said, "we didn't know if I was going to have surgery during the season and sit six to eight weeks or whatever. So we took it week by week."
Since the injury initially happened during a Week Two thrashing of the Vikings, Johnson was at least listed as "probable" with a knee injury for Week Three, right? Not so, according to the official injury report maintained by the NFL, which does not include any reference to Johnson in connection with the team's September 25 game against the Bears.
Thereafter, Johnson was listed as "probable" (i.e., virtually certain to play) for each week of the season -- with the exception of Week 13, Week 16, and Wild Card Weekend. For each of those games (two of which coincidentally were against the Steelers), Johnson's name appeared nowhere on the injury report.
Says Johnson well after the fact: "I wasn't as powerful with my left leg. There were definitely some times I could have pulled out of some tackles or moved the pile more if I'd been 100 percent."
Based on that statement alone, it appears that he should have been listed as probable (at a minimum) every week from Week Three through the playoffs. In fact, it sounds to us as if it really wasn't a virtual certainty each week that Johnson would be available for normal duty come each and every Sunday.
The core of the problem is that, while "probable" doesn't mean "75 percent likely," the term "questionable" means "50-50." The NFL therefore needs, in our opinion, another category between "probable" and "questionable" that accounts from the percentage points from 51 through 99.
Alternatively, the definition of "probable" should be changed to "75 percent chance," and a term such as "likely" (or something really outside-the-freakin'-box like "virtual certainty") should be used to connote that the player is injured, but nevertheless is virtually certain to be available to play.
This isn't a knock on Johnson, who gutted through the injury to set the team's single-season rushing record. We don't even think that the Bengals should get their knuckles wrapped and/or nutsacks slapped for this one, since our sense is that the abuses are rampant.
Instead, we think it's yet another example of a situation in which the league's written rules don't mesh with reality, and our hope is that the new Commish (whoever it may be) will try to infuse a strong dose of pragmatism into each and every principle governing NFL teams and players.
We hope that practicalities are considered specifically in connection with the rules regarding injury reports, since the overriding goal is to insulate players, coaches, and other league insiders from efforts by gamblers to get the real story on a guy's condition.
In the cases of Brady and Johnson, it's obvious that the real story was concealed by their respective teams. Which means that the real story could have been had by slipping the right denomination of currency into the right hand at the right time.
If we were gamblers (and as far as our wives know we still aren't), we'd bet that, under the NFL's current system of reporting injuries, palms are getting greased on a constant basis.
Before. After.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/photo.htm
NEW! Holy crap, search the archives!
POSTED 10:50 a.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 12:26 p.m. EDT, June 17, 2006
STEELERS THINK BEN OWES $6 MILLION IF HE MISSES ONE PRACTICE
A league source tells us that the Pittsburgh Steelers believe that the plain language of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's contract requires him to repay up to $6 million if he misses a little as one training camp practice because of injuries resulting from a June 12 motorcycle accident.
Roethlisberger currently is recuperating at home with a series of titanium plates holding together the bones in his face. There is no specific timetable for his return. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Tuesday that he'd miss one preseason game, but our sources close to the situation tell us that it's way to early to know when he'll be ready to go.
Even if he misses at least one training camp practice, we can't imagine the Steelers asking him to give back nearly $6 million. The Cleveland Browns, who had an open-and-shut case against Kellen Winslow after he blew out an ACL in a motorbike accident in May 2005, didn't put it to Evel Kellnievel nearly as hard as they could have, withholding roughly $2 million in earned but unpaid bonus money -- even though, as we reported on May 2, 2005, the team could have recouped $9.4125 million.
(Winslow also extended his contract by a year and received incentives that, if reached, would allow him to earn back the forfeited $2 million.)
Moreover, the question of whether the Steelers could successfully recover the money hinges on currently ongoing negotiations between the NFL and the NFL Players Association regarding whether new restrictions on bonus forfeiture apply to existing deals. We explained earlier in the week that the language of the CBA Term Sheet is ambiguous in this regard. If the new rules are found to be retroactive, the Steelers would be able to recover only 25 percent of the bonus allocation for 2006 or 1/17th of the allocation for each regular-season game missed, whichever is greater.
WELBOURN WALKED OVER MONEY
Although our first reaction upon learning that Chiefs tackle John Welbourn had retired "on my own terms rather than somebody else's" was that he'd possibly tested positive (again) for banned substances, a league source tells us that Welbourn retired simply because he wanted more money, and that the Chiefs wouldn't give it to him.
Welbourn was traded to Kansas City in April 2004 after asking for more money from the Eagles, not getting it, requesting to be moved out of town, and then blasting the team on the radio -- which included questioning the quality of the team's recent drafts.
Philly selected Welbourn in the fourth round of the 1999 draft. In 2001, he committed to the team through 2008, and received a $2.5 million signing bonus in the process.
The raise he didn't get in Philly he also didn't receive in Kansas City, where the Chiefs paid him at a base rate of $1 million in 2004 and $1.2 million in 2005.
With three years remaining on his contract (at salaries of $1.4 million, $1.7 million, and $2.0 million), the Chiefs had no reason to give in, especially since he'd done little in two years with the team to merit more coin. Injuries limited Welbourn to only 10 games in 2004, and a four-game suspension for violation of the steroids policy kept him to 12 appearances in 2005.
WELBOURN COULD OWE MONEY TO CHIEFS
In retiring three years prematurely from the Kansas City Chiefs, tackle John Welbourn might not have only walked away from $5.1 million in future salary. He also might have put himself in the position of owing a nice chunk of money back to the Chiefs.
Even though the Chiefs didn't pay Welbourn's signing bonus, the Chiefs have the ability to enforce any language in his deal requiring him to pay back bonus money if he quits the game. Two years ago, for example, the Dolphins successfully enforced signing bonus forfeiture language in the contract Ricky Williams had signed with the Saints.
In this regard, two factors will control: (1) the language of the contract Welbourn signed with the Eagles; and (2) whether the new CBA restrictions on bonus forfeiture apply retroactively.
Under the new CBA, a player who retires prematurely must only repay the remainder of the signing bonus allocation. In Welbourn's case, that amount is $416,666. But if the Eagles beefed up his contract to require a greater repayment obligation -- and if the changes to the CBA ultimately aren't determined to be retroactive, the final bill could be much bigger.
Assuming that, at a mimum, the contract signed by Welbourn with the Eagles contains a requirement that any remaining bonus allocation be paid in the event of a retirement, he's looking at a final price tag of more than $5.5 million for his early exit -- more than $400,000 of which he'd have to come up with out of his own pocket.
And although there's a feeling in light of the Ricky Williams situation that clauses like this are essentially meaningless because team's aren't inclined to throw good money after bad, the Fins know that they'll never get a dime out of a guy whose only other life ambitions appear to be practicing yoga and impregnating women. In Welbourn's case, the amount owed would be much lower, he plans to become a lawyer, and (as far as we know) he's not required by law to finance the rearing of multiple children.
Finally, there could be a way for Welbourn to avoid paying back anything to the Chiefs. If the contract generally requires repayment for a "default" and includes within the definition of the term both retirement and league-imposed suspensions, and if the Chiefs didn't file a grievance against Welbourn after he was suspended for four games in 2005, he might be able to argue that the team has waived its ability to pursue him for repayment now. Whether he'd be successful is another story -- but with more than 400 large riding on the outcome it makes sense to throw out any plausible argument he can muster.
LEN "IS AN IDIOT"
Now that we've sort of embraced this quasi-NFL-media watchdog role thing, we're getting more and more e-mails from readers who point out problems with published work product of guys who cover football as their full-time gigs. And since our own postings have plenty of minor errors from time to time, we've decided not to make an issue out of whether, for example, Mike Minter or Chris Gamble is the guy who turned Daunte Culpepper's into a half-eaten plate of chicken lo mein.
So we're looking for things like big, glaring errors and/or obvious instances of bias. But we nevertheless appreciate all of the e-mails we've been receiving, and we pay even closer attention to those that come from the folks who work in and around the NFL.
This time around, we're back to scrutinizing the efforts of ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, who has some harsh words for Ravens receiver Mark Clayton in the pay-only portion of Len's June 16 Tip Sheet. The P-man writes that the Ravens are miffed at Clayton for missing offseason practice time due to a hamstring problem, and Len says that "[t]he Ravens' first-round choice in 2005 is coming off a disappointing rookie campaign."
Every rookie first-rounder should be so disappointing in his first season. Clayton led all members of the class of 2005 in receptions, and he was named to various 2005 all-rookie teams, including the "official" NFL all-rookie team determined by the Pro Football Writers of America.
Said the NFL source who pointed out to us this most recent gaffe: "The guy is an idiot."
INJURY RULES NEED TO BE REVISED
In the modern NFL, the rule of thumb regarding the concealment of injuries seems that be that, if the injury doesn't come to light until after the season in which it occurred, the team won't get punished for failing to properly disclose it.
For example, when it was revealed after the 2005 season that Pats quarterback Tom Brady played much of the year with a sports hernia, no one (except us) said a thing about the fact that he should have been, at a minimum, listed each week as "probable" on the injury report due to the hernia (he's been listed as "probable" pretty much every week of his career with a shoulder injury), because "probable" actually means (as NFL spokesman Steve Alic told us on October 10, 2005) that there is a "virtual certainty that player will be available for normal duty."
By implication, any bump or bruise or busted ball that nevertheless leaves the player "virtually certain" to play should be disclosed. (Amazingly, much of the "real" media continues to assume that "probable" simply means that there's a 75 percent chance that the guy will play.)
It now appears that the Bengals also played fast and loose with those rules.
Per the Columbus Dispatch, Bengals running back Rudi Johnson tore cartilage in his left knee during the second week of the 2005 season, and was plagued by the injury all year. "When it first happened," Johnson said, "we didn't know if I was going to have surgery during the season and sit six to eight weeks or whatever. So we took it week by week."
Since the injury initially happened during a Week Two thrashing of the Vikings, Johnson was at least listed as "probable" with a knee injury for Week Three, right? Not so, according to the official injury report maintained by the NFL, which does not include any reference to Johnson in connection with the team's September 25 game against the Bears.
Thereafter, Johnson was listed as "probable" (i.e., virtually certain to play) for each week of the season -- with the exception of Week 13, Week 16, and Wild Card Weekend. For each of those games (two of which coincidentally were against the Steelers), Johnson's name appeared nowhere on the injury report.
Says Johnson well after the fact: "I wasn't as powerful with my left leg. There were definitely some times I could have pulled out of some tackles or moved the pile more if I'd been 100 percent."
Based on that statement alone, it appears that he should have been listed as probable (at a minimum) every week from Week Three through the playoffs. In fact, it sounds to us as if it really wasn't a virtual certainty each week that Johnson would be available for normal duty come each and every Sunday.
The core of the problem is that, while "probable" doesn't mean "75 percent likely," the term "questionable" means "50-50." The NFL therefore needs, in our opinion, another category between "probable" and "questionable" that accounts from the percentage points from 51 through 99.
Alternatively, the definition of "probable" should be changed to "75 percent chance," and a term such as "likely" (or something really outside-the-freakin'-box like "virtual certainty") should be used to connote that the player is injured, but nevertheless is virtually certain to be available to play.
This isn't a knock on Johnson, who gutted through the injury to set the team's single-season rushing record. We don't even think that the Bengals should get their knuckles wrapped and/or nutsacks slapped for this one, since our sense is that the abuses are rampant.
Instead, we think it's yet another example of a situation in which the league's written rules don't mesh with reality, and our hope is that the new Commish (whoever it may be) will try to infuse a strong dose of pragmatism into each and every principle governing NFL teams and players.
We hope that practicalities are considered specifically in connection with the rules regarding injury reports, since the overriding goal is to insulate players, coaches, and other league insiders from efforts by gamblers to get the real story on a guy's condition.
In the cases of Brady and Johnson, it's obvious that the real story was concealed by their respective teams. Which means that the real story could have been had by slipping the right denomination of currency into the right hand at the right time.
If we were gamblers (and as far as our wives know we still aren't), we'd bet that, under the NFL's current system of reporting injuries, palms are getting greased on a constant basis.
