Handswarmer 645 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 29 minutes ago, Mloe68 said: My bad. That's all I'm saying. Maybe just let a team retain his rights for the length of the contract if he's released for an Article 46 violation. And then a team would have to work out a trade to get his rights from you. I'm sure somehow this wouldn't work, but it does make some sense in a simple form. Similar to the mechanism that should be in place for coaches who cheat (college) then walk when the college has a sanction placed upon it. the college and players suffer, not the weasel coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye 604 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, Handswarmer said: Look dude, I know words are hard. It is obvious that they are for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Handswarmer said: Look dude, I know words are hard. "Kareem was not truthful inn those discussions". Truthful- (of a person or statement) telling or expressing the truth; honest. NOT TRUTHFUL NOT EXPRESSING THE TRUTH NOT HONEST Maybe you are a lawyer in your day job; i am not. The Chiefs cut him because he lied. The video merely confirmed the lie. I think you are missing the point. Everyone acknowledges he lied. That doesn't mean it was the reason he was cut. People get fired for reasons other than the stated reason. I know a guy that was fired for sexual harassment, but rather than try to pursue a sexual harassment shitstorm, his employer fired him for "repeated tardiness". Had he not been making the accountant uncomfortable he could have been late all he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye 604 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, reesebobby said: I think you are missing the point. It's his forte. He keeps pointing to the words from the press release without understanding that (a) we are not disputing that and (b) we are making a different point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilkie 1,518 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 I still submit that as long as he is still under his rookie contract, we are in the drivers seat. If we want to sacrifice a roster spot we can effectively keep him off the market for more than a year and add to that the league suspension time, it could be a long time before he sees the field, if ever. We are not without options here and don't really have to act until the last day we could sign him in 2020 when his UFA status comes up. It would cost us some wasted $$$ but it would send a message AND no one else could touch him so long as we comply with the terms of the rookie agreement. Players union, so far as I can tell, does not require that an NFL player is required so see the field during the time he is employed under contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye 604 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 1 minute ago, wilkie said: I still submit that as long as he is still under his rookie contract, we are in the drivers seat. If we want to sacrifice a roster spot we can effectively keep him off the market for more than a year and add to that the league suspension time, it could be a long time before he sees the field, if ever. We are not without options here and don't really have to act until the last day we could sign him in 2020 when his UFA status comes up. It would cost us some wasted $$$ but it would send a message AND no one else could touch him so long as we comply with the terms of the rookie agreement. Players union, so far as I can tell, does not require that an NFL player is required so see the field during the time he is employed under contract. Per the above posts, if he is suspended we neither have to pay him nor take up a roster spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Adamixoye said: Per the above posts, if he is suspended we neither have to pay him nor take up a roster spot. I agree with that. But I'm not sure you could do a 16 game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto 723 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Adamixoye said: Per the above posts, if he is suspended we neither have to pay him nor take up a roster spot. Could be suspended WITH pay, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye 604 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, reesebobby said: I agree with that. But I'm not sure you could do a 16 game suspension. The NFL might try. And the NFLPA might fight it. But the NFL might try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye 604 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, Balto said: Could be suspended WITH pay, correct? Not a league suspension, other than if on the exempt list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balto 723 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, reesebobby said: I agree with that. But I'm not sure you could do a 16 game suspension. Well lets say this....Say he gets 8 games from the NFL Do we then start to look for a trade partner? What would his value be? Would a team REALLY trade for Hill vs just picking him up on waivers if released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 1 minute ago, Adamixoye said: The NFL might try. And the NFLPA might fight it. But the NFL might try. The NFL might be able to. But I'm not sure a team could suspend a player without pay for 16 games. I suspect a team suspension longer than the NFL suspension would be contested by someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handswarmer 645 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 20 minutes ago, reesebobby said: I think you are missing the point. Everyone acknowledges he lied. That doesn't mean it was the reason he was cut. People get fired for reasons other than the stated reason. I know a guy that was fired for sexual harassment, but rather than try to pursue a sexual harassment shitstorm, his employer fired him for "repeated tardiness". Had he not been making the accountant uncomfortable he could have been late all he wanted. 19 minutes ago, Adamixoye said: It's his forte. He keeps pointing to the words from the press release without understanding that (a) we are not disputing that and (b) we are making a different point. I am 100% confidant that he was fired for lying which the video confirmed. Not sure how you two do not understand that. My apologies to the accountant; my GF gets harassed on a daily basis at her job at Home Depot. I have had to go have words with the supervisors because they are the ones doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handswarmer 645 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 1 minute ago, reesebobby said: The NFL might be able to. But I'm not sure a team could suspend a player without pay for 16 games. I suspect a team suspension longer than the NFL suspension would be contested by someone. NFLPA already said they would fight that as this is his 1st offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye 604 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, reesebobby said: The NFL might be able to. But I'm not sure a team could suspend a player without pay for 16 games. I suspect a team suspension longer than the NFL suspension would be contested by someone. I think we're a long way from figuring out what sort of suspension the Chiefs would give. I'm sure the NFL's action will happen first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Just now, Adamixoye said: I think we're a long way from figuring out what sort of suspension the Chiefs would give. I'm sure the NFL's action will happen first. I don't disagree. I'm just trying to think about the hypothetical questions posed by Wilkie. To do what he is suggesting requires deciding how that affects the 53 man. And figuring out how the 53 is affected means figuring out what suspension options are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Handswarmer said: I am 100% confidant that he was fired for lying which the video confirmed. Not sure how you two do not understand that. My apologies to the accountant; my GF gets harassed on a daily basis at her job at Home Depot. I have had to go have words with the supervisors because they are the ones doing it. Certainly you are welcome to take them at their word for why he was cut. And you can believe that he could kick the shit out of his girlfriend on national television and not get cut if he had told the truth about it. I disagree, and don't' think the Chiefs or their fans would have given credit for truth telling. It was a PR nightmare that they were not willing to endure in my opinion. But I have admitted that I may be wrong. Understanding that you can be wrong is important. Certainly the fact that he kicked the shit out of her was part of the equation. A very very big part. Surely you recognize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan4pres 125 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 If the Chiefs are required to activate him after a 6-8 week suspension, they could simply activate him and make him inactive for game days for the remainder of the season. It would send the message that the Chiefs are not condoning what Hill allegedly did but would still retain his rights into the off-season. They would then either be able to trade him or possibly get a comp pick if he is not resigned. They could also put a bug in Goodell's ear that they would like him to remain on the Commissioner's list for half the year and then let his suspension take care of the rest of the season. I imagine that Goodell is empathetic to the Chief's situation since they already got hosed on Hunt and doesn't want to force the Chiefs to lose another player without any compensation. If the Chiefs feel that Hill is in any way redeemable after all this, they may want to personally oversee his therapy/counseling, etc. I think the only way that happens if it comes to light that the fiance did stuff and he did stuff and she was trying to make it look like he was the only one doing anything to the kid. I would assume that the police can't question the kid but the Family Protection Agency would. If the kid tells them that Daddy is the only one hitting him, he's assuredly gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mloe68 1,521 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 10 minutes ago, Dan4pres said: If the Chiefs are required to activate him after a 6-8 week suspension, they could simply activate him and make him inactive for game days for the remainder of the season. It would send the message that the Chiefs are not condoning what Hill allegedly did but would still retain his rights into the off-season. They would then either be able to trade him or possibly get a comp pick if he is not resigned. They could also put a bug in Goodell's ear that they would like him to remain on the Commissioner's list for half the year and then let his suspension take care of the rest of the season. I imagine that Goodell is empathetic to the Chief's situation since they already got hosed on Hunt and doesn't want to force the Chiefs to lose another player without any compensation. If the Chiefs feel that Hill is in any way redeemable after all this, they may want to personally oversee his therapy/counseling, etc. I think the only way that happens if it comes to light that the fiance did stuff and he did stuff and she was trying to make it look like he was the only one doing anything to the kid. I would assume that the police can't question the kid but the Family Protection Agency would. If the kid tells them that Daddy is the only one hitting him, he's assuredly gone. Ive heard this discussed and they could do this if they are willing to blow a roster spot. The way we carried Berry and McKenzie last year it doesn't seem undoable. I hope Clark Hunt knows that fan base is behind them acting in the teams best interest and doesn't just succumb to the pressure. Tyreek isn't playing next year, but if the league won't do it for us, we should take matters into our own hands to control the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilkie 1,518 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dan4pres said: If the Chiefs are required to activate him after a 6-8 week suspension, they could simply activate him and make him inactive for game days for the remainder of the season. It would send the message that the Chiefs are not condoning what Hill allegedly did but would still retain his rights into the off-season. They would then either be able to trade him or possibly get a comp pick if he is not resigned. They could also put a bug in Goodell's ear that they would like him to remain on the Commissioner's list for half the year and then let his suspension take care of the rest of the season. I imagine that Goodell is empathetic to the Chief's situation since they already got hosed on Hunt and doesn't want to force the Chiefs to lose another player without any compensation. Yes. That is what I am saying. Hill is still under contract with the Kansas City Chiefs until 2020. If he is suspended by the NFL for six to eight games, the Chiefs can then swoop him up for the remainder of the 2019 season, pay him the agreed pro rated salary and simply keep him on the roster. They could do this without subjecting him to being signed by another team. Then on the last day of signing agents in 2020, they either trade him if possible or let him walk. We would owe the salary for the balance of 2019 but he is absolutely frozen from making a move. There is nothing that requires them to play him. Of course it is a waste of salary money but it serves the purpose of protecting him from being signed by another organization and it also keeps him from being in football shape for the 2020 season if they don't play him. This is simply a theoretical but I cannot see why this couldn't be an option. He is locked in with the Chiefs until his contract expires. He will then be another year older and theoretically out of football for a year and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Can we at least activate him for the playoffs? Or maybe just long 3rd downs in the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilkie 1,518 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Ha Ha Ha. I think we could play him or not play him. That would be our option. We are paying for him to play. Whether the Chiefs fanbase would stand for Tyreek Hill taking the field again is another matter altogether. The tricky theme of this theoretical is sacrificing a 53 man roster spot and paying dead salary money to a guy who isn't going to play. But he was within a few days or weeks of signing a $100 million dollar plus second contract with KC. Wow. That is a bullet the Chiefs have dodged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetlord 10,210 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 42 minutes ago, Balto said: Could be suspended WITH pay, correct? Don't have to suspend if he's paid. Just don't use him in practice or let him in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reesebobby 5,664 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, wilkie said: Ha Ha Ha. I think we could play him or not play him. That would be our option. We are paying for him to play. Whether the Chiefs fanbase would stand for Tyreek Hill taking the field again is another matter altogether. The tricky theme of this theoretical is sacrificing a 53 man roster spot and paying dead salary money to a guy who isn't going to play. But he was within a few days or weeks of signing a $100 million dollar plus second contract with KC. Wow. That is a bullet the Chiefs have dodged. On The Replacements they gave the guy a dark visor and changed his name. And I think he might have killed someone. It all worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilkie 1,518 Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, jetlord said: Don't have to suspend if he's paid. Just don't use him in practice or let him in the game. That is my point. Don't release him! Let the NFL suspend h im and we can pick up the 2019 slack of his salary. Then we do not play him or let him practice. If he is the competitive athlete we suspect he is, squeeze him and let him to come to management with an offer of compromise and beg to be traded. I cannot see that there is much downside for KC in this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.