Judge Recommends Suspension of 6 Games for Deshaun Watson

[dtgold88]

you guys are killing me with your math arguments.
Think DT's point is. The reason the money is less than min. is because they removed the suspended money from the browns cap.

He is supposed to get 1,035,000.00
Divide that by 17 game checks. 60,882.35
multiple game check by 6 = 365,294.12
subtract that from the base Salary = 669,705.88 is new base salary.
Now I dont know where the other 20k comes from. (his base this year says 690k) Whether a workout bonus or some perk or something, but this is the reason his base is lower than the minimum.

So if his suspension ends up all year his base salary will be zero.

I think you divide by 18 game checks as I believe they get paid 18 weeks (even the bye week)? Not sure if that is where the 20k comes in.

 

[dtgold88]

Yep....we had eastbay, GNG and Handi.
Cowboy fans here paid the price many times when trying to discuss football. Dtgold single handedly has destroyed any logic here and it's clearly been his agenda all along.

I mean, I had to give a math lesson and a lesson on the CBA today as some seem to think the Browns were the ones who chose to lower his base from around a mil to 690K

But I wouldn't want you to base your comments on the post and not the poster, kid.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

When he gets the full year (or whatever more they decide) Then I hope he does fight it. So the suspension will go into next year when he will lose real game checks.
Right now he will lose 345k for his 6 games. That is like 13.5% of one single game check next year.
Hell if he misses the whole year this year it is just over 40% of one single game check next year. (unless DTgold wants to check my math)
So I hope he contests the new ruling (whatever it is) Because it will cost him a lot more if any of that suspension goes into next

We will see what he does.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I think you divide by 18 game checks as I believe they get paid 18 weeks (even the bye week)? Not sure if that is where the 20k comes in.

yep I figured that out a couple posts later (#592)

 

[dtgold88]

here is an interesting thing.
When divided by 18 (weeks) the # actually comes out to 690k
So I guess they are counting the bye week as a game check as well.
Which I didnt think about.

as mentioned earlier, when someone mentioned the 690K and I saw it on spotrac I did wonder what happened as I recalled so many (and even Spotrac) listing his salary as 1.035 mil.

Only question now is if these same people will say the Browns made original contract to pay him nothing should he get a year suspension.

 

[dtgold88]

As long as it stay consistently the same across the nation

too bad I believe the Philly preseason game is home and not in Philly.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

too bad I believe the Philly preseason game is home and not in Philly.

that would be gross.
If in Philly they would probably be throwing used Tampons onto the field

 

[dtgold88]

Yes it was me who said nearly 50%
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up 74/75, 90?

Let me ask a question though. What is 67 closer to 50 or 100?

Now I see your saying they initially signed him to the year one minimum of 1.035M then changed it. I won't argue that as I really don't know, all I know is what his current deal says, but lets agree it was changed, doesn't that further support @HaroldSeattle in his claim the Browns protected Watson?

I just told you why I said 74, 75 and 90 in the post to which you replied.

My question now is why you brought up 100 as I said 90. But to answer your question, first, you didn't ask it right. It should be 50%, 67% annd 100%. The answer is it is closer to 50 (though likely not as close as you think).

Now let me ask you a question.....is 50% closer to 67% than 67% is to 90%? another....how close is each?

How has the Chevy Chase math comment not been used yet?

To the last part, no, it does not further support his claim as the Browns signed him to the 1.035 deal. They had nothing to do with it shrinking to 690K (or possibly to 0 if he gets a year). The Browns would prefer he play the entire season and pay the full 1.035 mil. Do you disagree with that last comment?

 

[dtgold88]

yep I figured that out a couple posts later (#592)

Haha...and I saw that you noticed that a couple posts after mine.

 

[Wamu]

I've seen some dumb things to argue over but this is up there.

It's clear the way cleveland structured the deal was a huge selling point for Deshaun. Arguing over the details seems pointless.

On the bright side it seems we will have a year to argue this out some more since he will be sitting unless he challenges the ruling.

Saw the comment about it being a slam dunk that DW's gone for the year.

Like I've said from beginning that scumbag deserves whatever suspension he gets.

But am I the only one that thinks this makes the NFL look like fools?

So they hire someone to take care of this matter but don't agree with her decision.

Then they hire someone they know will dish out the suspension they really want.

Why did the league hire her in the first place?

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Saw the comment about it being a slam dunk that DW's gone for the year.

Like I've said from beginning that scumbag deserves whatever suspension he gets.

But am I the only one that thinks this makes the NFL look like fools?

So they hire someone to take care of this matter but don't agree with her decision.

Then they hire someone they know will dish out the suspension they really want.

Why did the league hire her in the first place?

thats one way to look at it.
the other way to look at it, is dont trust the NFLPA.
They very well could have colluded with the NFL. Saying hey. We cant get the players to sign off on Goodell going all goodell with discipline.
Then they come up with this little nugget, & the NFLPA sells it to the players.
Because the funny thing is. Once this started coming down & into the light. Everyone knew instantly this was what would happen after the ruling.

Well most of us knew. *looks over at DTgold*

 

[dtgold88]

Saw the comment about it being a slam dunk that DW's gone for the year.

Like I've said from beginning that scumbag deserves whatever suspension he gets.

But am I the only one that thinks this makes the NFL look like fools?

So they hire someone to take care of this matter but don't agree with her decision.

Then they hire someone they know will dish out the suspension they really want.

Why did the league hire her in the first place?

I'm not sure it makes them look like fools. I mean, they would have gotten what they wanted in that case. Want to say it means they catered to the emotional fans and/or had their own agenda? No disagreement.

 

[dtgold88]

thats one way to look at it.
the other way to look at it, is dont trust the NFLPA.
They very well could have colluded with the NFL. Saying hey. We cant get the players to sign off on Goodell going all goodell with discipline.
Then they come up with this little nugget, & the NFLPA sells it to the players.
Because the funny thing is. Once this started coming down & into the light. Everyone knew instantly this was what would happen after the ruling.

Well most of us knew. *looks over at DTgold*

Truth be told, the NFLPA being in cahoots is interesting and not something I had thought of. Not sure I agree, but certainly possible.

Plus I love saying cahoots.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Truth be told, the NFLPA being in cahoots is interesting and not something I had thought of. Not sure I agree, but certainly possible.

Plus I love saying cahoots.

Well it is either that, or they were entirely stupid agreeing with it. Seems more feasible they knew how this would play out. vs. a bunch of smart people being that ignorant.

I doubt very seriously that they would get bamboozled. (how's that for a word)

 

[Wamu]

thats one way to look at it.
the other way to look at it, is dont trust the NFLPA.
They very well could have colluded with the NFL. Saying hey. We cant get the players to sign off on Goodell going all goodell with discipline.
Then they come up with this little nugget, & the NFLPA sells it to the players.
Because the funny thing is. Once this started coming down & into the light. Everyone knew instantly this was what would happen after the ruling.

Well most of us knew. *looks over at DTgold*

This whole process has been a mess. Way to go NFL!

 

[Wamu]

I'm not sure it makes them look like fools. I mean, they would have gotten what they wanted in that case. Want to say it means they catered to the emotional fans and/or had their own agenda? No disagreement.

They went against the ruling of the very person they hired to take care of this. To me that makes them look foolish.

But I will say this. Only a 6 game suspension is a slap in the face to all the victims. So I understand why the league wants more. They should have just dished out the suspension themselves without needlessly getting someone else involved.

 

[dtgold88]

Well it is either that, or they were entirely stupid agreeing with it. Seems more feasible they knew how this would play out. vs. a bunch of smart people being that ignorant.

I doubt very seriously that they would get bamboozled. (how's that for a word)

Have we seen the actually wording in the CBA? Meaning, is the NFL truly free to do whatever they want under any circumstances? Seems that could be the case and no doubt if it plays out how it has the NFLPA was hoodwinked (like that one?).

without an actual ruling - yet - I'll wait to see how it plays out. Part of me still thinks this is just posturing by the NFL and they really don't care if he gets a year (just want public to think they do). And, yes, it's certainly possible Rog has an agenda and wants this guy away from the league for a long time and will do everything he can to make it happen.

 

[Manster7588]

I just told you why I said 74, 75 and 90 in the post to which you replied.

My question now is why you brought up 100 as I said 90. But to answer your question, first, you didn't ask it right. It should be 50%, 67% annd 100%. The answer is it is closer to 50 (though likely not as close as you think).

Now let me ask you a question.....is 50% closer to 67% than 67% is to 90%? another....how close is each?

How has the Chevy Chase math comment not been used yet?

To the last part, no, it does not further support his claim as the Browns signed him to the 1.035 deal. They had nothing to do with it shrinking to 690K (or possibly to 0 if he gets a year). The Browns would prefer he play the entire season and pay the full 1.035 mil. Do you disagree with that last comment?

You were trying to confuse the numbers. Had you just simply said the 690m is whats left after the suspension of 6 games (33% of 18) the discussion would have ended.

 

[ElPatron1]

They went against the ruling of the very person they hired to take care of this. To me that makes them look foolish.

But I will say this. Only a 6 game suspension is a slap in the face to all the victims. So I understand why the league wants more. They should have just dished out the suspension themselves without needlessly getting someone else involved.

It makes the entire NFL seem rigged. The NFL players should take note. Hey, we are going to hire an independent judge! Oh wait we don't like the ruling so we will just change the decision and rig it how we like it anyways lol

 

[Manster7588]

They went against the ruling of the very person they hired to take care of this. To me that makes them look foolish.

But I will say this. Only a 6 game suspension is a slap in the face to all the victims. So I understand why the league wants more. They should have just dished out the suspension themselves without needlessly getting someone else involved.

True, but the NFL knew before the agreed with the NFLPA they might not agree with an arbitrator, so they made sure the they could appeal to the Commissioner.

Maybe they just change it an independent arbitrator determines if the Conduct Policy has or hasn't been violated and then hand it to the NFL for the discipline phase if a violation did occur.