shopson67
Well-Known Member
Yep.
....and the Dodgers swoop in and restock as needed.
Yep.
what they should do is just defer to an expert like Robinson who would clean it up over time--- and hire some former lawyers to update their policies.....if they did those 2 things---- let the hearing officer sort through it all, and hired some good lawyers to update policies- the process would be vastly more open and fair and probably result in less violations and much less controversy.I think that what is happening shows just how badly the NFL has handled these types of issues. Hopefully, they will learn from this and actually change things.
Sadly, I'll be a bit surprised if they actually do.
they still ahve some guys- and really- they had a very good farm system before...its not like they have the worst now....def prob. bottom 6-7.....but its not disastrous.The Padres really through all caution to the wind and went all in, trading away most of their farm system. Could pay off, could really hurt long term.
I bet they resign him. I dont think you make that deal to let him go.....either that or if disaster hits to re-trade him- but I doubt that.They got a nasty lineup but in the end, the Dodgers are still in their division and superior imo. Doesn’t mean they can’t beat them but anticipating they only have him for 2 years they need a WS title for all these moves to pay off. A lot of competition with the Cards, Mets, Braves and Dodgers.
Sexual assault is a common term in our vernacular though. Why would the contract need to define that? Any attempts to do so will assuredly not be comprehensive. This would create unintended blind spots and a loop hole.I have to say, I have never seen or heard of a situation where one side brings a violation they do not have a definition for, is able to make up the definition during the hearing, and the hearing officer is bound by whatever their definition is that has been made up on the spot.
usually if there is a policy and it is broad or vague the hearing officer will interpret it--- not the side that wrote it since its obviously self-serving.
I think this is where she freewheels a little.
I think that since the NFL did not have a definition in any kind of handbook, or any kind of written policy at all, and offered a vague definition in the hearing that the hearing officer herself said was not great in scope- she was forced to bring some clarity and make some determinations and interpret past rulings and precedent and try and make some sense out of them.
@shopson67 looks like your boy Gonsolin is starting to feel the workload
It very well could.This is going to wind up in federal court
No it won’t, the CBA says the Commisioners changes are final and binding.This is going to wind up in federal court
The NFLPA will take it to court and they canNo it won’t, the CBA says the Commisioners changes are final and binding.
Roger Goodell has an anti-Cleveland agendaSo the NFL appointed Robinson and now they are appealing. Why not just make a decision from the start?
If they appeal and go full season this thing is going to be dangling for a full season in court and Watson will play. Maybe that’s what the NFL wants, for him to play this season and then get suspended for some of next season to fork over A LOT more money
It very well could.