I feel like I say this far too often but it baffles me that people still don’t understand what the problem is all these months later.
I know exactly what the problem is. You are inventing a new problem that we have never seen in play before in the NFL and trying to make it out as the obvious scenario.
The problem is that Deshaun Watson doesn't want to play for the Houston Texans despite being bound by an unbreakable long-term contract. Anything else is irrelevant and not part of the problem.
So like I said, it’s amazing to me that this many months in, there are people that still don’t get it.
I've got to say that this is the 1st time I've learned a new word on this forum...kudos to you Ralebird! Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I just find it strange that certain people - or companies - can break "unbreakable" contracts as long as they have enough money to pay off or influence the right people and that's "just business". But if what was reported is true - Watson was promised a say in the hiring of the GM and HC but then was never given that opportunity - then it's Houston that broke the contract. Maybe that promise wasn't put in writing or specifically included in the contract he signed, but to Watson it's as biding as if it had been, and he's right to feel that way, given how certain powerful entities can break contracts whenever it suits them. The "villains" here are the Texans who are doing what I thought impossible: making the Johnson Idiots look like idiot savants.
From everything I've read, there's nothing in his contract that states he has any say in managing operations of the team. It was a handshake deal which is not binding anywhere.
Does it appear in Watson's contract that he can be made promises that are not fulfilled? Does it matter that the Texans have a cult leader pulling the strings of management? Certainly Watson is not the first NFL player who has stated he will withdraw his services because he is not being treated fairly. James Harden is not even a footnote in this situation.
This move doesn't have anything to do with Watson, but it does show you that the Texans and Dolphins are talking with each other. I am sure he gets brought up.
It's not even that deep. Br4d's takes on the Watson situation this whole time read like a septuagenarian ownership shill who is stuck in the 80's. Deshaun Watson signed a contract. If both he and the Texans are happy, then the contract runs its course. If neither he nor the Texans are happy for whatever reason, then they figure out a way to get off his contract where both sides seek to minimize the damage to their goals in the business of football (go to the best team possible/cap implications). If he's happy but the Texans aren't for whatever reason, then they have the option to cut or trade him, although they must weigh the way these actions impact their goals in the business of football (dead cap, personnel, etc). If the Texans are happy but Deshaun isn't for whatever reason, then he has the option to withhold his services, although he must weigh the way this action impacts his goals in the business of football (lack of income, public image, end result). Within Deshaun Watson's contract there exists a NTC. If he chooses the option to withhold services he has the unusual added benefit of being able to control the Texans to a greater extent than most players in that situation. And because his contract is so enormous and still reflective of his quality as a player in the league (if not actually under representative of his value) the Texans contractual options are not the ones they're hoping for or accustomed to dealing with. It's a unique situation, but Watson is enforcing his rights exactly as they're permitted within the negotiated terms of his contract. He's actively wielding the enforcement of his contractual terms in an attempt to impact his goals in the business of football. As a fan I sometimes empathize with athletes powerful enough to engage those rights, and other times they drive me insane, but that fan emotion doesn't change the fact that what's actually happening is an application of rights granted in the CBA and the individual player's contract.
You’re confusing a contract with a promise. You’re also depending on an idea that there is absolutely no evidence of even existing for you to base your argument on — that the promise to have a say was made as part of the contract negotiations, and thus the organization breached the contract by not upholding the promise. first off, if Watson was so adamant about having that right as part of his contract negotiation he’d have to answer why he didn’t demand it in writing in the contract. Seems completely meritless to believe it was part of the contract negotiation but was voluntarily left out if the actual contract by Watson. two, the contract was signed before the previous GM and coach was fired — why would that previous GM agree to give Watson the right to participate in the hiring of his replacement? this premise defies any basic reasoning. If the owner agreed to give Watson a say in the hiring of a new GM and coach that promise came after the firing of the GM and coach — long after he signed his contract. The promise thus has nothing to do with the contract and therefore there is absolutely no breach of the contract even if he broke the promise. this is a really terrible argument on your part. Sorry to have to say that so explicitly.
That’s true but if that is what happened, I don’t blame Watson for being pissed off. The franchise is being run horribly on top of that and has become the laughing stock of the league (Easterby, Hopkins trade, etc). Like it or not, Watson has the leverage here. The Texans can either play hardball and sink their team with him sitting out or get what they can for him.
The NTC doesn’t help Watson in this situation at all. If his desire is to leave the Texans, and the Texans find a trade that they are willing to accept but Watson refuses to accept it, it weakens Watson’s position to accomplish his goals of not playing for the Texans and could be argued it is a bad faith execution of his contract. the NTC only helps a player when they don’t want to be traded not when they are demanding a trade. Watson can’t have it both ways — want a trade but reject a fair trade the Texans are willing to accept. The Texans can simply tell Watson this is the trade they are willing to make, and if he refuses they will not trade him for any lesser amount from another team.
You're arguing from the basis of legal parameters, whereas this falls in that grey area of "handshake agreements". Are these legally enforceable? Actually, sometimes they are, but whether or not they are isn't the point. The point is that if Watson was made a promise - and I've stated it numerous times that none of us know if this is true or not - and he feels like it was broken, then he might feel within his rights to get out of the relationship. When people get married in a church ceremony, they aren't legally bound to each other, nor are the promises legally binding. The legal part of the marriage is the marriage license, signed and executed by someone legally endowed with that power. And yet, how many people would feel legitimately wronged if their spouse broke one of those religious vows, and want to end the marriage? To put it another way, trust isn't a legal concept, it's a moral one.
Sink their team? Any financial loss of Watson not playing will be so minimal as to be insignificant to an NFL organization, whereas Watson stands to lose $200 million plus in NFL salary if he refuses to ever play again. Please explain how that equates to Watson having the leverage? the Texans are worth $3 billion. They will continue to play football. Fans will continue to root for them. Please show one single even remotely comparable example of the loss of a player “sinking” an organization.
Except you’re again making the claim that the handshake deal was part of the contract negotiation which it clearly wasn’t. That handshake deal can only reasonably be believed to have occurred after Bill OBrien was fired, a year after Watson signed the contract. Therefore the promise has nothing to do with the contract and thus breaking the promise is not breach of the contract, we are discussing your claim of breach of contract — which you were clearly referring to his written contract not a second verbal contract relating solely to the promise.
Where would the Jets be if players who hated the Johnsons wanted to force a trade after signing an extension? Oh wait, great players never resign with the Johnsons, so never mind.
