No, we're discussing the breach of the alleged promise made to him. It doesn't matter when that promise was made, it's separate from the contract. The only aspect relating to the contract is whether that breach will end his relationship with the Texans. From what I've heard/read, Watson doesn't want to end the contract, he just wants it transferred to another team and he's using whatever leverage he has to that end. What's the problem with that?
That's nice and all but I was responding to your post which stated he was trying to enforce his contract which does not appear to have been breached. Unless there is some sort of Happiness Clause, I think the contract doesn't need enforcement from Watson's end.
Of course he can have it both ways. Texans fans and those that side with ownership in general don't want him to have it both ways, but he's absolutely entitled to demand a trade and then attempt to guide the process as much as possible with the NTC negotiated into his contract. Watson rejecting a "fair trade" (the evaluative term "fair" here being issued from the ownership side) is the intended utility of his NTC. Of course the Texans can do this - it's their right negotiated under the CBA and the specific terms of Watson's contract. If they choose that route it will be really fascinating to see how it impacts their goals in the business of football.
Bottom line is both sides have a point. He doesn't have legal grounds to break his contract. He may have ethical grounds to break his contract. However, its a bad look to do after your first losing season. The Texans weren't so mean as to not give him 150 million dollars. If Watson wants to act like not having a say in which GM gets interviewed is a deal breaker then that is really kinda ticky tack. For fans who don't have stars in their eyes, it IS a red flag. The question is how big a red flag is it?
Promises can certainly be enforceable as a contract, but contracts require consideration by both parties — each party offers something in exchange as consideration. The Texans promising to give Watson a voice in the search in exchange for nothing by Watson is not a contract. That type of promise is not enforceable.
He's unhappy and wants out - it didn't really matter why to me in that initial post I made. The CBA allows him to withhold services, and his specific contract containing a NTC along with his value as an asset in the numbers (well over $100M left) allows him leverage in that endeavor. He's enforcing the terms of his contract. They're not the terms that are usually focused on (years and money), and it's not from the angle that they're typically viewed (he wants to leave, not stay), but he's absolutely seeking to use the terms available in his contract to extricate himself from an unwanted situation. Br4d said he was trying to "welsh" or "break" that contract. My point is that Watson isn't doing anything nefarious, underhanded, or outside the scope of power that has been negotiated for him. He's actively using/enforcing contractual terms available to him in order to apply pressure. He's not trying to break his contract; using those tools is an enforcement of what's available to him IN his contract.
Is it "ticky tack" for a player in college to signal that he won't play for a certain team if they draft him? Yes, different in that no contract was signed, but the NFL enforces a "binding" agreement anyway: If you want to play with one of their teams, you must agree to a contract with whoever drafts you. And yet, a few very desirable starts - like Payton and Eli Manning - have been able to "break" that binding agreement to avoid being drafted by a team they didn't want to play for. So how is what Watson is trying to do really any different?
What do you mean "in exchange for nothing"? Watson agreed to uphold his side of the deal and to play for the Texans and not cause any problems...that's not "nothing". It's as substantial as the Texans promise to give him a say in things.
Its completely different because in one circumstance you have already signed your name agreeing to fulfill a legally binding contract.
I don't see any difference. In both cases star players are using their exceptional desirability as leverage to get what they want.
Again, your argument that he's enforcing his contract shows a complete lack of logic. That he has the freedom to withhold his services without pay doesn't change that. The existence and intent of a NO TRADE CLAUSE are obvious in the name of the clause as a device to avoid being traded, not the opposite as you seem to be trying to argue. That he is in a rare situation to use that device to try to steer himself to a team that he desires does not somehow change that device under the terms of his contract to a Trade Clause. Therefore he is not enforcing the terms of his contract, he's using the CBA to avoid those terms while still utilizing parts of the contract to get his way. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Texans franchise are the good guys here but let's not turn Watson into some kind of hero, he's been kind of a douche in his own right during this whole situation.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it entirely. He's not trying to break his contract or welsh on it. He's actually actively trying to keep it intact and have it moved, as contracts routinely are, to a different organization. He's using the negotiated tools at his disposal to do so. That isn't to say I think he has a right to move to another organization, or that it will work in the end. And while I appreciate Watson as a person, my view in this specific conversation has nothing to do with my opinion of him - this conversation is a procedural one to me. We just see it differently.
No, the intended utility of the NTC is to prevent a team from trading a player when they don’t want to be traded. The team then has to compromise by finding a trade where the player is willing to go in order to trade him. Watson now wants to be traded, so now the NTC doesn’t protect Watson from that possibility. He has flipped the dynamic and now depends on the team to be willing to trade him so the compromise now lies with Watson — accepting a trade where the team is willing to trade him or don’t get traded, same as the team in a normal situation has ti trade a player where the player wants to go or not trade the player. The party that wants to make the trade inherently has to make the compromise. If the goal is to win a SB next year, making him sit and not trading him likely impacts that goal. No matter how crazy you think the organization is they likely aren’t so delusional to think that is a reasonable goal. So forcing him to sit likely doesn’t impact any significant realistic goal.
That’s not a consideration; that would qualify as a threat. Give me this right or I’ll not cause you any problems? you’re not helping your argument here.
I totally disagree. He signed a mega contract to play football. Houston is not breaking any part of the contract agreement by forcing a trade where in fact there is a no trade clause benefitting Watson. He, however, is braking the contract by refusing to play and forcing a trade against the no trade clause he demanded. Houston is not violating any part of that contract. So he is totally welching on his commitment and forcing Houston to trade him based on some presumed promise and his butt hurt unhappiness which is totally unenforceable but places Houston's backs against the wall. Only thing he is entitled to do is sit for as long he sees fit and watch his value go to hell.
We’re just a couple of guys talking. It’s not that you’re not swaying me; it’s that it wholly fails the factual realities of contract law.
You think a judge would consider a threat not to perform your duties of an existing contract legal consideration? consideration, by definition, is something you aren’t legally obligated to do. The existing contract is something Watson is legally obligated to do, thus the threat not to do it can’t be consideration. In order for consideration to provide a valid basis for a contract -- and remember that every valid contract must have consideration -- each party must make a change in their "position." Consideration is usually either the result of: a promise to do something you're not legally obligated to do, or a promise not to do something you have the right to do (often, this means a promise not to file a lawsuit). Why wouldn’t you have simply looked up the legal requirements for consideration before responding to actually know what you are talking about? I apologize for this sounding so aggressive but this is a concept so basic that there is no reasonable basis to have claimed it’s not that simple.
Watson isn't legally obligated to play for the Texans, nobody's going to come after him if he refuses to play. He just won't get paid.
