VikeManDan Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Perhaps I'm not understanding something then. The article also states that players who start the season on the PUP list are not eligible to come off the PUP list until after week 6. I would imagine that holds true regardless if "his body is capable of performing football services." Let's say he files a grievance, is that grievance to get him removed from the PUP list and moved to the active roster before week 6 thus allowing his contract to not toll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 The way I read it is that if Bridgewater isn't activated for the 7th game of the year, immediately after the PUP list period ends, his contract will toll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, VikeManDan said: Let's say he files a grievance, is that grievance to get him removed from the PUP list and moved to the active roster before week 6 thus allowing his contract to not toll? What the grievance ends up being will depend on what the NFL does and the contentions they make. The NFLPA can claim that he was put on the PUP list but he was physically able to play by the sixth week. That the PUP prevents him from playing then doesn't have anything to do with whether he is physically able to play. Basically, they will be arguing that being physically able to play is something independent of being on or not being on the PUP list. The Vikings, meanwhile, might want to tread carefully because Shariff Floyd will not be physically able to play by week 6. They don't want to accidentally end up with a result that tolls his contract until next year and then be forced to pay him his guaranteed 5th year option salary again. If the arbitrator says that a contract MUST toll instead of COULD toll at the clubs discretion it would mean that the Vikings will have Floyds guaranteed 5th year again next year. If it is a COULD instead of a MUST Teddy and his representatives would be justifiably upset about the team choosing to toll his contract when they could have treated him much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 52 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: The way I read it is that if Bridgewater isn't activated for the 7th game of the year, immediately after the PUP list period ends, his contract will toll. If Teddy's camp thinks that he was physically able to play and the team was not activating him just to toll the contract they would file a grievance. If they have multiple doctors supporting their claim that Teddy was physically able to go they very likely would win that grievance. But first, they would want to address the issue of whether being on PUP necessarily counts them as being physically unable to perform during the entire time on PUP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikeManDan Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, SemperFeist said: The way I read it is that if Bridgewater isn't activated for the 7th game of the year, immediately after the PUP list period ends, his contract will toll. 14 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: If Teddy's camp thinks that he was physically able to play and the team was not activating him just to toll the contract they would file a grievance. If they have multiple doctors supporting their claim that Teddy was physically able to go they very likely would win that grievance. But first, they would want to address the issue of whether being on PUP necessarily counts them as being physically unable to perform during the entire time on PUP. If Teddy starts on the PUP he can't come off until week 7, regardless if he is able to perform. Perhaps that needs to be a future negotiating point of the next CBA, taking players off of the PUP before week 6 to avoid contracts tolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: If Teddy's camp thinks that he was physically able to play and the team was not activating him just to toll the contract they would file a grievance. I agree and think they should. Being cleared to play from a physical standpoint is different then being in playing shape (which has no bearing). If Vikings camp assess him an not being able to play or do not reassess Teddy, Teddy camp should be contacting the NFLPA for an independent evaluation, if he thinks he is actually physically able to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikeManDan Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: What the grievance ends up being will depend on what the NFL does and the contentions they make. The NFLPA can claim that he was put on the PUP list but he was physically able to play by the sixth week. That the PUP prevents him from playing then doesn't have anything to do with whether he is physically able to play. Basically, they will be arguing that being physically able to play is something independent of being on or not being on the PUP list. The Vikings, meanwhile, might want to tread carefully because Shariff Floyd will not be physically able to play by week 6. They don't want to accidentally end up with a result that tolls his contract until next year and then be forced to pay him his guaranteed 5th year option salary again. If the arbitrator says that a contract MUST toll instead of COULD toll at the clubs discretion it would mean that the Vikings will have Floyds guaranteed 5th year again next year. If it is a COULD instead of a MUST Teddy and his representatives would be justifiably upset about the team choosing to toll his contract when they could have treated him much better. I didn't consider the ramifications of Floyd, that is an interesting point. Hypothetically then let's say that Teddy is full go week 2, the Vikings could then take him off the PUP and place him on the 53 as an act of good faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikeManDan Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: If Teddy's camp thinks that he was physically able to play and the team was not activating him just to toll the contract they would file a grievance. 4 minutes ago, CriminalMind said: I agree and think they should. Being cleared to play from a physical standpoint is different then being in playing shape (which has no bearing). If Vikings camp assess him an not being able to play or do not reassess Teddy, Teddy camp should be contacting the NFLPA for an independent evaluation, if he thinks he is actually physically able to play. I think we can all agree here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Really interesting piece about the impact on Floyd too. I'm gonna stand by my prediction with Teddy being on week one 53 man roster as #3 QB, if he is anywhere close to being ready to be cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 4 hours ago, VikeManDan said: If Teddy starts on the PUP he can't come off until week 7, regardless if he is able to perform. Perhaps that needs to be a future negotiating point of the next CBA, taking players off of the PUP before week 6 to avoid contracts tolling. Correct, if Teddy starts the season on PUP he can't come off the PUP until at least week 7, regardless if he is able to perform. The contention in that linked article that I was referencing is that being on the PUP list does not automatically mean that a player was physically unable to perform on week 6. They will still be on the list so they won't be playing however if they were physically able to play if not for the list the NFLPA would argue that the contact should not toll. The CBA language does not say anything about the PUP list in this situation. It merely says that if a player is physically not able to play the contract will toll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 4 hours ago, CriminalMind said: Really interesting piece about the impact on Floyd too. While Floyd's contact would toll just the same as Teddy's the team would have the option to cut Floyd before the $6.7M salary becomes fully guaranteed if he gets healthy. However, 5th year options are guaranteed for injury when they are extended to the player iirc. I am not sure how that all may play out with Floyd. My main point in bringing up Floyd is that Teddy is not the only player in the last year of his contract that may not be physically able to play. The NFL and NFLPA both need to seriously consider the larger ramifications of various potential outcomes an arbitrator may come to. It may not be worth winning this battle if it means losing the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplexing Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 On 8/22/2017 at 9:57 AM, JDBrocks said: That's just it though, where is the analysis? Just asking questions and trying to poke holes in other peoples takes. Especially on this particular subject. Demanding proof on something so subjective and incomplete isn't good analysis. Frankly, it's annoying. The 'analysis' I provided is that there ARE NO ANALYSES of significance in this thread because it's all speculation until medical reports are published. IOW, I analyzed the value of the speculation going on.... .and see NONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplexing Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 On 8/22/2017 at 9:24 AM, CriminalMind said: There is no way to tell if TB (now) will be as/more effective then TH or CK. But TB (now) is not going to be compared to any QB on the roster right now. IF he is activated and placed on the 53, its for PR purposes, will be inactive on game day, as he works himself back into playing shape if he can. I assume you are reacting to my post above yours. Eric Dunn made the assumption that TB would be active under his scenario. I wonder if TB is currently ahead of TH or CK or both in terms of fitness to play AND effectiveness. If TB isn't 'ready to play' now, that may change in the next few weeks. I wonder why EDunn or others assume TB will be ahead of TH and CK. I thought TB isn't involved in contact practice. Does anyone have concise info on his practice regimen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klomp Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Purplexing said: The 'analysis' I provided is that there ARE NO ANALYSES of significance in this thread because it's all speculation until medical reports are published. IOW, I analyzed the value of the speculation going on.... .and see NONE. That's not analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Klomp said: That's not analysis. it's top notch whining though. gotta give credit where credit is due. whining: give or make a long, high-pitched complaining cry or sound. complain in a feeble or petulant way Dictionary.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.