Jump to content
Broncofan

Dejà Vu: OAK signs Martavius Bryant to 1-year deal

Recommended Posts

On 9/11/2018 at 9:35 PM, Thelonebillsfan said:

We're 100% sure Al hasn't possessed Gruden right?

Actually were not 100% sure on that and I'm a Raider fan. Seems a lot of Gruden's moves seem very Al like. Surprised Al traded away our best coach..Wait what the ....IT IS AL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they cut him for week 1 so that Bryant’s contract wasn’t guaranteed for the season. It was a dumb decision because they badly missed him vs the Rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I think they cut him for week 1 so that Bryant’s contract wasn’t guaranteed for the season. It was a dumb decision because they badly missed him vs the Rams.

If he’s suspended the $ isn’t guaranteed.  So that’s not the reason for suspension protection.  

Now cutting him they could have re-signed him to a cheaper deal.   Min wage is around 650k vs. the 1.9M salary he was making.   So that could be the angle...except for this news: 

 

So the Raiders didn’t even cut his salary to min wage.  And with a suspension there’s no guarantee it all voids.  So tell me again why they cut him?  Again if it’s to give them an out to avoid $ for suspension - it’s a non factor (salary voids if he’s suspended, all future guarantees void).   And if it’s to give them an out to cut him if there’s an off-field or play issue - then shame on them for not doing this research before giving up a top 75 pick in a deep draft.   

I mean if they wanted a talented but headcase WR they could have drafted Antonio Callaway with that 3rd.   I get that’s hindsight but the whole thinking here has zero logic (or zero advance prep work to ID issues when deciding to spend a 3rd on 1 year left of his rookie deal).

 

 

 

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Broncofan said:

If he’s suspended the $ isn’t guaranteed.  So that’s not the reason for suspension protection.  

Now cutting him they could have re-signed him to a cheaper deal.   Min wage is around 650k vs. the 1.9M salary he was making.   So that could be the angle...except for this news: 

 

So the Raiders didn’t even cut his salary to min wage.  And with a suspension there’s no guarantee it all voids.  So tell me again why they cut him?  Again if it’s to give them an out to avoid $ for suspension - it’s a non factor (salary voids if he’s suspended, all future guarantees void).   And if it’s to give them an out to cut him if there’s an off-field or play issue - then shame on them for not doing this research before giving up a top 75 pick in a deep draft.   

I mean if they wanted a talented but headcase WR they could have drafted Antonio Callaway with that 3rd.   I get that’s hindsight but the whole thinking here has zero logic (or zero advance prep work to ID issues when deciding to spend a 3rd on 1 year left of his rookie deal).

 

 

 

The hilarious part of this is that because of this potential suspension, this lowers his market value even if he has a good year for us, meaning we can potentially resign him for very cheap, assuming his suspension is not an indefinite one.

I'd wager if Bryant had a big year with Carr (e.g. close to 1000 yards, 7-8 touchdowns), the way receivers are getting paid, he'd be priced out for what we'd want to pay him. That's no longer the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

The hilarious part of this is that because of this potential suspension, this lowers his market value even if he has a good year for us, meaning we can potentially resign him for very cheap, assuming his suspension is not an indefinite one.

I'd wager if Bryant had a big year with Carr (e.g. close to 1000 yards, 7-8 touchdowns), the way receivers are getting paid, he'd be priced out for what we'd want to pay him. That's no longer the case.

Well if he’s suspended for more than 10 games - your 2018 contract doesn’t toll.   The Raiders would own his 2019 rights for 1.9M.  That’s what happened to Josh Gordon when CLE suspended him 1 game week 17 for missing curfew after returning from his 10 game suspension.  

Again though just to be clear - the suspension creates that situation.   Not cutting him. So the cut was a weird decision...to be kind to Gruden & co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Well if he’s suspended for more than 10 games - your 2018 contract doesn’t toll.   The Raiders would own his 2019 rights for 1.9M.  That’s what happened to Josh Gordon when CLE suspended him 1 game week 17 for missing curfew after returning from his 10 game suspension.  

Again though just to be clear - the suspension creates that situation.   Not cutting him. So the cut was a weird decision...to be kind to Gruden & co.

1

Yeah, i'm still not sure why they cut him. This whole suspension thing is up in the air.

I think they cut him thinking he would be suspended immediately and now:

1. either he will be but they haven't ruled on it yet

2. he won't be and they just realized this now

What's weird is normally drug suspensions come down pretty hard/fast. I'm not sure why if he failed a test he hasn't already been suspended. Is there any precedent of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Yeah, i'm still not sure why they cut him. This whole suspension thing is up in the air.

I think they cut him thinking he would be suspended immediately and now:

1. either he will be but they haven't ruled on it yet

2. he won't be and they just realized this now

What's weird is normally drug suspensions come down pretty hard/fast. I'm not sure why if he failed a test he hasn't already been suspended. Is there any precedent of this?

No precedent....but let’s just say that Josh Gordon’s “self-imposed” rehab stint and then requiring league approval for reinstatement has conspiracy theorists convinced it was more than anxiety-related.   But no, no real precedent that we know of.    

Keep in mind we aren’t supposed to know about suspensions until the appeal is done.  So we really have no framework to know how long an appeal is supposed to take (I think there’s a 4-week window to appeal and be heard but that’s total recall from reading the policy last year).  For all we know the appeal was won and that’s why he was re-signed.  Which begs the Q on why they cut him in the first place.   Or the appeal isn’t done but they realized they aren’t at risk by having him under contract and can keep his rights another year if he’s gone more than 10 games. 

The best idea is to just go with the FO miscalculating in some fashion and then correcting the error.  Either not realizing he could win the appeal (best case for OAK) or not realizing a suspension takes all the future risk from any contract he was signed to, but he’s still in the appeals process (worst case for 2018 and bad look for the competency of the FO).

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Suspension, I just looked in after digging into the CBA, there's a pretty clear timeline involved, if we assume that Bryant at latest received notice of suspension just before Sept. 1, 2018, when he was released.   THAT is a big assumption - because the team doesn't get notified until an appeal is lost, and the decision is final.   But, let's assume that Bryan got notice, then he or his agent notified the team.   


Here's the NFL drug policy - https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Agents/2016SOAPolicy_v2.pdf

I'm not in the legal field, just a layman, but that reads pretty clearly that the appeal has to happen on the 4th Tuesday after the appeal is filed, which can only be within 5 days of notice (the 4 weeks I was thinking of going off memory - and hey, my memory may not be Sean McVay-like, but pretty accurate here lol). 

If we assume Sept. 1 is the notice date at latest (and then Bryant informed the club, because the league only informs the player, not the team), then we could still have an appeal on Sept. 25th or Oct. 2nd (depending on when the appeal is filed).  If there was already an appeal underway, then the appeal could be heard next Tuesday.   Either way, the appeal is final, and usually a decision is made quickly (within Wed/Thu that week at least for discipline, no idea for drugs obv, since that's all private).  

Either way, it still doesn't explain why OAK released Bryant if they wanted him post-suspension or hoping he wouldn't get suspended.   Keeping him under contract didn't put them at jeopardy.   

But the other take home message - assuming it's weed-related, then if Bryant is still playing when October games are underway, it would seem he won his appeal (or the story was truly fake news).  Either way, it makes OAK's decision to cut him, and sign him to the exact salary $ incredibly strange.   

 

 

EXACT section in NFL Drug Policy under Appeals, Section 4.2, Subsection 1.5 (page 23 of the policy):

Quote

Section 1.5 Appeals. Any Player who is notified by the NFL Management Council that he is subject to a fine or suspension for violation of the terms of this Policy may appeal such discipline in writing within five (5) business days of receiving notice from the NFL that he is subject to discipline.

Appeal hearings will be scheduled to take place on the fourth Tuesday following issuance of the notice of discipline. Upon agreement of the Parties, the hearing may be rescheduled to another date. In the absence of an agreement, a party may request a conference call to move for a new date based on extenuating circumstances. In such case, should the arbitrator conclude that a new date is warranted, a new date may be scheduled, but in no instance shall the rescheduled date fall more than one week after the originally scheduled date unless otherwise ordered by the arbitrator.

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

No precedent....but let’s just say that Josh Gordon’s “self-imposed” rehab stint and then requiring league approval for reinstatement has conspiracy theorists convinced it was more than anxiety-related.   But no, no real precedent that we know of.    

Keep in mind we aren’t supposed to know about suspensions until the appeal is done.  So we really have no framework to know how long an appeal is supposed to take (I think there’s a 4-week window to appeal and be heard but that’s total recall from reading the policy last year).  For all we know the appeal was won and that’s why he was re-signed.  Which begs the Q on why they cut him in the first place.   Or the appeal isn’t done but they realized they aren’t at risk by having him under contract and can keep his rights another year if he’s gone more than 10 games. 

The best idea is to just go with the FO miscalculating in some fashion and then correcting the error.  Either not realizing he could win the appeal (best case for OAK) or not realizing a suspension takes all the future risk from any contract he was signed to, but he’s still in the appeals process (worst case for 2018 and bad look for the competency of the FO).

This is all very confusing. There have been rumors swirling about a suspension for quite some time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 10:18 AM, Broncofan said:

If he’s suspended the $ isn’t guaranteed.  So that’s not the reason for suspension protection.  

Now cutting him they could have re-signed him to a cheaper deal.   Min wage is around 650k vs. the 1.9M salary he was making.   So that could be the angle...except for this news: 

 

So the Raiders didn’t even cut his salary to min wage.  And with a suspension there’s no guarantee it all voids.  So tell me again why they cut him?  Again if it’s to give them an out to avoid $ for suspension - it’s a non factor (salary voids if he’s suspended, all future guarantees void).   And if it’s to give them an out to cut him if there’s an off-field or play issue - then shame on them for not doing this research before giving up a top 75 pick in a deep draft.   

I mean if they wanted a talented but headcase WR they could have drafted Antonio Callaway with that 3rd.   I get that’s hindsight but the whole thinking here has zero logic (or zero advance prep work to ID issues when deciding to spend a 3rd on 1 year left of his rookie deal).

 

 

 

I’m fully aware of that but at this point but at this point, his suspension appears to be a rumor and no one knows if he’s going to get suspended or not. So, if they cut him for week 1, then Bring him back his contract isn’t guaranteed the rest of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

This is all very confusing. There have been rumors swirling about a suspension for quite some time now.

It makes a lot of sense. The Raiders were worried about his suspension and cut him but knew that he could get it appealed and then he’d be playing up until that appeal was heard or if it was appealed the could be active for the entire season. They cut him befoee week one to cover their butts in case they wanted to cut him if he didn’t improve during the season w/o his contract being guaranteed.

This is assuming that he really is going to be suspended and that it isn’t fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×