Jump to content

Packers release Martellus Bennett


marky mark

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, deltarich87 said:

 

so does this mean no dead cap if we can recoup the bonus?  And potentially dead cap if we can't?

 

Seems strange for NE given they didn't want to pay him the big contract, which we gave him, but now they are on the hook for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

so does this mean no dead cap if we can recoup the bonus?  And potentially dead cap if we can't?

Yes

22 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Seems strange for NE given they didn't want to pay him the big contract, which we gave him, but now they are on the hook for it.

They'll pay him $775,000 for the rest of this season then likely cut him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very intricate and weird.  Never seen a guy waiver with that designation (that I can recall). I get why the packers did it, but did the Pats just totally screw up the plan here?

 

How this affects the comp pick formula might be very interesting as well.  Pats lost Bennett, Pack signed him.  Wonder if those will count for/against those respective teams.

 

Have to think if Bennett plays the rest of the year that they don't stand as good of a chance to win the grievance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

This is all very intricate and weird.  Never seen a guy waiver with that designation (that I can recall). I get why the packers did it, but did the Pats just totally screw up the plan here?

 

Have to think if Bennett plays the rest of the year that they don't stand as good of a chance to win the grievance.

They would stand a better chance if their claim is that he lied about the severity of his injury or that he was injured at all. If he told the Packers he was hurt badly enough that he couldn't practice or play for two weeks then goes to NE and plays right away, that wouldn't look good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LargeFarva said:

They would stand a better chance if their claim is that he lied about the severity of his injury or that he was injured at all. If he told the Packers he was hurt badly enough that he couldn't practice or play for two weeks then goes to NE and plays right away, that wouldn't look good for him.

Yeah, unless they kind of "made up" the injury because he was thinking of retiring, and said "here's the way to retire now" but then he pulled the rug out and approached the pats.

If they cut him with "failed to disclose injury" but the injury is indeed fake... then what does that mean?  How can you win arbitration for "you hid your injury" when the "hidden injury" was in fact a lie.  Doesn't make Marty look good or trustworthy, but the issue of arbitration seems to be tied to the designation, right?  Or is that not how this works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

Yeah, unless they kind of "made up" the injury because he was thinking of retiring, and said "here's the way to retire now" but then he pulled the rug out and approached the pats.

I see what you're saying, but the Packers don't strike me as an organization that would do that kind of thing. And Bennett strikes me as a guy that would lie about an injury. That will be up to an arbitrator to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Good news is I see no way we don't get our cap hit back. Guy quit the team and then lied about retiring to get released.

There's a Tweet above saying the Patriots would get that cap refund, not us. I don't know if it's true or how it works, just pointing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...