Big Pimpin wrote:Mookie4ever wrote:RugbyD wrote:Mook, I think you are overlooking that this was an accumulation of things over time rather than just these recent items. I may be incorrect on this, but I think there is a "conduct detrimental to the team" clause in his contract somewhere. I'd say that everything up to this point qualifies for that, though it is a broad term.
Yes there is a "conduct detrimental to the team" clause in his contract but I believe that the max penalty for this pursuant to the CBA is a 4 game suspension. He fully deserves this suspension.
They have then said that they are sending him home after that. This is a further penalty for his detrimental conduct that they probably aren't allowed to give him. This is different from Keyshawn in that KJ wanted out and he didn't want to come back to the team. TO wants to come back and the Eagles' actions are probably a breach of contract.
My point was that the Eagles have no one to blame but themselves b/c TO hasn't changed his behaviour at all - they knew what they were getting. And now they want to use a greater penalty than what they negotiated in his contract.
I don't see any problem with this. The max suspension they can give him is 4 games. Fine. Then it's certainly their perogative to pay him to not play. There are guys every week who are inactive for the games. Why can't TO be one of those guys for the rest of the season? I hope they don't have to cut him so he can do nothing the rest of the year. Screw him.
There's a difference b/w being inactive for health or skill reasons and being inactive for discipline. The Collective Bargaining Agreement states that for discipline reasons you can suspend a player for 4 games. The Eagles agreed to this. They are not claiming that he will be inactive because of health or that there are better WRs on the team, they basically want to suspend him for 8 games as discipline and that is not a punishment that the Eagles and TO agreed to when his contract was signed.