PFT: NFL sends tampering memo

[Watson's IQ]

Re: Tampering

He knew the terms of the deal. There couldn't be terms without there having been discussions. Please don't tell me that you're foolish enough to think that Samuel got a 'take it or leave it' offer from the Eagles on day 1 and immediately said "Yes, Sir!". Even Commissioner Clouseau isn't that clueless.

Prove it. You may very well be right, and Samuel knew that there was an offer waiting for him from the Eagles. But I challenge you to provide some concrete proof beyond the fact that King knew what they would offer before the fact. Plenty of guys sign on day one, and plenty for big money. I'm sure guys know who the suitors are going to be, and also what kind of contract they're after.

Maybe there was tampering, maybe there wasn't. If you want there to be some sort of punishment for it, the burden of proof lies on you and others who are advocating it. Look at it from our perspective, I'm pretty damned thankful it's not on the Patriots to prove that they DIDN'T film the Rams walkthrough, it's on those accusing them to prove they DID. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Tampering

Prove it. You may very well be right, and Samuel knew that there was an offer waiting for him from the Eagles. But I challenge you to provide some concrete proof beyond the fact that King knew what they would offer before the fact. Plenty of guys sign on day one, and plenty for big money. I'm sure guys know who the suitors are going to be, and also what kind of contract they're after.

Maybe there was tampering, maybe there wasn't. If you want there to be some sort of punishment for it, the burden of proof lies on you and others who are advocating it. Look at it from our perspective, I'm pretty damned thankful it's not on the Patriots to prove that they DIDN'T film the Rams walkthrough, it's on those accusing them to prove they DID. You can't have it both ways.

I could discuss this further, but it's clear that you're being deliberately silly, so I won't. Instead, I'll just refer you to Peter King:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/03/02/cleveland/3.html

And so I see all kinds of agents talking to teams at the scouting combine in Indianapolis. I see teams agreeing to terms with players as they do every year in the first hour of free agency (as Miami did with a guard, Justin Smiley of the 49ers). And, by the way, how did I know the Eagles would be the leaders in the clubhouse for Asante, including details about the money in the deal, nine days ago?

It's happening at the combine, so don't tell me that the league couldn't find out what's going on.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Re: Tampering

I could discuss this further, but it's clear that you're being deliberately silly, so I won't. Instead, I'll just refer you to Peter King:

It's happening at the combine, so don't tell me that the league couldn't find out what's going on.

I'm not being deliberately silly. I'm not sticking my head in the sand and saying that tampering doesn't happen, I'm refuting your notion that it would be easy for the league to crack down on it, because it's hard to prove on a case by case basis. And besides, let's not pretend like there aren't various degrees of tampering which a team can engage in. I think we can agree that contacting a player who is under contract with another team (think the situation with the Jets during the Branch holdout) is infinitely worse than teams having discussions with free agents before the signing period officially starts. If you want the league to crack down on something, make it that first situation, not this here which pretty much every team does (including the Patriots).

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Tampering

I'm not being deliberately silly. I'm not sticking my head in the sand and saying that tampering doesn't happen, I'm refuting your notion that it would be easy for the league to crack down on it, because it's hard to prove on a case by case basis. And besides, let's not pretend like there aren't various degrees of tampering which a team can engage in. I think we can agree that contacting a player who is under contract with another team (think the situation with the Jets during the Branch holdout) is infinitely worse than teams having discussions with free agents before the signing period officially starts. If you want the league to crack down on something, make it that first situation, not this here which pretty much every team does (including the Patriots).

Oh, for crying out loud. Take your head out of the bloody sand. Peter King just pointed out evidence, and it's not exactly difficult to dig up that sort of thing. For crying out loud, there's not a court in the land that would NOT find tampering had occured in the Samuel case, and that's just based upon what we know without even investigating.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Re: Tampering

Oh, for crying out loud. Take your head out of the bloody sand. Peter King just pointed out evidence, and it's not exactly difficult to dig up that sort of thing. For crying out loud, there's not a court in the land that would NOT find tampering had occured in the Samuel case, and that's just based upon what we know without even investigating.

You could not possibly be more wrong. From what PK pointed out, there isn't a court in the land who WOULD find anything more irregular than what any team does with any free agent. You can't refute my point that even if it did occur (which, as you've ignored, I agree it probably did) it is orders of magnitude less serious than tampering with players under contract with other teams (like the Branch fiasco). Even if the Eagles did engage in the less serious tampering (which, since you missed it again and again, I will repeat that I agree they probably did) you are still making mountains out of molehills with regards to the seriousness of this situation. Everyone in the league knew Samuel wasn't going back to the Patriots, and given the number that they settled on (which we all agree the Pats were never going to match), it really doesn't make all that much difference in the final analysis when Samuel knew what they would offer.

We're not disagreeing on whether tampering probably took place, I just don't think it's worth making a crusade out of it. That doesn't imply that I somehow think the Spygate punishment was justified (I don't) and this isn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Clonamery]

Re: Tampering

That's lame. You have rules or you don't. They have rules, enforce them.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Tampering

You could not possibly be more wrong. From what PK pointed out, there isn't a court in the land who WOULD find anything more irregular than what any team does with any free agent. You can't refute my point that even if it did occur (which, as you've ignored, I agree it probably did) it is orders of magnitude less serious than tampering with players under contract with other teams (like the Branch fiasco). Even if the Eagles did engage in the less serious tampering (which, since you missed it again and again, I will repeat that I agree they probably did) you are still making mountains out of molehills with regards to the seriousness of this situation. Everyone in the league knew Samuel wasn't going back to the Patriots, and given the number that they settled on (which we all agree the Pats were never going to match), it really doesn't make all that much difference in the final analysis when Samuel knew what they would offer.

We're not disagreeing on whether tampering probably took place, I just don't think it's worth making a crusade out of it. That doesn't imply that I somehow think the Spygate punishment was justified (I don't) and this isn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I didn't miss anything. In a civil case, which this would be, the standard is preponderance of the evidence. This would be a slam dunk under that standard given what we know right now.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: Tampering

Because violations of this rule can have a more significant impact on the competitive balance in the league, Goodell's overreaction in the spygate case has essentially tied his hands on this one. He can either look the other way, or he has to start ripping #1s from violators. His choices are limited.

Not at all ... he can give us back our #1 ... write a new set a mandatory punishements and we can all have a group hug and move on.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Re: Tampering

I didn't miss anything. In a civil case, which this would be, the standard is preponderance of the evidence. This would be a slam dunk under that standard given what we know right now.

I won't refute that much anyways, I think where we disagree is about how serious this is. For better or worse, we all agree that pretty much every team does this (We KNOW they do this, not like taping which many of us just suspect many teams do), and the league has a pretty good track record of turning a blind eye to it.

I have no problem going after teams who tamper with guys in holdouts or to try and force trades, that should be investigated and punished far more often. But this stuff, I just have a hard time getting worked up over it.

I fear sometimes that spygate has made martyrs of us all, and we're going to look for every little rules infraction like this to try to point out how badly we were wronged. Spygate happened, it sucked, AND I feel like we got shafted, but I don't want it to frame the way I look at this team or this league, I just want to move on from it.