Antonio Brown

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

No, it's literally lose-lose in anyone's opinion who understands how the salary cap works. In the scenario you describe, the Patriots would take the cap hit of $5m from Brown's first contract (it cannot be credited until next league year even if forfeited) and then would take another cap hit of $5m from Brown's second contract. It makes zero sense and they can't afford it, while Brown gets nothing out of this other than the opportunity to play football and the union gets nothing other than a failed grievance. The scenario you are looking for requires the Patriots to capitulate and pay Brown his signing bonus from the original contract, and then sign him to a new contract without guarantees.

As for the union grievance part, the union is Brown's sole representative in this grievance process. The union doesn't jump when Brown tells it to jump.

Brown could agree to a new one-year deal at prorated vet minimum.The Patriots could agree to pay Brown his initial contract (minus that amount). But they cannot get back that accelerated cap hit for the 2019 season (can’t spread the hit into two years now.)

 

[RobertWeathers]

I never said to do it for a lesser deal. I said it would make sense from AB's perspective to agree to drop the grievance in exchange for a new deal with the same bonus.

(I am not saying the Patriots would ever do such a thing in a million years, I am just saying that from AB's perspective, it would be a wise move)

OK. Those are the only conditions he should do it under. But yea, I don think the NFLPA or the league would allow it. Opens up a Pandora's box of contract/cap anarchy

 

[StairwayToSe7en]

AB gonna come back home.

 

[Family]

I never said to do it for a lesser deal. I said it would make sense from AB's perspective to agree to drop the grievance in exchange for a new deal with the same bonus.

(I am not saying the Patriots would ever do such a thing in a million years, I am just saying that from AB's perspective, it would be a wise move)

It's the Patriots who need to drop the grievance, or there is absolutely no deal.

The only way this is possible is the Patriots realize they are losing the money either way.

 

[primetime]

I never said to do it for a lesser deal. I said it would make sense from AB's perspective to agree to drop the grievance in exchange for a new deal with the same bonus.

(I am not saying the Patriots would ever do such a thing in a million years, I am just saying that from AB's perspective, it would be a wise move)

Why would it be a wise move? He could also just, you know, not play football and win the grievance, because he's very likely to win the grievance. That would seem to be the wise move. Even if you think much worse of his chances in hearing than I do, he could just settle for half and get paid $5m or whatever to, uh, hang out at home and have sex with people while others paint murals, I guess? You're acting like the guy needs to play football, but, well, the guy doesn't need to play football, and playing football is actually pretty terrible for your brain and body and stuff. And that doesn't fix the problem of the Patriots taking the cap hit twice, because that cap hit in LY 19 is done and settled. So, yes, lose-lose.

(Note: It may be we have a misunderstanding based on order of operations. Basically, what happened is that the Patriots declared Brown's signing bonus forfeit. Under this scenario, the Patriots receive a 'full refund' credit on next year's cap but are on the hook for this year, so it's almost like it was a surplus that rolled over. Brown's grieving to say that my signing bonus isn't forfeit, under which scenario the Patriots are on the hook for the signing bonus on their cap this and next year. If Brown drops his grievance, he forfeits his signing bonus but the cap hit for this year doesn't go away, so in order to get to the zero-sum contract you envision where Brown gets paid the same that he would have, the Patriots would essentially need to double up on their cap hit this year, which they cannot afford. If the Patriots, on the other hand, capitulate to the grievance and pay Brown, they could do what Ice Ice Brady says below...)

Brown could agree to a new one-year deal at prorated vet minimum.The Patriots could agree to pay Brown his initial contract (minus that amount). But they cannot get back that accelerated cap hit for the 2019 season (can’t spread the hit into two years now.)

Right, if the Patriots dropped their attempt to declare the signing bonus forfeitable.

 

[Double TE]

Don’t eat the Tide pods!!!! Have you seen the guy’s HISTORY???????

.

People can change?

 

[QB12]

I say, "Hell yeah"

 

[shmessy]

It's the Patriots who need to drop the grievance, or there is absolutely no deal.

The only way this is possible is the Patriots realize they are losing the money either way.

Stop eating the Tide pods.......



.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has there been any news on AB getting the whole 9m ?
Other than his own his own demented mind?

I would love to have "an obedient" AB back. More than words can describe.

But you don't get many chances with BB or RK, especially when you do literally the same day.

He F'd up. He screwed us, and everyone else on the way.

Even if we did get him back, he'd be on the exempt list soon.
So , same boat.

 

[fightingirish595]

I agree with Antonio!

 

[shmessy]

People can change?

How many times over the past several years have people said that about him?

Dont eat the Tide pods.

.

 

[RobertWeathers]

People can change?

No

 

[XLIX]

Why would it be a wise move? He could also just, you know, not play football and win the grievance, because he's very likely to win the grievance. That would seem to be the wise move. Even if you think much worse of his chances in hearing than I do, he could just settle for half and get paid $5m or whatever to, uh, hang out at home and have sex with people while others paint murals, I guess? You're acting like the guy needs to play football, but, well, the guy doesn't need to play football, and playing football is actually pretty terrible for your brain and body and stuff. And that doesn't fix the problem of the Patriots taking the cap hit twice, because that cap hit in LY 19 is done and settled. So, yes, lose-lose.

Does he need to play football? No. Does he want to play football? I'd say it's pretty clear that he does. So for you to call it a "lose" for AB if he (theoretically) got something he wanted is silly. Spare me the brain and body stuff because that could apply to all 1,600 NFLers.

By definition it is a not a "lose" for someone in contract dealings when they get what they want. You thinking you know what's best for him does not change that. Furthermore, actually going out and playing well clearly also benefits him long term financially.

 

[primetime]

Does he need to play football? No. Does he want to play football? I'd say it's pretty clear that he does. So for you to call it a "lose" for AB if he (theoretically) got something he wanted is silly. Spare me the brain and body stuff because that could apply to all 1,600 NFLers.

By definition it is a not a "lose" for someone when they get what they want. You thinking you know what's best for him does not change that.

But he could still play football either way? He's a free agent, there's nothing preventing a team from signing him even with an active grievance against the Patriots. In theory, other than his likely placement on the exempt list upon signing (which would affect the Patriots in such a scenario too), there's nothing preventing him from having his cake and eating it too.

Also this still doesn't fix the salary cap thing.

 

[patfanken]

Regardless of perceived merits, arbitrators in labor grievances rarely feel comfortable making decisions that radically alter the interpretation of a CBA. Brown should feel very good about his chances because a finding for the league would blow a hole in the collectively bargained concept of guaranteed money as currently understood. A ruling for Brown is just a sort of one-off, idiosyncratic ruling about money that hews to precedent, while a ruling for the league is putting your thumb on the scale of a CBA and then pushing down hard in management's favor.

It's exceedingly unlikely any arbitrator's going to do that, especially when they come off a list that both the union and management had to sign off on.

Don't disagree with you if the end of this was a arbitrator. But I think this will end up going to a civil court regardless of what the arbitrator rules. Though it just occurred to me that perhaps the Pats don't get a chance to go to civil court and the arbitrator is the final judge in this.

Suddenly I feel like I'm going around in circles on this. F*CK it! I just remembered how happy I was about the team AFTER they released him....and I want to go back to that happy place. DAMNED you guys for sucking me back into this morass

 

[XLIX]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but has there been any news on AB getting the whole 9m ?
Other than his own his own demented mind?

There has been no news on the $9 million grievance, but he is hardly "demented" to think he has a strong claim to that money.

 

[primetime]

Don't disagree with you if the end of this was a arbitrator. But I think this will end up going to a civil court regardless of what the arbitrator rules. Though it just occurred to me that perhaps the Pats don't get a chance to go to civil court and the arbitrator is the final judge in this

I doubt it goes to a district court. It's not worth the attorney fees to the league or union to drag it out that far. The money in question is piddling by NFL measures and 31 owners will be totally fine forcing the Patriots to take a salary cap hit for their mistakes.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I could a possibility of him returning if the Pats lose a couple of games to the playoff caliber teams where they have trouble scoring.

But I’d be extremely shocked if a reunion occurred.

 

[primetime]

My galaxy brain theory is that this is a first volley in an attempt to set up a collusion-to-prevent-employment suit. He'd have a hard time making the case if he kept claiming he was done with the NFL, but portray himself as someone who wants to play but just isn't being given the chance by these mean owners (after all, Tyreek Hill and Kareem Hunt are employed...) and he's certainly got a far stronger and more plausible case than Kaepernick, who supposedly got a pretty good settlement for the same thing, given how inarguably good a player he is.

 

[mosslost]

He's not wrong.

let's bring him in and give him some reps, give him a good long look.