Antonio Brown

[johnnygreen]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

[footey]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

[johnnygreen]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

[Donoghus]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

[dannyboy35]

I would pay the dude. This is the kind of person I find frightening. Some big hulking psycho can wanna kick my butt and that’s no fun but this guy would do and say anything. If he learned anything personal any team member does t want revealed he’s the unpredictable type to blab about it. People like this just bulldoze people’s lives and even if you get the better of them in the end they just drag people through drama for as long as they can. It stinks but I would say “here” good luck, wipe their hands and put him in the rear view. If it stings to let him get away with it I think anyone can take solace in knowing someone this destructive will likely never have a healthy relationship with another human being. Just bad news.

[Moranis]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it. 

[Roy H.]

I would pay the dude. This is the kind of person I find frightening. Some big hulking psycho can wanna kick my butt and that’s no fun but this guy would do and say anything. If he learned anything personal any team member does t want revealed he’s the unpredictable type to blab about it. People like this just bulldoze people’s lives and even if you get the better of them in the end they just drag people through drama for as long as they can. It stinks but I would say “here” good luck, wipe their hands and put him in the rear view. If it stings to let him get away with it I think anyone can take solace in knowing someone this destructive will likely never have a healthy relationship with another human being. Just bad news.

At the same time, a crazy dude like that might blab whether you paid him or not.

But, the Pats should pay him. They offered him guaranteed money without doing due diligence. That’s on them.

[Donoghus]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

[Moranis]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

maybe, but he was still available at that point.  Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing.  In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist. 

I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this.  There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about.  That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie.  And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed. 

[Donoghus]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

maybe, but he was still available at that point. Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing.  In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist. 

I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this.  There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about.  That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie.  And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed.

Go read some Daniel Wallach & Michael McCann to see why this might not fly.   Especially when it relates to Article 4 of the CBA.

Brown's an absolute scumbag who I didn't think the team even needed in the first place but I think the Pats have an uphill battle when it comes to not having to pay him his signing bonus.

[Roy H.]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

maybe, but he was still available at that point.  Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing.  In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist. 

I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this.  There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about.  That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie.  And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed.

I get Dons’ point, though.

They knew about the allegations, but played him. If you allow voiding of the contract after one game, where do you draw the line? 2 games? 4? A full season.

I think it is a case of due diligence? It wasn’t impossible to discover. You just ask a few questions:

 “Has anybody accused you of criminal behavior within the past two years? If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such allegation”

“Has any person or entity initiated and/or threatened a lawsuit or civil complaint against you in the past two years?  If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such lawsuit, complaint or allegation”

[Fan from VT]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

maybe, but he was still available at that point.  Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing.  In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist. 

I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this.  There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about.  That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie.  And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed.

I get Dons’ point, though.

They knew about the allegations, but played him. If you allow voiding of the contract after one game, where do you draw the line? 2 games? 4? A full season.

I think it is a case of due diligence? It wasn’t impossible to discover. You just ask a few questions:

 “Has anybody accused you of criminal behavior within the past two years? If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such allegation”

“Has any person or entity initiated and/or threatened a lawsuit or civil complaint against you in the past two years?  If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such lawsuit, complaint or allegation”

 It probably depends on if they’re arguing they cut him because of stuff they have it before they signed him or because of continued texting after they signed him. It seems like they would have a better case if they were arguing that he engaged in breachable behavior after he signed.

[Moranis]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

maybe, but he was still available at that point.  Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing.  In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist. 

I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this.  There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about.  That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie.  And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed.

I get Dons’ point, though.

They knew about the allegations, but played him. If you allow voiding of the contract after one game, where do you draw the line? 2 games? 4? A full season.

I think it is a case of due diligence? It wasn’t impossible to discover. You just ask a few questions:

 “Has anybody accused you of criminal behavior within the past two years? If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such allegation”

“Has any person or entity initiated and/or threatened a lawsuit or civil complaint against you in the past two years?  If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such lawsuit, complaint or allegation”

And he says no or dodges the questions.  I get that gives you better evidence, but you still need him to disclose the information.  That is why due diligence doesn't work.  And frankly, I'd be surprised if those type of questions weren't asked or discussed.  Maybe not directly on point, but at least indirectly.  There is after all a reason that clause is in the contract.

As for how many games, I'd argue that should be pro-rated.  He was available for 1 game, so he should get 1/15th of the signing bonus (or 2/15th's if you want to say he could have played game 3).  It isn't that hard to do the math. 

[jambr380]

I am hoping Moranis' argument holds, but law doesn't always follow basic logic. The way I see it, the Patriots would have loved to keep and play Brown for the entire season; but new undisclosed information came to light after his signing that made it almost impossible for them to keep him. It's not like his presence on the field would have been a positive for the league this year - especially on a team as visible as the Pats.

[Roy H.]

I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.

I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.

Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.

So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?

My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday.    Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.

Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time.  There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.

They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed.   My guess is that'll work against the Pats.

maybe, but he was still available at that point.  Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing.  In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist. 

I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this.  There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about.  That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie.  And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed.

I get Dons’ point, though.

They knew about the allegations, but played him. If you allow voiding of the contract after one game, where do you draw the line? 2 games? 4? A full season.

I think it is a case of due diligence? It wasn’t impossible to discover. You just ask a few questions:

 “Has anybody accused you of criminal behavior within the past two years? If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such allegation”

“Has any person or entity initiated and/or threatened a lawsuit or civil complaint against you in the past two years?  If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such lawsuit, complaint or allegation”

And he says no or dodges the questions.  I get that gives you better evidence, but you still need him to disclose the information.  That is why due diligence doesn't work.  And frankly, I'd be surprised if those type of questions weren't asked or discussed.  Maybe not directly on point, but at least indirectly.  There is after all a reason that clause is in the contract.

As for how many games, I'd argue that should be pro-rated.  He was available for 1 game, so he should get 1/15th of the signing bonus (or 2/15th's if you want to say he could have played game 3).  It isn't that hard to do the math.

If he lies, then he’s breached. If he doesn’t disclose something that you didn’t ask about, it’s very grey, especially after playing him.

But, time will tell. Does the money really affect the Pats, other than Bob Kraft? I guess it does for extending contracts, etc.