Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

REPORT: Nick Caserio: Texans have “zero interest” in trading Deshaun Watson


WarPanthers89
 Share

Recommended Posts

where the rubber meets the road, he'll end up playing for the Texans next season. He's got no leverage and they have control for like 7 more years potentially. Some feel good story about how well his meetings with the new staff went will emerge at the 11th hour before he starts having to miss games (and paychecks). This is a game of chicken and the Texans have no reason to cave until they actually have a problem. This was the most likely outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott12345 said:

the more that comes out about this, the less i want him here

no way id ever trade multiple 1st rounders for this guy

hes making $40m a yr and is causing all this headache for the people paying him that absurd cash

Scott Turner's burner account?

You don't like it when players have self-respect and disagree with how badly an organization is being run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Scott12345 said:

he didnt disagree when he signed for $160m

He got the no trade clause in because of that. Which means he gets to veto any trade to a team he doesn’t want to go to. So in essence it gave him a position of power to sign that contract and get out. 
 

some rumblings on the Texans boards this has been his plan since hopkins was traded. 
 

 

Edited by TheRumGone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

He is also just 25 years old. It would suck to lose that money but if he wants to leave and it becomes a standoff, I suspect he will sit out. He has YEARS of potential income ahead of him in the league.

I don't think this scenario is likely, however.

 

I don't think it's impossible I guess. It did happen with L.Bell and ofc that didn't work out so well for him though but he did it.

I mean not risking getting hurt playing for a team like that would make sense but lets say the Texans kept him and kept fining him all season. Then next season he is still under contract and he couldn't afford to do it again. It's weird b/c even other bad organizations don't get to this level so it's a bit unprecedented.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...