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!

     

Leverage and no trade clauses


Recommended Posts

yes, another Desean Watson post.

I see a lot of misinformation in all of these Watson threads so it might be good to explain how some of this works.

First of all the financial reasons Watson won't sit out too long:

So far in his career he has made about $40m.  Lets assume between agents and taxes he lost about 40% (speak up any accountants) of that, that leaves about $24m.

Sounds great, but $27m of that was a signing bonus, of which he has only played one year of.  According to Schefter they could actually go back after $21.6m.  

So if he has $24m and they can go after $21.6m, that only leaves $2.4m.  To most of us that is enough to live a lifetime but I'm guessing he has bigger bills than us.  I know he probably has some endorsement money also but overall he stands to lose a large percentage of his income.  

He needs his money way more than the Texans need theirs.  He won't sit out for an extend time or retire.  

 

 

In regards to the "no trade clause" it doesn't create as much leverage as some on here think. 

A "no trade clause" has the most leverage when a player DOESN'T want to be traded.  Example:

Team says, "Hey Desean, we are trading you to Minnesota", Desean says, "no thanks, I like it here, I have a no trade clause."

No trade clauses are mostly designed to help players NOT get traded.  Once a player says he wants to get traded he basically loses some of the leverage that the clause carries.  Example:

Desean says "I want to be traded".  Desean says, "I really want to go to the 49ers".  Teams says "we have better deals from the Jets and Panthers, you can choose between those two or you can not be traded at all"

The team knows Desean wants to leave, and they know if he wants to leave that bad he will go to most teams.

Don't get me wrong, the no trade clause helps, and yes Desean can sit out and it does hurt the team but he doesn't have all of the leverage like some on here think.

 

 

 

 

  • Pie 3
  • Flames 3
  • Poo 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The leverage that exists is Houston not wanting Watson to sit out, losing out in his services plus whatever draft capital they could secure prior to this draft (especially with them not having a 1st rounder).  Both sides have something to lose, and gain

  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I am not sure why people on this forum think Watson has all the leverage. It isn’t true at all. There will have to be a compromise between two disgruntled parties...which should be pretty entertaining.

D65BF6DE-EE25-45EC-B6F0-2B98015CC657.gif.0fe6bb100f2b7452b75cfa2821e87510.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

yes, another Desean Watson post.

I see a lot of misinformation in all of these Watson threads so it might be good to explain how some of this works.

First of all the financial reasons Watson won't sit out too long:

So far in his career he has made about $40m.  Lets assume between agents and taxes he lost about 40% (speak up any accountants) of that, that leaves about $24m.

Sounds great, but $27m of that was a signing bonus, of which he has only played one year of.  According to Schefter they could actually go back after $21.6m.  

So if he has $24m and they can go after $21.6m, that only leaves $2.4m.  To most of us that is enough to live a lifetime but I'm guessing he has bigger bills than us.  I know he probably has some endorsement money also but overall he stands to lose a large percentage of his income.  

He needs his money way more than the Texans need theirs.  He won't sit out for an extend time or retire.  

 

 

In regards to the "no trade clause" it doesn't create as much leverage as some on here think. 

A "no trade clause" has the most leverage when a player DOESN'T want to be traded.  Example:

Team says, "Hey Desean, we are trading you to Minnesota", Desean says, "no thanks, I like it here, I have a no trade clause."

No trade clauses are mostly designed to help players NOT get traded.  Once a player says he wants to get traded he basically loses some of the leverage that the clause carries.  Example:

Desean says "I want to be traded".  Desean says, "I really want to go to the 49ers".  Teams says "we have better deals from the Jets and Panthers, you can choose between those two or you can not be traded at all"

The team knows Desean wants to leave, and they know if he wants to leave that bad he will go to most teams.

Don't get me wrong, the no trade clause helps, and yes Desean can sit out and it does hurt the team but he doesn't have all of the leverage like some on here think.

Preach.

40% is low...

Deshaun cannot afford to sit out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mav1234 said:

Lol.. those of us noting Watson has leverage due to the no trade clause is relative to a player without one.  Do we really need to walk through why that is the case?

Akin to a guy who has $1 compared to the dude who is flat broke?

Neither have any leverage...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also feel there is a form of leverage on Watson's side that wasn't mentioned.  Its more indirect and not easily quantifiable. 

I feel the negative PR of Texans front office with dealing with Watson + his status up in the air (placing Texans "plan" up in the air, can all be a factor in getting quality FAs.  The longer this goes on, the worse its gets.  It benefits the Texans to take care of this as quickly as possible.  Either placating Watson to stay, or moving him. 

Sure, there will always be the FAs that just follow the money and take the highest pay out.

But I am sure there are many FAs that have similar offers from a variety of teams.  They look for contender status, who their team mates would be, how the front office works with its players.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Akin to a guy who has $1 compared to the dude who is flat broke?

Neither have any leverage...

 

Watson likely has endorsements as well. There are incentives on both sides to get a decent deal done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

Lol.. those of us noting Watson has leverage due to the no trade clause is relative to a player without one.  Do we really need to walk through why that is the case?

Have you read some of the posts here? That is not true at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me the last time forcing a player to sit out worked well for the team that did it? In the end, the player ends up going elsewhere, happily or otherwise. 

You can make a case about Antonio Brown, but he was/is a nut case. Deshaun is not that.

Free agents will still sign with the Texans, but probably not big ones if Texans do that.

Hint: they won't.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...