Ralph Vacchiano @RVacchianoSNY
The NFLPA officially filed an appeal of the NFL's decision to place Giants CB DeAndre Baker on the "commissioner's exempt list" last night.
They asked for an immediate hearing before "an Article 46 joint disciplinary review officer" which they are entitled to under the new CBA.
If there were video evidence, I could see this type of action until a trial was complete.
With conflicting witness testimonies, accusations of bribery, etc. it just seems like a big mess and needs to be processed by the courts.
I'm not happy that Baker was involved in any of it, but our country if founded upon certain core principles, and he is entitled to those rights.
they can cut him anytime they want.
If there were video evidence, I could see this type of action until a trial was complete.
With conflicting witness testimonies, accusations of bribery, etc. it just seems like a big mess and needs to be processed by the courts.
I'm not happy that Baker was involved in any of it, but our country if founded upon certain core principles, and he is entitled to those rights.
The NFL isn't a court of law or constitutional body, innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
It's similar to how you can get fired for practicing your right to free speech because it doesn't apply to private institutions.
The NFL and NFLPA have a CBA that allows for it. The NFLPA is going through the motions because that's their job when a member complains, but they will lose the appeal.
While the examples provided about Deloitte and other private entities are legal, they are none the less actionable by the wrongfully terminated employee AND they do have the ability to work elsewhere. Baker has nowhere else to go, and the union does need to keep the NFL in check on these type of actions.
BTW, I am typically all for cutting players, suspending them, etc. for criminal/off the field activities. I just want to know for sure that the accused action(s) are true before taking this type of step.
While the examples provided about Deloitte and other private entities are legal, they are none the less actionable by the wrongfully terminated employee AND they do have the ability to work elsewhere. Baker has nowhere else to go, and the union does need to keep the NFL in check on these type of actions.
BTW, I am typically all for cutting players, suspending them, etc. for criminal/off the field activities. I just want to know for sure that the accused action(s) are true before taking this type of step.
He is still getting paid while on exempt list. Fair or unfair, when you are a pro athlete, there is a higher bar to stay out of these types of situations. Innocent or guilty, it's poor judgement by the athlete. That's why you see contracts limiting the 'off-field' activities an athlete can do.
they can cut him anytime they want.
Not without unacceptable cap consequence.
Quote:
The issue here is that the average NFL player has a 3 year career, and a limited window to earn compensation. IF Baker is not guilty of a crime, he would have lost a season of playing time negatively effecting his future earnings.
While the examples provided about Deloitte and other private entities are legal, they are none the less actionable by the wrongfully terminated employee AND they do have the ability to work elsewhere. Baker has nowhere else to go, and the union does need to keep the NFL in check on these type of actions.
BTW, I am typically all for cutting players, suspending them, etc. for criminal/off the field activities. I just want to know for sure that the accused action(s) are true before taking this type of step.
He is still getting paid while on exempt list. Fair or unfair, when you are a pro athlete, there is a higher bar to stay out of these types of situations. Innocent or guilty, it's poor judgement by the athlete. That's why you see contracts limiting the 'off-field' activities an athlete can do.
Ok...and yet the point still stands, the union needs to protect it's members by challenging these decisions. If not, the league can start to accept any claims against the players as a reason to suspend/apply the commissioner's exempt list.
I get it, he's getting a paycheck which is more than 99% of Americans would get. The point is his career is very short....6 years would make him highly successful by league averages. If he's suspended for year 2, how does he make up that time in his career? Answer is he doesn't.
If he's guilty, I have NO problem with cutting/suspending him. If there is video evidence and/or credible witnesses, the same. In this case, it seems awfully clouded.
With everything else going on, nobody outside of hard core football fans would even know he was practicing. There is no press at the facilities. There is no harm to the NFL or the Giants to let Baker practice with the team.
If more information comes out and he is actually charged, then move him to the exempt list.
The NFL and the Giants are mishandling this.
Quote:
In comment 14939906 Tom in NY said:
Quote:
The issue here is that the average NFL player has a 3 year career, and a limited window to earn compensation. IF Baker is not guilty of a crime, he would have lost a season of playing time negatively effecting his future earnings.
While the examples provided about Deloitte and other private entities are legal, they are none the less actionable by the wrongfully terminated employee AND they do have the ability to work elsewhere. Baker has nowhere else to go, and the union does need to keep the NFL in check on these type of actions.
BTW, I am typically all for cutting players, suspending them, etc. for criminal/off the field activities. I just want to know for sure that the accused action(s) are true before taking this type of step.
He is still getting paid while on exempt list. Fair or unfair, when you are a pro athlete, there is a higher bar to stay out of these types of situations. Innocent or guilty, it's poor judgement by the athlete. That's why you see contracts limiting the 'off-field' activities an athlete can do.
Ok...and yet the point still stands, the union needs to protect it's members by challenging these decisions. If not, the league can start to accept any claims against the players as a reason to suspend/apply the commissioner's exempt list.
I get it, he's getting a paycheck which is more than 99% of Americans would get. The point is his career is very short....6 years would make him highly successful by league averages. If he's suspended for year 2, how does he make up that time in his career? Answer is he doesn't.
If he's guilty, I have NO problem with cutting/suspending him. If there is video evidence and/or credible witnesses, the same. In this case, it seems awfully clouded.
I am not disagreeing with you on the union protecting it's members. That is their job. Everyone in the league should know by now that if you get caught up in something like this you are going on the exempt list innocent or guilty. NFL has been doing this for a while. Ezekiel Elliot got suspended without ever being charged as well.
It's poor judgement by Baker and Dunbar in the first place knowing this is how the league operates.
The NFL is behind this. The Giants have nothing to do with it.
If the Giants knew for certain that he was guilty, he wouldn't be a Giant.